Anger as Republicans block bill to help military veterans exposed to toxins

Look you stupid fuck, the bill was originally written, and always has been, with non-discretionary, MANDATORY, spending. I mean are you so stupid that you don't know the difference between MANDATORY and DISCRETIONARY? I mean damn, if you are that stupid that you really shouldn't have the right to vote and you damn sure shouldn't be posting on messageboards and showing the entire world how stupid you are.

Doesn't seem as you indicate....

Washington, D.C. – House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (CA-23) issued the following statement on the PACT Act:

“When the House voted on the PACT Act in March, I had concerns over the ability of the VA to implement the act without adversely impacting the care that veterans are currently receiving. The Senate made improvements to the bill that would allow the VA system to integrate these newly-enrolled veterans seeking care more seamlessly. Unfortunately, the Senate also inserted a budget gimmick that would make hundreds of billions of dollars of existing spending mandatory, an accounting shell game that would allow Pelosi, Biden, and Schumer to pursue more inflationary spending on unrelated programs without budget constraints.

“Our veterans deserve reliable, quality health care, not more inflationary spending that every American, including veterans, cannot afford. Ranking Member Bost offered a commonsense amendment, the Honoring our PACT Act, which would still have ensured veterans exposed to toxic chemicals would receive health care services and benefits they need and earned in their service to our country, while eliminating the budget gimmick that could allow for more reckless spending in the future on unrelated programs. Had this amendment passed or had the Democrats taken out this unnecessary budget gimmick, I would have proudly voted for the legislation.

“With 9.1 percent inflation, House Democrats should have joined House Republicans to support our veterans by passing a clean PACT Act. Instead, they used our veterans as convenient cover for more reckless spending.”
 
From your source.....
That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 3967) entitled “An Act to improve health care and benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances, and for other purposes.”, do pass with the following


This document was computer-generated in an effort to show how two versions of the same legislative text differ and may not have been reviewed for accuracy. This document may comply with clause 12(b) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House. This document does not represent an official expression by the House and should not be relied on as an authoritative delineation of the proposed change(s) to existing law.

Looks like shenanigans could be played. The first version "and other purposes" is very sly and sounds like it was a gimmick.
We don't really know what the amended Bill has because of the warning
 
Any Vet who votes for any Republican after this ought to have his head examined
I would hope this would wake them up....but sometimes vets vote against their own interests....and some vets like to stick it to their fellow vets....as Republicans. Look up Duke Cunningham and Duncan Hunter for examples.
 
I would hope this would wake them up....but sometimes vets vote against their own interestes....and some vets like to stick it to their fellow vets....as Republicans. Look up Duke Cunningham and Duncan Hunter for examples.
Every vet dumb enough to vote Democrat votes against their own interests.
 
From your source.....
That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 3967) entitled “An Act to improve health care and benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances, and for other purposes.”, do pass with the following


This document was computer-generated in an effort to show how two versions of the same legislative text differ and may not have been reviewed for accuracy. This document may comply with clause 12(b) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House. This document does not represent an official expression by the House and should not be relied on as an authoritative delineation of the proposed change(s) to existing law.

Looks like shenanigans could be played. The first version "and other purposes" is very sly and sounds like it was a gimmick.
We don't really know what the amended Bill has because of the warning
But you found no difference in the funding did you?

It was always MANDATORY

And according to you the VFW was bamboozled by those nefarious Dems huh?

 
But you found no difference in the funding did you?

It was always MANDATORY

And according to you the VFW was bamboozled by those nefarious Dems huh?


"and for other purposes", it doesn't get more vague than that using legal jargon, lesh

what part of this don't you understand?
"This document does not represent an official expression by the House and should not be relied on as an authoritative delineation of the proposed change(s) to existing law."
 

Forum List

Back
Top