Blindsided veterans erupt in fury after Senate GOP tanks toxic burn pit bill

[cpwill]

Why?

Because shifting it into the mandatory budget isn't being used as a zero-sum shift, but rather the creation of a new mandatory budget line.

So, let's say that you and I are managing Debate Politics Ice Cream Factory, and, we have $1,000 in profits to pour back into developing a new flavor of Ice Cream. We talk it through, and, decide that what we really need to do is invest in figuring out some dairy free options for people who react badly to dairy products. We develop out a program, and figure out how we are going to bring the new flavors online to serve this demographic.

Then I say, "okay, so, I think we should spend the $1,000 on developing more versions of Chocolate". You reasonably point out that we have already agreed to spend that $1K on dairy-free, and, I respond "Oh, yes, that too, but, I've decided that since we've already agreed to spend that $1,000, making it mandatory spending. That means we can also spend our $1,000 of discretionary spending on Chocolate".

You point out that we only have the $1k in the budget for Ice Cream R&D. I respond that, yes, but, we've already agreed to spend it on the dairy-free folks, so, I should get another $1,000 for my chocolate projects.

You point out that we don't have the money, I respond that we will borrow it. You point out that our business - as a start up - is already in debt, and, we can't really afford to take on more debt to mess around with different chocolate flavors right now.

I respond with "HEY EVERYBODY, @reflechissez IS CRAPPING ALL OVER PEOPLE WHO CAN'T EASILY DIGEST DAIRY PRODUCTS!!!".

...How accurate is my accusation?

 

[Callen]

Because shifting it into the mandatory budget isn't being used as a zero-sum shift, but rather the creation of a new mandatory budget line.

So, let's say that you and I are managing Debate Politics Ice Cream Factory, and, we have $1,000 in profits to pour back into developing a new flavor of Ice Cream. We talk it through, and, decide that what we really need to do is invest in figuring out some dairy free options for people who react badly to dairy products. We develop out a program, and figure out how we are going to bring the new flavors online to serve this demographic.

Then I say, "okay, so, I think we should spend the $1,000 on developing more versions of Chocolate". You reasonably point out that we have already agreed to spend that $1K on dairy-free, and, I respond "Oh, yes, that too, but, I've decided that since we've already agreed to spend that $1,000, making it mandatory spending. That means we can also spend our $1,000 of discretionary spending on Chocolate".

You point out that we only have the $1k in the budget for Ice Cream R&D. I respond that, yes, but, we've already agreed to spend it on the dairy-free folks, so, I should get another $1,000 for my chocolate projects.

You point out that we don't have the money, I respond that we will borrow it. You point out that our business - as a start up - is already in debt, and, we can't really afford to take on more debt to mess around with different chocolate flavors right now.

I respond with "HEY EVERYBODY, @reflechissez IS CRAPPING ALL OVER PEOPLE WHO CAN'T EASILY DIGEST DAIRY PRODUCTS!!!".

...How accurate is my accusation?

What is missing from your narrative is that it was always intended that there be new funding added to the existing VA budget. It was never meant to be that the amount of the budget was going going to remain the same.

 

[poweRob]

Not one thing changed in the bill and these con senators rolled over and voted for it. It is an admission that they lied about why they voted against it.

 

[Callen]

Not one thing changed in the bill and these con senators rolled over and voted for it. It is an admission that they lied about why they voted against it.

Not only that but 3 reversed their vote in June from a no to a yes. Methinks that they got some serious backlash on the weekend.

 

[poweRob]

Not only that but 3 reversed their vote in June from a no to a yes. Methinks that they got some serious backlash on the weekend.

Good on the public for paying attention and not buying their lies.

 

[lwf]

They is not what they are saying - they are saying it should be paid for in the discretionary budget.

