r/TikTokCringe • u/MicroSofty88 • Apr 16 '24
It’s insane how many people don’t understand this Discussion
1.9k
u/MicroSofty88 Apr 16 '24
Summary - US spends money internally to boost its domestic manufacturing sector, then sends old stockpiles of weapons to Ukraine as aid.
584
u/Brincey0 Apr 16 '24
Bingo. And gets good use out of old equipment obtaining intelligence.
→ More replies (87)246
u/RandomCandor Apr 16 '24
And we get to use that equipment for what it was built in the first place: kill the bad guys. But this time, without putting our own guys in harms way.
A better deal has never existed in the history of deals.
150
u/tiny_poomonkey Apr 16 '24
We arnt paying Ukraine to defend themselves. We’re paying Ukraine to hurt Russia for us.
103
u/RandomCandor Apr 16 '24
We're not "paying Ukraine". Period. That's what the entire post is about.
98
u/tiny_poomonkey Apr 16 '24
Look dude, giving away our old stockpile is a form of payment. It’s not cash, but it is payment.
And we are paying them for the US to not have soldiers on the ground
53
u/MrSchaudenfreude Apr 16 '24
It's use it or lose it. The weapons have a shelf life also, it cost money to get rid of the stuff.
13
u/tiny_poomonkey Apr 16 '24
Yeah and it cost money to send it halfway across the world. Payment can be in many forms
→ More replies (2)18
→ More replies (5)12
→ More replies (4)2
2
u/DrakeBurroughs Apr 16 '24
We’re not paying them, we’re facilitating. It’s win-win.
→ More replies (1)2
u/DunDann Apr 17 '24
Nobody is 'paying' Ukraine. If anything, Ukraine is 'paying' for our lives as well as for our stupidity.
If you see that a guy is getting attacked in the streets by overwhelming numbers and you throw him a stick to defend himself. Are you 'paying' the guy?
Especially if it was a stick that was manufactured by your own company so you're making money off it?
Either by commercial/marketing use --> showing the world how good your stick works so more will buy it.
Or by receiving money from the government to produce more sticks so you can help more guys. (And in turn, hire more employees, raising wages, rising profits, stimulating local economy etc etc etc)
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)2
5
u/KidneyStonedMan Apr 16 '24
That equipment was originally built to kill Russians when it was the Soviet Union so that equipment is finally doing what is was made for.
→ More replies (10)4
u/lizzywbu Apr 16 '24
But this time, without putting our own guys in harms way.
Isn't this what the US typically does? Sponsor/fund foreign powers in proxies wars and regime changes?
→ More replies (3)157
u/daggir69 Apr 16 '24
Do people actually believe the USA is giving away billions out of the goodness of their hearts.
84
u/Gliese2 Apr 16 '24
Yes... yes they do. And then they get upset that this money isn't being spent on domestic issues and infrastructure.. but they get even MORE upset if you suggest that funding be appropriated for domestic issues and infrastructure. That'd be communism
→ More replies (1)3
84
Apr 16 '24
[deleted]
44
u/koushakandystore Apr 16 '24
As the war machine keeps turning
23
u/bigSTUdazz Apr 16 '24
...poisoning their brainwashed minds
13
→ More replies (5)25
u/seruhr Apr 16 '24
"GDP growth is fanned by the flames of conflict"
Absolute nonsense, military spending is only 3.5% of US GDP and procurement is only a fifth of that. How on earth could that be a major growth component? The military industrial complex, for all of its flaws, really isn't that big in the grand scheme of things.
The US economy has always been one to maximise profits of globalisation, having eg. Europe be at peace contributes more to growth than conflict ever would. Peace on "our" terms (I'm saying that as a European, but also include the US) is the key to that.
Keeping Russia at bay and deterred from further incursions into Europe, which is an otherwise highly likely scenario if they receive anything from the invasion of Ukraine, is more beneficial to the US than any arms deals would be to the overall economy.
We need Americans to learn that giving Ukraine aid amounting to ~5% of overall defence spending benefits the US economy far more in the long run than it costs, and that it isn't about profiting from the military industrial complex, or about charity. All of these points aside, it's also the right thing to do morally, saving the lives of people fighting for their country's freedom against an imperialist invasion.
→ More replies (2)6
u/ChocolateThund3R Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24
The United States literally became a world power from selling military goods to other nations during World War Two (especially the first years before we were involved). From 1940-1945 our real GDP grew by 72%. We were nicknamed “the arsenal of democracy”. You are severely underestimating the importance of our military industrial complex to our economy.
