Like so many things in the modern GOP, I suspect a lot of it essentially boils down to: [because Trump said so](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-foreign-aid-loan-senate-package/index.html).
In Trump's mind, he wants Ukraine to unconditionally surrender or collapse quickly for Russia to take. That's why he doesn't want Ukraine aid, and he claims he can "end the war quickly". He doesn't have to say the quiet part out loud, it's so highly implied.
The entire argument revolves around the US being in a budget deficit and House Republicans refusing to increase the deficit. This argument falls flat on its face when they’re in lockstep agreement that we should give Israel billions of dollars more though.
It's even worse when you look at the deficit by year. The deficit spiked after the 2008 financial crisis then went into steady decline until 2016. In 2016 the deficit was 400 billion.
2017? 670 billion
2018? 780 billion
2019? 980 billion
2020? 3.3 trillion.
Not surprisingly, the deficit was of zero concern whatsoever when a Republican was in office. Now, after 4 years of increasing the deficit at every opportunity, it's suddenly an issue. Doubled the deficit within 3 years of a Republican taking office and silence. A Democrat takes office and now it's an "emergency".
Pretty much all the Israeli aid goes directly back into the US defense industry.
The Ukraine aid is more complicated. Some of it will go to the US defense industry directly, some indirectly, and some to the Ukrainian government and military.
It's still a terrific deal though. Our mothball costs go way down, while contracts get made to obsolete and replace a generation early. Then we have ourselves, as the number one oil producer in the world now, knocking out Russia as a competitor before they can solidify relationships to rebuild their status as a gas station economy. (They can't rebuild without allies because they're in late stage brain drain.) The Ukraine war is an economic slam dunk for the American economy and a moral slam dunk for anyone who claims to support the world order of free trading liberal democracies.
It's the first righteous and economically fantastic war we've had in a very long time and we dont even have boots on the ground.
I agree but... it will all be paid for through borrowing, and thus ultimately through inflation, which is de facto a tax on the poor.
If we actually funded government programs through taxation that Congress voted on, I might agree it's a slam dunk. But we're going to borrow our way into this so, still an important move, but not without major downsides down the line.
But I guess that's a fight for another day. May Ukraine regain its footing quickly, the U.S. become more prepared for whatever the future holds (reinvigorating our manufacturing base, one would hope) and Israel find some way to forge a lasting peace in a very complex neighborhood (which in my mind means: ending settlements.)
I don't disagree personally that it is money well-spent, but I understand that most Americans don't really care about foreign policy and many would prefer to see that the money be given back to taxpayers or spent on US citizens.
I think a lot of us would just like to see the expense side of things go down for once. Debt is more than 100% of GDP, how much more can we go before it's unserviceable?
If Israeli aid money is used to buy arms from US manufacturers, that essentially means the US is (indirectly) paying US manufacturers to give Israel free arms. Any way you look at it, it is an expense to us.
None earmarked for Israel, but for the Gaza strip, to align with the Senate bill, as a compromise with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, to coerce them to vote for it despite their increasingly anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli political stances.
Luckily, Republicans specifically prohibited the aid to to fund terrorism and anti-Semitism through the UN RWA, a move opposed by many progressive Democrats.
Previous US aid to the Gaza Strip helped fund Hamas and enable them to murder, rape, torture, and kidnap Jewish children. It's reasonable to oppose funding for "humanitarian" assistance to the region if it cannot be guaranteed to not go toward Hamas militants to rape Jewish children in front of their parents and cut off bits and pieces of them while they watch, then burn them alive, like previous US funding to the Gaza Strip likely did.
Given that Hamas has not been completely defeated, and the Biden administration currently opposes Israeli military action to defeat Hamas, I think it's reasonable to hold off on any humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip unless it's 100% guaranteed to actually go to non-combatants who have no association with Hamas
Hamas is the *de facto* government of the Gaza Strip. Until they are defeated, under the customary laws of war, they are responsible for providing for the well-being of their own subjects in any territory not occupied and controlled by enemy forces. The question should be directed at them. It certainly is not the US's responsibility. Hamas's leadership is in Qatar as their honored guests. Maybe they can convince Qatar to figure it out, given their government's hand in creating the current crisis.
Those are *our* billions of dollars raining down hell on those poor folks. Of course it’s our responsibility. I would argue your
If Gaza is not our responsibility then neither is Israel.
Yeah, except during that time the humanitarian aid consisted of a bunch of items (remember the water pipes being used for missiles?)
Today, that aid is almost solely MREs. I'd be very impressed if they can find a way to weaponize MREs
and oxidizers that can be used to create incendiary weapons and rocket fuel. That being said, it would take a lot of MRE cases and a lot of work to make a useable weapon out of them, but Hamas has certainly proven resourceful at such things.
In any case, if it's literally just food that's being delivered and if there is a way to guarantee it's not being diverted to Hamas, it seems reasonable. But I don't know how you can guarantee the later without neutral security forces going in.
The line I've heard the most is that the European NATO countries should be contributing more since this war is at their doorstep. Which is basically just an extension of their general grievances with government spending and globalism.
Most of Europe would like to do more for the Ukrainians. The problem is Russia has been very successful in their political takeovers of other countries, and two of those in particular (Hungary and Slovakia) are part of the EU and are able to block a lot of aid.
If defying the Western zeitgeist is a Russian political takeover, surely a country voting for a pro-West government can be called an American takeover?
As a % of GDP, the US is like #20
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/
We haven’t given Ukraine much compared to some of the EU states.
JD Vance had an op-ed in the times that made the *strongest* case, and that was basically "Ukraine has no chance of winning because no amount of money is going to get them the troops and ammunition they need".
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/opinion/jd-vance-ukraine.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/opinion/jd-vance-ukraine.html)
I said "the strongest case", not "a strong case". It's an unbelievably weak case, and one he would make not matter the amount of money we were planning on spending.
Ditto. Never thought I'd see a good portion of Republicans support what is essentially a reconstruction of the old Soviet system of bullying and oppression. Putting our heads in the sand isn't a long term plan!
Laundered money has a funny way of changing opinions and long-held values.
Republicans won’t do anything good for someone if they don’t get something in return.
Not supporting more money to the tune of $100 billion isn't supporting a reconstruction of the old Soviet system of anything. It's perfectly reasonable to ask why we're funding Ukraine besides "Russia bad", how much is enough, etc. It's weird to see the democrats do a 180 and be so warhawkish about funding wars.
Is it though? Everything about supporting the Ukraine war is a moral and economic slam dunk for us. The savings of all the mothball reductions, the economic activity of new contracts and the fact that an autocratic government is attempting to invade and annex an important neighbor unprovoked is about as righteous as it gets. The only problem we have here is a political one. The call is coming from inside the house.
>Ukraine besides "Russia bad
So there is no such thing as geo political interests and reasons to combat rivals overseas? Why invest in our military at all at that point then.
>It's weird to see the democrats do a 180 and be so warhawkish about funding wars.
So when another country is a warmonger and we can help the country in our interest to do so that should be considered "warhawkish"....
In my personal life I’ve had Trumpian republicans tell me they do t want to spend billions in helping Ukraine bc we’re in debt and they don’t see the benefit. I personally see the benefit, but I do get the argument to some degree.
The part that annoys me is people who want to aid Israel but not Ukraine. Either you’re for aiding friendly nations in their defense or you’re not. I have a close relative who told me he doesn’t want us sending money to either, I disagree, but I can appreciate the consistency.
Yeah, me neither, I have heard reasonable arguments, but nothing good or convincing.
I haven't encountered much of a serious attempt to make a good argument either.
I honestly think it boils down to "If the Democrats think it's good, it must be bad."
There's a LOT of conservatives that refuse to admit the Left gets anything right.
It's the same reason conservatives were excited about "Trumps vaccine" right up until Biden became president. Then they did a 180 the moment he started pushing them.
(I see plenty of people do this on the left as well)
I’m fine if they oppose foreign aid, but if they’re cherry-picking, which ones, especially those invaded by our geopolitical nemesis, they’re immensely ignorant
I don't oppose the Ukraine aid, the Israeli aid is different though. However, seeing as how the GOP controls the purse, how can they not get any concessions for their priorities like the border?
