• UlyssesT [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1711 months ago

        But they’re not motorized chainsaw blades so according to one visiting galaxy-brain we need to pack it up because we’ve been checkmated. no-choice very-intelligent

        • krolden
          link
          fedilink
          2011 months ago

          So I’m just reading through the comments here and I’m like wow lemmy has gotten much more based somehow where are all the libs. Then I realize y’all are from hexbear I had no idea it got federated. Hell yeah!

    • FnordPrefect [comrade/them, he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2811 months ago

      the-democrat “The latest request from the Biden administration shows America’s continued commitment to helping Americans here at home and our friends abroad”

      frothingfash “…but God help them if those friends try to come here!”

  • Queen HawlSera
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3911 months ago

    How about 40 billion to support getting some bitches… on a Single Payer Healthcare program.

  • Silverseren
    link
    fedilink
    3811 months ago

    Is this actual money in this case or is this more designated monetary amounts of goods, ie the worth of the guns and tanks and other things we’ve been giving them that were just collecting dust over here?

    Because that’s what most of the past monetary support was. No actual money was involved and so didn’t really cost us anything.

    • 133arc585
      link
      fedilink
      1111 months ago

      the worth of the guns and tanks and other things we’ve been giving them that were just collecting dust over here?

      Use of reserves motivates replacement. Just because you’re giving them weapons that were produced in the past, and therefore whose (production) cost has already been incurred, doesn’t mean that occurs in a vacuum. With stock running low, contemporary money goes in to replenishing that stock. In effect, there’s no difference whether you send old or new equipment, because both incur costs in the present.

      No actual money was involved and so didn’t really cost us anything.

      It cost you exactly the amount it cost to produce them. Just because it was produced in the past, doesn’t mean it was free. You paid for it X years ago, and are only now seeing it used. You paid for it. Moreover, you’re now going to pay to replace it.

      • @SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        3711 months ago

        Except a bunch is old stock or overstock. The US was sitting on stockpiles of 203mm artillery rounds from the m110 that they would’ve had to pay someone to decommission, but it turns out that there’s a soviet arty piece that can use them, and guess what? Ukraine has em. Not to mention they chronically overproduced M1A1 Abrams to the point that generals were begging for it to stop, simply because it would be more expensive to shut down and restart production than simply keep making tanks nobody wanted or needed. Plus, a significant portion of the old inventory was DESIGNED to blow up russian equipment. So the US is clearing out old shit, crippling the Russian military, and aiding a new democracy. The only downside is the fresh money that is probably going to be dumped into the MIC to fill those clean shelves, but (and this is basically NCDposting but here we go) the fact that the US can almost singlehandedly provide Ukraine the resources to hold out against fucking Russia for over a year and that equioment still being only a tiny fraction of their total might? Holy shit. Grab the money shovels boys.

        • Plus it helps clear out shelf space for new shiny shit, why have massive stocks of old obsolute junk sitting in the Sierra army Depot when you can empty it out and fill it with shiny new junk!

          Also its interesting how the Ukrainians have used some of the equipment which gives new data for R&D.

    • Echo71Niner
      link
      fedilink
      611 months ago

      your answer to your question

      the worth of the guns and tanks and other things we’ve been giving them that were just collecting dust over here

    • @Zippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      111 months ago

      Also what amounts are going where? Could be 39 billion to the border and 1 billion to Ukraine.

      They intentionally lump these sums together so that they can distribute it as they desire. There is no reason to do this other then to hide funding.

      • @Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        9
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I mean you could have just read the article.

        13B for defense support and 8B in Humanitarian aid for Ukraine. 12B for federal disaster funding. ~7B for border funding, Fentanyl seizure Ops, and other stuff. So the 7B is vague, but it’s a budget. You could probably just go to the house or senate page once it’s released to get the details.

    • @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      011 months ago

      Yea we just have billions of dollars of military equipment that popped out of thin air and of course will not be replenished in the next trillion dollar military budget.

      • Harrison [He/Him]
        link
        fedilink
        911 months ago

        You have trillions of dollars worth of military equipment from the cold war mothballed or in storage.
        Most of it will never see use because it’s outdated technology. There are thousands of planes, tanks and miscellaneous vehicles just sitting out in the desert waiting to be scrapped or reactivated.

