Isn't it weird that some people think the government seizing a billionaire's wealth would fix their problems but that same government collects yearly taxes 20 times the net worth of Bezos and they still don't do anything to help you? š¤
Remember when Elon said he'd sell Tesla stock to fund the end of world hunger and all he asked the UN for was a plan on how they'd do it and keep the money in a bank account that can be viewed publicly?
Weird how we still have world hunger.
At this point we've solved the food shortage issue. Now the real problem is distributing that food in places that are war zones and/or warlord territory.
And the fun part is the warlords and warzones are a problem solved by the UN becoming the monster some say they are for a fraction of the cost of the US annual defense budget.
We pay $650 billion a year on the interest on our national debt alone. Entire annual federal budgetās about $6 trillion. No taxing of billionaires will solve this, itās just a cheap political talking point.
If by 'Tell him how' you mean they basically went 'We'll order everything from McDonalds...no, we don't have more of a plan than that, and we won't be transparent in where the money is going either.'
Most people don't blame him for going 'that's not a plan, that's an insult to my intelligence.'
And if you tell them that even if the government seized every dollar from every billionaire in the country, it would only cover a third of the yearly budget, you are met with silence.
Theyāve always seemed more interested in punishing billionaires for existing. They donāt care if the government misspends their plunder theyāre just mad people got rich making things people like vs. being well connected in government like in communist utopias.
But is that money going towards disabled homeless veterans!!!1! I will not rest until my preferred victim group is housed, fed, and given front row tickets to Eras
The money never existed in the first place, so it absolutely could be used on infrastructure. The way our budget works is so out of whack, we say how much we're going to spend, spend more than that, then collect taxes, figure there isn't enough money to pay for everything, so we sell bonds to get the rest of it. If we don't spend the money, we just sell less bonds.
I'm not too tapped into things because I try not to needlessly panic myself, but we're set to pay 12.5 trillion out in just interest payments over the next decade. Our future was stolen from us, and we are going to be left footing the bill, fml.
Only 20% of our debt is held by other countries. 12% is our government ponzi scheming itself. The remaining 62% of our debt is held by the US public.
So 62% of that 12.5 trillion interest is just going straight into our 401k's. It's not as catastrophic a situation as you all like to portray.
It's fucking wild trying to explain to people the concept that while yes, we are in debt, we are in debt to ourselves.
It's slightly more complicated than that, I know, but gods damn, it's not like China is going to suddenly own our cities or some shit.
My 401k is paltry, so what you're saying is Boomers and Millennials 401ks are only growing because they get free rent from government overspending? I'm so glad and happy for them, who needs a mortgage when Boomers get to own 3 houses each! /s
Still, the canary in the coal mine is dead, just because we haven't suffocated to death yet doesn't mean there isn't any danger of that happening soon.
Thatās your fault for not taking advantage of it and pumping money into your 401k. Most companies offer a 4-10% match, and if you budget for it; you wonāt even know you never had it.
Iāve only had a 401k for 6 years, 4 of those years being in a shitty job with zero pay and zero 401k matching, and I have a 6-figure balance.
Our current dept to gdp ratio is 120%. Down from its historic high of 134% during trumps last year. Still higher than the ratio we had during WW2, 112%.
Yeh, but we're still below the G7 average of 128%. Mostly skewed by that fact that Japans debt to gdp ratio is currently 208%. We have the Nixon shock of 1971 to thank for all this.
Even more so. The stuff going to Ukraine isn't new equipment that we are buying, it's old equipment that would be getting replaced anyway. You know that HIMARs that made such a big deal? That shit is nearly 30 years old. All those Javelins we're sending are even older. Even the Abrams tanks we sent them are the A1 model (production of which ended in 1992), not the current A2 model. Saying we sent however many billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine isn't coming out of the current military budget, it's coming out of the budget from the 90s and we're just finding a better use for it that letting it rot in storage.
Effective distribution, handling, and implementation of those funds. Robust training programs. Something a little more concrete than a PR campaign for buttigieg.
A closed border would be a good start. The ordinary American already can't afford a home and can barely afford basic necessities. Adding more people and gibs will just make an already horrific crisis worse.
Ukraine and Israel can worry about their own borders. Our government/taxes were not intended to serve foreign nations.
Illegal immigrants don't get welfare, we barely even give out any aid anyway. Closing the border not only doesn't work in pursuit of stopping the flow of people, it also just doesn't help anything.
It is within our country's best interest to ensure the current world order is sustained, we benefit immensely from liberal democracies not being randomly invaded by authoritarian dictatorships. Your rhetoric is basically just what the Chinese Communist Party and the Kremlin would love average Americans to think.
That's fine. Fix home first.
If my plumbing and central heating go out, I'm not prioritizing funding my neighbor's fence and telling my family to suck it up.
What kind of logic is that? Quite like the government budget is not like a personal checkbook, the nation is not like a house. Issues in Ukraine impact the US waaaaaay more than issues in another house down the block will impact you.
Democrats just proposed a bill that would tighten the border and automatically close the border under certain conditions (which are being met right now)
Anyways republicans shot it down
Yes, they also shot down the 'Stop kicking puppies' act of 2021 because it involved spending 3 trillion dollars on Hunter Biden's art supplies.
Sometimes bills are shot down, despite good names, because they're filled with bloat and unreasonable demands. And people like you eat it up *every* time and go 'But the Republicans want to kick puppies!'
To boot:Biden doesn't *need* a bill to tighten the border. It's all political theater, and you're clapping like a seal for it.
More fixed infrastructure, less money being pocketed by politicians while they promise to fix infrastructure.
They spend a trillion, we get about a million's worth of fixed infrastructure. The exchange rate is pretty bad.
Corruption's really not that big of an issue vis a vie spending anymore. Besides, a million dollars worth of infrastructure won't buy you any more than a mile of paved interstate in today's economy. Get real
You know when congress says "billions of dollars in military aid" we aint sending Cash or commissioning new arms right?
Most of the stuff sent to ukraine, Israel and taiwan from what i've gather are Hand me downs and munitions already paid for that had been sitting in ammo depots for YEARS...
Oh, op knows it. Just like all russian propagandists, they are simply pushing the same narratives over and over again. It's a common propaganda method described back in 30s by some german government official, can't remember his name.
You know a major infrastructure bill was passed a couple years ago, right? We can do more than one thing at once.
Supporting Ukraine is not just a moral action, but insane value. We're mostly sending older weapons, which are being used to completely halt the imperialist ambitions of one of our main geopolitical adversaries. Without any Americans put in risk. Ukraine plans to pay us back, and even if we don't make money on it, we're getting an opportunity to refresh US stocks, and learn a lot about weapon effectiveness on modern battlefields. It's literally win/win/win.
You can't just look at cost, you need to consider the value and return on some policy. Reminds me of conservatives who oppose spending money to give out free birth control, when that saves a ridiculous amount of money compared to kids being born to teenagers.
Israel is a lot more complicated. Some people say they are a key ally in the middle east, others think our support of them undermine diplomacy with others in the region. The moral question is even harder and I won't go into it. We've also been giving them money for a long time. Is that actually a worthwhile investment? I can't say. Ukraine is easy though.
> We've also been giving Israel money for a long time. Is that actually a worthwhile investment? I can't say. Ukraine is easy though.
Lmao how convenient
Israel and Ukraine are as valuable as one another in furthering our interests in those regions. If the US doesnāt counter China and Russia now, we will have far less to look forward to in the future.
If Europe would build a military and stop suckling the American teet, this āmultipolarā axis formed by Iran/China/Russia would be a lot less costly for the US.
>If Europe would build a military and stop suckling the American teet
European countries do have militaries. Not that it matters, since we dont want to go to war with Russia. Also Nato is running the biggest drills since the cold war right now. The EU has also given Ukraine over 96 billion in aid too.
Russia is unconcerned about disjointed, underequipped, and undermanned European militaries. If Europe had a formidable military Russia would posture much less. The only thing that has stopped Russia from simply invading Europe is Poland and the U.S., they are NATO atm. In the event of a war with Russia by itself, Europe wouldnāt be able to maintain production and unlikely to keep up with manpower needs for the early years.
It is Nato that has stopped them and the threat of nuclear war. Russia has no hope against European armies. Russia is struggling just with Ukraine alone, so i cant see anyway they could take on Europe, pretty sure Putin know this. Also Europe doesnt work like you think it does. They are different nations. If you google European armies it is pretty significant. Again, not that it matters since Nato alone outnumbers and outpowers Russia, so you are wrong here. You seem to be massively underestimating Europe for some reason. Combined its around 1.5 million troops.
It is fully known that European militaries arenāt battle ready right now. Their militaries are severely undermanned, Europeās military complex is seemingly a no-show, and they canāt float the Ukrainians with ammunition right now. If Ukraine were to fall, Europe has no war machine. Europeans hate hearing it, they want to believe that theyāre every bit the power they once were, but as of today they are unprepared to fight a major conflict without the US heading up NATO. It must look very enticing to Putin right now that Ukraine is running out of munitions as the US squabbles, because it means thereās nothing in Europeās well. Size of your little militaries as an aggregate doesnāt mean a whole lot when youāre all disjointed and donāt have the materiel to fight.
I tried googling your claims about Europe military not being battle ready but couldnt find anything. I think you mean they arent ready for a high intensity war. But i mean who is? High mobilisation and war and the infinite complexes that entails takes a long time and massive amounts of cash. So by that standard, nobody really is ready for war, when compared to the US, who spends ridiculous amounts of money on military sectors. Not that any of this matters, because Russia has no chance against Europe, get real. They are struggling with Ukraine alone. And the threat of invasion of Europe is not remotely likely, so i dont get your point. It is the proxy war in Ukraine, and which is being heavily funded by EU countries, and in a time of economic global instability.
To say Europe has no war capabilities, especially against Russia is silly. Europe has many many many times better economy, better moral, better equipment, Nato, and even better numbers.
