(07-30-2022, 09:08 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2022, 08:25 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently the Republicans are now blocking legislation to help sick veterans. For the staunch republican voters on the board, do you support this kind of move?
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/exposed-...s-veterans
What else was in that bill?
Nothing, it's a focused bill for helping sick veterans.
If you don't believe me you can read the text of it online, it's only a few pages long.
(07-30-2022, 08:25 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently the Republicans are now blocking legislation to help sick veterans. For the staunch republican voters on the board, do you support this kind of move?
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/exposed-...s-veterans
According to what I have seen, the original bill passed the Senate with major support and was sent to the House. Democrats in the House changed it in such a way that it affected where/how money would be spent and where it would come from. Senate Republicans refused the modified bill because of the budgetary shenanigans that were put into it.
So yes, I support the move.
(07-30-2022, 09:49 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2022, 09:08 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]What else was in that bill?
Nothing, it's a focused bill for helping sick veterans.
If you don't believe me you can read the text of it online, it's only a few pages long.
“Senator Toomey is asking for a fix to prevent the PACT ACT from being used to increase spending completely unrelated to veterans”
Sounds reasonable to me. He didn’t kill it, he didn’t shelve it.
This is what Jon Stewart went off about for 9 minutes on C-Span the other day. He said in another interview on Fox News that nothing had been changed from the original that had been approved except one line being omitted in this recent one. He didn't get a chance to say what that line was because the idiot Fox News guy kept interrupting him.
Seems the Republicans are pissy about the Manchin-Shumer deal even though that deal is very small.
I can't be outraged though. Health problems related to these burn pits have been going on for 30 years, since the 1st gulf war. Anybody who has been in Congress during that time has played a role in holding up this very necessary legislation. Unless you want to see another 9/11, you will never see any obvious, good, or necessary bill passed, everything is used for leverage and held up until the opportune time.
(07-30-2022, 12:05 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2022, 09:49 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Nothing, it's a focused bill for helping sick veterans.
If you don't believe me you can read the text of it online, it's only a few pages long.
“Senator Toomey is asking for a fix to prevent the PACT ACT from being used to increase spending completely unrelated to veterans”
Sounds reasonable to me. He didn’t kill it, he didn’t shelve it.
The reason I've heard is that the Republicans want the money appropriated as discretionary so they can cut it later. It's a pretty weird thing for them to say if they claim to care about veterans, since the bill only covers veterans health care.
Devils n the details, DemoRATS call bills all kinds of things that have nothing to do with what’s actually in the bill.
Less should be more
Maybe Schumer shouldn't have filled the bill with pork..
(07-31-2022, 08:27 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]Devils n the details, DemoRATS call bills all kinds of things that have nothing to do with what’s actually in the bill.
Less should be more
So you've read the bill?
(07-31-2022, 11:27 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2022, 08:27 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]Devils n the details, DemoRATS call bills all kinds of things that have nothing to do with what’s actually in the bill.
Less should be more
So you've read the bill?
No one’s read the bill, not the entire one..That’s the point
(07-31-2022, 11:53 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2022, 11:27 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]So you've read the bill?
No one’s read the bill, not the entire one..That’s the point
Why do you think that? You can find it and the summary here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-cong...-bill/3967 .
If you mean none of the people blocking it have read it, you might be right about that.
(07-31-2022, 12:21 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2022, 11:53 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]No one’s read the bill, not the entire one..That’s the point
Why do you think that? You can find it and the summary here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-cong...-bill/3967 .
If you mean none of the people blocking it have read it, you might be right about that.
The Summary is fallacy, show me the hidden crap…
(07-31-2022, 01:19 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2022, 12:21 PM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]Why do you think that? You can find it and the summary here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-cong...-bill/3967 .
If you mean none of the people blocking it have read it, you might be right about that.
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.
I read the summary and was fine with it until I got to Title IX which has nothing to do with healthcare for vets exposed to toxic substances. It's about employment for the VHA. I have nothing against that per se but it has nothing to do with providing healthcare for veterans exposed to the toxic junk.
Jon Stewart said it was the same bill passed the first go round except something was removed. I have yet to find out what it is he was talking about. He was complaining about discretionary funding but I didn't see anything specific to that in the summary which means it's likely buried in the bill. Maybe the bit about discretionary funding was removed and that's why Republicans voted against it.
These idiots need to stop posturing and make it happen.
(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.
It’s The RATS playing politics, as usual. We all know their game…
“People take a sympathetic group of Americans — and it could be children with an illness, it could be victims of crime, it could be veterans who’ve been exposed to toxic chemicals — craft a bill to address their problems, and then sneak in something completely unrelated that they know could never pass on its own, and dare Republicans to do anything about it,” Toomey said.
The legislation’s supporters, Toomey said, will then “unleash their allies in the media and maybe a pseudo-celebrity to make up false accusations to try to get us to just swallow what shouldn’t be there.”
Toomey insisted that he and his fellow Republicans don’t oppose the bill itself, but are worried instead about Democrats using it to acquire funds for unrelated matters and switch discretionary funding to mandatory.“
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk...ewart/amp/
From what I understand, they switched it from discretionary spending to mandatory spending, which opens the door to a whole bunch of other spending. At least, that's what the Republicans are saying.
(07-31-2022, 04:28 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I read the summary and was fine with it until I got to Title IX which has nothing to do with healthcare for vets exposed to toxic substances. It's about employment for the VHA. I have nothing against that per se but it has nothing to do with providing healthcare for veterans exposed to the toxic junk.
Jon Stewart said it was the same bill passed the first go round except something was removed. I have yet to find out what it is he was talking about. He was complaining about discretionary funding but I didn't see anything specific to that in the summary which means it's likely buried in the bill. Maybe the bit about discretionary funding was removed and that's why Republicans voted against it.
These idiots need to stop posturing and make it happen.
I would kind of lean toward the idea that if you have a bill that saves veterans from problems that occurred as a result of their service, and everyone agrees that those problems came about because of their service, and you can't get that bill passed, then there's something wrong with that bill. That's my default position.
(08-01-2022, 06:03 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]From what I understand, they switched it from discretionary spending to mandatory spending, which opens the door to a whole bunch of other spending. At least, that's what the Republicans are saying.
(07-31-2022, 04:28 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I read the summary and was fine with it until I got to Title IX which has nothing to do with healthcare for vets exposed to toxic substances. It's about employment for the VHA. I have nothing against that per se but it has nothing to do with providing healthcare for veterans exposed to the toxic junk.
Jon Stewart said it was the same bill passed the first go round except something was removed. I have yet to find out what it is he was talking about. He was complaining about discretionary funding but I didn't see anything specific to that in the summary which means it's likely buried in the bill. Maybe the bit about discretionary funding was removed and that's why Republicans voted against it.
These idiots need to stop posturing and make it happen.
I would kind of lean toward the idea that if you have a bill that saves veterans from problems that occurred as a result of their service, and everyone agrees that those problems came about because of their service, and you can't get that bill passed, then there's something wrong with that bill. That's my default position.
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.
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.