McCarthy signals GOP-led House likely to oppose more aid to Ukraine

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
72,895
52,573
113
Deplorable:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is signaling that if Republicans win the House majority in next month’s midterm elections, the GOP is likely to oppose more aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia.

Since the invasion in February, the majority of congressional Republicans and Democrats have united in authorizing billions of dollars in U.S. military and humanitarian assistance to Kyiv as a geopolitical and moral stand against Vladimir Putin’s aggression.

McCarthy, who could be House speaker if Republicans triumph, indicated that that could end in a GOP-led House.
“I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” he recently told Punchbowl News. “They just won’t do it.”

McCarthy suggested that Americans want Congress to focus on issues closer to home.






“There’s the things [the Biden administration] is not doing domestically,” he said. “Not doing the border, and people begin to weigh that. Ukraine is important, but at the same time, it can’t be the only thing they do, and it can’t be a blank check.”
The United States has authorized upward of $60 billion in aid to Ukraine, with more than $18.2 billion in security assistance given since January 2021. The Senate voted to finalize more than $40 billion in new military and humanitarian assistance in May, with Republicans being the only lawmakers voting against that package — the largest investment in Ukraine thus far.

Eleven Republican senators and 57 House GOP members opposed the legislation, arguing that more needs to be done to account for how the money is spent and to trace weapons and equipment sent to the battlefield.


On Friday, the United States announced an additional $725 million in security assistance for Ukraine, including more ammunition for high mobility rocket systems, or HIMARS, as well as precision-guided artillery rounds, antitank weapons and Humvees, according to a Pentagon statement.
In Kyiv, U.S. midterms, and need for aid, cast shadow on battlefield gains
Although most of the congressional leadership, most notably Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have been steadfast in support for Ukraine, voters in several states in January could send Republicans to Washington who are eager to oppose aid. The number of those wary of foreign aid and adherents of former president Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda are expected to grow in the next Congress.

In September, J.D. Vance, the venture capitalist and author who is locked in a close race for a U.S. Senate seat representing Ohio, said he wants “the Ukrainians to be successful” but not because of continued U.S. funding.


“I do think that we have to get to a point, and this is where we do disagree, we’ve got to stop the money spigot to Ukraine eventually,” he told the ABC affiliate in Toledo. “We cannot fund a long-term military conflict that I think ultimately has diminishing returns for our own country.”
Vance added, “I think we’re at the point where we’ve given enough money in Ukraine, I really do. ... The Europeans need to step up. And frankly, if the Ukrainians and the Europeans, more importantly, knew that America wasn’t going to foot the bill, they might actually step up.”

Europe has provided a significant amount of military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
In Arizona, Republican Senate nominee Blake Masters criticized the additional funding for Ukraine in May, claiming that the money should be used instead to build a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border.






“Under Joe Biden, it’s always America last,” he said in a video he tweeted. “Let’s be clear about what this means. It means no cease-fire. It means another foreign war where we pay for everything. Many more thousands of people will die. There’s no resolution, no end in sight. The risk of course is that a proxy war can escalate into an all-out nuclear war between nuclear powers.”

In New Hampshire, Republican Senate candidate Don Bolduc said last week that more spending is not the answer to improving conditions in Ukraine.
“We must hold the administration accountable,” he told New Hampshire’s ABC affiliate. “We just can’t print this money. It’s money we don’t have, and it’s equipment that’s being thrown at a problem without any strategy, without any policy, and it’s not going to get the job done.”





These Republicans could join Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who in May temporarily held up $40 billion of aid to Ukraine, saying, “you can’t save Ukraine by dooming the U.S. economy.”
The loudest voices on the right on the issue, such as Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, have been outspoken in questioning aid to Ukraine.

