Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
11 hours ago, DRsGhost said:

 

she is batpoop crazy and a stain on our society, but damn she got this one right. And nice cans I may add, which counts for something

  • Agree 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
14 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

(Citation needed)


The bill is 150 pages. How many pages do you think is actually needed to secure funding for this particular vet issue?

 

The bill eliminates pay caps for VA employees as well as authorizing bonuses and $40k/year in student loan forgiveness. On top of that it calls for incredible amounts of “research” which is basically just a money laundering operation. 

  • Eyeroll 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

she is batpoop crazy and a stain on our society, but damn she got this one right. And nice cans I may add, which counts for something

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted

 

 

 

 

 

They blocked $400 billion in spending not related to vets.   Good for them.

 

This bill had a lot of pork and very little to help veterans. Democrats should be ashamed.

 

 

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted

I had a feeling there was something phony about the initial story. Those shameful Dems will try anything to get their hands on the money.

  • Agree 1
Posted
On 7/30/2022 at 9:56 PM, L Ron Burgundy said:

Jon Stewart 1

Ted Cruz 0

Stewart should be acknowledged for raising awareness on some of these issues, and he appears to be willing to attack both sides of the aisle.  He was critical of the Biden Afghanistan withdrawal and called him an “apologist for the Taliban”.  
 

I have no doubt Crus is telling the truth about negotiations, but it just goes to show you how these dipshyts in Congress operate. 

  • Agree 3
Posted

Serious question: I’ve been looking for an objective study linking exposure to these burn pits to various diseases. So far I’m coming up empty. I have no problem with committing money to further research of possible ties, but should we be legislating in a manner that implies that Congress (not science) has established such a link?

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Serious question: I’ve been looking for an objective study linking exposure to these burn pits to various diseases. So far I’m coming up empty. I have no problem with committing money to further research of possible ties, but should we be legislating in a manner that implies that Congress (not science) has established such a link?

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=burn pit

 

83 hits, some of which aren't related to this issue but more can certainly be found by optimizing the key word search

Edited by DRsGhost
Posted
41 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Serious question: I’ve been looking for an objective study linking exposure to these burn pits to various diseases. So far I’m coming up empty. I have no problem with committing money to further research of possible ties, but should we be legislating in a manner that implies that Congress (not science) has established such a link?

One man’s “objective” is another’s “it’s just a far________ think tank!”. 
 

 

Posted
3 hours ago, DRsGhost said:

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=burn pit

 

83 hits, some of which aren't related to this issue but more can certainly be found by optimizing the key word search

Thanks. I did a little more digging, so here’s what i found:

- there’s a sound basis for concluding that exposure to burn pits may cause various ailments down the line, although how far down the line (the bill takes it from 5 years to 10 years) is really unknown.  
- the bill creates a presumption that burn pit exposure caused a whole array of ailments. In other words it’s sufficient to show (1) you were exposed; (2) you’ve got the ailment. This eliminates the difficult task of showing causation. 
is this fair? Well, on balance … probably. We do know there’s a lot of fraud in VA disability claims, so this is a classic “we are willing to accept paying out on some (many?) bogus or poorly substantiated claims in order to make sure we don’t deny some (many) valid ones.” But it’s not like it’s a foregone conclusion that anyone who ever opposed the bill is evil. So on balance … two cheers for Jon Stewart here. 

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

They blocked $400 billion in spending not related to vets.   Good for them.

 

This bill had a lot of pork and very little to help veterans. Democrats should be ashamed.

 

 

 

 

This is a complete lie.  Nothing was in the bill not related to vets.  Reps are just backtracking because of the blowback.

Edited by L Ron Burgundy
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
7 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

This is a complete lie.  Nothing was in the bill not related to vets.  Reps are just backtracking because of the blowback.


Sure, it’s much more likely a handful of politicians just wanted the awesome publicity of voting against veterans healthcare!?! 😂 

 

They deliberately don’t make it easy to read, but CBO sure seems to think there are hundreds of billions of “discretionary” money.  
 

discretionary

dĭ-skrĕsh′ə-nĕr″ē

 

adjective

 

Left to or regulated by one's own discretion or judgment.

 

Available for use as needed or desired.

Available at one's discretion; able to be used as one chooses; left to or regulated by one's own discretion or judgment.

 

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3967

 

related to vets… lol…. Buy a Ferrari then drive by the WW2 monument (now it’s related to vets) 

×
×
  • Create New...