News GOP blocking 911 first responder health bill pass

[jreelawg]

I hadn't noticed this was going on until Jon Stewart dedicated an episode to ranting about it. In a nutshell, a bill, which has something to do with helping out sick and dying 911 first responders, is being held up by the GOP.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-december-16-2010-mike-huckabee

Is Jon Stewart right? Is there hypocrisy of Fox news, and GOP 911 rhetoric, and a lack of coverage and support for actual ground zero responders? Why is the GOP preventing it from passing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks

 

[Proton Soup]

last i heard, a bunch of them were suing NYC for benefits. it's not going to make sense to cover them twice.

 

[Topher925]

Is Jon Stewart right?

Yes.

Is there hypocrisy of Fox news 911 rhetoric, and a lack of coverage and support for actual ground zero responders?

If you look up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary, Fox News is the second definition. There's a picture of John McCain right next to it too.

Why is the GOP preventing it from passing?

Its an attack against Obama and his administration for going against renewing the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Even though Obama said he would go forward with the full tax cut for the rich, they are still blocking everything because they haven't been "officially" extended yet.

 

[nismaratwork]

I hadn't noticed this was going on until Jon Stewart dedicated an episode to ranting about it. In a nutshell, a bill, which has something to do with helping out sick and dying 911 first responders, is being held up by the GOP.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-december-16-2010-mike-huckabee

Is Jon Stewart right? Is there hypocrisy of Fox news, and GOP 911 rhetoric, and a lack of coverage and support for actual ground zero responders? Why is the GOP preventing it from passing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks

Proton Soup is correct that the city is being sued, but this is a federal bill pertaining to specific issues beyond NYC so what he said is unfortunately not relevant. Topher may or may not be correct about an attack, but the reason for the stoppage was the GOP this time and they seemed to be clear that it was a bill "in line" after the tax 'cuts'.

 

[jreelawg]

It seams that what I get from wiki, is that the Bush administration is being blamed for intervening with EPA affairs with the intent of downplaying the health risks associated with 911 air pollution, and it seams Giuliani played a role in the downplay as well. Seams elements of the GOP have been fighting to reduce or limit financial compensation for those effected since the very beginning.

 

[WhoWee]

Fox ran this story way back on July 30, 2010.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/30/new-york-lawmakers-spar-failed-aid-sick-responders/

Sheppard Smith also commented earlier today...
http://democratifi.com/news/How-Do-...akers-Over-First-Responders-Bill-1408706.html

"A wonderful moment of pure outrage–and classic television–from Shepard Smith on Fox News Friday afternoon as he and Chris Wallace waited for President Obama ’s Tax Cut signing ceremony."

As for the Bill itself - it's being used as a political football by Harry Reid.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/reid_vows_revote_b5jpNu8S5ugYeUJHCfsmSO

My question for Senator Reid is this - what have you been doing about this for the past 6 months sir?

 

[Proton Soup]

Proton Soup is correct that the city is being sued, but this is a federal bill pertaining to specific issues beyond NYC so what he said is unfortunately not relevant. Topher may or may not be correct about an attack, but the reason for the stoppage was the GOP this time and they seemed to be clear that it was a bill "in line" after the tax 'cuts'.

please, be specific, then.


also, if this actually is a moral obligation and not just some more 9.11 gravy train, then the right thing to do is just authorize it outright without trying to tie it to other legislation.

 

[jreelawg]

In August, 2003, Rep. Nadler asked the Department of Justice to initiate a federal investigation of Ms. Whitman’s response to World Trade Center contamination following 9/11. That request was based on EPA’s negligence and wrongdoing that has been well documented, culminating in a report that year by the EPA Inspector General that also found that the White House instructed EPA to downplay air quality concerns. To our knowledge, DOJ never opened an investigation of this matter.


Today, Reps. Nadler, Weiner, and Pascrell renewed the call for a special counsel in light of several recent developments. A class action lawsuit was filed by residents, workers and school children against the EPA, and against Ms. Whitman personally, for taking actions and making statements that knowingly placed the victims in the way of harmful contamination. A federal judge ruled that the case against not only the government, but against Ms. Whitman personally, can go forward, and stated that Ms. Whitman’s actions "shock the conscience." Two internal government memos were recently obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request, which reveal that the EPA knew the air around Ground Zero was unsafe. In addition, Ms. Whitman may have had a financial conflict-of-interest, and perhaps should have recused herself from the World Trade Center case.

http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny08_nadler/WhitmanProsecuted091306.html

The more light shed on this issue the worse the GOP looks

Why would they want to lie about it?