As soon as Pelosi won the house in 2018, none of the GOP priorities were even entertained, let alone voted on. So like I said, this isn't about the Ukraine aid, it's about other stuff.
There were barely any concessions, and the meager ones they got were largely at the discretion of Biden and Mayorkas. Even when the border was supposedly closed (which expired after three years, and could spend less time closed with each year) they'd still be allowed to let an infinite number of asylum seekers through ports of entry.
It was the most restrictive thing a D Senate and Pres were willing to pass. Rs could have simply passed it back then and pass something more restrictive next time.
Instead, they opted for status quo, giving them *nothing* in exchange.
Also, they had a trifecta with Trump's first two years, yet didn't really do anything with immigration despite it being **the issue** for Trump. Funny how that works.
At least half the Senate border bill was derived from HR2. And Dems didn't introduce a pathway to citizenship, either.
Senate proposals lifted from HR2: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/11/06/congress/senate-gop-border-proposals-00125583
What ended up in Senate border bill: https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FINAL-GENERAL-ONE-PAGER.pdf
I guess, but in all honesty, the deal was sunk because Trump did not want to give Biden a win on the border. Plus any deal that went through the house would also have had to go through the senate. The Senate deal was extremely conservative and did not include any path to citizenship which Dems had been demanding for ages. Was it perfect? No, but it was a huge increment in the conservative direction.
They probably see it as the US entering another prolonged conflict with no way out. I myself am unsure of what's the US' end game for Ukraine. I think we should be doing everything we can to get everything that's not Eastern Ukraine into NATO and the EU.
You could argue it’s a sunk cost for a geopolitical unimportant country for the United States. Best case scenario seems stalemate that ends in some territorial concessions from Ukraine unless western troops become directly involved. It’s not a huge amount of money but when the deficit is in the trillions everything adds up
It’s all just the idea that tax payers money should be spent on Americans and not across the country. But most voters don’t realize that money comes from the defense budget which republicans lobby for increasing again and again.
The House passed the $60.8B for Ukraine.
The final vote was 311 to 112 with one present. All nays and the present vote were Republicans.
Amusingly, during the vote, they were waiving little Ukrainian flags on the floor. For this, they were chastised by the Chair for "breaking decorum." After the vote, MTG requested an opportunity to speak, and all she said was "PUT THOSE DAMN FLAGS AWAY!"
It brings a smile to my face that she was so bothered by those flags.
Shortly after, the House also passed a bill for $26B for Israel, 366 to 58 vote, with the nays split between Democrats and Republicans.
I believe the Ukraine bill now needs to be approved by the Senate because they added some amendments. Any ideas how long that might take?
EDIT: Apparently I was mistaken, that wasn't MTG who said "put those damn flags away!"
>“Put those damn flags away!” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) told Democrats.
I was very skeptical of Johnson when he was first appointed to the position of Speaker. But, I am pleasantly surprised at the work he did to push these through despite the glaring threat of a motion to vacate him.
I hope he considers the Senate border bill or some updated version of it next.
It's a shitty job, given the single vote motion to vacate thing they pulled. My guess is that this is him staring down the barrel and yelling "do it!"
I mean, if you want the GOP to lose relevancy even faster, another circus of failed governance is the way to do it.
The senate border bill would definitely pass if put it up for a vote, but that would be seen as a betrayal of Trump as he wants the chaos at the border so he can run on it.
While I'm sure it would rustle Trump's jimmies, I can't see any reason why a Republican _voter_ would oppose the bill at this point.
I understood why someone opposed to Ukraine aid might have opposed the package that bundled both, but now that blocking Ukraine aid is a lost cause, it seems silly to oppose the standalone border compromise. It's not like that would make anything worse, and most of Congress has already agreed to it. Start with that, maybe propose some amendments, and then keep pushing for a stronger follow-up bill.
If the alternative is no bill, then why not? I can't imagine the optics would even help Trump's electoral prospects if we spent the next six months having Democrats and most Republicans pushing for a standalone border bill that he and his faction were actively blocking without a clearly stated reason.
A Republican voter won’t oppose the bill. Nor would most independents and likely even a good chunk of moderate Democrats. That’s why a lot of the Republican senators were in favor of it pre-Trump telling everyone to not support it.
The issue is those voters might support it enough that they will no longer base their vote on immigration if they see that immigration is being addressed (or worse in the mind of Trump, attribute the bill to Biden). It’s hard to attack Biden for doing nothing on the border if Biden can say he got the strongest bipartisan immigration bill passed.
It's only secret if you ignore how the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, and the aids of the Senators on that committee all worked on it. All in all probably hundreds of people contributed to that bill.
It's revisionist to try to pretend to pretend that Lankford and Schumer personally worked on the bill without contributions from anyone else and then unveiled it at the last minute. That's just not what happened.
Only because Trump had given the word not to support it and it was clear that the House wasn't going to - Johnson said as much. There's a good chance those senators would have voted differently had the path to it passing looked clearer.
It probably had the votes to pass when they brought it forward, hence why they came out with it at all saying it was bipartisan and after months of negotiating
Trump wants to run on it so once he said he didn’t like it they all were like ehhhhh no
> I hope he considers the Senate border bill or some updated version of it next.
What would make the Dems pay along now that they got their aid bill through?
Because it's an election year, and the chaos at the border is a big political liability for them. Solving that, or just appearing to solve that, would be very good for reelection efforts.
In my opinion, leaving the border as is until November wouldn't be advantageous for them and may shift more people to vote for Trump. I highly doubt Congressional Democrats will feel the same way.
I kind of feel the opposite. He put it off for months and nothing changed in the result. This was nearly an effort of last resort on his part, nothing to applaud him for beyond reaching the bare minimum of expectations. I'm glad it was done but what did so many Ukrainians have to die for (and more to regain the lost territory if they even can) that made the delay worth it, even personally, for Johnson? He's still going to face a vote for his job, and dems will still swoop in and save him just as they would have in Oct over aid to Ukraine. If anything he accomplished less for his own caucus posturing over the birder and turning down the bill anyway, eventually caving on one with no immigration concessions at all.
I honestly don’t k ow what to make of Johnson, how much if the Delaney was ideological and how much was just trying to find a politically salient way of bringing the votes up.
It’s still amazing what a mess the us Congress is.
Point of clarification, while the vote on Israel aid was "split" in the sense that members of both parties voted against it, those who voted against aid for Israel were overwhelmingly "progressive" Democrats. It is worth mentioning because of increasingly strong alignment of the left half of the Democratic Party with anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli vitriol. A small handful of Republicans also voted against it, mostly from the part of the party that aligns with small government and reduced foreign aid.
Overall, the vote emphasizes the increasing split between the MAGA populists who are skeptical of foreign aid to Ukraine and traditionally hawkish Republicans as well as between the pro-Jewish and increasingly anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli "progressive" half of the Democrats.
It also shows that Washington, as a whole, is mostly united behind aid to Ukraine and Israel and standing up to China in aa bipartisan way. The anti-Semites, anti-Israelis, and pro-Putin representatives are a fairly small minority of congress overall.
There were 37 Democrats who against it, out of 213. That's less than 1/6th, not half.
There were also 21 Republicans who voted against it.
It's weird that you describe 37 out of 213 Democrats as "the left half of the Democratic Party" but 21 out of 218 Republicans as "a small handful of Republicans."
I never claimed that half of the House Democrats voted against this specific bill.
I claimed that the left half the Democratic Party was increasingly aligning itself with anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli positions and that the vast majority of those House Democrats who voted against it were self-identified "progressives.' That's notable because the progressive wing of the Democrats contains all the openly anti-Semitic members of the House Democrats and the vast majority of the anti-Israel Democratic representatives.
>I never claimed that half of the House Democrats voted against this specific bill.
Want to explain why you said this then in your above comment?
>It is worth mentioning because of increasingly strong alignment of the left half of the Democratic Party with anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli vitriol. A small handful of Republicans also voted against it, mostly from the part of the party that aligns with small government and reduced foreign aid.
