5 ms·

>Because it makes a naive assumption that there's some magic money tree a state government can go to in order to pluck dollars from that the voters have chosen

>Because it makes a naive assumption that there's some magic money tree a state government can go to in order to pluck dollars from that the voters have chosen not to provide for salaries and other expenses. I mean there clearly is one. Ukraine got billions within two days of asking. We've sent them what, $70 billion this year alone? Funnily enough no new outlet seems to be tracking the total, just covering each one individually so it doesn't look like we're doing what we're doing: Prioritizing Ukraine over US citizens.

ghaff 4y ago
That's the federal government which owns money printing presses. State governments do not and are often required by their state constitution to balance their budget.
- NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
  There's nothing legally stopping the federal government from giving that to the states though. Which makes it clear that they just don't want to.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    The federal government spends quite a bit on infrastructure at the state level. But, yes, the federal government also prioritizes certain spending related to foreign policy over other spending that's related to domestic policy (and vice versa).
HAL3000 4y ago
Disclaimer: Writing this doesn't mean that I approve or agree with how the world currently works or that this is fair, right or good from moral perspective, it's only a cold analysis. In current geopolitical climate you would lose a lot more than $70 billion if Russia would win in Ukraine, there is a lot more on stake than Ukraine independence, US debt is financed by the rest of the world. US is world hegemon because of its influence granted by military and economical power. If you lose that status you lose influence, if you lose influence you also lose your country "safe heaven" status for other people money, next USD could lose status of world reserve currency, next your budget deficit is unsustainable anymore, your social contract gets broken, 2008 crisis would be nothing compared to this. Not mentioning that US was not ready to fight Russia and China same time, elimination of Russia from equation through proxy war in Ukraine will allow US to focus on China. Additional benefit to USA is Sweden and Finland joining NATO and strengthening US influence in Europe, making it a lot easier to flip Europe against China (see how NATO joint statement about China changed in Madrid summit in July 2022 compared to stance of leading EU countries before the war). $70 billion is not a high price to show the world that you are not a declining superpower (especially after that Afghanistan retreat and rise of China) and retain your status and influence, if I were a US citizen I would be glad it costs me only $70 billion knowing the alternative.
- NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
  >In current geopolitical climate you would lose a lot more than $70 billion if Russia would win in Ukraine Pure speculation. >if I were a US citizen I would be glad it costs me only $70 billion knowing the alternative. I am one and I completely disagree. We have no business helping either side when we have so many huge problems at home. Our citizens don't even have national healthcare. An incursion in Ukraine should be about 50 spots down the priority list.
  - HAL3000 4y ago
    > Pure speculation. No it's not, I wrote about how debt works in USA and you have 1 trillion deficit a year. > I am one and I completely disagree. We have no business helping either side when we have so many huge problems at home. Our citizens don't even have national healthcare. An incursion in Ukraine should be about 50 spots down the priority list. Remaining a world hegemon is number 1 priority for USA, sorry but being US citizen and not knowing this is ignorance and lack of knowledge about how the world works, if you lose that position I assure you that you will have a lot more problems than national healthcare, actually you can forget about national healthcare then.

ghaff 4y ago

That's the federal government which owns money printing presses. State governments do not and are often required by their state constitution to balance their budget.

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
There's nothing legally stopping the federal government from giving that to the states though. Which makes it clear that they just don't want to.
- ghaff 4y ago
  The federal government spends quite a bit on infrastructure at the state level. But, yes, the federal government also prioritizes certain spending related to foreign policy over other spending that's related to domestic policy (and vice versa).

HAL3000 4y ago

Disclaimer: Writing this doesn't mean that I approve or agree with how the world currently works or that this is fair, right or good from moral perspective, it's only a cold analysis. In current geopolitical climate you would lose a lot more than $70 billion if Russia would win in Ukraine, there is a lot more on stake than Ukraine independence, US debt is financed by the rest of the world. US is world hegemon because of its influence granted by military and economical power. If you lose that status you lose influence, if you lose influence you also lose your country "safe heaven" status for other people money, next USD could lose status of world reserve currency, next your budget deficit is unsustainable anymore, your social contract gets broken, 2008 crisis would be nothing compared to this. Not mentioning that US was not ready to fight Russia and China same time, elimination of Russia from equation through proxy war in Ukraine will allow US to focus on China. Additional benefit to USA is Sweden and Finland joining NATO and strengthening US influence in Europe, making it a lot easier to flip Europe against China (see how NATO joint statement about China changed in Madrid summit in July 2022 compared to stance of leading EU countries before the war). $70 billion is not a high price to show the world that you are not a declining superpower (especially after that Afghanistan retreat and rise of China) and retain your status and influence, if I were a US citizen I would be glad it costs me only $70 billion knowing the alternative.

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
>In current geopolitical climate you would lose a lot more than $70 billion if Russia would win in Ukraine Pure speculation. >if I were a US citizen I would be glad it costs me only $70 billion knowing the alternative. I am one and I completely disagree. We have no business helping either side when we have so many huge problems at home. Our citizens don't even have national healthcare. An incursion in Ukraine should be about 50 spots down the priority list.
- HAL3000 4y ago
  > Pure speculation. No it's not, I wrote about how debt works in USA and you have 1 trillion deficit a year. > I am one and I completely disagree. We have no business helping either side when we have so many huge problems at home. Our citizens don't even have national healthcare. An incursion in Ukraine should be about 50 spots down the priority list. Remaining a world hegemon is number 1 priority for USA, sorry but being US citizen and not knowing this is ignorance and lack of knowledge about how the world works, if you lose that position I assure you that you will have a lot more problems than national healthcare, actually you can forget about national healthcare then.