2y ago

Biden would veto any Israel-only aid bill, White House says

thehill.com

64 comments

Good. It's shameful this is even a problem. But bundling the two ensures the Ukraine aid will not get stuck.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
National security spokesperson John Kirby on Thursday made clear that President Biden would veto a bill that includes only funding for Israel’s war against Hamas if it were sent to his desk instead of a combination aid package he’s proposed that would also help Ukraine.
I think we have made that clear,” Kirby said when pressed on if Biden would be against a clean Israel funding bill.
House Republicans have unveiled a bill that would provide $14.3 billion in aid for Israel, in exchange for cuts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that were one of several hallmarks of the president’s Inflation Reduction Act.
The White House has previously said Biden would veto that package, but Kirby’s comments suggest Biden would veto any package that only funds Israeli’s battle against Hamas, the militant group that carried out terrorist attacks Oct. 7, and not other aid as well.
Officials have said there doesn’t need to be offsets to pass a supplemental funding bill and, in its earlier veto threat, asserted the GOP proposal marks a break from bipartisan precedent by seeking funding cuts as part of an emergency national security package.
The White House last month outlined a roughly $106 billion national security supplemental funding request that included money for Israel and Ukraine, which is fighting off invading Russian forces, as well as investments in the Indo-Pacific, humanitarian aid and border security measures.
The original article contains 290 words, the summary contains 230 words. Saved 21%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
- Give up robust tax enforcement while spending ourselves into the grave. Our officials are morons.
I want to know why did the Democrats vote to remove the old speaker. Why did they throw away someone that would work with them for a unknown and now someone that is willing to duck over the world to get what he wants.
I didn't know about all the backstabbing that McCarthy did, thanks to the ones that explained it.
- Republicans, specifically Matt Gaetz, voted to remove McCarthy. It's not Democrat's responsibility to vote for Republicans.
  
  Wrong. Gaetz started the voting process and Dems could have voted no to keep McCarthy.
  This particular comment of mine is not saying they should have.
  
  I have to disagree with that, they had someone that was working with them and they threw it away. If the funding for Ukraine doesn't pass or the gov shuts down I see it as much as the Dems fault as the Repubs.
- Because McCarthy wasn't actually working with Democrats. Simple as that.
  
  This. McCarthy was blaming Democrats for the looming shut down. He didn't work with Democrats or offer anything for their support.
  Why didn't a few Republicans vote for the Democrat that was so close to winning the speakership?
- McCarthy explicitly refused to work with Democrats on the vast majority of issues. The dude was an enormous coward
  
  That may be true but he also would have been voted out by his own party if he had. Honestly, they turned on him as soon as he DID work with Democrats.
- Generally when your opponent points a gun at their foot, you don't tell them to stop.
  McCarthy was never ally to democrats and if he wanted their vote to save his ass from his own party, he could have easily offered them something in exchange. Like it or not, that's the way politics works.
  
  I'm not sure what they gained, they have two opponents (GOP and MAGA) and empowered the more radical of the two. I think thia would be more obvious in a parliamentary system.
  I think their rational, as it was with trump in 2016, is that extreme republicans in power bulster democratic support. I think it's an open question if that's correct, or if they are assisting the rightward slide of american politics and not getting much of what they promised done.
- If the Democrats had voted to keep McCarthy as the speaker despite McCarthy’s previous record of uncooperation and reneging, it would have signaled to him and the republicans that the democrats can be pushed back further. It would have been a disastrous move politically for the democrats. Remember, McCarthy voted against certifying the election results so he did not have a great record of upholding democratic values and could not be trusted to negotiate in good faith.
- Anyone who gets a speaker position in that house is a cunt, no doubt.
  
  Finally something here In this particular comment thread I can agree with 100%. Same goes for a president. After all the shit it took for them to get to this spot, you don’t want them as president.
- They thought either they're going to teach a lesson or they'll enjoy the chaos.
  I think they achieved both but not in the way they thought.

64 comments