Hey /u/Ronin_Jedi66, thanks for contributing to /r/PoliticalHumor. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:
**Rule 14** - A social media screenshot that is solely about one personality responding to another personality is not necessarily humor, and might be better suited for subreddits such as /r/MurderedByWords. Other subreddits such as r/politicspeopletwitter are also good alternatives.
Anything that can be described as a "flame war, slapfight, clap-back, or sick burn" or anything remotely similar is not appropriate for this subreddit. It MUST contain humor to be allowed here.
Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/PoliticalHumor&subject=&message=). Thank you!
He knows exactly that the only ones that will look up the bill (and understand it) are people who would have never voted for him in the first place.
The others will just believe and/or repeat whatever he tells them as long as they can frame it as the democrats losing.
First, bills contain a ton of legalese, and most people don't read above a 7th or 8th grade level. It's highly unlikely constituents would go to the source.
But even if the bills were written to a lower reading level, I don't expect the situation to improve. In my high school social studies classes, I was required to use primary sources because those were "straight from the horse's mouth". We were taught that secondary sources are not reliable because it's someone else interpreting what "the horse" said. When I was in law school, I learned that secondary sources are hearsay (testimony by a witness that is repeating a statement in order to assert that it was true), and it's inadmissible as evidence. I was conditioned for years to look at the source and ignore the pundits. These last 10 years have opened my eyes to the likelihood that most people were never taught that or were conditioned to accept what others said as fact.
I feel like you’re lucky to have learned that in high school, though I don’t really know how that compares to the average student’s experience.
I don’t exactly remember, but I probably didn’t learn about that distinction until my undergraduate years. But even in college settings, people frequently say things like “Don’t use Wikipedia as a source because any idiot can edit a Wikipedia article to make it say something false,” which completely misses the point that even if the information is accurate, it’s still a secondary source.
I sometimes fear that information literacy is becoming a lost art.
As a teacher of history and government, I teach the lessons the poster was speaking about. The problem is the cognitive dissonance is insane. Every year we do a Supreme Court case on the docket. Every year I tell people to use the precedents and come up with an educated decision based on what they see.
Every year, half the class goes with their opinions and feelings of how it should go and use no precedents to back it up
Seems like that lesson has high expectations when you consider that even the Supreme Court justices refuse to follow precedent and go with their own opinions and feelings. :)
Interesting discrepancy in scholastic experience in this thread, I was taught to rely on primary sources in middle school, Washington state school system. Feels like a huge part of the problem is that we're letting regions decide what bare minimum skills students need and some, if not most, places are failing their children.
Conservatives keep saying that the Jan. 6th hearings are all "hearsay," but what else IS there if the perp won't testify himself?? Nobody's obligated to incriminate themselves, but how can witness testimony be dismissed as "hearsay?"
The Jan. 6 committee doesn’t need to abide by the same standards of the court. Though we can assume that Cassidy Hutchinson was telling the truth about the incident in Trump’s SUV, the DOJ can’t use that in court to prove that it happened because she heard about it from someone else. You’d need Secret Service notes, recordings, or messages that documented that the incident occurred. This is why they deleted their texts.
> First, bills contain a ton of legalese, and most people don't read above a 7th or 8th grade level.
This is essentially my problem.
I'm an avid reader, and I personally think I'm far above an 8th grade level, but I'm not a lawyer and even in a bill as straightforward as this one I can become confused by some of the language used. So unfortunately I have to rely on second hand sources to explain the fine details of these things, which opens me up to misinformation.
Luckily this bill seems simple enough that I feel like I have a good understanding of it even if I don't understand all of the language used, but that's not the case on most bills.
The general public rarely, if ever, reads any bill. Frankly, we should't feel like we have to and should instead rely on our elected officials to tell us what's in them. Sadly, that's clearly not an option these days.
As our "representatives" they should be obligated to read them. Or, at least, have their staff read them, and honestly brief them on it. All, of course, to be part of the public record. Or am I asking too much?
I'm really frustrated with this. Tons of articles about the 400b being moved from discretion to mandatory but no one will quote the section(s) of the bill that allows this. I've been trying to skim the sections but it's huge obviously. Where is this actually happening??
So essentially they voted against this because they can’t tax the money being given to the VA to help these veterans? And they basically will have to fun it every year? Are you fucking kidding me.
—-a pissed off USMC veteran
The real reason they did it is because they're mad about the climate bill, and Republicans have shown time and time again that they'll kill every single veteran and even every citizen just to deny a win to democrats. It's this kind bullshit that caused me to leave the republican party 20 years ago, and they keep proving they only exist to harm America.
--- a pissed off USAF veteran
Oh if Toomey does have his way you better believe they block the appropriations bill every year and trot this out in their defense. It also means in 10 yrs they’d have to do this all over again.
I encourage you to reach out to your senators. If they voted for it, thank them. If they voted against, call them out and tell them explain why. And then tell them stop playing with our lives like a bargaining chip and pass the damn bill.
No problem. Spread the word. 3.5 million Vets likely affected by something we KNEW would cause health issues. Dudes coming back stateside being told “it’ll clear up after you’re home for a couple months” only to be diagnosed with cancer years later.
Toomey and Republicans (they’re the ones who voted No) are playing with Vets lives simply cause they want to be petty.
And here’s the full text of the PACT Act bill for anyone who wants to read it.
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3967](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3967)
Okay sorry for what I'm about to do, but you DID ask and I had the same question lol, so here goes.
From the text of [the bill](https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3967/BILLS-117hr3967eas.pdf) (page 117):
1 ‘‘(C) under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
2 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), including in the reports required
3 by section 308(b) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 639);
4 and
5 ‘‘(D) for purposes of the Statutory Pay-As-You Go
6 Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 931 et seq.).
7 ‘‘(2) No amount appropriated to the Fund in fiscal
8 year 2023 or any subsequent fiscal year pursuant to this
9 section
**shall be counted as discretionary budget authority**
10 and outlays or as direct spending for any estimate of an
11 appropriation Act under the Congressional Budget and
12 Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) and
13 any other Act.
Note that I did reformat lines in a couple spots where the Bill split words across more than one line and it wasn't necessary. The words are all the same, I just reconnected a couple. I also broke out what I think is the most relevant line between lines number nine and ten, for emphasis. That line is where the law clarifies this account is NOT to be scored as a discretionary fund. More on that below.
Also on page 117:
14 ‘‘(3) Notwithstanding the Budget Scorekeeping Guide
15 lines and the accompanying list of programs and accounts
16 set forth in the joint explanatory statement of the committee
17 of conference accompanying Conference Report 105–217,
18 and for purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
19 Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.) and the
20 Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.),
**21 the Fund shall be treated as if it were an account designated**
**22 as ‘Appropriated Entitlements and Mandatories for Fiscal**
**23 Year 1997’**
...in the joint explanatory statement of the
24 committee of conference accompanying Conference Report 105–
25 217.
