Yes. I have read it. It includes a gimmick that allows for spending on programs that have absolutely nothing to do with veterans. If that is fixed, I will support the bill.
I attribute the statement above to 'win politics by any means necessary', 'make your political opponent look bad by any means necessary'.
So again, it isn't GOP 'shitting on vets' as much as it appears to be a legitimate future budgetary concern, which Dem's say 'don't worry about it', well, we've seen that from Dems before, all the more reason to in fact be legitimately concerned about future budget concerns.
So he's consistent then.
So the political push narrative by the left goes, yes.
I suspect that details on this might be forthcoming.
Why do Republicans lie about caring about Vets?
The Republican party had no platform under Trump. Literally no platform......just whatever the dictator, I mean president. You are so partisan that you actually support that crap.
Your reading comprehension is poor, if that's what you got from my post.
I'm old enough to remember how the "scandal free" administration handled healthcare when it came to veterans.
So am I... Has nothing to do with current Veterans hating GOP..
Confusion and TDS on your part. The republicans vote on and approve a platform every four years during the convention. If you were as politically knowledgeable as you seem to think you are, you would know that. That platform is what they claim the party represents. They just do not follow it. They just use it for window dressings during campaign seasons, the forget about it until the next elections. The secret to Trump's success in 2016 is that he campaigned on the principles laid out in that platform and convinced the base he would actually follow through on them. And he largely did. You can deny that until the sun goes supernova if you like, however it's the truth. The same applies to Reagan in the 1980 and 84 race and likely will with Desantis if he runs. The base is tired of the republican party operating as an establishment country club. It never was just about Trump. The movement that Trump tapped into actually began six years prior to the 2016 election.
Except that I'm not. Your reading comprehension remains poor. Where, for example, am I providing 'excuses'? Instead I've looked into it further than you have, obviously, and have cited the facts as are known at this time. So, yes, your reading comprehension remains poor, or at least hyperpartisan.
Speaking of the 'anti-inflation bill', that bill is nothing but throwing more napalm on the already roaring inflation fire. Clearly, Biden's handlers in this administration are clueless about inflation and the economy in general, increasing federal government spending (worsening inflation) when cutting back federal government spending would aide in tamping down inflation.
www.foxbusiness.com
www.frbsf.org
Which section is this gimmick in?
Hooked!, it's just an example of how childish the cult is. Mindless jingoism.
I think this article does a pretty good job of addressing Toomey's concern. The mandatory vs discretionary difference is not just some minor little thing as is the left's attempted narrative.
michiganadvance.com
Toomey is lying. The money can't be spent on any random thing.I think this article does a pretty good job of addressing Toomey's concern. The mandatory vs discretionary difference is not just some minor little thing as is the left's attempted narrative.
"Spending fight
Some members had objected because the federal government would pay for the bill’s $278.5 billion cost through mandatory rather than discretionary spending.
Mandatory spending includes entitlement programs like Social Security, and is set in law and in effect indefinitely. Under discretionary spending, members of Congress would control the funding each year through the appropriations process.
Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said there had been an agreement between Tester and Moran for two amendment votes, but Democratic leaders have not scheduled those votes. Cornyn said the hope is for further negotiations to “eliminate some of the mandatory spending in the bill and the bill can pass.”
Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey said in a brief interview after the vote that he wanted to address a “budget gimmick” in the bill that he believes would lead to an increase in spending unrelated to providing health care and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits.
Toomey said he had “no quarrel with” the legislation creating $278.5 billion in new spending during the next decade that would be classified as “mandatory.”
Toomey’s opposition to the bill comes from a separate section of the package that “would authorize $400 billion over the next 10 years of existing spending … to be switched from discretionary to mandatory.”
“And the reason for that, is to create a $40 billion annual hole in discretionary spending under the cap,” Toomey said. “And allow all kinds of spending on who knows what.”"
U.S. Senate fails to advance burn pits bill for veterans in dispute over spending • Michigan Advance
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate came up short Wednesday in trying to move ahead on legislation that would provide health care and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits overseas. The bill, from Montana Democratic Sen. John Tester and Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, has been bogged down for...
Not only that but the Republican Senators voted for the bill in June with that provision in it. This was not a new addition. Up until they got out manouvered on the Chip bill they were singing it's praises to the high heavens. Let's see what they do Monday after their constituents help them with their priorities this weekend.I think this article does a pretty good job of addressing Toomey's concern. The mandatory vs discretionary difference is not just some minor little thing as is the left's attempted narrative.
"Spending fight
Some members had objected because the federal government would pay for the bill’s $278.5 billion cost through mandatory rather than discretionary spending.
Mandatory spending includes entitlement programs like Social Security, and is set in law and in effect indefinitely. Under discretionary spending, members of Congress would control the funding each year through the appropriations process.
Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said there had been an agreement between Tester and Moran for two amendment votes, but Democratic leaders have not scheduled those votes. Cornyn said the hope is for further negotiations to “eliminate some of the mandatory spending in the bill and the bill can pass.”
Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey said in a brief interview after the vote that he wanted to address a “budget gimmick” in the bill that he believes would lead to an increase in spending unrelated to providing health care and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits.
Toomey said he had “no quarrel with” the legislation creating $278.5 billion in new spending during the next decade that would be classified as “mandatory.”
Toomey’s opposition to the bill comes from a separate section of the package that “would authorize $400 billion over the next 10 years of existing spending … to be switched from discretionary to mandatory.”
“And the reason for that, is to create a $40 billion annual hole in discretionary spending under the cap,” Toomey said. “And allow all kinds of spending on who knows what.”"
U.S. Senate fails to advance burn pits bill for veterans in dispute over spending • Michigan Advance
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate came up short Wednesday in trying to move ahead on legislation that would provide health care and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits overseas. The bill, from Montana Democratic Sen. John Tester and Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, has been bogged down for...
I'm going with the one that respects the outcome of free and fair elections.
Yes ,if it is MANDATORY it has to go to what it was designated for and NOT negotiated on funding every year,
Nah. Mitch McConnell got played by Manchin and Schumer on the reconciliation bill, so in a baby fit of petulance he and the Republican Senate refused to support this veterans' bill.