 

[jreelawg]

please, be specific, then.


also, if this actually is a moral obligation and not just some more 9.11 gravy train, then the right thing to do is just authorize it outright without trying to tie it to other legislation.

What other legislation is it tied to?

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny08_nadler/WhitmanProsecuted091306.html

The more light shed on this issue the worse the GOP looks

Do you have any "light" from a non-biased source?

 

[Proton Soup]

What other legislation is it tied to?

do you even look at your own links? how are they paying for it again?

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's good to see that people get their news from comedians today.

This issue was discussed https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=419589" in August.

Here is the relevant part to what I wrote then:

So I was intrigued by how Republicans could kill a bill without a majority, so I looked into it.

[irrelevant part deleted]

Now, what does this bill actually do? I tried to read it, and read the floor actions, and it seems that the actual beneficiaries are hospitals. What it does is allow NY hospitals to be reimbursed for 9/11 patient care at a higher rate than the government reimburses other patients at the same hospitals or patients at different hospitals. It apparently funds this by imposing taxes in ways that by treaty the US said that it wouldn't. (Reminder - in the US treaties are ratified by the Senate, not the House, and bills have to pass both houses to become law)

Why could a minority block this? Because the House leadership put this bill forward under "suspension of the rules", which requires a 2/3 vote to pass. This is usually done for non-controversial actions like proclaiming National Omelette Week.

Why did they do this? I don't know, but the cynic in me suggests that House leadership didn't really want this bill to pass - a retaliatory "tax war" would certainly interfere with President Obama's plan to double exports and would in all probability plunge the country back into recession. Putting it through under rules that require a 2/3 majority let them give the GOP a black eye and paint them as uncaring.

 

[nismaratwork]

do you even look at your own links? how are they paying for it again?

Ah, you made the same mistake as Mike Huckabee, and I should add that this bill has broad bi-partisan support. I'm not sure how you can claim that the democrats are playing, when there are 42 republican signatures from the senate saying "no-go" until extending tax cuts.

You know what, just watch that episode of the daily show, because the first exchange between Stewart and Huckabee was just the party line you're selling, but the bill is alone now, at least as much as a single bill can be. It WAS tied to something, but no longer.

As for this being a federal issue... seriously? How can you involve the EPA in a state-only issue? This whole issue is federal, and in fact is one of those situations that people of ANY ideology seem to agree on. The fact that you wondered 'out loud' if this was part of a 9.11 "gravy train" just tells me you don't know about the issue or the bill.

 

[jreelawg]

Do you have any "light" from a non-biased source?

White House edited EPA's 9/11 reports

By JOHN HEILPRIN
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- At the White House's direction, the Environmental Protection Agency gave New Yorkers misleading assurances that there was no health risk from the debris-laden air after the World Trade Center collapse, according to an internal inquiry.

President Bush's senior environmental adviser yesterday defended the White House involvement, saying it was justified by national security.

The White House "convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones" by having the National Security Council control EPA communications after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, according to a report issued late Thursday by EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley.

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/136350_epa23.html

Basically they decided it was in the interest of national security to deceive the public with a consequence of the public unintentionally risking, or destroying their own health. If you can explain how this makes sense I'd like to hear it. Seems what they accomplished, was to help maximize casualties and injuries.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's good to see that people get their news from comedians today.

This issue was discussed https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=419589" in August.

Here is the relevant part to what I wrote then:

Or, and I throw this out there... they're all uncaring, and BOTH are playing with this football.

Riddle me this... why do we praise our 'first responders' and soldiers, yet once they've done their job we treat them like absolute dirt? The fact that ANY infusion of money into the healthcare system will benefit hospitals is a given, but the BENEFITS would be to those who are now and will suffer and die. You have an interesting hypothesis, but you can turn it either way and it works equally well, except that it's the republicans who seem capable of acting in the long-term organized manner you described. The democrats were just thumped for their inability to do much the same after just 2 years of spin, and 2 years of being unwilling to cash in political capital to get things done.