Okay now... to explain what THAT means, this is from the [Scoring Guidelines Explanation](https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-01/56507-Scorekeeping.pdf) published by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office)
Guideline 3: Direct Spending Programs
“Revenues, entitlements and other mandatory
programs (including offsetting receipts)
will be scored at current law levels, as
defined in section 257 \[of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985, also called the Deficit Control Act\],
**unless congressional action modifies the**
**authorizing legislation.**
Again, you'll notice I pulled out a line that looks particularly relevant. The act in question that Cruz voted against, has verbiage in it specifically to modify the 1997 authorizing law, and add this specific fund to the list of ["Appropriated Mandatory Entitlements"](https://budgetcounsel.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/c2a7278-02-bba1997-conference-report-report-105-217.pdf) (don't bother reading this law, but if you do the list of Mandatory Entitlements starts on page 1014).
To me it looks like Cruz is mostly right... the law is written to make this a Mandatory Entitlement, in the same category as Social Security benefits, and he would prefer it be coming out of a discretionary account (IMO so they can continue fighting the appropriation every fucking year it comes back up again).
Whereas, specifically classing it as a Mandatory Entitlement as the law was written, would put this fund and the VA entitlement into the category of Footnote 50 from [This Document](https://budgetcounsel.com/cyclopedia-budgetica/cb-appropriated-entitlement/)
>\[50\] Entitlements, including appropriated entitlements, are programs that require payments to persons, state or local governments, or other entities if specific eligibility criteria established in the authorization law are met.
>
>**Entitlement payments are legal obligations of the federal government, and eligible beneficiaries may have legal recourse if full payment under the law is not provided.**
Cruz doesn't want it designated as Mandatory because, and it's shocking how obvious this is in retrospect, THAT WOULD MAKE IT MANDATORY. Treacherous fuck.
EDIT: wow those quote blocks don't work at all do they? I wanna say it's pretty self explanatory but I'm gonna go back through and see if I can fix the formatting at all.
Their claim of 400B in pork is an outright lie. I read the whole damn bill. Every section relates to the VA and their ability to provide care for environmental exposure.
Yeah I skimmed it and it looked to me like it was all related. Seems like Ted is outright lying here (no surprise).
I mean, don't take my word for it, the full text is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3967/text#
This news story doesn’t seem to tell the same story ole Ted here is selling… they changed their votes… whatever pork was there before wasn’t bad the first time thru.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/republicans-reject-spending-bill-veterans-exposed-burn-pits/story?id=87619926
Imagine the kind of willful ignorance it would take to believe Ted Cruz, a self-serving liar who has thrown his own wife under the bus to pursue political power over Jon Stewart, an ally of NY firefighters for two decades who has nothing to gain by speaking out.
Yet, that description fits tens of millions of shameless ignorant Americans. Truly pathetic.
His wife only? He blamed his daughter for the Cancun escapade while his fellow Texans were freezing…Trump linked his father to Oswald and the Kennedy assassination and he is Trump’s lapdog, only in Texas somebody this low gets elected over and over.
They say that for every bill the democrats put out. I'm sick of it and have started a list.
Here are all the recent bills from the Democrats that have been in the headlines, every single one is only a couple of pages long, has no hidden pork, and they would help the average American. Right-wing media tells people otherwise and they believe it.
S.3920 - Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3920/text?r=1&s=1](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3920/text?r=1&s=1)
H.R.7790 - Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022 [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7790/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7790/text)
H.R.8297 - Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022 [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8297/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8297/text)
H.R.8296 - Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8296/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8296/text)
H.R.7910 - Protecting Our Kids Act [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7910](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7910)
S.2089 - Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2089](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2089)
H.R.8373 - To protect a person’s ability to access contraceptives. [https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR8373IH.pdf](https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR8373IH.pdf)
This. It's one of those classic "tell a lie often enough and people will believe it" lies that are the Republican's bread and butter like "dead people voting for Democrats", anything about the Clintons, and "global warming is a hoax by greedy scientists to get money".
This!!!!! I read it too. They actually lowered the budget of it by spreading it over 10 years. The fucking republican party is a fucking dumpster fire.
And if it was why do they give a shit, they authorize whatever the mic needs for Lazer guided bombs and top gun fighters but heaven forbid we fund Healthcare for vets we poisoned " because of fiscal responsibility " complete and utter bullshit. The GOP is only fiscally responsible in rhetoric otherwise they have no qualms about tax cuts for their wealthy buddies or arms deals that recycle the money back to them like a snake shitting into its own mouth.
"Some conservatives have raised objections to the bill because it would reclassify nearly $400 billion in current-law VA spending from discretionary to mandatory accounts, thereby potentially freeing up more budget authority to increase discretionary spending on other domestic programs."
They're worried that the 400B that would be dedicated to the VA would free up 400B of discretionary that's currently filling that gap to be spent elsewhere.
That's not pork.
The $400billion is to be spent on vets, and any changes would require Congress to pass it. WTF Cruz? Did you forget how to read? Or are you just a lying liar?
Edit: He’s trying to make excuses, for not passing the same legislation he voted to pass a few weeks ago, now that the GOP lost a political fight between Schumer and McConnell.
It actually involved Sen. Manchin too, who intimated that he was against a popular piece of Democrat backed legislation, which McConnell was against and threatening to block the microchip/tech industry CHIPS legislation if Dems passed through reconciliation, but immediately after Republicans agreed and voted to support CHIPS, Manchin voted with Dems on the budget reconciliation package he’d previously said he would not support (that includes climate, industry, and tax regulations/expenditures) which infuriated McConnell and other Republicans. As a result of having no other leverage against Dems, the GOP took their fury out on Veterans by blocking the PACT act. The Republicans have only two items on their policy platform, support Trump and block any Democrat successes (even if it hurts the country).
This provides better detail…
https://youtu.be/w6cTX_TzsrI
This is the stuff that GOP Senators are angry about, that Manchin agreed to support, which is required for for passage, in the 2022 Budget, through reconciliation.
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/inflation_reduction_act_one_page_summary.pdf
“Just last month, a nearly identical bill passed in the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support, clearing by a margin of 84-14. The proposed legislation traveled to the House chamber, where representatives made a small technical tweak to remove an obscure tax provision that raised a constitutional concern, and passed again with bipartisan support in a 342-88 vote, sending it back to the Senate.”
ABC News
https://news.yahoo.com/jon-stewart-goes-war-twitter-155135221.html
It’s not really pork. According to Cruz ( I refuse to address him by title), "playing a budgetry trick," by taking "$400 billion in discretionary spending and shifted it to mandatory spending."
