quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Umm- perhaps you didn't see this link?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/09/senate.9.11.responders/

Passed the house, defeated because the Republicans filibustered. A majority does not prevent a filibuster. Or maybe they should have seen Ted Kennedy dying? No wonder the country's in the crapper....what should be a simple matter of responsibility turns into partisanship..

Sam

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Umm- perhaps you didn't see this link?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/09/senate.9.11.responders/

Passed the house, defeated because the Republicans filibustered. A majority does not prevent a filibuster. Or maybe they should have seen Ted Kennedy dying? No wonder the country's in the crapper....what should be a simple matter of responsibility turns into partisanship..

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

I am still wondering why the Dems did not pass this law while they held both houses (the senate with a filibuster proof majority), and the presidency.

Seriously why didn't they pass this bill years ago, if they care so much about it?

Why wait till now to make a big deal?

Any reason other than Politics?

Tazz?
RML?
Sambo?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Good question, and I'll doubt you'll get a straight answer.

Perhaps so that when they left power, they can claim it's all "the Reputhughicans" fault.?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The Democrats had two years to pass the bill, didn't they?  With a Democratic President?

If it were important to them.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Umm- perhaps you didn't see this link?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/09/senate.9.11.responders/

Passed the house, defeated because the Republicans filibustered. A majority does not prevent a filibuster. Or maybe they should have seen Ted Kennedy dying? No wonder the country's in the crapper....what should be a simple matter of responsibility turns into partisanship..

Sam

Perhaps you didnt understand what the GOP meant by "nothing gets done until the tax 'cut' bill is done".

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Good question, and I'll doubt you'll get a straight answer.

Perhaps so that when they left power, they can claim it's all "the Reputhughicans" fault.?

Firm, why don't you quit while you're behind before you dig yourself a deeper hole.

You've already said you supposedly know nothing about the bill and want the information spoon-fed to you. 

Yet you have the gall to say he will not get a straight answer when you have offered nothing on this whole thread except partisanship and game playing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"I'm not against helping the 9/11 responders, and truthfully (without doing a deep analysis of the bill to find out if it actually does what it purports to do) have no problem with it being passed.

But the rest of the political mix should also be evaluated before simply saying "Republicans BAAAAD!". That is simply a jerk-knee reaction. Looked at in the longer term, and all the other surrounding factors (some of which have not even been mentioned) I don't think "the blame" is as simplistic as it is being painted.

Of course you'll disagree. And it's thinking such as yours that has gotten us to a place where bills such as this have trouble getting passed. "

Sorry Firm- but the facts disagree with this statement.

1) Its been 9 years since 9/11. Fact gathering will never be complete, but clearly people who were injured during the course of their jobs are basically still screwed. I gave you a first hand account of one such individual. Given the mass of pollutants measured in the thousands of tonnes in a relatively small area (higher concentrations than a coal mine) spewed into the air when those buildings collapsed, it is quite conceivable that tens of thousands received injury to their respiratory system. What's your time frame for fact gathering if 9 years hasn't been enough? 50 years will work well- most of the people injured should be dead by then.

2) Last time I checked- if you disagree with something in a bill- that's something that can be debated. Additional fact gathering? Perhaps a smaller amount of payout per individual? Fine- debate that, but filibustering prevents debate. The Republican actions here aren't saying that this bill either has or doesn't have merit- they're saying we don't want to discuss it.

3) Blaming the Democrats for failure to govern here is Hitler Big Lie psychology. The distortions coming out of the Republican party in this case are so gross as to beggar the imagination. This is one party blaming the other for its failure to take responsibility for its own actions. It actually becomes very hard to debate anyone when the facts are so distorted as they are here.

4) In short- there's a problem. I laid it out for you. The response I've heard is that the Republicans are blocking progress here because it's the Democrats fault for not giving in to them for passing tax cuts for the wealthy. This is no way to govern.

