SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - US Politics Thread 2021-24

We're going in circles, but those concerns were not relevant on June 16th. Why would they be now? And more importantly, why are Republicans not citing those concerns as their reason for voting no? You know, instead of lying about some loopholes and budgetary gimmicks?

People may or may not agree with the action of sending it back but they have cited those concerns. It’s no secret and all public domain all you have to do is read the amendments. Here’s one source https://rules.house.gov/bill/117/hr-3967-sa

What do you mean “Why would they now”? It’s been over a month and a half since bill has been passed in the Senate, but the Senate wanted changes concerning among other things one or more of those ‘significant concerns’ and sent it back to the House on 16 June 2022. What’s suddenly “now” after a month and half is all the sensationalism and howling in unison how “they just don’t care, it’s just about the money, they’re lying about loopholes, and hating veterans etc etc.

https://www.usmedicine.com/clinical-...on-over-years/

Interesting paragraph

Quote:

After extensive negotiation, however, Democrats and Republicans crafted an amended version of the bill that both sides could live with, passing it last month, 84 to 14. The amended bill was then handed back to the House, where it is almost assured to pass.

Seems they thought it was almost assured to pass after being sent back to the house. But it’s been almost a month and half now and there it sits in congress. If I’m not mistaken it doesn’t even have to go back to the Senate again. Why hasn’t it left the house for the president to sign? Media hype, mid terms, fanboi politics and drama is all I can think of. Or is what the senate wanted changed so truly horrifying.

MaDef

07-31-22 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly (Post 2820841)

Because of the way legislation is voted on. A "Bill" (proposed legislation) is proposed by a Congressman/Senator, it is then sent through committees and "tweaked". The revised "Bill" is then voted on by the chamber that originated the "bill", if it passes, it is sent to the other chamber where it goes through the same process. The "Bill" is sent back to the originating chamber for a "final" vote. That process is continued until both "Chambers" of Congress agree to the proposed legislation, or is considered "dead" and is scraped.

Anyway, my point is that even innocuous changes in the language of a "bill" can completely change it's scope.

Dowly

07-31-22 10:26 AM

The only change to the text between the two Senate votes was the removal of this line:
902(e): Not a taxable benefit. — A contract buy out for a covered health care professional under subsection (a) shall not be considered a taxable benefit or event for the covered health care professional.

Otherwise, they are identical. No changes to anything the Republicans are claiming.

Rockstar

07-31-22 12:09 PM

I wish it was that easy.

Quote:

The Pennsylvania Republican proposed to amend the bill by moving that funding back to discretionary spending, which is subject to annual congressional appropriations.

After Wednesday’s vote, Toomey said the failed cloture vote allows the upper chamber to amend the bill, adding that it was a “pretty easy fix.” “Once that’s done, this bill sails through this chamber and goes to the president and gets signed into law,” he said.

“Even on legislation this major and this costly, the Democratic leader tried to block the Senate from any semblance of a fair amendment process,” McConnell said, referring to Toomey’s amendment.

“As written, the legislation will not just help America’s veterans as designed, it would also allow *Democrats to effectively spend the same money twice and enable hundreds of billions in new unrelated spending on the discretionary side of the federal budget,” he said.

* “…allow ‘Democrats” to effectively spend…”. In my book this is political hay in reality it means who ever is in congress democrat or republican because it all depends who is voted in at the time when spending bills are decided. I think, it’s not a bad idea to keep expenditures under discretionary spending.

And response? Even more political hay “ They voted for all of us to suffer. They are endorsing our suffering,”

I’m still confused. But I am quite certain it will get passed, eventually, in one form or another. Until then we will suffer through more partisan politics.

Dowly

07-31-22 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2820912)

Yes and this is why I don't understand Toomey's opposition to the bill. If $400B is reallocated from the discretionary funds to this act as mandatory funding, there won't be another $400B magically filling the void. The Congress needs to approve any new spending. So, trying to blame the Dems for some budgetary gimmicks is misleading.

Rockstar

07-31-22 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly (Post 2820924)

All I can think of what we see in media boils down to pure partisan politics. Looking at the Senate vote for the Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to S. 3373. Not only did Republican Toomey vote ‘nay’. Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer voted ‘nay’ as well.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2022/s272

A cloture vote is, essentially, a “let’s-go-ahead-and-get-this-over-with” which apparently neither Toomey or Schumer were prepared to clear the deck for a final vote. This cloture vote did not in anyway kill the Pact Act it allowed it to be left open for debate. Like I said it will eventually be passed.

Buddahaid

07-31-22 02:03 PM

It would prevent spending for the bill being unfunded on a future budget. Those oh so patriotic senators don't want to be on the hook having to fund the bill for it's full ten years. Heartfelt thanks for your service should be good enough...

Dowly

07-31-22 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2820929)

Not only did Republican Toomey vote ‘nay’. Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer voted ‘nay’ as well.

Schumer changed his vote when it looked like it wouldn't pass. This allows him to reintroduce the bill later on.

Rockstar

07-31-22 02:37 PM

Good for Schumer. Like I said before, this bill will eventually pass and everyone Republican and Democrat alike will be out there declaring victory.

mapuc

07-31-22 02:46 PM

By reading your latest comment indicate for me that your politicians has almost of not same unwritten rules as we have here in the Danish Parliament-Never change, work for or against a law the politician(Congress/Senate) has voted yes or no to.

Example Politician A in Congress vote for a bill-Some years later when this person has been elected to the Senate this bill return and now this politician vote against what he voted for in the Congress-s/he has thereby broken an unwritten law if it had been in the Danish Parliament.

