McCarthy vows to strip Ukraine money from Pentagon bill after Greene ‘no’ vote

[Social Media]

 

 

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced Friday that he will strip funding for Ukraine out of a Pentagon spending bill after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) joined conservatives in blocking the legislation from advancing earlier this week.

McCarthy said he would remove the $300 million for Ukraine currently in the Pentagon appropriations bill and hold a separate vote on the funding.“It would be out and voted on by itself,” McCarthy said when asked about the Ukraine aid in the Pentagon appropriations bill.

 

The Speaker’s announcement comes one day after a band of five conservatives opposed a procedural vote for the Pentagon appropriations bill, sinking the effort and preventing the legislation from moving forward. It was the second time this week that hard-liners blocked the funding bill from advancing.

Votes on rules — which govern debate for legislation — are normally partisan and predictable matters, with the majority supporting voting “yes” and the minority party voting “no.” It is very rare for rules to fail on the floor.

Greene, who has emerged as a close ally of McCarthy, was one of the Republicans who voted against the rule Thursday “because it funds the war in Ukraine.” It was a shift from her vote Tuesday, when the congresswoman supported the procedural vote to advance the Defense measure.

 

FULL STORY

[Chomper Higgot]

Kevin, behave yourself.

 

Putin’s enablers in the GOP are jerking you around.

Grow a set already.

 

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Kevin, behave yourself.

 

Putin’s enablers in the GOP are jerking you around.

Grow a set already.

 

Yep, MTG has McCarthy by the proverbials. Caving to the nut cases.

[Tug]

We all know who is telling keven what to do.I have a feeling republicans will be an endangered species next election cycle.I’ll bet it’s party time in the kremlin .all of that beeing said it ain’t gonna fly Ukraine will get what she needs to defend herself 

[Searat7]

USA aid to Ukraine is fine but I seriously question whether our allies are contributing their fair share. 

[ozimoron]

The red wave at the next election is going to look like Duma in Libya.  Nothing left.

[candide]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

Greene, who has emerged as a close ally of McCarthy, was one of the Republicans who voted against the rule Thursday “because it funds the war in Ukraine.”

It seems that Russia has influent allies in the House!

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, candide said:

It seems that Russia has influent allies in the House!

MTG is not Robinson Crusoe.

 

How Putin's oligarchs funneled millions into GOP campaigns

Campaign finance reports show troubling connections between a group of wealthy donors with ties to Russia and their political contributions to Trump and top Republican leaders.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/05/08/how-putin-s-oligarchs-funneled-millions-into-gop-campaigns/

 

The megadonor with Russian allies campaigns don’t talk about

Leonard Blavatnik and his wife, Emily, have given money to state parties and candidates across the political spectrum, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/11/why-campaigns-arent-dumping-a-billionaire-with-russian-friends-00016499

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by ozimoron

[wwest5829]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

 

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced Friday that he will strip funding for Ukraine out of a Pentagon spending bill after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) joined conservatives in blocking the legislation from advancing earlier this week.

McCarthy said he would remove the $300 million for Ukraine currently in the Pentagon appropriations bill and hold a separate vote on the funding.“It would be out and voted on by itself,” McCarthy said when asked about the Ukraine aid in the Pentagon appropriations bill.

 

The Speaker’s announcement comes one day after a band of five conservatives opposed a procedural vote for the Pentagon appropriations bill, sinking the effort and preventing the legislation from moving forward. It was the second time this week that hard-liners blocked the funding bill from advancing.

Votes on rules — which govern debate for legislation — are normally partisan and predictable matters, with the majority supporting voting “yes” and the minority party voting “no.” It is very rare for rules to fail on the floor.

Greene, who has emerged as a close ally of McCarthy, was one of the Republicans who voted against the rule Thursday “because it funds the war in Ukraine.” It was a shift from her vote Tuesday, when the congresswoman supported the procedural vote to advance the Defense measure.

 

FULL STORY

 

 

So much for my being told that the majority rules in a participatory democracy.

[wwest5829]

5 hours ago, Tug said:

We all know who is telling keven what to do.I have a feeling republicans will be an endangered species next election cycle.I’ll bet it’s party time in the kremlin .all of that beeing said it ain’t gonna fly Ukraine will get what she needs to defend herself 

Given the state of the current Republican Party, one can only hope that their candidates are soundly defeated.

[rudi49jr]

38 minutes ago, Searat7 said:

USA aid to Ukraine is fine but I seriously question whether our allies are contributing their fair share. 

This was posted in another thread, maybe that will answer your question. By the way, the answer is yes.

 

[heybruce]

40 minutes ago, Searat7 said:

USA aid to Ukraine is fine but I seriously question whether our allies are contributing their fair share. 

Most of them are contributing much more as a percent of their GDP:  https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/

[Purdey]

1 hour ago, Searat7 said:

USA aid to Ukraine is fine but I seriously question whether our allies are contributing their fair share. 

Hard to say as the eu is a group of countries, and they have promised €77.1 billion in financial aid, European Union institutions are the largest aid donors to Ukraine. Next comes the USA, a group of states, with €69.5 billion. 

[impulse]

1 hour ago, wwest5829 said:

So much for my being told that the majority rules in a participatory democracy.

So what, exactly, is undemocratic about stripping that spending out of a bill and voting on it separately?

 

[impulse]

58 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Most of them are contributing much more as a percent of their GDP:  https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/

Those are Aid Commitments.  Kinda like all NATO countries committed to spending 2% of GDP on defense...

 

Does anyone have a link for how much has actually been spent?

 

[novacova]

7 hours ago, Social Media said:

McCarthy said he would remove the $300 million for Ukraine currently in the Pentagon appropriations bill and hold a separate vote on the funding.

Good, being involved in a proxy war with Russia at its doorstep at this extent is utterly asinine. 

[novacova]

14 minutes ago, impulse said:

So what, exactly, is undemocratic about stripping that spending out of a bill and voting on it separately?

 

Nothing. Unless one is a warmonger and aching for a nuclear exchange.

Edited September 23, 2023 by novacova

[Srikcir]

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

Those are Aid Commitments.  Kinda like all NATO countries committed to spending 2% of GDP on defense...

 

Does anyone have a link for how much has actually been spent?

 

First, what data does Searat7 present? None.

He just "seriously question", a thought, an impulse, a muse. 

Even alleged Aid Commitments cited is then more evidentiary of the amount of aid intended for Ukraine, ie., substantial and worldwide. In reality those committments might be even higher when it comes to legislative approval.

[impulse]

8 minutes ago, novacova said:

Nothing. Unless one is a warmonger and aching for a nuclear exchange.

Hey, it may go that way under a dedicated vote on the topic (though I hope not).  But at least nobody will be able to duck responsibility by claiming they always hated that part, but voted for the bill as a whole.

 

[Eric Loh]

13 minutes ago, novacova said:

Nothing. Unless one is a warmonger and aching for a nuclear exchange.

That’s Putin’s line echoed by the ultra Maga scaremongers. 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, wwest5829 said:

So much for my being told that the majority rules in a participatory democracy.

While the GOP has majority in the US House, the Democrats have majority in the Senate. US Congress is bicameral like Thailand's National Legislative Assembly. So what passes in the House cannot become law unless passed by the majority of the Senate. Remember that in case if a tie vote in the Senate, the VPOTUS gets the tie breaking vote.

Even when a budget bill passes both chambers, the POTUS can veto the bill. That then means both chambers of Congress must vote again by a two-thirds of members voting (vs first pass by simple majority) to override the veto. 

So yes, majority does rule in the process but sometimes it has to be a "super" majority.

[wwest5829]

21 minutes ago, impulse said:

So what, exactly, is undemocratic about stripping that spending out of a bill and voting on it separately?

 

A determined Republican Party splinter group is currently holding Congress hostage to their very real threat to block the passage of the proposed budget bill hostage, as well as, shutting down the government (yes, I have a vested interest as I rely on my earned US Social Security monthly payments to live) unless they have their minority demands met. The current House Speaker (3rd in line to the Presidency) is under threat by that group with removal if he does not agree to their demands. What, exactly, is undemocratic about bringing the whole bill, as already proposed and written before the full House for a vote? Same as Sen. Tuberville blocking the Senate from voting on current military appointments, same as earlier, Sen. McConnell refusing to bring the President's SCOTUS nominee before the Senate to debate and vote. these are the types of actions giving credence to the idea that there is movement in the USA toward minority rule.

[novacova]

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

Hey, it may go that way under a dedicated vote on the topic (though I hope not).  But at least nobody will be able to duck responsibility by claiming they always hated that part, but voted for the bill as a whole.

 

Yeah yeah, if the so called “democrats” don’t get their way then they debase to name calling when they’re diaper burns flair up.

[wwest5829]

2 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

While the GOP has majority in the US House, the Democrats have majority in the Senate. US Congress is bicameral like Thailand's National Legislative Assembly. So what passes in the House cannot become law unless passed by the majority of the Senate. Remember that in case if a tie vote in the Senate, the VPOTUS gets the tie breaking vote.

Even when a budget bill passes both chambers, the POTUS can veto the bill. That then means both chambers of Congress must vote again by a two-thirds of members voting (vs first pass by simple majority) to override the veto. 

So yes, majority does rule in the process but sometimes it has to be a "super" majority.

And sometimes in history a dedicated, vocal minority presents a present and clear threat to a participatory democracy.

[novacova]

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

That’s Putin’s line echoed by the ultra Maga scaremongers. 

Yeah yeah, the maga thing really is annoying, good! But it’s not about your ultra maga hysteria. It’s a real concern of the nations in the region, Poland Hungary among others. But I can understand those who are obsessed and fixated on a single point are blind to world politics

[impulse]

6 minutes ago, novacova said:

But I can understand those who are obsessed and fixated on a single point are blind to world politics

I think the scientific term is "Derangement Syndrome".

 

Edit:  And I've always wondered who would object to Making America Great Again?

 

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by impulse

[Trippy]

7 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

McConnell refusing to bring the President's SCOTUS nominee before the Senate to debate and vote. these are the types of actions giving credence to the idea that there is movement in the USA toward minority rule.

If your talking about Garland I also thought McConnell's actions on that were pretty chickens**t, but in retrospect if Garland would ignore the rule of law and show preferential treatment to his friends like he does now, then thank goodness he's not on SCOTUS. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

So what, exactly, is undemocratic about stripping that spending out of a bill and voting on it separately?

 

I'm good with that.  Why isn't McCarthy doing it?

[Eric Loh]

10 minutes ago, novacova said:

Yeah yeah, the maga thing really is annoying, good! But it’s not about your ultra maga hysteria. It’s a real concern of the nations in the region, Poland Hungary among others. But I can understand those who are obsessed and fixated on a single point are blind to world politics

If you have any clue to world politics as regards to nuclear detente, you need to read the principles of Russia’s nuclear weapons policies. If you don’t understand the policies that was approved by Putin on the nuclear deterrent factor, you like the ultra Maga will continue to use scare tactics for political points. I can say that we are fortunate to have an experience and competent commander in chief in Biden who keep US troops out of the war arena. That’s major if you understand the Russia’ s policies. 

[heybruce]

53 minutes ago, novacova said:

Nothing. Unless one is a warmonger and aching for a nuclear exchange.

Who started the war?  Who has been threatening to go nuclear?