|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 1, 2022 15:15:33 GMT
She has a point when you think about, the Grand Old Party can be extremely cruel to American Citizens and other humans if it suits their purpose.
“Opinion Jon Stewart shows Democrats how to respond to GOP cruelty”
By Jennifer Rubin
August 1, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. EDT
“Senate Republicans last week provided Americans with a vivid example of their party’s abject cruelty when they rejected the PACT Act, which would provide veterans with benefits to cover the health consequences they endured from exposure to burn pits while serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. They did so even though many of those same Republicans approved a nearly identical bill in June.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
For a tutorial on how to respond to the lies and heartlessness Republicans have shown here, Democrats should turn to an unlikely source: comedian Jon Stewart.
The GOP’s reversal on the bill seems to be motivated by payback. Republicans voted against the PACT Act because they were angry over the agreement between Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on the Inflation Reduction Act, the reconciliation package that includes tax hikes on the wealthy, subsidies for Affordable Care Act coverage and investment in green energy. The deal was announced just hours after the Senate passed its bipartisan bill to enhance national security and U.S. competitiveness against China by investing in semiconductor manufacturing.
In other words, Republicans threw a temper tantrum because they would no longer be able to hold the semiconductor bill hostage to block passage of the Democrats’ popular agenda. Think about that for a second. Republicans took their frustrations with Democrats out on sick veterans. That’ll show them!
In the days since the GOP stalled the bill, Stewart was unflinching. He went in front of cameras on Thursday to express what many Americans were feeling. Regarding Republicans’ about-face on the bill, Stewart said he was used to the “hypocrisy," “lies” and “cowardice” of politicians, but “I am not used to the cruelty.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) offered a patently false excuse that the bill would create “pork.” In fact, the funds are delineated for a specific purpose. As Stewart tweeted: “The PACT Act is a stand alone bill. The PACT Act has no spending unrelated to Veteran’s Health and Benefits. There is no ‘Pork.’ There is no budget maneuver that then allows Dems to backfill [with] whatever they want.”
Stewart, appearing on NBC News’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, kept up the barrage:
Republicans will likely come crawling back to approve the bill now that they have been exposed as deceitful, malicious and petulant. But Democrats should learn from Stewart and apply his techniques in other contexts.
In the abortion realm, Democrats should be clear. It is the height of dishonesty to say that abortion bans, which would endanger women’s health and lives, are “pro-life.” And it is simply untrue that these bills are about preventing abortions moments before delivery, as so many Republicans claim. The Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade allowed states to ban third-trimester abortions. All but a handful already did before the Dobbs decision. One percent of abortions occur after 21 weeks and far fewer in the third trimester. It is a lie to say abortion causes women emotional distress or physical injury or that abortion is dangerous.
And it is cruel and barbaric to demand that a teen rape victim endure pregnancy and labor or to demand a woman with chronic health conditions risk pregnancy. Only monsters would insist that doctors wait until women are so sick that they might die before they can receive appropriate medical treatment, which includes abortions.
Stewart is a gifted communicator. His basic approach — righteous anger, blunt language, mastery of the facts, determination to call out the GOP’s bad faith — is something all Democrats should follow, whether the topic is veterans’ health, abortion, the Jan. 6 insurrection, guns, climate change or just about anything else. Enough is enough.”