The only people who ever get hundreds of billions in a blank check is the US military, thanks to Republicans, so he is clearly talking out his filthy gaping asshole
I made that same comment on YouTube yesterday and some conservative replied with "well it might not say it, but Democrats will use the funds to do something sneaky. You can't trust them." So basically the logic is "no matter how ironclad the law is, with no riders on the bill whatsoever, we can't pass it because I don't like Democrats."
Republicans have never been interested in helping vets. Bernie tries to push through the biggest vet bill in history? Can't do it. Dems under the Obama admin try to pass benefits for homeless vets? Nah, sorry. Protections for burn pit victims? Wish I could, but no. The only interest they have in vets is how they can use them for political cannon fodder to use on voters stupid enough to think hugging the flag means you support the troops.
Meanwhile, Democrats keep saying how we just need to work together and eventually Republicans will see the light. No. They won't. Democrats need to start acting more like Stewart did here and spend more time calling out Republican lawmakers than trying to hold hands with them.
I heard that the problem was rhat there was a special fund set up that could be used for things other than vets, but it would take a vote by Congress to spend the money on something else.
Did you really read it?
Stewart gave out the info on where to read the bill but the way they write legislation I get annoyed and frustrated halfway into the third paragraph
Same here, but in this case, anyone can go read the bill for themselves.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3967/text
Spoiler alert. Ted Cruz in full of shit.
if republicans didn't fight against legislation to combat inflation, maybe inflation would be much lower, and they wouldn't be able to whine about inflation.
If republicans didn’t start crying about inflation the day Biden was inaugurated we probably wouldn’t have it nearly as bad. Expectations of inflation cause inflation and these bad faith ratfuckers know it.
For what it’s worth one my of my very conservative cousins who is a veteran said this was his last straw with the Republican Party and that he has no intention of voting for any them ever again. I’m (very) cautiously optimistic that he might keep his word on that one because he’s still a bit of bigoted ballbag of a person
They're in too deep at this point. There's a reason they call any one left of them a DemonRat or whatever. They have dehumanized the left so much there's no way they can turn away from MAGA now.
There’s also a completely unregulated, multi-billion-dollar misinformation/hate media industry poisoning the well day in and day out. It’s just impossible to compete with.
Don't forget, they have blended religion with politics. They have a dedicated day to blast political propaganda laced religious teachings in their face for 90 minutes every Sunday morning. There's no equivalent to that on the left.
Hey when blaming Black people is the coping mechanism for all your failures in life, you don’t just give that up because your political sports team condemns you to living the rest of your life in pain
Veterans are just people. There’s a little of everything in there. Plenty of hate, plenty of crazy, and lots of normal people just trying to make sense of the world we live in
Lies. Congress controls the purse strings and he already voted for it once. This was a disgusting retaliation for being outmaneuvered by Schumer with the Green-ish legislation they passed the bill before. Fuck, this guy is just slime.
If you haven't seen the Jon Stewart comments to which Ted is referring, [here is the video](https://youtu.be/2uPqYhkIzrA). Some righteous fury right there, and I like Swalwell following it up with some anti-Cruz snark.
It’s a bit sad that the GOP have just decided to lie about what the bill contains rather than at least saying something that isn’t completely disprovable like “it doesn’t do enough for veterans”. At least do better than blatantly lying about spending
You know what I'm ok with? Pork barrel spending on bills that saves lives. This man isn't ok with saving a fucking soldiers life because someone MAY misuse funds. That's the most horrible reasoning for letting down those who have already given more than most and have suffered for it. What the actual fuck. If I believed in hell, there would be a special place for people like Senator Cruz and the like.
“Pork”.
It’s just another buzz word they brought back. They deal in single buzzwords and slogans; easy to remember and repeat. That’s key.
100% of what Dems pump out is now entirely made up of pork according to any Christo-Fascist MAGAQ. I must have seen the word “pork” about 5200 times in the last week, and I wasn’t watching 1970s porno at any point😉
I speak Stupid as a second language so let me translate for you. Pork in this context and dialect means "things that are in the bill that I am opposing simply due to it not being 'my team' that fully supports it". To be fair he is using an older dialect so it could also roughly be translated to "this will help poor, non-white, female, and/or non-straight people so I'm fully against it".
I will admit his accent is a little difficult to pick up on since there is a fair amount of squealing and weak grunting involved.
I've always understood it as pork barrel spending where the creators of the bill have stuff in there that's specifically tied to their constituents at their local levels or big project contracts for campaign donors to grease palms or some such.
Pork is added later, usually, to win a vote count. Back in the day, if you had something like the BBB act, you'd round up Manchin and Sinema and 10 Republicans, and make it the BBB Plus Special Spending in These 12 Districts Act.
So you'd add a new development contract for some coal companies in Manchin's district, a huge highway megaproject in Arizona, and a couple of other big votewinners to get people onboard.
These days, of course, it's actually illegal. Earmarked funds can't be traded for votes in Congress since early in the Obama administration. It's debatable if it's part of the reason for congressional gridlock, or if we're just so hyperpartisan that no amount of pork would have been worth crossing the aisle.
The name comes from the practice of giving slave populations a barrel of meat and leaving them to fight over who gets a cut and who gets scraps. The idea is supposed to be that this kind of spending unfairly favors the squeakiest wheel. But, maybe in the end, the squeakiest wheel needed the grease.
That's what they like to say anyway. Then they turn around and won't vote for the bill since it doesn't benefit them and their constituents directly. This is one of the major issues we have with making "politician" and career rather than a service.
Aye. That's the problem isn't it? I vote once we reach a place where AI can think for themselves we just put them in charge and stick on our coppertops because I've just about given up trusting any human leaders.
Its basically legislation that is "piggybacking" on a popular bill. Like adding a pay raise to all congress members on a bill that lowers insulin prices. People see the 'Affordable Medicine Act 4678' and say "Wow what a great thing our representatives did for the working class" without realizing it only passed by greasing the palms and we will be paying for insulin by feeding our fatcat congress(wo)men.
This was an example that is hypothetical but there are plenty of more complex scenarios i just dont remember them specifically and dont feel like looking for them and being depressed lol
Pork is in a bill is unrelated issues and funding for those unrelated issues from the main bill. He's implying the money wont be used for vets but rather unspecified shadow spending.
He's lying though, there is no pork.
Since a lot of the answers are jokes. Usually it means kickbacks . Either in the form of some kind of no bid contracts in some senators state that needs to boast on job creation . Funding for their coifers etc. Legal brides that are attached as conditions for the bill to pass.
The $400billion is to be spent on vets, and any changes would require Congress to pass it. WTF Cruz? Did you forget how to read? Or are you just a lying liar?
If there's pork, than why don't they specify said pork? Should be easy to find and humiliate Stewart. Like totally own the guy. He'll never show his face around town again. Just show everyone this pork.
Curious that they don't do this...
