it’s like you believe you can tariff them expecting they won’t do the same. Why do you believe the rest of the world is not going to retaliate and why do you believe America can prosper without the rest of the world?
What’s the point of having a military alliance with countries you puts tariffs on? That’s unfriendly to say the least.
The ‘‘aid’’ we send to Ukraine is the US goverment using US money to buy US products and have the military drop them off. Those millions we send to Ukraine is money we have and keep in our economy, why conservatives are so fucking stupid they can’t figure this out is infuriating. Yes. Saw off you legs to lose weight. You’ll lose SO much.
Not even. A lot of the “aid” is
US gets
Why the hell is this supposed to be a point in favor? I don’t support the military-industrial complex, because I’m not a right-winger or a hawk.
Profitable is a point in favor, if you’re one of them. Strong supply chain is a point in favor, if you’re a hawk or if you think we do need defense
Profitable for the rich. Defense for the rich. Both are points against.
The money is still in the US but in private hands rather than public. Just because the money primarily stays in the domestic economy doesn’t mean there’s no cost to it.
If you want more money in public hands, holy shit is supporting a republican at any point from Regan to Trump the dumbest shit you could vote for. This is the party of ‘‘goverment doesn’t work’’ and privatization of all public services. They have never been shy about just how little tax revenue they want to end up in gov service to citizens.
I’m aware. I’ve never voted Republican in my life and don’t intend to.
You realise private workers are also civilians with lives aka members of the public. Wtf do you mean “in private hands rather than the public”?
“Public funds” refers to money held by the government, tax revenue. The amount of public funds is limited and there are a lot of valid, competing priorities for how the government spends it’s money. Every dollar of public funds spent on bombs is a dollar that’s not available for things like schools and infrastructure.
Private workers receive only some of the funds spent on manufacturing bombs. A significant portion of it goes to executives and shareholders in the military-industrial complex, as well as finding their way to politicians in the form of bribes. Private funds cannot be allocated to public services unless the individual chooses to donate them, or they are taxed back into being public.
I really shouldn’t have to explain this, the difference between public and private is extremely basic. Public in this context doesn’t mean “held by a member of the public” (that’s what private means) it means “held by the public collectively, as represented by the government.”
Thought you meant “THE public” as in “the average joe”, soz. What I’m not sure about is what you have an issue with. The money invested into arms replenishment is a boost to US jobs/the economy. Why the complaint that it’s left the treasury? Because it could “go to something else”? Sure, anything could go to something else, but you’d have to prove that something else is actually more important/urgent. And I don’t think there’s anything more worthwhile currently than defeating Russia, the biggest antagonist to the West for decades.
Not to mention, the investment has been miniscule given the gravity of the situation, how much is “too much” for peace in Europe/World? There can be no prosperity without security.
Virtually every possible use of that money is “a boost to jobs/the economy.” If they spent more on education, teachers would have more money to spend which would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. If they spent the money building trains, it would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. If they spent the money paying people to dig ditches and then fill the ditches back in, it would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. This talking point is complete nonsense and either ignorant or disingenuous. The arms industry is not particularly good for creating jobs/economic stimulus compared to spending the money on other things like education, you’re trying to compare it to what, not spending it at all? That makes no sense.
That assumes that funding the conflict and building more bombs is necessary to bring about peace and security, which I personally disagree with, but my position on the matter is irrelevant, the original comment was just seeking to answer the question and describe what some people on the right believe. Regardless of whether it’s true or not that the military aid is necessary for peace, many people don’t agree with that assessment.
Sorry, made edits while you were responding. Covers some issues you have with it.
Well, I’m a leftist, so naturally I believe that using money on domestic spending to help people is preferable to spending money on bombs to kill people. That’s like, most of what it means to be a leftist. I would like to think that this is the natural, base assumption, and that the argument in favor of military spending is the thing that has to be proven.
If you’d like, I could go on about the many, many domestic crises we’re facing due to insufficient public funding, everything from healthcare to education to even basic infrastructure like bridges. Seems like a bit of a tangent though.
Ultimately, whichever position is “correct” doesn’t really matter. If you don’t address domestic problems then you’re probably going to lose the election and then you don’t get any say in what happens at all, which is, you know, what happened.
It’s been like 80 years of unjustified conflicts that have consistently made the world a worse place before you can find any conflict where US bombs were actually used to improve anyone’s life, including a twenty year long quagmire that we just got out of before this. Despite making things worse for everyone, pretty much every conflict whether it was Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc were entered into with widespread popular support and they all had the exact same justification: that the other side was just like Hitler and they would keep expanding forever unless we got involved. It’s a wonder to me that there’s anyone who still believes in “benevolent interventionism.”
That isn’t “what happened”. What happened was the public got played by domestic and foreign propaganda + some sprinkles of misogyny and racism.
Bidens admin was one of the best in a long time and was infinitely more productive than the orangutan could ever dream of being.
But because Biden was too stubborn to not go for a second term, Kamala was placed in a shit position with only 3 months to build a campaign/image, and despite her situation she still performed insanely well because she’s also infinitely more competent and intelligent than the orangutan currently in the white house.
Voters are so fucking dumb and uninformed, that the most googled thing in a bunch of states on election day was “did Biden drop out?” Then they decided to vote for the old orange criminal loser, who tried to steal the 2020 election and a few weeks before was ranting on TV like a senile grandpa about the Haitians “eating the cats and the dogs”.
