this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
114 points (98.3% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7228 readers
155 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
IIRC this was because they split the bill with the social programs part that was originally all supposed to be 1 package. She was originally for the combined package.
Is this supposed to be bad…?
Without getting into a whole separate thing on defund the police I will say the spending is eye raising, she has said:
I would agree the spending is a bit much but I don’t know the number of threats either. He does later mention she employed her now husband as security as well which is being investigated.
This whole section feels like it’s reaching. Like maybe she felt the best route was to push to give her constituents more time? Why aren’t other state reps also getting heat for the unused funds?
Like this is meaningless in a vacuum, reaching across the aisle isn’t some automatic good.
There are leftists that believe sanctions primarily hurt the working class of countries and not the people in power and so are against them. They haven’t removed Putin from power so far and trying to sanction a third of the countries in the world also has other downsides.
Overall not a lot in there outside of the security spending/investigation which I’ll agree should be looked at.
Edit:
Also before any tries to frame voting No on H.R.6679 as problematic look at the actual bill:
Per Wikipedia: