John Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 apparently tax cuts for millionaires are more important thanks GOP!http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jCSDWfH_Nlun4HSUI4iugsRg1t8w?docId=dd379956b88b415badc51c1f47532f409/11 health bill falls short in Senate test vote(AP) – 7 hours agoWASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans on Thursday derailed a bill to aid people who got sick after exposure to dust from the World Trade Center's collapse in the Sept. 11 attack.Supporters were three votes short of the 60 needed to proceed to debate and a final vote on the bill that would have provided as much as $7.4 billion in health care and compensation to 9/11 responders and survivors. The bill failed on a test vote, 57-42.Fifty-seven Democrats voted for the bill and 41 Republicans opposed it. Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, switched his vote to 'no' at the last moment, a parliamentary move that allows him to bring the measure up again for a vote.Backers of the legislation see this lame-duck session of Congress as possibly its last chance. The bill has passed the House.Republican senators have promised not to consider any other bills until the Senate acts on funding the government and extending tax cuts.The defeat was a huge blow to New York and New Jersey lawmakers who have long fought for the measure, arguing it's morally wrong to not do more for the health needs of ailing 9/11 responders and survivors."We should not have to wait for tax deals to do what's right," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., a lead advocate of the bill.Facing long odds, supporters will try to attach the 9/11 bill to the legislation that emerges from the tax deal. They'll also press for another vote once the tax issue is settled.Critics questioned whether the bill is affordable and does enough to ensure that only people with illnesses related to trade center dust get help.Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 It's understandable. I wouldn't want all those millionaire first responders to double-dip with tax cuts AND health care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 i feel like it didn't pass because of add ons or pork fat or whatever the hell they call it. I say this only because who the hell would vote this down? I don't have much of a heart left and even I would be in favor of this.disclaimer: I've read nothing into the bill and no zero facts, just going on an asshole like assumption Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 The Republicans will pass it when it comes to a real vote. They didn't vote against it, rather, they blocked the ability for the bill to come to a vote. They have vowed to block all legislation until a tax bill passes.It is important for the tax issue to be dealt with first. After all, millionaires need to hold on to this 4% tax cut so that they continue to not create the same sort of jobs that they did not create in the 7 years that they've enjoyed the temporary cuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 The Republicans will pass it when it comes to a real vote. They didn't vote against it, rather, they blocked the ability for the bill to come to a vote. They have vowed to block all legislation until a tax bill passes.It is important for the tax issue to be dealt with first. After all, millionaires need to hold on to this 4% tax cut so that they continue to not create the same sort of jobs that they did not create in the 7 years that they've enjoyed the temporary cuts.I don't know about large corporations but the owner of my company probably qualified for some of those cuts and not being able to create more jobs had nothing to do with tax cuts. It had EVERYTHING to do with Strickland and Obama fucking the oil and gas industry without lube. Granted we did add about 20 jobs over the course of the last 2 years, we could have and should have added a bunch more laborers to take on more work that was supposed to come around until it was blocked by the wonderful powers that be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 Granted we did add about 20 jobs over the course of the last 2 years, we could have and should have added a bunch more laborers to take on more work that was supposed to come around until it was blocked by the wonderful powers that beThat's interesting, Strickland and Obama were in their offices the last two years. How many jobs were added from 2001-2008? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 That's interesting, Strickland and Obama were in their offices the last two years. How many jobs were added from 2001-2008?I believe it was somewhere around 30-40. We moved to our current office in 06 and added 3 office workers, 2 mechanics, 2 yard hands and somewhere around 30 union laborers. This is not counting myself since I was technically a "seasonal" or intern per say. We went from about 45 in our company to 110 over the course of 06-09. Due to circumstances that have nothing to do with government regulations or taxes, we are going to be back down to 50 and hopefully rebuilding quickly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 You don't think the gov't had any effect on the fact that you averaged 40 jobs added over 8 years, vs 20 over the last 2 years?Nothing at all? I mean, the gov't affects your suppliers and customers too, giving them more proclivity to buy or sell you their goods/services as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 You don't think the gov't had any effect on the fact that you averaged 40 jobs added over 8 years, vs 20 over the last 2 years?Nothing at all? I mean, the gov't affects your suppliers and customers too, giving them more proclivity to buy or sell you their goods/services as well.No no, I meant the reason why we are downsizing has nothing to do with any new regulations or taxes. Some of them hinder the process to quickly get back to where we were, but in the long run we shouldn't have much of an issue to get back to the size we've been and would like to beThe added employees in the field was directly related to a government mandate in 06 to our main customer to replace thousands of miles of natural gas pipelines called PIR projects over the next 10 years. Now who was in charge of this push, I have no idea nor do I really care so long as it continues to come to fruition. Our customer approached us with this info and we took the necessary steps to ramp up and be able to handle the work as we are one of the few contractors they use that could handle the size and type of projects. The problem is a lot of this has been put on hold due to regulations and things that were done by Ohio lawmakers, including the cap and trade BS that basically would've killed 90% of the work promisedAlso, we have made a large push to work in Pennsylvania due to a shale play that will be extremely productive for at least 25-30 years. Their state regulations are so much easier than Ohio its crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulcan_Rider Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 right because the bush era tax cuts only applied to the wealthy and did not effect anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 I work under the assumption that everyone is evil.I just like having the option to pick and choose every so often when it comes to the gov't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 right because the bush era tax cuts only applied to the wealthy and did not effect anyone else.No one is saying that. And for the most part, all sides agree that the tax cuts should be extended for the middle and lower class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 If they're extended for the middle and lower classes' date=' then they ought to be extended for the upper class, as well.[/quote']At the expense of.....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 I think it's fair that people proportionally pay according to the wealth they're trying to protect. They wouldn't have what they have unless the gov't defended it for them, no?Unless you think there should be more Blackwater-types? With no accountability to anyone.In other news: NYC Proposes "Accident Tax" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.