Due to thier failure to pass The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009...

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

I don't think the OP blamed one side at all. Not that I saw.

There's is enough blame to go around on this issue for sure. The core reason I am so enraged over this is the fact that the people lauded as heroes from 9/11 are getting the shaft here, from all sides.

The only silver lining to this issue is that it will be up for another vote in September.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by negativenihil

 

Reread what I wrote.

Both sides are to blame.

Counter both arguments I made. Don't cherry pick.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Re-posted for your pleasure:

But come ON. This is an issue that politics shouldn't even come into the picture. Yet it did, and now people will suffer because the Republicans were blocked from adding any silly amendments to this bill.

This should have been an open and shut case, and the 9/11 first responders should be taken care of.

And once again - i really don't care HOW the vote was put up. There is NO excuse to have voted Nay for this bill. Not the 2/3rd vote, not because of illegal aliens... NO EXCUSES. This was a vote that each and every Representative within the House should have voted for. And i stand by my prior assertion that there was no need to allow an amendments to this bill what so ever.

Shame on EVERYONE.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity


. . .

I don't think the OP blamed one side at all. Not that I saw.

[edit on 8/9/2010 by ~Lucidity]

This is what the OP wrote:

but in the end it was blocked by House GOP leaders... because they feel it creates "a massive new entitlement program"

then followed by

It is not the Democrats' fault that the Republicans did not vote for this issue.

To me, it is quite obvious where the OP stands, especially when you look at their post/thread history.

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by negativenihil

 

Reread what I wrote.

Both sides are to blame.

Counter both arguments I made. Don't cherry pick.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Re-posted for your pleasure:

But come ON. This is an issue that politics shouldn't even come into the picture. Yet it did, and now people will suffer because the Republicans were blocked from adding any silly amendments to this bill.

So you are blaming the Republicans.

Thanks for proving my point.

This should have been an open and shut case, and the 9/11 first responders should be taken care of.

I agree.

And once again - i really don't care HOW the vote was put up.

Yes it does matter.

Why?

If this would have been put as a simple up or down, it would have passed overwhelmingly (62%>49%)

You are saying it does not matter, because you are falling into the spin of blaming it all on one party.

Both were at fault.

There is NO excuse to have voted Nay for this bill. Not the 2/3rd vote, not because of illegal aliens... NO EXCUSES. This was a vote that each and every Representative within the House should have voted for. And i stand by my prior assertion that there was no need to allow an amendments to this bill what so ever.

Then why not let it go up or down?



FYI, I am not, nor have ever been a Republican.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
So you are blaming the Republicans.

Thanks for proving my point.

This bill failed due to a lack of Republican support. This is a factual statement backed up by the voting record. So yes, i am blaming the Republicans who did not vote Yay for this vote, just as i am blaming the Democrats who voted Nay.

If this would have been put as a simple up or down, it would have passed overwhelmingly (62%>49%)

This assumes 100% support from the Democrats, which as the voting record show was not there. You'll notice the first names on my list are Democrats.

You are saying it does not matter, because you are falling into the spin of blaming it all on one party.

Both were at fault.

I think you're sorely mistaken with this assertion that i am solely blaming one side. There are members of both parties who voted Nay on this bill.

If you'd like to break it down to simple numbers, then yes, the Republicans are more at fault due to the sheer number of Nay votes. They failed to do the right thing and instead opted for more BS politics.

FYI, I am not, nor have ever been a Republican.

That's nice, I don't believe the subject of poster's political affiliation was a subject of debate within this thread.

FYI i'm not the sort of poster who'll sift through someone's prior threads/replies in an effort to frame a debate one way or another

Originally posted by negativenihil

This bill failed due to a lack of Republican support. This is a factual statement backed up by the voting record. So yes, i am blaming the Republicans who did not vote Yay for this vote, just as i am blaming the Democrats who voted Nay.

The Democrats have a majority. There is no need for Republican support.

If this would have been put as a simple up or down, it would have passed overwhelmingly (62%>49%)

This assumes 100% support from the Democrats, which as the voting record show was not there. You'll notice the first names on my list are Democrats.



A straight up or down would have only needed 207 votes. Even when all FOUR of the Democrats switched sides, the vote would have still gone through by 32 votes. That is not even taking into account the twelve Republicans who voted for it, against the party line.

A straight up or down would have been guaranteed passage, but both parties wanted to play games.

I think you're sorely mistaken with this assertion that i am solely blaming one side. There are members of both parties who voted Nay on this bill.

If you'd like to break it down to simple numbers, then yes, the Republicans are more at fault due to the sheer number of Nay votes. They failed to do the right thing and instead opted for more BS politics.

And the Democrats changed the rules to score political points as well.

Why are you ignoring that fact?

That's nice, I don't believe the subject of poster's political affiliation was a subject of debate within this thread.

FYI i'm not the sort of poster who'll sift through someone's prior threads/replies in an effort to frame a debate one way or another

Dunno why I posted that. It must have been from another thread that I accidentally pasted it lol

And I go through post History to see what I am up against. It is more challenging not doing it, but I am lazy

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

A straight up or down would have been guaranteed passage, but both parties wanted to play games.

If they did that, who knows what garbage the GOP would have put into the bill. They might have put in an amendment that was so stupid no one in their right mind would vote for it. The democrats have to do this stupid game, otherwise the GOP will just make every bill useless anyway.

