$400 billion would be a nice chunk of spending toward their economy killing green new deal that they haven’t been able to legitimately pass because no sane person wants it.

1 hour ago, TEW said:

The point of making it mandatory is to avoid the appropriations process — good in theory from a practical view since the spending is essentially agreed upon by everyone and it just takes up more time for what is basically a rubber stamp issue.

But in doing so, you’re basically left with a bunch of cash that can be spent on anything. And let’s not act like Democrats haven’t used this trick before, so to say that it’s 100% a retaliatory partisan move is just wrong, and likely motivated by partisan sentiments of your own.

Again, the GOP is on record as saying they want to sign the bill with this mechanism fixed.  And with that fix, we could avoid what everyone says they want to avoid — pork spending.

So who is playing partisan ball here? If Democrat’s motives are so pure, just fix the mechanism and it can be passed into law. Or maybe there is another motive…

And again they already voted FOR the bill WITH this funding marked as mandatory. That hasn't changed at all since June. So they can go on record saying whatever they want, they agreed to the exact same payment structure 2 months ago but all of a sudden it's a non starter?  But somehow it's the democrat's fault for playing politics?  Grow up.  It's a retaliatory chicken crap move no matter how you want to spin it. Pretending otherwise is pathetic and naive.  Don't play politics with sick and dying vets, it's really that simple.

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

And again they already voted FOR the bill WITH this funding marked as mandatory. That hasn't changed at all since June. So they can go on record saying whatever they want, they agreed to the exact same payment structure 2 months ago but all of a sudden it's a non starter?  But somehow it's the democrat's fault for playing politics?  Grow up.  It's a retaliatory chicken crap move no matter how you want to spin it. Pretending otherwise is pathetic and naive.  Don't play politics with sick and dying vets, it's really that simple.

Grow up indeed. The GOP is attempting to make the bill do precisely what it is supposed to do — to spend the money on vets and not be used as another mechanism for tranny book tours and green no energy bullsh**.

If you don’t want politicians playing politics with sick and dying vets, go yell at the democrats to fix the funding mechanism and it will get passed. If democrats refuse, then THEY are playing politics and have other motives. It’s really that simple.

 

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

And again they already voted FOR the bill WITH this funding marked as mandatory. That hasn't changed at all since June. So they can go on record saying whatever they want, they agreed to the exact same payment structure 2 months ago but all of a sudden it's a non starter?  But somehow it's the democrat's fault for playing politics?  Grow up.  It's a retaliatory chicken crap move no matter how you want to spin it. Pretending otherwise is pathetic and naive.  Don't play politics with sick and dying vets, it's really that simple.

No they didn’t. The original Senate bill was discretionary. The house then changed it to mandatory.

19 minutes ago, TEW said:

Grow up indeed. The GOP is attempting to make the bill do precisely what it is supposed to do — to spend the money on vets and not be used as another mechanism for tranny book tours and green no energy bullsh**.

If you don’t want politicians playing politics with sick and dying vets, go yell at the democrats to fix the funding mechanism and it will get passed. If democrats refuse, then THEY are playing politics and have other motives. It’s really that simple.

The GOP is pissy about the reconciliation bill and is trying to make it some they can hold up the approval of this funding in the future whenever they decide they need leverage in negotiating other legislature.  That's the only reason they're balking at mandatory funding now which, for the third time THEY ALREADY APPROVED 2 MONTHS AGO. Which also happens to be the exact reason that this funding has to be mandatory.  So ghouls like this can't  continue to use vets as leverage whenever things don't go their way.

"If the democrats don't cave to this political hissy fit then they're the ones playing politics with the vets!" Does that argument genuinely make sense in your gin-addled brain?

Just now, The_Omega said:

No they didn’t. The original Senate bill was discretionary. The house then changed it to mandatory.

Wrong.  It was changed to mandatory spending prior to the first Senate vote in June. A vote in which 25 of these GOP Senators voted to pass the bill. The mental gymnastics you guys will go through to avoid accepting a pretty simple truth is still mind-boggling to me.

Oh and the best part: the proposed amendment Toomey made doesn't even change the funding from mandatory to discretionary!  If this is the "simple fix" the GOP wants then why isn't that the fix they're proposing? 

Spoiler

It's cause they're full of crap

 

20 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

The GOP is pissy about the reconciliation bill and is trying to make it some they can hold up the approval of this funding in the future whenever they decide they need leverage in negotiating other legislature.  That's the only reason they're balking at mandatory funding now which, for the third time THEY ALREADY APPROVED 2 MONTHS AGO. Which also happens to be the exact reason that this funding has to be mandatory.  So ghouls like this can't  continue to use vets as leverage whenever things don't go their way.

"If the democrats don't cave to this political hissy fit then they're the ones playing politics with the vets!" Does that argument genuinely make sense in your gin-addled brain?

 

Lots of projection here. How is it "caving” to pass a bill that helps vets and prevents misallocation of funds? It seems you’re much more concerned with power and "winning” than you are about helping vets. If you truly want to help vets, the solution is simple: fix the bill and it gets passed.

But that’s not really what you’re concerned about. You’re concerned about "caving” you’re concerned about using this as a political cudgel, you’re concerned about the politics. Not the vets.

And I don’t drink gin. I’m a whiskey guy.

