Senate rejects bill on veterans benefits

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
So rushing a bill that the committee didn't get to consider and the democrats had no real plan to pay for made sense? Sounds to me like they rushed a bill that they knew wouldn't get passed because they thought it would make Republicans look bad.

Plus it sounds like the 21 billion in spending was aimed at far more then improving the VA Hospitals like you said.
They had a plan to pay for it did you miss that part?

And the money was going to be used for job training and adding veterans to firefighting and police jobs.

This was not russhed to committee republicans had allready made several changes.

Murray said the bill had been extensively rewritten to include amendments by Republicans – eight of the 12 provisions in the bill were Republican-originated ideas. She said that the bill had even incorporated most of the provisions of a competing Republican bill, but to no avail.
You really have done minimal reading up on this.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
All of that banter between the parties is irrelevant. The main issue as far as I can see is that Reid tried to steamroller a bill through under the guise of helping veterans when the funding aspects of it was not correctly applied. The Republicians felt it was a move he made to simply portray their party as anti veteran help knowing all along it would be opposed because of the funding issue. Chalk it up to both playing their political games. It was one of Reid's last shots before he called it quits.
How was Reid trying to steamroll the bill when republican amendments were made?
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
He was the Senate majority leader at the time. They usually direct this stuff. It's conjecture.
 
Last edited:

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
So the senate majority leader was acting with the senate majority and the minority was mad that the bill was

A: Too good for Veterans

B: Didn't include unrelated Iran bullshit that they wanted to add to the bill.

What this means is that when the Democrats wanted to pass a bill that helped vets. (The guys republicans have exploited their "support" for cheap political capital) the Republicans wanted the Dems to sweeten the pot, because helping veterans for veterans sake wasn't good enough. They asked for more shit on Iran, and when they couldn't get it, they took the other kid's ball and went home.

It wasn't that the Dems had an amendment to this bill they didn't like. The bill didn't have enough bullshit amendments to be worth helping vets.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
So the senate majority leader was acting with the senate majority and the minority was mad that the bill was

A: Too good for Veterans

B: Didn't include unrelated Iran bullshit that they wanted to add to the bill.

What this means is that when the Democrats wanted to pass a bill that helped vets. (The guys republicans have exploited their "support" for cheap political capital) the Republicans wanted the Dems to sweeten the pot, because helping veterans for veterans sake wasn't good enough. They asked for more shit on Iran, and when they couldn't get it, they took the other kid's ball and went home.

It wasn't that the Dems had an amendment to this bill they didn't like. The bill didn't have enough bullshit amendments to be worth helping vets.
They couldn't pass it without violating the congressional agreement for funding it. They all knew that. It was a sham from the start.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
They couldn't pass it without violating the congressional agreement for funding it. They all knew that. It was a sham from the start.
How was using leftover military funds a sham.

Unused funds are used for other things all of the time why would you not use those funds to help veterans of the war the funds were initially earmarked for?

How can you claim anything is a shame when you have already admitted to not knowing much about the actual bill?
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
If you knew anything about the budgetary process you would know that the military budget does not have allowances for war. This is an off budget item whereas the military budget for all the daily operations is allocated within the budget. The bill in question proposed that unused funds for war be used for financing this bill. This money is not part of the fiscal budget therefore it cannot be used for the approved military budget. In addition the budget control act of 2011 gave strict guidelines for how the military budget would be allocated for the next several years therefore the amounts needed for funding the proposed bill could not be allocated without changing other military expenditures in their projections. That is why it was a sham from the start because congress knew it couldn't be readily funded before the allocations were done.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
If you knew anything about the budgetary process you would know that the military budget does not have allowances for war. This is an off budget item whereas the military budget for all the daily operations is allocated within the budget. The bill in question proposed that unused funds for war be used for financing this bill. This money is not part of the fiscal budget therefore it cannot be used for the approved military budget. In addition the budget control act of 2011 gave strict guidelines for how the military budget would be allocated for the next several years therefore the amounts needed for funding the proposed bill could not be allocated without changing other military expenditures in their projections. That is why it was a sham from the start because congress knew it couldn't be readily funded before the allocations were done.
This is confusing moneys are allocated in war time outside of the standing military budget all the time, evidentley there are some unused funds that would just need congressional approval but republicans refused.

