Jon Stewart delivers angry speech to congress for lack of attendance to 9/11 first responders bill.

a reply to: projectvxn

Ah yes, the libertarian approach to all things. What a load of crap. How do you feel about soldiers getting injured in combat? By your logic, they shouldn't be compensated by the military, they should just be able to go to the Wounded Warrior Project where they will receive a bag of swag with their logo on it and not much else.

If you joined the military without knowing whether you'd be compensated for injuries that is your own problem.

Yes, it's theater. Which has people talking, which has people demanding action from congress, which is THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

These people were literally thrust into combat on September 11th, 2001 and NONE OF THEM WERE COMBATANTS. They responded anyway.

Your stance, even on its face is bull#. They responded to an attack on our country. Is that not enough, in your eyes, to provide compensation for their injuries and illnesses?

Look at the countless and underfunded charities and volunteers. That's all you dependents can do is make demands while those who act have been doing so for decades, with or without your help.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

That's the point I'm trying to make. You expect things.

I expect my employees to be taken care of if they are injured in the line of duty, and I have no shame in that.

There is nothing stopping you and the rest of the country from "chipping in a little".

I do, they're called taxes. And while I don't believe in hand outs, soldiers and first responders aren't asking for that.


Edit: there is irony in your viewpoint IMO though, you expect those who serve their country fend for themselves if they get injured in the line of duty. Is that not just benefiting from the spoils without being obligated to pay your part towards that service?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

That's the point I'm trying to make. You expect things.

I expect my employees to be taken care of if they are injured in the line of duty, and I have no shame in that.

There is nothing stopping you and the rest of the country from "chipping in a little".

I do, they're called taxes. And while I don't believe in hand outs, soldiers and first responders aren't asking for that.

Again that's my point. We expect others to take care us, but refuse to take care of anyone ourselves.

Look at your taxes at work. They more likely payed for photocopies than someone's injuries.

Edit: there is irony in your viewpoint IMO though, you expect those who serve their country fend for themselves if they get injured in the line of duty. Is that not just benefiting from the spoils without being obligated to pay your part towards that service?

That's not true. I do not expect soldiers to fend for themselves. I expect families, friends, communities, to fend for our soldiers. You expect the government to do so.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

If you joined the military without knowing whether you'd be compensated for injuries that is your own problem.

Nice strawman, but not even in the ballpark of the same argument.

Look at the countless and underfunded charities and volunteers. That's all you dependents can do is make demands while those who act have been doing so for decades, with or without your help.

Still haven't addressed any points. Just more BS and name-calling.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

If you joined the military without knowing whether you'd be compensated for injuries that is your own problem.

Nice strawman, but not even in the ballpark of the same argument.

Look at the countless and underfunded charities and volunteers. That's all you dependents can do is make demands while those who act have been doing so for decades, with or without your help.

Still haven't addressed any points. Just more BS and name-calling.

If you cannot defend your position, that's fine.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Again that's my point. We expect others to take care us, but refuse to take care of anyone ourselves.

That's a weird point to have. I don't think anyone has talked about asking for anything for us normal folk. I've been employed since I was 14, I've had health insurance most of that time through my employers whom I provide services for. I don't take or ask for handouts.

This isn't about me or you. It's about employees who got injured performing their job functions, it's common expectations if you get injured in the line of work, the employer picks up that tab.

You're reaching long and far to double down on your "point". Your point seems to be that our employees should be in limbo and rely on some optional charity from citizens, which would be an optional tax as it's going towards a government function.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Again that's my point. We expect others to take care us, but refuse to take care of anyone ourselves.

That's a weird point to have. I don't think anyone has talked about asking for anything for us normal folk. I've been employed since I was 14, I've had health insurance most of that time through my employers whom I provide services for. I don't take or ask for handouts.

This isn't about me or you. It's about employees who got injured performing their job functions, it's common expectations if you get injured in the line of work, the employer picks up that tab.

You're reaching long and far to double down on your "point". Your point seems to be that our employees should be in limbo and rely on some optional charity from citizens, which would be an optional tax as it's going towards a government function.

No, it's a common expectation if it is in the contract, otherwise it's little more than an assumption.

It's not about me or you but you keep making about me.

My point is that we would do better if we helped each other, if we acted instead of played the activist.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

My point is that we would do better if we helped each other, if we acted instead of played the activist.

Same thing.

They should use the already sourced tax money. You're right, they blow a lot of it, and they can take it from some dumb program for all I care.

But advocating the government shouldn't foot the bill for something they should already do with our money they already have leaving citizens to donate means extra money out of the citizens pockets.

Essentially an added tax.

We're not trying to reform the first responder system, we're saying on one day our nation was attacked... So that made that localities first responders a national concern. We're not advocating that every first responder gets health bills paid for life by the federal government... We're saying we have an anomaly here, and it shouldn't be too hard to address it.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

My point is that we would do better if we helped each other, if we acted instead of played the activist.

Same thing.

They should use the already sourced tax money. You're right, they blow a lot of it, and they can take it from some dumb program for all I care.

But advocating the government shouldn't foot the bill for something they should already do with our money they already have leaving citizens to donate means extra money out of the citizens pockets.

Essentially an added tax.

We're not trying to reform the first responder system, we're saying on one day our nation was attacked... So that made that localities first responders a national concern. We're not advocating that every first responder gets health bills paid for life by the federal government... We're saying we have an anomaly here, and it shouldn't be too hard to address it.

