STODR:
This is what Toomey said.
"Toomey said he had âno quarrel withâ the legislation creating $278.5 billion in new spending during the next decade that would be classified as âmandatory.â
Toomeyâs opposition to the bill comes from a separate section of the package that âwould authorize $400 billion over the next 10 years of existing spending ⌠to be switched from discretionary to mandatory.â
âAnd the reason for that, is to create a $40 billion annual hole in discretionary spending under the cap,â Toomey said. âAnd allow all kinds of spending on who knows what.â
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.
Theyâve been using this deceptive tactic for at least 50 years now.
Guess they are not content with the crazy inflation. They want Super Inflation.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
Too bad Cruz didnât know how to make a fist back in '16. He might be president now.
2 Likes
gooddad409:
STODR:
This is what Toomey said.
"Toomey said he had âno quarrel withâ the legislation creating $278.5 billion in new spending during the next decade that would be classified as âmandatory.â
Toomeyâs opposition to the bill comes from a separate section of the package that âwould authorize $400 billion over the next 10 years of existing spending ⌠to be switched from discretionary to mandatory.â
âAnd the reason for that, is to create a $40 billion annual hole in discretionary spending under the cap,â Toomey said. âAnd allow all kinds of spending on who knows what.â
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.
Theyâve 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.
2 Likes
Guvnah
July 30, 2022, 2:06pm
26
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.
1 Like
WuWei
July 30, 2022, 2:08pm
27
Cut the pork out of it. One page.
Rodeo
July 30, 2022, 2:39pm
28
[quote=âRTchoke, post:25, topic:242592, full:trueâ]
gooddad409:
STODR:
This is what Toomey said.
"Toomey said he had âno quarrel withâ the legislation creating $278.5 billion in new spending during the next decade that would be classified as âmandatory.â
Toomeyâs opposition to the bill comes from a separate section of the package that âwould authorize $400 billion over the next 10 years of existing spending ⌠to be switched from discretionary to mandatory.â
âAnd the reason for that, is to create a $40 billion annual hole in discretionary spending under the cap,â Toomey said. âAnd allow all kinds of spending on who knows what.â
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.
Theyâve 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 sickeningâŚ
The question of âwhy vote against this was asked, answeredâŚexamples were presented by someone with first hand knowledge of how the process currently worksâŚand the left wing fringe class just blew right by all of it.
Those are the people who gave us Biden.
3 Likes
Guilds
July 30, 2022, 3:09pm
29
There is a video out there by Jon Stewart, specifically addressing this BS.
I would link it, but there is some salty language in itâŚ
The basic fact is they voted for this bill on 6-16.
Nothing changed in the bill.
What happen in the last 4 weeks?
1 Like
WuWei
July 30, 2022, 3:13pm
30
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 itâŚ
The basic fact is they voted for this bill on 6-16.
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
July 30, 2022, 3:24pm
33
WuWei:
Cut the pork. One page.
What pork?
WuWei
July 30, 2022, 3:25pm
34
Anything not related to the vets. Any âtricksâ. Stop pissing away money in Ukraine. Take away the excuses.
3 Likes
Guilds
July 30, 2022, 3:30pm
35
What specifically are you referring to?
There are no tricks.
It was always mandatory spending.
Did you watch the video?
JayJay
July 30, 2022, 3:41pm
36
Jezcoe:
Wow. That is awesome.
The commercials write themselves.
But the Dems will blow it.
1 Like
Guvnah
July 30, 2022, 3:46pm
37
Gotta read it to know whatâs in it.
Now that you know (yes, YOU KNOW) what is objectionable in it, why do you want it to remain in there?
Thereâs an easy fix to this.
1 Like
Guvnah
July 30, 2022, 3:48pm
38
Guilds:
There are no tricks.
You saw Toomeyâs statement. If not, itâs posted in this thread, in this reply:
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.
Theyâve been using this deceptive tactic for at least 50 years now.
Rodeo
July 30, 2022, 4:10pm
39
No no no you donât understandâŚSenator Toomeyâs actual explanation is illegitimate becauseâŚ
Well it just is.
Hereâs a questionâŚwhy not rework the legislation and take out the objectionable parts?
Guilds
July 30, 2022, 4:11pm
40
Toomey and Cruz lied.
It was always mandatory spending.
Look it up.
Nothing changed.
