House approves nearly $14.5 billion in military aid for Israel. Biden vows to veto the GOP approach

If UpChuck Schumer and Bribed Joe insist on funding without offsetting cuts, voters back telling them to shove it.

'More say they would prefer Israel and Ukraine bills not pass at all rather than be paid for by borrowing more money.

• Similar percentages (49% and 50%) say they would prefer that the aid bills for Israel and Ukraine not pass at all rather than be paid for with deficit spending.
• 55% of America’s New Majority voters prefer that no aid bill for Israel pass at all rather than be paid for by borrowing money and adding to the deficit. This includes a majority of those undecided (50%) and planning to vote Democrat (51%) for Congress in 2024.
• 59% of America’s New Majority voters prefer that no bills for Ukraine pass at all if Congress and the president cannot agree on spending cuts to pay for it. This includes pluralities of those undecided (48%) and those planning to vote Democrat (48%) for Congress in 2024.'

'Swing of 13 points in favor of Republican candidate who insists on spending cuts to pay for additional aid to foreign countries.

• By 50%-34%, voters say they would be more likely to support a Republican candidate who insists on spending cuts to pay for additional aid to foreign countries over a Democrat who says additional aid should be paid for by borrowing more money and adding to the national debt.
• This is a Republican gain of 5 points and Democratic loss of 7 points from the generic ballot.
• 64% of New Majority voters prefer the Republican candidate, a gain of 5 points from the generic ballot.'

You presume that the issue terrain hasn't changed, when it's changed dramatically.

Speaker Mike and the GOP House are positioned with the voters on this, while the War Mongers with the GOP, Bribed Joe, and Upchuck Schumer are out of step with the Electorate.

 

Are you under the impression that IRS spending is a NET cost? How did you come to that conclusion?

 

POTATUS: No Aid to Israel Unless Ukraine Gets a Handout, Too

Bribed Joe says no $14B for Israel unless he gets $65B for Ukraine, for war material and to pay for the retirement pensions of Ukrainian government workers! Ukraine's bribes to Bribed Joe were the best money Ukraine ever spent.

If Bribed Joe wants to refuse the $14B in aid to Israel, that's his choice.

 

Israel's national debt per person is $35,000.

The US national debt is $100,000 per person.

Why should we be giving Israel money?

 

Of course Bribed Joe is going to refuse the aid to Israel, Israel didn't bribe him like Ukraine did.

 

Billions of dollars for defense of other countries, yet we cannot afford a basic wall for our US border.

 

By repeating partisan talking points, without thinking or knowing anything about them?

 

Laughable straw man-- this bill will never get through the Senate, without major changes.

Besides, we give Israel nearly $4 billion a year, every year, to begin with-- do they have so little military build up, to show for all that, they cannot even take on the rinky dink force of Hamas, without more aid? Maybe if they targeted their bombing, a little more than has so far been the case, they could make do.

 

That's on the Senate.

Big talk. The Senate hasn't shown that it can pass any Israeli Aid bill at all.

We know you guys want to shaft Israel, so go ahead, make our day.

 

Certainly, you are aware that such quid pro quo compromises are a standard part of the process of our legislative sausage. Of course, there is sufficient support for Israel aid. However:

1) Some would make that contingent upon providing aid for the Gazans, who have had their land, blown to bits. I know you are supporting Israel's claim, to have caused no more collateral damage than necessary, but the entire world, basically, disagrees with that impression. Not only have world leaders (like France's President Macron) said that Israel's bombing of civilians, on this scale, is unjustifiable, but our own Secretary of State Blinken has now said that too many Palestinian civilians are being killed; and President Biden, who has been extremely supportive of Israel (in the opinion of the Israelis, themselves), has said that these humanitarian pauses which Israel is now making a regular part of its campaign, should have started much sooner.

2) A majority of Congress also supports our continuing partnership with Ukraine. However, because of partisan shenanigans, that is no guarantee that they will get a chance to vote on it. That is up to the Speaker, in the House, and can be prevented by any Republicans in the Senate, if there are less than 60 Senators, willing to vote for cloture, to prevent a filibuster. By tying the two, it insures that both come to a vote.