The Conservative Political Action Conference in September posted, then deleted, a tweet that echoed Kremlin language and called for a halt to “gift-giving to Ukraine.” It later issued a statement reaffirming its stance on U.S. assistance. “We must oppose Putin, but American taxpayers should not be shouldering the vast majority of the cost,” it said.
A September Pew Research poll found that most Republicans and Democrats say that the U.S. is providing “about right” or “not enough” support to Ukraine, though 32 percent of Republicans said the U.S. is providing “too much,” a figure that has more than tripled since March (9 percent). Relatedly, Americans’ concern about Ukraine being defeated and taken over by Russia dropped from 55 percent in May to 38 percent in September.






McCarthy’s comments to Punch Bowl News drew an incredulous response from Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), who tweeted at McCarthy, “What in the absolute bloody hell is happening to @GOPLeader.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has warned that if the GOP wins the House, help for Ukraine would be in jeopardy.
“I just see a freight train coming, and that is Trump and his operation turning against aid for Ukraine,” he said on MSNBC. “House Republicans, if they were to take the majority, being preternaturally against anything Joe Biden is for — including the war in Ukraine — and there being a real crisis where the House Republican majority would refuse to support additional aid to Ukraine.”

 
  • Love
Reactions: KFsdisciple

BioHawk

HR Legend
Sep 21, 2005
39,768
41,768
113
None of this is a secret and nobody should be surprised by this if and when it happens. It's pathetic. Republicans win and Putin gets to emasculate the US without even having to fire a shot. Can you imagine how the America of today would have handled the rationing that took place during WWII? People would have handed over New York to get their sugar back.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
48,118
40,829
113
40
None of this is a secret and nobody should be surprised by this if and when it happens. It's pathetic. Republicans win and Putin gets to emasculate the US without even having to fire a shot. Can you imagine how the America of today would have handled the rationing that took place during WWII? People would have handed over New York to get their sugar back.

The right couldn't even be trusted wear a freaking mask or get a shot to reduce the strain on our health system.

They would have advocated for a negotiated peace deal the day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor rather than make some sacrifices for the good of the country.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,923
113
None of this is a secret and nobody should be surprised by this if and when it happens. It's pathetic. Republicans win and Putin gets to emasculate the US without even having to fire a shot. Can you imagine how the America of today would have handled the rationing that took place during WWII? People would have handed over New York to get their sugar back.
I'll make the trade today if we get real sugar back instead of HFCS.
 

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
27,413
36,888
113
This must be wrong. Ive been told repeatedly that republicans stand firmly behind Ukraine.
"Eleven Republican senators and 57 House GOP members opposed the legislation, arguing that more needs to be done to account for how the money is spent and to trace weapons and equipment sent to the battlefield."

Accountability is being against Ukraine?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BelemNole

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
14,270
17,954
113
"Eleven Republican senators and 57 House GOP members opposed the legislation, arguing that more needs to be done to account for how the money is spent and to trace weapons and equipment sent to the battlefield."

Accountability is being against Ukraine?
Odd how this is selective accountability. Didn’t have that objection to the first wave sent over, nor to the aid sent when Trump was president.

of course, this also assumes their objection is genuine.
 

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
27,413
36,888
113
Odd how this is selective accountability. Didn’t have that objection to the first wave sent over, nor to the aid sent when Trump was president.

of course, this also assumes their objection is genuine.
Paul held up earlier aid for the same reason. I don't have a problem with making sure the aid goes where it needs to go.

Ukraine has had corruption problems in the past. Biden talked about it last year.

 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
14,270
17,954
113
Paul held up earlier aid for the same reason. I don't have a problem with making sure the aid goes where it needs to go.

Ukraine has had corruption problems in the past. Biden talked about it last year.

Paul is about the only one whose semi-consistent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2

globalhawk

HR Heisman
Dec 16, 2003
5,932
6,540
113
"Eleven Republican senators and 57 House GOP members opposed the legislation, arguing that more needs to be done to account for how the money is spent and to trace weapons and equipment sent to the battlefield."

Accountability is being against Ukraine?
This isn’t about accountability (which I believe we need more of) it’s about ending aid to satisfy the America First wing.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,923
113
Oh watch both they are telling us SSI/Medicare is being decimated and they will ban abortion nationwide
Historically, 'decimated' killing 1 in every 10.

