|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jul 31, 2022 14:15:48 GMT
This morning…
Last night..
It would appear, based on Cornyn’s comment, the “no” votes on the Burn Pit bill was in retaliation to a perceived grievance against Chuck Schumer and not a $4 billion slush fund as Toomey is still claiming this morning.
At this point I’m so disgusted by the actions of the Republicans in Congress I have no pithy comments about this latest action by the Grand Old Party.
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jul 31, 2022 14:37:49 GMT
“If I get my way, if I get my change”…
|
|
|
|
Post by peasapie on Jul 31, 2022 14:42:02 GMT
I am so impressed with Jon Stewart’s ability to speak with such clarity, accuracy and passion. He called that POS Toomey and his cohorts out for their BS in a way that will stick to all of them forever. I hope his words will get this resolved BEFORE they take their usual vacation between doing nothing and taking a break.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skellinton on Jul 31, 2022 14:50:53 GMT
I am so impressed with Jon Stewart’s ability to speak with such clarity, accuracy and passion. He called that POS Toomey and his cohorts out for their BS in a way that will stick to all of them forever. I hope his words will get this resolved BEFORE they take their usual vacation between doing nothing and taking a break. Jon Stewart is a national treasure. I'm sure he's not interested, but I think he would be a wonderful senator or member of Congress. |
|
|
|
Post by Skellinton on Jul 31, 2022 14:52:53 GMT
It absolutely disgusts me that Republicans who have long touted their support of the troops are opposing this bill. A pox upon them all.
|
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 31, 2022 15:12:48 GMT
This morning… Last night.. It would appear, based on Cornyn’s comment, the “no” votes on the Burn Pit bill was in retaliation to a perceived grievance against Chuck Schumer and not a $4 billion slush fund as Toomey is still claiming this morning. At this point I’m so disgusted by the actions of the Republicans in Congress I have no pithy comments about this latest action by the Grand Old Party. "Cornyn just admitted that Senate Republicans delayed the burn pits bill out of spite." That is a complete misrepresentation of what he ACTUALLY said. See my post in the political thread where Toomey explains the issue. link |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862 
|
Post by lizacreates on Jul 31, 2022 16:28:51 GMT
This morning… Last night.. It would appear, based on Cornyn’s comment, the “no” votes on the Burn Pit bill was in retaliation to a perceived grievance against Chuck Schumer and not a $4 billion slush fund as Toomey is still claiming this morning. At this point I’m so disgusted by the actions of the Republicans in Congress I have no pithy comments about this latest action by the Grand Old Party. "Cornyn just admitted that Senate Republicans delayed the burn pits bill out of spite." That is a complete misrepresentation of what he ACTUALLY said. See my post in the political thread where Toomey explains the issue. linkThe mandatory spending was in the bill they voted on in June. Where is this newly-discovered slush fund? If he and the GOP wanted appropriations under discretionary spending, then why did they vote yes in June? Why not vote on amendments at that time? Yesterday, I read the text on the Senate version as well as the amendment from the House. I can’t see what Toomey is referring to. If you can see it, please point it out to me. I could very well be wrong, and if I am, I will gladly concede the point. But I need to see the proof with my own eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jul 31, 2022 18:30:45 GMT
When I say Congress is dysfunctional, it is dysfunctional. This bill was introduced in the House in 2021. The House version made its way to the Senate who had amendments, a whole bunch of amendments voted on before they voted for this bill. It passed with a comfortable majority. It then when back to the House where they made one small change correcting something. The bill made its way back to the Senate for the final vote. And Republicans who voted for the bill in June voted against it in July. Toomey is whining about $400B and he wants amendments. But here’s the thing. What Toomey and the other Republicans are now voting against was already in the bill they voted for in June. A bunch of amendments were introduced and voted on in June. Why wasn’t this brought up in June and why didn’t Toomey submit his amendments in June? Here you have sick veterans waiting for this country to do what they are suppose to do and that is to take care of the veterans and a Congress showing just how dysfunctional they are. From The Roll Call.. link” Veterans toxic exposure bill delayed as cloture attempt rejected”“Senators couldn't muster the votes to end debate on benefits bill, despite bipartisan support” From the article.. “The vote marked