Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

Here’s tedcruz
fist-bumping fellow Republicans after blocking a bill to help veterans exposed to toxic burn pits.

Blocking legislation to help the vets to own the Libs.

Here is the problem. Just as with cops, our idiot voters are so brainwashed that GOP sucks off the military harder than the Dems. Yet this is a super middle finger to any vet suffering. Yet, you think anyone will ever hold the Republicans responsible for this?

If Schumer puts this bill back on and these assholes then pass it, I still say "piss off to you". Honestly if the Republicans knew it would be brought up again so this just did for theatre, now if I was Schumer I would add some serious shit to it.

But wait, that sounds like some hypocrisy of bashing Republicans but now making the Dems politicize this. Yes. The reason is that this will not change anyone politically to the Dems that they actually helped the military.

Huh, I thought that Republicans really liked the bill and just opposed the funding of it. Seems a weird thing to celebrate over.

[Paranoid Android]

Huh, I thought that Republicans really liked the bill and just opposed the funding of it. Seems a weird thing to celebrate over.

Is this snark? Sorry I don't get the comment above.

“That’s simply not true. Don’t take my word for it. Go to http://Congress.gov. The text of the bill has not been changed.” —
JonStewart
on
FoxNews
dismantling Republican Senator Pat Toomey’s talking point that a budget gimmick was snuck into the PACT Act at the last minute.

So are you speaking on the Republicans lying that this was going to be some flush fund they to withdraw from?

Is this what you are talking about? https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...nate-bill/3373

I quickly read it and admit I might have missed in and the way the language is.

[Edge-]

Is this snark? Sorry I don't get the comment above.

[URL="https://twitter.com/TheProblem/status/1553035302872272897?s=20&t=vNQovQ6TcU7JYtOwc2z4yw"]

So are you speaking on the Republicans lying that this was going to be some flush fund they to withdraw from?

Is this what you are talking about? https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...nate-bill/3373

I quickly read it and admit I might have missed in and the way the language is.

Yes, it's snark.

[Paranoid Android]

Yes, it's snark.

Apologies.

But yes, to give more info to story for people who think that some secret slush fund or amendment added and that's why or the reason Republicans should vote no, is debunked.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...rs-oz-00048747

Good news for Democratic hopes in the Senate: Carpetbagger Mehmet Oz's PA Senate campaign is apparently going very poorly and the party is expecting him to lose the race.

[Rasulis]

All of the Democratic senators and eight Republicans voted for bill, which fell short of the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate threshold to break the filibuster.

Kraisman told Stewart that following his speech, some Republicans defended their actions and said there is "unrelated spending within the [bill]."

"There is not, that is just not true. What they are saying is that they don't like that it is mandatory as opposed to discretionary," Stewart replied. "There isn't unrelated spending to it. They are saying there could be if there wasn't oversight, but that is what the Senate's job is.

"The bill itself is incredibly detailed and descriptive about what it is for. It is about treating and preventing the different conditions that veterans are coming with, including cancers and chronic bronchiolitis and all these other issues from their exposures in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Who do you believe? John Stewart? Or a bunch of lying GOP senators. I guess I showed you my opinion on that.

[Spectral]

The VA spent ~$234 billion in 2021, almost doubling from a decade earlier. Is there any degree of spending on Veteran's Affairs that would suffice, or is ever voting against further appropriations automatically a bad vote?

[Ivanstone]

The VA spent ~$234 billion in 2021, almost doubling from a decade earlier. Is there any degree of spending on Veteran's Affairs that would suffice, or is ever voting against further appropriations automatically a bad vote?

Don’t want to spend money on the VA? Don’t start two fucking wars. The number of veterans with severe disabilities has been steadily increasing since 2002 and make up the largest portion of vets.

The GOP started those two wars and now they don’t want to pay for it.

[Kaleredar]

The VA spent ~$234 billion in 2021, almost doubling from a decade earlier. Is there any degree of spending on Veteran's Affairs that would suffice, or is ever voting against further appropriations automatically a bad vote?

I’m not hearing a “this is how we fund the bill to pass it” suggestions from republicans, I hear a “the democrats punked us and now we’re angry, so we’re not passing the bill, period” from them. They aren’t interested in dialogue or helping veterans, they’re interested in partisan politics.

As such, any supposed “concerns about the budget” coming from conservatives can safely be ignored.

[Edge-]

The VA spent ~$234 billion in 2021, almost doubling from a decade earlier. Is there any degree of spending on Veteran's Affairs that would suffice, or is ever voting against further appropriations automatically a bad vote?

Problems within the VA should not prevent passing legislation and appropriating funding to address critical health care challenges faced by our veterans after deployment. Period.

Figure out how to modernize the VA and improve efficiency by all means, but this is big, "The US government can't walk and chew gum at the same time." energy.

[Spectral]

Don’t want to spend money on the VA? Don’t start two fucking wars. The number of veterans with severe disabilities has been steadily increasing since 2002 and make up the largest portion of vets.

The GOP started those two wars and now they don’t want to pay for it.

I’m not hearing a “this is how we fund the bill to pass it” suggestions from republicans, I hear a “the democrats punked us and now we’re angry, so we’re not passing the bill, period” from them. They aren’t interested in dialogue or helping veterans, they’re interested in partisan politics.

As such, any supposed “concerns about the budget” coming from conservatives can safely be ignored.

Problems within the VA should not prevent passing legislation and appropriating funding to address critical health care challenges faced by our veterans after deployment. Period.

Figure out how to modernize the VA and improve efficiency by all means, but this is big, "The US government can't walk and chew gum at the same time." energy.

Agreed that the Republicans in Congress are petty morons and the wars were pointless and expensive.

I haven't seen a demonstration that this specific issue requires additional appropriations beyond the massive amounts that are already being poured in.

[Edge-]

Agreed that the Republicans in Congress are petty morons and the wars were pointless and expensive.

I haven't seen a demonstration that this specific issue requires additional appropriations beyond the massive amounts that are already being poured in.

https://www.militarytimes.com/vetera...ns-block-plan/

For veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bill would establish a presumption of service connection for 23 respiratory illnesses and cancers related to the smoke from burn pits, used extensively in those war zones to dispose of various types of waste, many of them toxic.

The bill also provides for new benefits for veterans who faced radiation exposure during deployments throughout the Cold War; adds hypertension and monoclonal gammopathy to the list of illnesses linked to Agent Orange exposure in the Vietnam War; expands the timeline for Gulf War medical claims; and requires new medical exams for all veterans with toxic exposure claims.

Veterans who served in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Guam during the Vietnam War-era would be covered for the first time under the same Agent Orange presumptive policies as those who served in Vietnam itself.

Provides additional funding to cover the costs of new treatments that are not currently being covered by existing laws and appropriations.

Again, the waste that's going on now is a problem that needs to be resolved. But not doing anything to continue to help underserved veterans in need of care until that's done isn't reasonable, either. I have no problems seeing my tax bill go up to help fund this, and I don't even support these stupid fuckin wars. I just support the veterans who are suffering because the country sent them to a stupid fucking war and isn't living up to our obligations to provide care for them following injuries they suffered.

[Belize]

The VA spent ~$234 billion in 2021, almost doubling from a decade earlier. Is there any degree of spending on Veteran's Affairs that would suffice, or is ever voting against further appropriations automatically a bad vote?

Imagine that, having a lot of veterans means a lot of spending on the VA.

Who would have thunk it.

[Poopymonster]

https://www.militarytimes.com/vetera...ns-block-plan/



Provides additional funding to cover the costs of new treatments that are not currently being covered by existing laws and appropriations.

Again, the waste that's going on now is a problem that needs to be resolved. But not doing anything to continue to help underserved veterans in need of care until that's done isn't reasonable, either. I have no problems seeing my tax bill go up to help fund this, and I don't even support these stupid fuckin wars. I just support the veterans who are suffering because the country sent them to a stupid fucking war and isn't living up to our obligations to provide care for them following injuries they suffered.

Place your bets on the next time the Republicunts have power they'll pass this and sing Hosannas on the highest about their good works.

[Edge-]

Place your bets on the next time the Republicunts have power they'll pass this and sing Hosannas on the highest about their good works.

I mean, literally earlier before they voted this down Republicans were at an event helping put together care packages for soldiers with the USO.

https://twitter.com/SenRickScott/sta...14341198188546

And touting their support for the military.

[Ripster42]

Agreed that the Republicans in Congress are petty morons and the wars were pointless and expensive.

I haven't seen a demonstration that this specific issue requires additional appropriations beyond the massive amounts that are already being poured in.

Veterans of the past 2 decades of war aging. Bunch of wars in the 80s and 90s that led to wartime injuries that you remember? Pretty sure there was the gulf war, which lasted less than 7 months, and that spat in the baltics, which lasted less than 3 months. How many veterans do you think were injured in a total of less than 10 months of war? Less than 20 years of war I'm guessing? Who knew that spending on injured veterans would increase when there are more veterans.

[Spectral]

Imagine that, having a lot of veterans means a lot of spending on the VA.

Who would have thunk it.

There are fewer veterans now than 20 years ago, not more.

- - - Updated - - -

Veterans of the past 2 decades of war aging. Bunch of wars in the 80s and 90s that led to wartime injuries that you remember? Pretty sure there was the gulf war, which lasted less than 7 months, and that spat in the baltics, which lasted less than 3 months. How many veterans do you think were injured in a total of less than 10 months of war? Less than 20 years of war I'm guessing? Who knew that spending on injured veterans would increase when there are more veterans.

I can think of a war in the 60s and 70s that may have led to some injuries. The median Vietnam vet is ~68 years old as of this source, which would imply that they're ~73 now.

Of course, WW2 and Korean War veterans are passing away at higher rates than we're creating new veterans as well, hence the diminished number of total veterans linked above.

[Poopymonster]

There are fewer veterans now than 20 years ago, not more.

That's not a bug, it's a Capitalist feature!
Underfund socialist program for Veterans.
Give subpar care to Veterans via bureaucracy.
Veterans die due to subpar care.
Cause of Death not listed as "Downed in Paperwork"
Number of Veterans go down.
But hey, they get a fancy funeral. Flags, guns, and all that America. So I guess that's something they get to look forward to.

[Ripster42]

There are fewer veterans now than 20 years ago, not more.

- - - Updated - - -


I can think of a war in the 60s and 70s that may have led to some injuries. The median Vietnam vet is ~68 years old as of this source, which would imply that they're ~73 now.

Of course, WW2 and Korean War veterans are passing away at higher rates than we're creating new veterans as well, hence the diminished number of total veterans linked above.

The type of vets who take up a majority of the VA funding would have already died from the injuries they received in WW2/Korea/Vietnam. You're not going to see double amputee vets from those wars. You're not going to see the vets who already developed cancer from being exposed to hazardous substances and died already.

Let's see if I can dig up that quote from 3 posts ago and highlight the operative words:

Who knew that spending on injured veterans would increase when there are more veterans.

[NED funded]

Veteran spending aside. Is there a reason to oppose a bill that would cover the issue of burn pits?

It feels justified out of all veteran spending