12 minutes ago, TEW said:

Lots of projection here. How is it "caving” to pass a bill that helps vets and prevents misallocation of funds? It seems you’re much more concerned with power and "winning” than you are about helping vets. If you truly want to help vets, the solution is simple: fix the bill and it gets passed.

But that’s not really what you’re concerned about. You’re concerned about "caving” you’re concerned about using this as a political cudgel, you’re concerned about the politics. Not the vets.

And I don’t drink gin. I’m a whiskey guy.

Yes clearly the ones who are concerned about the vets are the ones voting against a bill they voted for 2 months ago, delaying the funding for weeks. It's definitely Toomey, passing an amendment that doesn't even change the funding from mandatory to discretionary in the first place. Very reasonable and not at all insane stance to take. 

You should switch to water. 

6 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Yes clearly the ones who are concerned about the vets are the ones voting against a bill they voted for 2 months ago, delaying the funding for weeks. It's definitely Toomey, passing an amendment that doesn't even change the funding from mandatory to discretionary in the first place. Very reasonable and not at all insane stance to take. 

You should switch to water. 

All parties say they want to pass the bill. Republicans have concerns about the funding mechanism. So are you more concerned with "caving” or getting the bill passed? What’s the problem? Make the change and it passes.

I haven’t had a drink since Friday night, thanks. But you should definitely work on your anger management because you gave away your own motivations with that last post. You are concerned with caving to Republicans. That’s the issue for you. 

Can we at least all agree that anyone defending Republicans efforts to block this bill is a lying POS?  That seems like a reasonable middle ground. 

Yes, yes... the GOP money spicket was turned on full blast during the last administration but it was a mere temporary lapse in principled judgement. They're 100% operating in good faith now and has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Any rational person can see that.

Also, please do your research on pizzagate. Some very convincing evidence there that Clinton was running a pedo ring in the basement. 

6 hours ago, TEW said:

All parties say they want to pass the bill. Republicans have concerns about the funding mechanism. So are you more concerned with "caving” or getting the bill passed? What’s the problem? Make the change and it passes.

I haven’t had a drink since Friday night, thanks. But you should definitely work on your anger management because you gave away your own motivations with that last post. You are concerned with caving to Republicans. That’s the issue for you. 

Ah yes, the deep founded concern about the funding mechanism they just happened to develop right as the Democrats put forth the reconciliation bill. The concern they falsely spin as a $400 billion slush fund to the public, yet don't attempt to fix in their amendment proposals.  

Gee I wonder why anyone would accuse them of not arguing in good faith and suggest maybe this funding should be mandatory so these scumbags can't hold sick vet funding hostage every year.  

How about this.  Cut income taxes by $400b and I will give any and all of my tax savings to the vets

8 hours ago, TEW said:

All parties say they want to pass the bill. Republicans have concerns about the funding mechanism. So are you more concerned with "caving” or getting the bill passed? What’s the problem? Make the change and it passes.

 

Where were these concerns when they voted yes on it in June?

Quote

I haven’t had a drink since Friday night, thanks. But you should definitely work on your anger management because you gave away your own motivations with that last post. You are concerned with caving to Republicans. That’s the issue for you.

 

Color me shocked that a bunch of ishlibs were completely mislead by Jon Stewart on this one.   

The objectionable parts, were in the ORIGINAL bill that was voted on and passed in the Senate.

Stop lying about it.

12 hours ago, TEW said:

Grow up indeed. The GOP is attempting to make the bill do precisely what it is supposed to do — to spend the money on vets and not be used as another mechanism for tranny book tours and green no energy bullsh**.

If you don’t want politicians playing politics with sick and dying vets, go yell at the democrats to fix the funding mechanism and it will get passed. If democrats refuse, then THEY are playing politics and have other motives. It’s really that simple.

 

But they already voted for the bill when the spending was classified as mandatory.  So what happened?  What, did they "forget” that this was the case and accidentally vote yes?

3 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

The objectionable parts, were in the ORIGINAL bill that was voted on and passed in the Senate.

Stop lying about it.

Or how about the kind, benevolent democrats just remove "the objectionable parts" if they really want the bill to pass.

11 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Color me shocked that a bunch of ishlibs were completely mislead by Jon Stewart on this one.   

 

10 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

Can we at least all agree that anyone defending Republicans efforts to block this bill is a lying POS?

I mean...

14 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Color me shocked that a bunch of ishlibs were completely mislead by Jon Stewart on this one.   

 

On 7/29/2022 at 9:03 AM, VanHammersly said:

 

I mean...

Spoiler

 

NSFW, but Stewart can explain things to the idiots here.

CVON ishlibs don't get manipulated by a celebrity activist challenge.

(impossible)

 

I mean let's just breeze by the hilarious notion that Jon Stewart isn't a reliable source but Jack Prosobiec is.  Here's another thread that explains things well:

We could also look at how Veteran of Foreign Wars views the decision

But sure, it's definitely just Stewart making things up. 

"Jon Stewart is a know-nothing celebrity who should stay out of politics!", brought to you by the band of low-info dimwits that voted for a reality game show host as President.

6 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

I mean let's just breeze by the hilarious notion that Jon Stewart isn't a reliable source but Jack Prosobiec.  Here's another thread that explains things we'll:

We could also look at how Veteran of Foreign Wars views the decision

But sure, it's definitely just Stewart making things up. 

Even when given the facts, the morons run to lies spewed by other morons and lick them up like a dog to vomit.

Dog's don't know any better.