This would actually be a legit argument if folks going into the military weren’t required to get a bunch of vaccines anyway as a requirement. Try again.
I thought Republicans loved the military
- Thread starter PurdueFan1
- Start date
Like I said, from what I'm reading, it sounds like the way it's funded changed.
That did not happen. Toomey is not telling the truth.I think the issue is the additional $400 billion in spending that went into the bill after it went back to the House. It was originally supported by Republicans. But now they want an explanation for the additional $400 billion that wasn't included in the original bill. Funny how that little caveat hasn't been covered by the mainstream media. Just another way for Democrats to express "outrage" prior to midterms...
"My concern about this bill has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill," Toomey said, voicing his opposition to what he described as a "budgetary gimmick" that would allow $400 billion in additional spending.
'Total bulls***': Anger boils over after Republicans block bill to help vets exposed to burn pits
Democratic senators and activists, including Jon Stewart, expressed their outrage on Capitol Hill on Thursday toward Republicans who blocked a bipartisan bill that would expand health care access for military veterans exposed to toxic burn pits.news.yahoo.com
The money didn't change. How it's being funded didn't change.
I don't believe anything Jon Stewart has to say. His incentive has and always will be to make Repubs look bad. I'll let this one play out and reserve judgement for when the bill isn't passed at all. There's zero motive, politically or financially, for Repubs to just stop this bill for no reason. If I find they did it for no reason other than blocking passage of a bill that could help veterans, I'll be as pissed as everyone else.
I'm sure that our military enjoys 100% of your support ALL of the time. Right?
Typical of the Dems. Get initial bipartisan support for a Bill, then make some last minute changes adding pork or otherwise altering the Bill and when the Reps refuse to go along, mindless drones like you attack Reps for not supporting the Military. You're just a puppet in their political theater.
In this case the Dems made some "technical" changes and there were too many questions about accounting for the funds (the old Dem shell game of reallocating funds for political purposes).
I agree with you. Now ask yourself WHY the DEMS are playing politics by changing the Bill that previously had bipartisan support. The Reps didn't change the Bill, the DEMS did. Your righteous indignation is pointed at the wrong Party.
It's hilarious watching you wrap yourself in the flag and verbalize your hypocrisy...LOL
All you need to know is why does the military vote primarily Republican? I venture to say Joe is more underwater on his job approval with the military as compared to the general public.
Where are you getting that from? Post a link of the changes.
The revised bill passed the house with fairly broad bi-partisan support.
Blindsided veterans erupt in fury after Senate GOP tanks toxic burn pit bill
The widely supported bipartisan measure, PACT Act, looked to expand medical coverage for millions of combatants exposed to toxic burn pits during their service.
www.nbcnews.com
The Senate passed the original legislation 84-14 in June. It underwent minor changes when it moved to the House, where it passed 342-88. When the bill returned to the Senate, the bill had not changed much but the view — and vote — of 25 senators did.
Unfortunately, the leadership is trying to make the Military WOKE. Teaching CRT, purging alleged White Supremacists and purging people, who didn't want to take the Vaccine, which doesn't actually stop you from getting or transmitting Covid. This Administration is significantly weakening our country.
Apparently Xi is getting a solid return on the money China gave Hunter. The Big Guy is working diligently to earn his 10%. He doesn't want Pelosi to go to Taiwan and it's only a matter of time, before he takes the tariffs off Chinese goods. Biden is also depleting our Strategic Oil Reserve for political reasons, rather than any real emergency.
I'm hoping we can make it through the next 2.5 years without me having to learn to speak Mandarin.
Agree. What I find mind boggling is the administration is forcing good servicemen out but at the same this are having a hard time meeting recruitment goals.
The revised bill passed the house with fairly broad bi-partisan support.
Blindsided veterans erupt in fury after Senate GOP tanks toxic burn pit bill
The widely supported bipartisan measure, PACT Act, looked to expand medical coverage for millions of combatants exposed to toxic burn pits during their service.
The Senate passed the original legislation 84-14 in June. It underwent minor changes when it moved to the House, where it passed 342-88. When the bill returned to the Senate, the bill had not changed much but the view — and vote — of 25 senators did.
What changed?
Where’s the hypocrisy, gramps? I’m disappointed that this bill didn’t pass. You aren’t?
Alternate headline. If Democrats cared about veterans they would propose a clean bill.
Or, ya know, not change the original.
Or, ya know, not change the original.
Last edited:
Why do that? It gives the malcontents something to go after republicans about on a Friday afternoon.
But, ya know, they didn’t change it. And, ya know, it’s not like the republicans who voted no were seeing it for the first time. So, ya know, you’re full of shit. As, ya know, per usual.
Why are folks acting like we're still just waiting for the full story to come out? This is not a "Dems said/Reps said" situation where we can't verify which group of people is telling the truth about the change. If you want to know what the change was, compare the two versions. Here's the version that passed the Senate on 6/16:
Here's the amended version that passed the House on 7/13 that Senate Republicans largely rejected:
Anyone see any difference that would justify 25 Republicans withdrawing their support?
