Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Usha Vance's perfect speech introducing JD
Politics by HatetheSwamp     July 18, 2024 7:50 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (1 comments) [18 views]


JD's speech
Politics by HatetheSwamp     July 18, 2024 8:31 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (3 comments) [30 views]


Schumer and Jefferies took that walk to the White House
News by Donna     July 17, 2024 10:07 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (10 comments) [100 views]


President Joe Biden has tested positive for Covid-19
Health by HatetheSwamp     July 17, 2024 3:37 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (5 comments) [51 views]


New feature on these page to test
Computers by Curt_Anderson     July 17, 2024 9:10 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [16 views]


Biden to push for Supreme Court ethics reform, term limits and amendment to overturn immunity ruling, sources say
Government by HatetheSwamp     July 17, 2024 1:47 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [51 views]


It's clear now that Biden isn't going to step down
Politics by Donna     July 15, 2024 8:53 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (34 comments) [278 views]


The real Emerald Forest / Ferngully / Avatar
Fauna by Indy!     July 17, 2024 12:22 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [19 views]


CNN: Dem polling shows Doddering Old Fool losing ground in 14 battleground states
Politics by HatetheSwamp     July 17, 2024 5:52 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [89 views]


Lots of chatter on the right: Vance emerges as Trump’s VP pick, with Rubio and Burgum out
Politics by HatetheSwamp     July 15, 2024 12:14 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (22 comments) [183 views]


Final Fantasy selectors, pages, etc.
Sheep "Blamed" the GOP for hating Vets got caught
By oldedude
August 3, 2022 5:32 am
Category: Final Fantasy

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

Long story short, dims didn't earmark $396 Billion. It could have been used for anything. GOP DEMANDED IT GO TO VETERANS. Dims refused to budge. finally relented with the Toomey amendment. It was a hissyfit from the dims, so they couldn't use the money to go in to woke programs or any other pet projects. The amendment finally allowed $116 to the dims for their pets and not veterans. My view, still a loss.

Senate Passes Burn Pits Bill After Week-Long Fight Over Amendment Process

"The Senate passed the Honoring Our PACT Act 86-11, six days after Republicans held the legislation up in hopes of adding an amendment addressing billions in mandatory spending.

The bill authorizes $667 billion to go toward the care of veterans who contracted diseases from burn pits, as well as research on those diseases. Thirty-eight Republicans joined 48 Democrats in supporting the legislation, which passed the House 342-88 in July.


The Senate first passed the Honoring Our PACT ACT in June, 84-14, but slight changes in the House of Representatives required the upper chamber to take a second vote. Twenty-five Republicans switched their votes Wednesday to “no” after Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey called attention to a provision that would create $396 billion in mandatory spending, which he claimed would “likely will be filled with spending totally unrelated to veterans.”

Toomey proposed an amendment that would direct more than $116 billion and make the rest discretionary, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer refused to allow votes on amendments before Tuesday. Toomey’s amendment failed 47-48."


Cited and related links:

  1. dailycaller.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Sheep "Blamed" the GOP for hating Vets got caught":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on August 3, 2022 5:50 am

    It is a loss for the Dems.

    The Senate has rules that move it to be a deliberative body. Chuck You attempted to foist the Dems' will on the whole Senate.

    The genius of the Senate GOPs was to make Toomey, a moderate who voted for the second impeachment, their poster boy.

    As pb said, from the beginning, the passed.


  2. by Donna on August 3, 2022 7:55 am
    The bill had drawn broad support on Capitol Hill, but just as it was expected to clear the Senate last week, Republicans in the chamber abruptly withdrew their backing, insisting that Democrats allow them a chance to limit the funding available to treat veterans.

    The bill would provide guaranteed funding for treating veterans exposed to toxins by setting up a dedicated fund that would not be subject to the annual congressional spending process. Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, warned that the measure was written in a way that could allow for immense new spending unrelated to veterans’ care.

    Mr. Toomey tried and failed to cap the amount of money that could be put into the fund every year, a move that Denis McDonough, the secretary of veterans affairs, had warned could lead to “rationing of care for vets.”