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 1, 2022 22:41:15 GMT
I guess they are running out of what they believed were credible excuses or reasons on why they voted no the second time around…
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,387 
|
Post by cycworker on Aug 2, 2022 1:20:00 GMT
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) Again - they were fine with how the spending was done accounting-wise the first time they voted on it. And when Cornyn refers to "Schumer's mendacity,' it's in relation to him getting a deal with Manchin on a reconciliation package that included money for climate stuff. Mitch McConnell said that if Schumer & Manchin did that, they would vote against the CHIPs bill. But Schumer & Manchin didn't announce that they had a deal until after the vote on CHIPs. So then Republicans were angry - mostly because they didn't actually believe Schumer & Manchin COULD come up with something they both agreed on - so they voted against PACT. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 2, 2022 1:41:20 GMT
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) Again - they were fine with how the spending was done accounting-wise the first time they voted on it. And when Cornyn refers to "Schumer's mendacity,' it's in relation to him getting a deal with Manchin on a reconciliation package that included money for climate stuff. Mitch McConnell said that if Schumer & Manchin did that, they would vote against the CHIPs bill. But Schumer & Manchin didn't announce that they had a deal until after the vote on CHIPs. So then Republicans were angry - mostly because they didn't actually believe Schumer & Manchin COULD come up with something they both agreed on - so they voted against PACT. Again - they were fine with how the spending was done accounting-wise the first time they voted on it. No they weren't. Schumer promised a vote to amend it. Schumer did not keep his promise. So then Republicans were angry - mostly because they didn't actually believe Schumer & Manchin COULD come up with something they both agreed on - so they voted against PACT. You can assign your reasoning TO them, all you want, no one is stopping you. It doesn't make it true. I'll just put this right here, since you also conveniently cut this off when you quoted me: 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. |
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 2, 2022 1:57:00 GMT
Don’t hold your breath. The Republicans will find other excuses not to vote for the bill they already voted for.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Aug 2, 2022 3:50:50 GMT
|
|
compeateropeator
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,259
Member is Online
|
Post by compeateropeator on Aug 2, 2022 4:16:19 GMT
No snark, I am truly trying to understand. So they would vote yes on the bill and have it pass and then Schumer would bring another vote to amend an already passed bill? That doesn’t make sense to me.
So when it came around to the technical error that required a revote, it was still on the actual bill, not a vote to amend the bill? What would have happened if there was no technical error?
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Aug 2, 2022 4:25:36 GMT
Some one explained that the second 400B is there so it can be used without having to vote every year to provide the dollars for the veterans' health care. The veterans face long term health care from the burn pits. It can only be used for veterans' health care. It is not just general monies for random use.
|
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 2, 2022 5:20:39 GMT
If the Democrats were all about achieving the PACT Act’s stated goal of getting veterans the health care they earned, they would keep their word and allow this vote that they promised, to amend the out of control spending THEY proposed. Democrats not doing so IS delaying help to the veterans. Damn straight veterans are mad. Damn straight they have every right to be. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 2, 2022 5:26:01 GMT
No snark, I am truly trying to understand. So they would vote yes on the bill and have it pass and then Schumer would bring another vote to amend an already passed bill? That doesn’t make sense to me. So when it came around to the technical error that required a revote, it was still on the actual bill, not a vote to amend the bill? What would have happened if there was no technical error? Toomey has been saying it all along, hence the promise to allow the vote to amend. The broken promise. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 2, 2022 5:29:42 GMT
Some one explained that the second 400B is there so it can be used without having to vote every year to provide the dollars for the veterans' health care. The veterans face long term health care from the burn pits. It can only be used for veterans' health care. It is not just general monies for random use. The $400 billion that they bucked standard practice in order to move, is for veterans. The newly created $400 billion does not have to be, and more than likely won't be. |
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 2, 2022 6:07:03 GMT