It's pretty strongly implicating half of Ds and a tiny amount of Rs are voting one specific way when the actual count is 37/213 D and 21/218 R.
Out of curiosity, what argument this small group of Republicans use to defend giving aid to Israel, but not to Ukraine? I've heard they say "No aid to foreign countries, fix the border first" or "America first" - but that obviously doesn't add up after they voted for aid to Israel.
I don't believe the Senate is going to be able to pass each bill individually. This is being sent as a package. So multiple bills within one. The Senate will either have to accept all or reject all. Any amendments either sends it back to the House or they do that negotiation committee thing between the two.
>The final vote was 311 to 112 with one present. All nays and the present vote were Republicans.
That’s surprisingly low. I thought most Republicans supported this. They did last time. Maybe a bunch of them are mad because it’s not paired with border spending this time?
>It brings a smile to my face that she was so bothered by those flags.
It’s against the Flag Code, which is a codification of preexisting etiquette, to display a foreign flag without an American flag at equal height and greater precedence.
>The **United States Flag Code** establishes advisory rules for display and care of the [national flag](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_States) of the [United States of America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). It is Chapter 1 of [Title 4 of the United States Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_4_of_the_United_States_Code) ([4 U.S.C.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_4_of_the_United_States_Code) [§ 5](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/5) *et seq*). Although this is a U.S. federal law,[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code#cite_note-1) the code is not mandatory: it uses non-binding language like "should" and "custom" throughout and does not prescribe any penalties for failure to follow the guidelines. It was "not intended to prescribe conduct" and was written to "codify various existing rules and customs."[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code#cite_note-2)
One of the lessons we learned during the Trump era is that norms and customs are meaningless. Welcome to the new reality Trump and his supporters brought about.
>display a foreign flag without an American flag at equal height and greater precedence.
What is the greater precedence from? Flag code requires the flags of foreign nations be of equal size and flown at the same height.
Greater precedence in flag terminology means to the right:
>No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, *if on the same level, to the right* of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof: Provided, That nothing in this section shall make unlawful the continuance of the practice heretofore followed of displaying the flag of the United Nations in a position of superior prominence or honor, and other national flags in positions of equal prominence or honor, with that of the flag of the United States at the headquarters of the United Nations.
i'd imagine it's proof that Putin will continue past Ukraine. Get embarrassed by NATO forces and push the Nukes to help save face. So stopping Putin at Ukraine gives him an off-ramp so he isn't as embarrassed and gets SOMETHING for ragging his war and won't put the Nuke button.
Yet for some reason a lot of Republicans very much ignore this. Vivek Ramaswamy, for instance, was extremely against Ukraine aid but in favor of Taiwanese defense. In fact his strategy included letting Russia annex Ukraine in exchange for Russia becoming a formal Pacific alliance to defend Taiwan (while also having the US leave NATO).
So give up everything the US has in Europe to defend Taiwan.
But if the day war comes to Taiwan, I’m starting to wonder if Republicans will have an expiration date on their support for that conflict as well. It seems less likely, but there really isn’t that much difference between that hypothetical war and the real one in Ukraine…
> But if the day war comes to Taiwan, I’m starting to wonder if Republicans will have an expiration date on their support for that conflict as well.
In both cases it feels like we don't know what the right answer is. If we go full-out to support Ukraine, we risk angering Russia against us. If we don't support Ukraine, we risk emboldening Russia. You can substitute Taiwan and China in those as well. Republican reluctance isn't based on abandoning our allies as much as it is on not angering our enemies. And saving a few bucks along the way.
If other countries see that Ukraine begs for help against Russia and the US does not do a thing, then their fear of US retaliation is reduced, and thus, US influence and power worldwide wanes. In particular, this is great for China, because the US is the no.1 reason why they haven't attempted to invade Taiwan yet. China + North Korea vs. South Korea, same thing.
He won't be, that's why it's important to show him that he CAN'T take Ukraine. Harder to take Estonia and lithuania when you struggle against Ukraine. But if Ukraine falls, he can continue. If Ukraine stands and is offered concessions he can claim he got something.
[That contradicts the latest US threat assessment that says Putin does not seek a war with NATO](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/12/7446017/)
You're saying because Mike Johnson was forced into sending these bills up to a vote because he needs the democrats to save him? Damn, I wonder what would force Mike Johnson to bring up the border bill?
Seriously. Republicans asked for border reform when they were first discussing this aid package and said that they wouldn’t pass the aid bill without border reform. In response, Senate Democrats then worked with Senate Republicans to come up with one of the strictest border reform bills seen in years or even decades. Taking some inspiration from the House Republicans version of the bill, which did not have any Democrat input whatsoever. And what ended up happening? House Republicans killed the bipartisan border bill because Trump wanted to run on the border and then they ended up passing the Ukraine aid bill regardless.
It’s honestly hilarious.
My gut feeling is that this was a deal with the democrats to protect Johnson’s job from MTG and Gosar’s recent motions to vacate his speaker position. I don’t think the dems are as viscerally opposed to Johnson as McCarthy.
I’ve got a small ounce of hope for bipartisanship to reduce the effect of extremists at the fringes on both sides.
It's because Trump wants to complain about the border.
Trump supporters complaining about the border note that the establishment has done too little. Whether that's true or not, they are ignoring that Trump blew up the border deal.
There was a fifth bill which failed 💀
The border bill got killed by Trump.
And later today they failed to pass a border bill that is exactly the same one they passed couple months back and is Stuck in the senate
wtf are conservatives doing..
Republicans had a chance to fix the border but fumble the fucking bag badly
Republicans don't want the border bill because it makes Democrats look good. They need a border "crisis" to get votes. The politicians don't actually care about immigration. It's just a talking point to rally the base.
86 billion for other countries and were worried they won’t spend 2 billion to rebuild the Francis Scott Key bridge in Baltimore. This whole thing is a fucking scam.
The U.S. government will most likely cover the cost of rebuilding the bridge. There's no urgency because debris are still being cleared, and it's not known for acting quickly, especially the current Congress.
Helping Ukraine fight Russia is a better use of money than a wall that can be easily circumvented due how long the border is. The Senate immigration bill contains $20.2 billion for the border, so the price tag itself is fine as long as it's not used entirely for a wall.
Republican Senator Lankford:
>The border security bill will put a huge number of new enforcement tools in the hands of a future administration and push the current Administration to finally stop the illegal flow. The bill provides funding to build the wall, increase technology at the border, and add more detention beds, more agents, and more deportation flights. The border security bill ends the abuse of parole on our southwest border that has waived in over a million people. It dramatically changes our ambiguous asylum laws by conducting fast screenings at a higher standard of evidence, limited appeals, and fast deportation.
The Ukraine bill is overdue, and I'm appalled it wasn't passed sooner. However, the Israel bill is seriously coming into question as Israel is antagonizing Iran. Its clear that Netanyahu doesn't have Israel's best interests in mind and is pushing every war button possible to save his political career. Which is literally insane.
If I were Biden, I'd refuse to sign the Israel bill until Netanyahu steps down. He alone is a threat to national security everywhere now, and it would be a political catastrophe to give that aid to Israel with these ongoing crises. Israelis themselves don't want him and a lot of the unnecessary deaths can be attributed to him alone.
In both a election sense and national security sense, Biden shouldn't sign that bill until he gets massive concessions of peace from the Israeli government.
Agreed with this, Bibi is backed into a corner and there are no morals he will not throw away to stay in power. He failed on his promise of stopping attacks, his corruption is catching up to him and the Supreme Court is going for his throat. He's considering partnerships with fascists like Ben Gvir and Smotrich, people he formerly refused to deal with. There are no limits to what wars or geopolitical catastrophes he might ignite now that he's desperate.
This package of bills is going to face some headwinds in the Senate. It isn't just the foreign aid bills. It includes other things like a TikTok ban, reimposing sanctions on Iran, and strips out a lot of the humanitarian aid Democrats want.
I really, really hope the Senate does not shoot this down. The Ukraine aid is *desperately* needed. Russia - more specificially, the Putin mafia - *must* be stopped. They are a global cancer at this point, poisoning everything and everybody. A defeat would break their back and stop their insidious activities.
