Burn Pit Bill blocked ...
-
The Senate overwhelmingly passed this a month ago. They are blocking it now because the House tacked on $400 BILLION in unrelated spending. That’s bull and you know it.
wrote on 30 Jul 2022, 20:50 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The Senate overwhelmingly passed this a month ago. They are blocking it now because the House tacked on $400 BILLION in unrelated spending. That’s bull and you know it.
Would you please link to a report or article that delve into the “$400 billion in unrelated spending”? I skimmed through a few news reports/articles and haven’t seen anything specific like that. :man-shrugging:
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The Senate overwhelmingly passed this a month ago. They are blocking it now because the House tacked on $400 BILLION in unrelated spending. That’s bull and you know it.
Would you please link to a report or article that delve into the “$400 billion in unrelated spending”? I skimmed through a few news reports/articles and haven’t seen anything specific like that. :man-shrugging:
wrote on 30 Jul 2022, 21:13 last edited by@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@LuFins-Dad said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The Senate overwhelmingly passed this a month ago. They are blocking it now because the House tacked on $400 BILLION in unrelated spending. That’s bull and you know it.
Would you please link to a report or article that delve into the “$400 billion in unrelated spending”? I skimmed through a few news reports/articles and haven’t seen anything specific like that. :man-shrugging:
It’s like you want to start a serious discussion with the implication that one political side cares about military burn victims, and one doesn’t. Would you care to make an attempt at explaining the motivations in a way a child wouldn’t be able to see through?
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The Senate overwhelmingly passed this a month ago. They are blocking it now because the House tacked on $400 BILLION in unrelated spending. That’s bull and you know it.
Would you please link to a report or article that delve into the “$400 billion in unrelated spending”? I skimmed through a few news reports/articles and haven’t seen anything specific like that. :man-shrugging:
wrote on 30 Jul 2022, 22:13 last edited by Catseye3@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
Would you please link to a report or article that delve into the “$400 billion in unrelated spending”?
Ax, in that same article you posted, it described that the legislation was almost good to go but for some technical issues, "But the block came just as Democratic leaders announced plans for a comprehensive budget reconciliation measure — a plan that
the GOP caucus previously pledged to oppose, 
including increased efforts to snarl normal business in the chamber."And:
"Eight Senate Republicans . . . voted for moving ahead with the bill."
Details on the last-minute Dem add-on: "Officials said the plan would spend about $369 billion on energy and climate initiatives and $64 billion to extend expiring federal subsidies for people buying health insurance.
"It would also raise $739 billion in revenue over 10 years, the biggest chunk coming from a 15% corporate minimum tax."
So if this article is accurate, it looks like everything was ironed out and on the way to the White House for signature, and then the Democrats pulled a fast one and FUBAR'd it. And then whined about the GOP "act of cowardice" and using veterans as a "bargaining chip".
Apparently the Republicans warned the Democrats, don't do it, and the Democrats did, and the Republicans withdrew their support -- just as they warned.
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
Would you please link to a report or article that delve into the “$400 billion in unrelated spending”?
Ax, in that same article you posted, it described that the legislation was almost good to go but for some technical issues, "But the block came just as Democratic leaders announced plans for a comprehensive budget reconciliation measure — a plan that
the GOP caucus previously pledged to oppose, including increased efforts to snarl normal business in the chamber."And:
"Eight Senate Republicans . . . voted for moving ahead with the bill."
Details on the last-minute Dem add-on: "Officials said the plan would spend about $369 billion on energy and climate initiatives and $64 billion to extend expiring federal subsidies for people buying health insurance.
"It would also raise $739 billion in revenue over 10 years, the biggest chunk coming from a 15% corporate minimum tax."
So if this article is accurate, it looks like everything was ironed out and on the way to the White House for signature, and then the Democrats pulled a fast one and FUBAR'd it. And then whined about the GOP "act of cowardice" and using veterans as a "bargaining chip".
Apparently the Republicans warned the Democrats, don't do it, and the Democrats did, and the Republicans withdrew their support -- just as they warned.
wrote on 30 Jul 2022, 23:54 last edited by@Catseye3 said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
Would you please link to a report or article that delve into the “$400 billion in unrelated spending”?
