Burn Pit Bill blocked ...
-
I remember reading posts by a former member of TNCR who always commented (and still does on social media, last time I checked) that "Republicans are evil."
I would love to see anything confirming that the blockage of this bill is motivated by the assertion that Republicans don't want veterans to get benefits. It was an 84-14 vote originally.
I asked before, with no response...what changed? Did the GOP senators suddenly become mustache-twirling evil-doers?
Or, was it something else?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
I remember reading posts by a former member of TNCR who always commented (and still does on social media, last time I checked) that "Republicans are evil."
I would love to see anything confirming that the blockage of this bill is motivated by the assertion that Republicans don't want veterans to get benefits. It was an 84-14 vote originally.
I asked before, with no response...what changed? Did the GOP senators suddenly become mustache-twirling evil-doers?
Or, was it something else?
Ax is stuck on the fact that whatever changed, changed before the original vote, and this bill that got blocked was substantially identical. I don't doubt that, but there was a change, presumably before the original vote, which caused a few GOP senators to vote against it, and between the first vote and the second, they were presumably able to build a coalition around their reasons. Which the sane among us do not think had to do with cold hearted disdain for the needs of wounded military. They claim it was because of pork that has nothing to do with caring for the military wounded. I guess the Axs and Jon Stewarts of the world just have to assume they are lying. Which, in fairness, makes perfect sense, in a childish worldview of good vs evil.
-
Nothing changed in the bill. The Republicans got together and decided anything proposed by the Democrats was bad, so they had to vote against it.
Not surprising, because the Democrats would do the same thing.
It will interesting next year when the Republicans have the majority, and then they will complain that the Democrats are holding up bills, voting against them, etc.
And the Democrats will try and take some sort of moral argument when the only real reason is that the bill was proposed by the Republicans.
-
The last three times Stewart has popped up on my radar have been pure stupid. There was one diatribe against the stock market which indicated zero understanding of anything to do with money, and which would only serve to keep the ignorant poor, ignorant and poor. There was the Roe reaction, where Mr Stewart led a panel of progressive women as they play acted like they were in a bunker hiding from fascists who were coming for each of them. No acknowledgment that the legal case is arguably sound that it should be left to the states. Just pure moral conviction and terror that the conservatives are coming for all Good people. Now there is this. The man lives in a very simple world. I think he prefers it that way. He is like a child playing cops and robbers.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
Nothing changed in the bill. The Republicans got together and decided anything proposed by the Democrats was bad, so they had to vote against it.
That’s probably not quite as nuanced as it could be. There is room, even within a both sides are equal worldview, to acknowledge details like the fact that the bill had pork attached, which had nothing to do with the nominal purpose of the bill. The parts of the bill that had to do with helping military personnel would have passed, at least according to the senator who took the floor and spoke for the opposition.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
Nothing changed in the bill. The Republicans got together and decided anything proposed by the Democrats was bad, so they had to vote against it.
THat's patently not true. The bill passed by a vote of 84-14 in its original form. That means there was significant Republican support. After it came back from the House, it was, according to the GOP, bloated beyond the original intent.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@Horace I get that. But my understanding is the same as Ax's.
The bill that passed with 84 votes is pretty much the same as the one that was rejected.
Either
A. The staff did not do their homework the first time and did not do a good summary of the bill for the senators
B. A memo from leadership went around that said that Republican senators should not work with Democratic senators on bills
C. The Republican senators feel there is some political gain by voting against it.
D. Combination of all of the above -
@George-K said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The bill passed by a vote of 84-14 in its original form. That means there was significant Republican support. After it came back from the House, it was, according to the GOP, bloated beyond the original intent.
None of the senators who changed their votes between June 16 (when the bill passed by a vote of 84-14) and July 27 (when 25 GOP senators changed their votes from "yeas" to "nays") manage to identify where or what "bloat" has supposedly been added between the June 16 version and the July 27 version of the bill.
I want these 25 senators who changed their votes to point out exactly what changed between June 16 and July 27 for them to change their votes.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace I get that. But my understanding is the same as Ax's.
