Thanks for taking time to read the bills and sort out the truth David. Just might be one of the worst exercises in futility there is, reading/comparing bills. No surprises on what the real reason is/was. Being angry over a different bill more than justifies sticking it to veterans. Not.
If there is a more scummy politician out there than Ted Cruz, feel free to point him/her out. When i wrote that, i spit out my coffee all over my keyboard. Damn, there's any number of them. This country, as great as it is, could be so much more. Stopping the games and accepting their job of governing rather than kicking the other sides ass has to stop. Now.
Veterans deserve relief from service-related illnesses and injuries. No argument. Liars should be called out if that turns out to be the case. A question not asked is how much spending is appropriate? $400,000,000,000 is a lot of money. How many patients are there?
The best information I could find is that there are about 610,000 surviving veterans who were deployed to Vietnam and about 600,000 veterans who were deployed to the mid-east. According to this story, https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2021/30-years-after-gulf-war-veterans-still-battle-health-issues-caused-by-toxic-wounds/, about one-third of the Gulf Wars vets are suffering from various chronic illnesses. Assuming Vietnam deployed vets are similarly affected, there are about 450,000 patients. The spending proposed is over $800,000 per patient.
Even if that level of spending is appropriate, what will the shysters do to run the total up? Every day I see ads on TV drumming up business to make claims against the government for illness caused by impure water at Camp Lejune during the 1960s. I'm 82 years old and spent two days in 1966 at Camp Lejune testing NATO radios for reflective interference over water. Should I be claiming damages for ulcerative colitis or bladder cancer or whatever similar illness that are not unusual in older people.
Someone did share this Twitter thread that purports to show the gimmick but it seems far from certain that Toomey’s interpretation is the correct one.
I’m skeptical that this money could be spent without it being appropriated for something else. Others, such as the VFW at the link in the article, say there are guardrails to prevent such abuse.
Either way, this was in the bill that Republicans voted for in June. It did not change and Republicans didn’t have a problem with it last month.
I do know that Toomey was offered a vote on his amendment but turned it down because he would have to meet the 60-vote threshold, the same as the bill. Toomey wanted a simple majority requirement in order to pass the amendment.
Critics say the amendment would kill the bill. That’s discussed here.
That is correct. Budget money is fungible and most analyses ignore that fact. Without context, the GOP change seems petty and vengeful. In context, Democrats are lying about smuggling billions in new spending to the general fund. They are using the veterans as a political lever in an election year to trap Republicans in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. They did a good job of that.
Wait, so you are saying that because the democrats(the party in power)made a deal among themselves within the annual budget that you want your political party to screw the vets over in retaliation? And you don't consider that to be petty and vengeful?
Also considering how republicans spent their last administration the idea that they care at all about spending is laughable.
I am liking Democrats chances in Nov. more and more. And I hope more states follow Kansas and put abortion on the ballet.
No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying either way, Republicans lose because it was a trap and done in bad faith using the veterans as a lever. I think the Republicans who voted against the bill made a mistake, but either way they were going to be attacked for it. Either by their own party for voting for a tax and spend smuggle into the discretionary fund or by Dems and the media for voting against the veterans. I'd have taken the first option and many Republicans did.
Thanks for taking time to read the bills and sort out the truth David. Just might be one of the worst exercises in futility there is, reading/comparing bills. No surprises on what the real reason is/was. Being angry over a different bill more than justifies sticking it to veterans. Not.
If there is a more scummy politician out there than Ted Cruz, feel free to point him/her out. When i wrote that, i spit out my coffee all over my keyboard. Damn, there's any number of them. This country, as great as it is, could be so much more. Stopping the games and accepting their job of governing rather than kicking the other sides ass has to stop. Now.
Veterans deserve relief from service-related illnesses and injuries. No argument. Liars should be called out if that turns out to be the case. A question not asked is how much spending is appropriate? $400,000,000,000 is a lot of money. How many patients are there?
The best information I could find is that there are about 610,000 surviving veterans who were deployed to Vietnam and about 600,000 veterans who were deployed to the mid-east. According to this story, https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2021/30-years-after-gulf-war-veterans-still-battle-health-issues-caused-by-toxic-wounds/, about one-third of the Gulf Wars vets are suffering from various chronic illnesses. Assuming Vietnam deployed vets are similarly affected, there are about 450,000 patients. The spending proposed is over $800,000 per patient.
Even if that level of spending is appropriate, what will the shysters do to run the total up? Every day I see ads on TV drumming up business to make claims against the government for illness caused by impure water at Camp Lejune during the 1960s. I'm 82 years old and spent two days in 1966 at Camp Lejune testing NATO radios for reflective interference over water. Should I be claiming damages for ulcerative colitis or bladder cancer or whatever similar illness that are not unusual in older people.
Someone did share this Twitter thread that purports to show the gimmick but it seems far from certain that Toomey’s interpretation is the correct one.
I’m skeptical that this money could be spent without it being appropriated for something else. Others, such as the VFW at the link in the article, say there are guardrails to prevent such abuse.
https://twitter.com/aghamilton29/status/1553960760316928000?s=21&t=9Z_72NEZRoh98qbweE8A2A
Either way, this was in the bill that Republicans voted for in June. It did not change and Republicans didn’t have a problem with it last month.
I do know that Toomey was offered a vote on his amendment but turned it down because he would have to meet the 60-vote threshold, the same as the bill. Toomey wanted a simple majority requirement in order to pass the amendment.
Critics say the amendment would kill the bill. That’s discussed here.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/republicans-reject-spending-bill-veterans-exposed-burn-pits/story?id=87619926
That is correct. Budget money is fungible and most analyses ignore that fact. Without context, the GOP change seems petty and vengeful. In context, Democrats are lying about smuggling billions in new spending to the general fund. They are using the veterans as a political lever in an election year to trap Republicans in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. They did a good job of that.
Wait, so you are saying that because the democrats(the party in power)made a deal among themselves within the annual budget that you want your political party to screw the vets over in retaliation? And you don't consider that to be petty and vengeful?
Also considering how republicans spent their last administration the idea that they care at all about spending is laughable.
I am liking Democrats chances in Nov. more and more. And I hope more states follow Kansas and put abortion on the ballet.
No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying either way, Republicans lose because it was a trap and done in bad faith using the veterans as a lever. I think the Republicans who voted against the bill made a mistake, but either way they were going to be attacked for it. Either by their own party for voting for a tax and spend smuggle into the discretionary fund or by Dems and the media for voting against the veterans. I'd have taken the first option and many Republicans did.