Ax, in that same article you posted, it described that the legislation was almost good to go but for some technical issues, "But the block came just as Democratic leaders announced plans for a comprehensive budget reconciliation measure — a plan that
the GOP caucus previously pledged to oppose, including increased efforts to snarl normal business in the chamber."And:
"Eight Senate Republicans . . . voted for moving ahead with the bill."
Details on the last-minute Dem add-on: "Officials said the plan would spend about $369 billion on energy and climate initiatives and $64 billion to extend expiring federal subsidies for people buying health insurance.
"It would also raise $739 billion in revenue over 10 years, the biggest chunk coming from a 15% corporate minimum tax."
So if this article is accurate, it looks like everything was ironed out and on the way to the White House for signature, and then the Democrats pulled a fast one and FUBAR'd it. And then whined about the GOP "act of cowardice" and using veterans as a "bargaining chip".
Apparently the Republicans warned the Democrats, don't do it, and the Democrats did, and the Republicans withdrew their support -- just as they warned.
What you quoted, the Democrats are talking about a different, separate bill (see this other thread on Manchin’s New Deal), not adding anything new onto the burn pit bill.
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@LuFins-Dad said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The Senate overwhelmingly passed this a month ago. They are blocking it now because the House tacked on $400 BILLION in unrelated spending. That’s bull and you know it.
Would you please link to a report or article that delve into the “$400 billion in unrelated spending”? I skimmed through a few news reports/articles and haven’t seen anything specific like that. :man-shrugging:
It’s like you want to start a serious discussion with the implication that one political side cares about military burn victims, and one doesn’t. Would you care to make an attempt at explaining the motivations in a way a child wouldn’t be able to see through?
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 00:03 last edited by Axtremus@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@LuFins-Dad said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The Senate overwhelmingly passed this a month ago. They are blocking it now because the House tacked on $400 BILLION in unrelated spending. That’s bull and you know it.
Would you please link to a report or article that delve into the “$400 billion in unrelated spending”? I skimmed through a few news reports/articles and haven’t seen anything specific like that. :man-shrugging:
It’s like you want to start a serious discussion with the implication that one political side cares about military burn victims, and one doesn’t. Would you care to make an attempt at explaining the motivations in a way a child wouldn’t be able to see through?
“Serious discussion” and “one political side cares about military burn victims, and one doesn’t” are not mutually exclusive. A “serious discussion” may entail talking about “one political side cares about military burn victims, and one doesn’t”. A discussion about “one political side cares more about military burn victims, and one doesn’t” can indeed be a serious one. If a child is sufficiently astute to see both, why should one deliberately obfuscate either from the child?
-
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@LuFins-Dad said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The Senate overwhelmingly passed this a month ago. They are blocking it now because the House tacked on $400 BILLION in unrelated spending. That’s bull and you know it.
Would you please link to a report or article that delve into the “$400 billion in unrelated spending”? I skimmed through a few news reports/articles and haven’t seen anything specific like that. :man-shrugging:
It’s like you want to start a serious discussion with the implication that one political side cares about military burn victims, and one doesn’t. Would you care to make an attempt at explaining the motivations in a way a child wouldn’t be able to see through?
“Serious discussion” and “one political side cares about military burn victims, and one doesn’t” are not mutually exclusive. A “serious discussion” may entail talking about “one political side cares about military burn victims, and one doesn’t”. A discussion about “one political side cares more about military burn victims, and one doesn’t” can indeed be a serious one. If a child is sufficiently astute to see both, why should one deliberately obfuscate either from the child?
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 00:39 last edited by@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@LuFins-Dad said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The Senate overwhelmingly passed this a month ago. They are blocking it now because the House tacked on $400 BILLION in unrelated spending. That’s bull and you know it.
Would you please link to a report or article that delve into the “$400 billion in unrelated spending”? I skimmed through a few news reports/articles and haven’t seen anything specific like that. :man-shrugging:
It’s like you want to start a serious discussion with the implication that one political side cares about military burn victims, and one doesn’t. Would you care to make an attempt at explaining the motivations in a way a child wouldn’t be able to see through?
“Serious discussion” and “one policies like side cares about military burn victims, and one doesn’t” are not mutually exclusive. A “serious discussion” may entail talking about “one political side cares about military burn victims, and one doesn’t”. A discussion about “one political side cares more about military burn victims, and one doesn’t” can indeed be a serious one. If a child is sufficiently astute to see both, why should one deliberately obfuscate either from the child?
