( S. 1334 ) We struck a deal? A fu*king DEAL?!

[Earth_First]

Another closed-door meeting with Republican opposition to a bill which never should have been bartered for tax breaks in the first place?!?

on edit: as details emerge...

[Earth_First]

1. Context here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4669975

[DavidDvorkin]

23. Politics is the art of the possible

But not according to DU.

[Richardo]

2. I'd like to buy a vowel

WTH are you talking about?

[Skinner]

3. Screw their deal! We should have just passed the bill with 59 votes! (nt)

[patrice]

5. Did "we" have those 59? nt

[Tx4obama]

6. LOL :) n/t

[patrice]

4. Are you a 9/11 Responder? If so, do you speak for all 9/11 Responders that they'd prefer no care to

a deal?

[Earth_First]

7. Admitedly I am not...

My concern is that most "deals" as of late have stripped key portions of legislation that are of the center of the issue.

So what has been stripped? What language has been changed to loophole someone out of the equation?

What favor are we trading on this one, and which demographic gets screwed next as a part of this "deal" in future legislative wrangling...?!?

[patrice]

11. I completely agree with you that the terms of the deals should be made public.

This would only be fair to us, so we have half a chance of doing something about deals that are not in our best interest.

You'd think you'd be able to ask your rep/sen what constituted the deal, in a given piece of legislation, but I'm sure that they have ways of claiming plausible deniability as to the terms of the deals that they make.

[emulatorloo]

12. No offense but that is a totally knee-jerk reaction

[Tx4obama]

16. See comment #15. n/t

[Earth_First]

18. Thanks...

I just came across this.

[lame54]

22. I'm fucking sick of that argument...

it means we always have to settle instead of fighting for what's right

"If it wasn't for those sweat shops those kids in China wouldn't eat at all"

[patrice]

25. False dichotomy. "Fighting for what's right" has many forms that are not limited to hurting

people who have already been hurt.

[BzaDem]

27. If I were making a silly argument, I'd be "sick" of obvious counterpoints as well. n/t

[lame54]

31. It's the same shit that has been said many times...

on this board about the horrible tax cut "deal"

"Don't you want the unemployed to get a check?"

Of course I do - but not by continuing the problem that has been shown to be the cause of the deep shit we are in.

The Bush tax cuts are nothing more than a leak in an otherwise effective tax structure. To allow the repugs to USE the unemployed as hostages to get what they want is deplorable.

And now they are using the 9/11 first responders as hostages to get what they want - the same heroes that they trumpeted at every turn to get their way - now they are using their illnesses against them and in the end they short-changed them.

and in the end I'm supposed to applaud the great "deal" we got from a party that holds neither the congress or the senate.

The next 2 years are going to be so much better.

[BzaDem]

32. But what you want isn't an option (no matter how much you wish or hope or plead it was).

The option was the current deal or no deal. You pretending that there was somehow a third option does not ACTUALLY create a third option.

4.2 billion dollars is not shortchanging them relative to 0 dollars. Using the wrong baseline does not change the actual baseline.

[Tx4obama]

8. It was NOT a horse trading deal. It was deal to change some text/language, funding, etc. n/t

[toddwv]

9. I understand, that was my thought as well.

The OP is talking about the "9/11 Responders Health Care Bill". This is not a bill that should have needed any negotiation. The Republicans were taking a huge hit over their attempts to block it.

[HuckleB]

19. So we should have let the bill die?

:shrug:

[toddwv]

30. I guess the Repubs are assuming that all the 9/11 responders will be dead within 5 years

"The agreement reduces the total cost of the bill, closes the compensation fund after five years, and limits attorneys fees."

Should have let the Republicans sweat it out a bit more. Instead, once again, they piss all over the bill, watering it down just so they can make whatever political point that they are trying to make.

[Tx4obama]

21. Some times negotiaitons make bills better :) n/t

[patrice]

24. True that!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. Closing tax loopholes for international corporations that create jobs elsewhere?

I fucking hate Republicans!!

[Cutatious]

13. Wots Uh The Deal?

Not everyone has access to TV at work or even at home.

[Tx4obama]

14. Details - below - reduction of the $$$

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has dropped his objections to the 9/11 first responders bill, which will allow Dems to circumvent procedural roadblocks and pass it quickly this afternoon.

Dems rounded up the votes they needed to break Coburn's filibuster earlier this week, and spent much of the morning and early afternoon negotiating with him to prevent him from delaying passage of the legislation by several days.

Coburn's price: a reduction of the price tag from $6.2 billion to $4.2 billion.

The legislation would provide first responders with five years of health care coverage and give them fresh access to a compensation fund for people who became ill because of exposure to harmful inhalants at ground zero.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/911-bill-to-pass-unencumbered.php?ref=fpa

[Tx4obama]

15. More IMPORTANT details below

From Alan Colmes' website

Coburn emerged from a closed-door meeting that included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and New York Democrats Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand to reveal that that a deal has been worked out that will likely enable the bill to pass the Senate – and then the House – by the end of the day.

“I’ll stand in the way of anything that doesn’t make sense and doesn’t spend our money wisely, so you know, it doesn’t matter what the issue is, we’re in such a hole, Jon, that we don’t have the luxury of not getting things right,” Coburn told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl. “And so we’ve come to an agreement that costs less, doesn’t allow double-dipping, doesn’t allow exorbitant lawyer fees, and we’ve worked it out and so we’re going to take care of the folks, but we’re going to do it in a way that doesn’t punish the people that are going to pay the bill.”

“But the way you’ve been hammered on this, standing against the heroes of 9/11…,” replied Karl.

Coburn said he wasn’t standing against the workers, “I’m standing for us as America.”

The compromise mandates the closing of the Victims Compensation Fund within five years, limits fees paid out to attorneys, and closes loopholes that allow people to re-file claims that have previously been rejected by the Fund, a source told ABC News.

http://www.alan.com/2010/12/22/deal-reached-on-health-bill-for-9-11-first-responders/

[emulatorloo]

17. NYT details of the deal at this DU thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4670111&mesg_id=4670111

[Tx4obama]

20. The NYT article has 'some' of the details but not all of them..

NYT says:
The new version of the bill calls for providing $1.8 billion over the next five years to monitor and treat injuries stemming from exposure to toxic dust and debris at Ground Zero; New York City would pay 10 percent of these costs. The legislation also sets aside $2.5 billion to reopen the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund for five years to provide payment for job and economic losses.

An additional provision allows for money from the Compensation Fund to be paid to any eligible claimant who receives a payment under the settlement of lawsuits that 10,000 rescue and cleanup workers recently reached with New York. Currently, those who receive a settlement are limited in how much compensation they can get from the Fund, according to the bill’s sponsors.

-----
NYT doesn't mention other things that I listed up above from the Alan.com site such as the limiting of the attorney fees, etc.
But thanks for the link ;)

[emulatorloo]

29. Plus it is nice to know Alan Colmes is still among us.

[Tx4obama]

26. Everyone hurry and look at the HuffPo front page headline (before it changes)

Regarding 9/11 responders bill

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Pretty cool the way they did that with the 'heart'.

[SidDithers]

28. Damnit! I don't know what the deal was, but I'm against it!!!...

Sid

[11 Bravo]

33. Not good enough! If you truly wish to be a righteous DU lefty dude, you must rail more forcefully!