You can claim that this is a technical issue of taxation, and the usual pandering to interests (what a shock), but then you'd have to admit that no legislation would ever pass. This COULD be done, and quickly with broad support if the republicans allow it, just like the democrats just held their nose and gave everyone a continued tax break. It's called politics, but in the meantime people are sick, dying, and there is this major issue of the insane conditions we placed these people in. You're entitled to your opinion, and your interpretation of this bill as of August.. I don't think anything you've outlined couldn't be handled by the courts if in fact a challenge is raised and upheld. In this case, I'd say take the chance that the law is struck down and get these people relief sooner rather than posthumously.

I'd add, it's sad that comedians need to be calling the major networks on their lack of coverage, but being a comedian doesn't make you unable to communicate effectively. Your dismissal only applies to the OP arguably, and it's not the kindest thing to say is it?

 

[jreelawg]

do you even look at your own links? how are they paying for it again?

I had the understanding it was going to be paid for, by the closing of a tax loophole. Republicans argue it is a corporate tax. It is unclear to me wether this loophole, is something which should exist or not, because I don't know the specific details about what the loophole exactly is. However, loophole, seems to have an unfavorable connotation. Are we to understand, that aside from the tax breaks, the obscenely rich are also exploiting tax loopholes. In terms of the discussion about what is appropriate for taxes, why not just include the discussion about loopholes, and either close them, then decide what is fair, or incorporate the realities of loopholes into the bigger picture.

I was just asking because I thought maybe you had something new to add, because I honestly couldn't say exactly what the bill is tied to, except for the opinions of Stewart, and others that it is tied to nothing except closing this tax loophole.

How do you feel about loopholes? Do you know anything specific about the loophole concerning the bill?

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/136350_epa23.html

Basically they decided it was in the interest of national security to deceive the public with a consequence of the public unintentionally risking, or destroying their own health. If you can explain how this makes sense I'd like to hear it. Seems what they accomplished, was to help maximize casualties and injuries.

Additional mass panic would have been in the public's best interest on 9/11 and 9/12? What specific time frame is "after"?

 

[jreelawg]

Additional mass panic would have been in the public's best interest on 9/11 and 9/12? What specific time frame is "after"?

If there were land mines out in a field next to a school, maybe you think it would be wise to advise the children and teachers, that the field is safe to play on... you know, to avoid panic?

 

[WhoWee]

If there were land mines out in a field next to a school, maybe you think it would be wise to advise the children and teachers, that the field is safe to play on... you know, to avoid panic?

I thought this was a serious thread?

Do you honestly believe anyone looked out their window on 9/11 (knowing the sky started out clear before the terrorist attacks), saw the massive volumes of dust and took a deep breath believing it was safe? Everyone knew to cover their mouths and everyone knew over the next few days the air quality was being monitored.

It's very unfortunate that ANYONE was injured either directly by the terror attacks, during the rescue effort or in the days that followed.

Personally, I have no doubt in my mind that something will be done now that the tax debate is over. Ironic to this thread, the best deal will probably be possible when the new Congress convenes - this one has done nothing but play games for 6 months.

Maybe the press and Government officials should have been promoting this cause since last summer, instead of making (pro) ground zero mosque arguements?

 

[nismaratwork]

I thought this was a serious thread?

Do you honestly believe anyone looked out their window on 9/11 (knowing the sky started out clear before the terrorist attacks), saw the massive volumes of dust and took a deep breath believing it was safe? Everyone knew to cover their mouths and everyone knew over the next few days the air quality was being monitored.

It's very unfortunate that ANYONE was injured either directly by the terror attacks, during the rescue effort or in the days that followed.

Personally, I have no doubt in my mind that something will be done now that the tax debate is over. Ironic to this thread, the best deal will probably be possible when the new Congress convenes - this one has done nothing but play games for 6 months.

Maybe the press and Government officials should have been promoting this cause since last summer, instead of making (pro) ground zero mosque arguements?