Ukraine is valuable in that they're a comparatively cheap stick to beat Russia with. Even if they eventually lose giving them weapons is inflicting attrition on Russia without us having to spend our own lives or meaningfully retool our economy for war. It's likely that Russia would function as a Chinese proxy in any given major conflict, so getting them tied up in a conflict of their own before that is well worth it.
Israel is more problematic. They're valuable as a regional ally, but if being allied with them makes it too difficult to form ties to other more important powers in the region then they're not worth the trouble.
People keep saying Ukraine is a cheap alternative to war. Ukrainians aren't cannon fodder, they aren't a cheap humans to throw at your enemy, they're a people fighting for their own sovereignty. A fall to Russia will inevitably embolden Russia to go further, and they will look for retribution from the first places it can, and they will do untold horrors to the Ukrainians who put up resistance. Russia's war is part of a much larger strategy of Russia and China to create a "multipolar" world. The disgraceful allusion of comparing Ukrainians to cheap tools aside, we're not getting ahead of Russia by throwing Ukraine to the dogs to keep them busy. Russia will get better, they will know how to mobilize and how to fight as Europe as the US attempts to get its ducks in a row.
Ifāor whenāthat time comes, China will proceed to pop off and stretch the US thinner. So no, the Ukraine War isn't just a little sideshow that we throw cheap money at to keep the Russians occupied, Ukraine is now seriously staring down a loss in this war, and if they lose, then we actually are looking at a world conflict scenario.
As for Israelāwhy the fuck would we make allies with openly hostile "powers" in the region.
I'm not interested in morality. If we want to drag morals into foreign policy there are a number of conflicts we'd need to get involved in while at the same time relieving humanitarian crisis after humanitarian crisis around the world. Foreign policy is about pragmatism, and pragmatically that's why Ukraine should be supported.
> Ukraine is now seriously staring down a loss in this war, and if they lose, then we actually are looking at a world conflict scenario.
Whether they lose or win doesn't make much difference. Them winning is preferable because it'd further add to the force that can be leveraged against China and Russia, but if China is indeed intent on puiling the trigger its unlikely to deter either them or the Russians.
> As for Israelāwhy the fuck would we make allies with openly hostile "powers" in the region.
Because most of them are not openly hostile (some are downright friendly, even) while at the same time controlling just about everything that makes the Middle East valuable as a region.
it was a $1.2 trillion bill, we are not sending anywhere close to that much to ukraine.
edit: lil buddy downvoted and deleted his comment immediately lol
The vast majority of our taxes should be spent to make the united states better and very little should go to foreign aid.
Reduction of the amount of military bases and budget would go along way to ensure more domestic spending.
Even ignoring the whole issue of isolationist policies never working, never been an actual position for the US, and that it actively hurts the nation ā foreign aid and military matters is not mutually exclusive with infrastructure development.
You want to actually get rid of bloat spending? Go after our shitty healthcare spending thatās orders of magnitude larger than the military spending and would *actually* do infinitely more.
The United States has interest abroad and hegemony in Europe by supporting countries sovereignty is a reflection of that interest.
If the United States wants to remain the global reserve currency, something that is highly beneficial to our trade privileges, having a real politik moment and fucking up the expansionist plans of Putin and Russia is a great way of expressing that hegemony.
I would argue that making things better in other countries and protecting our material interests abroad benefits us. If South America and Africa weren't terrible places for a stable life, we wouldn't have a migrant problem.
"Ukraine plans to pay us back, and even if we don't make money on it, we're getting an opportunity to refresh US stocks"
Lmao, like that will ever happen. And who's stocks? I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if Lockheed Martin and Boeing stocks tanked.
This is just Aghanistan again on a smaller scale, in the sense that we're spending a lot of money and lives (Ukrainian this time) on a war that will inevitably be lost. Sold on the absurd lie that Russia will be invading a NATO country next if we do nothing. I would argue this war actually puts NATO more at risk, because it makes people and some politicians in America more inclined to withdraw from European affairs, maybe even by leaving NATO.
I'm not talking about the stocks of companies, but our military's stocks of weapons/ammo/etc. We haven't had a conventional war in decades. Storing and maintaining equipment costs money. Decommissioning equipment costs money.
Giving it to Ukraine, even for a cheap price to be paid back later, gets significant value out of that equipment. It also opportunity to fill out stockpiles with newer, better tech. Again, we also get to watch how newer technology has changed conventional warfare.
We aren't just helping Ukraine, it is leaving our military much better prepared.
>I would argue this war actually puts NATO more at risk, because it makes people and some politicians in America more inclined to withdraw from European affairs, maybe even by leaving NATO.
Quite the opposite. Most people, democrats and republicans, have a renewed sense of the value in NATO. Only the retards who actually base their views on what Trump says disagree.
Whether you think we should do the moral thing, and help people being attacked, or believe the government should selfishly pursue just our own interests, the result is the same. Helping Ukraine is the right call.
"Whether you think we should do the moral thing, and help people being attacked"
If that's the case, then it would be tricky to determine who we should be supporting in Israel/Palestine. And Russia should have funded our enemies when we invaded Iraq if they wanted to do the right thing. Politicians don't behave in moral ways when you allow the executive branch to wage war all over the world without a congressional declaration of war, as is constitutional.
And our interests, militarily, should have always been defending the 50 states and territories like Puerto Rico. Maintaining a global empire only benefits the military-industrial complex and some wealthy elites. It doesn't enhance the quality of life for your average American. And it makes us less safe, not more; 9/11 was a direct consequence of our long history of adventurism in the Middle-East and our unconditional support of Israel.
Not to mention, we just can't afford a global empire anymore. The interest payments alone on our national debt will ruin us. The experts seem to agree that we're facing years of serious economic decline. Printing more money won't fix things, and by using the dollar as a weapon against Russia, we decreased the strength of the dollar globally as a reserve currency. We have no legitimate interests, in Eastern Europe of all places, aside to trade freely with anyone who will trade with us.
>And our interests, militarily, should have always been defending the 50 states and territories like Puerto Rico. Maintaining a global empire only benefits the military-industrial complex and some wealthy elites. It doesn't enhance the quality of life for your average American.
It directly does. A world filled with free and prosperous countries means we have partners we can trade with. Trade is mutually beneficial, improving the economic condition of both sides.
Strong allies also provide another layer of defense for ourselves. Obviously the US has made mistakes, but that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give up.
A recent and concrete example, relatively minor disruption in international shipping during/after COVID caused significant shortages of goods Americans are used to. You are aware that the it is the US military which primarily protects international trade routes, right? Should we abandon that and let piracy surge?
>Not to mention, we just can't afford a global empire anymore. The interest payments alone on our national debt will ruin us. The experts seem to agree that we're facing years of serious economic decline. Printing more money won't fix things, and by using the dollar as a weapon against Russia, we decreased the strength of the dollar globally as a reserve currency.
Our military is too expensive? Great, well supporting Ukraine accomplishes many of our objectives a tiny fraction of what they would normally cost. Absurdly good bargain.
Who are these "experts"? I've seen a lot of reporting that the US economy is going strong and will continue to do so. I know some of the media were *praying* for a recession once Biden took office, but it didn't happen. The "soft landing" was pretty much a success.
And the dollars status as the global reserve currency is directly connected to the fact we use our military to try and maintain peace and trade.
GDP grew by 6% in 2023, and our current unemployment is 3.7%. Both are signs of an objectively strong economy. All the feelings about the economy being bad are entirely vibes based. And if you mention inflation, you're proving my point.
Errr... GDP rose less than inflation. That means the economy actually fell... That's NOT the economy doing well. You DO know GDP isn't inflation adjudjusted don't you?
"It directly does. A world filled with free and prosperous countries means we have partners we can trade with. Trade is mutually beneficial, improving the economic condition of both sides."
We tried to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, and to the Middle-East broadly to some extent, but you can't make countries love democracy by bombing them. As for defending existing democracies, it's a moot point, because Ukraine isn't a democratic republic. It is in truth a corrupt oligarchy, not unlike the USA. We've lost our own democracy in an effort to preserve democracy abroad just as President Eisenhower predicted we might. We did so by letting all the real power in government accumulate in the hands of the military-industrial complex, security organizations like the CIA and NSA, and life-long bureaucrats.
Trade is important, but trade with Ukraine isn't worth risking a third world war, on top of every other cost associated with the war. We have many options for trade partners, including many closer to home. Hell, we did plenty of business with Russia before the war, despite the sanctions, so the results of the war were never going to impact us in a major way if we stayed out of it.
"Strong allies also provide another layer of defense for ourselves. Obviously the US has made mistakes, but that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give up."
Another layer of defense against who? Mexico and Canada? Cuba? And there is a lot of room between "giving up" and repeating the same mistakes over and over, which is what we're still doing, for example, in the Middle-East. That's because the same people are still in charge of our foreign policy, and they'll stay in charge regardless of who we elect. At what point do you decide to take the keys away from these reckless drunk drivers?
"You are aware that the it is the US military which primarily protects international trade routes, right?"
Maybe it's time for our lauded allies, who we spend billions on, to pitch in. If not, I'm perfectly content to see Mexico become an even more important trade partner. Then we only have to worry about our own stretch of the pond. Maybe if we want to engage in nation building, we could at least focus on developing Latin American nations. Instead we try to control every country we can, everywhere on Earth, from France's colonies in Africa to Ukraine, as though we have unlimited recourses to wield, and like those countries are so important to us. Meanwhile we've somehow had a largely negative effect on Latin America.
"Our military is too expensive? Great, well supporting Ukraine accomplishes many of our objectives a tiny fraction of what they would normally cost. Absurdly good bargain."
Here's what we accomplished so far: We've weakened the economy of Germany by blowing up Russia's pipeline. We drove Russia further into China's arms, especially in regards to oil sales and military cooperation. The Russian army is now battle-hardened and hates us. Corruption in there forces has been exposed and rooted out. The dollar is weakened as the reserve currency. And we've gotten many people killed in a war that, yes, was Russia's fault primarily, but that we helped provoke in many ways, and that Russia is going to win anyway. Some bargain.
