July 31, 201016 yr Why is there a need to give healthcare to the 9-11 responders? Has their regular insurance reached the limits set by the terms of their provider?
July 31, 201016 yr Just another example of the left playing the blame game.... Is it blame when you don't agree with your fellow representatives' vote? I didn't hear blame. Rather, I heard a high degree of disappointment over a vote and a tactic. I don't think your often-repeated barb applies here.
July 31, 201016 yr Cheap, cheap political move by Democrats. They got what they wanted - a smear campaign. There are 255 votes for the bill. Yes, most of the Democratic votes. Only 11 repubs on board. So the votes to pass the bill are there since it only takes 219 votes to pass a bill in the House. The house leader (DEMOCRATS) are now at the last minute requiring 290 votes - a super majority. This is a pure procedural/leadership action that has one goal - create a negative issue for the repubs. Democrats are good at throwing people under buses. Here, they through the first responders of 9/11 under the bus for a cheap stunt to try to stave off the coming electoral bloodbath they face in November.
July 31, 201016 yr All that I am seeing from both sides is partisanship (not unexpected, of course). What do we know about the bill?
July 31, 201016 yr All that I am seeing from both sides is partisanship (not unexpected, of course). What do we know about the bill? Ok...I have answered my own question. http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d30-Video-Representative-Anthony-Weiner-DNY-goes-ballistic-on-Republicans-for-obstructing-911-aid http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/30/new-york-lawmakers-spar-failed-aid-sick-responders/
July 31, 201016 yr Ok...I have answered my own question. http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d30-Video-Representative-Anthony-Weiner-DNY-goes-ballistic-on-Republicans-for-obstructing-911-aid http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/30/new-york-lawmakers-spar-failed-aid-sick-responders/ From the foxnews post: But only 12 Republicans voted for the bill, which failed to win the needed two-thirds majority. Why? To pass a bill you only need a majority (219). To over ride a presidential veto you need 2/3 - and thus its nice to have the 2/3rds if you know the president will not sign it and make the vote 'veto-proof'. Has the occupier of the White House indicated he will veto this bill? Okay - I too will answer my own questions. What they were trying to pass was a "Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass". So they needed (or wanted) to bypass standard rules and pass this. See here for more detail on how this works. It does require a 2/3 vote since its a vote to suspend procedure. But from the Wikipedia link above - Most often, bills "on suspension" are non-controversial legislation -- such as naming Post Offices of the United States Postal Service or federal buildings -- and nearly all bills that are considered under suspension rules have bipartisan support. Both major political parties in the United States -- the Democratic Party and Republican Party -- have internal rules that prohibit proposing or supporting a bill under suspension unless it costs less than $100 million. I am still not sure why it is "under suspension". That is hard to find in all the rhetoric. So - they were trying to execute a parliamentary move used to pass non-controversial, bi-partisan supported, relatively inexpensive bills. Of which, this bill meets none of that criteria. So the questions remaining: Why is it on suspension and needs a motion to suspend the rules and thus a 2/3rd majority? Why does it not have broad Republican support in general? (not that this should be needed to get this done). Why did the Democrats think they could use a procedure that is not meant to be used for this type of bill? Until we have these I will suspend my 'Cheap trick' comment.
July 31, 201016 yr Republicans were trying to attach an illegal immigration amendment to the bill which would have made the bill controversial for Democrats - i.e. they could vote against a popular bill or vote for it and toe the Republican line on immigration - so they went the supermajority route where amendments can't be added. Frankly, both parties look petty and childish and is an example of why I don't belong to either one of them.
July 31, 201016 yr Republicans were trying to attach an illegal immigration amendment to the bill which would have made the bill controversial for Democrats - i.e. they could vote against a popular bill or vote for it and toe the Republican line on immigration - so they went the supermajority route where amendments can't be added. Frankly, both parties look petty and childish and is an example of why I don't belong to either one of them. Thanks. That little fact did not jump out using Google. Here is the GOP view of the bill: http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/2/hr847 This is an expensive bill for sure.
July 31, 201016 yr Thanks. That little fact did not jump out using Google. Here is the GOP view of the bill: http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/2/hr847 This is an expensive bill for sure. Make sure to read the first article that I linked, too, as it has more of the discussion of what Habib mentions above.
July 31, 201016 yr Make sure to read the first article that I linked, too, as it has more of the discussion of what Habib mentions above. Yep. Its there. They did a better job on the background that others. Sorry for skipping over it.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.