So your point is that because anyone should intuitively know that dust and smoke would cause everything from pulmonary, cardiac, and neurological damage, or what kind of carcinogens were? Your point then, is that armed with this instinctive knowledge which overwhelms the desire to help in this traumatic time, people knowingly exposed themselves to unknown levels of carcinogens and other truly horrendous (I hesitate to simply say) chemicals? All of this which justifies outright lies, which you apparently believe could be contradicted by looking out a window told to people over a period of months to years?

I'm not buying it.

I don't believe that the republicans are evil or that the democrats are saints... I think this should have been passed long ago. That being said, when it came down to the wire the republicans seemed to have no shame in blocking this, and the democrats had no shame in using this for political theater.

I see no plan here, no debate... just chaos and everyone out for themselves until someone points out what a bunch of bastards they are.

 

[WhoWee]

So your point is that because anyone should intuitively know that dust and smoke would cause everything from pulmonary, cardiac, and neurological damage, or what kind of carcinogens were? Your point then, is that armed with this instinctive knowledge which overwhelms the desire to help in this traumatic time, people knowingly exposed themselves to unknown levels of carcinogens and other truly horrendous (I hesitate to simply say) chemicals? All of this which justifies outright lies, which you apparently believe could be contradicted by looking out a window told to people over a period of months to years?

I'm not buying it.

I don't believe that the republicans are evil or that the democrats are saints... I think this should have been passed long ago. That being said, when it came down to the wire the republicans seemed to have no shame in blocking this, and the democrats had no shame in using this for political theater.

I see no plan here, no debate... just chaos and everyone out for themselves until someone points out what a bunch of bastards they are.

I posted about the dust as a counter point to jreelawg's nonsense about landmines. I also requested clarification from jreelawg regarding the timeframe of the specified reports "after" the event - still no response.

So YES, I think people could see the dust and knew it was a problem, and NO, I don't think anyone realized how serious the consequences of the dust would become - given the high level of concern for more potential attacks at the time. People worrying about airplanes crashing from the sky, typically aren't too concerned about dust.

It's easy to sit here now and judge actions taken during an emergency situation a decade ago, but what kind of manic-panic may have resulted by telling everyone to flee the city because of the dust? The panic could have killed more people than the terrorist attacks.

Otherwise, we're basically in agreement.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

- this one has done nothing but play games for 6 months.

No kidding.

But when abused, as it has been by Senate Republicans who have called for 87 such votes to end debate so far this year, it [the filibuster] creates a tyranny of the minority...

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/229514/remove-the-senate-filibuster-roadblock

 

[mheslep]

If Vanadium's explanation in #12 is to be ignored, recommend this thread be locked.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWRHPew6jOU
AssociatedPress | July 30, 2010

 

[nismaratwork]

If Vanadium's explanation in #12 is to be ignored, recommend this thread be locked.

I didn't realize I was ignoring it when I addressed it directly. It's a very singular take on this bill which only holds if you ignore the normal passage of legislation, and the role of the courts in being a check if the law really is the cause for concern some few think it is. What a few republicans are calling a stand on constitutionality (when don't they, it's like the dems and 'the people') and an unfair tax is to many more of us (myself for example) closing a tax loophole to pay for top care of first responders.

The real problem, the lawsuits that Proton mentioned are going to come when normal citizens and non "hero" types start having these same issues... no bill for them, just lawsuits. Anyway, let's pass the bill; don't republicans hate trial lawyers anyway?

 

[Al68]

It's a very singular take on this bill which only holds if you ignore the normal passage of legislation, and the role of the courts in being a check if the law really is the cause for concern some few think it is.

What are you talking about here? Are you suggesting that congressmen should violate their oath of office and vote for a law they consider unconstitutional, and just let the courts throw it out? Is that the "normal passage of legislation" you are referring to? Did I misunderstand your post?

 

[jreelawg]

I posted about the dust as a counter point to jreelawg's nonsense about landmines. I also requested clarification from jreelawg regarding the timeframe of the specified reports "after" the event - still no response.

So YES, I think people could see the dust and knew it was a problem, and NO, I don't think anyone realized how serious the consequences of the dust would become - given the high level of concern for more potential attacks at the time. People worrying about airplanes crashing from the sky, typically aren't too concerned about dust.

It's easy to sit here now and judge actions taken during an emergency situation a decade ago, but what kind of manic-panic may have resulted by telling everyone to flee the city because of the dust? The panic could have killed more people than the terrorist attacks.

