Politics

[Cackalacky2.0]

We have reached the point in the discussion where a coup plot by one guy is being whatabouted with global inflation and high gas prices.

 

[GATTACA!]

Happens both ways. Why are we so shocked? It’s politics.

What happen both ways? Shitting on vets when one of your biggest party positions is your love for cops/vets/those who serve? Blatant hypocrisy.

And of course you can’t just be like damn Ted Cruz is a scumbag. What a gross thing to do. You have to resort to saying bOtH sIdEs aRe bAd

 

[ulukinatme]

 

[GATTACA!]

View attachment 3051141
View attachment 3051142

Fake news. Zero additional spending was added to the bill since the last time it passed the senate.

 

[drayer54]

They voted against it because they didn’t want dems scoring political points and don’t give a shit about vets.

What’s to be said? He sucks. I wish he wouldn’t have won the nomination. I hope he doesn’t run again.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) said on the Senate floor that he didn’t support the bill because it would create $400 billion in unrelated spending, which he called a “budgetary gimmick.”

“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.”

—- Maybe they voted against it because it didn’t do what it said they would do and the Dems refused to accept amendments? Wouldn’t surprise me since the Dems don’t give a shit about vets.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) said on the Senate floor that he didn’t support the bill because it would create $400 billion in unrelated spending, which he called a “budgetary gimmick.”

“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.”

—- Maybe they voted against it because it didn’t do what it said they would do and the Dems refused to accept amendments? Wouldn’t surprise me since the Dems don’t give a shit about vets.

You aren’t following what’s happened apparently. I posted about it above. Toomey is lying.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Baloney Cack. You're parroting what a CNN analyst told you without bothering to actually look at any facts or think. It's SOP for democrats to attach ridiculous amounts of pork to an otherwise good cause bill and when anyone denounces the pork and won't vote for it, the democrats then say, "Oh, look at those mean Republicans against this noble cause!"

 

[drayer54]

Here’s someone who actually voted on it

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Here’s someone who actually voted on it

This coming from a guy who gave a fist bump for not voting for vets. Lmao. The guy is lying. The bill was unchanged. I posted about it above. Liars.

They’d rather reinforce the lying liars talking points than Admit the truth. What a world we live in.

 

[Blazers46]

Been waaay too busy to follow any story. But is it mutually agreed there is $400b of pork but one side is saying it was added and the other is saying it was already there?

 

[TorontoGold]

Baloney Cack. You're parroting what a CNN analyst told you without bothering to actually look at any facts or think. It's SOP for democrats to attach ridiculous amounts of pork to an otherwise good cause bill and when anyone denounces the pork and won't vote for it, the democrats then say, "Oh, look at those mean Republicans against this noble cause!"

Do you have anything substantive you disagree with or is just ad hominens? Seems awfully ironic to bemoan about someone parroting talking points and then lob insults without any specific points you disagree with.

 

[Blazers46]

Do you have anything substantive you disagree with or is just ad hominens? Seems awfully ironic to bemoan about someone parroting talking points and then lob insults without any specific points you disagree with.

Did you just call someone out for insults? It’s sort of your go-to.

I’m gonna go change a bike tire now….

 

[TorontoGold]

Did you just call someone out for insults? It’s sort of your go-to.

I’m gonna go change a bike tire now….

I'm scum, I don't hold myself as the caller of balls and strikes.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Do you have anything substantive you disagree with or is just ad hominens? Seems awfully ironic to bemoan about someone parroting talking points and then lob insults without any specific points you disagree with.

There's no ad hominen attack in my post and I believe that "ridiculous amounts of pork" was specific enough for everyone to understand.

 

[TorontoGold]

There's no ad hominen attack in my post and I believe that "ridiculous amounts of pork" was specific enough for everyone to understand.

"You're parroting what a CNN analyst told you without bothering to actually look at any facts or think."

With that lead in I was expecting to see some sort of rebutall of what Cack/Gat have posted, and yet nothing.

 

[INLaw]

"You're parroting what a CNN analyst told you without bothering to actually look at any facts or think."

With that lead in I was expecting to see some sort of rebutall of what Cack/Gat have posted, and yet nothing.

Is cack/gat a new potty fetish and where do i find pics of it?

 

[drayer54]

This coming from a guy who gave a fist bump for not voting for vets. Lmao. The guy is lying. The bill was unchanged. I posted about it above. Liars.

They’d rather reinforce the lying liars talking points than Admit the truth. What a world we live in.

Hey Cack,

Can you explain the difference in discretionary spending in this version

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-02/HR3967_RCP.pdf

and this one?

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/hr3967_senate_version.pdf

To be clear- I'm looking here

 

[ulukinatme]

There's little point going back and forth on this. By all accounts they plan on pushing this through at some point, there's just going to be some adjustments made. They passed it once, it'll get passed again (Sounds like this coming week according to a few Congressmen). Anything else is he said, she said.

 

[drayer54]

This coming from a guy who gave a fist bump for not voting for vets. Lmao. The guy is lying. The bill was unchanged. I posted about it above. Liars.

They’d rather reinforce the lying liars talking points than Admit the truth. What a world we live in.

Hey Cack,

Can you explain the difference in discretionary spending in this version

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-02/HR3967_RCP.pdf

and this one?

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/hr3967_senate_version.pdf

To be clear- I'm looking here
View attachment 3051143

I’m still trying to figure out how the numbers changed and the bill was unchanged.