the second time the bipartisan legislation hit an unexpected snag. The bill had to be revised — and receive a second vote in both chambers — to remove an obscure tax provision that raised a constitutional concern in the House. The House passed the revised version two weeks ago on a 342-88 vote and the Senate planned to pass it this week. A nearly identical bill, without the tax tweak, passed the Senate on a lopsided 84-14 vote last month with strong bipartisan support. But Republicans mounted an 11th-hour challenge to the legislation and decided not to let the revised bill advance Wednesday. Some conservatives have raised objections to the bill because it would reclassify nearly $400 billion in current-law VA spending from discretionary to mandatory accounts, thereby potentially freeing up more budget authority to increase discretionary spending on other domestic programs.” & ”The revised bill strips out that provision, which would have let doctors, nurses and other health care providers receive tax-free buyouts of their contracts if they agree to work for the VA at rural veterans’ clinics.” |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 31, 2022 21:03:30 GMT
That is a complete misrepresentation of what he ACTUALLY said. See my post in the political thread where Toomey explains the issue. linkThe mandatory spending was in the bill they voted on in June. Where is this newly-discovered slush fund? If he and the GOP wanted appropriations under discretionary spending, then why did they vote yes in June? Why not vote on amendments at that time? Yesterday, I read the text on the Senate version as well as the amendment from the House. I can’t see what Toomey is referring to. If you can see it, please point it out to me. I could very well be wrong, and if I am, I will gladly concede the point. But I need to see the proof with my own eyes. It would appear, based on Cornyn’s comment, the “no” votes on the Burn Pit bill was in retaliation to a perceived grievance against Chuck Schumer and not a $4 billion slush fund as Toomey is still claiming this morning. At this point I’m so disgusted by the actions of the Republicans in Congress I have no pithy comments about this latest action by the Grand Old Party. "Cornyn just admitted that Senate Republicans delayed the burn pits bill out of spite." THIS is what I was responding to here. It is an absolute misrepresentation of what was ACTUALLY said by Cornyn and Toomey. YOUR objection in this thread is addressed by Toomey on the video I linked on the other thread dealing with that. I only linked it here to show what was ACTUALLY said in reference to the accusation made HERE, on this thread. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Jul 31, 2022 21:32:51 GMT
The mandatory spending was in the bill they voted on in June. Where is this newly-discovered slush fund? If he and the GOP wanted appropriations under discretionary spending, then why did they vote yes in June? Why not vote on amendments at that time? Yesterday, I read the text on the Senate version as well as the amendment from the House. I can’t see what Toomey is referring to. If you can see it, please point it out to me. I could very well be wrong, and if I am, I will gladly concede the point. But I need to see the proof with my own eyes. It would appear, based on Cornyn’s comment, the “no” votes on the Burn Pit bill was in retaliation to a perceived grievance against Chuck Schumer and not a $4 billion slush fund as Toomey is still claiming this morning. At this point I’m so disgusted by the actions of the Republicans in Congress I have no pithy comments about this latest action by the Grand Old Party. "Cornyn just admitted that Senate Republicans delayed the burn pits bill out of spite." THIS is what I was responding to here. It is an absolute misrepresentation of what was ACTUALLY said by Cornyn and Toomey. YOUR objection in this thread is addressed by Toomey on the video I linked on the other thread dealing with that. I only linked it here to show what was ACTUALLY said in reference to the accusation made HERE, on this thread. Yes, I saw that. Toomey’s belief is that by taking the original $400B in vet spending that was designated as discretionary and moving it to mandatory, it creates a hole in the discretionary spending budget that will be used for non-vet purposes. What he failed to mention is that Dems can’t look at that hole as an opportunity for a bonanza, even if they wanted to, because the appropriations process is bipartisan. The CBO said it was fine under mandatory spending aka direct spending. Which makes a heck of a lot of sense because how can the VA plan appropriately for long-term medical facilities and services resulting from the increasing toxicity claims if their funding is made susceptible to the whims of Congress every single year, which is what will happen if this is designated as discretionary spending. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 31, 2022 21:45:13 GMT