And you are the only person I have seen calling it a sham even the guys who voted against it did not say this.

And for someone who has no idea what is in the bill you sure are claiming a lot.
 
Last edited:

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
All of that may be well and true but it still does noy explain why republicans made amenments and then turned on it at the last minute.

And you are the only person I have seen calling it a sham even the guys who voted against it did not say this.

And for someone who has no idea what is in the bill you sure are claiming a lot.
That's right they used terms like " They are just using politics to try to make us look bad". They wouldn't use the term sham because it would violate the good old boy codes. Remember all of them are playing their game for the public upheaval they can create against their loyal opposition.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
This is confusing moneys are allocated in war time outside of the standing military budget all the time, evidentley there are some unused funds that would just need congressional approval but republicans refused.

And you are the only person I have seen calling it a sham even the guys who voted against it did not say this.

And for someone who has no idea what is in the bill you sure are claiming a lot.
I don't have to know what's in the bill to know it is a political football. I explained why it is.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
That's right they used terms like " They are just using politics to try to make us look bad". They wouldn't use the term sham because it would violate the good old boy codes. Remember all of them are playing their game for the public upheaval they can create against their loyal opposition.
It seems this is where they wanted to get the money from.
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/05/27/conservative_dems_balk_at_jobless_benefits_package/

The Senate easily passed an almost $60 billion war funding bill Thursday, but anxiety over out-of-control budget deficits led House leaders to drop tens of billions of dollars in spending from a separate catchall bill anchored by an extension of jobless benefits.
And money in this bill had earmarks for other things besides war.
The war funding bill also includes $5 billion to replenish disaster aid accounts, and there's money for Haitian earthquake relief and aid to U.S. allies in the fight against terror.
So I see no reason unused funds could not be used for veterans.

Where is the sham?
 
Last edited:

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I don't have to know what's in the bill to know it is a political football. I explained why it is.
You explained using things you have no real idea if they are even an issue with this bill.

You claim that this bill would be included in the military budget when you have no proof of that.

You don't have any idea what funds they were talking about and the restrictions on those funds.

Do some actual research or just go back to admitting you have idea what this is all about.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
It seems this is where they wanted to get the money from.
http://www.dallascowboyscentral.com/showthread.php?5298-Senate-rejects-bill-on-veterans-benefits/page5



And money in this bill had earmarks for other things besides war.


So I see no reason unused funds could not be used for veterans.

Where is the sham?
I am sure you don't see a reason but those funds are off budget and for a specific purpose. They are not actual fiscal budget items They are not allocated funds. The benefits in the bill was For the payment to be made through the military's allocated budget funding. The only thing the war funds can be used for is war and in the absence of war there are no such funds and they do not become part of the budget. War funds are raised by borrowing such as treasury items and loans from other countries. They are only borrowed as needed.
 
Last edited:

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I am sure you don't see a reason but those funds are off budget and for a specific purpose. They are not actual fiscal budget items They are not allocated funds. The benefits in the bill was For the payment to be made through the military's allocated budget funding. The only thing the war funds can be used for is war and in the absence of war there are no such funds and they do not become part of the budget. War funds are raised by borrowing such as treasury items and loans from other countries. They are only borrowed as needed.
What?

Did you miss the part about 5 billion of these funds being used for Haiti relief?

Thus showing that these funds are not exclusive to any one thing.

You keep talking like there is some ironclad law stating that congress cannot vote to use the leftover funds for something else, there is none.

You keep making claims about how this bills money can and cannot be used when the facts don't back you up, I will give you a link, please show anything that backups your claims.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/05/27/conservative_dems_balk_at_jobless_benefits_package/

And please show me anything stating that there are no such funds leftover from this bill.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
What?

Did you miss the part about 5 billion of these funds being used for Haiti relief?

Thus showing that these funds are not exclusive to any one thing.

You keep talking like there is some ironclad law stating that congress cannot vote to use the leftover funds for something else, there is none.