I finally figured out what Toomey’s gripe is. From his website… “ The PACT Act as written includes a budget gimmick that would allow $400 billion of current law spending to be moved from the discretionary to the mandatory spending category. 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 in future discretionary spending completely unrelated to veterans. By failing to remove this gimmick, Congress would effectively be using an important veterans care bill to hide a massive, unrelated spending binge.”His gripe is that if they make all of the estimated funding for the PACT Act mandatory spending that will free up , in the budget, $400B in discretionary spending, that normally would have been allocated to veterans care, available for any old thing. What he is not saying is that $400B discretionary spending allocation would have to be approved by Congress in the annual budget/spending bill. So it’s not like the Democrats in Congress can just write a check $400B and spend it for giggles sake. So we have all this drama for basically a non issue. From Military Times… linkDiscretionary vs. mandatory spending Both advocates and administration officials have also disputed Toomey’s concerns about the accounting issues. In federal budgeting, spending classified as mandatory (which includes things like veterans benefits checks and Social Security payouts) is set in law and renewed annually. Discretionary spending, which includes program operations, can change each year depending on the whims of lawmakers. Toomey has said he does not have concerns with categorizing the new benefits included in the PACT Act (about $279 billion over 10 years) as mandatory spending. But he insists that provisions to move other existing toxic exposure benefits spending in the annual VA budget from the discretionary budget to the mandatory one opens up the door for budgetary gimmicks down the road. “We are spending way too much money [in the federal budget],” he said. “To hide behind a veterans bill the opportunity to go on an unrelated spending spree is wrong.” That theoretical spending would not be included in the PACT Act. But by reducing the total amount of discretionary spending in the non-defense side of the federal budget, future appropriators could have more flexibility to shift money into other non-veteran programs.” From Paystubs Now… link“HOW TO UNDERSTAND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MANDATORY VS DISCRETIONARY SPENDING?” March 7, 2022 “Government budgeting is a complex process that can be difficult for the average person to understand. Simply put, there are two main types of government spending: mandatory vs discretionary spending. Mandatory spending is determined by pre-determined laws or regulations. It cannot be changed without an act of Congress. Discretionary spending, on the other hand, is set by Congress and can be changed at any time.” & “What is Discretionary Spending?” “ Discretionary spending is government spending that is approved by Congress as part of the annual budget process. This could include things such as defense spending, education, subsidies for small and local businesses, and infrastructure. Discretionary spending is funded by government borrowing or tax revenue. Discretionary government spending is spending that is not mandated by law and that Congress can choose to fund or not fund each year. It includes things like defense, infrastructure, education, and scientific research. Discretionary spending used to be a much more significant portion of the federal budget, but it has been shrinking in recent years. In the fiscal year 2020, discretionary spending is projected to make up just 30% of the total federal budget, and this is expected to continue to shrink over the next few years. There are two types of discretionary spending: defense and non-defense. Defense spending is funding for the Department of Defense and other related agencies, which makes up a bulk of the entire budget. Non-defense discretionary spending is everything else, such as education, transportation, and environmental protection. There are pros and cons to discretionary government spending. On the one hand, it allows Congress to fund important programs that may not be mandated by law. On the other hand, it can lead to wasteful spending and pork-barrel politics. Ultimately, it is up” & “Final Thoughts “In conclusion, mandatory spending is spending that has been predetermined by existing laws and must be done each year, while discretionary spending is what Congress decides each year how much to spend on different programs. Both mandatory and discretionary spending are important and play a role in the overall health of the economy. However, it is essential to understand the difference between the two in order to better understand how the government operates.” |
|
compeateropeator
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,259
Member is Online
|
Post by compeateropeator on Aug 2, 2022 13:05:50 GMT
Thanks for the response pixiechick I am just recapping so I can be fact checked to make sure I understand. 😉😄 So basically Toomey said the bill is fine to help vets. But because we are giving them these monies in this pact, when WE (all of congress not just Dems or Reps) go and create and vote for our “normal” budgets he is worried that the Democrats are going to do some hocus pocus, even though that hocus is just “normal” budgeting procedure. So the amendment vote that Schumer promised had to do with regular spending and was nothing to do with this bill. There are normal procedures that they could have/use to have oversight on the “normal” budgeting process…it did NOT need to be included with this bill because it did nothing to this bill. So Toomey is saying yes let’s STALL this important legislation, that we all agree on, to add something that is part of our normal budgeting process. And let’s stall it before our summer break and after it passed once. Am