Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

applegrove

(123,584 posts)

1. Here is a comment on that link I gave you. Doesn't

Reply to SheltieLover (Original post)

Sat Dec 21, 2024, 02:08 AM

Yesterday

it imply the original amount was passed by the Senate. I hope it is not bogus/AI.

https://lemmy.ml/post/23831491

usernamesAreTricky
OP
And to clarify, this does not need to go back to the house because the house had already technically passed a bill that approved the funding. As I understand it, it was just later intended to be merge into the main CR bill.

After it was cut from the CR, the Dem senators were then able to save the funding by just approving an earlier standalone bill which had already passed the house

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

MadameButterfly

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Some, but not all of what the rat fuckers cut re: healthcare [View all] SheltieLover Yesterday OP

Here is a comment on that link I gave you. Doesn't applegrove Yesterday #1

Ty, but here is NBC link stating some, but not all the peds cancer research funding passed in senate SheltieLover Yesterday #3

Damn MAGA. Women and children are expendable to Trump applegrove Yesterday #4

From STATnews. 5Peds Cancer messures cut from house bill SheltieLover Yesterday #10

Not easy to find anything on it. applegrove Yesterday #13

Not when our only sources of info are not sharing pertinent facts SheltieLover Yesterday #16

Here: applegrove Yesterday #18

But Sen Kaine said it was much narrower in scope & much less money SheltieLover Yesterday #20

And expendable to Maga MadameButterfly Yesterday #19

Absolutely! SheltieLover Yesterday #22

He's nominated the first Tickle 22 hrs ago #32

Yeah, women's lives not as heartrending as childrens' MadameButterfly Yesterday #11

Right SheltieLover Yesterday #14

Agreed that it isn't enough. They found a way to restore MadameButterfly Yesterday #15

Awwww. Thx SheltieLover Yesterday #25

Thanks for explaining that MadameButterfly Yesterday #9

They no doubt did the best they could SheltieLover Yesterday #17

It's what is NOT being said thst is most important here. MadameButterfly Yesterday #21

Absolutely! THANK YOU! SheltieLover Yesterday #23

Thank you for what you are doing and please continue MadameButterfly Yesterday #24

Tyvm SheltieLover Yesterday #26

So many peopole's'lives/livehihoods at stake MadameButterfly 23 hrs ago #27

Tonights Heather Cox Richardson goes into a bit more applegrove Yesterday #2

Msm won't tell the damned truth! SheltieLover Yesterday #5

It seems pretty vague everywhere. Thanks. applegrove Yesterday #6

Congress misses opportunity [REFUSES!] to fund cancer research SheltieLover Yesterday #7

Yes it is. SheltieLover Yesterday #8

Does that mean no coverage for mammograms etc? Meowmee Yesterday #12

That's what I'm trying to find out SheltieLover 23 hrs ago #28

I'll have to read it later. I'm really tired. Meowmee 23 hrs ago #29

Take a look on CNN for all that was CUT from the bill! SheltieLover 23 hrs ago #30

I will Meowmee 23 hrs ago #31