(Sorry can't get it right nor grammatic nor spelling.)

Markus

Rockstar

07-31-22 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly (Post 2820937)

Schumer changed his vote when it looked like it wouldn't pass. This allows him to reintroduce the bill later on.

I don’t know if you’ve watched this yet (link below). But what he says makes sense too me. Apparently the VA already gets (over ten years) 400 billion dollars in operating expenses from discretionary funds. The 2023 cap on discretionary expenditures has already been set and agreed upon by both parties several weeks ago. I think at 1.6 trillion or some crazy outrageous number like that.

Once passed the PACT Act would obligate an additional 280 billion (over ten year) to cover the act.

Everybody's happy.

Where it seems to go wrong according to Toomey is when Democrats want to move the VA’s 400 billion dollar operating expense from discretionary funds to mandatory funds. That he says will leave a 400 billion dollar hole in discretionary funding.

By moving that already obligated 400 billion (over ten year) from discretionary to direct funding. Democrats would fill the void with another 400 billion (over ten years) to cover the ever expanding discretionary spending. That’s a crap ton load of pork if you ask me, it’s more than I’ve ever heard of. I’d think even the most ardent party fanboys would be pissed off anyone in government tried to do that.

At least that’s what I got out it, so ya it does sound a bit gimmicky. Like trying to sneak in a 400 billion dollar slush fund kind of gimmicky. Now I know what you’re thinking. The government will over the next ten years just deduct 400 billion from 2023 discretionary funds. That makes sense, however having worked for the federal government for over 24 years. You can hope, you can wish, pray, dream government would do that. But then reality slaps you up along side the head and says that’s not how government works. The FED will have to print another 400 billion more dollars to cover.

It’s like COVID vaccine shut-up, don’t ask questions just take your medicine. Now we’re at shut-up, don’t ask questions. just pass the bill so we can spend another 400,000,000,000 of tax payer dollars and put everyone even further in debt.

https://www.toomey.senate.gov/newsro...t-floor-speech

Dowly

08-01-22 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2820975)

Where it seems to go wrong according to Toomey is when Democrats want to move the VA’s 400 billion dollar operating expense from discretionary funds to mandatory funds. That he says will leave a 400 billion dollar hole in discretionary funding.

By moving that already obligated 400 billion (over ten year) from discretionary to direct funding. Democrats would fill the void with another 400 billion (over ten years) to cover the ever expanding discretionary spending. That’s a crap ton load of pork if you ask me, it’s more than I’ve ever heard of. I’d think even the most ardent party fanboys would be pissed off anyone in government tried to do that.

Yes, I already touched on this earlier. If I understand correctly, all new spending would have to be approved by the Congress. So, saying there'd be extra $400B for democrats to spend is a bit misleading since that $400B void wouldn't just magically fill up without congressional approval.

Rockstar

08-01-22 08:23 AM

You might think that, anyone would, it makes sense. As I said earlier then reality slaps you and you realize that’s not way the government works. The 2023 discretionary funding cap has already been approved by congress and it stands by law at 1.6 trillion dollars. Come hell or high water 1.6 trillion will be spent regardless if 40 billion was designated direct spending.

August

08-01-22 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2821049)

You might think that and that’s OK. As I said earlier it’s not way the government works. Take for instance the 2023 discretionary funding cap has already been approved by congress and it stands by law at 1.6 trillion dollars. Come hell or high water 1.6 trillion will be spent if 40 billion was moved from it into direct spending.

Exactly. Discretionary is not the same thing as uncommitted.

For those who do not know how our system of government works yet still feel qualified to opine upon it's workings:

Quote:

"Discretionary spending" refers to the funds allocated by Congress to cover the administrative expenses of executive branch agencies, congressional offices and agencies, and international operations of the government. For example, most defense, education, and transportation programs are funded this way as are a variety of other federal programs and activities. It includes programmatic funding in these areas as well money for staff salaries and operating expenses. These funds must be authorized and appropriated by Congress and the President each year in order to keep the government open and operating. “Mandatory spending,” also known as “direct spending,” refers to funds provided in laws other than appropriation acts (i.e., anything that isn’t “discretionary” is categorized as “mandatory”). It includes spending on entitlement programs (the federal food stamp program, unemployment insurance benefits, payments made through the Earned Income Tax Credit program, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans’ pension programs), interest payments on the public debt, and non-entitlements such as payments to states from Forest Service receipts. Mandatory spending is sometimes described as “automatic” or “auto-pilot” spending because once eligibility, benefit formulas, and payment rules are enacted in law, spending for these programs continues automatically year-after-year unless Congress makes changes.
Some federal programs are a combination of both discretionary and mandatory spending. For example, the administrative expenses associated with running the Social Security Administration generally are funded with discretionary spending, but the benefit checks sent to retirees and disability recipients enrolled in Social Security programs are classified as mandatory spending.
The composition of the federal budget, specifically the split between mandatory and discretionary spending, is changing. In the 1980s, the share of the federal budget dedicated to discretionary and mandatory programs averaged 44 and 56 percent, respectively. Since then, however, the aging of the U.S. population and accelerating healthcare inflation have allowed mandatory spending to overtake and crowd out discretionary spending. In 2019, discretionary programs comprised only 30 percent of the federal budget (with mandatory programs consuming the remaining 70 percent) and by 2030 it is projected to fall even further to 25 percent.

https://www.concordcoalition.org/node/14733

Buddahaid

08-01-22 09:55 AM

The bill is for additional funding for vet health problems. Are we supposed to believe the senate didn't understand that when they voted for it?

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 AM.

Page 253 of 883