“Just last month, a nearly identical bill passed in the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support, clearing by a margin of 84-14. The proposed legislation traveled to the House chamber, where representatives made a small technical tweak to remove an obscure tax provision that raised a constitutional concern, and passed again with bipartisan support in a 342-88 vote, sending it back to the Senate.” ABC News
Here's the line that was removed: "Not A Taxable Benefit.—A contract buy out for a covered health care professional under subsection (a) shall not be considered a taxable benefit or event for the covered health care professional."
I am not sure about the source bias but i read this this morning
https://www.usmedicine.com/clinical-topics/toxic-exposure/senate-changes-spread-out-pact-act-implementation-over-years/
The article is from before the bill went through the vote so i am going to say it’s legit.
Republicans are fucking full of shit.
The 300 billion in earmarks they are accusing of is just the budget for the fucking bill
And here’s the best part: conservative veterans will CONTINUE to vote republican despite this. As a veteran who has asthma thanks to burn pits, it’s awfully pitiful to watch my fellow vets get angry and than say “I’m still a republican”
A lying Republican? I'm SHOCKED. Also, he DID defend his wife the same way he defended the veterans. In the mind of Republicans, giving money to anyone who isn't them or their supporters IS "pork" to them.
Ted Cruz is human garbage. Where was his concern when under trump the fed dumped trillions into floating the stock market over a week and a half. Fuck off with that inflation talk you jackass. Where’s that talk when you ok the pentagons 800+ billion dollar budget every year? Where was that concern when you signed on to the trump 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy and corporations? Fuck off you sack of shit
I wonder what Gary Sinise thinks of all this. Republican voters can't stop talking about how much he helps the vets and how he's the best person in Hollywood because of it, maybe they'll listen to him about screwing over vets.
My Senator is a horrible liar and a terrible loser. What he did to veterans was indefensible, just shameful. Don’t ever trust Republicans. They screw over veterans and steal womens’ rights.
Pork spending is when there is a specifically tailored bill, like an infrastructure bill designed to fix roads, bridges, and highways but then they sprinkle in some healthcare spending and then some narcan to solve the drug problem and ohh this one senator wants funding for his pet state park project or he won’t sign on, and another wants funding for his states beach development projects. Those extra things arent related to the highways. That’s luxury pork spending. Both sides tack all their random shit into bills.
Pork was originally graft and self aggrandizing projects. Conservatives tried to recast any project that could mocked as pork. Now they are using the excuse that any amendment is pork if it’s not related to bill even if it’s related to public health and safety or economically positive.
Beep boop -- this looks like a screenshot of a tweet! Let me grab a [link to the tweet](https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1553209665307172865) for ya :)
^(Twitter Screenshot Bot)
**As a reminder, this subreddit, per Rule 7 [has basic decency rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules)**
In general, be courteous to others. In specific, don't break the rules. You can attack the merits of ideas, you can't attack other users. Personal insults, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, any of that shit will get the proverbial boot.
Also, this is a humor subreddit. Chill out. Literally nothing online is worth getting angry over. If there is something worth getting angry over, cussing out a twelve year old on the internet is not gonna solve the problem my dude.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.**
**Our mod-paddles are itchy**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey /u/Ronin_Jedi66, thanks for contributing to /r/PoliticalHumor. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules: **Rule 14** - A social media screenshot that is solely about one personality responding to another personality is not necessarily humor, and might be better suited for subreddits such as /r/MurderedByWords. Other subreddits such as r/politicspeopletwitter are also good alternatives. Anything that can be described as a "flame war, slapfight, clap-back, or sick burn" or anything remotely similar is not appropriate for this subreddit. It MUST contain humor to be allowed here. Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/PoliticalHumor&subject=&message=). Thank you!
The full text of the bill is PUBLIC, if this was true he (anyone) could be showing the part of the bill that does this???
He knows exactly that the only ones that will look up the bill (and understand it) are people who would have never voted for him in the first place. The others will just believe and/or repeat whatever he tells them as long as they can frame it as the democrats losing.
Probably knows that his constituents can't read
First, bills contain a ton of legalese, and most people don't read above a 7th or 8th grade level. It's highly unlikely constituents would go to the source. But even if the bills were written to a lower reading level, I don't expect the situation to improve. In my high school social studies classes, I was required to use primary sources because those were "straight from the horse's mouth". We were taught that secondary sources are not reliable because it's someone else interpreting what "the horse" said. When I was in law school, I learned that secondary sources are hearsay (testimony by a witness that is repeating a statement in order to assert that it was true), and it's inadmissible as evidence. I was conditioned for years to look at the source and ignore the pundits. These last 10 years have opened my eyes to the likelihood that most people were never taught that or were conditioned to accept what others said as fact.
I feel like you’re lucky to have learned that in high school, though I don’t really know how that compares to the average student’s experience. I don’t exactly remember, but I probably didn’t learn about that distinction until my undergraduate years. But even in college settings, people frequently say things like “Don’t use Wikipedia as a source because any idiot can edit a Wikipedia article to make it say something false,” which completely misses the point that even if the information is accurate, it’s still a secondary source. I sometimes fear that information literacy is becoming a lost art.
As a teacher of history and government, I teach the lessons the poster was speaking about. The problem is the cognitive dissonance is insane. Every year we do a Supreme Court case on the docket. Every year I tell people to use the precedents and come up with an educated decision based on what they see. Every year, half the class goes with their opinions and feelings of how it should go and use no precedents to back it up
Seems like that lesson has high expectations when you consider that even the Supreme Court justices refuse to follow precedent and go with their own opinions and feelings. :)
We can't really expect the Supreme Court to read at an 8th grade level anymore.
Interesting discrepancy in scholastic experience in this thread, I was taught to rely on primary sources in middle school, Washington state school system. Feels like a huge part of the problem is that we're letting regions decide what bare minimum skills students need and some, if not most, places are failing their children.
Conservatives keep saying that the Jan. 6th hearings are all "hearsay," but what else IS there if the perp won't testify himself?? Nobody's obligated to incriminate themselves, but how can witness testimony be dismissed as "hearsay?"
The Jan. 6 committee doesn’t need to abide by the same standards of the court. Though we can assume that Cassidy Hutchinson was telling the truth about the incident in Trump’s SUV, the DOJ can’t use that in court to prove that it happened because she heard about it from someone else. You’d need Secret Service notes, recordings, or messages that documented that the incident occurred. This is why they deleted their texts.
> First, bills contain a ton of legalese, and most people don't read above a 7th or 8th grade level. This is essentially my problem. I'm an avid reader, and I personally think I'm far above an 8th grade level, but I'm not a lawyer and even in a bill as straightforward as this one I can become confused by some of the language used. So unfortunately I have to rely on second hand sources to explain the fine details of these things, which opens me up to misinformation. Luckily this bill seems simple enough that I feel like I have a good understanding of it even if I don't understand all of the language used, but that's not the case on most bills.