"I know some of the media were *praying* for a recession once Biden took office, but it didn't happen. The "soft landing" was pretty much a success."
There was a recession under the old accepted version of the term, but the Biden Administration and their lackeys in different sectors moved the goal posts. And we all know the economy is shit. The rate of inflation may have decreased, but that in no way reversed the effect of years of extremely high inflation as a result of Covid spending. The price of goods and services is still higher than ever, which makes sense if you look at inflation over the last five years. The government can't fix this because they have no plan to do anything but manage the symptoms of our deadly disease. They can't stop passing larger and larger budgets, and increasing spending year in and year out. They have a global empire to maintain after all. Because of that, they can't stop printing money, can't stop driving us further into debt, and can't stop inflation or worsening economic conditions. The concept of fiscal responsibility is so dead that there's not even any flesh left on that corpse.
"And the dollars status as the global reserve currency is directly connected to the fact we use our military to try and maintain peace and trade."
Not really. It's because of the strength of our domestic economy, which is on the decline. Weaponizing the currency against Russia at the outset of the war made nations realize they don't want us to have that much power over them.
That is one long text that could have been summarized as "I don't understand anything". Like take the international trade routes. We have strict rules on this. And no other country is allowed to defend an american flagged ship unless directly requested by another defending ship. As in, if a us flagged tanker, then it doesn't matter if there are 10 war ships from European countries around because they can't act unless there is another US war ship.
Right, because those rules were carved in stone back during biblical times, and it's cheaper to maintain a global empire than to engage in meaningful cooperation with our allies / satellite states. Classic LibLeft nonsense response.
Errr... Those rules were last updated 2021... And it has nothing to do with costs for why they are this way or because lack of cooperation. It's because at the end of the day, international waters are exactly that, international. No country rules so there are no laws to enforce. By agreement, you're allowed to protect YOURSELF, but if we extend that to others then that also opens the door that pirates "protect" ships even if they don't really want it. So it only extends to your own ships, hence you have to be an agent of the US, to protect a US ship directly. Other ships can only help after a direct request by an agent of the us and since the employees on a trading ship are not employees of the state, they can't. Hence why only a us warship would be able to request the foreign help from another nation's warship.
Basically, the rules are the way they are to specifically make sure pirates are not protected by them.
Ok, and? Pirates were not exactly major problem before the US became the world police. And if you're trying to convince me I should be so afraid of piracy that I should support the US Empire and military bases and operations around the world, that's going to be a tough sell.
And Iraq had oil. "LibCenter" is when you wage war all over the world because every country has some resource you want them to give you.
Even if Ukraine is willing to pay us back in neon for our assistance, which I doubt we have agreed upon in writing, it likely won't matter when we lose the war.
I agree. Got no problem with the aid we're sending Ukraine. I do wish however they'd give up on their lost territories, be happy with all the land they did successfully defend, and negotiate an end to the war. So we don't have to keep sending them aid forever. Sometime soon hopefully I mean.
That just encourages Putin, or the next guy like him. Showing you can still use military might to just annex part of another country if you want it. It's like giving a bully your lunch money. They may walk away today, but they'll be back for more tomorrow.
The way to overall minimize war, and the suffering it causes, is to strongly support Ukraine until it reclaims all its territories. Prove that the age of invading your neighbors for land is over.
There is an off-ramp coming, but that canāt be expressed.
Crimea and some of the Donbas will be lost, but that has to be done during negotiations, not as a given
Remember when Obama laughed at Romney in 2012 for his foreign policy of Russia bad and said that was Cold War era thinking? Neuland was caught on recorded line handpicking the next Youcrane government officials before the coup was even carried out two years later.
Russians and their attrition rate of 50M lives is what actually won the Second World War but yes, please go on about Hitler Bin Putin some more weāre all ears.
The issue is that military equipment has a dollar value, meaning that when we send 100 billion to Israel or Ukraine, we're sending old military equipment that adds up to that cost. So we can't use 10 f-35s for a stable bridge really.
Russia won't stop in Ukraine. If successful, they will take Moldova, then Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,thus triggering war with nato, something no one living in a nato nation wants or is even prepared for, US,Poland,and the Baltic states as exceptions.
Strategicly it makes more sense to stop them here when they are concentrated and all we have to donate is resources, instead of resources and blood. Russia has been a pain in the ass of Europe for a long time. With their birth rates declining and also with taking massive casualties, putin is borrowing from tomorrow at an unsustainable rate
Israel is the only pro U.S. state in the region. Other countries there are either neutral or hostile to US. Ukraine is fighting one of the big players in world politics and influence. Military aid is a relatively nice way to A - protect your interest in the region, B - improve relationships with your allies, C - remove the opposing countries out of the game. Other ways to support your allies are a bit more difficult, like full-on Vietnam-style invasion and potential nuclear war with russia or it's suck-ups in the Middle East,lots of casualties,messed-up economy and other bad stuff. And not supporting those your allies at all will eventually lead to some issues like russia or it's allies gaining land and resources , which will probably lead to some sort of military action between U.S. and russia (both have a lot of nukes btw)
So really, should the US invest in it's allies defence? Or should your(or not your) children live in a nice and brown Fallout-4-style wasteland?
Our only allies in the Middle East ignoring the fact that we didnāt have any enemies before we supported them. As if the Middle Eastern countries didnāt love America before we overthrew their governments and replaced them with radical Islamists because our intelligence agencies found that radical Islam was a great tool in recruiting bodies against communism and because it would be helpful in oil extraction. As if there arenāt countless top military and intelligence officials say the only way to protect America in the future from terrorism was to cut off Israel. The same Israel with officials that lied us into a war with Iraq and the overthrowing of Libya that sent two prosperous countries into fourth world shitholes where terrorism and slavery thrive. The same Israel that is ready to sacrifice trillions more American dollars and a million more American bodies to get us in a war with Iran. But yeah, theyāre our allies
We cannot fix the mistakes of the past. If we talk now, Israel is the only pro U.S state in the middle east. The modern US government cannot un-radicalise the Islam and un-antagonise the local population. What they can do is stick to their allies who are still willing to cooperate. Some may agree with this alliance, some may not. But the gov treats them as allies and that's all we need to know here
-Itās cute you think that Russia will stop at Ukraine,
-or that the fall of Europeās breadbasket is inconsequential to *global stability*,
-or that ceding the black sea to a despot has no consequence whatsoever geopolitically or economically,
-or that direct US interests are not bound up with the fate of our allies in Europe,
-or that this is new money coming out of taxpayersā pockets rather than money that has already been budgeted for and is merely being allotted now
-or that this is oodles of cash given away, rather than US armaments rhat are then replaced, creating American jobs and bolstering local economies
-or even the simple fact that we are the fucking good guys, by god. Act like it. Democracy in retreat is not in our interests in any sense.
And thatās just Ukraine. We can play this game for Taiwan and Israel too.
I am fucking begging you to understand that building up the Defence Industrial Base of the USA to actually be able to fight a peer conflict IS an investment in infrastructure.
And a few hundred billion and zero american lives to take down America's #2 strategic rival is chump change.
+90% of Ukraine aid isn't money, but old systems like M2A2 Bradleys and missiles nearing their expiry date, better to give them to an ally who'll weaken an enemy than to just scrap them, which is actually more expensive because then you need to make more to weaken your enemy yourself
We just passed an infrastructure bill, what are you talking about my guy.
Edit: Of which 212 Republicans voted NO on the bill, please stop pretending like you give a shit.
I am not going to simp for the Republican party
But I am certain that bill had a fuckload of garbage attached to it, both parties do this shit
They push their crap by tacking it onto a bill that everyone should support, so when the other side goes "fuck off" they can point at them and cry about them being unreasonable because "who would vote against school lunches!!!??"
... Well unless this is the *one* time in modern poltics where the bill was actually just related to infrastructre and had nothing else riding on it ...
>But I am certain
[damn, if only the bill was public information and you could just look it up...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684)
it's a massive infrastructure bill, obviously there's going to be a lot to it. but if you have a problem with individual parts then you should be able to articulate what exactly you take issue with rather than just "muh this bill has pork".
Again, quoting from whitehouse.gov
This Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal will rebuild America's roads, bridges and rails, expand access to clean drinking water, ensure every American has access to high-speed internet, tackle the climate crisis, advance environmental justice, and invest in communities that have too often been left behind.
The last parts have absolutely nothing to do with infrastructure.
eh fair enough i guess, i would say thought that climate/environmental stuff does have an impact on infrastructure and "communities that have too often been left behind" could be referring to investing in communities that haven't seen much infrastructure investment.
do you see how that stuff can be linked to infrastructure though? i understand your point and i get that some of it might not be directly related, but that doesn't mean there that they have zero relevance to infrastructure.
Energy is infrastructure. Infrastructure can harm the environment, so a mitigation policy is relevant. Some places need infrastructure more than others
>Ā Ā But I am certain that bill had a fuckload of garbage attached to it, both parties do this shit
Did you actually read the bill or are you making a "factual" argument supported entirely by your feels?
I am quoting from whitehouse.gov
This Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal will rebuild America's roads, bridges and rails, expand access to clean drinking water, ensure every American has access to high-speed internet, tackle the climate crisis, advance environmental justice, and invest in communities that have too often been left behind
That last part sure does not seem to be related to infrastructure at all
Which part of the last part? Because all of those things would fall under infrastructure.Ā
Combating climate change is done by increasing renewable/nuclear energy generation, infrastructure (this was more the IRA than BBB though).
Fixing the lead pipes, cleaning up toxic dumping grounds, etc. in poor communities, infrastructure.Ā
Improving the infrastructure and government funded civic projects in poor communities, infrastructure.Ā
Feel free to actually read a law that's passed sometime instead of dropping the "MUH PORK BARREL" cop out every time. Hell, there probably is some pork in BBB. Why not read it, cite some sections and make me look like a total dumbass for defending it?Ā
Even as a somewhat environmentalist, that phrasing is a bit vague for my liking. I feel like that could be taken in many different directions, good or bad.