Same goes for the Palestinian, humanitarian assistance, which is even more intrinsically tied to Israeli aid. That said, the Ukraine aid is related to Israeli aid, insofar as, if Israel is attacked, it would likely involve Russian allies, Iran and Syria (in which, there are still Russian troops).

3) It is the epitome of hypocrisy, that Republicans who complain about border security, would deny the administration the funds it needs to deal with the problem. So, as with Ukraine, the inclusion of funds for a situation which all agree, needs attention, is a way to get that to happen-- without it being blocked by a strictly political desire of some Republicans, to resist any ameliorative actions that would benefit the country, if these might also politically benefit the President. People who so put Party ahead of country, are a pox on our nation, and the type of politicians, of whom our government would be well ridden.

I think everyone (here) has already agreed, that our government expenditures should all be funded. The question is only over the timing of that funding. IOW, deciding how to pay for things, can be a very long, drawn out process. So, as I believe I've already responded to your earlier iteration of this point, it is impractical to condition "emergency" funding upon first deciding on the means used to defray the expense. There is no reason that process cannot ensure, after the emergency aid has been approved.

 

Only you guys, who want to kill all of the Palestinian people, could make such an allegation, against we guys, who simply do not believe that everything Israel does is, defacto, beyond reproach, and that the military aid to which Israel is "entitled," should not be limitless.

Once more, for the record, I am not against the further military aid, but I think it would be abominable to provide this, without also providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinians. But you go on showing your true colors, by not voicing your support for that.

 

Great song.

 

Seems like I have correct you already on this false claim.

 

1) Not that I recall.
2) Your statements, accusing me and others of supporting Hamas, based on our support for Palestinian civilians, would belie whatever denial you had, previous given.
3) I can provide my posts as evidence that I have already corrected you, as well, that I am not against Israel's right to defend itself-- and yet you ignore that, in your post.

So, from your mindset, apparently, everything you say is to be accepted without question or appraisal, as the gospel truth; and everything anyone else says, can be utterly ignored by you, and discarded as if meaningless, without your so much as addressing the opinions...That makes it no big surprise, that you find yourself in perfect alignment with Netanyahu's talking points-- birds of a feather, and all.

 

Scroll back. I've already had this conversation with a previous talking points distributor.

 

I don't know what a "points distributor" is, but feel free to link to it.

 

I'm not interested in senatorial shenanigan's of quid pro quo. If the issues are only important together, but not separately, then the Senate is really arguing that they are not that important. If the Senate is not going to pay for a bill that is paid for by either cuts or tax increases, then I guess it was never that important.

And no apparently we are NOT all agreed that government expenditures should be funded. Otherwise the senate wouldn't have declared dead on arrival a bill that actually does just that. Nor would you be opposing it.

It pretty clearly is not much of an emergency if the Senate is willing to reject the House bill and simply not have any bill if they don't get one bundled together and not paid for.

So it's not an emergency in that case.

 

So no scrolling back.. Got it.

 

Apparently someone didn’t get the memo that our govt is broke???

Mike Johnson is trying to save us, though:

Speaker Mike Johnson enters big government shutdown test days ahead of deadline

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/13/politics/government-shutdown-latest-johnson/index.html

House Speaker Mike Johnson’s two-step plan to keep the government open beyond November 17 will face a major hurdle on the House floor this week, a critical moment for the new speaker who is facing his first major legislative test with just four days to avert a government shutdown.

 

If you've got the goods you've got the goods. If you make me go looking for them, you don't got the goods.

 

If you jump into the middle of a thread and want everyone to repeat every comment made in the thread rather than simply go back and read them...I can't help you.

 

It is pretty easy to link to posts. But, hey, when I have time tomorrow, I might do your job for you and go back and find what you are obliquely referring to but refuse to actually cite.

 

Your questions should fade away in that case.

 

I doubt it. But we will see tomorrow.

 

@Lil Mike , no need to wait for tomorrow. None of your posts in this thread answer my question in the slightest. Were you maybe referring to another thread?