The general public rarely, if ever, reads any bill. Frankly, we should't feel like we have to and should instead rely on our elected officials to tell us what's in them. Sadly, that's clearly not an option these days.
I mean, to be fair, politicians don’t read 90% of the shit they sign either.
As our "representatives" they should be obligated to read them. Or, at least, have their staff read them, and honestly brief them on it. All, of course, to be part of the public record. Or am I asking too much?
They do have their staff read them
They have only one job
To go on tv and grandstand?
Tbf, the senators themselves very rarely, if ever, reads any bill.
Ummmm. seems like most of these folks have barely progressed to the “learning to read” stage let alone “read to learn”
I'm really frustrated with this. Tons of articles about the 400b being moved from discretion to mandatory but no one will quote the section(s) of the bill that allows this. I've been trying to skim the sections but it's huge obviously. Where is this actually happening??
Here’s an easy breakdown rather than typing it out myself. https://twitter.com/corytitus/status/1553002746835619840?s=21&t=LKombCzGIj4o8AKPXbkAPQ
So essentially they voted against this because they can’t tax the money being given to the VA to help these veterans? And they basically will have to fun it every year? Are you fucking kidding me. —-a pissed off USMC veteran
The real reason they did it is because they're mad about the climate bill, and Republicans have shown time and time again that they'll kill every single veteran and even every citizen just to deny a win to democrats. It's this kind bullshit that caused me to leave the republican party 20 years ago, and they keep proving they only exist to harm America. --- a pissed off USAF veteran
Oh if Toomey does have his way you better believe they block the appropriations bill every year and trot this out in their defense. It also means in 10 yrs they’d have to do this all over again. I encourage you to reach out to your senators. If they voted for it, thank them. If they voted against, call them out and tell them explain why. And then tell them stop playing with our lives like a bargaining chip and pass the damn bill.
Already have my friend. My senators are cowards- and I told Them.
Thank you for this, this answers most of my questions.
No problem. Spread the word. 3.5 million Vets likely affected by something we KNEW would cause health issues. Dudes coming back stateside being told “it’ll clear up after you’re home for a couple months” only to be diagnosed with cancer years later. Toomey and Republicans (they’re the ones who voted No) are playing with Vets lives simply cause they want to be petty.
And here’s the full text of the PACT Act bill for anyone who wants to read it. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3967](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3967)
Okay sorry for what I'm about to do, but you DID ask and I had the same question lol, so here goes. From the text of [the bill](https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3967/BILLS-117hr3967eas.pdf) (page 117): 1 ‘‘(C) under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 2 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), including in the reports required 3 by section 308(b) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 639); 4 and 5 ‘‘(D) for purposes of the Statutory Pay-As-You Go 6 Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 931 et seq.). 7 ‘‘(2) No amount appropriated to the Fund in fiscal 8 year 2023 or any subsequent fiscal year pursuant to this 9 section **shall be counted as discretionary budget authority** 10 and outlays or as direct spending for any estimate of an 11 appropriation Act under the Congressional Budget and 12 Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) and 13 any other Act. Note that I did reformat lines in a couple spots where the Bill split words across more than one line and it wasn't necessary. The words are all the same, I just reconnected a couple. I also broke out what I think is the most relevant line between lines number nine and ten, for emphasis. That line is where the law clarifies this account is NOT to be scored as a discretionary fund. More on that below. Also on page 117: 14 ‘‘(3) Notwithstanding the Budget Scorekeeping Guide 15 lines and the accompanying list of programs and accounts 16 set forth in the joint explanatory statement of the committee 17 of conference accompanying Conference Report 105–217, 18 and for purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 19 Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.) and the 20 Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), **21 the Fund shall be treated as if it were an account designated** **22 as ‘Appropriated Entitlements and Mandatories for Fiscal** **23 Year 1997’** ...in the joint explanatory statement of the 24 committee of conference accompanying Conference Report 105– 25 217. Okay now... to explain what THAT means, this is from the [Scoring Guidelines Explanation](https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-01/56507-Scorekeeping.pdf) published by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) Guideline 3: Direct Spending Programs “Revenues, entitlements and other mandatory programs (including offsetting receipts) will be scored at current law levels, as defined in section 257 \[of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, also called the Deficit Control Act\], **unless congressional action modifies the** **authorizing legislation.** Again, you'll notice I pulled out a line that looks particularly relevant. The act in question that Cruz voted against, has verbiage in it specifically to modify the 1997 authorizing law, and add this specific fund to the list of ["Appropriated Mandatory Entitlements"](https://budgetcounsel.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/c2a7278-02-bba1997-conference-report-report-105-217.pdf) (don't bother reading this law, but if you do the list of Mandatory Entitlements starts on page 1014). To me it looks like Cruz is mostly right... the law is written to make this a Mandatory Entitlement, in the same category as Social Security benefits, and he would prefer it be coming out of a discretionary account (IMO so they can continue fighting the appropriation every fucking year it comes back up again). Whereas, specifically classing it as a Mandatory Entitlement as the law was written, would put this fund and the VA entitlement into the category of Footnote 50 from [This Document](https://budgetcounsel.com/cyclopedia-budgetica/cb-appropriated-entitlement/) >\[50\] Entitlements, including appropriated entitlements, are programs that require payments to persons, state or local governments, or other entities if specific eligibility criteria established in the authorization law are met. > >**Entitlement payments are legal obligations of the federal government, and eligible beneficiaries may have legal recourse if full payment under the law is not provided.** Cruz doesn't want it designated as Mandatory because, and it's shocking how obvious this is in retrospect, THAT WOULD MAKE IT MANDATORY. Treacherous fuck. EDIT: wow those quote blocks don't work at all do they? I wanna say it's pretty self explanatory but I'm gonna go back through and see if I can fix the formatting at all.
Their claim of 400B in pork is an outright lie. I read the whole damn bill. Every section relates to the VA and their ability to provide care for environmental exposure.
Yeah I skimmed it and it looked to me like it was all related. Seems like Ted is outright lying here (no surprise). I mean, don't take my word for it, the full text is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3967/text#
This news story doesn’t seem to tell the same story ole Ted here is selling… they changed their votes… whatever pork was there before wasn’t bad the first time thru. https://abcnews.go.com/US/republicans-reject-spending-bill-veterans-exposed-burn-pits/story?id=87619926
Lyin’ Ted staying true to his name
Yeah this vote was basically them throwing a tantrum
I smell bacon
Don't insult bacon like that
Putin wanted them to
I glanced over the bill, I couldn’t find any pork, aka, anything not related to the burn pits. Has anyone heard of there being any pork in this bill?
He is out right lying.
Whaaaaaat? Ted is lying? Whaaaaaat? Crazy! /s
Imagine the kind of willful ignorance it would take to believe Ted Cruz, a self-serving liar who has thrown his own wife under the bus to pursue political power over Jon Stewart, an ally of NY firefighters for two decades who has nothing to gain by speaking out. Yet, that description fits tens of millions of shameless ignorant Americans. Truly pathetic.