The bill that passed with 84 votes is pretty much the same as the one that was rejected.
Either
A. The staff did not do their homework the first time and did not do a good summary of the bill for the senators
B. A memo from leadership went around that said that Republican senators should not work with Democratic senators on bills
C. The Republican senators feel there is some political gain by voting against it.
D. Combination of all of the aboveYes that’s all potentially correct, and what I would consider good faith guesses about why the votes changed. None of those guesses came from Ax. He was content with the “Republicans hate military burn victims” narrative. The GOP opposition opposed the pork in the bill, according to them. Another good faith guess that could be added to your list, would be that the GOP senators had principled reasons, which would be backed by their unequivocally pro-military constituency, to oppose the pork shenanigans included in this bill by Democrats who, knowing the optics, dared the GOP to block it. Challenge apparently accepted. Now we all choose which part we play in our understanding of what just happened. Where do the useful idiots fall on this one? Where do the nuanced realists fall? You be the judge!
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@George-K said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The bill passed by a vote of 84-14 in its original form. That means there was significant Republican support. After it came back from the House, it was, according to the GOP, bloated beyond the original intent.
None of the senators who changed their votes between June 16 (when the bill passed by a vote of 84-14) and July 27 (when 25 GOP senators changed their votes from "yeas" to "nays") manage to identify where or what "bloat" has supposedly been added between the June 16 version and the July 27 version of the bill.
I want these 25 senators who changed their votes to point out exactly what changed between June 16 and July 27 for them to change their votes.
You can want anything you like. The opposition to the bill has been spoken for by the presumed leader of it, whose vote never changed. The fact is, you have good information about the reasons for the change, but you prefer the stench of the good vs evil narrative, so you choose to ignore that information.
Education is extremely important.
-
-
QUOTE
"There’s been so much confusion over what changed between the first bill that Republicans votes YES on to the revised bill that they voted NO on that we need to help clear it up. If you’ve never read a Congressional bill before, they are massively detailed documents.See the final version of the vote for yourself for what is officially called the Sgt. 1st Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT (Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics) Act.
When you compare the two document, here’s the only change. I have to give credit to for the hard work. Keep in mind that many outside contractors will be required the sick. The change regards them:
“(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.”
That’s it! Not $400 billion or whatever Ted Cruz was talking about. Shame on him and all of them. This was a tax exemption clarification that only affects the many private practice facilities that are required to render care to the huge number of Vets in need.
UNQUOTEIf you dont think the above is correct, below are the two versions of the bill.
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The opposition to the bill has been spoken for by the presumed leader of it
What "presumed leader"? Name the "presumed leader" if you think there is one.
The senator who spoke on the floor, I’m not sure why you have such a block on his name, or why you think his name is such a point of contention. He was referenced upthread. You’ve named him. We both know who I’m talking about. Why do you keep asking?
-
@taiwan_girl said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
QUOTE
"There’s been so much confusion over what changed between the first bill that Republicans votes YES on to the revised bill that they voted NO on that we need to help clear it up. If you’ve never read a Congressional bill before, they are massively detailed documents.See the final version of the vote for yourself for what is officially called the Sgt. 1st Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT (Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics) Act.
When you compare the two document, here’s the only change. I have to give credit to for the hard work. Keep in mind that many outside contractors will be required the sick. The change regards them:
“(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.”
That’s it! Not $400 billion or whatever Ted Cruz was talking about. Shame on him and all of them. This was a tax exemption clarification that only affects the many private practice facilities that are required to render care to the huge number of Vets in need.
UNQUOTEIf you dont think the above is correct, below are the two versions of the bill.
I assume this is true. The senator who opposed the original bill (one of the fourteen) and who took the floor to speak for the opposition in the video from upthread, and whose name Ax is deeply concerned with, had reasons to oppose the original bill. I suspect he successfully built a coalition around those reasons between the first and second votes. I also suspect those reasons don’t conform to a simple good vs evil narrative.
