Posted on Jul 29, 2022
Why did the GOP reject a bill to help veterans exposed to toxins?
1.28K
54
19
4
4
0
Here I go again. Off on another futile hunt in search of the truth. Why did the GOP reject the PACT Act? Google or Bing or whatever search engine you like for the answer and you'll find the usual explanations. The GOP are scum. They hate veterans. They hate America. They only serve the rich fat cats. Generally, my searches for such truth end up in the same crap filled bog: The Senators started with a good bill with broad support and then screw it up with all sorts of amendments and riders having nothing to do with the original intent. It's more common than not. And in a key election year, it's a great way to give your opposition a black eye, especially when you have the news media and Big Tech flying cover for you. Well, I'll find the answer sooner or later. They can't hide it forever from a determined recon. Wish me luck...
Why did the GOP reject a bill to help veterans exposed to toxins?
Posted from msnbc.comPosted in these groups: 
Congress
Congress
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
Senator Toomey (R-PA)
"While not all Republican senators who voted against the bill talked publicly about why they did so, Republican Senator Toomey said on the Senate floor that he voted against the bill because it would create $400 billion in unrelated spending. "My concern about this bill has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill," Toomey said. "This budgetary gimmick is so unrelated to the actual veterans' issue that has to do with burn pits, that it's not even in the House version of this bill."
"While not all Republican senators who voted against the bill talked publicly about why they did so, Republican Senator Toomey said on the Senate floor that he voted against the bill because it would create $400 billion in unrelated spending. "My concern about this bill has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill," Toomey said. "This budgetary gimmick is so unrelated to the actual veterans' issue that has to do with burn pits, that it's not even in the House version of this bill."
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
Did you read either version of the bill? I did. And the updated one was basically the exact same thing as the first one.
There was nothing "added in." No gimmicks. None of that. The only thing that changed was the reconciliation bill.
If you wanna sit there and cradle the balls of Republicans who have consistently shown they do not care about the veterans or military members, go for it. But it's asinine to keep voting for people who don't care about veterans or active duty, Guard or Reservists. At all.
Also people need to stop quoting Toomey - he's a liar. And he's full of shit.
There was nothing "added in." No gimmicks. None of that. The only thing that changed was the reconciliation bill.
If you wanna sit there and cradle the balls of Republicans who have consistently shown they do not care about the veterans or military members, go for it. But it's asinine to keep voting for people who don't care about veterans or active duty, Guard or Reservists. At all.
Also people need to stop quoting Toomey - he's a liar. And he's full of shit.
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
No, he's not lying. The bill is unchanged and the amendments chock full of pork are real. Look for a better source of the final version of the bill
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Did you read the Congressional Budget Office Scorings?
On December 7, 2021, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report.
"Direct Spending Outlays - $281.5 Billion"
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-12/hr3967.pdf
On June 6, 2022, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report.
"Current-Law Discretionary Spending Reclassified as Direct Spending - $396.6 Billion."
"Total Direct Spending Budget Authority - $679.4 Billion"
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/hr3967_senate_version.pdf
Difference between the two scorings
Direct Spending [Not subject to appropriation, thus mandatory] = $397.9 Billion.
Ask the CBO what the change was that triggered the difference.
On December 7, 2021, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report.
"Direct Spending Outlays - $281.5 Billion"
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-12/hr3967.pdf
On June 6, 2022, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report.
"Current-Law Discretionary Spending Reclassified as Direct Spending - $396.6 Billion."
"Total Direct Spending Budget Authority - $679.4 Billion"
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/hr3967_senate_version.pdf
Difference between the two scorings
Direct Spending [Not subject to appropriation, thus mandatory] = $397.9 Billion.
Ask the CBO what the change was that triggered the difference.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Why? Because Adam Schiff added a $400 billion dollar pork clause to the bill. And then voted against when the Republicans removed the pork clause in a revision of the bill. Democrats are soo damn stupid.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Perrotto
Maj John Bell - Sir - His "feelings" about an issue outweighs evidence and facts. Always has. He states that Abbot and Ducey are committing felonies, yet also states that the DOJ and this administration doesn't have the balls to indict them. It cannot be because both governors are acting lawfully. I mean, they go after Trump for any reason they think can stick, but not against Governors? The man is simply blind.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Capt Gregory Prickett - If you notice, the text of the bill you posted in the link you provided, the last section is section 706. and the bill ends on page 80.
The final bill as voted on ends on page 150. According to the CBO, the paragraph that required the re-scoring is section 805 on page 118, lines 9-15?
"9 upon enactment of the Sergeant First Class Heath Robin-
10 son Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive
11 Toxics Act of 2022, expenses authorized to be appro-
12 priated to the Fund in subsection (c) shall be estimated
13 for fiscal year 2023 and each subsequent fiscal year and
14 treated as budget authority that is considered to be direct
15 spending—
The bill you posted and that was voted on earlier this year, is some 70 pages different (smaller). And the paragraph that required a re-scoring, according to the CBO, is within those additional 70 pages. Is that a specific enough answer to your specific question?
Are you ready to answer my questions now?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22039607-pact-act-2022-bill-text
The final bill as voted on ends on page 150. According to the CBO, the paragraph that required the re-scoring is section 805 on page 118, lines 9-15?
"9 upon enactment of the Sergeant First Class Heath Robin-
10 son Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive
11 Toxics Act of 2022, expenses authorized to be appro-
12 priated to the Fund in subsection (c) shall be estimated
13 for fiscal year 2023 and each subsequent fiscal year and
14 treated as budget authority that is considered to be direct
15 spending—
The bill you posted and that was voted on earlier this year, is some 70 pages different (smaller). And the paragraph that required a re-scoring, according to the CBO, is within those additional 70 pages. Is that a specific enough answer to your specific question?
Are you ready to answer my questions now?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22039607-pact-act-2022-bill-text
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google