re: There was a $400 billion blank check for "pork" in the PACT Act AKA Vets bill

quote:

---

Why? Your experience, or lack thereof, with the organization would explain your misunderstanding of the bill.

---

So you say. And yet, I could reply in kind as a maneuver for my argument. Shouldn’t we focus on what’s written in the bill since that’s the topic in focus?

quote:

---

And, I've seen nothing from you or anyone else that shows how Cruz is wrong on this one.

---

Senator Cruz was wrong when he stated that the “bill gives a $400B blank check—separate from vets care—for unrelated pork that will supercharge inflation.”

The bill is a standalone proposal which prescribes mandatory spending to fund matters related to the treatment and compensation of veterans who were assessed as having been exposed to toxic burn pits. The fact that the spending was changed from discretionary to mandatory doesn’t mean that the bill suddenly became pork. It just means that the act is required by law to be funded.

quote:

---

So you say. And yet, I could reply in kind as a maneuver for my argument. Shouldn’t we focus on what’s written in the bill since that’s the topic in focus?

---

Sure, you could. But you'd be wrong. As I already outlined, I'm very familiar with the process and the specific attempts to push similar legislation. I've been living it for nine years. I'm very likely going to die before it's ever resolved in a way that's actually beneficial to me.

The best you’ve been able to do so far is to misrepresent what Cruz and others have said.

quote:

---

The bill is a standalone proposal which prescribes mandatory spending to fund matters related to the treatment and compensation of veterans who were assessed as having been exposed to toxic burn pits. 

---

Sigh.

quote:

---

SEC. 701. AUTHORITY TO USE APPROPRIATIONS TO ENHANCE CLAIMS PROCESSING CAPACITY AND AUTOMATION.

(a) Authority.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may use, from amounts appropriated to the Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund established by section 324 of title 38, United States Code, as added by section 805 of this Act, such amounts as may be necessary to continue the modernization, development, and expansion of capabilities and capacity of information technology systems and infrastructure of the Veterans Benefits Administration, including for claims automation, to support expected increased claims processing for newly eligible veterans pursuant to this Act.

---

This kind of shite is peppered throughout. And all you can say is "well, that was in there before."

quote:

---

No. I’m right. Your move.

Do you see now why our time would be better spent discussing what’s actually in the bill rather than appealing to the supposed existence of some kind of personal, yet unspecified, knowledge of a system?

---

The problem with this thought is that you're trying to play "no you" as if we're on equal ground.

We aren't.

quote:

---

I quoted Senator Cruz verbatim, but okay.

---

I'm not questioning your copy/paste abilities.

I'm calling out your analysis and the conclusions you've reached.

quote:

---

Since the pork which supposedly doesn’t pertain to the treatment and compensation of veterans is peppered throughout, citing a single instance ought to be the easiest task in the world.

And no. What I’d say is that the spending (which funds matters related to the treatment and compensation of veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits) doesn’t become pork merely because it is switched from discretionary to mandatory.

---

I did cite it. Look up.

I don't know how anyone looks at the language in this bill and concludes that there's a limitation to only support veterans with burn bit exposure.

quote:

---

No. I’m suggesting that we not play this game at all and instead focus on the bill.

---

Of course. You don't want to focus on your lack of knowledge and experience as applicable to your understanding of this legislation and, more importantly, what it would actually look like when implemented.

quote:

---

Did Senator Cruz suggest that this version of the bill was pork because the funding was changed from discretionary to mandatory spending? Yes or no?

---

I don't care about his motivations or what caused him to recognize it for what it is.

quote:

---

You didn’t though.

---

But I did. Again, look up.

quote:

---

To fulfill the burden of proof, you would need to cite one or more passages which prescribe funding for matters unrelated to the treatment and compensation of veterans who were deemed to be affected by exposure to toxins from burn pits. Title VII funds 1) enhancements to the VA’s ability to process claims and 2) leases of treatment facilities, both of which relate to the treatment and compensation of veterans exposed to toxic burn pits.

---

Incorrect. I've cited one of many sections of the bill that allows for subjective and ambiguous interpretation. You are willing to accept this at face value and in good faith. I am not. That's precisely where knowledge and experience come in. But hell, ignore that if you want. Look what the VA, and most government agencies, have done with ambiguous legislation before this.

