did the gop senators vote against vets

[Jim in CT]

this is the problem with politicians and the media

Yes, gop senators blocked a bill that would have expanded medical
help to vets exposed to chemical contamination.

That doesn’t necessarily mean they were opposed to helping the vets

If any of you did 5 seconds of digging, you’d see that senators Toomey and McConnell made it very clear they were in favor of the purpose of the bill, but they were opposed to some budgetary gimmick they say is in the bill, that would allow democrats to use tons of money for unrelated things

I’m not a lawyer, and none of us read the proposed bill, so i don’t know for certain that Toomey and McConnell are truthful about what’s in there. But i searched, and i couldn’t find a single
democrat saying they were lying. I found lots of democrats insulting them for opposing helping vets. as we know well, lobbing insults is what one often does when they can’t win, but can’t admit they did anything wrong.

If the republicans are lying, it would be very easy to prove it. And no one has done so, not yet.

this is what both sides do. They write a bill everyone supports and give it a title that no one would object to, then they throw some partisan pet project in there, the other side opposes the unrelated pork, and everyone claims they actually opposed the purpose of the named bill.

We need to elect different kinds of people. both sides

And the simpletons here need to figure out that no one is opposed to helping vets. If the democrats put some budgetary gimmicks into a bill that’s purportedly aimed at helping sick vets, it’s their fault it didn’t pass.

if the gop is lying about the gimmick being in there, shame on them

[The Dad Fisherman]

“That previously authorized spending had been designated as discretionary — that is, subject to yearly congressional appropriations. But the bill, known as the PACT Act, authorizes $280 billion of new mandatory spending — that is, not subject to yearly appropriations — and also converts the prior $400 billion in authorizations from discretionary to mandatory.

That, Toomey first argued last month, amounts to a budget “gimmick” that could facilitate massive amounts of new appropriated spending: “Why would they do a thing like that?” he said in a June 24 floor speech. “The reason is because that way you create a big gaping hole in the discretionary spending category, which can be filled with another $400 billion of totally unrelated spending — who knows on what.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

“That previously authorized spending had been designated as discretionary — that is, subject to yearly congressional appropriations. But the bill, known as the PACT Act, authorizes $280 billion of new mandatory spending — that is, not subject to yearly appropriations — and also converts the prior $400 billion in authorizations from discretionary to mandatory.

That, Toomey first argued last month, amounts to a budget “gimmick” that could facilitate massive amounts of new appropriated spending: “Why would they do a thing like that?” he said in a June 24 floor speech. “The reason is because that way you create a big gaping hole in the discretionary spending category, which can be filled with another $400 billion of totally unrelated spending — who knows on what.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and THAT is what the GOP objected to. Not to helping vets.

How will Pete react? will he…

a) scold democrats for exploiting everyone’s desire to help sick vets, by sneakily inserting a partisan gimmick into an otherwise noble bill

—- or ——-

b) will he give me an anatomical lecture about how many parts there are to the urethra?

if you’re ticked that the bill didn’t pass, your issue is with the democrats who couldn’t resist sneaking some BS partisan pork into what should be a popular and noble bill.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Baloney as usual
the U.S. has much bigger funds — without guardrails — in support of its defense budget and overseas military operations.

All of the sudden votes change and there’s no political game being played.

If you don’t think weeks or years matter in cancer treatment, you don’t think.

As Jon Stewart said in a tweet in response to Rafael Cruz

Show everyone where in the Pact Act is this 400 billion dollars blank check or unrelated spending that was added/snuck in…OR show section 805 c of the actual bill that explicitly states what the Toxic Exposure Fund can be used for.

Show everyone what was added/snuck into the Pact Act that YOU voted for on June 16, that made you change to No in July. Be specific. Or were you for the bill before you were against it Senator Kerry…I mean Cruz.
No one is playing politics with the Pact Act but you, Toomey and your band of merry monsters. Stop #^&#^&#^&#^&ing around and pass the bill you already had passed. Thank you for coming to my TedCruz talk.
This isn’t a game. Real people’s lives hang in the balance…people that fought for your life. The PACT act you voted for, then inexplicably shot down is the same one Senators Tester and Moran posted online in MAY. Which you read cuz yer shmart.
Patriotic Americans don’t fist bump their pals after blocking vet healthcare, do they?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

yes, pete, it’s a game. with you it’s always a game, and always a game in which you humiliate yourself as always you try to act like the left is flawless.