THIS is what I was responding to here. It is an absolute misrepresentation of what was ACTUALLY said by Cornyn and Toomey. YOUR objection in this thread is addressed by Toomey on the video I linked on the other thread dealing with that. I only linked it here to show what was ACTUALLY said in reference to the accusation made HERE, on this thread. Yes, I saw that. Toomey’s belief is that by taking the original $400B in vet spending that was designated as discretionary and moving it to mandatory, it creates a hole in the discretionary spending budget that will be used for non-vet purposes. What he failed to mention is that Dems can’t look at that hole as an opportunity for a bonanza, even if they wanted to, because the appropriations process is bipartisan. The CBO said it was fine under mandatory spending aka direct spending. Which makes a heck of a lot of sense because how can the VA plan appropriately for long-term medical facilities and services resulting from the increasing toxicity claims if their funding is made susceptible to the whims of Congress every single year, which is what will happen if this is designated as discretionary spending. Then why was it put there in the first place? |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Jul 31, 2022 22:02:42 GMT
Yes, I saw that. Toomey’s belief is that by taking the original $400B in vet spending that was designated as discretionary and moving it to mandatory, it creates a hole in the discretionary spending budget that will be used for non-vet purposes. What he failed to mention is that Dems can’t look at that hole as an opportunity for a bonanza, even if they wanted to, because the appropriations process is bipartisan. The CBO said it was fine under mandatory spending aka direct spending. Which makes a heck of a lot of sense because how can the VA plan appropriately for long-term medical facilities and services resulting from the increasing toxicity claims if their funding is made susceptible to the whims of Congress every single year, which is what will happen if this is designated as discretionary spending. Then why was it put there in the first place? The original $400B? Because that’s probably what made sense at that time for general VA funding. Congress can and does move money around. It makes more sense now to guarantee that funding so the VA’s abilities to treat vet patients suffering from toxicity are not dependent on caps. The last thing a bill like this would want to do is for the VA to end up rationing care or at worst, turning away injured vets because of caps. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 31, 2022 22:43:29 GMT
Then why was it put there in the first place? The original $400B? Because that’s probably what made sense at that time for general VA funding. Congress can and does move money around. It makes more sense now to guarantee that funding so the VA’s abilities to treat vet patients suffering from toxicity are not dependent on caps. The last thing a bill like this would want to do is for the VA to end up rationing care or at worst, turning away injured vets because of caps. I disagree. What he failed to mention is that Dems can’t look at that hole as an opportunity for a bonanza, even if they wanted to, because the appropriations process is bipartisan. I think Toomey's words and the words of the Democrats show how that works. Republicans are trying to prevent overspending in this bill. Moving the money from one category to the other offers no protection from the overspending. The Democrats put it in the bill, BUT MAKE NO MENTION OF ADDING THAT TO THE BILL, when painting the republicans as evil people that don't care about veterans. Which could not be further from the truth. I think that deception on the part of Democrats shows their intention. So we'll have to agree to disagree here. Going back to the topic of THIS thread, how do you feel about the absolute misrepresentation of what was ACTUALLY said by Cornyn and Toomey? |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Jul 31, 2022 23:18:14 GMT
The original $400B? Because that’s probably what made sense at that time for general VA funding. Congress can and does move money around. It makes more sense now to guarantee that funding so the VA’s abilities to treat vet patients suffering from toxicity are not dependent on caps. The last thing a bill like this would want to do is for the VA to end up rationing care or at worst, turning away injured vets because of caps. I disagree. What he failed to mention is that Dems can’t look at that hole as an opportunity for a bonanza, even if they wanted to, because the appropriations process is bipartisan. I think Toomey's words and the words of the Democrats show how that works. Republicans are trying to prevent overspending in this bill. Moving the money from one category to the other offers no protection from the overspending. The Democrats put it in the bill, BUT MAKE NO MENTION OF ADDING THAT TO THE BILL, when painting the republicans as evil people that don't care about veterans. Which could not be further from the truth. I think that deception on the part of Democrats shows their intention. So we'll have to agree to disagree here. Going back to the topic of THIS thread, how do you feel about the absolute misrepresentation of what was ACTUALLY said by Cornyn and Toomey? Then why did the Rs votes yes in June? |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jul 31, 2022 23:45:50 GMT