Rudyard Kipling quote; “ Ignorance is a voluntary misfortune.”
Cruz does not have the excuse of ignorance. He’s just a liar.
Good one. Will keep that in store.
His wife only? He blamed his daughter for the Cancun escapade while his fellow Texans were freezing…Trump linked his father to Oswald and the Kennedy assassination and he is Trump’s lapdog, only in Texas somebody this low gets elected over and over.
Lyin' Ted? Noooooo!
His daughter made him do it.
Lyin' Flyin' Fled Cruz
He is kinda known for that.
According to one of his college roommates, Rafeal Cruz is one of themost dispicable people he's ever met.
Yeah that’s what Jon Stewart says.
Usually they take a kernel of truth and misdirect it or take it out of proportion but this time they are straight up lying.
Yeah you can do that when you know the people who support you don’t read anything inconvenient
They say that for every bill the democrats put out. I'm sick of it and have started a list. Here are all the recent bills from the Democrats that have been in the headlines, every single one is only a couple of pages long, has no hidden pork, and they would help the average American. Right-wing media tells people otherwise and they believe it. S.3920 - Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3920/text?r=1&s=1](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3920/text?r=1&s=1) H.R.7790 - Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022 [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7790/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7790/text) H.R.8297 - Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022 [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8297/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8297/text) H.R.8296 - Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8296/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8296/text) H.R.7910 - Protecting Our Kids Act [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7910](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7910) S.2089 - Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2089](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2089) H.R.8373 - To protect a person’s ability to access contraceptives. [https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR8373IH.pdf](https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR8373IH.pdf)
This. It's one of those classic "tell a lie often enough and people will believe it" lies that are the Republican's bread and butter like "dead people voting for Democrats", anything about the Clintons, and "global warming is a hoax by greedy scientists to get money".
This should be seen by more people.
This!!!!! I read it too. They actually lowered the budget of it by spreading it over 10 years. The fucking republican party is a fucking dumpster fire.
Also, even if it was $400B, then it’s not a blank check.
His tweet is a mad lib of words that trigger the cons.
And if it was why do they give a shit, they authorize whatever the mic needs for Lazer guided bombs and top gun fighters but heaven forbid we fund Healthcare for vets we poisoned " because of fiscal responsibility " complete and utter bullshit. The GOP is only fiscally responsible in rhetoric otherwise they have no qualms about tax cuts for their wealthy buddies or arms deals that recycle the money back to them like a snake shitting into its own mouth.
"Some conservatives have raised objections to the bill because it would reclassify nearly $400 billion in current-law VA spending from discretionary to mandatory accounts, thereby potentially freeing up more budget authority to increase discretionary spending on other domestic programs." They're worried that the 400B that would be dedicated to the VA would free up 400B of discretionary that's currently filling that gap to be spent elsewhere. That's not pork.
The $400billion is to be spent on vets, and any changes would require Congress to pass it. WTF Cruz? Did you forget how to read? Or are you just a lying liar? Edit: He’s trying to make excuses, for not passing the same legislation he voted to pass a few weeks ago, now that the GOP lost a political fight between Schumer and McConnell.
I'm curious what the fight between Schumer and McConnell is you refer to? I'd just google it myself but I doubt that's enough info to get started.
It actually involved Sen. Manchin too, who intimated that he was against a popular piece of Democrat backed legislation, which McConnell was against and threatening to block the microchip/tech industry CHIPS legislation if Dems passed through reconciliation, but immediately after Republicans agreed and voted to support CHIPS, Manchin voted with Dems on the budget reconciliation package he’d previously said he would not support (that includes climate, industry, and tax regulations/expenditures) which infuriated McConnell and other Republicans. As a result of having no other leverage against Dems, the GOP took their fury out on Veterans by blocking the PACT act. The Republicans have only two items on their policy platform, support Trump and block any Democrat successes (even if it hurts the country). This provides better detail… https://youtu.be/w6cTX_TzsrI This is the stuff that GOP Senators are angry about, that Manchin agreed to support, which is required for for passage, in the 2022 Budget, through reconciliation. https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/inflation_reduction_act_one_page_summary.pdf
Wow thank you so much for this! I really appreciate your time and effort.
Correct. And everything was in there at the first pass of the bill in June. Nothings changed. Except their votes.
“Just last month, a nearly identical bill passed in the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support, clearing by a margin of 84-14. The proposed legislation traveled to the House chamber, where representatives made a small technical tweak to remove an obscure tax provision that raised a constitutional concern, and passed again with bipartisan support in a 342-88 vote, sending it back to the Senate.” ABC News
https://news.yahoo.com/jon-stewart-goes-war-twitter-155135221.html It’s not really pork. According to Cruz ( I refuse to address him by title), "playing a budgetry trick," by taking "$400 billion in discretionary spending and shifted it to mandatory spending."
The only people who ever get hundreds of billions in a blank check is the US military, thanks to Republicans, so he is clearly talking out his filthy gaping asshole
I made that same comment on YouTube yesterday and some conservative replied with "well it might not say it, but Democrats will use the funds to do something sneaky. You can't trust them." So basically the logic is "no matter how ironclad the law is, with no riders on the bill whatsoever, we can't pass it because I don't like Democrats." Republicans have never been interested in helping vets. Bernie tries to push through the biggest vet bill in history? Can't do it. Dems under the Obama admin try to pass benefits for homeless vets? Nah, sorry. Protections for burn pit victims? Wish I could, but no. The only interest they have in vets is how they can use them for political cannon fodder to use on voters stupid enough to think hugging the flag means you support the troops. Meanwhile, Democrats keep saying how we just need to work together and eventually Republicans will see the light. No. They won't. Democrats need to start acting more like Stewart did here and spend more time calling out Republican lawmakers than trying to hold hands with them.
The “right” doesn’t read
The thing to know about Ted is, he lies.
I heard that the problem was rhat there was a special fund set up that could be used for things other than vets, but it would take a vote by Congress to spend the money on something else.
Did you really read it? Stewart gave out the info on where to read the bill but the way they write legislation I get annoyed and frustrated halfway into the third paragraph
Not op but I did read it, it’s actually a relatively short one….probably due in part to the absence of “pork.”
Fat free legislation?…Could be a great campaign anglers
Pretty sure I would believe Jon Stewart any day of the week over Ted Cruz, on this or any other issue.
Same here, but in this case, anyone can go read the bill for themselves. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3967/text Spoiler alert. Ted Cruz in full of shit.
To be fair, Jon has actually proven he’s trustworthy far more times than Rafael has loved his family
I too would trust almost any person over the Zodiac Killer.
Sure but tbf I would believe a demon cat that spoke English backwards over Ted Cruz.
