Oh course Chase, I'm sure you're skilled at tricking federal judges.

civ pro sounds like a video game.

but yah dont lump all us republicans in one boat. i guess the way ive tended to vote so far means im a "republican", but really i just want us to balance our budget again and stop this ludicrous deficit spending. i donate 10% of my pre-tax paycheck to charity (sure, its a church, but i know this church puts a huge portion of their budget into the community). this brings back verm's earlier point that as a whole, repubs outgive demos in every sector of income. so dont try to make repubs out as the greedy penny pinchers.

i wouldnt mind strengthening our education in america, but man its so fucked up. there should be higher teacher salaries, rewards for better teachers, an easier way to punish crappy teachers, and for the love of God, we need to fail more students. fuck this shit of passing kids to higher levels when they dont merit it. and fuck the inflation of standardized testing scores just so we can feel better about ourselves. the amount of self-deception in the education process is barftastic. if a kid deserves to fail, fail him. if a teacher deserves to be fired because he cant teach effectively, then fire him.

meh, tldr.

and it makes me absolutely sick to my stomach remembering the campaigns of 2008 and 2010 and how the word "earmark" was a 100% DO-NOT-SUPPORT idea for both parties. good God, how stupid can the american public be. gwbush said it right, fool me once shame on me, fool me twice... (well he only said that much right, but you know what i mean).

why do we keep fucking electing people who, as soon as they are in office, renege on what they promised during campaigning. srsly, 100% of people who campaigned these past two cycles campaigned HARD against everything to do with earmarks. and look where we are now. stupid american public.

not sure it was directed at me or not, Monte, but I wasn't trying to lump all republicans into one thing - I figured there would be different responses to the question.

Really I was just curious if there were any supporters. Looks like there are.

I know plenty about politics Yodel and am well aware of the excuses your party is spouting.

My question was a fair one. But man, Thrax, they aren't not voting on the first responders bill because they have better things to do, they're filibustering (wasting more time than a vote) to keep it from being passed, it has more than enough support to pass. If it was really about focusing on more important things (which it isn't), they would just let a vote occur and move on with their jobs. I can't believe you would validate this behavior.

I'll be out of town until tomorrow, sorry for not quickly responding.

A few things bother me about this debate:

Republican officials, not the people that vote R, draped themselves in 9/11 for almost 10 years to gain support and elections. Now a bill aimed at helping those responders that VOLUNTEERED to respond is something that they must denounce in full with no real reason?

One of the talking points about why this bill is bad is that it is laden with pork, and while I haven't read the full text this just seems to be a lie. Another talking point is that so much money has gone unaccounted for, 400 million or so, from other 9/11 worker funds that not in good conscience can they vote for more money when:

1. This bill fixes much of the accountability.
2. Many of those same voted for increased funding in Iraq/Afghanistan without increased accountability when over 15 billion has gone missing.

Many of the health effects from exposure to the dust and debris from ground zero are going to be chronic reactions with symptoms taking many years to develop. Asbestos for one can take 10-20 years to cause mesothelioma, if you get asbestos fibers in your lungs you will get cancer it just can take a while.

As a country we should support those that risk their lives to protect others and while maybe this isn't the right bill to give health benefits to those that weren't covered because they responded when they were off duty or were volunteers not covered by union benefits, but the lack of honest debate really should make people ashamed of those that we have elected to lead.

Yes, I am supporting the party position.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h847/text

Here, it's 111 pages long. Can't imagine a 111 page bill not being full of bullshit, but that's government for you.

Again, I'm not saying I'm against the bill, I'm just wondering if the cost is too high and the spending of the money is at the right time. Even if it is, let's say that 100,000 responders were affected (this figure is probably WAY high). At $8billion that amounts to $80,000 per individual affected. Now I know some money has to go into research and committees, but $8billion per person? Really?

Skimmed through the bill and it should be the model most legislation follows.

It is targeted, it has accountability, the language is very plain and for the most part doesn't seem to have much room for interpretation of who this bill is written for.

Their is some administrative bloat but that is going to happen with any new program, doesn't seem severe or excessive.

I think the description of WTC survivor might lead to some potential for litigation about who is and who isn't but that would be inevitable and this group is in a similar boat as the responders so I understand the desire to include them.

If you think these people deserve an avenue for benefits if they didn't have one already you should support this bill or the intention of the bill.

Thrax 80,000 dollars for cancer treatments isn't a crazy number.

Skrum, why?

I agree that $80,000 for cancer treatment isn't a lot, but the number of people is most certainly less than 100,000 and only a portion of those people will develop cancer.

It sets limits for how much money claims will be able to be made for, it has accountability for how the money will be spent and where the money can be spent.

It isn't a blank check to each person who makes a claim, only death benefits will ever be paid to an individual, where most will just be treated like transactions between health care providers and an insurance company.

This is a good bill, in the sense that it isn't filled with pork, it has accountability for where the funds will be used.

Also just because the fund is 8 billion doesn't mean all the money is being dolled out immediately.

If you have a better way to get these people health benefits or don't think they should be given health benefits I would like to hear your reasoning. Beyond that I don't see reasonable opposition to this bill but I am more than willing to listen to counter arguments and offer any rebuttal I might have.