SSI benefits are going to be reduced by 1 dollar for every 4 paid under the current law when the Treasury IOUs are cashed out for outstanding federal debt by 2034.

The SSI Trustees reported this and when the Democrats controlled the WH, the Senate, and the House they did nothing about it.
2009 Trustees Report


Under the long-range intermediate assumptions, annual cost will begin to exceed tax income in 2016 for the combined OASDI Trust Funds. The combined funds are then projected to become exhausted and thus unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2037. The separate DI Trust Fund, however, is projected to become exhausted in 2020. For the combined OASDI Trust Funds to remain solvent throughout the 75- year projection period, the combined payroll tax rate could be increased during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent increase of 2.01 percentage points, benefits could be reduced during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent reduction of 13.3 percent, general revenue transfers equivalent to $5.3 trillion in present value could be made during the period, or some combination of approaches could be adopted. Significantly larger changes would be required to maintain solvency beyond 75 years.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,923
113
Agreed, but that only happens one of two things happens: 1) Putin dies or is overthrown, 2) Putin recognizes he can’t win in Ukraine.
What happens if Ukraine stops getting blank checks?
If you're a Ukrainian, do you plan for that contingency?
Would it mean a different set of war aims?
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
14,270
17,954
113
What happens if Ukraine stops getting blank checks?
If you're a Ukrainian, do you plan for that contingency?
Would it mean a different set of war aims?

I’m sure Ukraine is planning for that, as well as trying to build up a reserve if necessary.

This is hardly a blank check imo, we, as well as Western Europe are sending them the tools. They’re the ones doing all the fighting.
 

Titanhawk2

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2011
12,500
5,658
113
Deplorable:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is signaling that if Republicans win the House majority in next month’s midterm elections, the GOP is likely to oppose more aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia.

Since the invasion in February, the majority of congressional Republicans and Democrats have united in authorizing billions of dollars in U.S. military and humanitarian assistance to Kyiv as a geopolitical and moral stand against Vladimir Putin’s aggression.

McCarthy, who could be House speaker if Republicans triumph, indicated that that could end in a GOP-led House.
“I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” he recently told Punchbowl News. “They just won’t do it.”

McCarthy suggested that Americans want Congress to focus on issues closer to home.






“There’s the things [the Biden administration] is not doing domestically,” he said. “Not doing the border, and people begin to weigh that. Ukraine is important, but at the same time, it can’t be the only thing they do, and it can’t be a blank check.”
The United States has authorized upward of $60 billion in aid to Ukraine, with more than $18.2 billion in security assistance given since January 2021. The Senate voted to finalize more than $40 billion in new military and humanitarian assistance in May, with Republicans being the only lawmakers voting against that package — the largest investment in Ukraine thus far.

Eleven Republican senators and 57 House GOP members opposed the legislation, arguing that more needs to be done to account for how the money is spent and to trace weapons and equipment sent to the battlefield.


On Friday, the United States announced an additional $725 million in security assistance for Ukraine, including more ammunition for high mobility rocket systems, or HIMARS, as well as precision-guided artillery rounds, antitank weapons and Humvees, according to a Pentagon statement.
In Kyiv, U.S. midterms, and need for aid, cast shadow on battlefield gains
Although most of the congressional leadership, most notably Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have been steadfast in support for Ukraine, voters in several states in January could send Republicans to Washington who are eager to oppose aid. The number of those wary of foreign aid and adherents of former president Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda are expected to grow in the next Congress.

In September, J.D. Vance, the venture capitalist and author who is locked in a close race for a U.S. Senate seat representing Ohio, said he wants “the Ukrainians to be successful” but not because of continued U.S. funding.


“I do think that we have to get to a point, and this is where we do disagree, we’ve got to stop the money spigot to Ukraine eventually,” he told the ABC affiliate in Toledo. “We cannot fund a long-term military conflict that I think ultimately has diminishing returns for our own country.”
Vance added, “I think we’re at the point where we’ve given enough money in Ukraine, I really do. ... The Europeans need to step up. And frankly, if the Ukrainians and the Europeans, more importantly, knew that America wasn’t going to foot the bill, they might actually step up.”