Otherwise, we're basically in agreement.

Seriously? And you call my analogy nonsense?

Then you go and use a straw man exaggeration in which the entire city is ordered evacuated. Would your mind change if they calmly recommended people near ground zero at least use dust masks?

 

[jreelawg]

If Vanadium's explanation in #12 is to be ignored, recommend this thread be locked.

What needs to be addressed, is what this tax loophole means for the U.S. The other points about republican and democratic games I'll ignore for now.

The $7.4 billion cost of the legislation over 10 years is paid for by a provision that would prevent foreign multinational corporations from using tax havens to avoid taxes on U.S. income.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/worker-safety/132907-health-bill-for-911-workers-fails-key-vote

So is this tax loophole a good thing? I have heard various opinions, some say it is a win win to close the loophole. Some say it is bad for business to close the loophole. And of coarse you have people with personal economic interests, and their friends invested in shutting the bill down because of the loophole.

 

[Proton Soup]

I had the understanding it was going to be paid for, by the closing of a tax loophole. Republicans argue it is a corporate tax. It is unclear to me wether this loophole, is something which should exist or not, because I don't know the specific details about what the loophole exactly is. However, loophole, seems to have an unfavorable connotation. Are we to understand, that aside from the tax breaks, the obscenely rich are also exploiting tax loopholes. In terms of the discussion about what is appropriate for taxes, why not just include the discussion about loopholes, and either close them, then decide what is fair, or incorporate the realities of loopholes into the bigger picture.

I was just asking because I thought maybe you had something new to add, because I honestly couldn't say exactly what the bill is tied to, except for the opinions of Stewart, and others that it is tied to nothing except closing this tax loophole.

How do you feel about loopholes? Do you know anything specific about the loophole concerning the bill?

go read vanadium's link. perhaps taxing on foreign corps needs to be dealt with, but since it deals with treaty obligations, you've got to address it separately with each nation. and since everyone here likes to go apes**t lately over national security, it might be wise to consider just what exactly we are buying (like say in the form of co-operation) from each nation that we give a "loophole".

he also gives information that the emotionally-charged portion of the original bill may be an overpayment, as well.

and there is no rush. if there were, obama would have taken care of it sometime in the past 2 years. it can wait until next year.

 

[nismaratwork]

What are you talking about here? Are you suggesting that congressmen should violate their oath of office and vote for a law they consider unconstitutional, and just let the courts throw it out? Is that the "normal passage of legislation" you are referring to? Did I misunderstand your post?

re: bold: Yep, completely, and since a majority of the senate, including republicans is openly FOR the bill, your argument would be irrelevant either way. This isn't a moral stance, it's political football.

 

[nismaratwork]

go read vanadium's link. perhaps taxing on foreign corps needs to be dealt with, but since it deals with treaty obligations, you've got to address it separately with each nation. and since everyone here likes to go apes**t lately over national security, it might be wise to consider just what exactly we are buying (like say in the form of co-operation) from each nation that we give a "loophole".

he also gives information that the emotionally-charged portion of the original bill may be an overpayment, as well.

and there is no rush. if there were, obama would have taken care of it sometime in the past 2 years. it can wait until next year.

re: Bold... are you serious?

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't realize I was ignoring it when I addressed it directly. It's a very singular take on this bill which only holds if you ignore the normal passage of legislation, and the role of the courts in being a check if the law really is the cause for concern some few think it is. What a few republicans are calling a stand on constitutionality (when don't they, it's like the dems and 'the people') and an unfair tax is to many more of us (myself for example) closing a tax loophole to pay for top care of first responders.
[emphasis added]

I think you missed the two other important points:
1. The Democrats chose this method when they could have gotten the bill passed the normal way. Why?
2. "Top care of first responders" is already paid for!

This is nothing more than a political hammer for the Democrats to hit the Republicans over the head with. They're bringing it out again now because they look bad for not dealing with the tax rate issue sooner and because the Republicans are perceived to have "won" it. And since it appears that Democrats here prefer getting their news from comedians, it's no surprise that they're buying the Democrats' grandstanding.

 

[russ_watters]

re: Bold... are you serious?

Are you?