Because verbal framing creates tribal narratives, which feed good vs evil world views and righteous destruction. If you want to claim that an important difference in the votes for that bill was a difference in caring about injured military, go ahead. Wouldn’t be the first time you self selected as a troll pretending to be a thoughtless tribalist.
-
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 00:43 last edited by
I really haven't gone into the weeds of why this bill was stalled.
However, a simple question is this one:
The original bill passed the Senate with 84 senators voting in favor of it.
Then, it went to the House.
Upon return to the Senate, it failed.
What's different?
I'm on my 2nd (cheap) Scotch of the night, so when you explain, please type slowly. Thanks.
-
@Catseye3 said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
Would you please link to a report or article that delve into the “$400 billion in unrelated spending”?
Ax, in that same article you posted, it described that the legislation was almost good to go but for some technical issues, "But the block came just as Democratic leaders announced plans for a comprehensive budget reconciliation measure — a plan that
the GOP caucus previously pledged to oppose, including increased efforts to snarl normal business in the chamber."And:
"Eight Senate Republicans . . . voted for moving ahead with the bill."
Details on the last-minute Dem add-on: "Officials said the plan would spend about $369 billion on energy and climate initiatives and $64 billion to extend expiring federal subsidies for people buying health insurance.
"It would also raise $739 billion in revenue over 10 years, the biggest chunk coming from a 15% corporate minimum tax."
So if this article is accurate, it looks like everything was ironed out and on the way to the White House for signature, and then the Democrats pulled a fast one and FUBAR'd it. And then whined about the GOP "act of cowardice" and using veterans as a "bargaining chip".
Apparently the Republicans warned the Democrats, don't do it, and the Democrats did, and the Republicans withdrew their support -- just as they warned.
What you quoted, the Democrats are talking about a different, separate bill (see this other thread on Manchin’s New Deal), not adding anything new onto the burn pit bill.
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 01:21 last edited by Catseye3@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
What you quoted, the Democrats are talking about a different, separate bill (see this other thread on Manchin’s New Deal), not adding anything new onto the burn pit bill
Okay, but maybe it doesn't matter that it's two separate measures. (The article was a bit confusing about that.) You'd have to know more about the budget numbers and where Congress is fiscally to have a good understanding of this, but it seems like the GOP's objection is the timing of the Democrats' Manchin proposal -- that the two measures together call for too great an expenditure. Maybe?
There's some connection between the two bills. Otherwise why the big change in the voting when the Democrats announced their plan?
And there's a big difference between an all-but-passed bill ready for signature and a "plan". So what are the Republicans so worried about that they'd withhold their support for the PACT?
I dunno. I'm thinking you have to know a lot more background about both of the measures, the palavering and dealing and back-scratching between everybody. Above my pay grade.
-
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 01:28 last edited by
@Catseye3 said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
There's some connection between the two bills.
If there is any connection at all, it exists only in the minds of the Senators who changed the way they voted. Let them state their case, if they are willing or can.
-
I really haven't gone into the weeds of why this bill was stalled.
However, a simple question is this one:
The original bill passed the Senate with 84 senators voting in favor of it.
Then, it went to the House.
Upon return to the Senate, it failed.
What's different?
I'm on my 2nd (cheap) Scotch of the night, so when you explain, please type slowly. Thanks.
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 01:33 last edited by@George-K said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
I really haven't gone into the weeds of why this bill was stalled.
However, a simple question is this one:
The original bill passed the Senate with 84 senators voting in favor of it.
Then, it went to the House.
Upon return to the Senate, it failed.
What's different?
I'm on my 2nd (cheap) Scotch of the night, so when you explain, please type slowly. Thanks.
Let those who changed how they voted articulate their reason(s) for the change, then we can judge whether their articulated reason(s) hold up to scrutiny.
-
@George-K said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
I really haven't gone into the weeds of why this bill was stalled.
However, a simple question is this one:
The original bill passed the Senate with 84 senators voting in favor of it.
Then, it went to the House.
Upon return to the Senate, it failed.
What's different?
I'm on my 2nd (cheap) Scotch of the night, so when you explain, please type slowly. Thanks.
Let those who changed how they voted articulate their reason(s) for the change, then we can judge whether their articulated reason(s) hold up to scrutiny.
