A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
He will never admit it, but its here for everyone to see, in his own words.
Jon Stewart bringing the heat
- Thread starter NYShoreGuy
- Start date
He will never admit it, but its here for everyone to see, in his own words.
They way both sides stuff bills with pork is the number one problem with our government. Imagine if you developed a bill for veterans that wasn't allowed to have 1000 pork projects stuffed inside. The good bills would be easy to pass and bad things would be rejected.
Pat Toomey Lashes Out at ‘False Accusations’ From ‘Pseudo Celebrity’ Jon Stewart After Jamming Burn Pits Healthcare Bill
Sen. Pat Toomey took an unsubtle swipe at Jon Stewart over the criticism he has received for delaying a bill to provide healthcare on toxic burn pit exposure
www.mediaite.com
Good for Pat.Pat Toomey Lashes Out at ‘False Accusations’ From ‘Pseudo Celebrity’ Jon Stewart After Jamming Burn Pits Healthcare Bill
Sen. Pat Toomey took an unsubtle swipe at Jon Stewart over the criticism he has received for delaying a bill to provide healthcare on toxic burn pit exposure
ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zerowww.zerohedge.com
Hate that politicians do this and that people like Stewart fall for it
Ted Cruz is blatantly lying.
He voted for the bill that passed the senate which included the mandatory vs discretionary spending.
Second, people need to understand what the CBO said... They didn't say 400 billion of NEW Spending is anywhere.
They showed the impact of this bill and some CURRENT discretionary spending was reclassified to mandatory spending. This "trick" doesn't increase spending anywhere other than what is in the bill. It just treats these benefits as an entitlement.
People can certainly debate on the merits of that without blatantly lying about what the bill does.
But the position from Stewart, the Dems and MSM, was that Toomey and those that voted against it were not in favor of helping the veterans from getting treatment. That is blatantly false.
The bill that was passed a month ago was almost entirely the same with exactly the same budget impact. Passed with no issue and Biden could have signed it except for a small fix to make it constitutional which required another vote.
Those who changed their votes did so for politics. Not budget issues.
If you listened to Toomey, Republicans were never included in the discussions and to address the accounting issue. He was very clear in the rationale. This should have all been dealt with instead of using veterans to grandstand. There was never any disagreement that veterans deserved the treatment, which is not how Stewart, the MSM and Dems portrayed it.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
You already admittedly took the L on this topic for making up BS, now youre an expert again on the bill LOL
You really aren’t that bright. It’s about Toomey vs Stewart and how the MSM portrayed it. Just watch the CNN interview.
I did listen to Toomey. What he said just isn’t true.
If the house could have passed the senate version, the President could then sign the bill into law but it needed a fix which required another vote.
This wasn’t a committee vote or vote sending something for further debate. The senate was absolutely involved with the accounting issue! They voted for it!
If they didn’t like it, they could have voted no a month ago. The idea that they thought this would be fixed with amendments is laughable. You don’t take issue with funding, vote yes and hope it gets fixed later, you vote no.
Stewart is calling that out as bullshit because it is. It’s 100% bullshit.
The mandatory vs discretionary issue is debatable and that’s fine, but that’s not why this bill failed in July when it passed in June with the same accounting.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Maybe take a look in the mirror. You spouted complete BS about obscene things added to the bill...now you're back for more.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
WATCH: Jon Stewart Emotional After Vets Bill Passes Over Opposition From 11 Republicans
Stewart was emotional after the Senate voted to pass the PACT Act to care for veterans whose health has been compromised by exposure to burn pits.
www.mediaite.com
Looking through the five different versions of the Bill as it progressed I do not see that the mandatory vs. discretionary changes were included in the 84-14 vote.
It's there.
Click that link, then the text tab and then click the drop down for "engrossed amendment senate 6/16/2022"
That is the amendment the senate attached to the house bill which passed. Section 805 is what you're looking for.
I'd take Stewart over the far majority of elected officials.
I think Toomey's argument is fair, but he is misrepresenting what the CBO said. They did not say there would be an additional 400 billion in spending. They said up to $390 billion in current spending could be allocated to mandatory spending (over 10 years) and all of that spending is all for VA programs.
Mandatory spending is usually to fund programs with eligibility criteria like Medicare, social security, and certain VA programs... So should these types of programs be funded through mandatory spending or discretionary? I'm not really taking a position there. I don't care. Either a program is worth funding or it isn't.
Neither did Toomey. He said "may".
I tend to lean with Toomey on this one.
If you strip out defense spending, we are at 15% of the total budget that is discretionary.
The odds of ever getting back to a balanced budget are slim to none. Sure you can change mandatory back to discretionary but it takes a lot more votes.
Yes I got that. Looking at the previous house bills, it was not in there.
I'd be the first to admit that trying to sort though these is tedious at best.
It wasn't in the house bills.
It was in the senate bill that passed in the 84-14 vote. Also was why Toomey was one of the 14 to vote no.
The classic Washington trick of sneaking into a popular and good bill happened around 2008 with the Port Security Act. Yes, everyone thought after 9/11 security must be beefed up at our ports. But Republicans took the opportunity to ban internet poker by putting a bill in that had nothing to do with port security. It essentially made transfers from banks to gambling sites illegal to shut down the Internet poker. It has never been the same.
www.foxnews.com
Bush Signs U.S. Port Security Act; Contains Ban on Internet Gambling | Fox News
Bush Signs U.S. Port Security Act; Contains Ban on Internet Gambling
Not the first time, but it is quite a stark example of it. Also, I find it interesting that Republicans who are in favor of getting government out of people’s lives and in favor of business did the exact opposite with this bill. Hypocrites.
Also, as a poker player who loved playing poker on those sites, this really pissed me off. I Won my way to a seat to the World Series of Poker one year on Party Poker. Those were the best days of internet poker.
My buddy won a WSOP main event seat via Party Poker. That site helped fund my first rental property. I couldn’t believe how many bad players would be on 20/40 LHE tables. It was a donkey-fest. There was a foreign site (I can’t remember the name of) that had $220 buy in 5 seat NL sit n go tables that paid out 500/300/200 for top 3. If you played tight-aggressive you were almost guaranteed a top 3 finish. Thems were the days…
Similar threads