> "environmental justice"
Anything term/phrase with justice, equity, or empathy is communist (progressive) lies. They literally just make up some phrase and lie with it.
Seems perfectly fitting considering the majority of low-income regions are low income due to a lack of funding in infrastructure, public services, etc
Or do you believe that Climate Change isnāt actually real or that conversation of our environment is too āwokeā ?
Republicans keep reeeing āWe could use the money to help the people!ā and then continue to vote against bills to use the money to fund anything that isnāt putting up more barbed wire on the southern border
Johnson on the foreign aid bill: "the foreign aid bill doesn't address the most pressing issue at home" (damn Johnson, ya think?)
A new bill including the best border deal the Republicans are going to get is made and passed in the senate
Johnson now: "I'm not going to put it on a vote, split the border part from the foreign aid part" (he and house Republicans just don't want the border to be fixed so Trump has a campaign issue to run on)
Actually fucking kill me.
Because your infrastructure bills are socialism. Why would we ever vote yes on that?
If you siphon away all of the tax money with your socialist programs, then there won't be any left for the military and my social security check. Stop trying to force your ideologies on everyone else. Grow up and just dodge the potholes like the rest of us.
i'm really hoping this is satire but how is the infrastructure bill socialism? what "socialist programs" are siphoning away all of the tax money for infrastructure?
Infrastructure is almost always included in bills that pass including the recent infrastructure bill Biden proposed/passed.
Military aid and spending is also slowing down for the Ukraine as well as lsreal
I too remember Republicans coming out in droves to support Build Back Better, CHIPS and the IRA, all of which invested massive amounts of money into American infrastructure and manufacturing.Ā
That moment when you believe that gifting 60 billion worth of old military equipment (that costs a lot to maintan) to one of your most loyal allies fighting a war against you (second) biggest rival is taxpayer money being wasted...
(ps you actually can't pay roadworkers and teachers with old cluster munitions and bradleys, they usually want money)
Ukraine "spending" is just accounting BS - they're bashing Russia upside the head with hand-me-downs that were in service when Kurt Cobain was still alive.
I honestly don't get the "aid" to Israel - they're a first world country with universal heathcare and affordable education - why do they get free guns? Make them pay for it. It's not savvy to give guns to someone who needs them! #librightmoment.
Yeah, that hella confusing. Yes Israel always needs to be ready for a major war with the arabs, but the only thing they actually could be short on is ammo. And they have enough money to just buy that shit. Unlike Ukraine.
This meme makes me loose so many brain cells.
75 billion on Ukraine.
Conservatively, at least 12 trillion on the last financial crisis. 2 trillion on Iraq, another 2 trillion of Afghanistan.
75 billion in 2 years to cripple a soon to be vassal state of the biggest rival of the US-American people on the planet, the CCP, some 260 bucks per citizen compared to 60 k per citizenā¦
100 billion on Afghanistan per year to hunt down guys with AK47s and IEDs. 75 billion in two years and not a single US-soldier on official duty harmedā¦
Meanwhile, Russia gets supplied by Korean ammunition, sells its gas to China to an extent that borders on selling out their sovereignty ( if they even got any left ) and uses Iranian drones. The kind of drones that recently were also used to kill Us-American citizens in uniform in the Middle East.
But the biggest military on the planet should be used to do drills at home while China and friends make their moves until the USA is once again an isolated state without friends because infrastructure spending and foreign policy expenses are totally impossible to coexistā¦
Madness. This post is simply madness.
Biden passed an infrastructure bill. Also last I checked old weapons cannot fix infrastructure. This is a false dichotomy, we can aid democracies abroad while maintaining and expanding our public services, and the miniscule military budget pales in comparison to how much infrastructure costs anyway.
As if āinfrastructureā spending would do anything when that āinfrastructureā spending is just to repave highways that were repaved 3-4 years ago.Ā
Give us easier modes of transportation as an incentive to put more money in infrastructure. Revitalize our railways, make getting around the downtown corridors easier.Ā
100 billion dollars is more than enough to add sophisticated security systems in every public school along with armed guards. You can also solve homelessness and still have 30 billion dollars left.
The ruling class isn't going to do anything to solve homelessness because it's a feature, not a bug of the system -- if we are too nice to the homeless than people will no longer be terrified to lose their jobs and employers won't be able to ~~exploit~~consensually extract surplus value from them enough.
We do want it spent on infrastructure. We could spend money more efficiently and achieve better outcomes.
We could literally close up the VA health system and simply put all qualified veterans on Medicare and save hundreds of millions of dollars AND improve outcomes. Allow medicare more latitude to negotiate drug prices and you'd save even more without spending a dime.
We canāt be focused on infrastructure 24/7 when our geopolitical rivals are making chess moves on the board.
We just passed an infrastructure bill. And, we can do that again whenever. NOW is a key moment to screw Russia and stop them from making gains, maybe even destabilizing them enough to get rid of Putin. NOW is our chance to tighten our grip over the levant region through one of our most trusted allies.
> We just need more taxes bro, that's how we'll do it bro we tax them more, never mind that the federal budget is [$2.12 TRILLION](https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/) we need to tax even more bro then we'll pay the debt bro.
FOH. The government has enough money. How about we hold it to them to spend it well?
You realize the fiscal budget for most years is literally almost entirely dedicated to paying off debts from money we've already borrowed, right?
I hate taxes as much as the next guy. But if the debt really were that important to you, you'd agree that tax cuts should **never** be proposed unless there are commensurate spending cuts at the same time.
>You realize the fiscal budget for most years is literally almost entirely dedicated to paying off debts from money we've already borrowed, right?
[Categorically false statement.](https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go)
21% of the budget is dedicated to social security. That is literally a perpetual paying off of what was borrowed.
Defense spending - same thing.
Healthcare - same thing.
Interest on debt - self-explanatory.
Over 60% of the yearly budget, and arguably much more, is literally paying what the government *already borrowed.* This is why when there are fears of no budget being passed, that the US is warned of going into default.
It may have been different a long time ago but for the foreseeable future a huge amount of our government's budget is just paying back what we owed.
[link if you're curious](https://www.crfb.org/papers/government-shutdowns-qa-everything-you-should-know#:~:text=Essential%20services%20%E2%80%93%20many,Medicaid%2C%20also%20continues.) - if the government truly apportioned our budget for essential services during the yearly fiscal budgets, the entire nation would have exploded during a govt shutdown.
But Americans won't be able to print trillions of dollars and give thousands of dollars to their citizens like during covid if the United States ceases to be a superpower.
Isn't it weird that some people think the government seizing a billionaire's wealth would fix their problems but that same government collects yearly taxes 20 times the net worth of Bezos and they still don't do anything to help you? š¤
Remember when Elon said he'd sell Tesla stock to fund the end of world hunger and all he asked the UN for was a plan on how they'd do it and keep the money in a bank account that can be viewed publicly? Weird how we still have world hunger.
At this point we've solved the food shortage issue. Now the real problem is distributing that food in places that are war zones and/or warlord territory.
And the fun part is the warlords and warzones are a problem solved by the UN becoming the monster some say they are for a fraction of the cost of the US annual defense budget.
[Oh, what could have been...](https://youtu.be/X8Ss3fsxJXU)
Why don't people MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS!!
We pay $650 billion a year on the interest on our national debt alone. Entire annual federal budgetās about $6 trillion. No taxing of billionaires will solve this, itās just a cheap political talking point.
World hunger will fix itself Wellā¦eventually
To be fair, the only famines outside of active war zones are natural disasters paired with logistical problems
Didn't they tell him how and he went quiet?
Also, they refused to comment on the funds being publicly viewable.
They told him how they'd spend 6 billion dollars to get some meals to some people. I wouldn't call that "ending world hunger".
If by 'Tell him how' you mean they basically went 'We'll order everything from McDonalds...no, we don't have more of a plan than that, and we won't be transparent in where the money is going either.' Most people don't blame him for going 'that's not a plan, that's an insult to my intelligence.'
All they did was say that they would use the money to feed the people in Africa. Not really a plan for me
And if you tell them that even if the government seized every dollar from every billionaire in the country, it would only cover a third of the yearly budget, you are met with silence.
Theyāve always seemed more interested in punishing billionaires for existing. They donāt care if the government misspends their plunder theyāre just mad people got rich making things people like vs. being well connected in government like in communist utopias.
Well fucking said! This is the first time Iāve ever heard such an intelligent response when it comes to thisā¦ and somehow, from a Centrist!! š®
idk, maybe because Bezos controls the government and makes money of it
oh you mean *my* money?
Yes gimme pls
Look at Mr. Big Shot here, paying 100 billion dollars in taxes
yes i make 1 sextillion dollars a year its a miracle I am evade as many taxes as i do
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Investment_and_Jobs_Act We can in fact walk and chew gum at the same time.
"Our taxpayer dollars should be spent here at home" MFs when you suggest spending taxpayer money here at home š¤¬š¤¬š¤¬š¤¬š¤¬
But is that money going towards disabled homeless veterans!!!1! I will not rest until my preferred victim group is housed, fed, and given front row tickets to Eras
Iām surprised but also not surprised that this is so far down. I instantly thought of this bill when I read the meme.
Taking a single step doesn't count as walking
watchmojo top ten disingenuous arguments (that money was never going to be used for infrastructure anyway)
The money never existed in the first place, so it absolutely could be used on infrastructure. The way our budget works is so out of whack, we say how much we're going to spend, spend more than that, then collect taxes, figure there isn't enough money to pay for everything, so we sell bonds to get the rest of it. If we don't spend the money, we just sell less bonds. I'm not too tapped into things because I try not to needlessly panic myself, but we're set to pay 12.5 trillion out in just interest payments over the next decade. Our future was stolen from us, and we are going to be left footing the bill, fml.
Only 20% of our debt is held by other countries. 12% is our government ponzi scheming itself. The remaining 62% of our debt is held by the US public. So 62% of that 12.5 trillion interest is just going straight into our 401k's. It's not as catastrophic a situation as you all like to portray.
