Submitted by Missing_Trillions t3_11cflhy in Documentaries
They never ask how much war or tax breaks for corporations/rich will cost our people, society, economy, but will always ask how much popular programs that help people will cost.
Do you mean like this? https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/28/politics/ukraine-war-world-costs-analysis/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/economy/trump-tax-cuts-impact-economy/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/07/asia/us-afghanistan-spending-waste-intl-cmd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/economy/trump-tax-cuts-impact-economy/index.html
Every one of those articles came out after the legislation passed... Want me to link articles defending war spending or tax cuts? This list is so sparse you had to link the same trump tax cut article twice to pad it out.
Edit: Actually read the article on Ukraine. It doesn't criticize spending at all. It lists a few negative effects of the extended war throughout the world, but it doesn't even mentioned how much the US has spent, let alone talk about what the money could have gone to.
> let alone talk about what the money could have gone to.
There's hardly anything better to spend money on, right now. Especially if it's from the DOD/military budget.
You're essentially beating your age-old enemy with ZERO casualties or danger to your citizens.
>There's hardly anything better to spend money on, right now
Lol there are endless things to better spend it on if your own population is suffering deprivation. But America is a rich it can fund both. But that doesn't mean defending Ukraine is more important than averting the a suffering of your own people due to your own actions.
>Lol there are endless things to better spend it on if your own population is suffering deprivation
So why take the money specifically away from Ukrainian aid instead of a million things you COULD take it away from locally? Like tax cuts for corpos and billionaires, the military industry, etc., etc?
As far as being (effectively) at war with a country, right now the US basically "getting stuff for free" (in terms of human suffering). The money they're sending is game-changing in Ukraine but pretty much inconsequential in terms of the US GDP.
>So why take the money specifically away from Ukrainian aid instead of a million things you COULD take it away from locally?
The real question is why is a firehose of aid to them possible with so little debate but for your own people it's not?
I feel like I'm constantly saying the same thing over and over again and you're just flat out ignoring it.
Every country has various "buckets" of budget. The US is not taking money away from infrastructure or firefighting to send it out to Ukraine, it's using the military budget or the emergency budget. Aid or not, you wouldn't see a difference.
You also wouldn't see a difference because MOST of the aid is in the form of equipment and not money. You can't build a hospital with a bunch of M777 howitzers, can you?
As for "why aid for your own people is not possible" - ask the Republicans who are consequently blocking all attempts at a more "for people" legislation.
>I feel like I'm constantly saying the same thing over and over again and you're just flat out ignoring it.
You're saying something that presupposes something I never said and you keep saying it so I keep ignoring it.
Supporting Ukraine is in fact not the most important priority for any nation other than Ukraine and perhaps some of its vulnerable neighbours.
>Every country has various "buckets" of budget. The US is not taking money away from infrastructure or firefighting to send it out to Ukraine, it's using the military budget or the emergency budget. Aid or not, you wouldn't see a difference.
This presupposes these are unchangeable things. But there are emergencies in America that need funding, there ways to rebudget. But they don't because hegemony has priority over feeding and housing and giving medical care to Americans who can't afford it.
If poverty in America were treated like Ukraine is by media and politicians they'd unass all that money too.
>You also wouldn't see a difference because MOST of the aid is in the form of equipment and not money.
Equipment they'll pay to replace so it's still money to the arms manufacturers.
>As for "why aid for your own people is not possible" - ask the Republicans who are consequently blocking all attempts at a more "for people" legislation.
Naw, democrats are also guilty. They're just less guilty. Biden stopped a rail strike that was partly about safety issues and here we see the consequences of that anti union probusiness attitude.
Democrats would be considered milquetoast at best on many other democracies if the republicans weren't around, but they're also in the wealthiest nation on earth with limited ambition or ideological inclination toward big broad stroke solutions. Even if they had the full control of legislation they'd never do a proper new deal.
>You're saying something that presupposes something I never said and you keep saying it so I keep ignoring it.
You're right, sorry, I confused you with the other guy because you sounded the same.
>Supporting Ukraine is in fact not the most important priority for any nation other than Ukraine and perhaps some of its vulnerable neighbours.
That's an impressively short-sighted worldview. Also, we've already been there, done that. Read about a guy called Chamberlain and his stance towards Hitler.
