The Most Fresh & Cordial Political Thread Ever

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

No he didn't again you make up "alternative facts " to justify your lie.

Jon Stewart has always maintain the money was in the bill the 400 billion has always been "mandatory spending". First it was they added this , then it was well they moved this, both are lies. Again the republicans voted for this exact bill before.