The Most Fresh & Cordial Political Thread Ever

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

ABC news:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said he would schedule another procedural vote on Monday. He offered Toomey a vote on an amendment to close the "budget gimmick" that would require 60 votes to be added to the bill. It's unclear if Toomey, and other Republicans, will accept that deal and allow the bill to proceed to a final vote on the floor.


Looks like Dems will remove it Monday. Good

Whole lotta talking but all I really want to see is the amendment that states in writing what the actual budget gimmick is and whether or not it actually pertains to the bill in question.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by mooby

That's just an announcement by his office saying why they voted it down.

It would really be more helpful if they could point to the specific line item as the reason for the no-vote. Surely if this is the case a record exists of the amendment to change the budget gimmick?

Well it is Toomey saying this - not a Ted Cruz or a Rob Johnson. People like to look at the source - just saying.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...967/amendments

No snide comments/etc. here - I really am curious and if you guys are willing to play nice I am legit interested in figuring out who is lying here. But I need help on this.

Because if this is the case and the Dems added 400 billion in bullshit mandatory non-military medical spending to a bill using the troops as cover - they should absolutely be called out on their bullshit right?

The link I posted above is a link to the bill, specifically to all 55 amendments made (it's not as bad as it seems, most of those amendments are described as "Text of Amendment as Submitted: S2836 Purpose displays after an amendment is proposed" which I assume is some clerical thing.

So we need to find the amendment where the Dems took 400 billion in discretionary spending (for something totally unrelated to military healthcare) and switched it to mandatory after June 16.

Why June 16th? Because on June 16th the Senate had a vote where the bill passed 84-14. So obviously the left made that amendment after the fact to try and sneak it through.

I'm being totally serious here guys - put aside your partisan bias and help me figure out who's lying here. No hearsay in this one - this is the official record from Congress. If it happened it has to be in there somewhere.

......nothing was added to the bill after that vote.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by mooby

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...967/amendments

No snide comments/etc. here - I really am curious and if you guys are willing to play nice I am legit interested in figuring out who is lying here. But I need help on this.

Because if this is the case and the Dems added 400 billion in bullshit mandatory non-military medical spending to a bill using the troops as cover - they should absolutely be called out on their bullshit right?

The link I posted above is a link to the bill, specifically to all 55 amendments made (it's not as bad as it seems, most of those amendments are described as "Text of Amendment as Submitted: S2836 Purpose displays after an amendment is proposed" which I assume is some clerical thing.

So we need to find the amendment where the Dems took 400 billion in discretionary spending (for something totally unrelated to military healthcare) and switched it to mandatory after June 16.

Why June 16th? Because on June 16th the Senate had a vote where the bill passed 84-14. So obviously the left made that amendment after the fact to try and sneak it through.

I'm being totally serious here guys - put aside your partisan bias and help me figure out who's lying here. No hearsay in this one - this is the official record from Congress. If it happened it has to be in there somewhere.

100% agree.

Here is what I think happened after doing what I can to find something other than talking heads' versions of what happened.

The bill was voted on in June - and passed. It wasn't unanimous. Sen. Toomey along with 13 other Republicans voted Nay. I can't find anything in particular regarding their reason(s) for voting Nay in June, but I don't think it's questionable to assume that they voted Nay in June for the same reason(s) they voted Nay on the cloture motion.

I cannot find anything that was "added" to the bill with regard to spending between June 16th and the cloture motion. However, there is/was definitely $400 billion reclassified as direct spending.

Current-Law Discretionary Spending Reclassified as Direct Spending
Estimated Authorization 0 25.4 29.6 34.0 38.8 43.5 48.5 53.6 58.9 64.3 127.8 396.6
Estimated Outlays 0 22.9 29.2 33.6 38.3 43.0 48.0 53.1 58.4 63.8 124.0 390.3

g. Some activities that would be funded through the new Cost of War Toxic Exposure Fund are similar to activities currently funded from other discretionary appropriations. As a result of section 805, CBO anticipates that some of those currently discretionary appropriations would be provided through the new mandatory appropriation instead, to the extent that costs for those similar activities exceed the amounts provided in 2021. As a result, this table shows a reduction in spending subject to appropriation under current law, and an offsetting increase in direct spending.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/202...te_version.pdf

You would have to talk to the individual Senators including Toomey to be sure, but my guess is Toomey and the other 13 didn't like the reclassification of spending in June - hence voted no. And then since that vote in June they were able to convince enough of their colleagues to side with them at the Cloture motion - so they can amend the bill to remove that mandatory or direct (unappropriated) spending.

It does appear that Sen Toomey submitted an amendment on 7/25:

https://www.congress.gov/congression...2522%255D%257D

However, this amendment was ordered to "lie on the table". Motion to table – A proposal to set aside any pending question. Used to dispose of a question the Chamber does not want to consider further. Agreement to the motion is equivalent to defeating the question tabled.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

100% agree.

Here is what I think happened after doing what I can to find something other than talking heads' versions of what happened.

The bill was voted on in June - and passed. It wasn't unanimous. Sen. Toomey along with 13 other Republicans voted Nay. I can't find anything in particular regarding their reason(s) for voting Nay in June, but I don't think it's questionable to assume that they voted Nay in June for the same reason(s) they voted Nay on the cloture motion.

I cannot find anything that was "added" to the bill with regard to spending between June 16th and the cloture motion. However, there is/was definitely $400 billion reclassified as direct spending.