    Mr. Toomey also proposed shifting the fund for treating veterans into so-called discretionary spending after a decade, meaning that the Department of Veterans Affairs would have to request funding each year. That would subject the funding to Congress’s approval and the annual partisan spending battles on Capitol Hill, rather than having it guaranteed.

    Democrats opposed both efforts, saying the legislation did not need to be changed.




    google.com


  3. by Donna on August 3, 2022 8:12 am

    The link below provides a pretty good explanation of the controversy.

    thenationaldesk.com


  4. by oldedude on August 3, 2022 8:15 am
    PAGE NOT FOUND
    Our apologies, the content you requested cannot be found.


  5. by oldedude on August 3, 2022 8:20 am

    "The bill would provide guaranteed funding for treating veterans exposed to toxins by setting up a dedicated fund that would not be subject to the annual congressional spending process. Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, warned that the measure was written in a way that could allow for immense new spending unrelated to veterans’ care.

    Mr. Toomey tried and failed to cap the amount of money that could be put into the fund every year, a move that Denis McDonough, the secretary of veterans affairs, had warned could lead to “rationing of care for vets.”

    Mr. Toomey also proposed shifting the fund for treating veterans into so-called discretionary spending after a decade, meaning that the Department of Veterans Affairs would have to request funding each year. That would subject the funding to Congress’s approval and the annual partisan spending battles on Capitol Hill, rather than having it guaranteed.

    Democrats opposed both efforts, saying the legislation did not need to be changed."


    Bottom Line. They wanted 1/3 of the spending to NOT be tied to veterans. If there is no earmark, the money can be used for anything. There has to be an earmark on it to ensure the money isn't spent elsewhere. Them's the rules.


  6. by Donna on August 3, 2022 8:35 am
    Sorry about that link. I think it may have been too long for the software here to handle.


  7. by oldedude on August 3, 2022 8:43 am
    Okay. There's only what, a thousand things that can go wrong with it. Some of mine didn't even appear. Don't know why. Easy day.


  8. by oldedude on August 3, 2022 8:48 am
    I've had a couple of agencies that were caught in the "discretionary" spending loop. Many times, it will be put in (by both sides) to allow them to spend elsewhere at a later date. Whoever found that in Toomy's office deserves a raise. Brilliant attention to detail.


  9. by Donna on August 3, 2022 9:01 am
    It's my understanding that the $400 million was earmarked for veterans healthcare, and that Toomey's objection had to do with... well, see if you can understand this explanation, od (I don't) :

    "Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, of Pennsylvania, has been the PACT Act’s chief opponent. He has argued that the legislation has a provision that would move $400 billion earmarked for veterans’ healthcare into mandatory spending, which passes every year without any action from Congress. Toomey claims that move would allow lawmakers to spend the same amount of money in discretionary spending, which is appropriated by Congress each year.

    Concerned Veterans for America, a conservative veterans group, said they understood why Senate Republicans objected to the PACT Act as the legislation is currently written, said Marine veteran John Byrnes, CVA’s director of education.

    CVA understands the hesitation of Republican senators to advance the current version of the PACT Act, given that it would mean expanding the number of veterans eligible for VA healthcare at a time when The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is struggling to provide timely quality care and to be transparent about current wait times for care,” Byrnes said in a statement to Task & Purpose. “There are legitimate concerns about continuing to expand VA spending and reclassify it as mandatory.”"


    taskandpurpose.com


  10. by oldedude on August 3, 2022 9:33 am
    Gotcha.
    So both our articles are correct, just on different sides of the isle. $400B was in the bill for "mandatory spending." This sounds like a great deal, except by the rules, that would make $400B accessible to spend elsewhere (not helpful so far). The mandatory spending has a "mirror" spending in discretionary funding that can be spent any way they want. Toomy didn't want that much in to the "slushfund," wanting to trim down the bill. Although VA has to "request" that money every year, it's little more than a line item in their budget and placed in a part of the budget that says "you approved it last time, we still need "x" amount for that purpose. This isn't a math problem, it's a budget issue. It has to be in the buget anyway, it's just where it goes. With this type of line item, it can go up or down every year depending on the need.

    i.e.
    "Agent Orange Payments" The first 10 years went up quite a bit. Now, it's still and item, but needing less money (people died). Now the VA does not have to justify transferring those funds to another line item (like Female specific health, or traumatic amputees). And they can make those changes legally and within OMB rules.

