(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".

---