I close? Because that is some fearful budgetary gymnastics that he thinks are going to be going on that can be stopped in their normal budget votes. Exactly just complaining about normal procedure that happens and is resolved with every budget passed. Meaning…because they (Dems) made it mandatory to spend this money in the bill on Veterans they (Reps) are worried they are going to want to use money in the normal budget process for other things? What if they the Reps want to use it for other things like a useless wall or such? So this is something like Gun laws that the Reps are saying we don’t need because it is already part of the normal process. This is a budgeting amendment that we don’t really need because it will have to go through the normal budgetary process? |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 2, 2022 14:16:00 GMT
Thanks for the response pixiechick I am just recapping so I can be fact checked to make sure I understand. 😉😄 So basically Toomey said the bill is fine to help vets. But because we are giving them these monies in this pact, when WE (all of congress not just Dems or Reps) go and create and vote for our “normal” budgets he is worried that the Democrats are going to do some hocus pocus, even though that hocus is just “normal” budgeting procedure. So the amendment vote that Schumer promised had to do with regular spending and was nothing to do with this bill. There are normal procedures that they could have/use to have oversight on the “normal” budgeting process…it did NOT need to be included with this bill because it did nothing to this bill. So Toomey is saying yes let’s STALL this important legislation, that we all agree on, to add something that is part of our normal budgeting process. And let’s stall it before our summer break and after it passed once. Am I close? Because that is some fearful budgetary gymnastics that he thinks are going to be going on that can be stopped in their normal budget votes. Exactly just complaining about normal procedure that happens and is resolved with every budget passed. Meaning…because they (Dems) made it mandatory to spend this money in the bill on Veterans they (Reps) are worried they are going to want to use money in the normal budget process for other things? What if they the Reps want to use it for other things like a useless wall or such? So this is something like Gun laws that the Reps are saying we don’t need because it is already part of the normal process. This is a budgeting amendment that we don’t really need because it will have to go through the normal budgetary process? No, you are not close. The Democrats changed the way the budgeting has always been done in order to create 400 billion more dollars in spending in an economy that can not handle it. Billion. With a B. (money not for veterans -don't even know what yet, as in there isn't even a stated need) That is what Toomey and others are trying to fix. THAT is what the Democrats are trying to protect at the expense of delaying health care to the veterans. While pointing fingers at the Republicans and painting them as evil. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Aug 2, 2022 14:36:43 GMT
Toomey voted against the bill the first time. The other 20 something senators voted for the bill the first time, they had no objections then and the bill passed 84-11. Nothing significant changed with the $400 billion dollars. The Republicans are just latching on to Toomey’s objections as cover, even though they voted yes the first time. Schumer is planning to hold another vote with Toomey’s amendment, although it’s not likely to pass. This is a pretty good summary of what happened. heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-28-2022 |
|
compeateropeator
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,259
Member is Online
|
Post by compeateropeator on Aug 2, 2022 15:10:18 GMT
I will admit to hyping up the Reps a bit (because in this case it was the Reps) but if you look at my posting history I am one of those people that have been put in my place for saying or insinuating “both side do it”…and I am fine with that designation. I do not believe one party is evil over the other.
I do believe that there is kind of a schism between Republican/conservatives and true trump supporters. But I have beloved unique coworkers that I have worked with for 20 years who I would consider trump supporters and who I have seen get more radical in some of the crazy (IMO) stuff they believe. We just have limited talk about politics when we converse, there are enough every days things to chit chat about. I am not going to change their mind nor they mine. In my opinion a lot of it is crazy shit that just isn’t logical. 🤷🏻♀️
There is enough greed and evil to go around as there is goodness. But there are a group of “Republicans” that i think of as Trump supporters that I do consider evil and they always seemed to be involved in these skirmishes…so I am not going to believe them either.
I truly don’t understand the issue…because I believe it could have been fixed another way, if those now opposing this, we’re willing to vote yes before without their amendment in hand. But I will read the link aj2hall linked when I have a moment. I was sincere in my thanks for responding though, and will repeat that. 😄
ETA - I just saw aj2hall’s comment above mine that Toomey voted against it from the beginning. I apologize, I may think bad things about him but at least he is consistent. I have no gripe with that…I will move my outrage from him onto the 25 that switched votes.
