Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Why is this a new bill and not just part of VA funding and services?

(08-01-2022, 11:15 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of the cost shouldn't be a thing. I haven't read this bill, so I don't know enough to weigh in, but I can say that money has value for a reason.

Okay, should we put you down for something like, "supports the troops who gave their health defending the country unless it'll be expensive to do so?"

(08-01-2022, 11:36 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/CNN/status/155373927...d8d840ee26

Bingo.. full of pork..

If they actually cared about veterans, the would have drafted a stand alone bill..

(08-01-2022, 11:19 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Why is this a new bill and not just part of VA funding and services?

This is specific to burn pits in Iraq & Afghanistan. It also has some language for Vietnam vets exposed to agent orange and another group I can't think of right now. 

I don't know how it all works in how money is distributed for organizations like VA as opposed to VA plus groups with specific issues as in the case of OEF & OIF vets exposed to toxic substances. Evidently specific language has to go into specific bills in order for things to happen. 

Fraud, waste and abuse in government spending is the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars. I thought it was ironic that there were always signs plastered everywhere on Army installations advising soldiers to be on the lookout for and report any fraud, waste and abuse as well as warning what would happen if caught. There were also tons of PSAs on AFN (Armed Forces Network tv and radio) about it when I lived in Germany. The people warning us were the very ones committing the act.

(08-01-2022, 11:52 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-01-2022, 11:36 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/CNN/status/155373927...d8d840ee26

Bingo.. full of pork..

If they actually cared about veterans, the would have drafted a stand alone bill..

The only "pork" I saw in some reading was a sentence that said 'funding for veterans of toxic chemicals and other funding.'  But that was stricken from the original bill if I read things correctly. So what was the 'other funding' for? Was it the $400M? Who knows. If it's spelled out then it's somewhere else. 

The thing about these bills are they are both entirely too detailed and not detailed enough. For anyone not educated in how to read those things it's a nightmare to understand. Those of us most affected by them are at the mercy of those with an agenda.

(08-01-2022, 12:37 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-01-2022, 11:52 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]Bingo.. full of pork..

If they actually cared about veterans, the would have drafted a stand alone bill..

The only "pork" I saw in some reading was a sentence that said 'funding for veterans of toxic chemicals and other funding.'  But that was stricken from the original bill if I read things correctly. So what was the 'other funding' for? Was it the $400M? Who knows. If it's spelled out then it's somewhere else. 

The thing about these bills are they are both entirely too detailed and not detailed enough. For anyone not educated in how to read those things it's a nightmare to understand. Those of us most affected by them are at the mercy of those with an agenda.

According to Toomey, that dollar amount is $400B, not M. 

From what I gather it’s not pork in the bill, but the potential for pork because of the wording used in the funding language. Instead of having a set dollar amount devoted to the subject of the bill, democrats want an open ended amount that can be spent in other places. I could be wrong but that is the impression I’m getting.

(07-31-2022, 03:37 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2022, 01:19 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]The Summary is fallacy, show me the hidden crap…

When you're so easily convinced by politicians, despite never even daring to read the summary, that there is something wrong with a bill, then you're playing yourself for a stooge. Go ahead and read the bill (or at least the summary), it's a bill they voted to approve a few weeks ago, nothing changed.

They're playing politics with veterans lives.

Wrong.  The original bill passed the Senate with major support.  When it got to the House, democrats changed the language.

(08-01-2022, 12:49 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-01-2022, 12:37 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]The only "pork" I saw in some reading was a sentence that said 'funding for veterans of toxic chemicals and other funding.'  But that was stricken from the original bill if I read things correctly. So what was the 'other funding' for? Was it the $400M? Who knows. If it's spelled out then it's somewhere else. 

The thing about these bills are they are both entirely too detailed and not detailed enough. For anyone not educated in how to read those things it's a nightmare to understand. Those of us most affected by them are at the mercy of those with an agenda.

According to Toomey, that dollar amount is $400B, not M. 

From what I gather it’s not pork in the bill, but the potential for pork because of the wording used in the funding language. Instead of having a set dollar amount devoted to the subject of the bill, democrats want an open ended amount that can be spent in other places. I could be wrong but that is the impression I’m getting.

Winner, winner chicken dinner.

No politician whether they are Republican or democrat wants to be seen as "killing a bill that helps veterans".  However, a few had the correct principals to stop this bill.  The democrats as well as the "MSM state controlled media" would have you believe that Republicans "don't want to help veterans".

(08-01-2022, 11:25 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-01-2022, 11:15 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of the cost shouldn't be a thing. I haven't read this bill, so I don't know enough to weigh in, but I can say that money has value for a reason.

Okay, should we put you down for something like, "supports the troops who gave their health defending the country unless it'll be expensive to do so?"

How about you put me down for something like common [BLEEP] sense. I get so tired of people being led around by their emotions instead of using their brains. How about you personally pay for our veterans since you care about them so much? What's that? You don't have that money? No [BLEEP]. This country can't afford to keep spending recklessly. Inflation is out of control because we throw money around like it's trash. If what Toomey is saying is true (and I don't know if it is), why don't you point that loudmouth back at the democrats for making a stupid loophole? Why can you only look in one direction?

(08-01-2022, 12:49 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-01-2022, 12:37 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]The only "pork" I saw in some reading was a sentence that said 'funding for veterans of toxic chemicals and other funding.'  But that was stricken from the original bill if I read things correctly. So what was the 'other funding' for? Was it the $400M? Who knows. If it's spelled out then it's somewhere else. 

The thing about these bills are they are both entirely too detailed and not detailed enough. For anyone not educated in how to read those things it's a nightmare to understand. Those of us most affected by them are at the mercy of those with an agenda.

According to Toomey, that dollar amount is $400B, not M. 

