Remember when going against anything 9/11 was labeled traitorous by the party that is now refusing to pass legislation on providing "medical care to rescue workers and others who became ill as a result of breathing in toxic fumes, dust and smoke at the site of the World Trade Center attack in 2001"?
So just to recap, giving continued tax breaks to the top income earners in this country to the tune of $130 billion without concerns on how to pay for it is totally fine, but $7.4 billion for taking care of the heroes (and I don't use that word lightly) of 9/11 is just too, damned expensive.Republicans have been raising concerns about how to pay for the $7.4 billion measure, while Democrats, led by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York, have argued that there was a moral obligation to assist those who put their lives at risk during rescue and cleanup operations at ground zero.
And these are the people that some say would have caved in on extending unemployment insurance if the Senate forced a Christmas vote because they say they're not heartless? I wouldn't have counted on that.
Here's Jon Stewart's take:
1 comment:
There are no words. There are no levels of comprehension where this makes any dent of sense.
Jennifer
Post a Comment