25 vote against war funding

stoneric · 07-03-2010, 09:16 AM

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 431

H R 4899 RECORDED VOTE 1-Jul-2010 10:41 PM
QUESTION: Third Portion of the Divided Question [Amendment 3]
BILL TITLE: Making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes

Ayes Noes PRES NV
Democratic 22 208 22 3
Republican 3 168 7
Independent
TOTALS 25 376 22 10

---- AYES 25 ---

Clarke
Clay
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Filner
Garamendi
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Kucinich
Lewis (GA)
Michaud
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Schrader
Serrano
Sires
Stark
Velázquez
Welch
____________________ ____________________ _________

So that's 2.7 per year. We should have a majority in about 80 years.

HTAM · 07-03-2010, 10:19 AM

That's kind of a slanted post, dontcha think?

Clearly it's true that this measure funds ongoing contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the President's surge of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, as announced last December.

But, it's also true that it funds a number of other programs or projects that are completely Stateside, and includes provisions that will improve savings to the taxpayer.

This is like 'Reverse' Political Suicide.

In 2005, the REAL ID act was attached as a rider to H.R. 1268, a bill dealing with emergency appropriations for the Iraq War and with the Tsunami relief funding. Voting against that would of been political suicide at that time.

As a result, HR 1268 passed, and so did the REAL ID Act.

The bottom line is that while a majority of the bill calls for continued funding for the troops (or throwing a hotdog down a hallway) but reading through it, many other provisions and offsets appear to be beneficial to many citizens.

http://appropriations.house.gov/imag...ts_Summary.pdf

stoneric · 07-03-2010, 11:03 AM

That's obvious by the name of the bill. I realize that's how things are done. Doesn't matter in my opinion. I'd vote my conscience and the war ending would outweigh any loss of stateside projects or programs. Besides the public would be made more aware of how war funding does force there reps to vote against the publics wishes. Not that anyone would get off their couches to do anything about it.

stoneric · 07-03-2010, 11:19 AM

Besides this roll call vote was for an ammendment that would have stripped war funding completely. There was another ammendment that would have left enough funding only for withdrawing. That got 100 votes. So voting yes on either ammendment wouldn't have eliminated any stateside programs.

HTAM · 07-03-2010, 12:13 PM

I agree with you about wanting the war to end. It's creating tons of debt that should be incurred through the development of the US infrastructure (read the citizens) instead bombing the shit out of another country and then going in and rebuilding it.

kamikazi89 · 10-24-2010, 06:28 AM

sighs

profit · 10-24-2010, 05:05 PM

higherthan you need to wake up..

YouTube - The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

07-03-2010, 09:16 AM	#1 (permalink)
stoneric bougeman Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 5,646 Thanks: 704 Thanked 1,512 Times in 1,067 Posts	25 vote against war funding FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 431 H R 4899 RECORDED VOTE 1-Jul-2010 10:41 PM QUESTION: Third Portion of the Divided Question [Amendment 3] BILL TITLE: Making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes Ayes Noes PRES NV Democratic 22 208 22 3 Republican 3 168 7 Independent TOTALS 25 376 22 10 ---- AYES 25 --- Clarke Clay Duncan Edwards (MD) Ellison Filner Garamendi Grayson Grijalva Gutierrez Jackson (IL) Johnson (IL) Kucinich Lewis (GA) Michaud Nadler (NY) Napolitano Paul Pingree (ME) Schrader Serrano Sires Stark Velázquez Welch ____________________ ____________________ _________ So that's 2.7 per year. We should have a majority in about 80 years.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

07-03-2010, 10:19 AM	#2 (permalink)
HTAM Old School Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,872 Thanks: 2,368 Thanked 2,117 Times in 1,179 Posts	That's kind of a slanted post, dontcha think? Clearly it's true that this measure funds ongoing contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the President's surge of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, as announced last December. But, it's also true that it funds a number of other programs or projects that are completely Stateside, and includes provisions that will improve savings to the taxpayer. This is like 'Reverse' Political Suicide. In 2005, the REAL ID act was attached as a rider to H.R. 1268, a bill dealing with emergency appropriations for the Iraq War and with the Tsunami relief funding. Voting against that would of been political suicide at that time. As a result, HR 1268 passed, and so did the REAL ID Act. The bottom line is that while a majority of the bill calls for continued funding for the troops (or throwing a hotdog down a hallway) but reading through it, many other provisions and offsets appear to be beneficial to many citizens. http://appropriations.house.gov/imag...ts_Summary.pdf

07-03-2010, 11:03 AM	#3 (permalink)
stoneric bougeman Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 5,646 Thanks: 704 Thanked 1,512 Times in 1,067 Posts	That's obvious by the name of the bill. I realize that's how things are done. Doesn't matter in my opinion. I'd vote my conscience and the war ending would outweigh any loss of stateside projects or programs. Besides the public would be made more aware of how war funding does force there reps to vote against the publics wishes. Not that anyone would get off their couches to do anything about it.

07-03-2010, 11:19 AM	#4 (permalink)
stoneric bougeman Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 5,646 Thanks: 704 Thanked 1,512 Times in 1,067 Posts	Besides this roll call vote was for an ammendment that would have stripped war funding completely. There was another ammendment that would have left enough funding only for withdrawing. That got 100 votes. So voting yes on either ammendment wouldn't have eliminated any stateside programs.

07-03-2010, 12:13 PM	#5 (permalink)
HTAM Old School Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,872 Thanks: 2,368 Thanked 2,117 Times in 1,179 Posts	I agree with you about wanting the war to end. It's creating tons of debt that should be incurred through the development of the US infrastructure (read the citizens) instead bombing the shit out of another country and then going in and rebuilding it.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)