the i dont care about politics anymore thread - Page 2518

Reiwa · #**25171** 08-01-2022, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizondo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is the money spent in the bill labeled as discretionary?

It is if the image you posted and highlighted is right?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Skarne · #**25172** 08-01-2022, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizondo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

'Bro' it's labeled 'mandatory spending' so where the money is actually spent isn't reviewed as closely as discretionary. It's basically autopilot spending cooked into the annual federal budget. Not only that, but there would be no cap, so it would grow over time and all kinds of 'deals' would be made with lobbyists to raid the funds and it would be exposed to all kinds of fraud and abuse.

Why do we need essentially a new Social Security Program or Unemployment Payouts for something so focused as military affected by burn pits? Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me SS and Unemployment aren't ripe with fraud?

There was no need for this change. It's a bait and switch.

Clean up the bill. Then pass it.

Is the money spent in the bill labeled as discretionary?

The money doesn’t need to be reviewed it’s already allocated and transparent as mandatory fund. The real deal is McConnell and his cronies are pissed off he got duped so they killed a bill for veterans to prevent a victory. I’ll await your 30 minute researched response because you can’t think for yourself.

Elizondo · #**25173** 08-01-2022, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The money doesn’t need to be reviewed it’s already allocated and transparent as mandatory fund.

Like Unemployment Benefits?

Skarne · #**25174** 08-01-2022, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizondo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Like Unemployment Benefits?

What does that have to do with helping veterans man. Read the bill.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...bill/3967/text

section 805 c of the bill: what the Toxic Exposure Fund can be used for. There’s no $400 billion of unrelated or unregulated spending anywhere in there. No matter what Toomy says to you cultists.

And your logic is idiotic. Because some people scam unemployment you think veterans who get cancer with a recorded history of being in country and exposed to burn pits that they’ll somehow what…lie and scam the system? Haha dude you are a traitor.

Reiwa · #**25175** 08-01-2022, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizondo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Like Unemployment Benefits?

Mandatory spending died as a public talking point with Romney's failed run. It's not helpful to mention for now.

Elizondo · #**25176** 08-01-2022, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is if the image you posted and highlighted is right?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Attachment 18338

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What does that have to do with helping veterans man. Read the bill.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...bill/3967/text

section 805 c of the bill: what the Toxic Exposure Fund can be used for. There’s no $400 billion of unrelated or unregulated spending anywhere in there. No matter what Toomy says to you cultists.

And your logic is idiotic. Because some people scam unemployment you think veterans who get cancer with a recorded history of being in country and exposed to burn pits that they’ll somehow what…lie and scam the system? Haha dude you are a traitor.

Nobody is against helping veterans. That's stupid. We're at 9% inflation right now however and creating a brand new Social Security System with literally no cap and no yearly review to account where the money is actually going to is ridiculous.

Mandatory Spending was 25% of the Federal Budget 50 years ago. Today it's 65%. Why? Because of accounting gimmicks like this to sneak in new spending not subject to the same oversight as discretionary. Both parties do it and it needs to stop.

There was no need for this change. Clean it up. Pass it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mandatory spending died as a public talking point with Romney's failed run. It's not helpful to mention for now.

We weren't at 9% inflation when Romney was running for President

Hope that helps

Jibartik · #**25177** 08-01-2022, 08:31 PM

We dont need to give vets money because we're all about to join the army again and after there will be no vets, or money.

Skarne · #**25178** 08-01-2022, 08:33 PM

How American of the both of you.

Jibartik · #**25179** 08-01-2022, 08:33 PM

Am I an american when Im pro war, but when im anti war im a putin simp?

Reiwa · #**25180** 08-01-2022, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizondo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I reckon it still says discretionary. Are you saying direct spending means mandatory spending?

If so, TIL. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizondo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We weren't at 9% inflation when Romney was running for President

Hope that helps

Okay but would that change if it was discretionary spending?

Your favs are just doing it as an axiomatic economic theory flex. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]