If it is a national concern then why doesn't Stewart and others like him go give their money (which you would spend on taxes anyway), their time, their energy, and give it to someone in need of it?

People do, and have been doing so for decades now. Why won't you join them?

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

People do, and have been doing so for decades now. Why won't you join them?

You're operating under the assumption that I haven't already, I have though it was a modest within my means amount, and I like that other people have too, and it's a great show of our nations generosity when we come together and help one another.

But these people shouldn't have to worry about if that will sustain. The government spent 6~ trillion on wars post 9/11 as a reaction to 2 thousand plus people dying. I think they can allocate a few million to make a fund so the responders dealing with the ramifications of that day don't have to worry about medical bills.

I think our hypocrisy is deafening we're willing to spend trillions of dollars and sacrifice more lives than the initial attack, and also let those who are still suffering from their sacrifices kick rocks.

I also find it's usually the pro war crowd complaining about what tax money goes to, but they don't complain about the cost of war.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
If it is a national concern then why doesn't Stewart and others like him go give their...time...

Isn't him going before Congress to speak and hosting charity events for this fund giving his time? Plus I liked that he yelled at Congress, it didn't make me les miserable as they say in French.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

We have forgotten. It's so crazy to know we went from 'never forget' to electing muslim congress members who call our president a mother-f***er and other such things all while expressing anti-american sentiment to the extreme. All in under 20 years. We have forgotten. At least a lot of us have. Including much of the population of ground zero.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The government spent 6~ trillion on wars post 9/11 as a reaction to 2 thousand plus people dying. I think they can allocate a few million to make a fund so the responders dealing with the ramifications of that day don't have to worry about medical bills.

The first responders all had health insurance of some sort I would imagine, many of them being government employees. Shouldn't their health insurance or their employers insurance be paying these bills?

I think our hypocrisy is deafening we're willing to spend trillions of dollars and sacrifice more lives than the initial attack, and also let those who are still suffering from their sacrifices kick rocks.

Two points
1) The logic behind the counter attack was to snuff out the threat for future generations. Whether it was a success or failure doesn't detract from that purpose, which was a fine purpose.
2) It shouldn't come as a surprise. We leave our veterans homeless on the street in this country.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

To be completely honest here, it bothers me that people act as if it's owed to them, when in fact it's a gift to them.

This is a tough one for the elected leaders to deal with. The actual first responders should have been covered already and I think they were. I suspect some of the recipients of government largess are and have been double dipping. The government can't also be insurance for us all. It would break the bank.

While I agree with helping them, there has to be a limit. The available money is limited and as was mentioned, they also have to deal with helping other victims of natural disasters out of the same pool of money.

They sued New York City and got a settlement, they got insurance pay outs and they go after the US Government, while people around them just as much in need rely on things like insurance and charity. We need to remember all of that is going through the law makers heads and of course the PR value of keeping the money flowing after 18 years.

I expect to see Stewart running for office soon. He's being pushed to run for President right now. I refuse to believe he's in it entirely for the victims. Celebrities never are.

I see Swalwell was one on the subcommittee who did not show up and he's been called out. His handlers messed up not having him there, but he's not really in the running anyway. He's an also ran I think.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
Man, the 'whataboutism' in this thread is staggering! Maybe y'all should save your vitriol for your representatives and stand up for your first responders, instead.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

People do, and have been doing so for decades now. Why won't you join them?

You're operating under the assumption that I haven't already, I have though it was a modest within my means amount, and I like that other people have too, and it's a great show of our nations generosity when we come together and help one another.

But these people shouldn't have to worry about if that will sustain. The government spent 6~ trillion on wars post 9/11 as a reaction to 2 thousand plus people dying. I think they can allocate a few million to make a fund so the responders dealing with the ramifications of that day don't have to worry about medical bills.

I think our hypocrisy is deafening we're willing to spend trillions of dollars and sacrifice more lives than the initial attack, and also let those who are still suffering from their sacrifices kick rocks.

I also find it's usually the pro war crowd complaining about what tax money goes to, but they don't complain about the cost of war.

Sorry, I do not mean you personally. It's just that more often than not, the belief that the government will take care of it and all we have to do is keep paying taxes is quite prevalent. It isn't long before blaming the government and activism replaces real meaningful action.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

My position is perfectly defensible.

You position is calling them beggars and name-calling those who disagree.

Right out of a certain playbook that you would otherwise criticize as being "left".

a reply to: Dfairlite

The insurers should be paying.

But for over a decade these people were told they were making it up.

Like agent orange, gulf war syndrome, and the open burnpits my generation of soldiers were exposed to.

If they had gotten a fair shake in this I'd likely agree that they are asking for a handout from the federal government. But that hasn't been the case.

9/11 has become little more than a faded memory and a cheap hash tag call to find patriotism from politicians. That's what we have boiled it down to. Hash tag activism.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

My position is perfectly defensible.

You position is calling them beggars and name-calling those who disagree.

Right out of a certain playbook that you would otherwise criticize as being "left".

That's a lie. My position is that petitioning the government is the very least one can do to help these people, that if you want to help you actually have to help.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

I knew you didn't mean me personally. I just used myself as an example, because many in this thread advocating for this are anti hand out.

And yes, it can be a slippery slope, but we can throw some bones once in a while.