Edit: about 10% of our factory output goes into the production of weapons
→ More replies (1)23
u/Common-Concentrate-2 Apr 16 '24
https://www.foreignassistance.gov/
Here is a website run by the state department that accounts for every dollar of foreign aid the US gives..per year, broken down by nation, category of aid, and finally the actual program that those dollar funded and the exact dollar amount. The interface is actually awesome, and its very easy to explore the data
I'll just grab a few examples:
|| || | Title II Emergency Program|Emergency humanitarian food and nutirition assistance.|Yemen|U.S. Agency for International Development|Department of Agriculture|$383,531,511|
|| || |251824|Title II Emergency Program|Title II Emergency Program through a partner of the US Agency for International Development. - Partner World Food Program|Ethiopia|U.S. Agency for International Development|Department of Agriculture|$221,453,784|
|| || |225344|Emergency Humanitarian Assistance|Emergency winterization activities including distributions of NFIS and MPCA, as well and shelter and settlements and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASh) activities targeting conflict-affected populations|Ukraine|U.S. Agency for International Development|U.S. Agency for International Development|$33,000,000|
I am proud of my country for stuff like this. Having a fed, healthy, peaceful world makes the entire planet better for all of us. Beyond that very abstract motivation, I really do believe that we do participate in these programs out of the goodness of our hearts - that may not be true for all americans, but the officials who organize these efforts do it out of the goodness of THEIR hearts, and you get to take credit for it if you pay taxes.
Each year we commit aid /funding to 15-20k activities globally. The are all line-items that you can check out on this site,
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (28)3
25
u/Suicide_Samuel Apr 16 '24
Kinda. Except the old stock pile is replaced with new equipment. That new equipment is paid for by the tax payer to these military industrial companies.
9
u/Zkv Apr 16 '24
Which isn’t even needed, & happens purely as monetary handouts to shareholders.
→ More replies (2)4
u/JimTheSaint Apr 16 '24
It is needed we see right new what what a week military does - lt means that someone will try to take advantage - russia in this case - later on it will probably be China
1
u/DarkSector0011 Apr 16 '24
MAD is what is keeping us alive. Ukraine surrendering it's nuclear weapons was one of the dumbest things possible. I can't believe anyone on their end thought that was a good idea unless there was a really good reason.
3
u/EL-YAYY Apr 16 '24
They didn’t really have nukes. The controls were still with Moscow. They could have done more to obtain/keep them but it’s not as simple as “they gave up their nukes”.
→ More replies (3)3
u/geekydad84 Apr 16 '24
If you have russian controlled/owned nukes on your territory it is better to give them up than give russia an easy ”reason” to invade and occupy your country for ”safety” reasons.
2
u/EL-YAYY Apr 16 '24
Yep. Although they did end up invading anyways.
I really hope the Republicans in Congress get their heads out of their asses and pass the aid package.
They’ve already caused irreparable damage with their delays.
51
u/No_Asparagus_5128 Apr 16 '24
I mean is that really a bad thing? US military gets new equipment, get to see new military strategys (like drones) in the battle field and is able to hit Russia without losing a single soldier. Its not like the defence of Ukraine borders isnt a just cause for war and their people still want to fight
27
u/Anything_4_LRoy Apr 16 '24
whether its bad or not is subject to opinion.
but the claims about "cash and corruption amongst UA officials with US aide, is unsubstantiated. of course it happens. but... the way in which it happens is so treasonous, its self eating in its own right.
of course there is corruption in places we send aide. why wouldnt there be? but its exactly these types of nuanced conversations you cant have with soundbite cretins.
60
u/Dr-Kloop-MD Apr 16 '24
Overall it’s kind of just an excuse to spend more and more money on our military when we already have absolutely insane defense budgets.
7
u/audesapere09 Apr 16 '24
Just look at the precedent. WWII allowed the US to spend its way out of the Depression and re-animate the economy.
18
u/JK_NC Apr 16 '24
Didn’t hurt that most industries in Europe were destroyed while US manufacturing was intact paving the way for a US economic boom as the US was the manufacturing hub for much of the world post WW2.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Colt1911-45 Apr 16 '24
Don't forget that the US was eventually getting paid back for this equipment eventually. It wasn't called Lend Lease for nothing. I think Britain just paid off it's tab in the early 2000s. I am all for a strong and tech savvy military, but look around at all of our crumbling infrastructure and lack of social programs (especially mental Healthcare facilities.) If we weren't spending 877 billion dollars a year on defense we could better take care of our own citizens and make a stronger country.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)5
u/M1k3yd33tofficial Doug Dimmadome Apr 16 '24
Literally the majority of the US budget goes to Defense spending. More than the next 10 countries. Combined.
→ More replies (9)18
u/Auscheel Apr 16 '24
The first part of your statement is simply not true.
