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

Yeah-- that's not at all, what I'd said. But based on my past experiences with you, I am not even going to attempt to re-explain, the patently obvious difference-- to any who'd read my post, without a fixed agenda in mind-- between your misunderstood takeaway, and what I had, in simple language, described.

 

God, your abuse of logical thought, is hard to watch. But no, just because the specific cut in spending, chosen by Speaker Johnson, was unacceptable, it does not follow, that any cuts, or revenue increases, would be unacceptable. DUH.

Further, I know it has been explained to you, that this supposed "cut" is predicted to actually cost the government, rather than save it any money. I know you are relying on the once again, lame argument that the Congressional Budget Office's predictions are far from always being exactly accurate (& it would be utterly unreasonable to expect that any could be). What that illogical argument omits, is what you are relying on, in lieu of, the CBO score: yourself. So, even if the CBO is imperfect, there is no doubt that it is incomparably better than your own, personal guesses.

To avoid a pointless argument, suffice it to say, that the other Senators & Congresspeople are going to rely much more heavily on the CBO, than on the Lil Mike budget scores. Therefore, with the most authoritative source saying that this will actually add more debt, it is only rational that any sane member of Congress, wanting to offset the emergency funding with savings, elsewhere in the budget, would reject Johnson's plan, which not only fails to include those savings, but which in effect increases the cost of the bill.

 

LOL-- what is pretty clear, is that you have no understanding of the concept of "negotiation." For a third time, in this one post of yours, you see a false choice-- this time, between either Johnson's bill, or no funding at all, for anything. Your imaginative ideas of how things work, might almost be endearing, if you were, say, six or seven years old. But that is not the way the real world works. There are some who feel very strongly about getting aid to Israel; therefore, to accomplish that, amid a Congress of 535 members, most with a minimum of wits about them, understand the need for sometimes giving, in order to get what they want. IOW, the expectation is not that the Johnson plan is the final offer; in fact, I think the Speaker himself had described it as something of an opening bid. When the Senate comes back with a bill that has the sought after Israel aid, but also other, related funding-- & I've already explained to you, the relationships-- those who really want the Israel aid will need to weigh how important they see it, in comparison to any resistance they feel, towards the additional spending. Those then, negotiating for the House, to come up with a reconciliation bill, will likely make a counter-offer, to find something that can pass both chambers (even if it is not exactly the bill, that either one might most prefer, if they had their 'druthers-- which they don't usually get, so would be foolish to expect).

 

I will just note that the lame argument you put forth here-- that "If the issues are only important together, but not separately, then the Senate is really arguing that they are not that important"-- directly contradicts your prior argument, about including a capital offset, within the funding bill. By your newly-expressed logic: if paying for our unexpected expenditures is important, then there is no reason it cannot be attended to, on its own; there is no need to link it with the particular expenditure-- especially if we have other (at least possible) expenditures for Ukraine, Palestinian humanitarian aid, and our southern border enforcement. It seems wasteful of effort, to have to look, four different times, for specific amounts to cut, instead of looking just once, for a way to pay for the total. But I'm sure that concept, is also beyond you.

 

Here is your question:

Here is your answer:

#4
#21
#32
#70
#96

 

So you do support using spending cuts to pay for Israel aid, just not the one's the speaker has chosen? OK fine, suggest some cuts.

 

So you say this is just an opening bid, but you've been so angry and opposed to it. Hardly worth discussing if it's simply an opening bid, but discuss you have...

 

I oppose bundling unrelated issues since the purpose of that is to drag the unpopular items along in order to get the popular ones. If items are unpopular, maybe we shouldn't be paying for them.

 

As expected, the bill failed in Congress. Dems still want the bill from last month, which would provide:

- Aid to Ukraine
- Aid to Israel
- Humanitarian aid
- US border security funding
- Money to push back against China in the Indo-Pacific

 

None of these links actually answer my question. At all. Not even close. Do you need me to repeat the question?

