It is not an incorrect procedure. It was designed to make a bill clean of excessive amendments. The error the dems made was they thought the bill would stand by its own merits and enough repubs would help carry it. Help to first responders at 911 ,seemed to the dems to be an easy call. How could the repubs turn their backs on the people they called American heroes?
Yeah, it’s a dam shame to see someone showing passion and fire on the floor of the house. I hope we see more of it. I’d much rather see that than congress critters spouting disingenuous bullshit about bills.
If he was grandstanding how would you describe what The GOP did in voting no? The Dems have every right to present the bill as they did and ask for an up or down vote even at 2/3. The fact remains the GOP voted it down and now is trying to make excuses rather than have the balls to vote yes or no on the merits of the bill. whining about proper procedure is weaselly bullshit.
You keep avoiding the obvious question. Why didn’t it pass? If it’s a good bill why waste time with unrelated add ons and amendments. Why couldn’t they vote on the merits of the bill? They were willing to delay aide to 1st responders to make what point exactly?
From where I sit the Dems chose a legitimate available procedure to force a vote on the merits of this bill without the extra bullshit. The GOP didn’t like the fact they did that and voted no for spite? And you think that shit is justified?
If there was something wrong with the bill then say that. If not then pass it and move on instead of the spineless weaseling about “It’s their fault we voted no”
If you made the vote then stand up for it.
They could have robbed the Dems of their grandstanding opportunity by simply voting yes and a good bill that they calim they want to pass.
That’s exactly what I’m wondering. Evidently they don’t mind doing that and even have the nads to try and blame the Dems for their failing.
Thanks you Weiner for calling them out. Let’s see some more of that. Drag thier obstructionist bullshit out in the media for everyone to see.
The Democratic party picked an orphans-and-puppies bill and launched it without debate toward the end of the summer session. They then pool time to a candidate looking for camera time who then launches on a tirade in the hopes it lands as a you tube soundbite on an internet forum.
Standard political procedure of debate and amendment. Things like who actually gets the money and whether they also get government money in the pending court case which is the the reason they are trying to beat the September 8 date. More than half of the money was set up to compensate for suffering and lost wages. In other words, it was a poorly defined slush fund that deserved debate and amendments to ensure the money was wisely spent.
Isn’t the whole point of orphans-and-puppies bills that they don’t need debate?
Of course. How can anybody vote against orphans and puppies? The devil is in the detail. If it was voted in now there would be double dipping of government money. Initially, the bill would have prohibited people from participating in the new federal compensation program if they had already been compensated for their injuries through a lawsuit, but a change was made in recent days eliminating that restriction.
It’s easy to spend other people’s money. Spending it wisely has always been something of a lost art among politicians. Not only can they not do it wisely they manage to spend money that doesn’t exist. They do this as if their very existence depended on it. It’s the one thing that has bi-partisan support.
Will the proper allocation of money be the only amended point when it comes up again for vote? Not likely. This is a highly localized expenditure of Federal money. Somebody’s pet project will be added until it’s an orphans and puppies and cats bill.
I understand the grandstanding aspect. I read the link about his plans in NYC. The content seemed realisitic. Don’t vote no and then blame procedure.
And where did you get this information? If that’s true then that’s exactly what the GOP should have said. The bill is badly written and needs fixing before it passes to prevent waste. Instead they whine about proper procedire. It seems simple. Weiner wanted them to vote yes or no on the merits of the bill as it stood. Okay, if you think the bill is poorly written then you voted no on the merits of the bill. Say that. Explain what needs to be fixed.
That doesn’t work well for Republicans. Every time there’s a vote to extend unemployment Democrats bring it to the floor without a funding plan and Republicans vote no. It eventually gets voted up with funding but Republicans look like schmucks in the soundbite war. And if that was the only reason they wouldn’t get to tack on their own money wasting earmark. Unless a party has a super-majority in both houses there has to be some horse trading to get support from the minority party. Nothing is black and white in politics. It’s all shades of green.
I get that it’s easy to slap a sympathietic face on a multi billion dollar bill and raise hell about it. I also can’t imagine how you decide who gets the money. Hell, they’ve had years to get something passed as some people died. There must be a lot of people who are very obviously seriously ill from 9/11. 1000s of other who are questionable and would try to cash in.
I also don’t get the illegal aliens thing. It’s NYC. Are you going to make anyone who applies provide thier papers? That seems like political theater to me.
And again my question is, if it’s good enough to pass with majority support and they’ve had years to hammer out the details , why didn’t it pass? If it is indeed a bad bill and wasteful then stand up and say so. Reduce the amount. Narrow the terms to prevent widespread abuse. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy but are we obligated to financially compensate everyone who was affected? I would say the health of 1st responders is a priority.
So, you get a few thousand because you might get sick in the future? WTF?
It’s a hard call to make but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I don’t understand years of delays.
As Weiner said, If it’s a bad bill, poorly written and wasteful, then vote no and say that’s why. Don’t vote no and then blame procedure.
Well that’s bullshit for both of them.
And what does the average American “man-in-the-street”-type feel about this? A quote from the Yahoo News comments section:
God Bless America.
Moving to Great Debates
Welcome to the world of politics. There are no job qualifications beyond the ability to make promises and get elected prom queen. Not only is fiduciary malfeasance not against the law it’s the defacto method of operation. We pay people with no apparent management skills to take our money to buy things that require our grandchildren to pay for. What’s another 10 billion when you already owe 12 trillion? We’ll just get one of those late night TV lawyers to declare national bankruptcy and start over. The 2 party system has evolved into a competition as to which can outspend the other. Who’s the winner in that one?
I just had lunch with a conservative/libertarian friend of mine. We used to have in depth discussions. Now we just agree about how disgusted we are. It a choice between horseshit and bullshit.
Anyone who’s ever been near a farm can tell you that’s an easy choice: I’ll take the horseshit any day.
Who were the construction workers working for? You have insurance through your employer. They weren’t working for anyone. They just came. And when some people paused for a moment and asked “Is is it safe to work here? Is this stuff toxic?” The federal government came in and said “We tested the air and it is fine.” And it wasn’t fine.
Yeah, but on what kind of bread? Mustard or Mayo?