No, Republicans Do Not Oppose Helping Veterans | National Review

Republicans objected to a Democrat-backed ‘budget gimmick,’ not to helping vets.

www.nationalreview.com

No, that's an obfuscation by Toomey and the conservative biased National Review. What they are actually saying is that the total amount allocated is simply too high, and they are "predicting" that the "extra" money would be spent on other things, when in fact the money cannot be spent on anything other than veterans. It's too high for a good reason: Healthcare costs are not a constant. They increase over time. He is basically arguing "What happens in 10 years if not all of the money has been spent?" They think that they can extrapolate the costs of healthcare today out to a decade from now, and only earmark that amount to veterans, which would end up running out before 10 years has elapsed due to rising healthcare costs, leading to rationing of care. Toomey is misrepresenting the bill and predicting that Democrats are going to "steal" this extra money to pay for other things, when in fact they cannot.

Make no mistake: Toomey and the Republicans who voted against it think the cost is too high, plain and simple. They want to cut costs and reduce taxes for their lobbyists, and have no qualms about doing it in the veteran space if they think they can get away with it. Republicans have always been in favor of cutting veterans' benefits as a way of saving money. They just shift the blame to Democrats by predicting that the extra money allocated to veterans "probably wouldn't go to veterans anyway..." It's the same cynical ploy the GOP uses all the time to cut government benefits to those who need them and reduce spending in order to cut taxes: "Democrats are thieves and are just going to steal all the tax dollars anyway, so why bother with social programs? Tax cuts are where the real benefit lies. At least to the people who fund our campaigns..."

 

[cpwill]

No, that's an obfuscation by Toomey and the conservative biased National Review.

"You Don't Mean What You're Saying" is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. When you begin to declare that evidence against your preferred conclusion "is just proof of how evil they are", you often find yourself in a bad space, logically.

 

[lwf]

"You Don't Mean What You're Saying" is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. When you begin to declare that evidence against your preferred conclusion "is just proof of how evil they are", you often find yourself in a bad space, logically.

No, what I'm saying is that their argument was: "Democrats are going to steal the money anyway, so why bother?" even though Democrats cannot steal the money. And I pointed out that this is the go-to argument anytime a conservative politician votes against a popular social program.

 

[cpwill]

Not one thing changed in the bill and these con senators rolled over and voted for it. It is an admission that they lied about why they voted against it.

No, it's an admission that they are politicians, and, want to be reelected. Simple narratives with clear good/bad white-hat-/black-hat options appeal to voters. Nuanced reality is difficult, and people don't like it.

 

[cpwill]

No, what I'm saying is that their argument is: "Democrats are going to steal the money anyway, so why bother?" Even though Democrats cannot steal the money.

Yes, my point was that is not what they are actually saying, and, so, declaring that they don't mean what they are saying, but instead secretly want to do this other mean ole evil thing (steal money from veterans to give to lobbyists) is a non-falsifiable hypothesis that relies on us rejecting the face value of available evidence.

 

[lwf]

Yes, my point was that is not what they are actually saying, and, so, declaring that they don't mean what they are saying, but instead secretly want to do this other mean ole evil thing (steal money from veterans to give to lobbyists) is a non-falsifiable hypothesis that relies on us rejecting the face value of available evidence.

It is what they are actually saying. Read the National Review article.

“His argument is that what that does is that frees up a lot of room under the caps for Democrats to spend more money through the regular appropriations process,”

It does not do this.

 

[poweRob]

No, it's an admission that they are politicians, and, want to be reelected. Simple narratives with clear good/bad white-hat-/black-hat options appeal to voters. Nuanced reality is difficult, and people don't like it.

But lying about your vote is pretty binary.

 

[cpwill]

But lying about your vote is pretty binary.

Sure - but the argument you are making is a non sequitur.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The vets won this round. But the GOP will get around to ****ing the military after the midterms.

 

[Callen]

The vets won this round. But the GOP will get around to ****ing the military after the midterms.

Never going to happen with Joe Biden in The WH. There is no President more pro-military than he is.

 

[Bodi]

What's the lie?

LOL

You won't get an answer... See?

And you want to pretend they did that because they hate veterans. Bullshit.

By and large, most vets are conservative, and conservatives overwhelmingly support the military and troops.

