GOP to 9/11 First Responders: DIE IN A FIRE

[heliochrome85]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/s ... 8#comments

im ashamed of my country. that is all.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

It's a shame yes...but why, if the fund is reserved for "first responders" is the amount ($7.4b) so high?

[WDRacing]

It's a shame yes...but why, if the fund is reserved for "first responders" is the amount ($7.4b) so high?

Exactly. 7.4 Billion? Gtfo with that number. As per usual, the damn dems couldn't come up with a reasonable package and therefore the repubs come off looking like ***holes. You have to see that Helio, no? I'm not saying the survivors shouldn't get care, but 7.4 billion? That's a large number. If you pulled 7.4 billion out of the UI package I'd go along, bet they would to.

[UpStar]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/s ... 8#comments

im ashamed of my country. that is all.

Republicans!! Those 40+ conservative pricks! We will block every bill until we get what we want, so screw those 9/11 responders.

[IBCoupe]

I don't know how many first responders there were, and I don't know what kind of hospital bills we're anticipating for them. $7.4B might be reasonable.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

I don't know how many first responders there were, and I don't know what kind of hospital bills we're anticipating for them. $7.4B might be reasonable.

Even at $100,000 for 10,000 responders that;s only $1billion.

[bigbadberry3]

Have you visited a hospital lately? 100,000 flies by in the blink of an eye.

[WDRacing]

Agreed, especially if you require prolonged treatment. But 7.4 billion is simply to much money imo. It's not like these first responders don't have health ins. The Fed Gov should cover everything NOT covered by the health ins. But I don't see an additional 7.4 billion over what the fed gov has already spent as a reasonable number.

[stebo0728]

Just a comment from me, and not to be insensitive to the people in question, but since when does the government (i.e taxpayers) owe anything to these people? How many midwest firefighters die in these wildfire every year, do their families get government handouts? How many first responders PERIOD die all over the country and their families DONT get a government handout? OR ... is this possibly setting a precedent that will carry forth and start doling out cash at our expense? Im all for helping these people, and having PRIVATE charities helping them, but I just dont get why all of a sudden with this one event its acceptable to hand out taxpayer cash.

[AZhitman]

Emotion:

Republicans!! Those 40+ conservative pricks! We will block every bill until we get what we want, so screw those 9/11 responders.

Logic:

Just a comment from me, and not to be insensitive to the people in question, but since when does the government (i.e taxpayers) owe anything to these people? How many midwest firefighters die in these wildfire every year, do their families get government handouts? How many first responders PERIOD die all over the country and their families DONT get a government handout? OR ... is this possibly setting a precedent that will carry forth and start doling out cash at our expense? Im all for helping these people, and having PRIVATE charities helping them, but I just dont get why all of a sudden with this one event its acceptable to hand out taxpayer cash.

Any questions?

[IBCoupe]

I can see a link to get there, Stebo, and it involves the nature of the attack. If we view this as an "act of war," rather than simply a "crime," (and be careful because here's where we get into who tries whom for what and in which court) then the rescuers on 9/11 can be seen to have been responding against such an act of war, as distinguishable from simply a "natural disaster." As such they were doing the job of military personnel, and the Federal Government should be responsible for caring for our veterans when they become sick, especially if it was their service that made them sick.

Now, I'm an unrepentant heartless bastard (I've got an anecdote about a comment I made on 9/11 as we watched the towers fall on TV that I can share, but it might just piss y'all off), so I'm okay with not giving them the cash. If you're okay with it, too, fine, but that's going to require some nifty justifications that could get you into some moral/intellectual trouble down the road when we catch all the folks responsible.

[audtatious]

This whole issue is simply to make headlines and dig at the Republicans, similar to the Dream Act. The Dems don't really care other than they get the opportunity to gather more Gov employees to manage all the provisions within the bill itself.

We should support the responders to 9/11 as they are an extension of those who died in the towers, but to the tune of an additional 7.4B? I don't see it. Where is the breakdown showing what their health insurance is not covering vs. what additional support they will need?