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 01:36 last edited by@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@George-K said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
I really haven't gone into the weeds of why this bill was stalled.
However, a simple question is this one:
The original bill passed the Senate with 84 senators voting in favor of it.
Then, it went to the House.
Upon return to the Senate, it failed.
What's different?
I'm on my 2nd (cheap) Scotch of the night, so when you explain, please type slowly. Thanks.
Let those who changed how they voted articulate their reason(s) for the change, then we can judge whether their articulated reason(s) hold up to scrutiny.
You haven’t articulated why the votes changed, and you don’t actually believe they changed because of a lack of caring about military wounded.
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@George-K said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
I really haven't gone into the weeds of why this bill was stalled.
However, a simple question is this one:
The original bill passed the Senate with 84 senators voting in favor of it.
Then, it went to the House.
Upon return to the Senate, it failed.
What's different?
I'm on my 2nd (cheap) Scotch of the night, so when you explain, please type slowly. Thanks.
Let those who changed how they voted articulate their reason(s) for the change, then we can judge whether their articulated reason(s) hold up to scrutiny.
You haven’t articulated why the votes changed, and you don’t actually believe they changed because of a lack of caring about military wounded.
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 01:39 last edited by@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
You haven’t articulated why the votes changed, and you don’t actually believe they changed because of a lack of caring about military wounded.
No need to articulate. The other tribe is evil. It’s really that simple.
They hate veterans too, in case you were wondering.
-
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
You haven’t articulated why the votes changed, and you don’t actually believe they changed because of a lack of caring about military wounded.
No need to articulate. The other tribe is evil. It’s really that simple.
They hate veterans too, in case you were wondering.
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 01:48 last edited by@George-K said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
You haven’t articulated why the votes changed, and you don’t actually believe they changed because of a lack of caring about military wounded.
No need to articulate. The other tribe is evil. It’s really that simple.
They hate veterans too, in case you were wondering.
In Ax’s case he says this stuff to troll people on this board. I think it says little about what he actually believes, if anything. I know he’s not this thoughtlessly indoctrinated.
-
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 15:21 last edited by
-
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 15:34 last edited by
We can now see my genius in discriminating between trolls, and indoctrinated True Believers. Don't try this at home. It is very difficult work. Ax doesn't believe this narrative, but he wanted to watch conservatives respond to it. Jon Stewart does believe this narrative. They're both relatively bright people, but Stewart actually takes himself seriously. His descent into being a cultural force for stupidity is complete. And he will never, ever be aware of it, unless people around him stop supporting his idiocy. He went from widely respected comedian to cultural icon based on giggling at the right, and he's human. Of course he'll continue on that path, oblivious to whether he's moored to reality. He's moored to a culture, and that is emotional reality. Because he's human, and the sort of human with no particular talent for distinguishing between emotional and factual truth. For all of this other talents, he doesn't have that one.
-
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 15:47 last edited by
@George-K , @Horace, the issue with using the “reclassification” as a reason by the Senate GOP to vote against the bill is the date, the timing.
The “reclassification” was done and scored by the CBO by June 6, the Senate passed the “reclassified” version back on June 16 with 84 “yeas” vs. 14 “nays.” If the Senate GOP really have issue with the “reclassification,” they would have voted against it back on June 16 (remember that the “reclassification” and its effect on the CBO scoring were known by June 6). So, no, the “reclassification” is wholly insufficient to explain why the Senate GOP voted for it on June 16 and then voted against it on July 27.
-
@George-K , @Horace, the issue with using the “reclassification” as a reason by the Senate GOP to vote against the bill is the date, the timing.
The “reclassification” was done and scored by the CBO by June 6, the Senate passed the “reclassified” version back on June 16 with 84 “yeas” vs. 14 “nays.” If the Senate GOP really have issue with the “reclassification,” they would have voted against it back on June 16 (remember that the “reclassification” and its effect on the CBO scoring were known by June 6). So, no, the “reclassification” is wholly insufficient to explain why the Senate GOP voted for it on June 16 and then voted against it on July 27.
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 15:55 last edited by@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@George-K , @Horace, the issue with using the “reclassification” as a reason by the Senate GOP to vote against the bill is the date, the timing.