Your arguments will require more nuance than “I’m leftist who thinks guns and killing is bad”.
You don’t think the world was better off after US intervention in WWII? Don’t you think more lives would’ve been saved if the allies had been stronger sooner?
The defense of Ukraine is the most justified use of armament in a very long time.
I don’t care that “many people don’t agree with that statement”. Who? Republicucks? Right wing grifters/Russian puppets on YouTube? The morons who listen to them?
The consensus is that the military defeat of Russia is paramount to the West. Especially among those who are most qualified to opine on the matter.
Roughly 50% of all Americans. I’m not sure who determines “the consensus” if polls are devided and the side that disagrees just won an election.
Right wing opinion has been highjacked by the Russians, it’s a compromised crowd. Hell, the government is compromised nevermind the idiot followers.
Conflating the election result with support for Ukraine is also disingenuous, given that most americans actually support sending aid.
Same for every industry, executives, politicians and shareholders are Americans too.
This is such an inane point. Yes they are “Americans” but the goal of public policy shouldn’t be to just give money to whoever so long as they’re Americans. The same $100 means a lot more to a poor person than to a rich person, and they are also a lot more likely to spend the money, stimulating the economy and providing more tax revenue in a virtuous cycle.
Like the difference between public and private, this is extremely basic economics.
Same for every other industry with poor people and rich people working for them that you CARE about, they are Americans.
Who cares?
In american workers hands too.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. We’re not just sending missiles, some of it is logistical, funding, training - some of it doesn’t just come back into our economy, and not in full. For example, there is a fund in the billions for Ukraine and allies to buy weapons from us on a need by basis - but like not immediately. It has been years, it could be years.
More importantly though a good portion of these funds were out of bounds of the National Budget causing National Debt to grow. Now, I’m not saying Ukraine is the sole reason the National Debt is out of control, it’s been a long time coming, but we’re peaking. We print more money, the value of the dollar drops, things get more expensive not just national but worldwide since the dollar is an international currency reserve.
How concerned are trumpoloids about how much return they get from aid to Israel? No minerals? they haven’t been programmed for that I guess.
I don’t even understand the point you’re trying to make with this one. I guess if you’re referring to me as a trumpoloid you could dumb this response down a bit so I can maybe process it and reply. On a side note, I don’t understand why we (as a Nation) support Israels genocide, but I personally don’t support it so there’s that I guess.
Anyone who genuinely cares about the national debt wouldn’t want Trump in power. The piss-dribble amount of aid the US has sent to Ukraine is definitely not a factor, and if you still think it is, go ahead and let us know what percentage of the budget has gone to Ukraine and then compare that to the US lend-lease program. The reason people only care to question what they get in return for Ukrainian aid yet don’t ask the same of Israel is because that’s what right-wing media programmed them to do. Is that clearer?
You keep trying to make this a party issue, when it’s not. Biden also increased the National Debt by a similar amount. You’re right, 1 Billion dollars in a pool of Trillions really is a drop in the bucket. I don’t think we need to get anything from Ukraine in return of our support. They’re fighting a foreign offender, they deserved much more than throwing money at the problem, but here we are. Everything we send out of the U.S. that’s not accounted for in the U.S. budget goes into debt; as the National Debt climbed, the U.S. needs to find ways to pay that down, and they’re trying to do that without offending the Billionaire Class buying politicians. So, from Trumps perspective, Ukraine is an easy cut, regardless if we think he’s Putins Puppet, it’s clear Trump doesn’t care for what’s happening in Ukraine.
I support funds for Ukraine over funds for Isreal any day of the week, but that’s just not going to happen under this administration.
Right-wingers make it a partisan issue by conveniently dangling the debt over any spending they dislike. Also, while you mention Biden’s debt increase, not only was Trump much worse, but not all increases are equal in kind. If a president increases the debt to keep the country standing during a difficult period, sure, good stuff. On the other hand, if the president increases the debt just to provide tax cuts that mainly benefit his rich friends, then not so good, these aren’t the same in any way despite both being increases.
This faux concern about the debt is so fucking disingenuous, and I wish people would stop claiming it because you’re embarrassing yourselves.
Republicans are ALWAYS worse for the debt.
The National Debt has been on a steady growth since Obama, through Trump, through Biden. Like, it’s an issue that spans multiple presidencies and parties. The U.S. dollars is a global reserve note. So, not only do we need to account for paying it down in our National Budget, but we also can’t just print more money at the problem either. I fully support Ukraine. Russia should not have invaded them, and either we or the EU should have had a stronger opposition than just throwing money at the problem. If we want to continue to support Ukraine, if we want to pay down our National Debt, if we want to continue supporting our Nations social services we need to fucking tax Billionaires and their Trillion dollar companies. Like, corporations buying politicians is a problem.
That National Debt isn’t some invisible barrier, it affects our every day lives, our future, what programs we can support, and the global economy. I don’t know, unless you can explain to me me why the National Debt doesn’t matter, and how we can continue to support Ukraine. I’m here for a discussion.
It has always and will always grow. GOP are also the party that when they hold a majority spend like fucking mad, Bush paying for Iraq, Trump’s crippling tax cuts that explicitly shifted tax burden onto the poor and middleclass. They do not care, they only pretend to care and use that as an excuse for more spending, or tax cuts for the owner class. They never fucking care when they have the ball.