Pact Act

[*michaelsean*]

(08-09-2022, 02:13 PM)pally Wrote: but they had already passed the bill once.  The same people who voted yes then turned around and voted no on the same bill with one inconsequential line removed. Suddenly they found a problem with them right after the inflation bill deal was announced.  They played petty politics and got caught.
 

That's fine if you only want to consider what one side says.  The other side says they were made aware of mandatory vs discretionary spending and so wanted to hold off and see if they could get an amendment passed.  There was no chance of that, and the Dems were of course riling up the sheep , so they dropped it and passed it.  Personally I don't have  a problem with having congressional oversight over spending.  Kinda their job.

[HarleyDog]

Quote:That's fine if you only want to consider what one side says.

That may apply in this case, but didn't seem to me the GOP had a good excuse/reason/explanation to the people why they all the sudden flipped. Therefore, it was both easy for dems to play devils advocate to believe they did so out of anger due to inflation reduction act.

Quote:The other side says they were made aware of mandatory vs discretionary spending and so wanted to hold off and see if they could get an amendment passed.

Please educate me on this. Does mandatory mean all funding must be spent on Veterans and discretionary means funds can be taken from the VA as seen needed? If my meaning is correct, I 100% agree they should have voted it down until it was corrected because it becomes yet another means of hiding spending from the American people and wouldn't be going to the VA to help veterans.

Quote:Dems were of course riling up the sheep , so they dropped it and passed it.

I think both parties do this but the dems are extremely talented at it and also have the media to help drive home the rhetoric.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-09-2022, 04:41 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: That may apply in this case, but didn't seem to me the GOP had a good excuse/reason/explanation to the people why they all the sudden flipped. Therefore, it was both easy for dems to play devils advocate to believe they did so out of anger due to inflation reduction act.

Please educate me on this. Does mandatory mean all funding must be spent on Veterans and discretionary means funds can be taken from the VA as seen needed? If my meaning is correct, I 100% agree they should have voted it down until it was corrected because it becomes yet another means of hiding spending from the American people and wouldn't be going to the VA to help veterans.


I think both parties do this but the dems are extremely talented at it and also have the media to help drive home the rhetoric.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3586430-these-11-gop-senators-voted-against-the-honoring-our-pact-act/


  

[GMDino]

The 25 gop members who suddenly had a problem with the bill wanted it to be funded year by year.

https://www.vox.com/2022/7/30/23284976/senate-republicans-pact-act-veterans

Quote:Shortly after his floor speech, Toomey told CNN he wants the funding of the bill handled through an annual appropriations process, rather than the current mandatory spending structure — basically, that he wants Congress to have to approve funding for the measure every year, rather than for it to be funded automatically.

Other Republican senators say they were convinced by this argument, and now, Schumer has said he will allow a vote on an appropriations amendment as the bill comes up for consideration again this week.

Toomey, who I'm glad is retiring, said he was leaving the amount of funding alone...and that part was true.

They wanted it to be discretionary vs mandatory...because "support the troops"?

And when the Democrats held they voted for the thing they voted for anyway.

It's worth noting that Rand Paul voted against it because we can't prove sick soldiers were not sick before they went into the military...and that he is a dbag.

[HarleyDog]

(08-10-2022, 09:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: It's worth noting that Rand Paul voted against it because we can't prove sick soldiers were not sick before they went into the military

The VA has a pretty tough process on proof of injury/sickness during active military service for benefits. Now, I'm not saying there isn't some fraud there but there are systems in place to minimize it. Guess what I'm saying is I see his point, but the difference is likely miniscule. 

[*pally*]

(08-10-2022, 10:04 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: The VA has a pretty tough process on proof of injury/sickness during active military service for benefits. Now, I'm not saying there isn't some fraud there but there are systems in place to minimize it. Guess what I'm saying is I see his point, but the difference is likely miniscule. 

I can't speak for every VA.  But my brother, who uses the VA, recently had a bad spell of health.  I am not joking when I say from Jan-Jun, I was literally at the VA 3-4 days per week. Those patients are defrauding anyone or if they are they are really good at it.  Even with the pay issue they are tough.  Again, with limited experience here.  My brother, who can barely walk even with a walker, can't get his disability rating upgraded and he has the support of VA doctors and social workers.

[HarleyDog]

(08-10-2022, 10:15 AM)pally Wrote: I can't speak for every VA.  But my brother, who uses the VA, recently had a bad spell of health.  I am not joking when I say from Jan-Jun, I was literally at the VA 3-4 days per week. Those patients are defrauding anyone or if they are they are really good at it.  Even with the pay issue they are tough.  Again, with limited experience here.  My brother, who can barely walk even with a walker, can't get his disability rating upgraded and he has the support of VA doctors and social workers.