I disagree. I think Toomey's words and the words of the Democrats show how that works. Republicans are trying to prevent overspending in this bill. Moving the money from one category to the other offers no protection from the overspending. The Democrats put it in the bill, BUT MAKE NO MENTION OF ADDING THAT TO THE BILL, when painting the republicans as evil people that don't care about veterans. Which could not be further from the truth. I think that deception on the part of Democrats shows their intention. So we'll have to agree to disagree here. Going back to the topic of THIS thread, how do you feel about the absolute misrepresentation of what was ACTUALLY said by Cornyn and Toomey? Then why did the Rs votes yes in June? It doesn't matter when "This provision is completely unnecessary to achieve the PACT Act’s stated goal of expanding health care and other benefits for veterans." Again, going back to the topic of THIS thread, how do you feel about the absolute misrepresentation of what was ACTUALLY said by Cornyn and Toomey? |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 1, 2022 0:04:03 GMT
Then why did the Rs votes yes in June? It doesn't matter when "This provision is completely unnecessary to achieve the PACT Act’s stated goal of expanding health care and other benefits for veterans." Again, going back to the topic of THIS thread, how do you feel about the absolute misrepresentation of what was ACTUALLY said by Cornyn and Toomey? Of course it matters. And it matters a lot as I have already explained to you above. Unless you’re fine with the VA having to seek appropriations every single year for the infected vets and if it’s facing caps at any given year, oh, well, life is tough. The Rs voted yes on this in June when the spending was already designated as mandatory. Even Toomey himself said he has no problem with $400B + $280B being spent on vets. Everything was proceeding as expected until the Inflation Reduction bill came along. The issue is are Rs doing this out of pique over the Inflation Reduction bill or doing this because they have a legitimate quarrel with the accounting? So far, you have not provided anything that would persuade me to believe it's the latter. Which is fine. You believe one thing, I believe another. It is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 1, 2022 0:05:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Aug 1, 2022 0:27:29 GMT
This is interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 1, 2022 0:37:50 GMT
It doesn't matter when "This provision is completely unnecessary to achieve the PACT Act’s stated goal of expanding health care and other benefits for veterans." Again, going back to the topic of THIS thread, how do you feel about the absolute misrepresentation of what was ACTUALLY said by Cornyn and Toomey? Of course it matters. And it matters a lot as I have already explained to you above. Unless you’re fine with the VA having to seek appropriations every single year for the infected vets and if it’s facing caps at any given year, oh, well, life is tough. The Rs voted yes on this in June when the spending was already designated as mandatory. Even Toomey himself said he has no problem with $400B + $280B being spent on vets. Everything was proceeding as expected until the Inflation Reduction bill came along. The issue is are Rs doing this out of pique over the Inflation Reduction bill or doing this because they have a legitimate quarrel with the accounting? So far, you have not provided anything that would persuade me to believe it's the latter. Which is fine. You believe one thing, I believe another. It is what it is. Okay. How do you feel about the absolute misrepresentation of what was ACTUALLY said by Cornyn and Toomey? |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 1, 2022 1:54:16 GMT