 

[russ_watters]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWRHPew6jOU
AssociatedPress | July 30, 2010

Wow, he sounds mad. That'll probably provide great footage for commercials in his next re-election campaign.

 

[nismaratwork]

Are you?

This seems like an unhelpful post for you to add, considering that I'm asking a serious question. I took a joke literally recently, and redbelly advised me gently to recognize humor. I'm really asking if he's serious or not.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think you missed the two other important points:
1. The Democrats chose this method when they could have gotten the bill passed the normal way. Why?
2. "Top care of first responders" is already paid for!

This is nothing more than a political hammer for the Democrats to hit the Republicans over the head with. They're bringing it out again now because they look bad for not dealing with the tax rate issue sooner and because the Republicans are perceived to have "won" it. And since it appears that Democrats here prefer getting their news from comedians, it's no surprise that they're buying the Democrats' grandstanding.

1.) Because this gives them a chance to bludgeon the Republicans and get political capital. They're as soulless and worthless as their "opposition".
2.) They beg to differ, but if you refute the claims made by the 4 men on the Daily show episode raised by the OP, I'm listening.


Beyond that, you're entitled to your spin, and from observing your interactions with others in P&WA, I'd rather not engage here. When it comes to engineering or physics you're a completely different person, but here...
Obviously I disagree with your characterizations, but you're a little rough on people as a mentor when good 'ol boy values are concerned, so I'll let Ivan take what seems to be his eternal place in his dance with you, Hati to your Skoll. I'm happy to discuss substance, but I haven't claimed moral superiority for a particular party so you're just throwing out chaff.

 

[nismaratwork]

Wow, he sounds mad. That'll probably provide great footage for commercials in his next re-election campaign.

Yeah, he's the last honest man in Washington, and he is FED UP... right? LOL... at least we agree on this one, which is arguably one of the most cynical performances I've seen in that well in a long time.

 

[jreelawg]

The bill has supposedly been in the making for 9 years. If the democrats don't get it through now, it may not ever happen, because next year the GOP will have control.

I don't know a lot about the 2/3 majority thing. A lot of have a conspiracy theory that it's a setup to hit the republicans on the head or something. Either way, almost all the dems voted for it, and barely any republicans did. Even if that theory is correct, the GOP still looks pretty bad, all they had to do was cooperate. Hopefully public outrage will be enough to force the GOP into action later on, if it happens again, the republicans will probably have the tax loophole part cut out of the bill, and instead include an additional tax loophole or something.

 

[jreelawg]

go read vanadium's link. perhaps taxing on foreign corps needs to be dealt with, but since it deals with treaty obligations, you've got to address it separately with each nation. and since everyone here likes to go apes**t lately over national security, it might be wise to consider just what exactly we are buying (like say in the form of co-operation) from each nation that we give a "loophole".

Vanadium only linked to a separate PF thread in which there is also no supporting link to the argument. I haven't heard anything about it anywhere else. Unless you can back it up with something, it's nothing but conjecture.

 

[Vanadium 50]

True, but I did point out where my information came from - the bill itself and the floor actions. That's public information for anyone to look at. And, I might point out, more reliable than Steven Colbert or Jon Stewart.

 

[WhoWee]

Seriously? And you call my analogy nonsense?

Then you go and use a straw man exaggeration in which the entire city is ordered evacuated. Would your mind change if they calmly recommended people near ground zero at least use dust masks?

Not so fast - you made the ultra-dramatic comparison of the dust to landmines next to a school. The landmines would require an immediate and top priority response - including an evacuation from the area. Now, it's my understanding the dust cloud covered most of Manhatten. As per your analogy, the required response would have been to warn people of the imminent threat - which would include an escape plan typically - no strawman in my post.

As for wearing masks at ground zero - I've seen photos of people working in masks. Are you claiming masks were not provided in sufficient quantity?

 

[nismaratwork]

True, but I did point out where my information came from - the bill itself and the floor actions. That's public information for anyone to look at. And, I might point out, more reliable than Steven Colbert or Jon Stewart.

Well, you've made an assertion and you're a mentor... why not cite the relevant sections of the bill, and the floor actions?
Burden of proof and all of that...

