Support the troops but don’t support the 9-11 troops?

OK, the Republicans in the Senate have just blocked a bill (click) to help the people who were injured on 9-11 by breathing the contaminated air from the disaster which, let us not forget, the Bush-era EPA knew was contaminated but told those same workers was safe.

The GOP claims that the bill is unfunded and that, at nearly $8 billion, it is too expensive.

OK, fine. Be fiscally responsible. I completely support you.

But only if you will also be fiscally responsible on the completely unfunded wars ($100 billion a year and counting) or the completely unfunded tax cuts ($700 billion or so, and counting) and so many other things? I mean, why pick this one thing to be fiscally responsible about?

Nobody in Congress is willing to ask the American Public to actually raise taxes to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq because they know the American Public would be outraged and would refuse. It’s one thing to demand blood and sacrifice and heroism and suffering and combat and all that, but it is quite another to expect the folks back home to actually pay for those things.

Nonono, we musn’t do that. The public might decide it doesn’t want to pay for the war, and that it might be better to stop the war, and then where would we be?

And yet these same people, who are willing to demand our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan be supported at any (untaxed, unfunded) cost, somehow think the troops of 9-11 are different?

It makes no sense, unless you see it as yet another instance where the GOP simply doesn’t want ANYTHING good to happen during the Obama administration, so they can then blame that same lack of anything good happening on Obama come 2012. Why do they oppose unemployment insurance extensions?  So they can campaign on Obama’s failure to reduce the numbers of unemployed.

Want to know what’s sick? This is a tactic that will work, bet on it. I hate to say “Yes, the American Public is just that dumb,” but in large measure they are. Especially the tea sippers.

Sorry, 9-11 workers, your health has to be sacrificed for the greater good of making Obama look bad. Better luck next time.

Oh yeah, and support the troops!

Share
This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Support the troops but don’t support the 9-11 troops?

  1. Ben Pales says:

    It honestly makes me sick how little people pay attention to what happens in Washington. You are right. The Repubs will stop anything good from happening and then blame the Democrats that they could not get anything done. The right knows that most people will not look closely enough into wha they are doing, and therefore have carte blanche to once again screw the middle class. Then everyone in Utah will say Heck yeah, vote out those gay loven lefties.

  2. tom says:

    After being active in and supporting Republican Party causes for nigh on forty years now, I have finally got to a place that the only thing the GOP makes we want to do any more is puke. These modern day neocon bastards have co-opted the party and made it into a bunch of disingenuous creeps.

  3. Sven says:

    Charles,

    First off, if you have a problem with our wars, you had better speak to your Democrat Party; you remember, the ones who’ve been in control of the House and Senate since 2006. While you’re at it, you might also want to do a little venting to President Obama for increasing the number of troops currently in Afghanistan.

    Secondly, I’m convinced when it comes to tax cuts, you have no clue what you’re talking about. Can you explain what you mean when you say that we have “completely unfunded tax cuts ($700 billion or so, and counting)…” Are you referring to the Bush tax cuts that President Obama referred to as “simulative” the other day?

    When these tax cuts were signed into law by President Bush 10 years ago; these changed our tax rates. I’m not sure what in the heck you’re talking about when you refer to these tax cuts as “completely unfunded?” Again, when these tax cuts went into place, the new Tax Rates kicked in. It makes absolutely no sense for you to say it’s costing the federal government $700 billion for these tax cuts. That would be like me saying: “Since my employer pays me $50,000 per year instead of 60,000; it’s costing me $10,000 per year.” Tax payers above the poverty level in this country already pay 30-40 percent of their income in state and federal taxes. If you liberals want to keep funding all of your entitlement programs (the real cause of the massive federal deficit), go ahead and write a check. The rest of us don’t think we should keep getting soaked to support these entitlements.

    Just out of curiosity, I noticed that you weren’t concerned with the 4 Trillion dollar health care plan put into place by the Democrats? Isn’t it funny that they begin taxing us for this health care plan beginning this January, but we won’t see any benefits until 2014? If you try hard enough, you might be able to blame this on Bush to.

    Oh, and Obama makes himself look bad all on his own ;)

  4. ctrentelman says:

    Sven, the tax “cuts” or changes in the tax rates or what have you are “unfunded” because the money from those taxes was being spent on stuff — f-16s, troops, highways, schools, medical care for vets, what have you — and none of those expenditures were lowered by Bush. In fact, he added Medicare Part D.

    So, when the new tax rates went into effect, a very large amount of money quit coming in, but nothing was put into place to replace it. Bush claimed the cuts would increase federal revenues, but they didn’t.

    To use your example, if you are living on $60,000 a year and your employer cuts your pay to $50,000 a year, you are going to wonder very quickly where the money to pay your mortgage is going to come from. Perhaps you think your employer will use the $10,000 to increase his business and eventually give you more money. Let me know how that works out.