No matter how you try to frame it, this is an example of a "blank check."

quote:

---

…in other words, I’m not trying to play the “No, you” game. Resolved.

---

It was quoted for a reason. That's your perception of what's happening. Like a toddler disagreeing with their pediatrician.

quote:

---

Is that a “yes” or a “no” to the question that I posed?

---

That's an "I don't care."

Was that not clear when I led off with "I don't care?"

quote:

---

No. You wrote. “FFS. Did you read Title VII?“

---

Correct.

quote:

---

That and your personal anecdote about what could happen do not fulfill the burden of proof.

---

I don't have a "burden of proof."

Let's not get confused there.

quote:

---

No. You asked if I had read Title VII. Asking if I’ve read a section does not support your claim. Also, how does the switch in funding mechanisms (from discretionary to mandatory) relate to whether this bill funds pork? I ask because that’s the heart of Senator Cruz’s objection.

---

I mean, I also provided a snippet of it.

quote:

---

No matter how you try to frame it, this bill is not an example of a “blank check.” See? I too can author claims which aren’t supported by evidence our sound syllogistic reasoning.

---

Right. See above for my comments about toddlers.

quote:

---

SEC. 701. AUTHORITY TO USE APPROPRIATIONS TO ENHANCE CLAIMS PROCESSING CAPACITY AND AUTOMATION.

(a) Authority.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may use, from amounts appropriated to the Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund established by section 324 of title 38, United States Code, as added by section 805 of this Act, such amounts as may be necessary to continue the modernization, development, and expansion of capabilities and capacity of information technology systems and infrastructure of the Veterans Benefits Administration, including for claims automation, to support expected increased claims processing for newly eligible veterans pursuant to this Act.



This kind of shite is peppered throughout. And all you can say is "well, that was in there before."

---

That just authorizes payment to the IT department or software contractor to make changes to the claims system needed to handle cases related to the burn pit exposures. You need to work harder on your conspiracies.

quote:

---

It was quoted for a reason. That's your perception of what's happening. Like a toddler disagreeing with their pediatrician.

---

Sure, okay. Anyway, about what the bill says…

quote:

---

That's an "I don't care." Was that not clear when I led off with "I don't care?"

---

I’m pretty sure this particular trail was blazed when you wrote, “The best you’ve been able to do so far is to misrepresent what Cruz and others have said.”

Your “I don’t care” comment came only after you were tasked with answering a question which sought clarity on whether I was misrepresenting Senator Cruz’s statements.

quote:

---

Correct.

---

Asking whether I’ve read a section is not support for a claim.

quote:

---

I don't have a "burden of proof." Let's not get confused there.

---

Convention holds that you do indeed hold the burden of proof since you are the one asserting the existence of pork in the bill.

quote:

---

I mean, I also provided a snippet of it.

---

Where? I’ve reviewed your comments, and I can’t locate anything which cites a passage from the bill, let alone a “snippet” of a passage.

quote:

---

Right. See above for my comments about toddlers.

---

And here we go with the personal attacks in lieu of anything substantive on the topic at hand…

What’s humorous is that you seem to take issue with my adopting your style of rebuttal, even going so far as to suggest that I’m a “toddler” for authoring bare assertions and insisting that they be taken as matters of fact.

I was making a rhetorical point, but thanks for the commentary.

quote:

---

DisplacedBuckeye

---

Spending a lot time on a guy with 23 posts.

quote:

---

Spending a lot time on a guy with 23 posts.

---

Definitely been less than 23 posts.

quote:

---

This is weak. I didn't personally attack you. I commented on your behavior.

---

1. Devoting much of your rebuttal to insisting that I supposedly lack of knowledge on a particular topic rather than discussing the topic itself is a personal attack.

2. Insisting that my rebuttal is like that of a toddler disagreeing with his or her pediatrician when all that I was doing was borrowing your style of argumentation is a personal attack.

I’m not saying that the personal attacks are hurtful or that they’re malicious; I’m simply pointing out that they attack the person rather than the arguments being advanced.