the i dont care about politics anymore thread

[Kaveh]

Oh wow this dude believes Ted cruz talking points

Christ almighty

[Kaveh]

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

Barack O'Biden 2, Tromp 1.

https://youtube.com/shorts/OKio5gKiJ_Y?feature=share

[azeth]

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

What a lame non response

That's the point. Pork is being labeled by dems in this bill as 'mandatory' spending. Not discretionary.

It's a technical budget gimmick that both parties engage in and it has to stop. Especially with inflation going through the roof.

Care to explain why the US has the lowest rate of inflation among all NATO allied countries as of 8/1/2022?

[Elizondo]

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

NoÂ…it means that the money in the bill goes mandatorily to the veterans full stopÂ…in laymanÂ’s terms it means it isnÂ’t up to anyone else where the money goes or if it stops for any reason in the future. YouÂ’re so blindfolded but then again itÂ’s expected from someone who doesnÂ’t believe in dinosaurs or science.

YouÂ’re way more dumb than I thought haha.

No it wouldn't. Mandatory spending is not reviewed the same way discretionary spending is. Holy shit you're gullible. Dems will bleed this bill to line their own pockets.

It allows a 400B future slush fund that would have nothing to do with veteran's HC spending. It's a classic budget gimmick. Brand a bill for veterans with language that allows for massive new government spending on all kinds of goodies lobbyists want.

Both sides have been doing it for years.

The original version voted on in the Senate PASSED

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...bill/3373/text

Once it reached the House, they changed the language which created the accounting gimmick

Here is Toomey's amendment. Schumer didn't allow a vote on it. Wow I'm shocked:

https://www.congress.gov/congression...rticle/S3643-2

If they clean up the bill, remove the pork spending gimmicks, it will pass

[Elizondo]

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

Care to explain why the US has the lowest rate of inflation among all NATO allied countries as of 8/1/2022?

Attachment 18337

You call that low?

[Jibartik]

Dark brandon couldn't even wait half a year before he started shooting at afghanstan after abruptly ending the war in afghanstan.

[Reiwa]

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

What a lame non response

That's the point. Pork is being labeled by dems in this bill as 'mandatory' spending. Not discretionary.

It's a technical budget gimmick that both parties engage in and it has to stop. Especially with inflation going through the roof.

Sorry the picture and the highlights only say discretionary?

[Skarne]

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

No it wouldn't. Mandatory spending is not reviewed the same way discretionary spending is. Holy shit you're gullible. Dems will bleed this bill to line their own pockets.

It allows a 400B future slush fund that would have nothing to do with veteran's HC spending. It's a classic budget gimmick. Brand a bill for veterans with language that allows for massive new government spending on all kinds of goodies lobbyists want.

Both sides have been doing it for years.

The original version voted on in the Senate PASSED

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...bill/3373/text

Once it reached the House, they changed the language which created the accounting gimmick

Here is Toomey's amendment. Schumer didn't allow a vote on it. Wow I'm shocked:

https://www.congress.gov/congression...rticle/S3643-2

If they clean up the bill, remove the pork spending gimmicks, it will pass

Bro you’re a sheep. They took their little sentence out of the bill like they asked and it had bipartisan support completely. So your reasoning is because the money is taken out of the discretionary budget (which in theory could be misused) and put into mandatory, it’s just for the dems to line their pockets?
That doesn’t even make sense because for a mandatory budget to be fucked with it has to get a congressional vote and approval. The funds are only to be used for the healthcare for our veterans. GOP playing politics with real patriot lives.

[Skarne]

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

Attachment 18337

You call that low?

Baaaaah compare it to our ally’s in Europe dummy. And I don’t mean russia.

[Elizondo]

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

Bro you’re a sheep. They took their little sentence out of the bill like they asked and it had bipartisan support completely. So your reasoning is because the money is taken out of the discretionary budget (which in theory could be misused) and put into mandatory, it’s just for the dems to line their pockets?
That doesn’t even make sense because for a mandatory budget to be fucked with it has to get a congressional vote and approval. The funds are only to be used for the healthcare for our veterans. GOP playing politics with real patriot lives.

'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.

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

Sorry the picture and the highlights only say discretionary?

Is the money spent in the bill labeled as discretionary?