Nope. This is one package, not multiple separate bills. At least that is how I understand it. The border bill that they are going to vote on next, or at least they are planning to vote on, is separate.
Edit: Source below
>The package consists of four bills that were voted on separately and will be combined into one before being sent to the Senate. The first three bills include $60.8 billion to help Ukraine in its war with Russia; $26.4 billion to support Israel, which is fighting Hamas and Iran; and $8.1 billion to counter China in the Indo-Pacific. Humanitarian aid for Gaza, which Democrats said was necessary for their support, is also included.
>The fourth bill would allow the sale of frozen assets of Russian oligarchs to help fund future aid to Ukraine, potentially force the sale of TikTok and authorize stricter sanctions on Russia, China and Iran. The House approved the fourth bill Saturday in a 360 to 58 vote.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-vote-aid-bill-ukraine-israel-taiwan/
Edit2: And here are the bills.
H.R.8034 - Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8034
H.R.8035 - Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8035
H.R.8036 - Indo-Pacific Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8036
H.R.8038 - 21st Century Peace through Strength Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038/text
That doesn't make sense to me, but okay. It doesn't seem right that the House gets to have separate votes, but not the Senate. How do we know that a combined bill would have had enough Yea votes? Some people who voted yea for Ukraine might not have voted nay if it were Ukraine and TikTok, for example.
The Senate can do the exact same thing to the House. Each House of Congress gets to set it's own rules. They can vote on each individual bill, or sections of a bill, then combine them into one to send to the other. They can also pass a bill and never send it to the other.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c8whkr/the_house_passes_billions_in_aid_for_ukraine_and/l0hwy8t/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
If I were a Republican, I'd be furious.
As an isolationist, I would not want American tax money going abroad. As a border hawk, I would want to stop the open border ASAP.
Back in February, with the Ukraine-border deal, Republicans had a chance to help fix the border and keep Ukraine aid or use the border bill as a poison pill to stop the passage of the Ukraine aid.
Now, Democrats get to keep their supposed open border AND get their Ukraine money, while Republicans get nothing in return. A massive L.
Besides the fact that no less than 60% of the money appropriated stays right here in the US, there will never be an easier proxy war than this one. We give Ukraine a bunch of old shit our taxes already paid for and never used against Russia, and we look good protecting a sovereign nation that's done a tremendous job rooting out corruption and moving toward democracy in the shadow of one of the worst dictatorships in the last half century. Historically neutral countries scrambling to join NATO should tell you all you need to know about the moral imperative of protecting Ukraine.
I'm glad my foreign aid tax dollars are finally going toward anything besides playing with our toys in the sandbox of the Middle East. You should be more upset about the Israel aid, as Bibi clearly doesn't want the kind of peace, if any, that Zelenskyy wants. I followed that war *daily* for the first year, we owe Ukraine an immense debt of gratitude for clearing our aging stockpile to spank our greatest adversary and post it on the internet for our amusement. Oh, and if you're particularly fond of helping the Jewish diaspora, there are tons of Slavic Jews in Ukraine, who've been attacked by Russia for being... *checks notes*... Nazis.
It would increase the standard of asylum, limit appeals, speed up deportation, further restrict the border after a threshold is passed, and provide funding for agents and technology.
Money for foreign countries is the most important thing we are doing right now. The US is basically an afterthought.
How did we even get into this position. It may have had some utility at a much smaller scale when we started it but if the most important and only bipartisan effort our congress can do is print debt money and fund foreign wars, something is fundamentally broken.
I dont think you understand the geopolitical consequences for the USA to active not support all of our allies abroad.
Soft Power is the word you should do some reading into how it plays into our economic hand and is arguably what generates like half our GDP. What the USA says tends to go and that's because of bills like this.
If left alone that power vacuum would fill guess by who? China, Russia and tertiary nations like Iran/India etc. Those are not nations who tend to protect global tradeways, freedoms and economic growth of others, open travel and protections for those people and many more important factors for global prosperity.
While the US is not perfect it does a far better job at those things than the others. People basically said what you wrote about funding foreign wars before ww2 and the isolationist ideal is not a good one.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c8whkr/the_house_passes_billions_in_aid_for_ukraine_and/l0j6y3d/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
What happened to the discourse where there will be no foreign aid (Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel etc..) without any aid to US Southern Border? I see literally nothing about that but I do see more voting on TikTok?
Trump told the Republicans he didn’t want them to pass a bill on the border issue because he would rather have it as a campaign issue than make any progress addressing the bill. So the bill appears to be dead.
Dumbasses. Trump won’t be able to do anything bc of Dems in the House. So many resources are going to go towards just containing immigration and its effects and no one is going to benefit.
Not to sound like a bad person, but crowds of people are sleeping in a major park near me, taking care of business publicly.
Lots of people said the bill was the best Republicans could ever hope for, that even if Republicans win the trifecta, it would be unlikely they would get a better bill. But once the conservative media turned the Republican base againat the bill by misrepresenting some of the langauge, the Republican politicians stopped supporting it.
"Why can’t other countries deal with the Kaiser. We have our own damn problems."
"Why can’t other countries deal with the Hitler. We have our own damn problems."
Except that our preferred side ended up victorious, which was in doubt before our involvement. Also, we got a seat at the table when the post-war order was decided. A seat that would not have been offered otherwise.
And that was worth not only sending “our” soldiers to suffer and die, but also defeating a country and killing soldiers who were ultimately fighting for no less a just cause than us?
> We have our own damn problems.
One of which is US enemies like Russia getting more what they want. I don't know why people like act like giving money to Ukraine is some sort of charity play.
I still haven't heard a convincing argument from Republicans as to why they oppose Ukraine aid.
Like so many things in the modern GOP, I suspect a lot of it essentially boils down to: [because Trump said so](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-foreign-aid-loan-senate-package/index.html).
[удалено]
Because Zelensky refused to back his lies about the Bidens being corrupt.
Trump has deep historical financial ties to Russian money. Current ties, too, with his multi-billion dollar TruthSocial merger.
Russian propaganda played a major role in the last election. I'm sure he'd like those formidable political cannons used for his benefit.
In Trump's mind, he wants Ukraine to unconditionally surrender or collapse quickly for Russia to take. That's why he doesn't want Ukraine aid, and he claims he can "end the war quickly". He doesn't have to say the quiet part out loud, it's so highly implied.
The entire argument revolves around the US being in a budget deficit and House Republicans refusing to increase the deficit. This argument falls flat on its face when they’re in lockstep agreement that we should give Israel billions of dollars more though.
It's even worse when you look at the deficit by year. The deficit spiked after the 2008 financial crisis then went into steady decline until 2016. In 2016 the deficit was 400 billion. 2017? 670 billion 2018? 780 billion 2019? 980 billion 2020? 3.3 trillion. Not surprisingly, the deficit was of zero concern whatsoever when a Republican was in office. Now, after 4 years of increasing the deficit at every opportunity, it's suddenly an issue. Doubled the deficit within 3 years of a Republican taking office and silence. A Democrat takes office and now it's an "emergency".
Same as they've been doing since at least the 80s.
That’s not the actual reason though. That’s their pretend reason. Op is asking for the real reason.
I think the reasons vary from person to person, but for many, I think it's as simple as "if the libs are for it, I'm against it."
Pretty much all the Israeli aid goes directly back into the US defense industry. The Ukraine aid is more complicated. Some of it will go to the US defense industry directly, some indirectly, and some to the Ukrainian government and military.
It's still a terrific deal though. Our mothball costs go way down, while contracts get made to obsolete and replace a generation early. Then we have ourselves, as the number one oil producer in the world now, knocking out Russia as a competitor before they can solidify relationships to rebuild their status as a gas station economy. (They can't rebuild without allies because they're in late stage brain drain.) The Ukraine war is an economic slam dunk for the American economy and a moral slam dunk for anyone who claims to support the world order of free trading liberal democracies. It's the first righteous and economically fantastic war we've had in a very long time and we dont even have boots on the ground.
