The Most Fresh & Cordial Political Thread Ever

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I'm all for getting rid of political parties!

Well look at us, we now agree on at least 4 things:

1. Flat tax
2. Getting rid of political parties

Both of which will never happen, but we can dream.

3. Foreign policy (pretty sure we're mostly in agreeance here if memory serves)
4. America is The GOAT

On that note, I am backing back out of this thread.

Happy Friday everyone!

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Well look at us, we now agree on at least 4 things:

1. Flat tax
2. Getting rid of political parties

Both of which will never happen, but we can dream.

3. Foreign policy (pretty sure we're mostly in agreeance here if memory serves)
4. America is The GOAT

On that note, I am backing back out of this thread.

Happy Friday everyone!

[Giantone]

Can't this guy ever STFU????


https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-no...194139327.html


INSIDER
Trump says 'nobody's gotten to the bottom of 9/11' while hosting a Saudi-funded golf tournament

Trump said "nobody's gotten to the bottom of 9/11" during a Saudi-backed golf tournament.

Family members of 9/11 victims called on Trump to cancel the event at his Bedminster private club.

Trump also defended Saudi Arabia. "What they're doing for golf is so great," he said.

Former President Donald Trump said "nobody's gotten to the bottom of 9/11" when asked about the protests against a Saudi-backed golf tournament being hosted at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

"Nobody's gotten to the bottom of 9/11, unfortunately, and they should have, as to the maniacs that did that horrible thing," Trump told ESPN during the LIV Golf pro-am at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster. LIV is a new golf tour funded by Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund — overseen by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Trump also went on to defend Saudi Arabia. "I've known these people for a long time in Saudi Arabia and they've been friends of mine for a long time," Trump said. "What they're doing for golf is so great."

[SunnySide]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mj4zezgung...PACT%20Act.pdf

^^ actual Bill if anyone wants to read it. I quick read it and it seems to be all about toxic exposure to armed forces members. There is zero mention of funding or cost here. I did read the bill would bring in more than it would cost ... i imagine bc medical costs would go down w early detection and prevention to future exposure.

It covers burn pit exposure .. as well as a nuclear cleanup in late 80s, agent orange in vietnam ..

-----------

Republicans blocked this bill bc they will block any bill while a D is president and they were made about the surprise domestic package Manchin agreed to behind their back


------------

if anyone has any link to back up this "funding" reason for blocking the bill, id love to see it. And not the blurb were it was some un-named source saying it .. something objective

if you just think "republicans said theres the green deal in there and not actually helping troops" and then say "im not going to provide you sources" .. maybe youre being lied to.

maybe you enjoy being lied to.

One spoon fed lie, one after another .. you dont even have to have your eyes open.

Just sit back and get fed like a toddler.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mj4zezgung...PACT%20Act.pdf

^^ actual Bill if anyone wants to read it. I quick read it and it seems to be all about toxic exposure to armed forces members. There is zero mention of funding or cost here. I did read the bill would bring in more than it would cost ... i imagine bc medical costs would go down w early detection and prevention to future exposure.

It covers burn pit exposure .. as well as a nuclear cleanup in late 80s, agent orange in vietnam ..

-----------

Republicans blocked this bill bc they will block any bill while a D is president and they were made about the surprise domestic package Manchin agreed to behind their back


------------

if anyone has any link to back up this "funding" reason for blocking the bill, id love to see it. And not the blurb were it was some un-named source saying it .. something objective

if you just think "republicans said theres the green deal in there and not actually helping troops" and then say "im not going to provide you sources" .. maybe youre being lied to.

maybe you enjoy being lied to.

One spoon fed lie, one after another .. you dont even have to have your eyes open.

Just sit back and get fed like a toddler.

Lotta spoon feeding going on...

I would also like to see a link - with some objective evidence - that shows Republicans voted against the cloture motion due to the domestic package Manchin agreed to, rather than because of the budget gimmick that would authorize $400 billion over the next 10 years of existing spending - outside of the $280 billion that they all agreed upon.

Anyone have that link? If not, maybe you're being lied to...

[Chico23231]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...zona-rcna40567

The Biden administration on Thursday authorized completion of the Trump-funded U.S.-Mexico border wall in an open area of southern Arizona near Yuma, where four wide gaps make it among the busiest corridors for illegal crossings.


Joe Biden less than 2 years ago:
“There will not be another foot of wall constructed on my administration, No. 1," he told NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro

I remember hearing the border wall was racist and xenophobic…lolololol. Meaningless words I guess these days. They mean absolutely nothing

[Chief X_Phackter]

Sorry man. If you wanna put all your faith in John Stewart & Yahoo Entertainment, when they provide zero facts to back up what they are saying, that's on you. That's a true Sheep.

[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.

[mooby]

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.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...a3b32d1e58ca80

This is actually pretty interesting, don't think I'm any closer to solving this but I found this under Section 805c:

Originally Posted by PACT act section 805c

“(c) Authorization Of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Fund for fiscal year 2023 and each subsequent fiscal year such sums as are necessary to increase funding, over the fiscal year 2021 level, for investment in—

“(1) the delivery of veterans’ health care associated with exposure to environmental hazards in the active military, naval, air, or space service in programs administered by the Under Secretary for Health;

“(2) any expenses incident to the delivery of veterans’ health care and benefits associated with exposure to environmental hazards in the active military, naval, air, or space service, including administrative expenses, such as information technology and claims processing and appeals, and excluding leases as authorized or approved under section 8104 of this title; and

“(3) medical and other research relating to exposure to environmental hazards.

Also found this under subsection? 2 under 805.

“(2) No amount appropriated to the Fund in fiscal year 2023 or any subsequent fiscal year pursuant to this section shall be counted as discretionary budget authority and outlays or as direct spending for any estimate of an appropriation Act under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) and any other Act."

What do you guys think?

[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.

[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.

[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.