From what I gather it’s not pork in the bill, but the potential for pork because of the wording used in the funding language. Instead of having a set dollar amount devoted to the subject of the bill, democrats want an open ended amount that can be spent in other places. I could be wrong but that is the impression I’m getting.

Typo. 

Why do these jacktards have to screw people over? And I mean all of them. This petty BS is ridiculous. They all act like petulant children not getting what they want and we the people get screwed over.

(08-01-2022, 11:25 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-01-2022, 11:15 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of the cost shouldn't be a thing. I haven't read this bill, so I don't know enough to weigh in, but I can say that money has value for a reason.

Okay, should we put you down for something like, "supports the troops who gave their health defending the country unless it'll be expensive to do so?"

Should we put you down for something like, "blindly supports a bill based on emotion without know all of the facts"?

Fact Check: Are Senate Republicans Really 'Blocking' Healthcare for Veterans?

ou've likely heard something about those nasty, awful Senate Republicans blocking a veterans' healthcare bill.  Comedian, activist, and under-informed scold Jon Stewart has been screaming about it to anyone who will listen -- and Democrats are indignantly attacking the GOP over it, generating dutifully partisan news coverage.  The tendentious, one-sided, lacking-in-context story goes like this: There's a bipartisan bill to fund needed care for US military veterans exposed to toxic burn pits in war zones, but out of a sudden fit of pique and partisan pettiness, Republicans have decided to obstruct the funding.  The resulting outcry entails the familiar claim that the GOP has 'blood on its hands,' which is how basically all of their stances are assailed by all the usual suspects.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/...nLQZ_4l4HI

(08-01-2022, 11:36 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/CNN/status/155373927...d8d840ee26

I think that's pretty convincing.

(08-01-2022, 09:37 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]The only thing mandatory spending does is stops it from being easily cut in the future. If you support actually helping veterans regardless of the cost, people who sacrificed their health for the nation, then there's no reason to block the bill for that.

I do not support anything "regardless of the cost."

It’s sad but it goes to show just how willing the left is to allow themselves to be led by a media which no longer qualifies as journalistic. This is the same media that has been proven time and time again to obfuscate, ignore and outright lie in order to advance the democrat agenda, yet not one attempt at skepticism or fact checking from the voting left. And why should they? The loudest microphone in the room is blaring their dogma, the truth be damned.

The fact the leftist headlines blared Republican opposition to a veterans cause should have been the first indication that intentional disinformation was afoot. But instead of questioning the reports, they firmly planted their heads up Jon Stewart’s anus and swung for the fences. It’s tough to oppose people who are so willing to cast the truth aside for the sake of political gain. Stalin is smiling up from Hell.

I've said for years now that the media is the biggest problem in the US. I never minded left or right bias that was held in check by journalistic standards, but now that those standards have been removed, there is no truth.

I've always appreciated Jon Stewart's passion for standing up for the armed forces even though I disagree with his political leaning. When I initially heard his rant on CSpan I was there for it practically cheering him on. I should have known (some of) his rant would be disingenuous and stir up a [BLEEP] storm that has devolved into what we see now. He was right to rant against the Senate because they are pretty useless and most of what he said is 100%, but to omit certain information to stir the pot is the definition of spreading disinformation. Something the liberals howl from the mountaintop that only conservatives do. 

(08-02-2022, 05:28 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-01-2022, 09:37 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]The only thing mandatory spending does is stops it from being easily cut in the future. If you support actually helping veterans regardless of the cost, people who sacrificed their health for the nation, then there's no reason to block the bill for that.

I do not support anything "regardless of the cost."

If it's within our power to heal them then I say whatever the cost is fine. If it's not, then they should get whatever medical treatment can lessen the issue. Regardless of the cost.

When someone goes into a war theater and is injured following unnecessary orders, especially if their superiors should have known they were likely to be injured (having people tend toxic burn pits seems an obvious case of likely to injure), then they should be cared for to the best of the country's ability to do so.

(08-02-2022, 03:31 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-02-2022, 05:28 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I do not support anything "regardless of the cost."

If it's within our power to heal them then I say whatever the cost is fine. If it's not, then they should get whatever medical treatment can lessen the issue. Regardless of the cost.

When someone goes into a war theater and is injured following unnecessary orders, especially if their superiors should have known they were likely to be injured (having people tend toxic burn pits seems an obvious case of likely to injure), then they should be cared for to the best of the country's ability to do so.

What if it costs so much that the country is finally bankrupted to the point where we don't have a country any more?  Would you pay that cost?  Would you use the entire federal budget to heal them?  Obviously not.  So I doubt that you would pay "any cost, no matter how much" to heal them.

(08-02-2022, 03:37 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-02-2022, 03:31 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]If it's within our power to heal them then I say whatever the cost is fine. If it's not, then they should get whatever medical treatment can lessen the issue. Regardless of the cost.

When someone goes into a war theater and is injured following unnecessary orders, especially if their superiors should have known they were likely to be injured (having people tend toxic burn pits seems an obvious case of likely to injure), then they should be cared for to the best of the country's ability to do so.

What if it costs so much that the country is finally bankrupted to the point where we don't have a country any more?  Would you pay that cost?  Would you use the entire federal budget to heal them?  Obviously not.  So I doubt that you would pay "any cost, no matter how much" to heal them.

If there is actually a medical solution for them that costs that much then I say do it. I don't think there would be, I mean, is the cure grinding up priceless paintings and injecting them with it?

Just because you would put a price on their lives and say, "I don't think I should have to pay that much for the wrongdoings of those I put in power," doesn't mean we're all that way. I think that's the biggest problem with a lot of people have is they don't want to be held accountable for anything. The United States, via elected officials and the army they formed, did this, the United States needs to do whatever is within its power to fix it.