BREAKING NEWS: Marjorie Taylor Greene Promotes Amendment To Foreign Aid Bill To Gut Ukraine Funding

Summary

In this heated exchange in Congress, a Georgia representative proposes an amendment to cut all funding for Ukraine, arguing that American taxpayers are burdened by billions sent abroad, while domestic issues like inflation and border security remain unresolved. She criticizes the military-industrial complex, claiming that the U.S. is prioritizing foreign wars over American citizens’ needs. In opposition, Connecticut and Minnesota representatives defend the funding, stressing the importance of supporting Ukraine against Russia's aggression and maintaining global stability. They argue that halting aid would embolden Putin and harm U.S. national security and international alliances.

Takeaways

• 😀 The gentlewoman from Georgia proposes an amendment to reduce U.S. funding to Ukraine, arguing that the American taxpayer has already contributed $113 billion, much of which is unaccounted for.
• 😀 Greene criticizes the U.S. government's focus on funding foreign wars while domestic issues like border security, rising debt, and inflation remain unaddressed.
• 😀 She emphasizes that the U.S. is over $34 trillion in debt, with inflation out of control, causing financial hardship for American citizens, while U.S. spending on Ukraine continues.
• 😀 Greene argues that the American people do not support the current business model of funding military-industrial complex ventures and foreign wars, especially with Ukraine not being a NATO member.
• 😀 She claims that U.S. funds should be used to strengthen American security and priorities, not to support foreign conflicts that harm American interests and the welfare of citizens.
• 😀 Opponents of the amendment, including representatives from Connecticut, Minnesota, and Washington, argue that U.S. support for Ukraine is vital to countering Russian aggression and protecting democratic values.
• 😀 Connecticut's representative stresses that the U.S. must stand firm against Putin’s unjust war, as Ukraine's defense is integral to maintaining the values of democracy and freedom globally.
• 😀 Minnesota's representative asserts that cutting support would embolden Putin and put U.S. allies in Europe, including Poland and Romania, at great risk.
• 😀 Washington's representative argues that providing aid to Ukraine strengthens U.S. military readiness and national security, helping to counter global threats from Russia, China, and North Korea.
• 😀 Despite the passionate arguments from both sides, the amendment is rejected, with a vote on the matter being postponed for further consideration.

Q & A

What is the purpose of the amendment introduced by the gentlewoman from Georgia?

The amendment introduced by the gentlewoman from Georgia aims to reduce the funding allocated to Ukraine in the bill by cutting each dollar amount in the act to zero.

What concern does the gentlewoman from Georgia raise regarding the U.S. government's spending?

The gentlewoman from Georgia expresses concern that the U.S. government is sending vast amounts of taxpayer money to Ukraine without clear accountability, while the U.S. faces significant domestic issues such as rising debt, inflation, and an unsecured border.

What does the gentlewoman from Georgia believe about the U.S. military's role in Ukraine?

She believes that the U.S. military should focus on defending American interests rather than engaging in foreign wars, and she criticizes the idea of sending U.S. weapons and resources to Ukraine to continue a conflict.

How does the gentlewoman from Georgia view the U.S. debt and inflation situation?

She highlights that the U.S. is over $34 trillion in debt, with the debt rising by $40 billion every night, while inflation is making it increasingly difficult for Americans to afford basic necessities like groceries, gas, and rent.

What argument does the gentleman from Connecticut present in response to the Georgia amendment?

The gentleman from Connecticut opposes the amendment, arguing that cutting funding to Ukraine would embolden Vladimir Putin, undermine U.S. leadership, and harm relations with European allies. He stresses the importance of supporting Ukraine's defense to prevent the spread of authoritarianism.

What is the main argument presented by the gentleman from Minnesota regarding the amendment?

The gentleman from Minnesota argues that cutting funding for Ukraine would be disastrous, embolden Putin, and put other NATO allies at risk. He emphasizes that the funds are crucial for Ukraine's defense and for the U.S. national security interests in Europe.

How does the gentleman from Washington argue in favor of continuing U.S. support for Ukraine?

The gentleman from Washington rebuts the claim that the U.S. is responsible for Ukrainian deaths, stating that it is Russian aggression that is killing Ukrainians, and that providing Ukraine with defense support is necessary to force Putin to negotiate for peace.

What is the stance of the gentleman from Washington on the financial aspect of the amendment?

He refutes the criticism of increasing the U.S. debt by pointing out that former President Trump added significantly to the debt without similar objections from Republicans. He stresses the importance of supporting Ukraine for both humanitarian and strategic reasons.

What is the main criticism of U.S. support for Ukraine according to the Georgia representative?

The Georgia representative criticizes U.S. support for Ukraine as a 'business model' driven by the military-industrial complex, suggesting that it perpetuates endless wars while neglecting critical domestic issues like securing the U.S. border and reducing national debt.

What is the voting result on the amendment, and what was the reaction?

The amendment was voted down. The chair declared that the 'no' votes had it, and the amendment was not passed. The gentlewoman from Georgia then requested a recorded vote, which was postponed according to the rules.