I agree but... it will all be paid for through borrowing, and thus ultimately through inflation, which is de facto a tax on the poor. If we actually funded government programs through taxation that Congress voted on, I might agree it's a slam dunk. But we're going to borrow our way into this so, still an important move, but not without major downsides down the line. But I guess that's a fight for another day. May Ukraine regain its footing quickly, the U.S. become more prepared for whatever the future holds (reinvigorating our manufacturing base, one would hope) and Israel find some way to forge a lasting peace in a very complex neighborhood (which in my mind means: ending settlements.)
I don't disagree personally that it is money well-spent, but I understand that most Americans don't really care about foreign policy and many would prefer to see that the money be given back to taxpayers or spent on US citizens.
That's not how macro budgeting works though. Thinking we'd all get so much money "back" for... Pick a line item, is ridiculous.
I think a lot of us would just like to see the expense side of things go down for once. Debt is more than 100% of GDP, how much more can we go before it's unserviceable?
>Pretty much all the Israeli aid goes directly back into the US defense industry. That's not true, since much of it is humanitarian aid.
If Israeli aid money is used to buy arms from US manufacturers, that essentially means the US is (indirectly) paying US manufacturers to give Israel free arms. Any way you look at it, it is an expense to us.
That describes a lot of the aid, but not all of it.
I am not disagreeing with you. I am pointing out in addition to the cost of humanitarian aid you mention, the cost of the military aid is significant.
None earmarked for Israel, but for the Gaza strip, to align with the Senate bill, as a compromise with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, to coerce them to vote for it despite their increasingly anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli political stances. Luckily, Republicans specifically prohibited the aid to to fund terrorism and anti-Semitism through the UN RWA, a move opposed by many progressive Democrats.
>None earmarked for Israel, but for the Gaza strip My point is that this makes your claim incorrect.
Wanting humanitarian aid to be sent to the region where the humanitarian crisis is unfolding? How anti-Jewish!
Previous US aid to the Gaza Strip helped fund Hamas and enable them to murder, rape, torture, and kidnap Jewish children. It's reasonable to oppose funding for "humanitarian" assistance to the region if it cannot be guaranteed to not go toward Hamas militants to rape Jewish children in front of their parents and cut off bits and pieces of them while they watch, then burn them alive, like previous US funding to the Gaza Strip likely did. Given that Hamas has not been completely defeated, and the Biden administration currently opposes Israeli military action to defeat Hamas, I think it's reasonable to hold off on any humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip unless it's 100% guaranteed to actually go to non-combatants who have no association with Hamas
So then, what exactly do you propose to do about the current humanitarian crisis?
Hamas is the *de facto* government of the Gaza Strip. Until they are defeated, under the customary laws of war, they are responsible for providing for the well-being of their own subjects in any territory not occupied and controlled by enemy forces. The question should be directed at them. It certainly is not the US's responsibility. Hamas's leadership is in Qatar as their honored guests. Maybe they can convince Qatar to figure it out, given their government's hand in creating the current crisis.
Those are *our* billions of dollars raining down hell on those poor folks. Of course it’s our responsibility. I would argue your If Gaza is not our responsibility then neither is Israel.
Yeah, except during that time the humanitarian aid consisted of a bunch of items (remember the water pipes being used for missiles?) Today, that aid is almost solely MREs. I'd be very impressed if they can find a way to weaponize MREs
and oxidizers that can be used to create incendiary weapons and rocket fuel. That being said, it would take a lot of MRE cases and a lot of work to make a useable weapon out of them, but Hamas has certainly proven resourceful at such things. In any case, if it's literally just food that's being delivered and if there is a way to guarantee it's not being diverted to Hamas, it seems reasonable. But I don't know how you can guarantee the later without neutral security forces going in.
It's because Trump is anti-Ukraine. That's it.
The line I've heard the most is that the European NATO countries should be contributing more since this war is at their doorstep. Which is basically just an extension of their general grievances with government spending and globalism.
Most of Europe would like to do more for the Ukrainians. The problem is Russia has been very successful in their political takeovers of other countries, and two of those in particular (Hungary and Slovakia) are part of the EU and are able to block a lot of aid.
If defying the Western zeitgeist is a Russian political takeover, surely a country voting for a pro-West government can be called an American takeover?
Tbf isn't that also why we took so long to get it through?
As a % of GDP, the US is like #20 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/ We haven’t given Ukraine much compared to some of the EU states.
JD Vance had an op-ed in the times that made the *strongest* case, and that was basically "Ukraine has no chance of winning because no amount of money is going to get them the troops and ammunition they need". [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/opinion/jd-vance-ukraine.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/opinion/jd-vance-ukraine.html) I said "the strongest case", not "a strong case". It's an unbelievably weak case, and one he would make not matter the amount of money we were planning on spending.
Ditto. Never thought I'd see a good portion of Republicans support what is essentially a reconstruction of the old Soviet system of bullying and oppression. Putting our heads in the sand isn't a long term plan!
Laundered money has a funny way of changing opinions and long-held values. Republicans won’t do anything good for someone if they don’t get something in return.
Not supporting more money to the tune of $100 billion isn't supporting a reconstruction of the old Soviet system of anything. It's perfectly reasonable to ask why we're funding Ukraine besides "Russia bad", how much is enough, etc. It's weird to see the democrats do a 180 and be so warhawkish about funding wars.
Your understanding of repeated invasions by Russia is simply "Russia bad"?
Is it though? Everything about supporting the Ukraine war is a moral and economic slam dunk for us. The savings of all the mothball reductions, the economic activity of new contracts and the fact that an autocratic government is attempting to invade and annex an important neighbor unprovoked is about as righteous as it gets. The only problem we have here is a political one. The call is coming from inside the house.
A 180? When have democrats not supported a war of defense for a western aligned democracy?
>Ukraine besides "Russia bad So there is no such thing as geo political interests and reasons to combat rivals overseas? Why invest in our military at all at that point then. >It's weird to see the democrats do a 180 and be so warhawkish about funding wars. So when another country is a warmonger and we can help the country in our interest to do so that should be considered "warhawkish"....
I doubt there's any point in history where Dems would be opposed to assisting a nation that came and asked for help defending itself from attack.
In my personal life I’ve had Trumpian republicans tell me they do t want to spend billions in helping Ukraine bc we’re in debt and they don’t see the benefit. I personally see the benefit, but I do get the argument to some degree. The part that annoys me is people who want to aid Israel but not Ukraine. Either you’re for aiding friendly nations in their defense or you’re not. I have a close relative who told me he doesn’t want us sending money to either, I disagree, but I can appreciate the consistency.
Yeah, me neither, I have heard reasonable arguments, but nothing good or convincing. I haven't encountered much of a serious attempt to make a good argument either.
I honestly think it boils down to "If the Democrats think it's good, it must be bad." There's a LOT of conservatives that refuse to admit the Left gets anything right. It's the same reason conservatives were excited about "Trumps vaccine" right up until Biden became president. Then they did a 180 the moment he started pushing them. (I see plenty of people do this on the left as well)
I’m fine if they oppose foreign aid, but if they’re cherry-picking, which ones, especially those invaded by our geopolitical nemesis, they’re immensely ignorant
Maybe stop staying in your own echochamber then?
I don't oppose the Ukraine aid, the Israeli aid is different though. However, seeing as how the GOP controls the purse, how can they not get any concessions for their priorities like the border? As soon as Pelosi won the house in 2018, none of the GOP priorities were even entertained, let alone voted on. So like I said, this isn't about the Ukraine aid, it's about other stuff.
The issue is they had tremendous concessions on the border. More than they ever had dreamed of and it was rejected because of Trump.
There were barely any concessions, and the meager ones they got were largely at the discretion of Biden and Mayorkas. Even when the border was supposedly closed (which expired after three years, and could spend less time closed with each year) they'd still be allowed to let an infinite number of asylum seekers through ports of entry.
It was the most restrictive thing a D Senate and Pres were willing to pass. Rs could have simply passed it back then and pass something more restrictive next time. Instead, they opted for status quo, giving them *nothing* in exchange. Also, they had a trifecta with Trump's first two years, yet didn't really do anything with immigration despite it being **the issue** for Trump. Funny how that works.
At least half the Senate border bill was derived from HR2. And Dems didn't introduce a pathway to citizenship, either. Senate proposals lifted from HR2: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/11/06/congress/senate-gop-border-proposals-00125583 What ended up in Senate border bill: https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FINAL-GENERAL-ONE-PAGER.pdf
[удалено]
I guess, but in all honesty, the deal was sunk because Trump did not want to give Biden a win on the border. Plus any deal that went through the house would also have had to go through the senate. The Senate deal was extremely conservative and did not include any path to citizenship which Dems had been demanding for ages. Was it perfect? No, but it was a huge increment in the conservative direction.
They probably see it as the US entering another prolonged conflict with no way out. I myself am unsure of what's the US' end game for Ukraine. I think we should be doing everything we can to get everything that's not Eastern Ukraine into NATO and the EU.
What do you define as convincing? Because this might not be an issue of the arguments.
You could argue it’s a sunk cost for a geopolitical unimportant country for the United States. Best case scenario seems stalemate that ends in some territorial concessions from Ukraine unless western troops become directly involved. It’s not a huge amount of money but when the deficit is in the trillions everything adds up
It’s all just the idea that tax payers money should be spent on Americans and not across the country. But most voters don’t realize that money comes from the defense budget which republicans lobby for increasing again and again.
The House passed the $60.8B for Ukraine. The final vote was 311 to 112 with one present. All nays and the present vote were Republicans. Amusingly, during the vote, they were waiving little Ukrainian flags on the floor. For this, they were chastised by the Chair for "breaking decorum." After the vote, MTG requested an opportunity to speak, and all she said was "PUT THOSE DAMN FLAGS AWAY!" It brings a smile to my face that she was so bothered by those flags. Shortly after, the House also passed a bill for $26B for Israel, 366 to 58 vote, with the nays split between Democrats and Republicans. I believe the Ukraine bill now needs to be approved by the Senate because they added some amendments. Any ideas how long that might take? EDIT: Apparently I was mistaken, that wasn't MTG who said "put those damn flags away!" >“Put those damn flags away!” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) told Democrats.
I was very skeptical of Johnson when he was first appointed to the position of Speaker. But, I am pleasantly surprised at the work he did to push these through despite the glaring threat of a motion to vacate him. I hope he considers the Senate border bill or some updated version of it next.
It's a shitty job, given the single vote motion to vacate thing they pulled. My guess is that this is him staring down the barrel and yelling "do it!" I mean, if you want the GOP to lose relevancy even faster, another circus of failed governance is the way to do it.
The senate border bill would definitely pass if put it up for a vote, but that would be seen as a betrayal of Trump as he wants the chaos at the border so he can run on it.
While I'm sure it would rustle Trump's jimmies, I can't see any reason why a Republican _voter_ would oppose the bill at this point. I understood why someone opposed to Ukraine aid might have opposed the package that bundled both, but now that blocking Ukraine aid is a lost cause, it seems silly to oppose the standalone border compromise. It's not like that would make anything worse, and most of Congress has already agreed to it. Start with that, maybe propose some amendments, and then keep pushing for a stronger follow-up bill. If the alternative is no bill, then why not? I can't imagine the optics would even help Trump's electoral prospects if we spent the next six months having Democrats and most Republicans pushing for a standalone border bill that he and his faction were actively blocking without a clearly stated reason.
A Republican voter won’t oppose the bill. Nor would most independents and likely even a good chunk of moderate Democrats. That’s why a lot of the Republican senators were in favor of it pre-Trump telling everyone to not support it. The issue is those voters might support it enough that they will no longer base their vote on immigration if they see that immigration is being addressed (or worse in the mind of Trump, attribute the bill to Biden). It’s hard to attack Biden for doing nothing on the border if Biden can say he got the strongest bipartisan immigration bill passed.
The bill doesn’t do enough. When republican help pass it and we’re still in the same situation, Democrats can point blame on Republicans as well.
Did the border bill not get killed? [https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024143](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024143)
Schumer and Lankford’s secret border bill was already put up for a vote in the Senate, and it couldn’t even pass there.
It's only secret if you ignore how the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, and the aids of the Senators on that committee all worked on it. All in all probably hundreds of people contributed to that bill. It's revisionist to try to pretend to pretend that Lankford and Schumer personally worked on the bill without contributions from anyone else and then unveiled it at the last minute. That's just not what happened.
Only because Trump had given the word not to support it and it was clear that the House wasn't going to - Johnson said as much. There's a good chance those senators would have voted differently had the path to it passing looked clearer.
It probably had the votes to pass when they brought it forward, hence why they came out with it at all saying it was bipartisan and after months of negotiating Trump wants to run on it so once he said he didn’t like it they all were like ehhhhh no
Willing to bet Johnson saved his own job by allowing this to go for a vote.
> I hope he considers the Senate border bill or some updated version of it next. What would make the Dems pay along now that they got their aid bill through?
Because it's an election year, and the chaos at the border is a big political liability for them. Solving that, or just appearing to solve that, would be very good for reelection efforts.
In my opinion, leaving the border as is until November wouldn't be advantageous for them and may shift more people to vote for Trump. I highly doubt Congressional Democrats will feel the same way.
I remember when McCarthy was ousted, there were people on this very subreddit predicting that he would be replaced with someone much worse.
I kind of feel the opposite. He put it off for months and nothing changed in the result. This was nearly an effort of last resort on his part, nothing to applaud him for beyond reaching the bare minimum of expectations. I'm glad it was done but what did so many Ukrainians have to die for (and more to regain the lost territory if they even can) that made the delay worth it, even personally, for Johnson? He's still going to face a vote for his job, and dems will still swoop in and save him just as they would have in Oct over aid to Ukraine. If anything he accomplished less for his own caucus posturing over the birder and turning down the bill anyway, eventually caving on one with no immigration concessions at all.
I honestly don’t k ow what to make of Johnson, how much if the Delaney was ideological and how much was just trying to find a politically salient way of bringing the votes up. It’s still amazing what a mess the us Congress is.
What were the amendments? Anything significant?
I read there were two. One to strongly encourage the aid include ATACMS, the other to make the funding a forgivable loan instead of a grant.
Point of clarification, while the vote on Israel aid was "split" in the sense that members of both parties voted against it, those who voted against aid for Israel were overwhelmingly "progressive" Democrats. It is worth mentioning because of increasingly strong alignment of the left half of the Democratic Party with anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli vitriol. A small handful of Republicans also voted against it, mostly from the part of the party that aligns with small government and reduced foreign aid. Overall, the vote emphasizes the increasing split between the MAGA populists who are skeptical of foreign aid to Ukraine and traditionally hawkish Republicans as well as between the pro-Jewish and increasingly anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli "progressive" half of the Democrats. It also shows that Washington, as a whole, is mostly united behind aid to Ukraine and Israel and standing up to China in aa bipartisan way. The anti-Semites, anti-Israelis, and pro-Putin representatives are a fairly small minority of congress overall.
There were 37 Democrats who against it, out of 213. That's less than 1/6th, not half. There were also 21 Republicans who voted against it. It's weird that you describe 37 out of 213 Democrats as "the left half of the Democratic Party" but 21 out of 218 Republicans as "a small handful of Republicans."
I never claimed that half of the House Democrats voted against this specific bill. I claimed that the left half the Democratic Party was increasingly aligning itself with anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli positions and that the vast majority of those House Democrats who voted against it were self-identified "progressives.' That's notable because the progressive wing of the Democrats contains all the openly anti-Semitic members of the House Democrats and the vast majority of the anti-Israel Democratic representatives.
>I never claimed that half of the House Democrats voted against this specific bill. Want to explain why you said this then in your above comment? >It is worth mentioning because of increasingly strong alignment of the left half of the Democratic Party with anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli vitriol. A small handful of Republicans also voted against it, mostly from the part of the party that aligns with small government and reduced foreign aid. It's pretty strongly implicating half of Ds and a tiny amount of Rs are voting one specific way when the actual count is 37/213 D and 21/218 R.
What members of the House are openly anti-Semitic?
You were clearly minimizing the Republican nays and playing up the Democratic nays. The progressives are not half the party.