Current-Law Discretionary Spending Reclassified as Direct Spending
Estimated Authorization 0 25.4 29.6 34.0 38.8 43.5 48.5 53.6 58.9 64.3 127.8 396.6
Estimated Outlays 0 22.9 29.2 33.6 38.3 43.0 48.0 53.1 58.4 63.8 124.0 390.3

g. Some activities that would be funded through the new Cost of War Toxic Exposure Fund are similar to activities currently funded from other discretionary appropriations. As a result of section 805, CBO anticipates that some of those currently discretionary appropriations would be provided through the new mandatory appropriation instead, to the extent that costs for those similar activities exceed the amounts provided in 2021. As a result, this table shows a reduction in spending subject to appropriation under current law, and an offsetting increase in direct spending.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/202...te_version.pdf

You would have to talk to the individual Senators including Toomey to be sure, but my guess is Toomey and the other 13 didn't like the reclassification of spending in June - hence voted no. And then since that vote in June they were able to convince enough of their colleagues to side with them at the Cloture motion - so they can amend the bill to remove that mandatory or direct (unappropriated) spending.

It does appear that Sen Toomey submitted an amendment on 7/25:

https://www.congress.gov/congression...2522%255D%257D

However, this amendment was ordered to "lie on the table". Motion to table – A proposal to set aside any pending question. Used to dispose of a question the Chamber does not want to consider further. Agreement to the motion is equivalent to defeating the question tabled.

Sorry Chief, I'm going off Toomey's official statement here.

From my understanding, he's saying in its' current form this bill will enable 10 years of spending totally unrelated to veterans. This is kind of going over my head a bit, but it sounds like he's saying there is 400 billion in current discretionary spending that is covered under mandatory spending in this new bill - so how does that translate to freeing up 400 billion in loose change for Congress to spend on whatever they want with no oversight?

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by mooby

Sorry Chief, I'm going off Toomey's official statement here.

From my understanding, he's saying in its' current form this bill will enable 10 years of spending totally unrelated to veterans. This is kind of going over my head a bit, but it sounds like he's saying there is 400 billion in current discretionary spending that is covered under mandatory spending in this new bill - so how does that translate to freeing up 400 billion in loose change for Congress to spend on whatever they want with no oversight?

Admittedly, this is going a bit over my head as well. It's not easy to follow/track.

Page two of the first link I sent outlines Increases in Direct Spending.

Mandatory—or direct—spending includes spending for entitlement programs and certain other payments to people, businesses, and state and local governments. Mandatory spending is generally governed by statutory criteria; it is not normally set by annual appropriation acts.

That is the only thing I can think of (or find) that he may be referring to, as it adds up to about $400 billion.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Bills should not be written so convoluted that we can't even understand them. And it's done purposely. They're all sons of bitches.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

Admittedly, this is going a bit over my head as well. It's not easy to follow/track.

Page two of the first link I sent outlines Increases in Direct Spending.

Mandatory—or direct—spending includes spending for entitlement programs and certain other payments to people, businesses, and state and local governments. Mandatory spending is generally governed by statutory criteria; it is not normally set by annual appropriation acts.

That is the only thing I can think of (or find) that he may be referring to, as it adds up to about $400 billion.

It’s not up for debate, 400 billion in spending is confirmed by the CBO…when Jon Stewart was press about the fact, he changed subjects.

It’s laughable at the dishonesty this point. Just remove the unrelated spending and the bill gets passed.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

It’s not up for debate, 400 billion in spending is confirmed by the CBO…when Jon Stewart was press about the fact, he changed subjects.

It’s laughable at the dishonesty this point. Just remove the unrelated spending and the bill gets passed.

LOL, you really are as stupid as you act! Amazing!

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Giantone

LOL, you really are as stupid as you act! Amazing!

Are you even capable of contributing to the conversations on this board? Mooby and Sunnyside posted good links above which generated good discussion on the subject and yes even Chico made good contributions to the discussion. You however post this which is generally all you ever post.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Are you even capable of contributing to the conversations on this board? Mooby and Sunnyside posted good links above which generated good discussion on the subject and yes even Chico made good contributions to the discussion. You however post this which is generally all you ever post.

The fact that you think chico makes good contributions just shows how little of a thread you actually read. Don't like what I post then don't read it but you might want to start to read a whole thread once in a while. I realize people from Arizona have a hard time getting all the facts.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Are you even capable of contributing to the conversations on this board? Mooby and Sunnyside posted good links above which generated good discussion on the subject and yes even Chico made good contributions to the discussion. You however post this which is generally all you ever post.

The answer is no - Attacks & memes, but very little substance.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Giantone

The fact that you think chico makes good contributions just shows how little of a thread you actually read. Don't like what I post then don't read it but you might want to start to read a whole thread once in a while. I realize people from Arizona have a hard time getting all the facts.

G1 why don't you ask Mooby or Sunnyside for an assessment of how you act on in this forum. Those guys politically align with you so maybe they will be able to give you constructive advice that you won't accept from those that don't politically align with you. Previously some one accurately described your conduct as being the most Trump like of all the posters who are on this forum. Just ask Mooby or Sunnyside if that is true.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by nonniey

G1 why don't you ask Mooby or Sunnyside for an assessment of how you act on in this forum. Those guys politically align with you so maybe they will be able to give you constructive advice that you won't accept from those that don't politically align with you. Previously some one accurately described your conduct as being the most Trump like of all the posters who are on this forum. Just ask Mooby or Sunnyside if that is true.

Again you make the assumption I give two shits! I respect those two posters and what they bring to the threads. Here is the thing, I don't agree with their take sometimes as they don't agree with mine, not everyone gets along and that is ok. Yet the ignorance that chico and a few of you show towards America is mind boggling yet I can cross that off as trump sheep but don't let my attitude towards chico be misconstrued. He stepped over the line and made this personal years ago, I honestly don't give a shit how you feel about it.


P.S.
I don't drag others into my post as you seem to be trying to do, act like a big boy.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

The answer is no - Attacks & memes, but very little substance.

Funny you accept it from chico and others but not me.