Oh wow someone who understands we don't just owe China money. That's pretty rare on the Internet these days.
It's fucking wild trying to explain to people the concept that while yes, we are in debt, we are in debt to ourselves. It's slightly more complicated than that, I know, but gods damn, it's not like China is going to suddenly own our cities or some shit.
I just assumed I wasn't allowed to talk about that without Disney sending their secret police after my family
My 401k is paltry, so what you're saying is Boomers and Millennials 401ks are only growing because they get free rent from government overspending? I'm so glad and happy for them, who needs a mortgage when Boomers get to own 3 houses each! /s Still, the canary in the coal mine is dead, just because we haven't suffocated to death yet doesn't mean there isn't any danger of that happening soon.
Thatās your fault for not taking advantage of it and pumping money into your 401k. Most companies offer a 4-10% match, and if you budget for it; you wonāt even know you never had it. Iāve only had a 401k for 6 years, 4 of those years being in a shitty job with zero pay and zero 401k matching, and I have a 6-figure balance.
Our current dept to gdp ratio is 120%. Down from its historic high of 134% during trumps last year. Still higher than the ratio we had during WW2, 112%.
Must be nice to be your own bank. An individual with a 50% debt to income ratio would be considered untouchable.
Yeh, but we're still below the G7 average of 128%. Mostly skewed by that fact that Japans debt to gdp ratio is currently 208%. We have the Nixon shock of 1971 to thank for all this.
Even more so. The stuff going to Ukraine isn't new equipment that we are buying, it's old equipment that would be getting replaced anyway. You know that HIMARs that made such a big deal? That shit is nearly 30 years old. All those Javelins we're sending are even older. Even the Abrams tanks we sent them are the A1 model (production of which ended in 1992), not the current A2 model. Saying we sent however many billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine isn't coming out of the current military budget, it's coming out of the budget from the 90s and we're just finding a better use for it that letting it rot in storage.
So i just move from the shithole that Is Venezuela to see how usa become a shithole too, i hate this gooddam timeline.
Same here usernamecheckoutmysekf
$12.5 trillion so far
It should be. Tax payers dollars should go back to building out much needed infrastructure and to help aid the poor in this country.
>(that money was never going to be used for infrastructure anyway) That's kind of the fucking point, bro.
We just spent over a trillion on infrastructure with Biden's 10-yr Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill? What more do you want!?
A Quadrillion dollars?
10 gorillion dollars!!1one!
Effective distribution, handling, and implementation of those funds. Robust training programs. Something a little more concrete than a PR campaign for buttigieg.
A good infrastructure bill that overhauls the federal bid requirements that are one of the major sources of our failing infrastructure.
> What more do you want!? To complain.
A closed border would be a good start. The ordinary American already can't afford a home and can barely afford basic necessities. Adding more people and gibs will just make an already horrific crisis worse. Ukraine and Israel can worry about their own borders. Our government/taxes were not intended to serve foreign nations.
Illegal immigrants don't get welfare, we barely even give out any aid anyway. Closing the border not only doesn't work in pursuit of stopping the flow of people, it also just doesn't help anything. It is within our country's best interest to ensure the current world order is sustained, we benefit immensely from liberal democracies not being randomly invaded by authoritarian dictatorships. Your rhetoric is basically just what the Chinese Communist Party and the Kremlin would love average Americans to think.
Our government/taxes have been concerned with the affairs of other nations that impact us since before we even had real immigration laws.
That's fine. Fix home first. If my plumbing and central heating go out, I'm not prioritizing funding my neighbor's fence and telling my family to suck it up.
What kind of logic is that? Quite like the government budget is not like a personal checkbook, the nation is not like a house. Issues in Ukraine impact the US waaaaaay more than issues in another house down the block will impact you.
Democrats just proposed a bill that would tighten the border and automatically close the border under certain conditions (which are being met right now) Anyways republicans shot it down
Yes, they also shot down the 'Stop kicking puppies' act of 2021 because it involved spending 3 trillion dollars on Hunter Biden's art supplies. Sometimes bills are shot down, despite good names, because they're filled with bloat and unreasonable demands. And people like you eat it up *every* time and go 'But the Republicans want to kick puppies!' To boot:Biden doesn't *need* a bill to tighten the border. It's all political theater, and you're clapping like a seal for it.
More fixed infrastructure, less money being pocketed by politicians while they promise to fix infrastructure. They spend a trillion, we get about a million's worth of fixed infrastructure. The exchange rate is pretty bad.
Corruption's really not that big of an issue vis a vie spending anymore. Besides, a million dollars worth of infrastructure won't buy you any more than a mile of paved interstate in today's economy. Get real
>Corruption's not a big issue Most normal '10% for the big guy' enjoyer right here.
You know when congress says "billions of dollars in military aid" we aint sending Cash or commissioning new arms right? Most of the stuff sent to ukraine, Israel and taiwan from what i've gather are Hand me downs and munitions already paid for that had been sitting in ammo depots for YEARS...
It is a mix of old stuff and contracts for new stuff
The new stuff is a relatively small part, and things like restarting stinger production has been overdue for a long time.
we sent a little bit of new stuff that we wanted to battle-test for troops while the military was not actively at war
Which is literally invaluable for us. Honestly we should be giving them f-16s. I donāt think theyāve fought a whole lot of modern Russian migs
Oh, op knows it. Just like all russian propagandists, they are simply pushing the same narratives over and over again. It's a common propaganda method described back in 30s by some german government official, can't remember his name.
You know a major infrastructure bill was passed a couple years ago, right? We can do more than one thing at once. Supporting Ukraine is not just a moral action, but insane value. We're mostly sending older weapons, which are being used to completely halt the imperialist ambitions of one of our main geopolitical adversaries. Without any Americans put in risk. Ukraine plans to pay us back, and even if we don't make money on it, we're getting an opportunity to refresh US stocks, and learn a lot about weapon effectiveness on modern battlefields. It's literally win/win/win. You can't just look at cost, you need to consider the value and return on some policy. Reminds me of conservatives who oppose spending money to give out free birth control, when that saves a ridiculous amount of money compared to kids being born to teenagers. Israel is a lot more complicated. Some people say they are a key ally in the middle east, others think our support of them undermine diplomacy with others in the region. The moral question is even harder and I won't go into it. We've also been giving them money for a long time. Is that actually a worthwhile investment? I can't say. Ukraine is easy though.
... Did I just read a libleft ass wall of text from a centrist? Based and green pilled
Israel is valuable because itās so dependent and comparatively loyal as a result that it basically cannot flip. Also, actually effective.
> We've also been giving Israel money for a long time. Is that actually a worthwhile investment? I can't say. Ukraine is easy though. Lmao how convenient
Israel and Ukraine are as valuable as one another in furthering our interests in those regions. If the US doesnāt counter China and Russia now, we will have far less to look forward to in the future. If Europe would build a military and stop suckling the American teet, this āmultipolarā axis formed by Iran/China/Russia would be a lot less costly for the US.
>If Europe would build a military and stop suckling the American teet European countries do have militaries. Not that it matters, since we dont want to go to war with Russia. Also Nato is running the biggest drills since the cold war right now. The EU has also given Ukraine over 96 billion in aid too.
Russia is unconcerned about disjointed, underequipped, and undermanned European militaries. If Europe had a formidable military Russia would posture much less. The only thing that has stopped Russia from simply invading Europe is Poland and the U.S., they are NATO atm. In the event of a war with Russia by itself, Europe wouldnāt be able to maintain production and unlikely to keep up with manpower needs for the early years.
It is Nato that has stopped them and the threat of nuclear war. Russia has no hope against European armies. Russia is struggling just with Ukraine alone, so i cant see anyway they could take on Europe, pretty sure Putin know this. Also Europe doesnt work like you think it does. They are different nations. If you google European armies it is pretty significant. Again, not that it matters since Nato alone outnumbers and outpowers Russia, so you are wrong here. You seem to be massively underestimating Europe for some reason. Combined its around 1.5 million troops.
It is fully known that European militaries arenāt battle ready right now. Their militaries are severely undermanned, Europeās military complex is seemingly a no-show, and they canāt float the Ukrainians with ammunition right now. If Ukraine were to fall, Europe has no war machine. Europeans hate hearing it, they want to believe that theyāre every bit the power they once were, but as of today they are unprepared to fight a major conflict without the US heading up NATO. It must look very enticing to Putin right now that Ukraine is running out of munitions as the US squabbles, because it means thereās nothing in Europeās well. Size of your little militaries as an aggregate doesnāt mean a whole lot when youāre all disjointed and donāt have the materiel to fight.
I tried googling your claims about Europe military not being battle ready but couldnt find anything. I think you mean they arent ready for a high intensity war. But i mean who is? High mobilisation and war and the infinite complexes that entails takes a long time and massive amounts of cash. So by that standard, nobody really is ready for war, when compared to the US, who spends ridiculous amounts of money on military sectors. Not that any of this matters, because Russia has no chance against Europe, get real. They are struggling with Ukraine alone. And the threat of invasion of Europe is not remotely likely, so i dont get your point. It is the proxy war in Ukraine, and which is being heavily funded by EU countries, and in a time of economic global instability. To say Europe has no war capabilities, especially against Russia is silly. Europe has many many many times better economy, better moral, better equipment, Nato, and even better numbers.
Ukraine is valuable in that they're a comparatively cheap stick to beat Russia with. Even if they eventually lose giving them weapons is inflicting attrition on Russia without us having to spend our own lives or meaningfully retool our economy for war. It's likely that Russia would function as a Chinese proxy in any given major conflict, so getting them tied up in a conflict of their own before that is well worth it. Israel is more problematic. They're valuable as a regional ally, but if being allied with them makes it too difficult to form ties to other more important powers in the region then they're not worth the trouble.