You keep making claims about how this bills money can and cannot be used when the facts don't back you up, I will give you a link, please show anything that backups your claims.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/05/27/conservative_dems_balk_at_jobless_benefits_package/

And please show me anything stating that there are no such funds leftover from this bill.
There are no funds. They aren't raised until they are needed then they are borrowed through the treasury system. You seem to think these funds" are already set up in the bank somewhere. The congress had to vote to give (reroute) the funds to Haiti. The rest of it was initially proposed for the war effort that now will not be used. These are not my claims. this is how the budgetary and funding mechanisms work. I will wait until you learn how the system works before I go further. You obviously don't accept what I am saying so go study for yourself. Learn the difference in allocation of funds for the annual fiscal budget and off budget creations and expenditures.
 

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
As an aside...I have been very impressed with the level of support I have seen older and younger vets get here in the local Omaha area. They have excellent facilities and I have seen real support for vets. One part of the VA program I have seen where they have really extended themselves to vets is in drug/alcohol rehabilitation and inpatient mental health care. Most of the inpatient programs cost in the 20-30K range. I know the VA gets bashed all the time, but I don't necessarily agree with all the negativity. I see quite a few vets also look to try and find loopholes for them to get 100% unemployable or disabled. That is a far bigger crime to me than a politician trying to make some cuts that may be necessary.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
As an aside...I have been very impressed with the level of support I have seen older and younger vets get here in the local Omaha area. They have excellent facilities and I have seen real support for vets. One part of the VA program I have seen where they have really extended themselves to vets is in drug/alcohol rehabilitation and inpatient mental health care. Most of the inpatient programs cost in the 20-30K range. I know the VA gets bashed all the time, but I don't necessarily agree with all the negativity. I see quite a few vets also look to try and find loopholes for them to get 100% unemployable or disabled. That is a far bigger crime to me than a politician trying to make some cuts that may be necessary.
I agree that the people milking the system are an unreasonable tax on the system. A lot of the people who get the great benefits are the people who tracked every scrape and boo boo in their medical record, not people who are actually in need.

I work with a guy who's over 60% disabled. Works all the same shifts I do, and doesn't have a physical condition that stops him from working an intensely physical job. He even has a handicap license plate, despite the fact that our jobs has us walking between 4 to 9 miles a day.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
There are no funds. They aren't raised until they are needed then they are borrowed through the treasury system. You seem to think these funds" are already set up in the bank somewhere. The congress had to vote to give (reroute) the funds to Haiti. The rest of it was initially proposed for the war effort that now will not be used. These are not my claims. this is how the budgetary and funding mechanisms work. I will wait until you learn how the system works before I go further. You obviously don't accept what I am saying so go study for yourself. Learn the difference in allocation of funds for the annual fiscal budget and off budget creations and expenditures.
They did not have to vote for that it was included in the original bill.

And even if the did what is wrong with another vote to reoute funds for veterans?


The fact that you don't know what was in the initial funding bill or what was paid out of it shows how you have no clue.

Add in the fact that you yourself claimed some of these funds were reouted by a vote destroys your argument against those same funds being used for veterans.

All of the rest of that budgetary stuff has no bearing on this and you are going to Schmitty school of misdirection using a lot of words.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
They did not have to vote for that it was included in the original bill.

And even if the did what is wrong with another vote to reoute funds for veterans?


The fact that you don't know what was in the initial funding bill or what was paid out of it shows how you have no clue.

Add in the fact that you yourself claimed some of these funds were reouted by a vote destroys your argument against those same funds being used for veterans.

All of the rest of that budgetary stuff has no bearing on this and you are going to Schmitty school of misdirection using a lot of words.
The original bill didn't pass. Those funds you keep referring to had to be handled by a seperate measure. Give it up. You are not up to speed on government spending and budgetary matters.
 
Last edited:

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
The original bill didn't pass. Those funds you keep referring to had to be handled by a seperate measure. Give it up. You are not up to speed on government spending and budgetary matters.
:lol

The bill was the separate measure.

Once again deflection and ignoring on your part, you have dismantled your entire argument with your own words.

The sad part you will keep on swinging and missing.

I gonna let this one go.
 
Top Bottom