Republicans are now celebrating new initiatives they voted against
Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Virginia, was one of 205 House Republicans to vote against the bipartisan, $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill, calling it irresponsible and the "Green New Deal in disguise." On Friday, he took to Twitter to tout funding from the bill he voted against -- highlighting a $70 million expansion of the Port of Virginia in Norfolk -- one of the busiest and deepest ports in the United States.
Wittman, who deleted the tweet Friday shortly after ABC News reached out to his office for comment, is the latest member of a growing group of Republicans celebrating new initiatives they originally opposed on the floor.
Shortly after voting against the measure last fall, Rep. Gary Palmer, R-Alabama, celebrated its hundreds of millions in funding for a stalled highway project in Birmingham.
Last week, Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, touted new funding for a flood control project from the package, which she opposed last year, decrying it at the time as a "so-called infrastructure bill."
Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, a freshman lawmaker who also voted against the infrastructure bill, celebrating new "game-changing" funding to upgrade locks along the Upper Mississippi River.
Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana, the No. 2 House Republican who touted a $1 billion investment in flood protection and hurricane repairs in his home state funded by the package he opposed.
I really don't mind these people being lying hypocrites, it's their nature. What gets under my skin is these same people attending their churches every Sunday, wrapping themselves in a cloak of Christian purity, and buddying up to the evangelical crowd, complaining about the Godless liberal's lack of morality (with a sweetness that would put a diabetic into shock) 😕
@mchill saidYou can't both think it's a bad idea to slaughter the pig and enjoy the pork once it is slaughtered?
Republicans are now celebrating new initiatives they voted against
Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Virginia, was one of 205 House Republicans to vote against the bipartisan, $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill, calling it irresponsible and the "Green New Deal in disguise." On Friday, he took to Twitter to tout funding from the bill he voted against -- highlighting a $70 million expansio ...[text shortened]... out the Godless liberal's lack of morality (with a sweetness that would put a diabetic into shock) 😕
The pork-laden boondoggle was unnecessary and irresponsible. But once the money is flowing, to refuse to take it and use it is stupid.
@sh76 saidThese representatives are hardly claiming the infrastructure spending was "unnecessary and irresponsible", are they?
You can't both think it's a bad idea to slaughter the pig and enjoy the pork once it is slaughtered?
The pork-laden boondoggle was unnecessary and irresponsible. But once the money is flowing, to refuse to take it and use it is stupid.
Considering the state of this nation's infrastructure, "irresponsible" would have been to not repair and/or replace much of it. The infrastructure bill is hardly all that is needed. https://infrastructurereportcard.org/
@sh76 saidBut once the money is flowing, to refuse to take it and use it is stupid.
You can't both think it's a bad idea to slaughter the pig and enjoy the pork once it is slaughtered?
The pork-laden boondoggle was unnecessary and irresponsible. But once the money is flowing, to refuse to take it and use it is stupid.
I have no problem with using the $$. That's what it's for. Taking credit (even indirectly) for something you voted against however is something I'm very much opposed to.
@sh76 saidThat's the point of the OP: they didn't think it was a bad idea, they only voted against it as a political maneuver.
You can't both think it's a bad idea to slaughter the pig and enjoy the pork once it is slaughtered?
Voting for anything proposed by Dems will mean the Republicans agree they have put forward something that is valid, which means giving Dems credit for something. Therefore, they voted against it, despite their own admission that it was indeed beneficial.
@sh76 saidNo they wanted infrastructure spending. They didn't vote for it because they were virtue signaling.
You can't both think it's a bad idea to slaughter the pig and enjoy the pork once it is slaughtered?
The pork-laden boondoggle was unnecessary and irresponsible. But once the money is flowing, to refuse to take it and use it is stupid.
In your analogy, they're the person who doesn't want to slaughter the pig because they pretend they are vegan.
@sh76 saidIt's nice to be righteous when you complain about someone filling the trough.
You can't both think it's a bad idea to slaughter the pig and enjoy the pork once it is slaughtered?
The pork-laden boondoggle was unnecessary and irresponsible. But once the money is flowing, to refuse to take it and use it is stupid.
But don't forget to put on a bib when you waddle up to the trough !! 😆
@sh76 saidAs an additional aside, if you want to complain about boondoggles, you might want to focus in on the obscene amount of $$$$ going to the US military (more than the next 9 countries combined).
You can't both think it's a bad idea to slaughter the pig and enjoy the pork once it is slaughtered?
The pork-laden boondoggle was unnecessary and irresponsible. But once the money is flowing, to refuse to take it and use it is stupid.
Or maybe all that $$$$ going to Israel to keep the evangelicals energized.
(God has plans for America) 😆😆😆😆
@mghrn55 saidWhataboutism is irrelevant. Both can be true.
As an additional aside, if you want to complain about boondoggles, you might want to focus in on the obscene amount of $$$$ going to the US military (more than the next 9 countries combined).
Or maybe all that $$$$ going to Israel to keep the evangelicals energized.
(God has plans for America) 😆😆😆😆
As for Israel, LMAO.
It would take 300 years for the price tag of aid to Israel to reach the level of the infrastructure bill.
@sh76 saidAid to Israel is of zero benefit to US taxpayers while the infrastructure bill will yield benefits that far outweigh its costs.
Whataboutism is irrelevant. Both can be true.
As for Israel, LMAO.
It would take 300 years for the price tag of aid to Israel to reach the level of the infrastructure bill.
The CBO estimated the total cost of the infrastructure bill would be $256 billion addition to the budget deficit over 10 years. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/politics/infrastructure-bill-explained/index.html That's chump change compared to what the American People are getting and they don't have to subsidize the repression of millions of Palestinians with those funds either.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@no1marauder saidWow.......Right on
Aid to Israel is of zero benefit to US taxpayers while the infrastructure bill will yield benefits that far outweigh its costs.
The CBO estimated the total cost of the infrastructure bill would be $256 billion addition to the budget deficit over 10 years. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/politics/infrastructure-bill-explained/index.html That's chump change compared to ...[text shortened]... and they don't have to subsidize the repression of millions of Palestinians with those funds either.
I am furious with my country's unwavering
support of Israel, at the expense of
Palestinian human rights.