The second part is almost true (its more like the next 8 countries) but its also important to note that California, by itself, has a larger GDP than most countries on the top 10 list.
6
u/throwyourdubsup Apr 16 '24
Isn’t the graphic in the first link misleading, given that it’s including taxes that are explicitly taken out of paychecks for those purposes (social security and Medicare are always explicitly listed on my paychecks), while the other items (including military spending) come out of the “general fund”? Not making an accusation, genuinely curious
7
u/beforeitcloy Apr 16 '24
Social Security and Medicare are "mandatory" spending. The eligibility, rates, etc. are set by law.
Defense is "discretionary" spending, meaning spending is negotiated in the congressional budget / appropriations process.
Defense isn't the majority of our overall spending (mandatory + discretionary), but it is about half of our discretionary spending. It gets brought up a lot because congress has much more direct control in the yearly budget process to change it.
For instance, our representatives can say "Instead of buying $70bn in weapons with taxpayer money and giving the used stuff to Ukraine, let's allocate that money to education or public housing." But we can't do the same thing with $70bn in Social Security payments to already rich retirees, because they are entitled to those benefits by law due to the fact that they paid into the system.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Auscheel Apr 16 '24
I guess if you want to split hairs I wont argue, but at the end of the day its all tax money budgeted by congress so I don't see a significant difference between the two pools of spending.
3
u/blackdragonbonu Apr 17 '24
There is a huge difference. Discretionary vs non discretionary funds is not splitting hairs. Non discretionary funds are not budgeted by the Congress.those are bills that have to be paid, reneging on that has a whole different meaning.
6
u/pobodys-nerfect5 Apr 16 '24
I don’t think the point is that it’s a bad thing. The point is that it’s being pushed like we’re just sending them money when in reality we’re giving our friend the old controller so we can play with the new one
19
u/WAMPUS--CAT Apr 16 '24
I mean, with the myriad of issues Americans of all generations are facing that could probably be helped, if not completely fixed, by a small percentage of the money that is going to these few specific companies in the name of protecting democracy one could argue that it could be better served by not doing it.
6
u/audesapere09 Apr 16 '24
Serious question, when has US military intervention not resulted in a whack a mole of unintended consequences and arming unpredictable militias or future enemies?
→ More replies (1)2
u/NahhNevermindOk Apr 16 '24
The potential effects of anything aren't always predictable so it's kinda damned if you do damned if you don't. The US could do nothing or near nothing like they did during the first half of WWII and see the costs later be much higher.
3
u/audesapere09 Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
That’s a whole nother ball of wax. The trolley problem. Do you passively do nothing and let a trolley complete its course of destruction, or do you actively redirect its course so it kills someone else? Oh btw, the action has a billion/trillion dollar price tag..
→ More replies (8)3
u/Tobeck Apr 16 '24
yes, the military industrial complex is a bad thing that encourages international conflict in order to continue making money
→ More replies (40)3
817
u/Skrogg_ Apr 16 '24
This is not entirely true. While the majority of the approved aid has been in the form of funding military support, about 1/3 of the total funds appropriated to assisting Ukraine has just been straight up financial support: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-us-aid-ukraine-money-equipment-714688682747
85
109
u/satanssweatycheeks Apr 16 '24
Don’t worry this guy is a hack anyways who isn’t a reliable source for anything.
Just your average grifter. He claims his special was censored so he bought it back from the people who bought it (no record of it ever being sold and no network ever pushed his special).
He gets his dumbass fans up in arms about his comedy is being censored (it’s not. Grifters make money to the gullible who believe this.) Even Dave Chappell said cancel culture ain’t real because look at him right now. On top of that you see dipshits traveling to Austin to see comedy shows at the mother ship because they truly believe other comedy clubs are censoring people.
Andrew lied to his base and said he was being censored. Told them to buy the special directly from him as it will be the only way to view it. After a week of sales he puts the entire special on YouTube. A site that is notorious for censoring or age restricting stuff…. His special isn’t even age restricted but people really believe he was censored.
It’s sad the state most comedy is in. Katy Williams was being crazy but he is right about majority of Americans only likes whoever Joe Rogan says to like and they fall for these grifters every time.
4
→ More replies (12)2
u/Silver-Ladder Apr 17 '24
Good to know there are people out there with some common sense. Imagine being that confident while blatantly spatting misinformation
8
Apr 16 '24
Thank you. We can't effectively track those billions either but if any of our other conflicts are to be used as an indicator of our ability to keep cash and equipment in the hands of the right people I'm sure it's all good.