you’re like the kid in school. who ate bugs so that other kids would pay attention to him.

congressional democrats aren’t denying what they did. so you’ll deny for them. that’s not crazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes, pete, it’s a game. with you it’s always a game, and always a game in which you humiliate yourself as always you try to act like the left is flawless.

you’re like the kid in school. who ate bugs so that other kids would pay attention to him.

congressional democrats aren’t denying what they did. so you’ll deny for them. that’s not crazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Patriotic Americans don’t fist bump their pals after blocking vet healthcare, do they?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Here’s why Cruz is full of #^&#^&#^&#^&, that you’re choosing to swallow

On June 16th, the Senate voted 84-14 to pass the PACT Act. For veteran advocates, like myself, who had been working on this for years, it looked like the bill was a done deal. The House had scheduled it for a vote just a few working days after the Senate passed it.
RepBost announced his support, and the President was ready to sign the bill. Hours before the Rules Committee was schedule to hear the bill, so it could go to the floor for the House to pass it, an issue was found that risked the entire bill being ruled unconstitutional.
Here's the line that stalled things for a month in the Senate-passed version. "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."
The sentence triggers a procedural issue, known as a "blue-slip" issue. ANY tax-related provision must come from the House, not the Senate. The issue needed to be fixed. If you want to read more about "blue-slips", CRS has a great report. crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL…
Fortunately, the House moved quickly & removed this sentence by repurposing a bill that had already passed the Senate. They erased the text of S3373, and added the Senate-passed PACT Act text, EXCEPT the sentence that dealt with the tax issues. No other changes were made.
This brings us up to speed on what happened to set the stage for the activity on the PACT Act over the past few days. Given the strong vote, 84-14, veterans advocates like myself were expecting the support to stay the same.
However, that was clearly not the case. The vote to move the bill forward failed after 25 Senators changed their position.
Over the past few days, we've heard a lot of talk about Section 805 the "Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund." This creates a treasury account that is considered mandatory funding and must be refunded every year.
This was in the bill when the Senate voted on June 16. I talked with many Senate offices about this fund and the effective oversight of it. This fund is only for toxic-exposure related costs.
Every year, the VA will ask for money to be put into this account and Congress will agree or disagree with their request through the appropriations process. This is basic checks and balances.
Now, we gotta talk about Toomey. His amendment would limit the fund size each year & totally eliminate it in a decade. There are a few problems with that.
First, it would require the bill to go back to House, which likely means a six-week delay before it gets passed. For sick veterans, that is too long.
Second, his amendment puts caps in place on the fund. The challenge with doing capping the money today for the fund in 2030 is that we don’t know what veterans will need in eight years. The health issues associated with toxic exposure take years to manifest and be diagnosed.
Also, Congress put caps with the Mission Act and other bills, if the estimate today is too low, emergency appropriations are needed, and passing the regular appropriations is hard enough.
Third, the amendment sunsets the fund after 10 years, which means that we’re going to have another funding fight in a decade. We’re still going to be dealing with Agent Orange, Burn Pits, and other toxic exposures for the next decade and beyond.
When it comes to the PACT Act, NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE CHANGED since June. The toxic exposure fund that many are pointing to certainly was not added. Unfortunately, concern over this fund and frustration that Senators couldn’t offer amendments helped lead to 25 changed votes.
So, what's the way ahead? Leader Schumer announced that he will bring the bill back up on Monday night. He is willing to work Senators to allow amendments, which will hopefully create a path ahead.
This means between now and then, veterans need to rally support and help flip back at least five Senators who voted against the PACT Act.
The Senate needs to hear from veterans, and all Americans, on why the PACT Act is so important. Here's a resource you can use to write and call your Senators.
https://moaa.quorum.us/campaign/41155/
Calls are highly effective, and it is important to be respectful when calling in. The person on the other end is a young staffer or intern who is just starting on the Hill.

Patriotic Americans don’t fist bump their pals after blocking vet healthcare, do they?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Patriotic Americans don’t fist bump their pals after blocking vet healthcare, do they?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they do it for stopping the other side from rolling that into endless annual spending on god knows what.

pass a bill that doesn’t have the gimmick. why is that hard? and republicans do this too, but this time it happens to be the left.

all a bunch of corrupt jerks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Jim
Nothing changed
Only the votes
The fist bump moment will make a great campaign ad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/expo...backs-veterans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim
Nothing changed
Only the votes
The fist bump moment will make a great campaign ad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

take the gimmick out, vote wagon, it’ll pass. not hard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Finally, Republicans found an issue they could rally around and support: Not helping veterans who are dying of cancer. They should run on this - and Dems should make damn sure they do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Finally, Republicans found an issue they could rally around and support: Not helping veterans who are dying of cancer. They should run on this - and Dems should make damn sure they do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they desperately need something....