[UpStar]

This whole issue is simply to make headlines and dig at the Republicans,

Is this some weak attempt to defend the GOP and their inability to think of someone else besides themselves ? <--rhetorical question I know the answer Try again!

[AZhitman]

So, what's your solution and justification?

Or are you going to continue to subject us to your spot-on Sandra Bernhardt imitation?

[audtatious]

This whole issue is simply to make headlines and dig at the Republicans,

Is this some weak attempt to defend the GOP and their inability to think of someone else besides themselves ? <--rhetorical question I know the answer Try again!

Typical. More "feel good" policy by the party that is mentally unstable enough to need it.

[Jesda]

Take a piece of legislation, wrap it in the flag with images of 9/11, staple huge chunks of pork to it, then call the opposition unpatriotic.

We saw Republicans do this during the Bush era. Suddenly Dems do it and its okay? F*** you.

[audtatious]

Pretty much.

[HashiriyaS14]

I can't speak for any pork in it, but in regards to actual care going to first responders, they effectively acted in a military capacity to great national benefit. Thus, in my opinion, they should be treated in the same manner as veterans. 9/11 was a military event, albeit an asymmetrical one.

I don't know the math, I don't know what that adds up to relative to what this bill provides, but that's my basic calculus.

<Switching Gears>

Electorally, opposing this thing is suicide. This WILL happen sooner or later because doing it is a huge electoral feel-good benny, right or wrong. I don't understand these Senators wanting to be on the losing side of that. If they want to re-craft the bill, then they aren't getting that message out. Their message is coming out like "we want to give them nothing", which is the wrong f**king message.

[Jesda]

It doesn't matter what your intended message is if the end result is a link being passed around from blog to blog without knowing what the hell is actually going on. Hell, the people who opposed the Patriot Act were deemed unpatriotic; Democrats AND Republicans practically french kissed each other in support of that garbage heap of destructive legislation because they were chickensh*ts about how it might make them look.

Its impossible to say "no" to government spending in this entitled trainwreck of a society without being accused of being "against" something.

You voted against that massive military spending bill? Why do you hate the troops? Do you want our "kids" overseas to die?
You voted in favor of welfare reform? Why do you hate single moms? Why do you want babies to starve? Why are you so selfish?
You voted against corn subsidies? Do you want farmer Joe to go broke? What's wrong with you?

And so on and so forth. The DEBATE in this country has moved, not to the left or right, but DOWNWARD. The default reaction to any new program, new department, or new spending isn't a question of whether its appropriate for government to take on a larger role. No, the discussion IMMEDIATELY goes to whether the legislation or spending would be "effective." No one gives a f*** about civil and economic liberty because no one is interested in what that freedom means, the risks it entails, and especially the responsibilities required by it.

This is a society that wants to be coddled, and you know who I blame?

Wait for it...


Here it comes...


George W. Bush
We didn't see it coming, but we should have been suspicious when he uttered the words "compassionate conservative."

"Compassion" for poorly run automotive firms that gave us the bailouts of Chrysler and GM, whose eventual bankruptcies circumvented standard proceedings and bit bondholders in the a** in favor of labor unions.
"Compassion" for poorly run banks and financial services: TARP.
"Compassion" for Iraqi citizens, giving us the endless war in Iraq.

By pushing a new type of "federally proactive" Republican agenda, one that ceased to be about small and limited government, so-called modern conservatives began to embrace the idea of collective "good" [which seldom ever creates ANY kind of good] over individual freedom and responsibility. This, as a result, drove the entire nation's agenda and the "center" of the debate in a more authoritarian direction. This is why Obamacare passed with relative ease [compared to previous attempts in the early 90s]. This is why the TSA gets to zap and grope your balls. Its for "your own good."

Now, when I have to explain to someone why I'm opposed to increased federal spending, federalized healthcare, or entanglements in foreign wars, the discussion doesn't begin at the philosophical question of the role of government and the rights and responsibilities of free people. No, the discussion goes DIRECTLY to the question of effectiveness, as if there is nothing morally questionable about forcing the individual (the MOST IMPORTANT minority) at gunpoint to succumb to the whims of an ill-educated and ill-informed majority.