Of course it matters. And it matters a lot as I have already explained to you above. Unless you’re fine with the VA having to seek appropriations every single year for the infected vets and if it’s facing caps at any given year, oh, well, life is tough. The Rs voted yes on this in June when the spending was already designated as mandatory. Even Toomey himself said he has no problem with $400B + $280B being spent on vets. Everything was proceeding as expected until the Inflation Reduction bill came along. The issue is are Rs doing this out of pique over the Inflation Reduction bill or doing this because they have a legitimate quarrel with the accounting? So far, you have not provided anything that would persuade me to believe it's the latter. Which is fine. You believe one thing, I believe another. It is what it is. Okay. How do you feel about the absolute misrepresentation of what was ACTUALLY said by Cornyn and Toomey? How do I feel? Despite the clarity of my writing, you haven’t grasped what I’ve been saying? --There is no “Schumer mendacity” in the PACT Act as Cornyn states. All funding was already designated as mandatory spending in June when Rs voted yes. --The Toomey “hole” in discretionary spending is not a free-for-all for Dems. There is no slush fund for Dems. If either Ds or Rs want money for whatever purpose from the discretionary spending budget, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are bipartisan, meaning both D & R committee members would have to agree on the appropriation. --From June when the Rs voted yes on PACT to this past week when they flipped, the only significant occurrence was the Manchin-Schumer deal on the Inflation Reduction bill. Therefore, it’s my belief that they flipped because they’re pissed about that, not because they have a valid concern over accounting. I don’t know how else to phrase all this for you to understand my position. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 1, 2022 4:00:23 GMT
This one alone, shows very clearly what he said is not what they're claiming he said. How do I feel? Despite the clarity of my writing, you haven’t grasped what I’ve been saying? --There is no “Schumer mendacity” in the PACT Act as Cornyn states. All funding was already designated as mandatory spending in June when Rs voted yes. --The Toomey “hole” in discretionary spending is not a free-for-all for Dems. There is no slush fund for Dems. If either Ds or Rs want money for whatever purpose from the discretionary spending budget, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are bipartisan, meaning both D & R committee members would have to agree on the appropriation. --From June when the Rs voted yes on PACT to this past week when they flipped, the only significant occurrence was the Manchin-Schumer deal on the Inflation Reduction bill. Therefore, it’s my belief that they flipped because they’re pissed about that, not because they have a valid concern over accounting. I don’t know how else to phrase all this for you to understand my position. Oh. I just didn't realize you were using the spin of what they said, over what they ACTUALLY SAID, to form your opinion. My mistake. I know that could be taken as snarky, but I'm not being snarky, I seriously come from a different thought process than you do. I still believe that we all really DO want the same things, we just differ in how to get there. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 1, 2022 4:41:52 GMT
This one alone, shows very clearly what he said is not what they're claiming he said. How do I feel? Despite the clarity of my writing, you haven’t grasped what I’ve been saying? --There is no “Schumer mendacity” in the PACT Act as Cornyn states. All funding was already designated as mandatory spending in June when Rs voted yes. --The Toomey “hole” in discretionary spending is not a free-for-all for Dems. There is no slush fund for Dems. If either Ds or Rs want money for whatever purpose from the discretionary spending budget, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are bipartisan, meaning both D & R committee members would have to agree on the appropriation. --From June when the Rs voted yes on PACT to this past week when they flipped, the only significant occurrence was the Manchin-Schumer deal on the Inflation Reduction bill. Therefore, it’s my belief that they flipped because they’re pissed about that, not because they have a valid concern over accounting. I don’t know how else to phrase all this for you to understand my position. Oh. I just didn't realize you were using the spin of what they said, over what they ACTUALLY SAID, to form your opinion. My mistake. I know that could be taken as snarky, but I'm not being snarky, I seriously come from a different thought process than you do. I still believe that we all really DO want the same things, we just differ in how to get there. I don’t do spin, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. I addressed exactly what Cornyn wrote and what Toomey said. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 1, 2022 4:58:21 GMT
This one alone, shows very clearly what he said is not what they're claiming he said. Oh. I just didn't realize you were using the spin of what they said, over what they ACTUALLY SAID, to form your opinion. My mistake. I know that could be taken as snarky, but I'm not being snarky, I seriously come from a different thought process than you do. I still believe that we all really DO want the same things, we just differ in how to get there. I don’t do spin, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. I addressed exactly what Cornyn wrote and what Toomey said. I'm saying that Cornyn words were not an admittance that Senate Republicans delayed the burn pits bill out of spite. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 1, 2022 5:09:48 GMT