 

[GATTACA!]

Hey Cack,

Can you explain the difference in discretionary spending in this version

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-02/HR3967_RCP.pdf

and this one?

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/hr3967_senate_version.pdf

To be clear- I'm looking here
View attachment 3051143

Difference as opposed to what? Maybe I'm not understanding the question.

That second link is from Feb which is from before it passed the house. Wouldn't you have to look at what passed the house vs what the Senate rejected? Honestly asking bc this stuff is complicated. Feels like I'm trying to read my tax documents. My eyes just glaze over.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I’m still trying to figure out how the numbers changed and the bill was unchanged.

The total cost of the bill did not change from what I can tell. According to the footnotes things were typically discretionary were changed to direct meaning there is an offset in discretionary spending and a correlating increase in direct. The bill didn’t change. The cost didn’t change. There wansnt pork added. The money was there. There was literally no reason to vote against this unless you don’t want sick vets getting taken care of.

So the point becomes they didn’t vote for this because now there is $400 mill that can’t be used as discretionary and that it is committed to paying for our sick troops? Why would you vote against that?

 

[Armyirish47]

Difference as opposed to what? Maybe I'm not understanding the question.

That second link is from Feb which is from before it passed the house. Wouldn't you have to look at what passed the house vs what the Senate rejected? Honestly asking bc this stuff is complicated. Feels like I'm trying to read my tax documents. My eyes just glaze over.

The difference in documents is from February 28th and June 6th from the CBO office. It passed on June 16th by a vote of 84-14 with the updated figures from the June document. The changes did not occur between the June 16th vote and the changes in vote on July 28.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

The difference in documents is from February 28th and June 6th from the CBO office. It passed on June 16th by a vote of 84-14 with the updated figures from the June document. The changes did not occur between the June 16th vote and the changes in vote on July 28.

Exactly.

 

[drayer54]

It would appear to be a difference in direct and discretionary spending is the difference and it would also appear that it will pass overwhelmingly when changed. Again, you can see where the 400 bil is that they are referencing. Seems simple- fix the spending portion and pass the bill. Or play it up for politics?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

It would appear to be a difference in direct and discretionary spending is the difference and it would also appear that it will pass overwhelmingly when changed. Again, you can see where the 400 bil is that they are referencing. Seems simple- fix the spending portion and pass the bill. Or play it up for politics?

No the difference is that there is no difference in the two bills for the last two votes. One GOP votes for it. The next they voted against it. No reason. No changes. Pure politics to deny another win for Biden and delay needed legislation for our vets. Who is playing politics? The GOP is. Take it up with them

Maybe bishops enraging hardon for me will subside a bit now?

 

[drayer54]

No the difference is that there is no difference in the two bills for the last two votes. One GOP votes for it. The next they voted against it. No reason. No changes. Pure politics to deny another win for Biden and delay needed legislation for our vets. Who is playing politics? The GOP is. Take it up with them

Maybe bishops enraging hardon for me will subside a bit now?

Also- Cornyn on the matter-

Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas has also commented on why the effort to advance the legislation was unsuccessful. He was quoted in a Wednesday CNN article as saying that Schumer would not allow amendment votes that Republicans were pushing for.

"There was an agreement between Senator Tester and [Senator Jerry] Moran for two amendment votes when this bill passed," Cornyn said. "Senator Schumer would not allow those votes to occur. And what we're hoping for is there will be a negotiation to eliminate some of the mandatory spending in the bill and then the bill can pass. But this is a cloture vote to provoke a conversation. But I expect it ultimately to pass in some form or another."


Yes, Schumer would never force a vote for optics and play politics. He is so above that. Seeking amendments is pretty much tearing up yellow ribbons.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Maybe bishops enraging hardon for me will subside a bit now?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Oh no amendments to remove mandatory spending in the bill? So after they voted to approve the bill they then want to add amendments? He is the majority leader and that’s his peragative to not allow amendments. Oh no. I wonder how many Mitch didnt allow that you guys are totally for? If it was always going to pass then why delay it and not allow the benefits for vets.

Point is that the bill they voted for never changed and then they voted against it. Sorry if this is difficult to understand.

 

[drayer54]

Oh no amendments to remove mandatory spending in the bill? So after they voted to approve the bill they then want to add amendments? He is the majority leader and that’s his peragative to not allow amendments. Oh no. I wonder how many Mitch didnt allow that you guys are totally for? If it was always going to pass then why delay it and not allow the benefits for vets.

Point is that the bill they voted for never changed and then they voted against it. Sorry if this is difficult to understand.

I understand that you are digging in on a narrow point that failure to follow Chuck Schumer's plan is literally hating the troops. Will you admit that republicans love the troops when this bill passes soon?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I understand that you are digging in on a narrow point that failure to follow Chuck Schumer's plan is literally hating the troops. Will you admit that republicans love the troops when this bill passes soon?

I understand you are misrepresenting what the bill does and why GOP voted against it at the last minute.

I also understand that Toomey was offered a vote on his amendment and he turned it down.

The changes for discretionary yo mandatory meaning that money can not be taken away and reappropriated was ok by the GOP when they voted in June. The bill was unchanged from June which received 84 votes to the latest vote where GOP blocked it. Regardless Whatever gimmick they are saying was already established and they voted for it in June.

They are lying. And delaying because they got their titties twisted on the inflation bill and they are mad. Figure it out