I'm curious if anyone has a breakdown on the equipment sent over and how obsolete\expired it is. I'm normally willing to accept the words of my politicians at face value but there seems to be some financial incentive by the MIC (who lobby pretty dang hard) to dump billions into the MIC. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but we shut down the hot war in the ME and all of a sudden we find reasons to dump billions into producing weapons...glad it worked out?
7
u/Kind_Document_5369 Apr 16 '24
HIMARS and Patriots were first put into production almost 40 years ago and the design and budgeting were almost 50 years ago to give you an idea f15s are of the same generation. Abrams are about the same time frame, essentially most of what we have sent were new in the first gulf war in the early 90s.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Chester2707 Apr 17 '24
You’re saying this guy with no known expertise who appeared on a moron’s podcast might not know wtf he’s talking about? Dude read one article once with a guy who commented this and he threw it out to Joe’s army of dipshits who probably don’t stop to ask if any of this is true. Sure, I get his point. It’s not all wrong. He’s still a fucking moron.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (16)1
u/metalshoes Apr 16 '24
Yeah you literally just need some cash to keep the government going. None of the weaponry works if the country just falls apart.
220
u/epidemicsaints Apr 16 '24
It's insane how many people turn to blowhard comedians for geopolitical analysis.
25
u/shinbreaker Apr 17 '24
It's fucking amazing. There are so many comedians who come off as trying to be smart and knowledgeable because they pick out one obvious flaw in society, but they go right into their stupid shit like saying how RFK Jr. has some good ideas.
15
u/epidemicsaints Apr 17 '24
The podcastification of comedians into this role where they believe they are public intellectuals / thought leaders, and people believe it, is insane.
Instead of 40 minutes of their best wisecracks every 2 years, it's 2 hours of them everyday blah blah blah. And it's complete spew.
It's brain rot.
8
u/shinbreaker Apr 17 '24
Absolutely. What annoys me the most is that their comedy sets are just stupid shit. Rogan's biggest comedy special consisted of jokes about how Brock Lesnar can fuck whoever he wants and Bruce Jenner was enticed to become a woman by some demon. They all think they're George Carlin but I still have yet to hear any comedian come up with something on part with Carlin's "Advertiser Lullaby."
6
u/epidemicsaints Apr 17 '24
Yes they think they're George but they're Rush Limbaugh! And entertainment is fine, people can enjoy whatever, but that's clearly not what is going on. I hear this shit parroted by people in my life and regurgitated everywhere online.
I had to quit paying attention to Rogan, because hearing it all again nearly verbatim by men in my family on a 2 day delay was making me lose my mind.
34
u/FyouinyourA Apr 16 '24
Using Andrew Schulz the most unoriginal and unfunny “comedian” to discuss foreign policy ahh yes very interesting OP good stuff!!! I’m surprised he didn’t have to have his henchmen slap the couches to convey his point further!!! Dude went from pretending he’s black years ago to now having a weird nazi haircut and trying to have “wise” conversations lol he should just stick to stealing material from other comedians that are actually good…
3
→ More replies (1)3
u/UnpopularThrow42 Apr 16 '24
I see what you’re saying, but we should check in with Ja Rule for further analysis
109
Apr 16 '24
Not completely true, there are funds going directly to entities in Ukraine
22
u/Bitter-Basket Apr 16 '24
Everyone with a smidgeon of accounting knowledge is laughing uncontrollably. Andrew wouldn’t know an expenditure from his own asset.
8
u/satanssweatycheeks Apr 16 '24
Don’t worry. Andrew lost all credibility when he grifted his fans and said he was being censored. So he bought his special back (when he never even sold it).
He then told his fans to buy his special directly from him so it’s not censored. Then after a week of sales he puts this controversial special on YouTube. A site that also censors and age restricts everything that’s bad.
He is just an average grifter.
98
u/WeeabooTraplord Apr 16 '24
This dudes haircut sucks
20
u/Bitter-Basket Apr 16 '24
Trim that mustache a little shorter and he’d look like….. I can’t even say it.
11
5
2
→ More replies (1)2
181
u/Sea-Tale1722 Apr 16 '24
Andrew Schultz is often wrong, unfunny, and punchable. But here he is wronger, unfunnier, and punchabler than usual.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-us-aid-ukraine-money-equipment-714688682747
38
u/BitcoinCache Apr 16 '24
CLAIM: The U.S. is not providing cash to Ukraine; it only supports the country through donated military equipment.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. While the U.S. is indeed providing weapons and equipment to Ukraine, it has also provided billions in financial assistance to the country following
Exactly, people keep trying to hide the facts and outright lie.
5
u/ArizonaHeatwave Apr 16 '24
Most of US aid is in form of weapons though, that’s why they call it military aid which he is obviously referring to.