    You are right, the Democrats have not cut our troops in Afghanistan. If you read my blogs or columns you know that I would like the troops all to come home yesterday, if not sooner. But it was Bush and 6 years of GOP control of Congress that put them over in that quagmire, don’t forget that.

    • Sven says:

      Charles said:

      “Sven, the tax ‘cuts’ or changes in the tax rates or what have you are “unfunded” because the money from those taxes was being spent on stuff — f-16s, troops, highways, schools, medical care for vets, what have you — and none of those expenditures were lowered by Bush. In fact, he added Medicare Part D.”

      Charles, you make the point better than I could; it’s not the tax cuts that we can’t afford, it’s the out of control spending in the federal government on entitlement programs. By-the-way, we conservatives were livid with Bush over the Medicare part D!

      Sorry, but once again these tax rates have been in place for ten years…it’s been part of the budget. Again, it was strange that you found criticism for military spending and the part D Medicare programs that were in the billions, but said nothing about the Trillions (4 trillion from health care alone!) that were added in the past two years?

      Charles said:

      “So, when the new tax rates went into effect, a very large amount of money quit coming in, but nothing was put into place to replace it. Bush claimed the cuts would increase federal revenues, but they didn’t.”

      Charles, sorry, but many of us tax payers reject the idea that the government can or cannot afford to let us keep our money! If the government doesn’t have this money, then they need to cut spending and entitlement programs. Why is always the tax payers who have to do without, and the federal government can spend (our money) without restraint?

      Again, if you were to appear even remotely legitimate in your concern about deficits, you would’ve addressed the massive costs (4 trillion) of the new health care law.

      Charles said:

      “To use your example, if you are living on $60,000 a year and your employer cuts your pay to $50,000 a year, you are going to wonder very quickly where the money to pay your mortgage is going to come from. Perhaps you think your employer will use the $10,000 to increase his business and eventually give you more money. Let me know how that works out.”

      Sorry Charles, but your replay on my analogy makes no sense and is not pertinent to the discussion. I notice you also took the opportunity like a good class warfare liberal to bash businesses. First off, it’s their money…they can do what they want with it; just like you can do what you want with your money. If you even had a basic understanding of business; they do reinvest money back into their businesses (i.e. equipment, new hires, insurance etc.). Tell us Charles, when is the last time you created a business? When is the last time you made a payroll? My guess is never!

      Sorry Charles, but those of us who been getting shafted for paying other people’s entitlements have had enough. My 40 percent in taxes is more than enough for our bloated government.

      By the way, we’d love to hear you address the record Debt that obama has racked up…without having to blame Bush. Oh, and by the way, Bush’s entire presidency saw unemployment between 4.5 and 5 percent. How’s Obama’s 10% unemployment working out for you? ;)

  5. ctrentelman says:

    sven,

    I didn’t include the medical care reform because just looking at the so-called price tag ignores the savings that will also result — the OMB says the reform will save money over the long term by reducing costs elsewhere, such as Medicare Advantage which is a premium that I know, as a disliker of entitlements, you surely agree can be cut, allowing the growth of Medicare to be reduced by $500 billion over the next decade.

    The cost also ignored what Americans will pay anyway — if the federal program doesn’t provide the care, someone will have to pay for it anyway. My idea was single payer medicare for everyone — it has a 4 percent overhead as compared to 15 percent for private medical insurance, and would cover everyone and have the marketing clout to control price increases.

    I didn’t bash businesses, I pointed out reality: Reducing your income doesn’t necessarily mean that the people paying you will give you a share of the benefits they derive. We are constantly told that tax cuts for the rich will mean more jobs, but we are never told that those rich have guaranteed to create more job. Tax cuts to businesses, we are told, will also create new jobs (the present compromise is supposed to do that) but, again, we have no guarantee.

    Businesses, as you correctly point out, don’t have to do anything if they don’t want. We are constantly told that people on Social Security are paid too much and they should learn to save so society doesn’t have to support them. At the same time, businesses pay their employees less and less — actual pay for workers was stagnant over the entire bush presidency — while raising prices and shipping high cost jobs overseas, making it harder and harder for people to save for that retirement.

    Businesses of late have shown a strong tendency to just hoard cash, not hire more people, and they are doing their darndest to keep wages down. They are succeeding.

    The current tax rates, in place for 10 years, were given a sunset date of this year because Bush didn’t have the spine, or the support, to make them last longer. They were promised to create jobs — but Bush’s tenure had one of the worst job creation records of the last 40 years or so — and they were promised to boost the economy — but it was really a housing bubble, not his tax cuts, that created an economy we now know was all smoke and mirrors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>