Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The bill approves funding the Ukraine into 2025-2026 and ties the future presidents hands to stop it.
We don't have the money.
It will cost more Ukrainian lives.
We never hear death counts, but Vance estimates 400,000 Ukrainians have died in this conflict.
Video at the Tweet.
Ep. 74 The Ukrainian government canceled elections and killed an American journalist. Congress is about send them another $60 billion. J.D. Vance is trying to stop it.
I heard JD Vance on the radio explain why he is against it, and I agree.
It forces spending to continue through 2026, which woul be 1/2 of the way through Trump's final term if he were to win.
I dont believe today's Congress should be able to spend $ that far out into the future for a war like this one that the EU should be funding..not us...we're broke.
If Trump tried to stop the funding to Ukraine, the Dems may try to impeach Trump yet again.
JD's right...no to this bill funding Ukraine's war well into 2026...no way.
I heard JD Vance on the radio explain why he is against it, and I agree.
It forces spending to continue through 2026, which woul be 1/2 of the way through Trump's final term if he were to win.
I dont believe today's Congress should be able to spend $ that far out into the future for a war like this one that the EU should be funding..not us...we're broke.
If Trump tried to stop the funding to Ukraine, the Dems may try to impeach Trump yet again.
JD's right...no to this bill funding Ukraine's war well into 2026...no way.
Trump's tax cuts from 2017 are still in place for several years to come, many spending policies drift over into the next administration. They don't suddenly end.
Trump's tax cuts from 2017 are still in place for several years to come, many spending policies drift over into the next administration. They don't suddenly end.
That's not spending.
Show me the line item in the government documentation that allocates a certain dollar amount for tax cuts.
Trump's tax cuts from 2017 are still in place for several years to come, many spending policies drift over into the next administration. They don't suddenly end.
I'm okay w/ some drifting over if it makes sense...recurring expenses like SS spending, since its so predictable.
I'm against one administration spending $100B more we dont have on new things, or wars, when the prior admin's time is 80% gone.
Handcuffing incoming admins is wrong, but since its dems doing it right now its okay...wait until the situation's reversed.
The new incoming admin should be able to reserse all of that kind of spending.
I pray that the Republicans win back the White House and Senate, and hold the House so we can restore order to our finances.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Vance's position will only serve to encourage Putin to go after ALL former SSRs if he takes Ukraine and will cost the US far more $$$ in the future when he does so unless we're prepared to just let the psychopath take over Europe. Vance should stick to writing books that are little more than 'Oh BooHoo, I had a tough life' whines and leave foreign policy to those who can see further than the tips of their noses. He is after all only a self-proclaimed hillbilly with little if any foreign policy expertise.
It's not about Putin here, it's about lives. Russia has demands that can be met without further bloodshed and a lot of Ukrainian people wouldn't mind that but NATO's involvement here is basically using Ukrainian lives to help us proxy fight Russia. The bloodshed on both sides is all due to US involvement here. Ukraine is losing a lot of men regardless how the west thinks they are keeping Russia at bay. It's because we're supplying them with lots of artillery with our printed money. This bloodshed could be avoided rather than use money and weapons of mass destruction. It's just reprehensible how so many people would rather have war than peace. Of course, no Americans are losing sleep over lost lives.
I think Russia and China will want revenge against us in the next world war because of our involvement.
Have to wonder what Trump has on Vance. To go from being a never Trumper who called him America's Hitler to being publicly embarrassed by him while receiving his endorsement and now running interference for him.
I heard JD Vance on the radio explain why he is against it, and I agree.
It forces spending to continue through 2026, which woul be 1/2 of the way through Trump's final term if he were to win.
I dont believe today's Congress should be able to spend $ that far out into the future for a war like this one that the EU should be funding..not us...we're broke.
If Trump tried to stop the funding to Ukraine, the Dems may try to impeach Trump yet again.
JD's right...no to this bill funding Ukraine's war well into 2026...no way.
So you’re ok with letting this horrible war come to America and be fought by Americans?
I am just grateful that the Ukrainians are pushing back against Russia.
If we’re so broke why did the Republicans push through trillions of dollars in tax breaks for the rich?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