|
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 2, 2022 17:31:16 GMT
I will admit to hyping up the Reps a bit (because in this case it was the Reps) but if you look at my posting history I am one of those people that have been put in my place for saying or insinuating “both side do it”…and I am fine with that designation. I do not believe one party is evil over the other. I do believe that there is kind of a schism between Republican/conservatives and true trump supporters. But I have beloved unique coworkers that I have worked with for 20 years who I would consider trump supporters and who I have seen get more radical in some of the crazy (IMO) stuff they believe. We just have limited talk about politics when we converse, there are enough every days things to chit chat about. I am not going to change their mind nor they mine. In my opinion a lot of it is crazy shit that just isn’t logical. 🤷🏻♀️ There is enough greed and evil to go around as there is goodness. But there are a group of “Republicans” that i think of as Trump supporters that I do consider evil and they always seemed to be involved in these skirmishes…so I am not going to believe them either. I truly don’t understand the issue…because I believe it could have been fixed another way, if those now opposing this, we’re willing to vote yes before without their amendment in hand. But I will read the link aj2hall linked when I have a moment. I was sincere in my thanks for responding though, and will repeat that. 😄 ETA - I just saw aj2hall’s comment above mine that Toomey voted against it from the beginning. I apologize, I may think bad things about him but at least he is consistent. I have no gripe with that…I will move my outrage from him onto the 25 that switched votes. I agree with much of what you say. And yes, there is a both sides element to a lot of the accusations. I do believe that there is kind of a schism between Republican/conservatives and true trump supporters. But I have beloved unique coworkers that I have worked with for 20 years who I would consider trump supporters and who I have seen get more radical in some of the crazy (IMO) stuff they believe. We just have limited talk about politics when we converse, there are enough every days things to chit chat about. I am not going to change their mind nor they mine. In my opinion a lot of it is crazy shit that just isn’t logical. 🤷🏻♀️ I agree, there is a lot of radical crazy shit going on. I believe a lot of it could get sorted out and many of the reasonable people that might, for a minute, buy into some of the crazy, could have discussions with people with other info, ideas, or opinions and get more grounded again. With the shift from rational, reasonable discussion to the new "shut down any discussion I don't agree with" by labeling it or them with any ist, ism, or phobic label, whether it applies or not, those discussions won't be happening. I really still believe that we all want the same thing, but just disagree with how to achieve it. Lucy keeps saying "we are doomed" and people keep repeating it. The vilifying of anything or anyone "you" disagree with is certainly one way to doom us. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 2, 2022 18:30:15 GMT
Thanks for the response pixiechick I am just recapping so I can be fact checked to make sure I understand. 😉😄 So basically Toomey said the bill is fine to help vets. But because we are giving them these monies in this pact, when WE (all of congress not just Dems or Reps) go and create and vote for our “normal” budgets he is worried that the Democrats are going to do some hocus pocus, even though that hocus is just “normal” budgeting procedure. So the amendment vote that Schumer promised had to do with regular spending and was nothing to do with this bill. There are normal procedures that they could have/use to have oversight on the “normal” budgeting process…it did NOT need to be included with this bill because it did nothing to this bill. So Toomey is saying yes let’s STALL this important legislation, that we all agree on, to add something that is part of our normal budgeting process. And let’s stall it before our summer break and after it passed once. Am I close? Because that is some fearful budgetary gymnastics that he thinks are going to be going on that can be stopped in their normal budget votes. Exactly just complaining about normal procedure that happens and is resolved with every budget passed. Meaning…because they (Dems) made it mandatory to spend this money in the bill on Veterans they (Reps) are worried they are going to want to use money in the normal budget process for other things? What if they the Reps want to use it for other things like a useless wall or such? So this is something like Gun laws that the Reps are saying we don’t need because it is already part of the normal process. This is a budgeting amendment that we don’t really need because it will have to go through the normal budgetary process? Yes. What Toomey wants is to retain the original $400B under discretionary spending. I explained it earlier--budget appropriations are done by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees which are bipartisan. That's why even if there will be a $400B hole in the discretionary spending budget because that amount was moved to mandatory, BOTH Democratic and Republican committee members will have to agree on where to spend it. It's not a slush fund for Democrats. The reason $400B (from an earlier vet-related legislation) was moved to PACT and made mandatory in addition to new PACT money of $280B is to enable VA to plan long-term and not have to go to Congress every single year to seek appropriations, in addition to not being subjected to the demise of funding after ten years. Appropriators for discretionary spending have caps or limits they have to abide by depending on that fiscal year's projected revenues and what the Congressional Budget Office says. By making the PACT money mandatory, the VA is guaranteed the $400B + $280B funds without having to be susceptible to the caps each year. Why is this important? Because caps will limit VA's abilities--caps will lead to rationing of care/declination of service, a critical consideration due to the projected increase of toxicity claims. ETA: I would take the concern about a $400B opportunity for backfilling seriously if it wasn’t for the fact that Rs are excellent at deficit spending when it suits them. Unless we’ve already forgotten, Trump’s tax cuts that disproportionately benefitted corporations, was determined by CBO to increase deficits by close to $2 trillion over eleven years. |
|
compeateropeator
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,259
Member is Online
|
Post by compeateropeator on Aug 2, 2022 18:43:32 GMT
Thanks lizacreates . I think I missed a whole group of post because I did not see yours. I often look for yours as I find them very easy to understand, impartial, and fact driven. |
|
|
|
Post by hopemax on Aug 2, 2022 18:56:13 GMT
No, you are not close. The Democrats changed the way the budgeting has always been done in order to create 400 billion more dollars in spending in an economy that can not handle it. Billion. With a B. (money not for veterans -don't even know what yet, as in there isn't even a stated need) That is what Toomey and others are trying to fix. THAT is what the Democrats are trying to protect at the expense of delaying health care to the veterans. While pointing fingers at the Republicans and painting them as evil. I know, for years, the GOP has gotten people's knickers in a twist over "government spending" but necessary spending will happen regardless of $$ amounts. As of May, (I couldn't find a more up to date number) the US has committed $54 billion dollars, with new announcements coming every couple weeks for support for all things concerning Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Do you hear the GOP getting in a twit about it? We're going to keep doing this for the foreseeable future. "Hundreds of billions of dollars," especially when we consider what might be needed to stave off a global food crisis, is not out of the question. If China were to invade Taiwan, the US would immediately authorize an ungodly amount of spending to ramp up. Do you think the "economy" can differentiate between spending 400 Billion dollars on steel, aluminum, plastics and all the other raw materials that make up the guns, planes, ships, artillery and ammunition vs whatever you are afraid the Democrats are going to authorize spending on? Like it or not, due to the various ongoing and anticipated crises, we are going to be in a spending phase for the foreseeable future. Sure we can pretend that we don't have an oncoming storm of natural disasters due to climate change, failing infrastructure due to years of neglect, insufficient infrastructure due to inadequate modernization efforts, income inequality and everything else. Things that will become more apparent with each passing year. But oftentimes that allows significant issues to fester and those billion dollar problems become trillion dollar problems. Lots of people, in both parties, thought it would be okay to delay refilling the US reserves of PPE to meet a budgetary target and look where that got us. "Discretionary" spending is a misnomer as it implies a level of frivolity or unnecessariness that may not comport with the reality of need. The GOP acts like everything the Democrats ask for is the household equivalent of "dining out" instead of dealing with the consequences of finding out that someone needs an immediate medical treatment / prescription, or suffered a house fire. Sometimes trying to force "sticking to a budget" above everything else is harmful and cruel. If it okay for $279 Billion dollars of NEW toxic exposure benefits to be declared mandatory spending, which is something Toomey is on record as being fine with... it is illogical to demand that the $400 billion of EXISTING toxic exposure benefits in the VA's budget to remain discretionary. If toxic exposure benefits are that essential for the people who endangered themselves in support of their country, that should apply to all of the toxic exposure benefits. It shouldn't be "Well, we knew this was a problem before, but we didn't realize the extent, so now that we're trying to deal with it more appropriately, the things we did during the time when we weren't handling it appropriately... THOSE things should be separated out." That's budgetary gimmicking! Potential domino effects are not justifiable reasons to perpetuate an inappropriate handling off a problem that almost everyone agrees should be dealt with more appropriately. And as Sen. Tester points out, when the "theoretical" new discretionary spending is proposed, it will be endless debated by the Appropriations Committee. Everything else is just trying to obfuscate that a small group of individuals decided to fuck around with veteran's healthcare and are trying to avoid the consequences of being called out for it. And those who typically want to support those people... wanting to avoid the chagrin of having to disagree with their actions in this case. All these "I take situations as they come, and evaluate on the merits of each. I don't blindly support based on the letter after their name" people, *this* is an instance where they could actually demonstrate it. But no, it's "Democrats are bad, and the GOP is only trying to be fiscally responsible." |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Aug 2, 2022 19:03:07 GMT
Toomey voted against the bill the first time. The other 20 something senators voted for the bill the first time, they had no objections then and the bill passed 84-11. Nothing significant changed with the $400 billion dollars. The Republicans are just latching on to Toomey’s objections as cover, even though they voted yes the first time. Schumer is planning to hold another vote with Toomey’s amendment, although it’s not likely to pass. This is a pretty good summary of what happened. heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-28-2022I think this bears repeating. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 2, 2022 19:04:46 GMT
I saw a lede skewering Rs yesterday morning on my feed. It’s sarcastic and so on point: “They [Dems] are also trying to help veterans and lower inflation. All this governing is an outrage that threatens the long-standing Republican philosophy of only helping the rich.”