 

[nismaratwork]

Not so fast - you made the ultra-dramatic comparison of the dust to landmines next to a school. The landmines would require an immediate and top priority response - including an evacuation from the area. Now, it's my understanding the dust cloud covered most of Manhatten. As per your analogy, the required response would have been to warn people of the imminent threat - which would include an escape plan typically - no strawman in my post.

As for wearing masks at ground zero - I've seen photos of people working in masks. Are you claiming masks were not provided in sufficient quantity?

Masks below n-95 would only be useful in staving off pneumosilicosis, not carcinogens and other toxins which find other routes to enter the body. It's a prudent step, but I also saw these guys on top of smoldering rubble in something OTHER than a HAZMAT suit... that's insane.

 

[WhoWee]

Masks below n-95 would only be useful in staving off pneumosilicosis, not carcinogens and other toxins which find other routes to enter the body. It's a prudent step, but I also saw these guys on top of smoldering rubble in something OTHER than a HAZMAT suit... that's insane.

War zones are typically not sane places - emotions ran high and the search effort was frantic.

 

[Proton Soup]

re: Bold... are you serious?

yes, why do you doubt it?

and are you and the democrats serious? i don't think you are. i think you're using the 9-11 responders for political gain.

 

[nismaratwork]

War zones are typically not sane places - emotions ran high and the search effort was frantic.

The search for survivors was absolutely hopeless and short-term compared to the months of exposure many of these people had. The war zone comment is just inane; the war on terror is a war in name only. Even in a REAL war zone, you don't send people into those kind of conditions so poorly equipped, and the training is different. Oh, and in a war zone you don't have two skyscrapers pancaked into a pit... emotions ran high, but that's no excuse for leadership to fail in the very time of crisis we HIRE THEM TO DEAL WITH.

 

[nismaratwork]

yes, why do you doubt it?

and are you and the democrats serious? i don't think you are. i think you're using the 9-11 responders for political gain.

I'm no democrat, so don't lump me in with them, and I can't have political gain because I'm not in politics.

I doubted your statement for two reasons:

1.) Obama could have "dealt with it" is simplistic in the extreme and
2.) "It can wait a year." is arguably one of the most callous statements I've heard in a long time. You're technically correct, but so could extending tax cuts and increasing the ceiling on the inheritance tax to $10,000,000 USD have waited to quickly pass this.

I'm sorry that you're so politicized that you can't see this issue in human terms.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'm no democrat, so don't lump me in with them, and I can't have political gain because I'm not in politics.

I doubted your statement for two reasons:

1.) Obama could have "dealt with it" is simplistic in the extreme and
2.) "It can wait a year." is arguably one of the most callous statements I've heard in a long time. You're technically correct, but so could extending tax cuts and increasing the ceiling on the inheritance tax to $10,000,000 USD have waited to quickly pass this.

I'm sorry that you're so politicized that you can't see this issue in human terms.

next year is not a year away.

this is a billing dispute. stop using people and preying on others' emotions.

 

[nismaratwork]

next year is not a year away.

this is a billing dispute. stop using people and preying on others' emotions.

You keep talking about me as though I've ginned up this issue... hell, I'm not even the OP! As it happens I think this is more than a billing dispute, but I don't see the profit in arguing that point with you.

Oh, and next year this bill is at the tender mercy of the party that seems to like it least. A flip of a calendar makes a year in politics.

 

[WhoWee]

The search for survivors was absolutely hopeless and short-term compared to the months of exposure many of these people had. The war zone comment is just inane; the war on terror is a war in name only. Even in a REAL war zone, you don't send people into those kind of conditions so poorly equipped, and the training is different. Oh, and in a war zone you don't have two skyscrapers pancaked into a pit... emotions ran high, but that's no excuse for leadership to fail in the very time of crisis we HIRE THEM TO DEAL WITH.

Have no doubt in your mind, on September 11, 2001 the Islamic terrorists brought war to the Uniter States. Airplanes were used as missles and flew over numerous states including MA, NY, NJ, OH, PA, VA, MD, and DC and killed innocent US civilians in 3 locations. The World Trade Center site was clearly a war zone. To call it anything else is disgusting. If you don't agree with my opinion - fine - but do yourself a favor - go see the site and talk to a few people who personally witnessed the event. Then come back and post in any manner you deem appropriate.