The “reclassification” was done and scored by the CBO by June 6, the Senate passed the “reclassified” version back on June 16 with 84 “yeas” vs. 14 “nays.” If the Senate GOP really have issue with the “reclassification,” they would have voted against it back on June 16 (remember that the “reclassification” and its effect on the CBO scoring were known by June 6). So, no, the “reclassification” is wholly insufficient to explain why the Senate GOP voted for it on June 16 and then voted against it on July 27.
It doesn't matter. Nobody votes against bills because they are against helping injured military. That doesn't pass the sniff test for plausibility. I note you have not laid claim to that belief, but presented it as a rhetorical attack to be defended against. You have not supplied your own good faith justification for why the bill votes were changed. Would you claim that the reason for the votes was the extent of caring about military wounded? Or are you more comfortable with the wafting stench of that implausible tribal narrative in the air, to be defended against by its targets?
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@George-K , @Horace, the issue with using the “reclassification” as a reason by the Senate GOP to vote against the bill is the date, the timing.
The “reclassification” was done and scored by the CBO by June 6, the Senate passed the “reclassified” version back on June 16 with 84 “yeas” vs. 14 “nays.” If the Senate GOP really have issue with the “reclassification,” they would have voted against it back on June 16 (remember that the “reclassification” and its effect on the CBO scoring were known by June 6). So, no, the “reclassification” is wholly insufficient to explain why the Senate GOP voted for it on June 16 and then voted against it on July 27.
It doesn't matter. Nobody votes against bills because they are against helping injured military. That doesn't pass the sniff test for plausibility. I note you have not laid claim to that belief, but presented it as a rhetorical attack to be defended against. You have not supplied your own good faith justification for why the bill votes were changed. Would you claim that the reason for the votes was the extent of caring about military wounded? Or are you more comfortable with the wafting stench of that implausible tribal narrative in the air, to be defended against by its targets?
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 17:50 last edited by@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
You have not supplied your own good faith justification for why the bill votes were changed.
I do not see any good faith justification for the GOP Senators to change their June 16 “yea” votes to their July 27 “nay” votes. If they think there are good faith justifications for then to change their votes between June 16 and July 27, let them articulate those reasons and we can judge whether their reasons pass muster.
-
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
You have not supplied your own good faith justification for why the bill votes were changed.
I do not see any good faith justification for the GOP Senators to change their June 16 “yea” votes to their July 27 “nay” votes. If they think there are good faith justifications for then to change their votes between June 16 and July 27, let them articulate those reasons and we can judge whether their reasons pass muster.
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 17:58 last edited by@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
You have not supplied your own good faith justification for why the bill votes were changed.
I do not see any good faith justification for the GOP Senators to change their June 16 “yea” votes to their July 27 “nay” votes. If they think there are good faith justifications for then to change their votes between June 16 and July 27, let them articulate those reasons and we can judge whether their reasons pass muster.
Are you ignoring the reasoning already given? Claiming that it's a lie, or impossible?
According to the handwavy narrative that you refuse to own but will still propagate, they must have reconsidered how much they care about wounded military personnel between June 16 and July 27. Right? That's your Occam's razor?
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
You have not supplied your own good faith justification for why the bill votes were changed.
I do not see any good faith justification for the GOP Senators to change their June 16 “yea” votes to their July 27 “nay” votes. If they think there are good faith justifications for then to change their votes between June 16 and July 27, let them articulate those reasons and we can judge whether their reasons pass muster.
Are you ignoring the reasoning already given? Claiming that it's a lie, or impossible?
According to the handwavy narrative that you refuse to own but will still propagate, they must have reconsidered how much they care about wounded military personnel between June 16 and July 27. Right? That's your Occam's razor?
wrote on 31 Jul 2022, 18:01 last edited by@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
You have not supplied your own good faith justification for why the bill votes were changed.
I do not see any good faith justification for the GOP Senators to change their June 16 “yea” votes to their July 27 “nay” votes. If they think there are good faith justifications for then to change their votes between June 16 and July 27, let them articulate those reasons and we can judge whether their reasons pass muster.
Are you ignoring the reasoning already given? Claiming that it's a lie, or impossible?
According to the handwavy narrative that you refuse to own but will still propagate, they must have reconsidered how much they care about wounded military personnel between June 16 and July 27. Right? That's your Occam's razor?
Maybe they have, maybe they haven’t. I’m not going to justify it for them. Let them justify why they changed their votes.