    I'm not sure if that was a very good answer, but all in all, it's about moving line item to line item, and how much slush we have in "extra money."


  11. by Donna on August 3, 2022 9:47 am
    That sounds about right.



  12. by oldedude on August 3, 2022 11:05 am
    Obviously, the problem of how money is spent and the rules of the origin of funding programs is above your comprehension. I tried to make it easier, but if you can't understand it, oh well.


  13. by Donna on August 3, 2022 11:08 am
    OMG, I said "That sounds about right'!



  14. by oldedude on August 3, 2022 11:16 am
    Many times, you are just being facetious. Sorry if you weren't and I took it that way.


  15. by Donna on August 3, 2022 11:18 am
    Ok. I'm good.


  16. by Curt_Anderson on August 3, 2022 11:51 am
    I believe the Democrats will survive the blame and shame of being on the winning side of an 89-11 pro-veteran health vote.


  17. by HatetheSwamp on August 3, 2022 11:58 am

    Am I wrong? Didn't Toomey get a vote on the GOP amendments?


  18. by Curt_Anderson on August 3, 2022 12:37 pm
    HtS,
    You are wrong if you really believe what you said, namely "It is a loss for the Dems."


  19. by HatetheSwamp on August 3, 2022 12:46 pm

    The past, as pb said it would. No one opposed what the bill is about. Toomey said that in every interview I've seen and read.

    Chuck You blinked and let the GOPs have their way on the vote. In a week, no one's going to care about this issue but, in the Senate, the GOPs stood strong against Schumer's attempt to strong arm the Senate.


  20. by Curt_Anderson on August 3, 2022 1:42 pm
    HtS,
    There were no changes to the toxic burn pit bill which passed with a 89-11 vote. You are deluded if you think that voters will congratulate Republicans for favoring Senate procedure over veterans' health. Republicans realized that they and their mouthpiece, Toomey, were committing political malpractice. That's why they wanted to get that vote behind them and the protesting vets and their families off the capitol steps.


  21. by HatetheSwamp on August 3, 2022 2:53 pm

    Chuck You blinked. The GOPs got votes on their amendments, which is what they wanted.

    The bill was going to pass anyway.


  22. by oldedude on August 3, 2022 8:21 pm
    "There were no changes to the toxic burn pit bill which passed with a 89-11 vote. You are deluded if you think that voters will congratulate Republicans for favoring Senate procedure over veterans' health. Republicans realized that they and their mouthpiece, Toomey, were committing political malpractice. That's why they wanted to get that vote behind them and the protesting vets and their families off the capitol steps."
    Proof? citation? My citation said there was.


  23. by oldedude on August 4, 2022 5:12 am
    "There were no changes to the toxic burn pit bill which passed with a 89-11 vote. You are deluded if you think that voters will congratulate Republicans for favoring Senate procedure over veterans' health. Republicans realized that they and their mouthpiece, Toomey, were committing political malpractice. That's why they wanted to get that vote behind them and the protesting vets and their families off the capitol steps."

    If that's true, why did the house have to vote again on the bill as required by law? The house and Senate are required to pass the exact same bill. AND no one is stupid enough to bring the bill up again to vote unless they have to.


    "The Senate first passed the Honoring Our PACT ACT in June, 84-14, but slight changes in the House of Representatives required the upper chamber to take a second vote. Twenty-five Republicans switched their votes Wednesday to “no” after Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey called attention to a provision that would create $396 billion in mandatory spending, which he claimed would “likely will be filled with spending totally unrelated to veterans.”
    The Daily Caller as cited above.


Go To Top

Comment on: "Sheep "Blamed" the GOP for hating Vets got caught"


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page