Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Blaming the Democrats For 9/11 Responders Bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:16 AM
Original message
Blaming the Democrats For 9/11 Responders Bill
Can someone explain what is going on concerning the Democrats and the 9/11 responders bill? I am not completely clueless about this issue, but it seems media coverage of this issue is changing. In addition, I have never heard the complete story from the beginning. When the story first came out it seemed that it was reported that the Republican tried to attach a meaningless amendment to the bill in order to force Democrats to vote for or aganist an unpopular issue. As a result of the amendment being place in the bill the Democrats decided to use a particular procedure to bring the bill to a vote. Once the bill was brought to a vote most Democrats voted for the bill while most Republicans voted against the bill.

After the vote, Representative Anthony Weiner angerily criticized Republicans. Days later a contraversy erupted when Representative Peter King blamed Democrats for the bill's failure. Since then there have been people in the media who have followed suit and tried to blame the Democrats for the results of the vote. This morning Representative Weiner was on Morning Joe discussing the issue. Joe Scarborough was trying to criticize Representative Weiner and the Democrats claiming they should not have brought the bill to the floor under the rules which they did.

So, can someone explain to me what actually happened? I do not blame the Democrats for the failure of the bill. More republicans could have voted for the bill. However, I do want to have an understanding of what happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. Democrats decided to use a different rule on this bill that made it
where two thirds were needed to pass it..In this political climate is it even possible to get two thirds on anything? They used this procedure so there couldn't be any amendments added but they did so knowing it had zero chance of passing. So yes it is entirely the Democrats fault it did not pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Disagree
I disagree with you on this issue. Democrats were trying to prevent the Republicans from placing an amendment that would have prevented any illegal immigrants who were at ground zero from getting any of the money. Republicans should not have tried the amend the bill in such a way. Yes, the Democrats could have just voted down the amendment, but the Republicans should not have played politics with the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Gidney N Cloyd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Right. The pubs wanted to have their political cake and eat it, too.
Pubs wanted to look good voting for the 911 bill AND make the Democrats look bad (in some quarters) for killing their evil little amendment. And that's even assuming that the bill would pass by simple majority if the Hispanic caucus (and any sympathizers) bailed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
offmybrain Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. taken from Wiki
In the United States Senate, Rule XVI prohibits amendments that propose general legislation to appropriations legislations. To prevent a point of order from killing the amendment, a Senator may offer a motion to suspend rule XVI, paragraph 4, essentially making the order germane. This motion requires a 2/3 majority to approve, meaning that it rarely passes. It should not be confused with a motion to waive the Budget Act, which requires a 3/5 vote to pass and applies to amendments that spend in amounts that exceed the levels set out in the annual budget resolution, as well as many other financial issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
4. The bottom line is: most Republicans voted *against* the 9/11 responders.
A "no" vote is still a "no" vote.

They voted against the bill not against the procedure.(If they voted against the procedure then they're idiots).

It's indefensible either way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul 23rd 2017, 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC