Why did the GOP vote against vet healthcare bill?

Cratic3947 · 2022-07-28T18:20:47.542Z

Guilds:

Cratic3947:

Vet’s have great health care.

So, the government can run a health care system well?

Good to know.

“Well” is relative, but sure, if it serves a small part of the population, so the rest can subsidize it, and is backed up with private options. Oh, and Trump reforms it…lol!

I would not want govt run health care as I can see Cal’s roads. We are taxed to the max, and the roads are lumpy. Also if you want quick health care here, you go to a urgent care center that only takes people who can pay.

WuWei · 2022-07-28T20:02:03.516Z

Sknyluv:

WuWei:

When was the last time they had control of the government?

The times of Trump. Doesn’t stop anyone from working on impactful bipartisan legislation. I mean, congress is clearly broken and ineffective, and both sides are to blame.

There you go.

Yes, but only one party is in charge.

Guilds · 2022-07-28T20:39:56.846Z

Cratic3947:

Oh, and Trump reforms it…lol!

LOL indeed.

Never believe anything Trump says.

The VA Choice Act, or the Veterans Access to Care through Choice, Accountability and Transparency Act, was passed in 2014 under President Barack Obama.

Sknyluv · 2022-07-29T16:37:35.126Z

Yes! We denied vet benefits!!!

twitter.com

MeidasTouch

@MeidasTouch

This is the fist bump everyone needs to be talking about. Ted Cruz and fellow Republicans celebrating after blocking a bill to help toxin-exposed veterans survive. https://t.co/wJvRseE7B4

3:21 PM - 29 Jul 2022 110K 50K

Jezcoe · 2022-07-29T16:41:53.169Z

Sknyluv:

Yes! We denied vet benefits!!!

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1553037966057955328

Wow. That is awesome.

gooddad409 · 2022-07-29T16:48:05.876Z

STODR:

This is what Toomey said.

"Toomey said he had “no quarrel with” the legislation creating $278.5 billion in new spending during the next decade that would be classified as “mandatory.”

Toomey’s opposition to the bill comes from a separate section of the package that “would authorize $400 billion over the next 10 years of existing spending … to be switched from discretionary to mandatory.”

“And the reason for that, is to create a $40 billion annual hole in discretionary spending under the cap,” Toomey said. “And allow all kinds of spending on who knows what.”

If true I agree with him. Leave it at the 278B. Why add what basically comes out to a slush fund that is required to be spent but no limits on what it could be spent on.

Saying that, I am sure both sides are spinning this and all the facts are not out.

I figured it was something like that. Out of this world spending bill by the libs and they deceptively pick out some small part of the bill and claim the GOP voted against it because of that.

They’ve been using this deceptive tactic for at least 50 years now.

Guess they are not content with the crazy inflation. They want Super Inflation.

BraveGear · 2022-07-29T18:51:19.897Z

Sknyluv:

…congress is clearly broken and ineffective, and both sides are to blame.

Yet Democrats are never expected to fix it, only Republicans are blamed.

Last time I looked, Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of The House, so what has she done to fix our problems?

Seems to me she is more interested in enriching herself and the Globalists that control her.

lessright · 2022-07-29T19:06:20.919Z

Too bad Cruz didn’t know how to make a fist back in '16. He might be president now.

RTchoke · 2022-07-29T22:15:14.290Z

gooddad409:

STODR:

This is what Toomey said.

"Toomey said he had “no quarrel with” the legislation creating $278.5 billion in new spending during the next decade that would be classified as “mandatory.”

Toomey’s opposition to the bill comes from a separate section of the package that “would authorize $400 billion over the next 10 years of existing spending … to be switched from discretionary to mandatory.”

“And the reason for that, is to create a $40 billion annual hole in discretionary spending under the cap,” Toomey said. “And allow all kinds of spending on who knows what.”

If true I agree with him. Leave it at the 278B. Why add what basically comes out to a slush fund that is required to be spent but no limits on what it could be spent on.

Saying that, I am sure both sides are spinning this and all the facts are not out.

I figured it was something like that. Out of this world spending bill by the libs and they deceptively pick out some small part of the bill and claim the GOP voted against it because of that.