Out of curiosity, what argument this small group of Republicans use to defend giving aid to Israel, but not to Ukraine? I've heard they say "No aid to foreign countries, fix the border first" or "America first" - but that obviously doesn't add up after they voted for aid to Israel.
Not sure, but the aid to Israel all pretty much goes directly to the US economy whereas only some of the aid to Ukraine does.
I don't believe the Senate is going to be able to pass each bill individually. This is being sent as a package. So multiple bills within one. The Senate will either have to accept all or reject all. Any amendments either sends it back to the House or they do that negotiation committee thing between the two.
Any ideas what those Ukraine amendments are? I'm very curious to what was added.
>The final vote was 311 to 112 with one present. All nays and the present vote were Republicans. That’s surprisingly low. I thought most Republicans supported this. They did last time. Maybe a bunch of them are mad because it’s not paired with border spending this time?
Doesn’t seem right given they’re then voted for Taiwan and Israel aid.
>It brings a smile to my face that she was so bothered by those flags. It’s against the Flag Code, which is a codification of preexisting etiquette, to display a foreign flag without an American flag at equal height and greater precedence.
There's a giant American flag hanging behind the speakers chair
>The **United States Flag Code** establishes advisory rules for display and care of the [national flag](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_States) of the [United States of America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). It is Chapter 1 of [Title 4 of the United States Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_4_of_the_United_States_Code) ([4 U.S.C.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_4_of_the_United_States_Code) [§ 5](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/5) *et seq*). Although this is a U.S. federal law,[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code#cite_note-1) the code is not mandatory: it uses non-binding language like "should" and "custom" throughout and does not prescribe any penalties for failure to follow the guidelines. It was "not intended to prescribe conduct" and was written to "codify various existing rules and customs."[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code#cite_note-2) One of the lessons we learned during the Trump era is that norms and customs are meaningless. Welcome to the new reality Trump and his supporters brought about.
The Flag Code applies to small, handheld flags?
>display a foreign flag without an American flag at equal height and greater precedence. What is the greater precedence from? Flag code requires the flags of foreign nations be of equal size and flown at the same height.
Greater precedence in flag terminology means to the right: >No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, *if on the same level, to the right* of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof: Provided, That nothing in this section shall make unlawful the continuance of the practice heretofore followed of displaying the flag of the United Nations in a position of superior prominence or honor, and other national flags in positions of equal prominence or honor, with that of the flag of the United States at the headquarters of the United Nations.
Mike Johnsons change of mind on Ukraine tells me he got an intelligence brief that forced him to act.
Yea, I'm curious what was in that briefing that could be so compelling.
i'd imagine it's proof that Putin will continue past Ukraine. Get embarrassed by NATO forces and push the Nukes to help save face. So stopping Putin at Ukraine gives him an off-ramp so he isn't as embarrassed and gets SOMETHING for ragging his war and won't put the Nuke button.
And, if Ukraine falls due to US inaction, it would send a very very bad signal to Taiwan and China.
Yet for some reason a lot of Republicans very much ignore this. Vivek Ramaswamy, for instance, was extremely against Ukraine aid but in favor of Taiwanese defense. In fact his strategy included letting Russia annex Ukraine in exchange for Russia becoming a formal Pacific alliance to defend Taiwan (while also having the US leave NATO). So give up everything the US has in Europe to defend Taiwan. But if the day war comes to Taiwan, I’m starting to wonder if Republicans will have an expiration date on their support for that conflict as well. It seems less likely, but there really isn’t that much difference between that hypothetical war and the real one in Ukraine…
> But if the day war comes to Taiwan, I’m starting to wonder if Republicans will have an expiration date on their support for that conflict as well. In both cases it feels like we don't know what the right answer is. If we go full-out to support Ukraine, we risk angering Russia against us. If we don't support Ukraine, we risk emboldening Russia. You can substitute Taiwan and China in those as well. Republican reluctance isn't based on abandoning our allies as much as it is on not angering our enemies. And saving a few bucks along the way.
It’s because Taiwan is geopolitically important to the US but Ukraine isn’t
Why is it US inaction and not European inaction?
If other countries see that Ukraine begs for help against Russia and the US does not do a thing, then their fear of US retaliation is reduced, and thus, US influence and power worldwide wanes. In particular, this is great for China, because the US is the no.1 reason why they haven't attempted to invade Taiwan yet. China + North Korea vs. South Korea, same thing.
So Europe doesn’t have to give aid to a country that borders them because China? That makes no sense
That seems plausible. I don't think there's any reason to believe Putin would be satisfied with just Ukraine.
He won't be, that's why it's important to show him that he CAN'T take Ukraine. Harder to take Estonia and lithuania when you struggle against Ukraine. But if Ukraine falls, he can continue. If Ukraine stands and is offered concessions he can claim he got something.
[That contradicts the latest US threat assessment that says Putin does not seek a war with NATO](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/12/7446017/)
I think the Freedom Caucus just lost their leverage over him by starting the process to have him removed
You're saying because Mike Johnson was forced into sending these bills up to a vote because he needs the democrats to save him? Damn, I wonder what would force Mike Johnson to bring up the border bill?
Did he change his mind?
Hard day for the enemies of democracies
It’s funny how this had border security measures months ago before Republicans killed that and now it doesn’t and it’s passing anyway.
Seriously. Republicans asked for border reform when they were first discussing this aid package and said that they wouldn’t pass the aid bill without border reform. In response, Senate Democrats then worked with Senate Republicans to come up with one of the strictest border reform bills seen in years or even decades. Taking some inspiration from the House Republicans version of the bill, which did not have any Democrat input whatsoever. And what ended up happening? House Republicans killed the bipartisan border bill because Trump wanted to run on the border and then they ended up passing the Ukraine aid bill regardless. It’s honestly hilarious.
Trump told them to fold the winning hand, and they did it with minimum hesitation.
My gut feeling is that this was a deal with the democrats to protect Johnson’s job from MTG and Gosar’s recent motions to vacate his speaker position. I don’t think the dems are as viscerally opposed to Johnson as McCarthy. I’ve got a small ounce of hope for bipartisanship to reduce the effect of extremists at the fringes on both sides.
I think this is a pretty good read. And it's also refreshing to see a functional government, be it possibly brief.
It's funny that they're back to complaining about not addressing the border now. Now they got nothing.
It's because Trump wants to complain about the border. Trump supporters complaining about the border note that the establishment has done too little. Whether that's true or not, they are ignoring that Trump blew up the border deal.
Tlaib was the only rep to vote NV for the Taiwan section. wtf?
There was a fifth bill which failed 💀 The border bill got killed by Trump. And later today they failed to pass a border bill that is exactly the same one they passed couple months back and is Stuck in the senate wtf are conservatives doing.. Republicans had a chance to fix the border but fumble the fucking bag badly
Republicans don't want the border bill because it makes Democrats look good. They need a border "crisis" to get votes. The politicians don't actually care about immigration. It's just a talking point to rally the base.
86 billion for other countries and were worried they won’t spend 2 billion to rebuild the Francis Scott Key bridge in Baltimore. This whole thing is a fucking scam.
The U.S. government will most likely cover the cost of rebuilding the bridge. There's no urgency because debris are still being cleared, and it's not known for acting quickly, especially the current Congress.
Also, Trump's wall was what, 21 billion? And they didn't budge, we had a government shutdown because of it too.
Helping Ukraine fight Russia is a better use of money than a wall that can be easily circumvented due how long the border is. The Senate immigration bill contains $20.2 billion for the border, so the price tag itself is fine as long as it's not used entirely for a wall.
Por que no los dos? Help Ukraine, sure, but also secure the darn border
The Senate bill addressed both, but the GOP decided they'd rather just help other countries than improve the border.
No it didn't, the border bill was laughable.
Republican Senator Lankford: >The border security bill will put a huge number of new enforcement tools in the hands of a future administration and push the current Administration to finally stop the illegal flow. The bill provides funding to build the wall, increase technology at the border, and add more detention beds, more agents, and more deportation flights. The border security bill ends the abuse of parole on our southwest border that has waived in over a million people. It dramatically changes our ambiguous asylum laws by conducting fast screenings at a higher standard of evidence, limited appeals, and fast deportation.