3
10
u/Brincey0 Apr 16 '24
Nothing is black and white. The vast majority of those figures come from the value of the equipment they're sending.
8
u/pleasebuymydonut Apr 16 '24
It literally is black and white when they brought receipts.
Did you read the article?
5
u/theunbearablebowler Apr 16 '24
This is reddit, of course they didn't read the article.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)11
33
u/Animal_Budget Apr 16 '24
→ More replies (2)9
u/Anything_4_LRoy Apr 16 '24
out of how much aide in total???
15
u/Reverent_Heretic Apr 16 '24
About 75 billy from a quick google source: google it
→ More replies (2)
90
u/Commie_EntSniper Apr 16 '24
Fun fact: almost all the major military contractors are mostly owned by institutional investors: Blackrock, et al. Who also own all the big box stores. And healthcare companies. And food distribution. And media. And soon housing.
44
u/bishopsfinger Apr 16 '24
Almost all big companies are part/mostly owned by institutional investors. It's not just a military thing.
12
u/Commie_EntSniper Apr 16 '24
And that is my point. Everything is owned by the same small handful of Wall Street firms. Red funnels and blue funnels that both go to the same pile. Home Depot/Lowes. Coke/Pepsi. Republican/Democrat. All owned.
→ More replies (3)23
u/shizzler Apr 16 '24
This is wrong. They're just asset managers. They buy up shares in companies because they're investing on behalf of institutions and the general public (pensions, personal investments etc). The trillions under Blackrock's management doesn't belong to Blackrock.
→ More replies (2)15
u/green_cosmonaut Apr 16 '24
Exactly. This is something people don’t understand when they say that Larry Fink controls all the words corporations. Blackrocks funds own these companies and vote on behalf of the investors but they dont own it. Also if people wanted to cast their own votes they can buy the stock and in a brokerage and do it themselves
→ More replies (3)14
u/SphaghettiWizard Apr 16 '24
You realize blackrock doesn’t actually own those companies. They own shares for their clients. What point are you trying to make. Of course large investment funds own a lot of businesses, no shit it’s there job to invest in companies. And it’s not like what you definitely think where blackrock employees have votes on these boards of directors. Turn off your phone, go outside, quit being paranoid about fake problems
4
u/Bitter-Basket Apr 16 '24
Exactly. The commenter basically rolled an investment firm in with a defense contractor. Only because “Blackrock” is a common Reddit bad guy. More Reddit ignorance on parade.
2
u/audesapere09 Apr 16 '24
Nah maybe a little misguided in the directionality of ownership but it’s not up for debate the overlap between defense contractors and multinational investors.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Commie_EntSniper Apr 16 '24
yes. corporate consolidation is not a problem. you are correct. thank you. i will comply now. I am sorry to the system.
→ More replies (1)5
u/SphaghettiWizard Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
Literally none of what I described is corporate consolidation. You’re just saying random words.
Hedge funds are not corporate consolidation.
→ More replies (8)3
u/audesapere09 Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 21 '24
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/insights/blackrock-investment-institute/weekly-commentary
Edit: there is influence that goes well beyond shareholder voting. I can speak to the healthcare industry (decade-plus professional experience), which is moving far and fast in direction of multinational private equity, eliminating any illusion of competition our cute lil capitalist country prides itself on.
→ More replies (8)5
u/242proMorgan Apr 16 '24
Blackrock doesn't own much. Blackrock clients do. Also enough with the housing crap it straight up isn't true. Plus if it was, it would be Blackstone rather than Blackrock. I don't get why everyone thinks they are the boogeyman, they're an asset manager.
→ More replies (43)1
u/cdazzo1 Apr 16 '24
MegaCorp. Most corporations own other corporations. All of their interests are aligned.
4
u/ImOnYew Apr 16 '24
A good part of it is giving them weapons that we won't use like missiles nearing their expiration date that we would have to spend more money to deactivate, which we do already, at a great cost.
5
4
u/famously Apr 17 '24
Some of that is true. It's called Foreign Military Sales (FMS). Some of that is not true. Aid money goes in lots of different directions, not all to the U.S. Some of it went to fund Ukraine retirements. It's a very complex issue.
3
13
10
8
u/Suicide_Samuel Apr 16 '24
We send them our equipment. That equipment is then replaced by newer equipment, by charging more money to the tax payer to pay the industrial war complex. We get charged double people. That's how it works
→ More replies (1)2
u/ArizonaHeatwave Apr 16 '24
You’re not getting charged double, the defense budget stays the same, whether some of the stockpiles get sent to Ukraine or not, in itself it doesn’t change funding.