They’ve been using this deceptive tactic for at least 50 years now.

Guess they are not content with the crazy inflation. They want Super Inflation.

The deceptive tactic of taking what should be a popular bi-partisan bill and putting a poison pill in it that no Republican could vote for and then pull the standard Republicans hate vets, children, animals etc.

Guvnah · 2022-07-30T14:06:46.375Z

RTchoke:

The deceptive tactic of taking what should be a popular bi-partisan bill and putting a poison pill in it that no Republican could vote for and then pull the standard Republicans hate vets, children, animals etc.

Not mentioned in the narrative is that the GOPs are working to remove the poison pill so they can vote for the actual point of the bill.

WuWei · 2022-07-30T14:08:43.117Z

Cut the pork out of it. One page.

Rodeo · 2022-07-30T14:39:35.506Z

[quote=“RTchoke, post:25, topic:242592, full:true”]

gooddad409:

STODR:

This is what Toomey said.

"Toomey said he had “no quarrel with” the legislation creating $278.5 billion in new spending during the next decade that would be classified as “mandatory.”

Toomey’s opposition to the bill comes from a separate section of the package that “would authorize $400 billion over the next 10 years of existing spending … to be switched from discretionary to mandatory.”

“And the reason for that, is to create a $40 billion annual hole in discretionary spending under the cap,” Toomey said. “And allow all kinds of spending on who knows what.”

If true I agree with him. Leave it at the 278B. Why add what basically comes out to a slush fund that is required to be spent but no limits on what it could be spent on.

Saying that, I am sure both sides are spinning this and all the facts are not out.
[/quote]

I figured it was something like that. Out of this world spending bill by the libs and they deceptively pick out some small part of the bill and claim the GOP voted against it because of that.

They’ve been using this deceptive tactic for at least 50 years now.

Guess they are not content with the crazy inflation. They want Super Inflation.

The deceptive tactic of taking what should be a popular bi-partisan bill and putting a poison pill in it that no Republican could vote for and then pull the standard Republicans hate vets, children, animals etc.

All the holier than thou sanctimony from the fringe left Joe Biden voters in this thread is pretty sickening…

The question of “why vote against this was asked, answered…examples were presented by someone with first hand knowledge of how the process currently works…and the left wing fringe class just blew right by all of it.

Those are the people who gave us Biden.

Guilds · 2022-07-30T15:09:53.092Z

There is a video out there by Jon Stewart, specifically addressing this BS.

I would link it, but there is some salty language in it…

The basic fact is they voted for this bill on 6-16.
Nothing has changed, and now they don’t vote for it.

Nothing changed in the bill.

What happen in the last 4 weeks?

WuWei · 2022-07-30T15:13:06.879Z

Guilds:

There is a video out there by Jon Stewart, specifically addressing this BS.

I would link it, but there is some salty language in it…

The basic fact is they voted for this bill on 6-16.
Nothing has changed, and now they don’t vote for it.

Nothing changed in the bill.

What happen in the last 4 weeks?

You can link it with a language warning. Use the link function.

Guilds · 2022-07-30T15:19:58.875Z

Strong language warning!

WuWei · 2022-07-30T15:23:07.754Z

Cut the pork. One page.

Guilds · 2022-07-30T15:24:15.215Z

WuWei:

Cut the pork. One page.

What pork?
Specifically what is not related to vets?

WuWei · 2022-07-30T15:25:58.811Z

Guilds:

WuWei:

Cut the pork. One page.

What pork?
Specifically what is not related to vets?

Anything not related to the vets. Any “tricks”. Stop pissing away money in Ukraine. Take away the excuses.

Guilds · 2022-07-30T15:30:03.678Z

WuWei:

Anything not related to the vets.

What specifically are you referring to?

There are no tricks.

It was always mandatory spending.

Did you watch the video?

JayJay · 2022-07-30T15:41:05.161Z

Jezcoe:

Sknyluv:

Yes! We denied vet benefits!!!

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1553037966057955328

Wow. That is awesome.

The commercials write themselves.

But the Dems will blow it.