Also, it would appear, if indeed I've found the right thing (someone can correct me if this isn't it), that the changes made in the House version were all proposed by Republicans in the House Committee on Rules:
Senate Amendment to H.R. 3967—Honoring our PACT Act of 2022
But sure, the Democrats in the House filled it with pork, so Senate Republicans had no choice but to block it...
Why are folks acting like we're still just waiting for the full story to come out? This is not a "Dems said/Reps said" situation where we can't verify which group of people is telling the truth about the change. If you want to know what the change was, compare the two versions. Here's the version that passed the Senate on 6/16:
Here's the amended version that passed the House on 7/13 that Senate Republicans largely rejected:
Anyone see any difference that would justify 25 Republicans withdrawing their support?
Also, it would appear, if indeed I've found the right thing (someone can correct me if this isn't it), that the changes made in the House version were all proposed by Republicans in the House Committee on Rules:
Senate Amendment to H.R. 3967—Honoring our PACT Act of 2022
rules.house.gov
But sure, the Democrats in the House filled it with pork, so Senate Republicans had no choice but to block it...
Google mandatory vs. discetionary spending.
I'm aware of the difference. What's the relevance to Republicans in the Senate rejecting the revised bill?
I'm not entirely sure, because the amendment could've been clarifying the language rather than substantively changing the bill. But, which party introduced the language you're referencing?
Loser desperate to let everyone know he doesn’t live on here posts 9 times before 11 am on a Saturday to let everyone know that he does, indeed, live on here. Oh tears, never change. 😂😂😂😂
Anyway, have a great weekend stalking the board!
Uh, nobody goes out and socializes on Saturday mornings. People (with lives) go out and socialize on Friday nights. You wouldn’t know that though since you live on here on Friday nights. 😂😂😂😂
Anyway, I would deflect too if I were exposed for being a loser posting here that late on a Friday night!
Since Toomey voted against it the first time, his opinion is not really relevant to the discussion of why the other Republicans who previously supported the bill now no longer do.
A report from June 6, so the Republicans who supported the bill on June 16 already had access to it in order to inform their decision. They can't be in favor of it on June 16 despite the CBO report and then turn against in July BECAUSE of the CBO report.
Care to try again? You're doing well giving the reasons that some Republican Senators NEVER supported the bill, but can you find a change that the House Democrats made between June 16 and July 13 that altered the bill such that Senate Republicans who had previously voted for the bill felt they could no longer support it?
google discretionary spending vs direct spending. Then go back and look at the tables.
The change (or language clarification, I don't have enough knowledge to determine which) you appear to be referencing was introduced by a Republican. So, you've still not found anything that Democrats did that changed the bill. If, indeed, the amendment that "prevents the Fund from converting up to $396.6 billion of existing, already appropriated VA health care costs from discretionary to mandatory" is the problem, it begs the following question:
Why did Republicans introduce a "budgetary gimmick" into this bill that has now prevented it being passed by the Senate?
It would appear that "fixing the bill," as Sen. Toomey put it, would require undoing the work of House Republicans.
Edit: An update, since I ran across this:
Read through the thread for a summary of what actually changed in the bill from the June 16 version. Unless this person is lying or mistaken, the only difference between the version the Senate passed on 6/16 and the one they didn't pass this week is the removal of this sentence:
"Not A Taxable Benefit.—A contract buy out for a covered health care professional under subsection (a) shall not be considered a taxable benefit or event for the covered health care professional."
Apparently, Senate Republicans support the, potentially, unconstitutional version but DON'T support the corrected version.
Last edited:
The Magical Senate Fairy waived it's wand - Passed!
Fing great to see Cruz humiliated as a bonus!
Fing great to see Cruz humiliated as a bonus!
Anybody that claims the pubs are against the bill are full of it. They want to care of our vets. Both parties do. When one party claims the other is against helping vets they are using them as pawns in their BS political games.......and it's kinda disgusting.
But what the pubs did was pretty sh!tty too. They lied about the changes. Most turned around and voted for the package, with no changes, when they had voted against it just days ago.
The only plausible answer is they were trying to thwart some momentum the Dems have with the CHIPS legislation and the surprise deal Manchin made with Schumer on the Inflation Reduction act....which is not a sure thing.
If a bill is a good thing then vote for it. Stop all the gamesmanship.
Do the Electoral count act and the Respect for Marriage act and move on.
But what the pubs did was pretty sh!tty too. They lied about the changes. Most turned around and voted for the package, with no changes, when they had voted against it just days ago.
The only plausible answer is they were trying to thwart some momentum the Dems have with the CHIPS legislation and the surprise deal Manchin made with Schumer on the Inflation Reduction act....which is not a sure thing.
If a bill is a good thing then vote for it. Stop all the gamesmanship.
Do the Electoral count act and the Respect for Marriage act and move on.
I think this is what upset people (at least it was for me), that they were willing to hold up this bill simply because they were butthurt and then pretended they actually had a problem with it when, clearly, there was nothing for those who switched their votes to have a problem with, since the House made no substantive changes.
At least someone like Toomey was consistent from the beginning, but it passed the Senate the first time despite him making the same objection he made the second time. Since those 25 vote-switchers didn't have any problem with the "budgetary gimmick" the first time, it was pretty transparent that wasn't the reason they voted the bill down the second time.
Were you a political science major? You never stop posting about all issues. Do you work for a living?