5) I'll say it again. By Einstein's definition of crazy- doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result- the Republicans and their supporters have gone crazy. It's like the financial disaster of 2007-2008 never happened and had no relationship to the actions of those in power. Two years later, those same people are clamoring to do the same thing all over again....The only reason the rich folks in this country need a tax break is because they support the Republicans financially. Absent that support and things collapse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

I've enjoyed debating you through the years as well. I agree that a single anecdotal episode does not make a scientific conclusion. I brought that case forward to stop anyone from making the claim that respondents have been well cared for by the existing system. But you're right- that certainly doesn't hack it in terms of scientific proof/evidence.

However, there are a number of studies which have looked at the population of the close to 13,000 firefighters and EMTs which were on site for either a single day or longer. Since these people are monitored for lung function by spirometry as part of their employment, there is good baseline data on their respiratory function. 92% of the over 13,000 first responders were studied. Some 3% of firefighters showed some compromise in lung function immediately following 9/11 which increased to 18% (IIRC) eventually stabilizing at 13% after 7 years. It is not uncommon for firefighters to have compromised lung function after exposure to a fire, but this reduction in lung function is typically short lived. EMTs fared worse, with some 22% showing compromised lung function.

It seems pretty clear that the toxic soup people were breathing after 9/11 had some pretty nasty effects. We've got baseline data on people both before and immediately after exposure, While there were some measurements of the cloud of dust formed after 9/11, I haven't looked at how good that data is. But it's clear that there is some good work that's taken place following the first responders of 9/11. Here are some links:

http://ehstoday.com/fire_emergencyresponse/news/exposure-world-trade-center-attack-asthma-ptsd-5640/

http://ehstoday.com/fire_emergencyresponse/news/world-trade-center-dust-lasting-lung-damage-4014/

The NEJM article here: http://hesa.etui-rehs.org/uk/newsevents/files/1263.pdf

showed that firefighters tend to lose between 25 and 50 mL of lung function (basically air expired) over a 7 year period. I think the baseline was from 109 firefighters in Boston. In contrast, firefighters at 9/11 showed a decrease of some 500-600 mL of lung function- so it's clearly not even close to the noise level. Note that the authors commented that protective gear was unavailable and used sporadically amongst the population.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

From my perspective, Republicans have had trouble with science when it disagrees with their agenda. The debate over the science of global climate change springs to mind- the science is clear- the political solutions are not. Here again, the science is clear- far more clear than global warming. Yet again, when science would suggest spending money, the Republicans dig in their heels. I think this type of behavior is despicable, especially given the Republican penchant to drape themselves in the flag around 9/11.

In terms of the timing- well, what may be the definitive study was just published in the NEJM this past April- so perhaps the Democrats were also waiting to discover how bad things were before getting into a fight with the Republicans?

quote:

It's called "due diligence", something which strictly emotional appeals fail to do.

quote:

You and others claim that it's been 9 years, and nothing has happened, and therefore it is the Republicans fault, although the Democrats held control of the Congress for the last four years, and a veto proof majority and the Presidency for the last two years ... yet you assign no blame or onus to them.

quote:




I agree that there is enough evidence that the events surrounding 9/11 had a detrimental effect on the people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

FR:

I guess I'm going to sound like the bad guy here, but a small part of me keeps asking why this is the Federal Government's responsibility at all?  These people were doing their job.  Emotionally I feel for them... it is horrible that they've suffered.  Rationally, I believe that employees in dangerous jobs need to be compensated for any injuries they incur in the line of duty... by the entity that employed them. 

It seems to me that if the State of New York, City of Manhattan, or any other entity that provided emergency services needs assistance in meeting their obligations, then they should be the ones petitioning for funding through FEMA.  If FEMA needs additional monies to meet that need, that should be addressed as a budget issue.  But no employee's welfare should be sacrificed in the meantime... those agencies should meet their obligations first, and seek assistance after the fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

FR:

I guess I'm going to sound like the bad guy here, but a small part of me keeps asking why this is the Federal Government's responsibility at all?  These people were doing their job.  Emotionally I feel for them... it is horrible that they've suffered.  Rationally, I believe that employees in dangerous jobs need to be compensated for any injuries they incur in the line of duty... by the entity that employed them. 