Some form of this bill will pass when GOP is on control of Congress next year. Democrats are just screaming because they want an election year soundbite.

LOL

 

[Tbird19482]

It's not very complicated but their preferred media sources have muddled it up and made it confusing to those who cannot seem to think for themselves. They don't even have their misinformed facts straight between them.

well still waiting for an answer from anybody on the right to my questions
Guess they can't give me one,'
so now that the bill has passed I would like to know just where they are going to spend this magical 400 Billion that is just going to appear in the Discretionary budget,
We all know Congress HAS a mandatory amount of money they HAVE to spend under Discretionary spending
Don't they ?
you know they moved 400 Billion from Discretionary spending to Mandatory spending so they HAVE to spend another 400 Billion because they HAVE to spend so much under Discretionary spending like the people on the right think
Have a nice night

 

[Callen]

well still waiting for an answer from anybody on the right to my questions
Guess they can't give me one,'
so now that the bill has passed I would like to know just where they are going to spend this magical 400 Billion that is just going to appear in the Discretionary budget,
We all know Congress HAS a mandatory amount of money they HAVE to spend under Discretionary spending
Don't they ?
you know they moved 400 Billion from Discretionary spending to Mandatory spending so they HAVE to spend another 400 Billion because they HAVE to spend so much under Discretionary spending like the people on the right think
Have a nice night

My bet is they can't give you an answer because Fox has moved away from this and is on to a new shiny object which should be showing up on DP soon.

 

[Tbird19482]

My bet is they can't give you an answer because Fox has moved away from this and is on to a new shiny object which should be showing up on DP soon.

seeing this has passed I think people should keep a close eye on Senators like Toomy so they don't try to sneak in funding for every pork project they can and try to Blame it on the Dems
they want to say we told you so they are going to be spending like mad
Have a nice day
H

 

[Lafayette]

DISCRETIONARY GOVERNMENT SPENDING PIE CHART

From here:

If anyone can tell us why Defense is the overwhelming portion of Federal-spending today, I'd like to know why it is so large in a time of no-war!

America has far, far better things to do than waste money on the DoD:
*Like very low cost Post-secondary Education that has become a necessity since Manufacturing now accounts for less than 10% of all employment and Services all the rest. Services typically require either post-secondary training or university-level degrees.
*Healthcare is one of the most expensive of anywhere amongst developed nations. And It is key to lifespan, which is why Europeans have 4/5 years longer lives than Americans.

Life is a matter of choice, and why-in-hell Americans have chosen the DoD for its key-expenditure is beyond understanding or even belief.

And as regards the rest-of-the-world, this is what comparative Military Spending looks like:

That's two-and-a-half times more spent by Uncle Sam than China ... and here's a breakdown of where the expenditures are made here ...

So procurement is not the major-monger of the DoD-pie. But actual Operation & Maintenance expenditure is as shown here:

Defense spending accounts for more than 10 percent of all federal spending and nearly half of discretionary spending. Total discretionary spending — for both defense and nondefense purposes — is typically only about one-third of the annual federal budget ...

 

[Lafayette]

And just what is the purpose of so much Defense Spending?

From the Harvard Institute of Politics here: Waste, Greed, and Fraud: The Business that Makes the World’s Greatest Army

I suggest you read the part entitled "The Broken Contracting System", which describes the flaws in Defense-spending ...

 

[Rogue Valley]

And just what is the purpose of so much Defense Spending?

From the Harvard Institute of Politics here: Waste, Greed, and Fraud: The Business that Makes the World’s Greatest Army

I suggest you read the part entitled "The Broken Contracting System", which describes the flaws in Defense-spending ...

I suggest you get off your French asses and send more advanced weapons to Ukraine.

 

[Rogue Valley]

President Biden signs the PACT Act.

Finally. Not counting the heartless Republicans who continually disrespect members of the service, the rest of Americans do appreciate vets and are glad their getting the relief they deserve.

Thank you Democratic lawmakers and President Biden.....