>there are emergencies in America that need funding
Which emergency in the US is underfunded SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of the UA-aid?
>But they don't because hegemony has priority over feeding and housing and giving medical care to Americans who can't afford it.
And what exactly is the impact of the UA-aid on the fact that the Republican party reacts with a hissy fit every time anyone suggests anything REMOTELY pro-citizen in legislature?
>If poverty in America were treated like Ukraine is by media and politicians they'd unass all that money too.
Remind me again, how many poor people in the US are getting kidnapped, killed or their houses blown up daily?
Also, which US "help the poor" programme suffers lower finances due to the UA-aid?
>Equipment they'll pay to replace so it's still money to the arms manufacturers.
Nope. Most of that equipment was either already retired or scheduled to be retired. For instance, there's A LOT of Abrams tanks after the Marine Corps decided to completely change their strategy and removed armour.
>Naw, democrats are also guilty.
Fair enough, although it certainly doesn't seem like it the last couple of years.
>Even if they had the full control of legislation they'd never do a proper new deal.
The US is a fundamentally broken democracy. No party ever has "full control" due to how much power lobbyists and the businesses behind them have gotten over the years.
>That's an impressively short-sighted worldview. Also, we've already been there, done that. Read about a guy called Chamberlain and his stance towards Hitler.
Comparing Russia to Hitler is kinda ridiculous. Russia has shown how dysfunctional their military is. Compared to Hitler Putin has no flex at all except in a very limited region.
It's fantasy to think he's a threat to a nuclear armed Europe. Hence why its no more important to most nations than countless other regional conflicts are. Were just racist because we think of Europeans are facing strife its exceptional.
>Which emergency in the US is underfunded SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of the UA-aid?
Were back to you saying things that presuppose things I don't say.
>And what exactly is the impact of the UA-aid on the fact that the Republican party reacts with a hissy fit every time anyone suggests anything REMOTELY pro-citizen in legislature?
That it was just as true 20 years ago and 40 years ago and 60 years ago when the modern political situation was less dire. America has always been this way and its consistent if uneven across multiple generations.
>Remind me again, how many poor people in the US are getting kidnapped, killed or their houses blown up daily?
Change Ukraine to rojava and magically we don't care. Maybe because it would piss off turkey and their value to nato supersedes our humanity. Ie. Hegemony.
>Nope. Most of that equipment was either already retired or scheduled to be retired. For instance, there's A LOT of Abrams tanks after the Marine Corps decided to completely change their strategy and removed armour.
It's dishonest to suggest its all free and never going to be replaced. The tanks aren't even the bulk of the support.
>Fair enough, although it certainly doesn't seem like it the last couple of years.
That's because you need to look beyond what the GOP does. It's lesser evil ism, not good VS evil.
>The US is a fundamentally broken democracy. No party ever has "full control" due to how much power lobbyists and the businesses behind them have gotten over the years.
Hence why the moral idea of helping Ukraine is superficial. It just so happens to appeal to it.
>Comparing Russia to Hitler is kinda ridiculous. Russia has shown how dysfunctional their military is.
German military was very weak up until around 1941, they needed time to ramp up production. What they had in 1937-1940 was strategy and tactics that haven't been seen to date and caught attacked countries off-guard.
Had France and England actually respect the treaties they had with Poland, there would be no World War II.
Had Ukraine not receive help from its allies, it would be already done - they'd run out of ammunition, artillery shells, medical equipment, etc.
Don't let the fact that most of the war content posted on Reddit is "russians being dumb" fool you - if they were overall half as incompetent as these videos show, Zelensky would've received the victory parade of his army marching through the Red Square months ago.
>It's fantasy to think he's a threat to a nuclear armed Europe.
HE IS the "nuclear armed Europe" too, mate. At least on paper, russia still has the nuclear arsenal to rival that of the US, France and Britain combined.
We can ASSUME that it's no longer the case (judging by how badly maintained their regular military is), but can we bet the lives of half the planet on it? I don't think that's a bet any sane politician who knows anything about the history of dictators is willing to make.
>Hence why its no more important to most nations than countless other regional conflicts are.
Russia getting their grubby little idiot hands on Ukraine has extremely huge strategical and economical consequences.