Europe has provided a significant amount of military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
In Arizona, Republican Senate nominee Blake Masters criticized the additional funding for Ukraine in May, claiming that the money should be used instead to build a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border.






“Under Joe Biden, it’s always America last,” he said in a video he tweeted. “Let’s be clear about what this means. It means no cease-fire. It means another foreign war where we pay for everything. Many more thousands of people will die. There’s no resolution, no end in sight. The risk of course is that a proxy war can escalate into an all-out nuclear war between nuclear powers.”

In New Hampshire, Republican Senate candidate Don Bolduc said last week that more spending is not the answer to improving conditions in Ukraine.
“We must hold the administration accountable,” he told New Hampshire’s ABC affiliate. “We just can’t print this money. It’s money we don’t have, and it’s equipment that’s being thrown at a problem without any strategy, without any policy, and it’s not going to get the job done.”





These Republicans could join Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who in May temporarily held up $40 billion of aid to Ukraine, saying, “you can’t save Ukraine by dooming the U.S. economy.”
The loudest voices on the right on the issue, such as Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, have been outspoken in questioning aid to Ukraine.

The Conservative Political Action Conference in September posted, then deleted, a tweet that echoed Kremlin language and called for a halt to “gift-giving to Ukraine.” It later issued a statement reaffirming its stance on U.S. assistance. “We must oppose Putin, but American taxpayers should not be shouldering the vast majority of the cost,” it said.
A September Pew Research poll found that most Republicans and Democrats say that the U.S. is providing “about right” or “not enough” support to Ukraine, though 32 percent of Republicans said the U.S. is providing “too much,” a figure that has more than tripled since March (9 percent). Relatedly, Americans’ concern about Ukraine being defeated and taken over by Russia dropped from 55 percent in May to 38 percent in September.






McCarthy’s comments to Punch Bowl News drew an incredulous response from Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), who tweeted at McCarthy, “What in the absolute bloody hell is happening to @GOPLeader.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has warned that if the GOP wins the House, help for Ukraine would be in jeopardy.
“I just see a freight train coming, and that is Trump and his operation turning against aid for Ukraine,” he said on MSNBC. “House Republicans, if they were to take the majority, being preternaturally against anything Joe Biden is for — including the war in Ukraine — and there being a real crisis where the House Republican majority would refuse to support additional aid to Ukraine.”

How about working it into a budget and cut some waste elsewhere? Novel concept, hasn't been tried in over a decade (much more deplorable, BTW)
 

BioHawk

HR Legend
Sep 21, 2005
39,768
41,768
113
Good.

More money won’t end the war, only escalate it. This war ends thru negotiations.
I never took you for an admirer of Neville Chamberland but here you are full on board the appeasement train. Well, appeasement sure worked out well for Chamberland's career.
 

KFSuperStar

HR MVP
Jul 2, 2009
2,273
2,646
113
I never took you for an admirer of Neville Chamberland but here you are full on board the appeasement train. Well, appeasement sure worked out well for Chamberland's career.
His appeasement bought time for the war effort to be mobilized. The US was laughably underprepared. Either way that was 80 years ago.

The current war is not winnable by Ukraine. They aren’t gonna push Russia out. Nobody is coming to the rescue. So you have the current situation: death, destruction and tons of our money being wasted. Negotiate out before this escalates into something scary big.
 

franklinman

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2011
3,698
4,131
113
Of course they'll oppose it. And it has nothing to do with the cost, that's an excuse. They'll do it because they love Putin almost as much as they love power.
Hell, they, the cons spend time in Russia when they were invited over Christmas. WHY?
 

ihhawk

HR Legend
Feb 4, 2004
23,115
20,016
113
Fort Lauderdale
He says that if the USA is in the middle of a recession…the GOP would oppose.

It’s actually an Interesting question. How much support will there be to send financial aid to Ukraine if we are in the middle of a recession?