It seems to me that if the State of New York, City of Manhattan, or any other entity that provided emergency services needs assistance in meeting their obligations, then they should be the ones petitioning for funding through FEMA.  If FEMA needs additional monies to meet that need, that should be addressed as a budget issue.  But no employee's welfare should be sacrificed in the meantime... those agencies should meet their obligations first, and seek assistance after the fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"I'm not against helping the 9/11 responders, and truthfully (without doing a deep analysis of the bill to find out if it actually does what it purports to do) have no problem with it being passed.

But the rest of the political mix should also be evaluated before simply saying "Republicans BAAAAD!". That is simply a jerk-knee reaction. Looked at in the longer term, and all the other surrounding factors (some of which have not even been mentioned) I don't think "the blame" is as simplistic as it is being painted.

Of course you'll disagree. And it's thinking such as yours that has gotten us to a place where bills such as this have trouble getting passed. "

Sorry Firm- but the facts disagree with this statement.

1) Its been 9 years since 9/11. Fact gathering will never be complete, but clearly people who were injured during the course of their jobs are basically still screwed. I gave you a first hand account of one such individual. Given the mass of pollutants measured in the thousands of tonnes in a relatively small area (higher concentrations than a coal mine) spewed into the air when those buildings collapsed, it is quite conceivable that tens of thousands received injury to their respiratory system. What's your time frame for fact gathering if 9 years hasn't been enough? 50 years will work well- most of the people injured should be dead by then.

2) Last time I checked- if you disagree with something in a bill- that's something that can be debated. Additional fact gathering? Perhaps a smaller amount of payout per individual? Fine- debate that, but filibustering prevents debate. The Republican actions here aren't saying that this bill either has or doesn't have merit- they're saying we don't want to discuss it.

3) Blaming the Democrats for failure to govern here is Hitler Big Lie psychology. The distortions coming out of the Republican party in this case are so gross as to beggar the imagination. This is one party blaming the other for its failure to take responsibility for its own actions. It actually becomes very hard to debate anyone when the facts are so distorted as they are here.

4) In short- there's a problem. I laid it out for you. The response I've heard is that the Republicans are blocking progress here because it's the Democrats fault for not giving in to them for passing tax cuts for the wealthy. This is no way to govern.

5) I'll say it again. By Einstein's definition of crazy- doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result- the Republicans and their supporters have gone crazy. It's like the financial disaster of 2007-2008 never happened and had no relationship to the actions of those in power. Two years later, those same people are clamoring to do the same thing all over again....The only reason the rich folks in this country need a tax break is because they support the Republicans financially. Absent that support and things collapse.

Sam,

I've always respected you, even though we rarely agree.

That respect is based on a couple of facts:

1.  You use the scientific methodology and logic to make your arguments.

2.  You recognize that others may come to differing views, using the same methodology, and while you may disagree on the final result, you  respect the process.

I'd ask you to reconsider some of your facts:

The example you gave me was heart-rendering, and personal.  But it was anecdotal and not scientifically valid.

You and others claim that it's been 9 years, and nothing has happened, and therefore it is the Republicans fault, although the Democrats held control of the Congress for the last four years, and a veto proof majority and the Presidency for the last two years ... yet you assign no blame or onus to them.

I am familar with another case of "something is making everyone sick!" i.e. the dreaded "Gulf War Syndrome" of which I am part of the tracking database, and which has been proven not to exist, despite the massive publicity otherwise.  The same with the "deadly dangers of depleted uranium".  So emotional appeals, no matter how heart-rending, are invalid.  And no one - in the video on from the OP, nor none of the "Republicans are heartless" crowd have offered one iota of real proof that this is anything different in this case.

Not saying there isn't.  But all the "arguments" here so far are emotional, not logical, not rational, and certainly not anything that gives the slight bit of support to spending $7.4 billion dollars.

Please reconsider.

Firm