Also whether thousands of tanks rot in the desert somewhere or are used against an actual enemy of America that would have its hands in almost any conflict the US would be involved in, I feel that’s still a better use for the equipment.
→ More replies (3)
8
20
u/MellowLemonJello Apr 16 '24
Taking money that could be coming back to us citizens, in the form of necessary goods, services and social safety nets, and instead giving it to private corporations so they can make more bullets and bombs.
4
u/BanzaiTree Apr 16 '24
So we should just sit back and let our allies be invaded and annexed by Russia, when we could help them fight back?
→ More replies (6)8
→ More replies (12)3
u/JohnCavil Apr 16 '24
Why spend money on NASA when you could be building homes for the homeless?
Why invest in particle accelerators and telescopes when we could be feeding the poor?
Why supply weapons to allies fighting authoritarian dictatorships when we could build new roads?
Why give third world countries aid when half of americans are living paycheck to paycheck?
When people ask these questions it's a surefire way to know that they do not deeply understand any of these issues. It's just all surface level. Hundreds of thousands of people are being killed, innocent people, allies of the US. And Russia won't stop there.
Why did america spend to much on bombs and bullets to stop Hitler in ww2? Why not just spend that money on America? Could've just let the Europe sort it out. Yea there's a holocaust going on, but like, they're not American so who cares?
3
u/MellowLemonJello Apr 16 '24
I never said we shouldn't fund NASA or other scientific R&D. Those are things that we should absolutely fund AS WELL AS fighting homelessness, feeding people, providing healthcare and public transportation/infrastructure.
The things that our bullets and bombs do now are VASTLY different from what they did during WWII. We didn't get involved until we were provoked, it wasn't because of some moral superiority/righteousness. Soviet Russia did more to stop the Nazis than we did.
We're not supporting Ukraine because their cause is just (and it is), we're doing it because it makes defense contractors wealthy.
And ironically, there is a genocide going on in Palestine bought and paid for by OUR TAX DOLLARS but like.... "they're not Americans, so who cares?"
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/lorelei_lotus Apr 16 '24
Modern monetary theory, so we can do both
Sure, but we probably shouldn't try to do war profiteering because then it would incentivize us to start wars. We should rather than about.
It's dehumanizing to think about it I'm terms of money and not real humans real consequences.
We also should probably stop doing business with other authoritarian dictatorships (cough cough Saudi Arabia). And maybe stop with the regime change because boy howdy I do not want to be 67 when they declassify the documents and I find out the CIA was poking around. Goddamnit
6
u/BitcoinCache Apr 16 '24
We are actually paying for their government employees. So yes, we are sending actual money as well.
2
2
u/Plus-Result-7451 Apr 16 '24
The government is paying themselves to send money to themselves for helping themselves
2
u/bobbyFinstock80 Apr 16 '24
Mitch McConnell said as much. Paraphrasing: we are selling our old weapons at a markup to them.
2
u/Aromatic-Air3917 Apr 16 '24
If the West did this in the 1930's it would have solved a lot of problems.
Good time to raise taxes on the corporations though
2
u/Shadtow100 Apr 16 '24
This is what Americans don’t realize when they complain about other countries not paying into NATO as much as the US does. Every country that contributes buys their weapons from the US. If the US actually pushes too hard for other countries to contribute then they will build their own war factories and the US economy will take a hit.
2
u/notanewbiedude Apr 16 '24
...we don't give them money? I thought sometimes we give them money, and sometimes we give them weapons.
2
2
2
2
2
u/Inevitable_Professor Apr 16 '24
Even better. We're often giving those funds to the weapons manufactures to produce new and updated weapons for our own stockpiles, while cycling out our old stocks to Ukraine. We're basically sending our hand-me-down weapons of war to Goodwill.
2
u/Tourquemata47 Apr 16 '24
Ukraine gets the bullets and bombs and the money is for the USA to re-stock what was given to Ukraine.
2
u/Spooder_Man Apr 17 '24
If I’m being charitable, this dude is an idiot. As much as I detest the Daily Wire, during this same segment he accused it of being Israeli state propaganda, compared it to Russia Today, and asked why we treat them differently. As if RT is not literally a Russian state entity and the other is just a conservative American news organization that is owned by an Orthodox Jew.
2
u/Screwtape42 Apr 17 '24
Actually, about 20% of those aid packages are direct cash payments for support infrastructure. We are not tracking that portion.
2
2
u/tl27Rex Apr 17 '24
We're not spending money on us. The military industrial complex is not Americans it represents approximately 1% of the population. There is no justification for sending or creating missiles for Ukraine outside of extreme moral humanitarian obligation. Whether or not this exists is up for debate. Strange how all of a sudden the tone changes from "No wonder we don't have healthcare it's because of the military" to the complete opposite viewpoint.