Yeah, I'm pissed. Its much more difficult now to challenge President Obama's destructive agenda. "W" has convinced the public that a more involved federal government is necessary, and President Obama is simply following the path carved by his predecessor.

D and R -- two mafia families, both violent and corrupt.

[AZhitman]

^ Preach it. If I could afford to buy you into public office, it'd be worth every penny.

Here's the deal: THEY DID THEIR JOB. No, they DID NOT act in a "military capacity". Did the rescuers at the Murrah Building act in a "military capacity"? If so, then we have to define EVERY criminal act as such... right down to some guy holding a janitor hostage in a Wal-Mart because they won't double his coupon for Grape-Nuts.

If a fireman dies saving a kid from a burning building, he gets what? He gets what he knew he'd get when he signed on: the balance of his pension, some $ for his wife & kids, and maybe his funeral paid for. His insurance covers any medical bills, and life goes on. A cop gets shot and killed effecting an arrest of a guy wandering past Capitol Hill with an AK47, what's he get? Same deal.

How are the NYPD, the FDNY, the Port Authority any different?

Because it was an act of terrorism? So was OKC. So was the Sears Tower bombing. So was the first WTC bombing.

Wait, those weren't? Why not? Be careful... We don't want to get into defining post-incident benefits for catastrophic events by the characteristics of the perpetrators. Think about it.

To use this as a political hammer makes me sick to my stomach. If you've said anything to the effect of, "The big mean GOP hates the 9/11 first responders", do me a favor: Pack your s*** and GTFO of my country, because you're part of the problem. That's a shady, intellectually dishonest, and underhanded ploy, using those who were injured / killed on 9/11 as your pawns.

So go ahead and launch your hate, call me a heartless bastard, call me un-American, call me a fireman-hater, call me a cop-hater, since I'm not OK with spending $7.4 BILLION of borrowed money to appease a bunch of hand-wringing liberal morons who can't see through their tear-filled eyes and find the logic in this discussion.

[HashiriyaS14]

Here's the deal: THEY DID THEIR JOB. No, they DID NOT act in a "military capacity". Did the rescuers at the Murrah Building act in a "military capacity"? If so, then we have to define EVERY criminal act as such... right down to some guy holding a janitor hostage in a Wal-Mart because they won't double his coupon for Grape-Nuts.

See, I still disagree with this.

The rest of the rant is fine, but here's my rationale for the "military" bit. The following two details make 9/11 completely different from Oklahoma City or just about any other major criminal act to which fire/police have responded:

1.) Foreign nationals attacked the United States

2.) Our response to this attack was military in nature (to say the least)

9/11 was Fort Sumter, it was Pearl Harbor. 9/11 caused us to deploy hundreds of thousands of troops over the course of a decade, to deploy CSG's all over the world, and to enter into two hot wars. The Murrah building bombing didn't. The first responders were effectively pulled into an international conflict, not a local criminal situation.

The difference isn't that it was "terrorism" rather than "crime". The difference is that it was an act of war, whereas all that other shxt wasn't. If DPRK had bombed the WTC, would you guys consider the responders vets then? Why is it any different when OPFOR is an independent group rather than a nation state?

I am NOT using this line of logic to vilify the GOP or defend the specific number being called for in the bill, I couldn't care less. I just find it very hard to believe that 9/11 is being put on par with Murrah and other situations where we did not GO TO WAR in response. We suffered MORE casualties on 9/11 than we did on Pearl Harbor, it was a MORE significant attack. If civilian firefighters had been killed trying to drag sailors off burning runways in Hawaii, would they get denied veteran treatment also? Where is the line?

[stebo0728]

I can agree with Hash here, although they were NOT the military, they were working in similar capacity as they were first on scene and able to take over, this may open the way for the funding for them, not sure on that, but I tend to agree with the sentiment that we may be appropriating too much, still Id rather set the money here than pay for studies on why hampsters prefer brown mates over white. All that psuedo science funding we do is re-do-damn-diculous.

