News GOP blocking 911 first responder health bill pass

[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.

 

[dreiter]

Have no doubt in your mind, on September 11, 2001 the Islamic terrorists brought war to the Uniter States..

Well, 'faux Islamic' terrorists, but I suppose we don't need to get into that now...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

In that case, the responders should receive VA benefits as soldiers.

 

[nismaratwork]

In that case, the responders should receive VA benefits as soldiers.

Hmmm, good point...

WhoWee: I was living and working in NYC at the time of 9.11, and while I was (fortunately) not in Manhattan, I certainly saw what happened. I don't allow even discrete acts of mass murder to be confused with WAR; something only people with no experience in a real war could claim. As dreiter says, a group committing terror in the name of X, doesn't have a sole claim on X. Do you take people who handle poisonous snakes as a sign of their faith as being representative of Christianity as a whole? Islam has problems just as any religion, but to claim that 9.11 was about Islam, is like claiming that Vietnam was about defense of our precious asian allies.

 

[Al68]

In that case, the responders should receive VA benefits as soldiers.

Even if we did consider them to be "soldiers", VA benefits are reserved for those who served as full time active duty in the armed forces.

Most of the responders, as I understand, were employed by the city of New York, not the federal government. That's where their "benefits" come from, which are no doubt better than VA benefits, anyway.

 

[Al68]

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...

OK, my bad. Then what did you mean by "https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3042888#post3042888""?

...and since a majority of the senate, including republicans is openly FOR the bill, your argument would be irrelevant either way.

Then you must have misunderstood my post.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, 'faux Islamic' terrorists, but I suppose we don't need to get into that now...

No, please read the rules then support your post or retract.

 

[WhoWee]

In that case, the responders should receive VA benefits as soldiers.

Were civillians at Pearl Harbor extended such benefits?

 

[WhoWee]

Hmmm, good point...

WhoWee: I was living and working in NYC at the time of 9.11, and while I was (fortunately) not in Manhattan, I certainly saw what happened. I don't allow even discrete acts of mass murder to be confused with WAR; something only people with no experience in a real war could claim. As dreiter says, a group committing terror in the name of X, doesn't have a sole claim on X. Do you take people who handle poisonous snakes as a sign of their faith as being representative of Christianity as a whole? Islam has problems just as any religion, but to claim that 9.11 was about Islam, is like claiming that Vietnam was about defense of our precious asian allies.

First, neither of us are sure of the point dreiter was trying to make - it needs clarificaton. Next, the attacks were not limited to 2 buildings in NY. This well coordinated effort in the name of Islam threatened people in at least 8 states and DC as the planes flew over population centers and even nuclear facilities. Let's also not forget the Pentagon was attacked directly - that was clearly an act of war. Last, where was the plane that crashed in PA headed to - what was their specific target - White House, Congress, CIA?
Also, are we sure there weren't additional targets?

On a personal note, I'm glad to hear you were not injured in the attacks.

 

[nismaratwork]

First, neither of us are sure of the point dreiter was trying to make - it needs clarificaton. Next, the attacks were not limited to 2 buildings in NY. This well coordinated effort in the name of Islam threatened people in at least 8 states and DC as the planes flew over population centers and even nuclear facilities. Let's also not forget the Pentagon was attacked directly - that was clearly an act of war. Last, where was the plane that crashed in PA headed to - what was their specific target - White House, Congress, CIA?
Also, are we sure there weren't additional targets?

On a personal note, I'm glad to hear you were not injured in the attacks.

First, thanks. Second, I can only say that this age of state-sponsors and proxies of proxies acting in this fashion makes the classical notions of a symmetric response in asymmetric conflict obsolete. We're not facing a single enemy; in fact this enemy would set on each other if they ever finished with us. There's no WAR on drugs, or WAR on terror... those are just labels. There is a war in Afghanistan, and one in Iraq, but they're not the 'war on terror'. We are faced with a minute number of people attempting to maximize the harm they do. In part that harm is a function of how severely we respond to their puffery through expressed through these, 'grand acts' of terror.

I'm sorry, but a little under 80K people in the USA die from alcohol related fatalities (CDC) and over 400K from tobacco. Those are eclipsed by illegal drugs, which are in turn eclipsed by prescription abuse. Over 4000 have died overseas in war, and that's more than we lost on 9.11. I'm sorry, but I think we as a people have forgotten what it means to be at war, compared to the normal if unpleasant turbulence of life. How do we tell when it's a war? Is it money, or deaths per capita? Maybe we can only be at war with nebulous adversaries now, until something like the Korean Peninsula explodes and we remember what it really means to be in a war.

Did McVeigh start a war when he bombed The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building? If you multiply him by the hijacker's numbers then per capita he was around their number of fatalities. I just don't buy it... terrorism is different from war. In his farewell address to congress in '51 Douglas MacArthur said the following:

War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory.

Show me the win against a strategy or tactic.

MacArthur also said the following in '51, nearly 60 years ago now, and I think it bears thinking about the repetition of a theme that so concerned one of our greatest generals.

It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear. While such an economy may produce a sense of seeming prosperity for the moment, it rests on an illusionary foundation of complete unreliability and renders among our political leaders almost a greater fear of peace than is their fear of war.

Lets listen to the 5 star general who fought in both world wars when he speaks clearly, eh?

 

[Proton Soup]

Lets listen to the 5 star general who fought in both world wars when he speaks clearly, eh?

well, yes. artificially induced psychosis and hysteria is exactly my beef with the way this bill was pushed.