Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiwa
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I reckon it still says discretionary. Are you saying direct spending means mandatory spending?
If so, TIL. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Okay but would that change if it was discretionary spending?
Your favs are just doing it as an axiomatic economic theory flex. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
|
Then why block Toomey's amendment before the vote? Schumer promised amendments and then blocked them.
It's the difference between a blank check (and creating an entirely new Government Spending Program like SS) and spending that has yearly oversight. If anything Dems are holding vet benefits hostage for their massive pork. There are literally no caps for things like college funding and positions at the VA because of a few word changes. This is supposed to be legislation that helps vets affected by "Burn Pits. It's specific. It should remain that way.
Dems could create the "The Clubbing Baby Seals Act" and cram all kinds of shit in it like student loan forgiveness and then people are like "Hold up, let's pump the breaks. Where is this money going?". Toads then rush out and claim Pubs want to club baby seals. It's all political.
I'm all for this bill. I just want to make sure the money is actually spent on Veterans and not lobbyists and scammers.