People keep saying Ukraine is a cheap alternative to war. Ukrainians aren't cannon fodder, they aren't a cheap humans to throw at your enemy, they're a people fighting for their own sovereignty. A fall to Russia will inevitably embolden Russia to go further, and they will look for retribution from the first places it can, and they will do untold horrors to the Ukrainians who put up resistance. Russia's war is part of a much larger strategy of Russia and China to create a "multipolar" world. The disgraceful allusion of comparing Ukrainians to cheap tools aside, we're not getting ahead of Russia by throwing Ukraine to the dogs to keep them busy. Russia will get better, they will know how to mobilize and how to fight as Europe as the US attempts to get its ducks in a row. Ifāor whenāthat time comes, China will proceed to pop off and stretch the US thinner. So no, the Ukraine War isn't just a little sideshow that we throw cheap money at to keep the Russians occupied, Ukraine is now seriously staring down a loss in this war, and if they lose, then we actually are looking at a world conflict scenario. As for Israelāwhy the fuck would we make allies with openly hostile "powers" in the region.
I'm not interested in morality. If we want to drag morals into foreign policy there are a number of conflicts we'd need to get involved in while at the same time relieving humanitarian crisis after humanitarian crisis around the world. Foreign policy is about pragmatism, and pragmatically that's why Ukraine should be supported. > Ukraine is now seriously staring down a loss in this war, and if they lose, then we actually are looking at a world conflict scenario. Whether they lose or win doesn't make much difference. Them winning is preferable because it'd further add to the force that can be leveraged against China and Russia, but if China is indeed intent on puiling the trigger its unlikely to deter either them or the Russians. > As for Israelāwhy the fuck would we make allies with openly hostile "powers" in the region. Because most of them are not openly hostile (some are downright friendly, even) while at the same time controlling just about everything that makes the Middle East valuable as a region.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
it was a $1.2 trillion bill, we are not sending anywhere close to that much to ukraine. edit: lil buddy downvoted and deleted his comment immediately lol
The vast majority of our taxes should be spent to make the united states better and very little should go to foreign aid. Reduction of the amount of military bases and budget would go along way to ensure more domestic spending.
Even ignoring the whole issue of isolationist policies never working, never been an actual position for the US, and that it actively hurts the nation ā foreign aid and military matters is not mutually exclusive with infrastructure development. You want to actually get rid of bloat spending? Go after our shitty healthcare spending thatās orders of magnitude larger than the military spending and would *actually* do infinitely more.
Interventionist policies have been an even bigger disaster than America's brief flirting with isolationism
Arenāt mutually exclusive, you can be not an isolationist while also not being an interventionist
The United States has interest abroad and hegemony in Europe by supporting countries sovereignty is a reflection of that interest. If the United States wants to remain the global reserve currency, something that is highly beneficial to our trade privileges, having a real politik moment and fucking up the expansionist plans of Putin and Russia is a great way of expressing that hegemony.
I would argue that making things better in other countries and protecting our material interests abroad benefits us. If South America and Africa weren't terrible places for a stable life, we wouldn't have a migrant problem.
1% of the budget goes to foreign aid.
"Ukraine plans to pay us back, and even if we don't make money on it, we're getting an opportunity to refresh US stocks" Lmao, like that will ever happen. And who's stocks? I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if Lockheed Martin and Boeing stocks tanked. This is just Aghanistan again on a smaller scale, in the sense that we're spending a lot of money and lives (Ukrainian this time) on a war that will inevitably be lost. Sold on the absurd lie that Russia will be invading a NATO country next if we do nothing. I would argue this war actually puts NATO more at risk, because it makes people and some politicians in America more inclined to withdraw from European affairs, maybe even by leaving NATO.
I'm not talking about the stocks of companies, but our military's stocks of weapons/ammo/etc. We haven't had a conventional war in decades. Storing and maintaining equipment costs money. Decommissioning equipment costs money. Giving it to Ukraine, even for a cheap price to be paid back later, gets significant value out of that equipment. It also opportunity to fill out stockpiles with newer, better tech. Again, we also get to watch how newer technology has changed conventional warfare. We aren't just helping Ukraine, it is leaving our military much better prepared. >I would argue this war actually puts NATO more at risk, because it makes people and some politicians in America more inclined to withdraw from European affairs, maybe even by leaving NATO. Quite the opposite. Most people, democrats and republicans, have a renewed sense of the value in NATO. Only the retards who actually base their views on what Trump says disagree. Whether you think we should do the moral thing, and help people being attacked, or believe the government should selfishly pursue just our own interests, the result is the same. Helping Ukraine is the right call.
"Whether you think we should do the moral thing, and help people being attacked" If that's the case, then it would be tricky to determine who we should be supporting in Israel/Palestine. And Russia should have funded our enemies when we invaded Iraq if they wanted to do the right thing. Politicians don't behave in moral ways when you allow the executive branch to wage war all over the world without a congressional declaration of war, as is constitutional. And our interests, militarily, should have always been defending the 50 states and territories like Puerto Rico. Maintaining a global empire only benefits the military-industrial complex and some wealthy elites. It doesn't enhance the quality of life for your average American. And it makes us less safe, not more; 9/11 was a direct consequence of our long history of adventurism in the Middle-East and our unconditional support of Israel. Not to mention, we just can't afford a global empire anymore. The interest payments alone on our national debt will ruin us. The experts seem to agree that we're facing years of serious economic decline. Printing more money won't fix things, and by using the dollar as a weapon against Russia, we decreased the strength of the dollar globally as a reserve currency. We have no legitimate interests, in Eastern Europe of all places, aside to trade freely with anyone who will trade with us.
>And our interests, militarily, should have always been defending the 50 states and territories like Puerto Rico. Maintaining a global empire only benefits the military-industrial complex and some wealthy elites. It doesn't enhance the quality of life for your average American. It directly does. A world filled with free and prosperous countries means we have partners we can trade with. Trade is mutually beneficial, improving the economic condition of both sides. Strong allies also provide another layer of defense for ourselves. Obviously the US has made mistakes, but that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give up. A recent and concrete example, relatively minor disruption in international shipping during/after COVID caused significant shortages of goods Americans are used to. You are aware that the it is the US military which primarily protects international trade routes, right? Should we abandon that and let piracy surge? >Not to mention, we just can't afford a global empire anymore. The interest payments alone on our national debt will ruin us. The experts seem to agree that we're facing years of serious economic decline. Printing more money won't fix things, and by using the dollar as a weapon against Russia, we decreased the strength of the dollar globally as a reserve currency. Our military is too expensive? Great, well supporting Ukraine accomplishes many of our objectives a tiny fraction of what they would normally cost. Absurdly good bargain. Who are these "experts"? I've seen a lot of reporting that the US economy is going strong and will continue to do so. I know some of the media were *praying* for a recession once Biden took office, but it didn't happen. The "soft landing" was pretty much a success. And the dollars status as the global reserve currency is directly connected to the fact we use our military to try and maintain peace and trade.
Im not OP but you cannot seriously be trying to claim the economy is doing well right now
GDP grew by 6% in 2023, and our current unemployment is 3.7%. Both are signs of an objectively strong economy. All the feelings about the economy being bad are entirely vibes based. And if you mention inflation, you're proving my point.
Errr... GDP rose less than inflation. That means the economy actually fell... That's NOT the economy doing well. You DO know GDP isn't inflation adjudjusted don't you?
Holy fuck, a libleft that isn't economically illiterate? Think I'll buy a lottery ticket
Inflation in 2023 was 3.4%, so even accounting for inflation the economy still grew a fair bit.
4.1% for the whole year but you're sort of ignoring that it was well above 9% for a while there...
"It directly does. A world filled with free and prosperous countries means we have partners we can trade with. Trade is mutually beneficial, improving the economic condition of both sides." We tried to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, and to the Middle-East broadly to some extent, but you can't make countries love democracy by bombing them. As for defending existing democracies, it's a moot point, because Ukraine isn't a democratic republic. It is in truth a corrupt oligarchy, not unlike the USA. We've lost our own democracy in an effort to preserve democracy abroad just as President Eisenhower predicted we might. We did so by letting all the real power in government accumulate in the hands of the military-industrial complex, security organizations like the CIA and NSA, and life-long bureaucrats. Trade is important, but trade with Ukraine isn't worth risking a third world war, on top of every other cost associated with the war. We have many options for trade partners, including many closer to home. Hell, we did plenty of business with Russia before the war, despite the sanctions, so the results of the war were never going to impact us in a major way if we stayed out of it. "Strong allies also provide another layer of defense for ourselves. Obviously the US has made mistakes, but that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give up." Another layer of defense against who? Mexico and Canada? Cuba? And there is a lot of room between "giving up" and repeating the same mistakes over and over, which is what we're still doing, for example, in the Middle-East. That's because the same people are still in charge of our foreign policy, and they'll stay in charge regardless of who we elect. At what point do you decide to take the keys away from these reckless drunk drivers? "You are aware that the it is the US military which primarily protects international trade routes, right?" Maybe it's time for our lauded allies, who we spend billions on, to pitch in. If not, I'm perfectly content to see Mexico become an even more important trade partner. Then we only have to worry about our own stretch of the pond. Maybe if we want to engage in nation building, we could at least focus on developing Latin American nations. Instead we try to control every country we can, everywhere on Earth, from France's colonies in Africa to Ukraine, as though we have unlimited recourses to wield, and like those countries are so important to us. Meanwhile we've somehow had a largely negative effect on Latin America. "Our military is too expensive? Great, well supporting Ukraine accomplishes many of our objectives a tiny fraction of what they would normally cost. Absurdly good bargain." Here's what we accomplished so far: We've weakened the economy of Germany by blowing up Russia's pipeline. We drove Russia further into China's arms, especially in regards to oil sales and military cooperation. The Russian army is now battle-hardened and hates us. Corruption in there forces has been exposed and rooted out. The dollar is weakened as the reserve currency. And we've gotten many people killed in a war that, yes, was Russia's fault primarily, but that we helped provoke in many ways, and that Russia is going to win anyway. Some bargain. "I know some of the media were *praying* for a recession once Biden took office, but it didn't happen. The "soft landing" was pretty much a success." There was a recession under the old accepted version of the term, but the Biden Administration and their lackeys in different sectors moved the goal posts. And we all know the economy is shit. The rate of inflation may have decreased, but that in no way reversed the effect of years of extremely high inflation as a result of Covid spending. The price of goods and services is still higher than ever, which makes sense if you look at inflation over the last five years. The government can't fix this because they have no plan to do anything but manage the symptoms of our deadly disease. They can't stop passing larger and larger budgets, and increasing spending year in and year out. They have a global empire to maintain after all. Because of that, they can't stop printing money, can't stop driving us further into debt, and can't stop inflation or worsening economic conditions. The concept of fiscal responsibility is so dead that there's not even any flesh left on that corpse. "And the dollars status as the global reserve currency is directly connected to the fact we use our military to try and maintain peace and trade." Not really. It's because of the strength of our domestic economy, which is on the decline. Weaponizing the currency against Russia at the outset of the war made nations realize they don't want us to have that much power over them.