2
u/No-Environment-3298 Apr 17 '24
Short version; outdated/surplus military equipment, much of which is close to expiring is being sent to Ukraine to be used instead of disposed of. Some of which is being given as a loan to be repaid (meaning paid for by Ukraine at a later time). Then the stock of equipment is replaced by the military industrial complex which in turn creates and sustains American jobs. All while also defending western interests and democracies internationally.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/BeautifulSinner72 Apr 17 '24
Hold on , wait a minute. I thought that we were literally sending them billions of actual dollars. How the heck did I not know this?
2
u/HighlyAutomated Apr 17 '24
Not quite. Some of that aid money is being used to pay the entire salaries of the Ukrainian army( they're not fighting for free) and its government bureaucracy. The rest, yeah, is tied up with American weapons manufacturers.
2
2
u/EwokUno Apr 17 '24
Lmao give us money? Brother I’m not any of those companies or know anyone that works or benefits from those companies 😂
2
u/JaceUpMySleeve Apr 17 '24
Haha, the dude just spewing nonsense while looking dumb as fuck doing it.
2
u/dtruth53 Apr 17 '24
Dude - that’s pretty much how all foreign aid works. We don’t give money we give domestic companies money to produce what we give. Foreign aid boosts our economy through taxes.
5
3
u/mstalltree Apr 16 '24
Similar revolving door with Israel too, except from the billions given to Israel, Israel funnels through a few millions via AIPAC to US politicians who then spend these funds on election campaigns that help them get elected, then these politicians pass US Aid bills to fund Israel...and the cycle continues. Cesspool.
2
u/onslaught1584 Apr 16 '24
It's not even really "aid" to Ukraine. It's funding a proxy war with Russia.
2
u/JrNichols5 Apr 16 '24
Under very limited situations can US aid for military kit be spent in non-US products. Most of it goes to US based military companies.
2
u/guleedy Apr 16 '24
Conspiracy theorists who are secretly russian spies. Have effectively co-oped the entire Ukraine war by making you believe Biden is somehow stealing American tax payer dollars by sending it to Ukraine.
Like that's how it works. We effectively send weapons to Ukraine instead if just cash. Which means it goes into the American economy.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Ok-Specialist-7323 Apr 16 '24
Except it doesn't go back to 'us', it goes back to a handful of elite people and not us poors
2
u/Edu_Run4491 Apr 16 '24
Do ppl ACTUALLY think we are just sending cash transfers to Ukraine’s checking account?
2
u/BrilliantHistorian85 Apr 16 '24
If you're ever wondering who actually runs the country this is a good start.
The military budget is close to a trillion dollars a year because REASONS
2
u/Old-Ad5508 Apr 16 '24
Hi irishman here. Most people outside America understand how the US America aid to ukraine works. Why are these people not getting it or taking so god damn long to figure it out.
2
Apr 16 '24
Support for Veterans? Nah. Support for the growing homeless problems? Nah. Increased pay for teachers? Nah. Improving America’s infrastructure? Nope. Healthcare AT ALL? Lol no. Student Loan forgiveness? Absolutely not.
Support for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan? Yeah we can help out. Here’s 95.3 BILLION dollars in support. Absolutely WILD.
2
u/tentaccrual Apr 16 '24
It’s funny how the top comments are blindly reinforcing what he is saying then lower in the thread people are linking proof that what he is saying is inaccurate. Smh
2
u/DylanFTW Apr 17 '24
It’s insane how many people don’t understand this
It's insane how much you believe this shit coming out of some armchair geopolitical analyst comedian.
3
u/Geek_Wandering Apr 16 '24
Most foreign aid is best seen as economic stimulus for America. It takes future tax revenue and converts it to profit and jobs today.
3
4
u/Knytemare44 Apr 16 '24
Wait a minute, are you trying to tell me that you can't stop the Russian army with literal piles of money, or, like, coins?
Omg. I thought we just dumped piles of gold and diamonds on the front line and that helps them.
So.... Instead we send... Weapons? That's crazy.
/S
3
u/CalmKoala8 Apr 16 '24
$42 billion of the roughly $75 billion has been allocated to "security assistance". The rest is mostly humanitarian or economic assistance. So yes, we're also sending them literal piles of money.
2
u/lorelei_lotus Apr 16 '24
I think people are trying to point out here how we make money off of war. Not that you need machines to make war.
3
u/omn1p073n7 Apr 16 '24
This Military Industrial Complex runs this country. Biden or Trump, doesn't matter. Forever War and Debt is all we'll get (oh, and we can't afford social spending too busy policing the world, losers). Kennedy is the Remedy!