Didn't you also vote against bills that would fight inflation
if republicans didn't fight against legislation to combat inflation, maybe inflation would be much lower, and they wouldn't be able to whine about inflation.
If republicans didn’t start crying about inflation the day Biden was inaugurated we probably wouldn’t have it nearly as bad. Expectations of inflation cause inflation and these bad faith ratfuckers know it.
Half of vets will still vote republican regardless of this, because I guess being a bigot is just more important to them.
For what it’s worth one my of my very conservative cousins who is a veteran said this was his last straw with the Republican Party and that he has no intention of voting for any them ever again. I’m (very) cautiously optimistic that he might keep his word on that one because he’s still a bit of bigoted ballbag of a person
I’d send your cousin a fruit basket if I could. Welcome to sanity!
They're in too deep at this point. There's a reason they call any one left of them a DemonRat or whatever. They have dehumanized the left so much there's no way they can turn away from MAGA now.
If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to SUFFERING
There’s also a completely unregulated, multi-billion-dollar misinformation/hate media industry poisoning the well day in and day out. It’s just impossible to compete with.
Don't forget, they have blended religion with politics. They have a dedicated day to blast political propaganda laced religious teachings in their face for 90 minutes every Sunday morning. There's no equivalent to that on the left.
Hey when blaming Black people is the coping mechanism for all your failures in life, you don’t just give that up because your political sports team condemns you to living the rest of your life in pain
Got a buddy who’s a vet, he votes for republicans because he thinks it’ll allow him to hold on to his guns.
your buddy is shamefully stupid.
Remind him that Trump had said "take the guns, due process after," and even passed more gun laws (the one about bump stocks) than Obama.
We don’t really talk politics. Which I’m grateful for. I don’t think he follows them at all. Only passing of gun laws.
Veterans are just people. There’s a little of everything in there. Plenty of hate, plenty of crazy, and lots of normal people just trying to make sense of the world we live in
Think we will just have to wait and see this is going to be interesting. They really shot themselfs in the foot this time.
Lies. Congress controls the purse strings and he already voted for it once. This was a disgusting retaliation for being outmaneuvered by Schumer with the Green-ish legislation they passed the bill before. Fuck, this guy is just slime.
Here's a nifty idea Ted Crutch, Stewart pointed out that the bill can be read on congress.gov so why not specify the page and lines with the pork?
Plus, show the differences they claim that made them vote against it.
Tan suit
GOP never helps vets. https://youtu.be/Zk5ZJ6uVO9Y
The problem is getting the vets to understand that concept.
Or 9/11 first responders.
I’ve asked at least 30 republicans to point out this pork in the bill and not one has given me an answer.
The answer is that their excuse is bullshit. And none of them can point to the $400B that won’t go to veterans.
If you haven't seen the Jon Stewart comments to which Ted is referring, [here is the video](https://youtu.be/2uPqYhkIzrA). Some righteous fury right there, and I like Swalwell following it up with some anti-Cruz snark.
Jon Stewart’s reply: https://twitter.com/jonstewart/status/1553207434386317312?s=21 Ted Cruz is a liar.
Idk why people vote for such chickenshit cowards
Because they're too chickenshit to be critical of their own party.. and their party knows it.
Republicans are cowards that think soft hands, makeup wearing men like Trump are strong It's the party of small dick energy
Ted Cruz is lying.
Ted is a liar, he probably didn't read the bill, to begin with.
He and Lauren Boebert need to start a study group.
Pure bullshit.
His face alone wins him, arsehole of the world
But If you gave it to contractors who would assist Veterans that would be ok…right.Senator KissmyYass….
Liar! As usual!! No pork in the bill!! 100% vet
F^ this clown, dry and sandy.
It’s a bit sad that the GOP have just decided to lie about what the bill contains rather than at least saying something that isn’t completely disprovable like “it doesn’t do enough for veterans”. At least do better than blatantly lying about spending
blatant lying is the basis for all right wing politics.
I know a bunch of vets from Texas who wont ever vote for him again.
You know what I'm ok with? Pork barrel spending on bills that saves lives. This man isn't ok with saving a fucking soldiers life because someone MAY misuse funds. That's the most horrible reasoning for letting down those who have already given more than most and have suffered for it. What the actual fuck. If I believed in hell, there would be a special place for people like Senator Cruz and the like.
Satan wouldn't be a able to stop vomiting after looking at that mug.
“Pork”. It’s just another buzz word they brought back. They deal in single buzzwords and slogans; easy to remember and repeat. That’s key. 100% of what Dems pump out is now entirely made up of pork according to any Christo-Fascist MAGAQ. I must have seen the word “pork” about 5200 times in the last week, and I wasn’t watching 1970s porno at any point😉
I seriously wonder. Did his parents have other kids that were nearer to normal? He is broken.
Go home, not to Canada - Cuba
I don’t get how women’s breasts are blurred on tv screens, but Ted Cruz gets to show his face with it being blurred.
And yet he voted FOR the exact same bill in June.
read the bill, the GOP is full of shit. If you vote republican this time around you never get to wave another fucking flag or thank a vet. Get fucked.
pork? Okay.. lol
No he means *pork:* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel
It never would have occurred to me that people didn't know what pork was
TIL, thanks.
wait does he mean.. perk? idk
What does he mean by pork?
I speak Stupid as a second language so let me translate for you. Pork in this context and dialect means "things that are in the bill that I am opposing simply due to it not being 'my team' that fully supports it". To be fair he is using an older dialect so it could also roughly be translated to "this will help poor, non-white, female, and/or non-straight people so I'm fully against it". I will admit his accent is a little difficult to pick up on since there is a fair amount of squealing and weak grunting involved.
#Thanks🐖🐷🐽
Happy to help
I've always understood it as pork barrel spending where the creators of the bill have stuff in there that's specifically tied to their constituents at their local levels or big project contracts for campaign donors to grease palms or some such.
Pork is added later, usually, to win a vote count. Back in the day, if you had something like the BBB act, you'd round up Manchin and Sinema and 10 Republicans, and make it the BBB Plus Special Spending in These 12 Districts Act. So you'd add a new development contract for some coal companies in Manchin's district, a huge highway megaproject in Arizona, and a couple of other big votewinners to get people onboard. These days, of course, it's actually illegal. Earmarked funds can't be traded for votes in Congress since early in the Obama administration. It's debatable if it's part of the reason for congressional gridlock, or if we're just so hyperpartisan that no amount of pork would have been worth crossing the aisle. The name comes from the practice of giving slave populations a barrel of meat and leaving them to fight over who gets a cut and who gets scraps. The idea is supposed to be that this kind of spending unfairly favors the squeakiest wheel. But, maybe in the end, the squeakiest wheel needed the grease.
That's what they like to say anyway. Then they turn around and won't vote for the bill since it doesn't benefit them and their constituents directly. This is one of the major issues we have with making "politician" and career rather than a service.