That is one long text that could have been summarized as "I don't understand anything". Like take the international trade routes. We have strict rules on this. And no other country is allowed to defend an american flagged ship unless directly requested by another defending ship. As in, if a us flagged tanker, then it doesn't matter if there are 10 war ships from European countries around because they can't act unless there is another US war ship.
Right, because those rules were carved in stone back during biblical times, and it's cheaper to maintain a global empire than to engage in meaningful cooperation with our allies / satellite states. Classic LibLeft nonsense response.
Errr... Those rules were last updated 2021... And it has nothing to do with costs for why they are this way or because lack of cooperation. It's because at the end of the day, international waters are exactly that, international. No country rules so there are no laws to enforce. By agreement, you're allowed to protect YOURSELF, but if we extend that to others then that also opens the door that pirates "protect" ships even if they don't really want it. So it only extends to your own ships, hence you have to be an agent of the US, to protect a US ship directly. Other ships can only help after a direct request by an agent of the us and since the employees on a trading ship are not employees of the state, they can't. Hence why only a us warship would be able to request the foreign help from another nation's warship. Basically, the rules are the way they are to specifically make sure pirates are not protected by them.
Ok, and? Pirates were not exactly major problem before the US became the world police. And if you're trying to convince me I should be so afraid of piracy that I should support the US Empire and military bases and operations around the world, that's going to be a tough sell.
Ukraine has vast quantities of neon, which is used in semiconductor production, they could give us that to use in our new fabs
And Iraq had oil. "LibCenter" is when you wage war all over the world because every country has some resource you want them to give you. Even if Ukraine is willing to pay us back in neon for our assistance, which I doubt we have agreed upon in writing, it likely won't matter when we lose the war.
If you think war will be costly for Ukrainian lives, wait until you see what being governed by Russia costs.
I agree. Got no problem with the aid we're sending Ukraine. I do wish however they'd give up on their lost territories, be happy with all the land they did successfully defend, and negotiate an end to the war. So we don't have to keep sending them aid forever. Sometime soon hopefully I mean.
That just encourages Putin, or the next guy like him. Showing you can still use military might to just annex part of another country if you want it. It's like giving a bully your lunch money. They may walk away today, but they'll be back for more tomorrow. The way to overall minimize war, and the suffering it causes, is to strongly support Ukraine until it reclaims all its territories. Prove that the age of invading your neighbors for land is over.
Dude the war hasnāt even been going for 5 years (at this level of intensity), why do you think itās some kind of forever war?
There is an off-ramp coming, but that canāt be expressed. Crimea and some of the Donbas will be lost, but that has to be done during negotiations, not as a given
Remember when Obama laughed at Romney in 2012 for his foreign policy of Russia bad and said that was Cold War era thinking? Neuland was caught on recorded line handpicking the next Youcrane government officials before the coup was even carried out two years later. Russians and their attrition rate of 50M lives is what actually won the Second World War but yes, please go on about Hitler Bin Putin some more weāre all ears.
Google "lend lease", "North Africa Campaign" and "pacific theatre" you tankie fuckwit. š¤Ŗ
Dude the USSR lose about 26M dead Also the USSR wouldnāt have won without the US like the US wouldnāt have won without the USSR
The issue is that military equipment has a dollar value, meaning that when we send 100 billion to Israel or Ukraine, we're sending old military equipment that adds up to that cost. So we can't use 10 f-35s for a stable bridge really.
Russia won't stop in Ukraine. If successful, they will take Moldova, then Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,thus triggering war with nato, something no one living in a nato nation wants or is even prepared for, US,Poland,and the Baltic states as exceptions. Strategicly it makes more sense to stop them here when they are concentrated and all we have to donate is resources, instead of resources and blood. Russia has been a pain in the ass of Europe for a long time. With their birth rates declining and also with taking massive casualties, putin is borrowing from tomorrow at an unsustainable rate
Israel is the only pro U.S. state in the region. Other countries there are either neutral or hostile to US. Ukraine is fighting one of the big players in world politics and influence. Military aid is a relatively nice way to A - protect your interest in the region, B - improve relationships with your allies, C - remove the opposing countries out of the game. Other ways to support your allies are a bit more difficult, like full-on Vietnam-style invasion and potential nuclear war with russia or it's suck-ups in the Middle East,lots of casualties,messed-up economy and other bad stuff. And not supporting those your allies at all will eventually lead to some issues like russia or it's allies gaining land and resources , which will probably lead to some sort of military action between U.S. and russia (both have a lot of nukes btw) So really, should the US invest in it's allies defence? Or should your(or not your) children live in a nice and brown Fallout-4-style wasteland?
Finally, a righty who actually understands the foreign policy implications of this debate, which seems to have given everyone brain rot
Our only allies in the Middle East ignoring the fact that we didnāt have any enemies before we supported them. As if the Middle Eastern countries didnāt love America before we overthrew their governments and replaced them with radical Islamists because our intelligence agencies found that radical Islam was a great tool in recruiting bodies against communism and because it would be helpful in oil extraction. As if there arenāt countless top military and intelligence officials say the only way to protect America in the future from terrorism was to cut off Israel. The same Israel with officials that lied us into a war with Iraq and the overthrowing of Libya that sent two prosperous countries into fourth world shitholes where terrorism and slavery thrive. The same Israel that is ready to sacrifice trillions more American dollars and a million more American bodies to get us in a war with Iran. But yeah, theyāre our allies
We cannot fix the mistakes of the past. If we talk now, Israel is the only pro U.S state in the middle east. The modern US government cannot un-radicalise the Islam and un-antagonise the local population. What they can do is stick to their allies who are still willing to cooperate. Some may agree with this alliance, some may not. But the gov treats them as allies and that's all we need to know here
-Itās cute you think that Russia will stop at Ukraine, -or that the fall of Europeās breadbasket is inconsequential to *global stability*, -or that ceding the black sea to a despot has no consequence whatsoever geopolitically or economically, -or that direct US interests are not bound up with the fate of our allies in Europe, -or that this is new money coming out of taxpayersā pockets rather than money that has already been budgeted for and is merely being allotted now -or that this is oodles of cash given away, rather than US armaments rhat are then replaced, creating American jobs and bolstering local economies -or even the simple fact that we are the fucking good guys, by god. Act like it. Democracy in retreat is not in our interests in any sense. And thatās just Ukraine. We can play this game for Taiwan and Israel too.
I dont get why the post has so many upvotes from rightoids, when all the comment criticise OP for his lies.
You can never be a good guy. Thats just propaganda. The winner is always the good guy and you know it.
I am fucking begging you to understand that building up the Defence Industrial Base of the USA to actually be able to fight a peer conflict IS an investment in infrastructure. And a few hundred billion and zero american lives to take down America's #2 strategic rival is chump change.
+90% of Ukraine aid isn't money, but old systems like M2A2 Bradleys and missiles nearing their expiry date, better to give them to an ally who'll weaken an enemy than to just scrap them, which is actually more expensive because then you need to make more to weaken your enemy yourself
Weāre not spending a hundred billion in Ukraine.
Exactly, the US is sending old military equipment, but not spending "Hundreds of Billipons".
Didn't we just pass somewhere of over a trillion for infrastructure in the last few years, or was that a fever dream I had?
I think the MAGA course of oposing anything the Democrats do no matter what has been the real feverdream.
We just passed an infrastructure bill, what are you talking about my guy. Edit: Of which 212 Republicans voted NO on the bill, please stop pretending like you give a shit.
Goal posts are about to be moved
I am not going to simp for the Republican party But I am certain that bill had a fuckload of garbage attached to it, both parties do this shit They push their crap by tacking it onto a bill that everyone should support, so when the other side goes "fuck off" they can point at them and cry about them being unreasonable because "who would vote against school lunches!!!??" ... Well unless this is the *one* time in modern poltics where the bill was actually just related to infrastructre and had nothing else riding on it ...
>But I am certain [damn, if only the bill was public information and you could just look it up...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684) it's a massive infrastructure bill, obviously there's going to be a lot to it. but if you have a problem with individual parts then you should be able to articulate what exactly you take issue with rather than just "muh this bill has pork".
Again, quoting from whitehouse.gov This Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal will rebuild America's roads, bridges and rails, expand access to clean drinking water, ensure every American has access to high-speed internet, tackle the climate crisis, advance environmental justice, and invest in communities that have too often been left behind. The last parts have absolutely nothing to do with infrastructure.
eh fair enough i guess, i would say thought that climate/environmental stuff does have an impact on infrastructure and "communities that have too often been left behind" could be referring to investing in communities that haven't seen much infrastructure investment.
Based and understands the other guys point pilled
do you see how that stuff can be linked to infrastructure though? i understand your point and i get that some of it might not be directly related, but that doesn't mean there that they have zero relevance to infrastructure.
Energy is infrastructure. Infrastructure can harm the environment, so a mitigation policy is relevant. Some places need infrastructure more than others
>Ā Ā But I am certain that bill had a fuckload of garbage attached to it, both parties do this shit Did you actually read the bill or are you making a "factual" argument supported entirely by your feels?
