Jon Stewart Blasts GOP for Blocking Veteran Healthcare Bill https://www.tmz.com/2022/07/28/jon-stewart-blast-gop-block-veteran-healthcare-bill/
Jon Stewart bringing the heat
- Thread starter NYShoreGuy
- Start date
why. shocker tho. cant think of 1 time in the last 2+ years youve sided with anything opposite GOP.
Think harder… Toomey is one of the few politicians that thinks for himself and doesn’t blindly follow party lines. Check his record if you don’t believe me.
Lol….you didn’t even know his position and you were criticizing who voted this down. Take a look at how much unrelated and non-necessary crap was added to this legislation. It was obscene.
Why? Jon Stewart has been on the money with these issues. He has helped get 9/11 legislation passed which stalled for quite sometime. He is a guy that has compassion and has passion to help out first responders and veterans. For those who tout the military, it’s hypocritical not to help those who gave so much for our country.
thats why my first question was "why".
john stewart has been fighting for a long time for 911 heros and victims. extremely admirable. great great cause.
we got GOP voting down legitimate bills like contraception and amber alert. i mean some real villainous stuff. hard for me not to think some would vote this down no matter what. real character.
Nothing against Stewart, and both parties are guilty of blindly voting on party lines on suspect legislation, but this is another case of the MSM and a celebrity not giving the whole picture. Toomey often goes against his own party (despised Trump’s tariff strategy.
Yes, and I always support my work here. I read the bill and have no idea what you are referring to regarding the "obscene" amount of "non-necessary crap" that was added to the bill compared to the one they passed a month ago...
So can you support what you said, or was that just bullshit?
I've got to side with Stewart and the dems on this one.
augustafreepress.com
Why did Senate Republicans block burn pit bill? Getting into the weeds
You know that Senate Republicans voted this week to block a bill that would help veterans exposed to toxic burn pits, but you probably don’t know why.
augustafreepress.com
GOP votes against Amber Alert
GOP votes against 911 veterans
GOP votes against contraception
its plain as day. and we know which posters here hold on a very tight grip to supporting them. but HALL85 calls everyone else blind and partisan.
GOP votes against 911 veterans
GOP votes against contraception
its plain as day. and we know which posters here hold on a very tight grip to supporting them. but HALL85 calls everyone else blind and partisan.
Jon Stewart Goes Off On Pat Toomey Calling Veterans Bill ‘Budget Gimmick’ On Fox News: ‘That’s Just Not True’
Jon Stewart claimed on Fox News that Pat Toomey is lying about a veterans healthcare bill, saying, "Hunter Biden didn't sneak in and add in unrelated spending."
www.mediaite.com
Toomey's POV is if the $400B is moved to "mandatory" spending, 100% will be spent in 10 years whether it is utilized towards 911 veterans or not. If the funding stays "discretionary" it can still be utilized for 911 veterans but you limit the ability of the funds to be spent elsewhere.
I don't see how that's being against 911 veterans. Sounds more like he is against irresponsible spending which the federal government, D or R, as has had no issue with.
It's essentially the same bill that passed in the senate a month ago including the same mandatory vs discretionary changes, 84-14. This is just political gamesmanship at play.
What exactly is the gamesmanship advantage for Toomey though? From a PR perspective I would think he had to know this wouldn't look good.
To be fair to Toomey, he voted no last time as well.
The advantage to republicans is that when this bill passes, they will just say that it was the dems who were trying to play with the lives of vets through budgetary gimmicks and an "obscene" amount of "non-necessary crap" that was in the bill... Even though that's not really accurate, people seems to buy right in without looking into if that is true or not.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Lol you said you were against it because of unrelated and unnecessary crap that waa added to the bill (couldnt name any), not whether the spending was discretionary or mandatory.
Somebody is full of shit.
Lol… the stuff that was in the bill when it passes a month ago was the “obscene amount of unnecessary crap” they added?
Too funny……
The House made changes to the original bill after it was first approved by the Senate.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/republica...-veterans-exposed-burn-pits/story?id=87619926
Last edited:
I read both.
There was no new spending, and the same discretionary vs mandatory issue was in both bills.
You just made up the part about the “obscene non-necessary crap” that was added. Not sure why you’re still trying to defend that.
The words you’re looking for are “you’re right. I was mistaken”
The discretionary vs mandatory was obscene I my view. You can take that anyway you’d like.
the jig has been up about hall85s character a long time ago. shame, he used to have some good points.
its getting tougher for him to defend hes worse than all the people he criticizes here for the same exact reasons, or hes just a bad person.
What is wrong with demanding that the money can’t be reallocated or redirected from helping veterans? Do you think that’s a bad idea?
An obscene amount of unrelated non-necessary crap added to the bill is how they are (and always were) categorizing the spending? What a load….
lol… no. That’s not what classifying it as mandatory does. Kind of the opposite actually.
Here is his justification:
He argued that there already was $400 billion allocated in the discretionary spending budget, and that moving it to the mandatory spending budget would be nothing more than a "gimmick" to avoid spending caps. The senator said his amendment to keep the budget under discretionary spending would prevent the potential for "huge excessive spending" in other categories.
Right. You realize you just said the money could be used elsewhere and not for the vets, right? That is not true.
Toomey’s concern is that there MIGHT BE ADDITIONAL spending in the future because this would not be included in the annual discretionary budget and future additions to discretionary spending may not need to be offset offset with cuts.
No obscene extra crap in this bill. It all goes to mandatory funding programs for the vets. Moving it to mandatory means these programs wouldn’t be on the chopping block with future annual budgets. That’s a good thing.
The original complaint was why Toomey voted against it. Parse my words all you like but he had a defensible position to do so.
Sure. He has a defensible position. You just had no idea what that position was or what was in the bill when you came here defending him over Stewart.
^ let’s be clear. You made that up.
Own it.
Similar threads
