Finally someone tells it like it is these days...

Nice to see representative of the people stand up against the bullchit "Party of No" in the Congress...because we've all seen it over the past two years, cloaked in procedural morass, the need for "more debate" or "more amendments", all of which are RepubSpeak for "no, never, nothing"...

Does anyone truly disagree that the first responders to the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 who have fallen ill due to their heroic efforts should not be taken care of?

Is this really an issue that even the most "no" of the Congress should continue with the "no to everything" style of "governance"?




I say it's not.

Fish on...

Todd

Yeah, he really gave 'em hell! There oughta' be more of that in the hallowed halls of our best Congress that money can buy!

Todd they should be taken care of to the final count. Had not a meeting moved forward a day my brothers wife would have been in the tower. That said is it a federal responsibility OR New York then state or city?

If the thought is it was a attack so the feds should pony up then what about the AZ rancher that got shot by illegals crossing the border? His family was a victim also. Border guards? Everywhere in our country you can find acts of violence perpetrated upon citizens by people who are not, it is a growing problem that congress hides from.

So where does local, state, or fed responsibility start / stop. The victims were compensated ( or so it was reported ) by fed $. The first responders were doing their jobs that they were hired and paid to do. It is a local ( NY City ) responsibility to care for the employee's, that is what L&I and Health Ins is for. If the coverage was inadequate the cops, fireman, hell the whole bunch sue the hell out of the city as they were their employees.

It was reported that Peter King wrote the bill in the first place. Interesting that MSNBC? had to point that out in her interview with the Whiner Weiner.

Pretty pathetic when the Dem party has to stoop to procedural differences to make the other party look bad. Of course since Aol and other homepage browsers report the same type of worthless headline, its no wonder we keep sliding in that direction.

GOP votes against extending unemployment benefits.... (typical)

cause democrats wont offset the expense with a cut to other programs as Obama had preached in the past. They proved in 1994 they could not run a house bank for the members of congress. They will bankrupt your kids. Its very apparent that neither party can be trusted with our money.

Take care of those who took care of us.

Pretty simple.....nothing more, nothing less.

I see it as a pretty black and white issue and obvious what the vote should be. Apparently, congress has lost that ability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-...&playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaS2bRGS86c