-
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The opposition to the bill has been spoken for by the presumed leader of it
What "presumed leader"? Name the "presumed leader" if you think there is one.
The senator who spoke on the floor, I’m not sure why you have such a block on his name, or why you think his name is such a point of contention. He was referenced upthread. You’ve named him. We both know who I’m talking about. Why do you keep asking?
I ask you to name the senator because it seems you keep referring to one that does not exist. You believe there is a "presumed leader", but I do not believe such a "presumed leader" exists. So I invite you to name the you consider to be the "presumed leader" then we can see whether the named senator fits the "presumed leader" label.
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The opposition to the bill has been spoken for by the presumed leader of it
What "presumed leader"? Name the "presumed leader" if you think there is one.
The senator who spoke on the floor, I’m not sure why you have such a block on his name, or why you think his name is such a point of contention. He was referenced upthread. You’ve named him. We both know who I’m talking about. Why do you keep asking?
I ask you to name the senator because it seems you keep referring to one that does not exist. You believe there is a "presumed leader", but I do not believe such a "presumed leader" exists. So I invite you to name the you consider to be the "presumed leader" then we can see whether the named senator fits the "presumed leader" label.
I have provided plenty of information for you or any honest reader of our discussion to identify exactly who I’m referring to. At this point I’m just curious how you’ll react as you play this game of trying to get me to type a certain sequence of letters.
-
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@taiwan_girl said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
QUOTE
"There’s been so much confusion over what changed between the first bill that Republicans votes YES on to the revised bill that they voted NO on that we need to help clear it up. If you’ve never read a Congressional bill before, they are massively detailed documents.See the final version of the vote for yourself for what is officially called the Sgt. 1st Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT (Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics) Act.
When you compare the two document, here’s the only change. I have to give credit to for the hard work. Keep in mind that many outside contractors will be required the sick. The change regards them:
“(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.”
That’s it! Not $400 billion or whatever Ted Cruz was talking about. Shame on him and all of them. This was a tax exemption clarification that only affects the many private practice facilities that are required to render care to the huge number of Vets in need.
UNQUOTEIf you dont think the above is correct, below are the two versions of the bill.
I assume this is true. The senator who opposed the original bill (one of the fourteen) and who took the floor to speak for the opposition in the video from upthread, and whose name Ax is deeply concerned with, had reasons to oppose the original bill. I suspect he successfully built a coalition around those reasons between the first and second votes. I also suspect those reasons don’t conform to a simple good vs evil narrative.
Lots of suspicions on your part. Now we wait for confirmation.
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@taiwan_girl said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
QUOTE
"There’s been so much confusion over what changed between the first bill that Republicans votes YES on to the revised bill that they voted NO on that we need to help clear it up. If you’ve never read a Congressional bill before, they are massively detailed documents.See the final version of the vote for yourself for what is officially called the Sgt. 1st Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT (Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics) Act.
When you compare the two document, here’s the only change. I have to give credit to for the hard work. Keep in mind that many outside contractors will be required the sick. The change regards them:
“(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.”
That’s it! Not $400 billion or whatever Ted Cruz was talking about. Shame on him and all of them. This was a tax exemption clarification that only affects the many private practice facilities that are required to render care to the huge number of Vets in need.
UNQUOTEIf you dont think the above is correct, below are the two versions of the bill.
I assume this is true. The senator who opposed the original bill (one of the fourteen) and who took the floor to speak for the opposition in the video from upthread, and whose name Ax is deeply concerned with, had reasons to oppose the original bill. I suspect he successfully built a coalition around those reasons between the first and second votes. I also suspect those reasons don’t conform to a simple good vs evil narrative.
Lots of suspicions on your part. Now we wait for confirmation.
The guy spoke on the floor and gave reasons, along with his belief that if those reasons are addressed, the bill will pass.
You have been provided with good faith confirmation. You lack the good faith in return to accept it. The evidentiary level of confirmation you are prancing on about, does not exist in these sorts of legislative proceedings, and never does. You know that.
