Burn Pit Bill blocked ...
-
From the article:
Currently veterans have had to prove that illnesses were connected to their service, and the Department of Veterans Affairs did not consider exposure to toxins a service-related condition. The department has denied about 75% of veterans’ burn pit claims.
This is surprising. My wife and others worked for the Dept of VA in the benefits division and I was always shocked to know that veterans could often get a ton of disability benefits (money, etc) for disabilities they got while serving EVEN IF the disability was completely unrelated to their service. For example, if you got diabetes while active duty, that is considered a service-connected disability. Anyway, my point is I'm surprised exposure to burn pits was not already lumped into the service-connected disability bucket, unless claims were being abused and/or impossible to prove.
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The burn pit bill passed the Senate, 86 “yeas” vs. 11 “nays.”
The change in accounting method that Sen. Toomey wanted to introduce as an amendment did not make it into the final bill, and the bill passed the Senate 86-11 anyway.
Yep, too bad about that. But this was educational for many, and I'm glad we spent a couple days learning about this particular budget trick. Maybe in the future it'll be more difficult to slip into legislation.
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
But this was educational for many, and I'm glad we spent a couple days learning about this particular budget trick. Maybe in the future it'll be more difficult to slip into legislation.
What "budget trick"?
There has been no "budget trick" in the bill to begin with. -
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
But this was educational for many, and I'm glad we spent a couple days learning about this particular budget trick. Maybe in the future it'll be more difficult to slip into legislation.
What "budget trick"?
There has been no "budget trick" in the bill to begin with.@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
But this was educational for many, and I'm glad we spent a couple days learning about this particular budget trick. Maybe in the future it'll be more difficult to slip into legislation.
What "budget trick"?
There has been no "budget trick" in the bill to begin with.What are you talking about? Unless you think we're talking about actual magic tricks... yes the bill very much included budget tricks that congress adds to unrelated bills in order to create "funded buckets" they can pull cash from more easily in the future.
-
The back and forth in the legislation is really pretty darn common, btw. Just got media exposure here because of the claims of GOP not liking vets, which is ironic since generally speaking the GOP is more pro-military than the DEMs.
@89th said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The back and forth in the legislation is really pretty darn common, btw. Just got media exposure here because of the claims of GOP not liking vets, which is ironic since generally speaking the GOP is more pro-military than the DEMs.
-
No, it is not common for a 25% of Senators to vote one way one a bill, then vote the opposite on the identical bill, then flip-flop yet again on the identical bill. Feel free to find another example of this if you believe this is common.
-
Point #1 aside, just because something is "damn common" does not mean it is right.
-
Whether the GOP (or any party) is "pro-military" has to be evaluated against their actions, e.g., their legislative voting record, rather than their stump speeches or campaign ads. (You may recall something Jolly likes to say, along the line of "pay attention to what they do, not what they say.")
-
Furthermore, "pro-military hardware" is not the same as "pro-military personnel" or "pro-military veteran". Keep funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into expensive weapon systems every year is not the same as taking care of the ex-warriors who have returned from the battle field.
-
-
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
But this was educational for many, and I'm glad we spent a couple days learning about this particular budget trick. Maybe in the future it'll be more difficult to slip into legislation.
What "budget trick"?
There has been no "budget trick" in the bill to begin with.What are you talking about? Unless you think we're talking about actual magic tricks... yes the bill very much included budget tricks that congress adds to unrelated bills in order to create "funded buckets" they can pull cash from more easily in the future.
@89th said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
... yes the bill very much included budget tricks that congress adds to unrelated bills in order to create "funded buckets" they can pull cash from more easily in the future.
What "budget tricks" are you talking about that has been included in the burn it bill?
What "funded buckets" have been created that "they" (who is this "they") can pull cash from more easily in the future? -
@89th said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
The back and forth in the legislation is really pretty darn common, btw. Just got media exposure here because of the claims of GOP not liking vets, which is ironic since generally speaking the GOP is more pro-military than the DEMs.
-
No, it is not common for a 25% of Senators to vote one way one a bill, then vote the opposite on the identical bill, then flip-flop yet again on the identical bill. Feel free to find another example of this if you believe this is common.
-
Point #1 aside, just because something is "damn common" does not mean it is right.
-
Whether the GOP (or any party) is "pro-military" has to be evaluated against their actions, e.g., their legislative voting record, rather than their stump speeches or campaign ads. (You may recall something Jolly likes to say, along the line of "pay attention to what they do, not what they say.")
-
Furthermore, "pro-military hardware" is not the same as "pro-military personnel" or "pro-military veteran". Keep funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into expensive weapon systems every year is not the same as taking care of the ex-warriors who have returned from the battle field.
@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
- No, it is not common for a 25% of Senators to vote one way one a bill, then vote the opposite on the identical bill, then flip-flop yet again on the identical bill. Feel free to find another example of this if you believe this is common.
There were 48 amendments to the bill in the Senate.
-
-
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
But this was educational for many, and I'm glad we spent a couple days learning about this particular budget trick. Maybe in the future it'll be more difficult to slip into legislation.
What "budget trick"?
There has been no "budget trick" in the bill to begin with.@Axtremus said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
@Horace said in Burn Pit Bill blocked ...:
But this was educational for many, and I'm glad we spent a couple days learning about this particular budget trick. Maybe in the future it'll be more difficult to slip into legislation.
What "budget trick"?
There has been no "budget trick" in the bill to begin with.The budget trick was explained in several of the linked articles. 400 billion dollars was changed from discretionary to mandatory, opening a 400 billion dollar hole in the discretionary budget to add anything to, not related to military. Is there something about that that you do not understand or do not believe? That is how it has already been explained many times in the material linked to in this thread.