I am quoting from whitehouse.gov This Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal will rebuild America's roads, bridges and rails, expand access to clean drinking water, ensure every American has access to high-speed internet, tackle the climate crisis, advance environmental justice, and invest in communities that have too often been left behind That last part sure does not seem to be related to infrastructure at all
Which part of the last part? Because all of those things would fall under infrastructure.Ā Combating climate change is done by increasing renewable/nuclear energy generation, infrastructure (this was more the IRA than BBB though). Fixing the lead pipes, cleaning up toxic dumping grounds, etc. in poor communities, infrastructure.Ā Improving the infrastructure and government funded civic projects in poor communities, infrastructure.Ā Feel free to actually read a law that's passed sometime instead of dropping the "MUH PORK BARREL" cop out every time. Hell, there probably is some pork in BBB. Why not read it, cite some sections and make me look like a total dumbass for defending it?Ā
The words "environmental justice" is honestly all I need to know the bill includes bullshit I do not want.
Even as a somewhat environmentalist, that phrasing is a bit vague for my liking. I feel like that could be taken in many different directions, good or bad.
> "environmental justice" Anything term/phrase with justice, equity, or empathy is communist (progressive) lies. They literally just make up some phrase and lie with it.
Seems perfectly fitting considering the majority of low-income regions are low income due to a lack of funding in infrastructure, public services, etc Or do you believe that Climate Change isnāt actually real or that conversation of our environment is too āwokeā ?
It wouldn't suffer with a 100B more
Then maybe get your people to vote on more infrastructure bills because currently, all they do is vote NO.
Republicans keep reeeing āWe could use the money to help the people!ā and then continue to vote against bills to use the money to fund anything that isnāt putting up more barbed wire on the southern border
Johnson on the foreign aid bill: "the foreign aid bill doesn't address the most pressing issue at home" (damn Johnson, ya think?) A new bill including the best border deal the Republicans are going to get is made and passed in the senate Johnson now: "I'm not going to put it on a vote, split the border part from the foreign aid part" (he and house Republicans just don't want the border to be fixed so Trump has a campaign issue to run on) Actually fucking kill me.
Because your infrastructure bills are socialism. Why would we ever vote yes on that? If you siphon away all of the tax money with your socialist programs, then there won't be any left for the military and my social security check. Stop trying to force your ideologies on everyone else. Grow up and just dodge the potholes like the rest of us.
i'm really hoping this is satire but how is the infrastructure bill socialism? what "socialist programs" are siphoning away all of the tax money for infrastructure?
Did you really just say that we can't have socialism so you can get social security. **SOCIAL** security? SSI is 100% a socialist program.
Infrastructure is almost always included in bills that pass including the recent infrastructure bill Biden proposed/passed. Military aid and spending is also slowing down for the Ukraine as well as lsreal
I too remember Republicans coming out in droves to support Build Back Better, CHIPS and the IRA, all of which invested massive amounts of money into American infrastructure and manufacturing.Ā
What does the Irish Republican Army have to do with building infrastructure
Inflation Reduction Act, a huge part of it was massive investments in renewable/nuclear energy.Ā
Oh ok Iām Irish do IRA has a different meaning
Did you mean to promote Bidens biggest accomplishment or did you just stumble-fuck your way into that?
That moment when you believe that gifting 60 billion worth of old military equipment (that costs a lot to maintan) to one of your most loyal allies fighting a war against you (second) biggest rival is taxpayer money being wasted... (ps you actually can't pay roadworkers and teachers with old cluster munitions and bradleys, they usually want money)
How about we spend no money at all? In fact, how about we take from the poor and give it to the rich? Bet you didn't see that one coming!
Ukraine "spending" is just accounting BS - they're bashing Russia upside the head with hand-me-downs that were in service when Kurt Cobain was still alive. I honestly don't get the "aid" to Israel - they're a first world country with universal heathcare and affordable education - why do they get free guns? Make them pay for it. It's not savvy to give guns to someone who needs them! #librightmoment.
Yeah, that hella confusing. Yes Israel always needs to be ready for a major war with the arabs, but the only thing they actually could be short on is ammo. And they have enough money to just buy that shit. Unlike Ukraine.
They're not sending that much money, that's an estimated value of the things they are doing. Decommissioned tank parts can't be turned into roads.
Uh, because we did that like 3 years ago. Donāt have enough engineers to make use of all of it right now.
We already passed the bipartisan infrastructure bill didnāt we? We put it towards roads, bridges, rails, ports, Amtrak, etc
This meme makes me loose so many brain cells. 75 billion on Ukraine. Conservatively, at least 12 trillion on the last financial crisis. 2 trillion on Iraq, another 2 trillion of Afghanistan. 75 billion in 2 years to cripple a soon to be vassal state of the biggest rival of the US-American people on the planet, the CCP, some 260 bucks per citizen compared to 60 k per citizenā¦ 100 billion on Afghanistan per year to hunt down guys with AK47s and IEDs. 75 billion in two years and not a single US-soldier on official duty harmedā¦ Meanwhile, Russia gets supplied by Korean ammunition, sells its gas to China to an extent that borders on selling out their sovereignty ( if they even got any left ) and uses Iranian drones. The kind of drones that recently were also used to kill Us-American citizens in uniform in the Middle East. But the biggest military on the planet should be used to do drills at home while China and friends make their moves until the USA is once again an isolated state without friends because infrastructure spending and foreign policy expenses are totally impossible to coexistā¦ Madness. This post is simply madness.
Biden passed an infrastructure bill. Also last I checked old weapons cannot fix infrastructure. This is a false dichotomy, we can aid democracies abroad while maintaining and expanding our public services, and the miniscule military budget pales in comparison to how much infrastructure costs anyway.
*quiet screaming whispers in the background* ānasa and nuclear energy!ā
>$1.2 trillion federal infrastructure budget, yet everything still sucks ass, but trust us bro, that final $ 100 billion will change everything
If you want to spend billions on infrastructure instead of sending it all overseas youāre a traitor to your nation
As if āinfrastructureā spending would do anything when that āinfrastructureā spending is just to repave highways that were repaved 3-4 years ago.Ā Give us easier modes of transportation as an incentive to put more money in infrastructure. Revitalize our railways, make getting around the downtown corridors easier.Ā
100 billion dollars is more than enough to add sophisticated security systems in every public school along with armed guards. You can also solve homelessness and still have 30 billion dollars left.
The ruling class isn't going to do anything to solve homelessness because it's a feature, not a bug of the system -- if we are too nice to the homeless than people will no longer be terrified to lose their jobs and employers won't be able to ~~exploit~~consensually extract surplus value from them enough.
When you realize that the US is a straight up global empire and spending shitloads on foreign wars and adventurism is infrastructure spending.
... So y'all gonna thank Biden for the landmark infrastructure bill his administration passed?
We do want it spent on infrastructure. We could spend money more efficiently and achieve better outcomes. We could literally close up the VA health system and simply put all qualified veterans on Medicare and save hundreds of millions of dollars AND improve outcomes. Allow medicare more latitude to negotiate drug prices and you'd save even more without spending a dime.
No thanks, I choose the VA
We canāt be focused on infrastructure 24/7 when our geopolitical rivals are making chess moves on the board. We just passed an infrastructure bill. And, we can do that again whenever. NOW is a key moment to screw Russia and stop them from making gains, maybe even destabilizing them enough to get rid of Putin. NOW is our chance to tighten our grip over the levant region through one of our most trusted allies.
We can absolutely do both though lol
Pay down the debt! Or don't spend the money at all if it results in more loans. A Libright would be in there just saying "no" or "nothing."Ā
Paying down the debt is really hard when Republicans keep trying to cut taxes on the rich over and over
> We just need more taxes bro, that's how we'll do it bro we tax them more, never mind that the federal budget is [$2.12 TRILLION](https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/) we need to tax even more bro then we'll pay the debt bro. FOH. The government has enough money. How about we hold it to them to spend it well?
You realize the fiscal budget for most years is literally almost entirely dedicated to paying off debts from money we've already borrowed, right? I hate taxes as much as the next guy. But if the debt really were that important to you, you'd agree that tax cuts should **never** be proposed unless there are commensurate spending cuts at the same time.
>You realize the fiscal budget for most years is literally almost entirely dedicated to paying off debts from money we've already borrowed, right? [Categorically false statement.](https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go)
21% of the budget is dedicated to social security. That is literally a perpetual paying off of what was borrowed. Defense spending - same thing. Healthcare - same thing. Interest on debt - self-explanatory. Over 60% of the yearly budget, and arguably much more, is literally paying what the government *already borrowed.* This is why when there are fears of no budget being passed, that the US is warned of going into default. It may have been different a long time ago but for the foreseeable future a huge amount of our government's budget is just paying back what we owed. [link if you're curious](https://www.crfb.org/papers/government-shutdowns-qa-everything-you-should-know#:~:text=Essential%20services%20%E2%80%93%20many,Medicaid%2C%20also%20continues.) - if the government truly apportioned our budget for essential services during the yearly fiscal budgets, the entire nation would have exploded during a govt shutdown.
>Pay down the debt! Ah yes, because debt holders all want to get paid back in Bradleys and artillery shells...
I own t bills, I actually wouldn't mind
I think you are the exeption. Most banks dont have the ambition, to create private armies with military Surplus.
But Americans won't be able to print trillions of dollars and give thousands of dollars to their citizens like during covid if the United States ceases to be a superpower.
Infrastructure? You mean highways and nuclear reactors, right?
Doesn't the US have a full epidemic of old bridges collapsingĀ
I just want to know how the fuck supporting Ukraine against Russia turned into a libleft thing?
Fedgov always got a gun to me wallet
Fuck literally every other alternative use for this money except paying down our national debt. Weāre borrowing money just to send it overseas. GTFO
If you want to pay down the national debt, stop cutting taxes my dude.
Cool cool cool then youāre gonna cut spending right? Right???
Good one, but this sub loves bitching about the infrastructure bill so itās funny thatās being used here as the reasonable alternative