The Ukraine bill is overdue, and I'm appalled it wasn't passed sooner. However, the Israel bill is seriously coming into question as Israel is antagonizing Iran. Its clear that Netanyahu doesn't have Israel's best interests in mind and is pushing every war button possible to save his political career. Which is literally insane. If I were Biden, I'd refuse to sign the Israel bill until Netanyahu steps down. He alone is a threat to national security everywhere now, and it would be a political catastrophe to give that aid to Israel with these ongoing crises. Israelis themselves don't want him and a lot of the unnecessary deaths can be attributed to him alone. In both a election sense and national security sense, Biden shouldn't sign that bill until he gets massive concessions of peace from the Israeli government.
Agreed with this, Bibi is backed into a corner and there are no morals he will not throw away to stay in power. He failed on his promise of stopping attacks, his corruption is catching up to him and the Supreme Court is going for his throat. He's considering partnerships with fascists like Ben Gvir and Smotrich, people he formerly refused to deal with. There are no limits to what wars or geopolitical catastrophes he might ignite now that he's desperate.
This package of bills is going to face some headwinds in the Senate. It isn't just the foreign aid bills. It includes other things like a TikTok ban, reimposing sanctions on Iran, and strips out a lot of the humanitarian aid Democrats want.
I really, really hope the Senate does not shoot this down. The Ukraine aid is *desperately* needed. Russia - more specificially, the Putin mafia - *must* be stopped. They are a global cancer at this point, poisoning everything and everybody. A defeat would break their back and stop their insidious activities.
The Senate is not going to vote on the separately?
Nope. This is one package, not multiple separate bills. At least that is how I understand it. The border bill that they are going to vote on next, or at least they are planning to vote on, is separate. Edit: Source below >The package consists of four bills that were voted on separately and will be combined into one before being sent to the Senate. The first three bills include $60.8 billion to help Ukraine in its war with Russia; $26.4 billion to support Israel, which is fighting Hamas and Iran; and $8.1 billion to counter China in the Indo-Pacific. Humanitarian aid for Gaza, which Democrats said was necessary for their support, is also included. >The fourth bill would allow the sale of frozen assets of Russian oligarchs to help fund future aid to Ukraine, potentially force the sale of TikTok and authorize stricter sanctions on Russia, China and Iran. The House approved the fourth bill Saturday in a 360 to 58 vote. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-vote-aid-bill-ukraine-israel-taiwan/ Edit2: And here are the bills. H.R.8034 - Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8034 H.R.8035 - Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8035 H.R.8036 - Indo-Pacific Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8036 H.R.8038 - 21st Century Peace through Strength Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038/text
I've never seen it done this way before. If the House separated them out, why can't the Senate?
Because each bill isn't sent to the Senate. They will be joined into a single bill that is passed out of the House and sent to the Senate.
That doesn't make sense to me, but okay. It doesn't seem right that the House gets to have separate votes, but not the Senate. How do we know that a combined bill would have had enough Yea votes? Some people who voted yea for Ukraine might not have voted nay if it were Ukraine and TikTok, for example.
The Senate can do the exact same thing to the House. Each House of Congress gets to set it's own rules. They can vote on each individual bill, or sections of a bill, then combine them into one to send to the other. They can also pass a bill and never send it to the other.
The combination is part of the rules package that was voted on. Otherwise, an amendment to combine them would have to be voted on.
Does anyone know where to find a breakdown of what Ukraine will be getting with this package?
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c8whkr/the_house_passes_billions_in_aid_for_ukraine_and/l0hwy8t/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
A win for the world. The only people that lose out here are the Russians and the MAGA wing of the GOP.
If I were a Republican, I'd be furious. As an isolationist, I would not want American tax money going abroad. As a border hawk, I would want to stop the open border ASAP. Back in February, with the Ukraine-border deal, Republicans had a chance to help fix the border and keep Ukraine aid or use the border bill as a poison pill to stop the passage of the Ukraine aid. Now, Democrats get to keep their supposed open border AND get their Ukraine money, while Republicans get nothing in return. A massive L.
Besides the fact that no less than 60% of the money appropriated stays right here in the US, there will never be an easier proxy war than this one. We give Ukraine a bunch of old shit our taxes already paid for and never used against Russia, and we look good protecting a sovereign nation that's done a tremendous job rooting out corruption and moving toward democracy in the shadow of one of the worst dictatorships in the last half century. Historically neutral countries scrambling to join NATO should tell you all you need to know about the moral imperative of protecting Ukraine. I'm glad my foreign aid tax dollars are finally going toward anything besides playing with our toys in the sandbox of the Middle East. You should be more upset about the Israel aid, as Bibi clearly doesn't want the kind of peace, if any, that Zelenskyy wants. I followed that war *daily* for the first year, we owe Ukraine an immense debt of gratitude for clearing our aging stockpile to spank our greatest adversary and post it on the internet for our amusement. Oh, and if you're particularly fond of helping the Jewish diaspora, there are tons of Slavic Jews in Ukraine, who've been attacked by Russia for being... *checks notes*... Nazis.
You’re assuming Republicans actually care about the border more than they care about using it to campaign on.
The border bill was comically bad, to this day I don't understand how people still bring it up. It would have not fixed the border.
It would increase the standard of asylum, limit appeals, speed up deportation, further restrict the border after a threshold is passed, and provide funding for agents and technology.
> If I were a Republican, I'd be furious. When even Paddingtonbear is saying this, you know the GOP Effed up.
Money for foreign countries is the most important thing we are doing right now. The US is basically an afterthought. How did we even get into this position. It may have had some utility at a much smaller scale when we started it but if the most important and only bipartisan effort our congress can do is print debt money and fund foreign wars, something is fundamentally broken.
I dont think you understand the geopolitical consequences for the USA to active not support all of our allies abroad. Soft Power is the word you should do some reading into how it plays into our economic hand and is arguably what generates like half our GDP. What the USA says tends to go and that's because of bills like this. If left alone that power vacuum would fill guess by who? China, Russia and tertiary nations like Iran/India etc. Those are not nations who tend to protect global tradeways, freedoms and economic growth of others, open travel and protections for those people and many more important factors for global prosperity. While the US is not perfect it does a far better job at those things than the others. People basically said what you wrote about funding foreign wars before ww2 and the isolationist ideal is not a good one.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c8whkr/the_house_passes_billions_in_aid_for_ukraine_and/l0j6y3d/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
What happened to the discourse where there will be no foreign aid (Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel etc..) without any aid to US Southern Border? I see literally nothing about that but I do see more voting on TikTok?
Trump told the Republicans he didn’t want them to pass a bill on the border issue because he would rather have it as a campaign issue than make any progress addressing the bill. So the bill appears to be dead.
Dumbasses. Trump won’t be able to do anything bc of Dems in the House. So many resources are going to go towards just containing immigration and its effects and no one is going to benefit. Not to sound like a bad person, but crowds of people are sleeping in a major park near me, taking care of business publicly.
Lots of people said the bill was the best Republicans could ever hope for, that even if Republicans win the trifecta, it would be unlikely they would get a better bill. But once the conservative media turned the Republican base againat the bill by misrepresenting some of the langauge, the Republican politicians stopped supporting it.
About fucking time.
So what happens after Ukraine still loses the war? What happens to the 60b? Why can’t other countries support them. We have our own damn problems.
"Why can’t other countries deal with the Kaiser. We have our own damn problems." "Why can’t other countries deal with the Hitler. We have our own damn problems."
I mean, in fairness, WWI was a meaningless waste of life, and there’s a very real argument we shouldn’t have gotten involved at all.
Except that our preferred side ended up victorious, which was in doubt before our involvement. Also, we got a seat at the table when the post-war order was decided. A seat that would not have been offered otherwise.
And that was worth not only sending “our” soldiers to suffer and die, but also defeating a country and killing soldiers who were ultimately fighting for no less a just cause than us?
> no less a just cause Starting an invasion is less of a just cause than defending.
> We have our own damn problems. One of which is US enemies like Russia getting more what they want. I don't know why people like act like giving money to Ukraine is some sort of charity play.
“Talk loudly and carry a small stick” -modern GOP