US Politics Thread 2021-24

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Bullseye scored by the Frankfurter Rundschau. This is exactly what I often have said and meant why Russia interfered with elections in the US and helped to bring Trump into power. Everybody is a fool who still denies this.
---------

Speaking of denial, are you sure you’re not just denying Putin’s ability help bring into power people like Gerhard Schröder with another “ya but what about Trump” distraction?

[Skybird]

No, putin messes with many social groups, the political right, leftjes, peace advocates and personal vus a vis alliances to spread pro russian influence. He "caught" Schroeder as well, and nobody has denied that. That sucker is in Moscow again. I also said from beginning on tbat Russia had also an interest to bring Trump into power, so that usa is kept busy with itself in the turmoils that followed. Brexit I supported, knowing that this also belped Russian interests to split the West, but I rated other factors more relevant then. For Russia, the UK result of its strategy is a mixed back, they got the wanted division, but then also a UK being amlngst the toughest supporters of the Ukraine, came Johnson or comes Truss.

[Skybird]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62359884

[Dowly]

Republicans reject spending bill for veterans exposed to 'burn pits,' toxins:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/republicans-reject-spending-bill-veterans-exposed-burn-pits/story?id=8761992

[Rockstar]

Funny thing last week the act passed pretty much with flying colors in both houses. Then a change was made which had to be voted on again. I don’t know what changed, though it seems it had something to with how 400,000,000,000 dollars was spent. I’m not sure because our media is littered with grandstanding and virtue signaling but no answers.

Considering their past congress loves drafting bills with great sounding names and then sneak stuff in that's nefarious and when the opposition votes it down they'll say "they voted NO for the All Women Matter Act". Both parties are quite accustomed to doing it.

[Dowly]

I haven't read the bill myself, but Stewart is pretty adamant in all the interviews I've watched that nothing has changed. It returned to a re-vote over a technicality.

[Rockstar]

All I get out of all it so far is one side thinks their was budgetary gimmicks involved. But doesn’t make any attempt to explain what that means exactly.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) said on the Senate floor that he didn’t support the bill because it would create $400 billion in unrelated spending, which he called a “budgetary gimmick.”

The other side doesn’t attempt to address or defend against the claim of budgetary gimmicks he just says they just don’t care about veterans.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) accused Toomey of “having a problem” with supporting the country’s veterans.

“If you have the guts to send somebody to war, then you better have the guts to take care of them when they get home,” Tester said. ‘If we don’t take care of our veterans when they come home, they’re going to say, ‘Why should I ever sign the dotted line. Because the promises I made and the promises the country made, only half that deal is being respected.'”

I think it will eventually pass. But not before we get our full dose of political grandstanding, name calling, and virtue signaling.

This is one of the copies, I’m confused as to which is the latest. I took a look see and the best I can make out of it is that it’s a good idea.

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

[Buddahaid]

The bill is S.3373
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...%5D%7D&s=1&r=3

[Rockstar]

Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3967, Honoring our PACT Act of 2021

June 6, 2022 Cost Estimate
As amended by the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58177

Areas of significant uncertainty include
• Estimating the number of veterans affected by the bill and the changes in their disability ratings
• Anticipating the number and prevalence of disabilities presumed to be connected to military service
• Estimating the number of veterans who would receive additional health care
• Anticipating the amount of discretionary spending that would be reclassified as direct spending

————

What is the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending?

https://www.cbo.gov/content/what-dif...onary-spending

The authority for discretionary spending stems from annual appropriation acts, which are under the control of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Most defense, education, and transportation programs, for example, are funded that way, as are a variety of other federal programs and activities. Those appropriations are subject to a set of budget enforcement rules and processes that differ from those that apply to mandatory spending. As the Congress considers appropriation acts, CBO tallies the budget authority those acts would provide and estimates the outlays that would result.

Mandatory—or direct—spending includes spending for entitlement programs and certain other payments to people, businesses, and state and local governments. Mandatory spending is generally governed by statutory criteria; it is not normally set by annual appropriation acts. Outlays for the nation’s three largest entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) and for many smaller programs (unemployment compensation, retirement programs for federal employees, student loans, and deposit insurance, for example) are mandatory spending. Social Security and some other mandatory spending programs are in effect indefinitely, but some (for example, some agriculture programs) expire at the end of a given period. Roughly 60 percent of federal spending in 2012 (other than for the government’s net interest costs) was mandatory. Legislation that changed direct spending would, by itself, affect the budget deficit because no further legislative action would be required for the change in spending to occur.

Unfortunately none of this explains in any detail why people (the senate) are voting the way they are. But I am inclined to think it has much to do with the “areas of significant uncertainty” which leads to the big question how it’s all going to be paid for. And not so much who cares and who doesn’t care about veterans.

[mapuc]

You ask what makes people vote as they do.

Well I have been studying them for some years

They can be put into category.

Lets start with those I call fanatic voters

These are

1. A voter who is dedicated to their party
2. A voter who is voting based on how the leader looks like(a plantonic voters)

Then we have what I call celebrating voters.

1. A voter who votes on however is popular for the moment.
2. A voter who votes on a party to prevent the other to win-This was seen in the last Presidential election in USA-Many voted Dem-Not that they support Dem, but they want Trump out.

Next type is traditional voters.

1. A voter who follow family tradition and vote as their parent and grandparents has done before them.


Markus

[Dowly]

@Rockstar: None of that is new info. The bill passed on June 16th, ten days after that report.

[Buddahaid]

Will Trump end up as a RINO?
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...campaign-cash/

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

@Rockstar: None of that is new info. The bill passed on June 16th, ten days after that report.

But IMO those concerns are still relevant and I still think it has more to do with those concerns than liking or not liking veterans. I’ll bet it gets passed next time around and everyone can declare victory.

[Buddahaid]

Some F bombs. And what is it about Dr. Pepper that all these edgy republicans have to do product placement crap. Are they being paid? Yes, they are.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politica...ecipients/2018

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

But IMO those concerns are still relevant and I still think it has more to do with those concerns than liking or not liking veterans. I’ll bet it gets passed next time around and everyone can declare victory.

We're going in circles, but those concerns were not relevant on June 16th. Why would they be now? And more importantly, why are Republicans not citing those concerns as their reason for voting no? You know, instead of lying about some loopholes and budgetary gimmicks?