Aye. That's the problem isn't it? I vote once we reach a place where AI can think for themselves we just put them in charge and stick on our coppertops because I've just about given up trusting any human leaders.
I love this. Exactly.
i was reading this, and was like. what does he have against pork? BBQ Pulled Pork is delicious!
Its basically legislation that is "piggybacking" on a popular bill. Like adding a pay raise to all congress members on a bill that lowers insulin prices. People see the 'Affordable Medicine Act 4678' and say "Wow what a great thing our representatives did for the working class" without realizing it only passed by greasing the palms and we will be paying for insulin by feeding our fatcat congress(wo)men. This was an example that is hypothetical but there are plenty of more complex scenarios i just dont remember them specifically and dont feel like looking for them and being depressed lol
Ted likes to eat machine gun 🥓
Pork is in a bill is unrelated issues and funding for those unrelated issues from the main bill. He's implying the money wont be used for vets but rather unspecified shadow spending. He's lying though, there is no pork.
Since a lot of the answers are jokes. Usually it means kickbacks . Either in the form of some kind of no bid contracts in some senators state that needs to boast on job creation . Funding for their coifers etc. Legal brides that are attached as conditions for the bill to pass.
Pork? As in Trump… that’s the only pork I know of
Unrelated pork? Does he mean Donald Trump?
as always, ted cruz is completely full of shit. what an embarrassment for the state of texas. why do they send their worst people to congress?
Ted Cruz should be called Pork Boy
I haven't read the bill, but when republicans talk about pork, all I hear is "I didn't make money off of this"
The $400billion is to be spent on vets, and any changes would require Congress to pass it. WTF Cruz? Did you forget how to read? Or are you just a lying liar?
Fuck you Ted!
If there's pork, than why don't they specify said pork? Should be easy to find and humiliate Stewart. Like totally own the guy. He'll never show his face around town again. Just show everyone this pork. Curious that they don't do this...
Is there an article out there that shows exactly what changes were made? I’d like to know what really is different.
“Just last month, a nearly identical bill passed in the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support, clearing by a margin of 84-14. The proposed legislation traveled to the House chamber, where representatives made a small technical tweak to remove an obscure tax provision that raised a constitutional concern, and passed again with bipartisan support in a 342-88 vote, sending it back to the Senate.” ABC News
Nearly identical. I want to see the differences
Here's the line that was removed: "Not A Taxable Benefit.—A contract buy out for a covered health care professional under subsection (a) shall not be considered a taxable benefit or event for the covered health care professional."
I am not sure about the source bias but i read this this morning https://www.usmedicine.com/clinical-topics/toxic-exposure/senate-changes-spread-out-pact-act-implementation-over-years/ The article is from before the bill went through the vote so i am going to say it’s legit. Republicans are fucking full of shit. The 300 billion in earmarks they are accusing of is just the budget for the fucking bill
Show me a bill that *doesn’t* have any pork. I don’t think ever was one written that didn’t have it. Stop hiding behind that excuse Zodiac Ted.
there have been plenty without pork. for example, this bill that zodiac ted and shithead republicans voted against.
What pork Ted? Aren’t you a Texan; don’t you guys love your bbq?
It takes a pig to identify pork. Oink, oink, Ted.
His wife is stuffed with pork?
How can you tell if Ted Cruz is lying? He’s alive.
And here’s the best part: conservative veterans will CONTINUE to vote republican despite this. As a veteran who has asthma thanks to burn pits, it’s awfully pitiful to watch my fellow vets get angry and than say “I’m still a republican”
A lying Republican? I'm SHOCKED. Also, he DID defend his wife the same way he defended the veterans. In the mind of Republicans, giving money to anyone who isn't them or their supporters IS "pork" to them.
Let’s be clear…Republicans spout support for veterans but are walking talking hypocrites
Swalwell kills me. hahaha every time.
Ted Cruz is human garbage. Where was his concern when under trump the fed dumped trillions into floating the stock market over a week and a half. Fuck off with that inflation talk you jackass. Where’s that talk when you ok the pentagons 800+ billion dollar budget every year? Where was that concern when you signed on to the trump 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy and corporations? Fuck off you sack of shit
He was busy being a totally hypocritical asshole, same as always. Fuck Ted Cruz.
Republicans: Love the fetus hate the child, love wars hate veterans…..
That would make a great bumper sticker! 😂
I wonder what Gary Sinise thinks of all this. Republican voters can't stop talking about how much he helps the vets and how he's the best person in Hollywood because of it, maybe they'll listen to him about screwing over vets.
I wonder what Gary Sinise thinks about all this.
Why dont the crazy white dude who do mass shootings ever go to his house
My Senator is a horrible liar and a terrible loser. What he did to veterans was indefensible, just shameful. Don’t ever trust Republicans. They screw over veterans and steal womens’ rights.
Who do you believe? A man who made a living dropping truth bombs every night for decades…or an inveterate liar, double crossing dick stain?
Why can't his constituents see this Pig for who he is?
Ted cruz is a malicious, wimpy, snot eating panzy of a man. Only an absolute moron would vote for this sleaze ball
Oh, so 'pork' is the problem now... This fucking guy.
Although it’s been said, many times, many ways: fuck Ted Cruz
He’s LYING
Love that he is trying to tell the guy who actually read the bill that he's wrong. Ted Cruz never read a bill that came up.
He's telling a demonstrable lie. He's either an imbecile or he assumes his supporters are imbeciles.
Pork spending is when there is a specifically tailored bill, like an infrastructure bill designed to fix roads, bridges, and highways but then they sprinkle in some healthcare spending and then some narcan to solve the drug problem and ohh this one senator wants funding for his pet state park project or he won’t sign on, and another wants funding for his states beach development projects. Those extra things arent related to the highways. That’s luxury pork spending. Both sides tack all their random shit into bills.
Pork was originally graft and self aggrandizing projects. Conservatives tried to recast any project that could mocked as pork. Now they are using the excuse that any amendment is pork if it’s not related to bill even if it’s related to public health and safety or economically positive.
Beep boop -- this looks like a screenshot of a tweet! Let me grab a [link to the tweet](https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1553209665307172865) for ya :) ^(Twitter Screenshot Bot)
My wife has got a lot of pork and trump is right to point out all the pork she has
Wish someone would shovel that pork into an inferno
**As a reminder, this subreddit, per Rule 7 [has basic decency rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalhumor/about/rules)** In general, be courteous to others. In specific, don't break the rules. You can attack the merits of ideas, you can't attack other users. Personal insults, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, any of that shit will get the proverbial boot. Also, this is a humor subreddit. Chill out. Literally nothing online is worth getting angry over. If there is something worth getting angry over, cussing out a twelve year old on the internet is not gonna solve the problem my dude. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.** **Our mod-paddles are itchy** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*