      • Silverseren
        link
        fedilink
        811 months ago

        We have billions of dollars of military equipment that was made 10+ years ago and has been sitting around since then because we have no reason to use any of it.

        To the point where military commanders are begging Congress to not make the military budget so big because it’s being wasted on building more assets that aren’t seeing any use.

  • Parsani [love/loves, comrade/them]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3311 months ago

    An expansion of the Child Tax Credit that focuses on the 19 million children who are shut out of the full credit because their families’ incomes are too low would come at a modest cost. For example, making the current law $2,000 credit fully available to these children would cost roughly $12 billion per year in 2022, according to the Joint Tax Committee estimates.

  • @HurlingDurling@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3111 months ago

    Can we go ahead and just declare a state of emergency on the climate crisis? Or do we need the rest of the states to burn down as well? Shit’s getting me frustrated

    • robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1511 months ago

      no that would be totalitarian, and too much money is made by the capitalists who own the politicians to ever do anything real about it.

      you need a kind of central planning that the US hasn’t done since world war 2, and you’re not going to get it from liberals.

  • duderium [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3111 months ago

    Can a single liberal offer a single example of how anything in the USA has improved since Biden became president?

    • spectre [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2311 months ago

      (not a liberal, but) The infrastructure bill was mediocre but should lead to some improvements over the next decade or so.

      They recently protected some indigenous land from uranium mining.

      Ummmmmmm, anything else after the last 3 years or so?

    • @McScience
      link
      711 months ago

      Are you suggesting we just let Putin take over Europe Nazi-style or is this comment unrelated to the article?

      • JohnBrownsBussy2 [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2811 months ago

        The annexations in Ukraine are illegal, but Russia annexing 5 oblasts and Ukraine being locked into a status as a neutral buffer state is not exactly a Hitlerian take-over of Europe.

        • Farman [any]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          9
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Its not ilegal in russia. Legality is not a real property of things its the opinion of the guy with the biggest army in the area. Thinking otherwise is brainworms

          • JohnBrownsBussy2 [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            17
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            No, annexation is illegal under the UN charter, of which Russia is a signatory, and wars of aggression are criminal in and of themselves. I’ll condemn the illegal annexations performed by Israel and other states, and Russia’s annexations fall under the same boat.

            To be even more clear, I do think that Russia would have won fair referendums in Donetsk, Luhansk and certainly Crimea. I doubt that would have been the case for the other two oblasts. Still, all of those annexations were illegal. Just because the neo-cons have flouted the UN charter in favor of the ad hoc “rules-based order” doesn’t mean others should.

              • JohnBrownsBussy2 [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                711 months ago

                What’s your point, that Soros is a hypocrite? That was always obvious. Is he more of a zionist than the average American lib though?

              • Harrison [He/Him]
                link
                fedilink
                -111 months ago

                It’s always funny seeing people post that image without the context that Palestine declared war on Israel alongside all its neighbours and attempted to push the Israeli population into the sea.

                • mkultrawide [any]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  16
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  And Ukraine kept shelling civilians in Donetsk despite signing Minsk 2.

                  And that’s not even taking into account that Israel has continued to annex new land despite it not being a war.

                • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1311 months ago

                  The correct response to a settler colonial ethnostate being founded in your region by Britain is to try to destroy it.

                • Awoo [she/her]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  111 months ago

                  “The indigenous americans shouldn’t have fought back against the settlers if they didn’t want to get exterminated.”

            • Farman [any]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              311 months ago

              If russian law considers they are part of russia and the russian army is siting there russian law applies there. Thats how it works. If another army is sitting there then legality is whatever those other guys say.

              Pretending otherwise is denying realty.

        • @lonke@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          311 months ago

          not exactly a Hitlerian take-over of Europe.

          Only because they lack the ability. Civilian massacres like in Bucha are happening and have been happening throughout the war.

        • @mayo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          211 months ago

          I don’t know a lot about the region, but I think this gives Russia access to some large oil deposits and excellent agricultural land. It will also give them more strength in the region. I think it’s worth extending the war to try and limit those gains. It’s a good situation for the US.