Originally posted by whatukno

If they did that, who knows what garbage the GOP would have put into the bill. They might have put in an amendment that was so stupid no one in their right mind would vote for it. The democrats have to do this stupid game, otherwise the GOP will just make every bill useless anyway.

EXACTLY.

There was no need to allow for any amendments to this bill. It's the sort of bill that should have gotten 100% support, and as such it would have been pretty easy to sneak in some partisan crap (had amendments been allowed) with the hopes of a quick and easy passage.

Honestly i figured putting a single issue bill up for vote would make most everyone happy in terms of transparency and ability for ANYONE to fully understand the legislation, without needing to wade through pages of amendments.

Damn the people, damn the country, and damn the 9/11 first responders, the Republican Party has decided that Obama must fail, and the people, and the country, and the 9/11 first responders, must fail.

The ONLY reason the Republicans voted no was to deny the democrats any sort of legislative "victory", no matter who the bill is designed to benefit.

Originally posted by whatukno

If they did that, who knows what garbage the GOP would have put into the bill. They might have put in an amendment that was so stupid no one in their right mind would vote for it. The democrats have to do this stupid game, otherwise the GOP will just make every bill useless anyway.

you are saying that the republicans do not deserve to have any word in what they choose to sign, because you are afraid they will only have bad words,

how biased that is,

unbiased means hearing both sides of the story, embracing both perspectives, hearing both sides words,

you would rather the republicans never get any word whatsoever and the democrats have the only say so.

like i said VERY biased.

A straight up or down would have been guaranteed passage, but both parties wanted to play games.

i agree with this completly,

this was nothing but a game to the democrats and the republicans called their bluff.

if you ask me neither side gives a flying f333 and "IF THEIR IN, THEIR OUT". is a good motto to remember when voting next time around.

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


Yea, that's why it goes into committee BEFORE it gets sent out for debate and voted on by the whole body.

Maybe you should read this first...

www.votesmart.org...

HR 847 There is the full text of the bill, the Republicans wanted to add an amendment so that illegal immigrant first responders would be excluded from this. Yes that's right, they wanted to bring the anti immigration movement to this bill. COMPLETELY UNRELATED!



[edit on 8/10/2010 by whatukno]

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
If this would have been put as a simple up or down, it would have passed overwhelmingly (62%>49%)

As I understand it, that's what happened. The democrats called for an end to amendments and debate on the bill and to pass it required a 'simple' up or down vote which requires a 2/3 majority. By saying, 'the democrats can do whatever they want because they have a majority' is a weak argument in the face of the rules of the house and senate.

The constitution and the rules of congress make it so that a 'simple' majority (51%/49%) cannot do whatever they please. The rules allow power within the minority, this includes filibusters and adding whatever amendments they want to a bill until both sides agree that nothing more can or needs to be added. Democrats decided this was all that was needed, republicans did not, so the bill failed. Such rules allow for great bills to fail because of horrible amendments and horrible bills to pass because of great amendments.

Consider Ron Paul's audit the fed bill for the past 20 years, it failed standing alone but passed (although limited in nature) with the Wall Street Reform Bill recently. Oddly, however, Rep. Paul was kind enough to say it failed again just days after the WSRB was passed.

Living in a low populated state I have the luxury of knowing that (mostly) good bills will be passed. The rule here is that no bill may have amendments, if the bill cannot stand on its own it fails. I would love to see the same for congress, but then there's the possibility of even LESS getting done. We could hope for a 'line item veto' in the future but this lends too much power to the executive branch.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

 

Yea, that's why it goes into committee BEFORE it gets sent out for debate and voted on by the whole body.

Maybe you should read this first...

www.votesmart.org...

HR 847 There is the full text of the bill, the Republicans wanted to add an amendment so that illegal immigrant first responders would be excluded from this. Yes that's right, they wanted to bring the anti immigration movement to this bill. COMPLETELY UNRELATED!



[edit on 8/10/2010 by whatukno]

so, if this country had an easier way for illegals to become legal, and if the responsible hiring party for the first responders ensured they didnt employ illegals, then this debate wouldnt have even occured,

or is first responders only referencing the civilians who responded first? if thats the case we all know that a criminal should avoid an attention area, like turn around and run style. not charge in, untrained.

and because their are people with enough power of the opinion that people injured while breaking the law should not be reimbursed, even if they were helping another human being when hurt.

so in your logic it is justifiable to say, that if the criminals who were present with good intentions cant get reimbersment then neither can the law abiding citizens and public servants

this is the reason that none of the first responders gets any reimbursement.?

in my opinion, the republicans should have been allowed their word, and if they were succesfull and the criminal-wellmeaning-illegal aliens are the only ones that dont get any reimbersment then fine, thats better then none of them getting any.

and besides if the republicans had gotten their word in and that did happen the democrats vote would most likely still have won and half the battle would have been won, instead of all or nothing.

but the democrats cared more about making a political point then they did about getting money to the legal only first responders

either way you slice it, whether the republicans had gotten their anti illegal payout ammendment or not, it still leaves the decision to the democrats to choose, all or nothing? or half the win?

they choose nothing, it was assuredly pretty clear to them before hand how this vote was gonna turn out when you think about it.

just a darn puppet show.