Ukraine's fields produce food that can feed a fifth of the planet. Natural gas and oil reserves have been found that rival those of Russia. Then there's all the geopolitical stuff on top of that. I highly recommend watching THIS video. It's pretty long but will let you understand why NATO can't let russia have this - even if we ignore all the warcrimes stuff.
>Were just racist because we think of Europeans are facing strife its exceptional. (...) Change Ukraine to rojava and magically we don't care
That's actually true, but the reasons for NATO's help are entirely not humanitarian, but rather strategic. It's a military operation through and through, it's just that only Ukraine is doing the actual fighting.
>Were back to you saying things that presuppose things I don't say.
OK, in that case explain what did you mean by this sentence:
>there are emergencies in America that need funding
Because apparently I don't understand it, in the context of this discussion.
>That it was just as true 20 years ago and 40 years ago and 60 years ago when the modern political situation was less dire. America has always been this way and its consistent if uneven across multiple generations.
Exactly my point. Meaning - UA-aid existing or not doesn't change anything.
>It's dishonest to suggest its all free and never going to be replaced. The tanks aren't even the bulk of the support.
I never suggested either of these.
>Hence why the moral idea of helping Ukraine is superficial
Like I said, it's not a moral or humanitarian sentiment that's pushing NATO countries to help. It's 100% entirely strategic. What's going on right now is a "weird world war" where everyone's involved but only two countries are doing the fighting.
Healthcare, infrastructure, debt relief, housing, white-collar crime enforcement. All better ways to spend money than sticking it to Russia.
>Healthcare, infrastructure, debt relief, housing, white-collar crime enforcement
Ekhm...
>Especially if it's from the DOD/military budget.
Also, the US military doctrine assumes always being ready to fight two superpowers at once. Right now, one of these superpowers is bleeding out after methodically bashing its head against a certain Ukrainian wall.
Don't be fooled into thinking this is a "local conflict" or anything like that - this is 100% a world war (even if it's "weird" and seems local), because the times have changed and these days everything is global. If Ukraine falls and Russia is allowed to rebuild, it WILL go after the Baltic states and Poland, who knows if they'll stop there.
Now, we already know what happens if you let a dictator take land without repercussions, so this cannot stand.
It would be immoral (considering the crimes the russians are committing) AND self destructive (considering how intertwined the global markets are).
>All better ways to spend money than sticking it to Russia.
For RIGHT NOW, maybe. Although it's not like the US is a poor, third world country and can't do both - support Ukraine AND do all the things you listed. I mean, come on, mate - they've sent 0,4% of their GDP so far, it's not like you can reform a whole country for that. Or even just healthcare.
Also, this 0,4% doesn't mean the US has sent that much money, which could be used for, say, housing. That includes the declared value of the equipment they're sending. So tell me, how many hospitals can you nationalise for 150 M777 howitzers?
So, yeah, there are better ways of governing money, if you're USA. But as far as spending your military budget goes - you can't do better than having someone fight for you while at the same time cleaning up your warehouses of old stuff.
It didn't come out of the military budget
It also didn't come out of the healthcare budget, did it?
Do you even know how spending works or do I have to explain our entire legislative system to you? It doesn't come out of a budget. That's. why it needed serval pieces of legislation. All of which passed easier than legislation that helps people.
DOD contracts are fraught with bloat and inflated bids
There is another way that these media outlets hide the truth... by burying the story. This allows them to claim to be reporting on something, while keeping people in the dark. In the old days, it was placing the article on page A22 of the newspaper. Now it is placing it 3 clicks away from the front page.
I checked the waybackmachine for each of your citations. I can not find the articles on the front page of the afternoon capture for any of them. That includes the Trump one, which is hard to believe considering CNN has had 10 Trump-bashing articles per day, every day, up to the present.
I found those in 2min of googling all from just one mainstream news outlet . I can find plenty more that examine it from different angles and had more exposure but you can google things yourself and i've made my point.
And I spent 10 minutes scouring the waybackmachine and can not find the articles anywhere on CNN.com.
Which proved my point- that the stories exist but are buried to the point they can't be found. And you further proved my point- that people will google what they want to find and then say "See! It's right there! They do report on it!"
Also, it's easier to print and bury than live record and bury. Which is why you'll even more rarely see televised CNN pundets question defense spending or budget cuts.
OK, replace "never"in my original comment to "rarely."
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments