Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by orangeblue_coop, Jul 17, 2019.
You do know that first responders from all over the country went to NYC, right?
Some responders were private citizen volunteers.
Seriously, what is wrong with Republicans. These are people that ran into burning buildings to try to save others after the largest terrorist attack in our history. Those that were "lucky" enough to survive got to "enjoy" a couple decades of cancer caused by the toxic fumes they inhaled that day.
Look at this guy:
That’s the reward for his heroism. Dead at 53, looking like he’s 90.
And the worst part? The Republicans don’t actually have any kind of principled objection to the comp fund. They just want to hold it up long enough to extort yet another giveaway to their sponsors. They won’t even pass a flipping 9/11 responder healthcare bill without demanding something for themselves.
What a disgrace.
Rand Paul is Ron Paul Lite. Less principled than his father, but still capable of going libertarian once in awhile.
He voted to reduce spending... unlike the other RINOs and Dems...
Didn't have have private insurance?
Why doesn't NYC's workman's comp cover the cost of all of the first responders who were NYC employees?
Makes me think of the people who watched Chernobyl and were lamenting how the Soviet government and its inefficient bureaucracy wasn't great at taking care of the people involved in the cleanup. Couldn't happen here, right?
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
- James Madison
“We will not always have enlightened statesmen at the helm.”
I guess he didn't read the Constitution very closely. But its probably one of those fake internet quotes anyways.
Why would they need to fund through 2090? Seems like a long time.
I agree with all of this, except Paul has not been consistent. The tax cut was a far greater fiscal burden and was not in the best interest of our economy.
It is very difficult to square voting for that, and denying this in context of both need and relative impact.
If he is going to be principled, be principled in the big things.
Paul's argument reminds me of Senator Coburn's (Former senator from Oklahoma) fight against the "bridge to no where".
Conservatives? I don't think there are any conservatives in Congress. The Republican party has been taken over by a cult and the Democrat party has a smattering of moderates, but seems to be going the extreme left direction. Conservatism doesn't have a home right now.
200 NYFD dead since 9/11 as a result of the clean-up. But hey, those billionaires and corporations got their massive tax cuts.
Compensation for the 9/11 first responders is a bridge to nowhere? Oklahoma, you're better than defending this, man.
I was comparing the need for spending cuts to pay for the additional spending which is what Sen. Coburn was doing. The people should be taken care of.
Following up on my previous post. Offsets in blue states but not in red states.
House conservatives demand offsets for Hurricane Sandy aid
Peter King: Give Oklahoma Tornado Relief Without Offsets
Interestingly Peter King is (or was) a NY Republican
Now that we know how this actually played out on the floor of the Senate, any thoughts on changing the intellectually dishonest title? To something like, I don't know, "Paul unsuccessfully challenges Senate to cut spending in other areas before funding 9/11 First Responders Bill."