[Pete F.]

The way you know Republicans royally #^&#^&#^&#^&ed themselves is listening to how hard they're trying to confuse everyone with verbal gymnastics about the PACT Act.

They're lying because they got caught.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

But Cruz and his Republican colleagues in the Senate in mid-June passed an almost identical version of the bill, which cleared the chamber by a vote of 84-14, (with all 14 “no” votes coming from Republicans).

Just saw that sentence somewhere. It it true?

[Pete F.]

https://www.vfw.org/media-and-events...vance-pact-act

https://www.legion.org/veteranshealt...table%E2%80%99
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Thanks

[RIROCKHOUND]

The answer to the OP, yes, it appears they did. Some were against it from the beginning (14 no votes). The rest seemed to switch for no real reason.

Originally Posted by PaulS

Thanks

Love him or hate him, Jon Stewert has been all over this (and 9/11 health fund for first responders). link below to a clip of him on Newsmax (remove the spaces added between . com).

https://twitter. com/atrupar/status/1554477714802868226?s=20&t=jphFgQPDCrF3lBeKdGS9xA

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

The answer to the OP, yes, it appears they did. Some were against it from the beginning (14 no votes). The rest seemed to switch for no real reason.



Love him or hate him, Jon Stewert has been all over this (and 9/11 health fund for first responders). link below to a clip of him on Newsmax (remove the spaces added between . com).

https://twitter. com/atrupar/status/1554477714802868226?s=20&t=jphFgQPDCrF3lBeKdGS9xA

right. not for the reason they said, it because they want sick vets to die.

are democrats pro abortion because they hate babies? or is there another reason bryan?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

so what was the reason that they voted against the bill after voting for the bill ?

[Pete F.]

The poor victim for whom life is black and white, with no gray unless he agrees.

It's possible to be anti-abortion and pro-choice; pro-police and anti police misconduct; pro second amendment and pro gun control.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by PaulS

so what was the reason that they voted against the bill after voting for the bill ?

This.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by PaulS

so what was the reason that they voted against the bill after voting for the bill ?

Revenge for being out Mitched

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

so what was the reason that they voted against the bill after voting for the bill ?

Paul, all your side has to do, is propose a clean version of the bill, without that political gimmick. If the GOP votes against THAT version, then there's no arguing that the GOP voted against helping vets.

That's all the left needs to do to force the GOPs hand on this. Why haven;t they done it yet? Probablty because more than helping vets, democrats want to be able to say that the GOP is hurting vets. I can't imagine why else they just don't propose a clean version.

This is what TDF was referring to, when he said both sides are scum. And he's right.

[PaulS]

You didn't answer the question.

what was the reason that they voted against the bill after voting for the bill?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You didn't answer the question.

what was the reason that they voted against the bill after voting for the bill?

they say the reason is the accounting gimmick. was the same accounting gimmick in the original version they voted for?

i answered your question. can you show me the same courtesy?

here’s my question…if you merely want to help sick vets, why not take the gimmick out of the bill? make it so there’s nothing in the bull to vote against, other then helping sick vets.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you have fun answering that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you wonder why I think you are a vile person?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do you wonder why I think you are a vile person?

because he answered your question rationally...twice.... ?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do you wonder why I think you are a vile person?

to quote you, “you didn’t answer my question.”

except i did answer it ( twice, actually). but instead of answering mine, you lobbed an insult, then scurried off. very original.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

they say the reason is the accounting gimmick. was the same accounting gimmick in the original version they voted for?

i answered your question. can you show me the same courtesy?

here’s my question…if you merely want to help sick vets, why not take the gimmick out of the bill? make it so there’s nothing in the bull to vote against, other then helping sick vets.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wonder why they passed it today, same bill

11 republican Senators voted against the burn pit bill, veterans heath care. never forget. Make them famous:

Crapo (R-ID)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Lummis (R-WY)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Romney (R-UT)
Shelby (R-AL)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Tuberville (R-AL)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device