      • Awoo [she/her]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I’m from Europe, this is fucking nonsense. Please can the US piss off and leave the rest of the world alone? You caused this in the first fucking place and then you act like you’re on moral high ground by supporting the continuation of it with the deaths of tens of thousands of people over lines on a fucking map. It’s abhorrent. Let’s not get started on how the US very obviously blew up German infrastructure to cripple Europe and vassalise it. Don’t pretend that any of your support is for any of our benefit thanks. You’ve literally ended european prosperity and fucked the continent for the next 50 years.

    • @mayo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      611 months ago

      If you are actually interested in that you can follow the white house blog. Liberal or not it’s a good idea to keep tabs on what the government is up to and the mainstream media/social media are garbage news sources these days.

      https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/

      https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/

      Politics is actually boring AF so there’s a reason most of us don’t know what the government is actually doing all the time.

      • @Defaced@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        211 months ago

        This is good information but don’t bother with hexbear trolls, they love to be assholes to anything capitalism.

        • @mayo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          111 months ago

          Don’t worry I don’t try too hard! I know it’s a lost cause, but I also won’t let them set us up as the problem if it’s easy for me to show them in the wrong.

  • notceps [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2311 months ago

    It’d take 37bn USD a year to end world hunger. I’m also sure that if you are a ghoul and don’t care about that 100bn in investments would have a far bigger return on investment if they I dunno fixed their failing infrasctructure, used it to offer free healthcare, free education or literally anything. I’ve since stopped counting the amount of ‘lethal aid’ the USA has given but by now the USA could’ve combatted world hunger for about 4 years. Priorities I guess gotta pump up those MIC stock prices.

  • UlyssesT [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2211 months ago

    He will get nothing, probably expects nothing, but the positive press is there. biden-troll

  • @jcit878@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    1511 months ago

    aid is good, but we need to stop dancing around and allow provided arms to be used cross border. or maybe itll take the deaths of another 250000 russian conscripts

    • SpicyPeaSoup
      link
      fedilink
      711 months ago

      Unironically the most logical comment here. Aid to Ukraine is good, but we need to commit and go balls deep. No silly half-measure, attack russia where it hurts, especially those annoying-ass bombers and missile/drone factories.

      • @astral_avocado@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        1111 months ago

        What are you an Army general? I kinda would prefer the government not give any more reason for a nuclear strike by Russia. Which is absolutely where we’re trending if America starts dropping pretenses and begins directly arming incursions into Russian borders.

        • SpicyPeaSoup
          link
          fedilink
          -511 months ago

          Russia only understands one language: violence.

          They need to be shown where their place is, and NATO’s combined might is more than capable of doing so. Hell, Ukraine with NATO’s leftovers is keeping russia at bay.

          If russia wants to go nuclear, so be it. They’ll be absolutely eradicated, so they won’t strike first.

          • @astral_avocado@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            1011 months ago

            Okay armchair army general, I guess we’re going to nuclear war against a country on another continent that we’ve not technically declared war with because of your expert geopolitical analyst.

          • @zer0@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            -111 months ago

            Name on state or nation in the world that isn’t rooted in violence and that doesn’t have an army

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    911 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    A political divide on the issue has steadily grown, with the Republican-led House facing enormous pressure to demonstrate support for the party’s leader, Donald Trump, who has been very skeptical of the war.

    As a supplemental request, the package the White House is sending to Congress falls outside the budget caps both parties agreed to as part of the debt ceiling showdown earlier this year.

    “I look forward to carefully reviewing the Administration’s request to make sure it is necessary and appropriate,” McConnell said in a statement, “to keep America safe, secure our borders, support our allies, and help communities rebuild after disasters.”

    Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., released a statement urging Congress to swiftly pass critical funding for disaster relief programs while separately considering military aid for Ukraine.

    Members of Congress have repeatedly pressed Defense Department leaders on how closely the U.S. is tracking its aid to Ukraine to ensure that it is not subject to fraud or ending up in the wrong hands.

    Now, though, House Speaker McCarthy is facing pressure to impeach Biden over unproven claims of financial misconduct and it’s not clear whether a quick show of support for Ukraine could cause political damage in what’s expected to be a bruising 2024 reelection campaign.


    I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Gamey
    link
    fedilink
    311 months ago

    Squeeze ut all in one pckage so people have a hard time saying no because they would deny Ukraine help…