Seems simple. If he is telling the truth than trim it back. If this isnt true than can someone point out where he is lying? Tomey: “My concern about this bill has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill,” Toomey said. “This budgetary gimmick is so unrelated to the actual veterans issue that has to do with burn pits, that it’s not even in the House version of this bill.”
IF this is just being blocked as a revenge move than shame on them. But I notice that the two from my state voted against it. North Carolina is a heavy military state with huge VA hospitals. They are flirting with political suicide in a purple state. Maybe they are hearing what their constituents are saying?
This thread was needed. I was going to start a thread on this but saw yours first. Some real idiots here calling this spam or whatever. If the Dems had done this the right would hammer this for weeks. People making excuses for those that flip flopped on this are doing just that, making excuses. This should have been a no brainer. And anyone talking smack about Jon Stewart is a worthless pos imo. JS has worked tirelessly for 911 first responders and our military for over a decade. Sick of this kind of chit. It should not be political at all.
You're right the right would hammer it. Thats sorta my point. These things are very political. Both sides bog down bills with garbage. Why get upset if its called out? I'm just asking if Tomey is telling the truth or not and if he isnt can someone link us to that fact? Calling those who disagree with you idiots or POS's is pretty rediculous btw.
You make a fair point irt terminology. I think the issue I saw with some of what slocala listed above is not if the leases need to exist, but its a lot of sort of blanket money added with very non specific budgeting for that money. My guess is this is one thing as simple as trimming back the dollar amount and being more specific with what is left. That is a far cry from not "caring about our veterans". Again, many of the "no" votes in the bill that passed were from military states which tells me something. These things are not as simple as " my good guys love the military. Your bad guys hate the military. Your side is bad. Me side is good."
Interesting. I’m leaning more towards pointing back to the Dems — meet somewhere in the middle with Toomey and pass the bill. Realistically, once these ailments become service connected, the VA budget process should be flexible enough to cover their remit to serve these Vets. The blurbs about the buy outs is interesting. There is no reason (in my mind) for take-overs / buy-outs of rural medical practices to be tax free to serve as VA network clinics. It would increase the cost of the program, but be a net neural because the Treasury gets the cash back on the tax.
It's not about agreeing with me. It is about doing what is right, I stand by my statement about those who are defending this flip flop. No excuses on this and that's it for me.
Except its deeper (perhaps) than that. He claims his block is based on reasons having nothing to do with the bill. Should we wait until we know the final outcome?
Should not have voted for it to begin with. The flip flop seems like political payback for Manchin to me as nothing in it changed between votes, as far as I know. If there was some chicanery between the votes my opinion would be different.
The article that JJ provided was dated 7/12. It was expressed as a concern by Toomey at minimum back to 7/12. This was BEFORE Manchin’s surprise this week. I can’t follow the connection that this is payback. What am I missing?
While Dem's andf Pub's point the finger back and forth, John Stewart is right about one thing, Vet's are on a "Cancer Clock" not the interminable politicians (clock) wrangling over whom gets over whom in the media circus. Sad, so American, so pathetic.............
It's pretty clear what actually happened if one was following the negotiations all along instead of only after it became a partisan issue and was spun. Here's what I find interesting. I follow a lot of list serves and newsletters on various veterans issue based upon professional affiliations and past organizational support. They are demographically ex-military and predictably conservative. They are outraged about what is happening but can't bring themselves to ever use the same partisan language they would and have if the situation was reversed. It's just "politicians" and "Senators" doing wrong. You would think that there was no Republican caucus in the Senate and no minority leader from reading their outrage
Link to the June16th Bill. I’m no parliamentarian but seems legit. Text - H.R.3967 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Honoring our PACT Act of 2022
A politician’s comment, by itself, doesn’t promote credence the no-vote was justified. tomey’s comment only provides “budgetary gimmick” as backup. And in response to your request, how would someone provide proof, that this gimmick does NOT exist in the bill? I haven’t read the multi pages of this thread but it works the other way. Provide specifics on why they voted it down. Instead of some repubs only saying it’s a “gimmick”.
But didn’t Toomey originally vote “no” because of the issue he had with the mandatory / discretionary budgetary issue?