 

Unpopular........maybe so among the pseudo-con base, but 63% of Americans support aiding Ukraine, and I've been told boosting border security is still popular among some peeps.

 

Is it a different question than the one I posted in #130? If not, don't bother.

 

If 63% of Americans support aiding Ukraine, than that is, by the definition of polls, popular. So I don't see why you don't want a stand alone Ukraine bill. Why would it not pass if it's popular and the majority of the American people want it?

 

Nope. Same question. I asked you "How did you come to that conclusion?" The conclusion being that the spending on the IRS is a NET loss. And your links don't address that.

 

They actually do address it, and since you are not actually arguing against any of the points I made it tells me you never read them.

I can only lead a horse to water, I can't make him..think.

 

I have read them. They don't explain how you came to that conclusion. You just repeat the conclusion over and over and over again. That doesn't explain how you got there. But thanks for the white flag, I guess.

 

For the 5th and final time: No one wants bills which are designed to fail.

You think American people have a say in it? They don't. Your congress reps don't give a rats ass what majority of people want, they only want to play their games, and you cheer them on.

 

I simply don't understand the GOP's concern about IRS agents. They don't seem to realize that those jobs create revenue for the government.

 

That's the point. They do NOT want the IRS to generate more revenue. They want to starve the beast. They think they can force spending cuts, as long as they deprive the government of enough tax revenue. The strategy was started by Saint Reagan. They keep doing the same thing over and over again, too ideologically invested to realize that they are not starving the beast, but just increasing the deficit. Well, maybe they are actually hoping to eventually crash the whole thing down, by making the US default on its debt, and start anew. I wouldn't put it past them.....

 

, exactly!

 

So you are saying, of your own thread topic, that it is "hardly worth discussing?"-- LOL!

Or, were you merely, once again, trying to put words in my mouth?

By the way, your alleging that I have "been so angry and opposed to it," is another false contention, on your part. To prove this, I will ask for you to quote my showing "anger" about the bill-- which you, of course, will not do. The only irritating things, about this thread topic, have been:
1) your inability to understand my points, &
2) your misrepresenting them-- along with your 3) typical, convoluted arguments.


Ironically, my initial comment, which you have been contesting, was about this "opening bid" being a waste of time, as it has been called "dead on arrival." Nevertheless, your statement here, that it seems, "hardly worth discussing if it's simply an opening bid," would seem to be expressing the same sentiment as me:


DEFinning said: ↑
President Biden will never need veto it, because the plan will never get passed, as it is, by the Senate, which will, at minimum, strip out the IRS cuts, and probably add in the Ukraine aid, and possibly humanitarian aid for Palestinians, (maybe even money for the border). Then it will go to conference committee, to iron out the differences, and see if the leaderships of both chambers can work out a compromise bill, for both chambers to pass. Of course, this would require the House leadership to be willing to compromise-- which is not particularly indicated, by their bill.

But who knows? Some like to start a negotiation, from a completely unrealistic position. Also, of course, we have to wonder if this was intended as the Republican version of what they call "virtue signaling," when Democrats do it, with no real belief, on Johnson's part, in its viability-- because sure, after wasting 3 weeks searching for a leader, why get serious about work, too quickly? Better to dick around a bit, first, as a warm up.
<End Quote/post>


It would seem that you and the new Speaker, have some things in common.

 

Claiming someone else is waving the white flag because you are unable to challenge their arguments is both amusing and pitiful. Better luck with your next windmill charge.

 

Explain to me WHY a bill that is, as you say, highly popular with the American people is "designed to fail?"

How so? What is the "design" that dooms it in spite of it's apparent popularity?

 

After spending $100 billion propping up Ukraine and that is absolutely a very corrupt government I think it's just time to resign.

 

I'm more ticked off that we Americans and of course the Americans yet to be have to subsidize nation building.

But it's real have their way with Palestine it's not our concern.