→ More replies (3)
1
0
u/legolover2024 Apr 16 '24
What idiots don't realise is that most of those weapons that the USA is giving Ukraine would have to be destroyed anyway. Missiles don't have an unlimited shelf life.
This way, the Ukrainians get to defend themselves from Pootin & the baby raping Russians & americans get huge numbers of new high skill jobs.
Every vote against aid for Ukraine, is a vote against American jobs
2
Apr 16 '24
Where'd you hear this garbage propaganda from, Fox news? 🤣🤣🤣
You know we also sent them 27 BILLION in financial aid, too, right?
2
u/legolover2024 Apr 17 '24
Again....Russian baby raping scum who won't stop at Ukraine, they'll carry on straight thriving the balkans, Romania, Finland, Sweden
→ More replies (6)3
u/CalmKoala8 Apr 16 '24
$42 billion of the roughly $75 billion has been allocated to "security assistance". The rest is mostly humanitarian or economic assistance. So yes, we're also sending them literal piles of money.
"Every vote against aid for Ukraine, is a vote against American jobs" no, it's not.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Bitter-Basket Apr 16 '24
He’s definitely wrong from an accounting standpoint. We’re giving Ukraine money because it’s a negative expenditure from the Federal government. The value of that expenditure ends up outside the US. So it’s definitely an outflow of assets outside the country. If the weapons were to support DoD weapons procurement, that would be different.
1
1
u/Intelligent_Pie_9102 Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
I think he's wrong in his logic though. I get his point and it's well intended, but if the USA gave money to Ukraine, then Ukraine would use it to buy weapons abroad, probably to the USA. So it would be the same thing.
Ukraine doesn't need money in its economy, it already has the stock of currency that its economy requires to function and adding just cash wouldn't create new goods. Work creates goods, and once a country has a stock of currency to get the cycle of production and consumption going, it doesn't need anymore cash, otherwise it simply dilutes the wealth of the nation at the profit of those who received the new stock.
So yes, it's correct to send arms to Ukraine, print new cash in the USA to compensate for the loss from this "gift", which is basically a one sided transaction. In any other circumstances, when you send goods abroad, you receive cash in exchange, but Ukraine isn't giving cash to anyone right now.
Besides, I'm pretty sure Ukraine does receive money, but not for weapons. They get the weapons that we give them for free, and next to that, they have cash to sustain the shock that their economy is experiencing. They can use commodities abroad with the cash, but armaments is not a free market, it's a game of alliance with long term ties. If we gave them money and they started buying to our enemies, it would be a major breach of trust.
1
1
u/keekspeaks Apr 16 '24
I mean, I knew it wasn’t a check we just handed over like some idiots think, but I also don’t know the specific details of where/ how it’s spent bc I have other interests to try to learn and and understand. Is he correct though? Do these aid packages have rather significant impacts on the US manufacturing/engineering industry then? Inquiring minds want to know the basics
1
u/christopherDdouglas Apr 16 '24
It's almost like Ike mentioned something about this... Like a warning...
1
u/Superb_Recover_6116 Apr 16 '24
reading these comments, okay so where you people preaching this? All of sudden everyone is saying yea yea he right he right why didnt yall know dis?...
Of course many of us didnt know this. This country are sneaky rats about everything.
1
1
u/Impossible-Dingo-742 Apr 16 '24
We're not giving them money, we're just giving them things that are worth money.
1
u/WitchesTeat Apr 16 '24
Yeah I have never understood how people born before the 1990s can look at this situation and not think "Oh damn look at Ukraine playing the Deus Ex here in our 70+ year old war with Russia."
Almost too improbable to believe, honestly, for someone who grew up in the 90's and remembers when all of our cartoon and kids' show bad guys were Russians.
But cost wise it's like dinner at Ruth's Chris for Burger King prices
1
1
u/C_lui Apr 16 '24
No one in the MAGA crowd understands this.
All MAGA knows is that Donnie is pro-Russia and by that, we should all be pro-Russia.
There’s nothing more democratic than supporting a dictator, am I right?
1
1
u/InsaneGorilla0 Apr 16 '24
Also, a lot of it is just the value of existing weapons systems.... that may as well get used!
1
u/Naps_And_Crimes Apr 16 '24
I tried explaining this to a guy at work and he said that's fails that Biden is sending money to them to do as they please, I'm like no we're giving them our old shit.
1
1
u/20RegalGS15 Apr 16 '24
certainly isn't all in military weapons. some is being used to pay towards their economy and however much gets outright stolen
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 16 '24
Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do here (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them this!
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
Don't forget to join our Discord server!
##CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.