I don’t do spin, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. I addressed exactly what Cornyn wrote and what Toomey said. I'm saying that Cornyn words were not an admittance that Senate Republicans delayed the burn pits bill out of spite. Well, that’s you attaching importance to a random tweeter, not I. I have no idea who that Kyle person is and couldn’t care less. Re-read my posts. My responses were addressing directly what Cornyn ACTUALLY wrote on his tweet to Biden and what Toomey ACTUALLY said on the YT video you posted in the other thread. If this Kyle tweet is bothering you that much, I suggest you take it up with onelasttime , not with me. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 1, 2022 5:16:52 GMT
I'm saying that Cornyn words were not an admittance that Senate Republicans delayed the burn pits bill out of spite. Well, that’s you attaching importance to a random tweeter, not I. I have no idea who that Kyle person is and couldn’t care less. Re-read my posts. My responses were addressing directly what Cornyn ACTUALLY wrote on his tweet to Biden and what Toomey ACTUALLY said on the YT video you posted in the other thread. If this Kyle tweet is bothering you that much, I suggest you take it up with onelasttime , not with me. I did 14 hours ago. That's the post that you originally responded to me on. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 1, 2022 5:23:45 GMT
Well, that’s you attaching importance to a random tweeter, not I. I have no idea who that Kyle person is and couldn’t care less. Re-read my posts. My responses were addressing directly what Cornyn ACTUALLY wrote on his tweet to Biden and what Toomey ACTUALLY said on the YT video you posted in the other thread. If this Kyle tweet is bothering you that much, I suggest you take it up with onelasttime , not with me. I did 14 hours ago. That's the post that you originally responded to me on. Then what’s your problem? Maybe she’s ignoring you. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 1, 2022 5:48:09 GMT
I did 14 hours ago. That's the post that you originally responded to me on. Then what’s your problem? Maybe she’s ignoring you. I have no problem. You engaged me, I responded. Why would that make you think I have a problem? |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 1, 2022 5:52:18 GMT
Then what’s your problem? Maybe she’s ignoring you. I have no problem. You engaged me, I responded. Why would that make you think I have a problem? Well, if you have no problem, then all’s good. What else do you want to pursue with me? Or are we done? If we’re done, I’m going to bed. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Aug 1, 2022 13:04:00 GMT
I don’t do spin, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. I addressed exactly what Cornyn wrote and what Toomey said. I'm saying that Cornyn words were not an admittance that Senate Republicans delayed the burn pits bill out of spite. I think you are the one that is spinning. The tweet that you posted is the same as what was posted earlier. How does that show that their words are being misrepresented? It seems pretty clear to me. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 1, 2022 13:56:29 GMT
I'm saying that Cornyn words were not an admittance that Senate Republicans delayed the burn pits bill out of spite. I think you are the one that is spinning. The tweet that you posted is the same as what was posted earlier. How does that show that their words are being misrepresented? It seems pretty clear to me.  I'm looking at the actual words that they have said about the matter and not the way someone else entirely is framing their words and assigning new meaning to them. "This provision is completely unnecessary to achieve the PACT Act’s stated goal of expanding health care and other benefits for veterans. However, it would enable an ADDITIONAL $400 billion (ON TOP OF THE ORIGINAL $400 BILLION) in future discretionary spending completely unrelated to veterans. It doesn’t reduce what the veteran’s will get by a single penny. It’s ONLY about preventing this unrelated spending, which was inserted in this bill." Toomey "Mr President, passage would not have been delayed if Senator Schumer had kept his promises. Good news is, despite his mendacity, it will pass this next week." Cornyn None of that is about spite. (bolded mine) If the Democrats were all about achieving the PACT Act’s stated goal of expanding health care and other benefits for veterans, suddenly changing the way they have always done the accounting, in order to create this extra $400 billion that would now be available for anything else they want it to go to, is not necessary to get it going. But insisting on being allowed to create it and not keeping their promise to allow a vote to fix something that has nothing to do with the veterans IS delaying help to the veterans. |
|