[AZhitman]

If civilian firefighters had been killed trying to drag sailors off burning runways in Hawaii, would they get denied veteran treatment also? Where is the line?

They were, and they were.

Agreed. Where is the line?

See, while I respect your line of reasoning, you can't use our eventual response as the deciding factor.

What if we'd done nothing? What if we'd had a pacifist Administration? What if we dole out all that cash and find out later that a bunch of Branch Davidians carried out the WTC attacks? What if there were civilians killed in the Ft. Hood shootings? Not an "act of war"? Why not?

See what I mean?

What was your job at the time of the injury, and in what capacity were you acting... these are the critical questions. To lavish these brave men and women with anything more than we'd give any other police / fire / rescue personnel is a decision based on emotion.

[Jesda]

If you want military benefits, go through basic training, accept the obligations and limitations on your life that come as a result of being in the military, and THEN you can enjoy all the benefits.

Being "there" doesn't mean you were a soldier. It means you did a challenging, life-threatening (and too often life-ending) job. But it does NOT mean you performed any kind of military action.

[AZhitman]

I can agree with Hash here, although they were NOT the military, they were working in similar capacity as they were first on scene and able to take over

Irrelevant.

I was first on the scene when a Mexican National, in our country illegally, driving intoxicated, rear-ended a woman's car, causing it to flip over, and she was injured. I called 911, pried open the hood, disconnected the battery, and secured her badly broken left arm before paramedics arrived.

In the process, somewhere along the line, I cut myself pretty well, and required a tetanus shot. No one would argue that I earned any sort of benefit from the taxpayers.

It's called being a Good Samaritan (or doing your job).

[audtatious]

Greggie, an illegal hitting a car is nothing like accused terrorists supposedly plowing a plane into a building

[AZhitman]

They all lie on the same continuum.

Foreigners committing a crime on US soil, in which Americans were harmed, and to which an American responded.

[heliochrome85]

They all lie on the same continuum.

Foreigners committing a crime on US soil, in which Americans were harmed, and to which an American responded.

yes greg, but the commonality here is foreigners. 9/11 was no car accident. nor was it by alleged terrorists. by definition, those who were behind it were terrorists. AND further more, those people who ran in when everyone ran out, should never have to pay for a drink ever again, nor a medical bill. they did their jobs during a situation that even the strongest willed of men, would have broken. to do them any less to is to dishonor their service.

its incredible to me, that for all the 9/11 flag waving, and soldier supporting the GOP does, its the GOP that time and time again, guts funds and services to those it exploits for campaign profits. Last i checked, the military does not have WORLD CLASS health care, or psych care, despite it being definitively proven that gulf war syndrome exists, and our soldiers are suffering from PTSD. christmas is coming up. i know who ill be saying a prayer for.

[AZhitman]

Tariq, I don't disagree with any of that.

But let's go back and look at the OP: "Ashamed of our country" because we don't give handouts to people who were in the wrong place (or the right place) at the wrong time (or the right time, in my opinion, God bless them)....

Who decides eligibility for this fat payday? How can that be done without sliding a$$-first down that slippery slope?

I'm sure their insurance companies LOVE your plan. There's 7.8 Billion reasons to love it.

Listen, I agree 100% that our military men and women get the shaft in many areas. I'd also argue that, in certain cases, they get an undeservedly-sweet deal (which we can discuss separately).

But to ascribe the benefits and accordances of military service willy-nilly upon cops, firefighters, security guards, paramedics and innocent passers-by opens a can of worms the likes of which we haven't seen since the debit-card fiasco of post-Katrina Nawlins.

Prayers for our troops are ALWAYS in order. I'm right there next to ya.

[Eikon]

So the house, senate and white house have been fully controlled by the Dems for 2 years now and they never bothered to put this bill through sooner? But, when they finally try to rush it through at the last minute with some extremely poorly written plans, it's the GOP's fault for calling them on the bad parts.

I hate politics because nobody ever tells the whole story.. they take the little bits that support the way they want to view the situation and present those alone.

and in an unrelated rant..
When exactly did the world start believing that the Huffington Post was a legit news-source?