posted
House Republicans prepared to do the ‘immoral thing’ and vote against war supplemental. The Hill reports that the House Republicans “are preparing to vote en bloc” against President Obama’s war funding bill, representing a striking 180-degree turn:
For years, Republicans portrayed the bills funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as matters of national security and accused Democrats who voted against them of voting against the troops. In 2005, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) went so far as to say sending troops into battle and not paying for it would be an “immoral thing to do.” And just last year, more House Republicans voted for the war supplemental bill than did Democrats, who opposed the legislation because it did little to wind down the military effort in Iraq. But Republicans say this year is different.
The GOP objects to increased funding to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations through the financial crisis, funding the GOP is calling “a global bailout.” That the financial crisis was largely caused by the United States doesn’t seem to trouble House conservatives.
UpdateAtrios: "I'm so old I can remember when voting against war funding bills - some of them anyway - was an America-hating thing to do. The Hill reports that the House Republicans “are preparing to vote en bloc” against President Obama’s war funding bill, representing a striking 180-degree turn:
For years, Republicans portrayed the bills funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as matters of national security and accused Democrats who voted against them of voting against the troops. In 2005, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) went so far as to say sending troops into battle and not paying for it would be an “immoral thing to do.” And just last year, more House Republicans voted for the war supplemental bill than did Democrats, who opposed the legislation because it did little to wind down the military effort in Iraq. But Republicans say this year is different.
The GOP objects to increased funding to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations through the financial crisis, funding the GOP is calling “a global bailout.” That the financial crisis was largely caused by the United States doesn’t seem to trouble House conservatives.
UpdateAtrios: "I'm so old I can remember when voting against war funding bills - some of them anyway - was an America-hating thing to do
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what Democrats are putting along with the bill. You very well know its just not a war funding bill. There is probably a ton of crap with it, and probably the worst.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's always probably this...and probably that with you. Why not show a fact once in a while, and I am not talking about the Rush line of BS.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio) told colleagues: "Just think about this a moment. We're going to provide the International Monetary Fund $108 billion that we don't have. So we're going to borrow $108 billion from the Chinese, we're going to give it to the IMF, and we're going to expect our kids and grandkids to pay for it. Americans aren't buying this. And I tell you what: Republicans in the House aren't going to buy it, either.
uh, this is another good example of blatant lying.
we aren't "GIVING" anybody anything. that money is not being given away. notice they use the term "providing" in an attempt make it sound like it's being given away.
in any case? they did the same thing last year:
Bush Signs War Supplemental, Cements Fiscal Legacy
Contrary to his assertion that he would "not accept a supplemental over $108 billion," President Bush signed a $257 billion war supplemental spending package on June 30. The bill will fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the remainder of the fiscal year (ending Sept. 30) and through the first several months of the next president's term. In addition to war appropriations, the quarter-trillion dollar measure includes funds for a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance benefits; expansion of the GI bill; aid for Midwest flooding victims; and a collection of various domestic, non-defense discretionary programs. (For a more detailed breakdown of the various components of the bill, read our June 24 Watcher article on the war supplemental). The supplemental package also blocks a set of new administration Medicaid rules that would cut funding to states for the low-income health care program
and the year before:
President Signs War Supplemental with Increased Support for City Priorities
By Larry Jones June 4, 2007
After President Bush vetoed a war supplemental appropriations bill on May 1, Congressional leaders decided to drop controversial troop withdrawal language and sent the President a new $120 billion proposal which was signed into law on May 25. The earlier measure was vetoed not only because it contained language establishing timetables for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, but because it included significantly more than the President requested for a number of domestic programs, including several city priorities. In the final compromise, the President agreed to retain most of the increases added by Congress. These included increases for a number of domestic programs including homeland security, hurricane and disaster relief, and children health insurance. However, funds included for low-income energy assistance, which appeared in the earlier version of the supplemental, were dropped.
The supplemental includes $6.270 billion to help rebuild the Gulf Coast and assist victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Included in this amount is $4.1 billion for FEMA Disaster Relief, which is $700 million more than President Bush requested. Funds for FEMA would be available to cover the cost of waiving certain state and local matching requirements for FEMA disaster assistance programs currently being provided in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
The supplemental also includes language extending the availability of Social Service Block Grant funds to states until September 30, 2009; extending authority to waive certain regulations to facilitate the reopening of schools in hurricane-impacted school districts; and extending the current waiver authority for tenant contributions and income verification for the disaster voucher program until December 30, 2007.
Congress also added $1.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to repair existing levees and other infrastructure damaged by the hurricanes. Another $320 million
quote:Originally posted by Pagan: It's always probably this...and probably that with you. Why not show a fact once in a while, and I am not talking about the Rush line of BS.
posted
108 billion Military funding bill. 80 billion goes to the troops, guess you can ask for more than that.
A whole bunch goes to swine flu vaccines and some program to promote buying fuel saving auto's.
The international monetary fund part is suppose to be a loan fund for third world countries. I hope all thsoe other countries that pledged money ponie up too.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!! Posts: 3317 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