I'm not sure but I think benefits are handled through a central location instead of the hospitals themselves. As for the hospitals overall, there are good and bad ones. Cincinnati has a good one while Dayton has an average hospital according to veteran rankings. If your brother is having troubles getting benefits he deserves, I suggest contacting a VSO if you haven't done so already. If you need assistance in finding one I can help. If you've already found one, I hope your brother is treated fairly and gets his upgrade.

[GMDino]

(08-10-2022, 10:15 AM)pally Wrote: I can't speak for every VA.  But my brother, who uses the VA, recently had a bad spell of health.  I am not joking when I say from Jan-Jun, I was literally at the VA 3-4 days per week. Those patients are defrauding anyone or if they are they are really good at it.  Even with the pay issue they are tough.  Again, with limited experience here.  My brother, who can barely walk even with a walker, can't get his disability rating upgraded and he has the support of VA doctors and social workers.

(08-10-2022, 10:48 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: I'm not sure but I think benefits are handled through a central location instead of the hospitals themselves. As for the hospitals overall, there are good and bad ones. Cincinnati has a good one while Dayton has an average hospital according to veteran rankings. If your brother is having troubles getting benefits he deserves, I suggest contacting a VSO if you haven't done so already. If you need assistance in finding one I can help. If you've already found one, I hope your brother is treated fairly and gets his upgrade.

My dad, who (knock on wood) is in relatively good health, was ineligible for VA benefits because he continued to work into his 70's.  Once he was let go he reapplied and they have nothing but wonderful.  Helped with hearing aids and his insulin.  I know his younger brother uses them too because he retired earlier and they have been great for him too.  

And that's the more local spots as well as in Pittsburgh.

[HarleyDog]

(08-10-2022, 10:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: My dad, who (knock on wood) is in relatively good health, was ineligible for VA benefits because he continued to work into his 70's.  Once he was let go he reapplied and they have nothing but wonderful.  Helped with hearing aids and his insulin.  I know his younger brother uses them too because he retired earlier and they have been great for him too.  

And that's the more local spots as well as in Pittsburgh.

Interesting. I'm pretty sure every veteran is eligible as long as he/she has a discharge other than dishonorable, but there are different tiers of coverage. However, the branches don't advertise it when getting out. I didn't know I was eligible until 30yrs after service. I encourage all veterans to apply for benefits because they deserve it.  

[GMDino]

(08-10-2022, 11:13 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Interesting. I'm pretty sure every veteran is eligible as long as he/she has a discharge other than dishonorable, but there are different tiers of coverage. However, the branches don't advertise it when getting out. I didn't know I was eligible until 30yrs after service. I encourage all veterans to apply for benefits because they deserve it.  

It was purely an income issue.  And fortunately the job he had provided great insurance for him and my mom at the time so it wasn't an issue.

But the VA definitely stepped up when he needed them.

[GMDino]

As an aside Rand Paul is a good example of the g-no-p philosophy: 

Voted against everything and then ask for money for your own wants anyway.

Rand Paul voted against the bipartisan infrastructure bill, now calls for more infrastructure spending pic.twitter.com/OWUUGXzfxz

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 10, 2022

 

[*michaelsean*]

(08-10-2022, 09:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: The 25 gop members who suddenly had a problem with the bill wanted it to be funded year by year.

https://www.vox.com/2022/7/30/23284976/senate-republicans-pact-act-veterans



Toomey, who I'm glad is retiring, said he was leaving the amount of funding alone...and that part was true.

They wanted it to be discretionary vs mandatory...because "support the troops"?

And when the Democrats held they voted for the thing they voted for anyway.

It's worth noting that Rand Paul voted against it because we can't prove sick soldiers were not sick before they went into the military...and that he is a dbag.

Yes it’s called congressional oversight. Not sure why “support the troops” is in quotes. Oversight makes sure the money is being spent where it’s supposed to be spent.

[GMDino]

(08-10-2022, 05:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes it’s called congressional oversight.  Not sure why “support the troops” is in quotes. Oversight makes sure the money is being spent where it’s supposed to be spent.

I mean you can ignore that it was purely a parliamentary change and that if it wasn't mandatory then next year they gop could pull the funding...or any year they want.  That's why "support the troops" is in quotes.  The gop pays lip service to the the troops but doesn't really care what happens to them after they are useful to the war machine.  So they had a little hissy fit of literally nothing more than making sure the money would go to what the bill was for.

Pretty clear stuff really.