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 2, 2022 19:44:24 GMT
I was looking for the names of the 14 Senators that voted against the PACT Act in June.
One of them was Tillis and here is his reason for voting against the Act in June.
“I strongly support the goal of the PACT Act and I drafted large portions of the legislative text,” Tillis said. “Just this week, I listened to [Department of Veterans Affairs] Secretary [Denis] McDonough describe the challenges the VA is facing in meeting current obligations and it’s clear that the Department does not have the capacity to properly implement the PACT Act. This legislation will have adverse operational and administrative impacts, and I remain concerned that it will result in increased wait times, delays in receiving care, and a substantial increase in the claims backlog.”
I read parts of the bill looking for Toomey’s “budget gimmick” and ran across a part where the bill gives the VA money to basically beef it up so it could implement PACT. Go to section 901 - Title XI - Improvement of Workforce of Department of Veterans Affairs of the bill and you will see what I’m talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 2, 2022 20:07:27 GMT
We have established that what Toomey is gripping about was in the June version of the PACT Act.
In June besides Toomey, these Republican Senators did not vote for the PACT Act - Burr, Crapo, Lankford, Lee, Lummis, Paul, Risch, Romney, Rounds, Shelby, Thune, Tillis, & Tuberbille.
Missing from that list of 14 was Ted Cruz…
Here he is trying to justify why he didn’t vote for the PACT Act last week.
Well son of a gun. Cruz just deleted his tweet of him trying to explain to Jon Steward about the “change” in the PACT Act.
There was a tweet of him in a beige suit jacket explaining about the change to the PACT Act and now it’s gone.
I was going to point out that if he had a problem with the “budget gimmick” why wasn’t he one of the original 14 that voted against the bill in June?
Well Jon Stewart, I guess Cruz was called on this enough times he decided to hightail it and pretend he never said what he said…
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 2, 2022 20:50:12 GMT
Toomey voted against the bill the first time. The other 20 something senators voted for the bill the first time, they had no objections then and the bill passed 84-11. Nothing significant changed with the $400 billion dollars. The Republicans are just latching on to Toomey’s objections as cover, even though they voted yes the first time. Schumer is planning to hold another vote with Toomey’s amendment, although it’s not likely to pass. This is a pretty good summary of what happened. heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-28-2022I forgot to include earlier that it was Toomey, too, who stopped the easy fix for the taxing error in the bill before the June vote. Also, one additional fact: Toomey was offered the chance for his amendment to be voted in June. He refused the amendment vote because what he wanted was the bill to be redone to accord with his desire. You can’t do that without killing the bill because it had already passed the House at that time. |
|
dawnnikol
Prolific Pea
'A life without books is a life not lived.' Jay Kristoff
Posts: 8,428
Sept 21, 2015 18:39:25 GMT
|
Post by dawnnikol on Aug 2, 2022 22:48:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 2, 2022 23:12:12 GMT
So the bill passed. Or maybe not yer…
Would like to know what Romney’s reason is for voting no.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 2, 2022 23:23:13 GMT
Toomey's amendment failed. 47 Y / 48 N.
PACT Act passed. 86 Y / 11 N.
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 2, 2022 23:23:54 GMT
Ok so it did pass. Good.
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 2, 2022 23:38:10 GMT
It passed and I’m getting the impression that maybe the “budget gimmick” is still in the bill.
|
|
