4 ms·

The Biden administration has spent many multiples more on climate / grid investments than on the Ukraine war

MisterBastahrd 2y ago
You can't expect the ignorant to understand that you can't feed outdated tanks and missile systems to the needy. The same folks who wanted to defund NOAA and FEMA a month ago are now complaining that we're sending old military equipment to Ukraine instead of North Carolina because apparently multitasking is impossible. They're also the people who want to know why the Biden Administration hasn't been wasting everyone's time with photo ops at the scene, and also refuse to acknowledge that the aid rendered is the aid that the states have asked for.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  Frankly I’m upset we haven’t sent 5x more to Ukraine
- glenstein 2y ago
  >The same folks who wanted to defund NOAA and FEMA a month ago are now complaining that we're sending old military equipment to Ukraine instead of North Carolina because apparently multitasking is impossible I'm heartened at seeing these arguments being dismantled like they deserve. For me it's a red flag when args depend on the "only one thing can be true" assumption.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Would add that U.S. military spending as a fraction of GDP is close to post-WWII lows [1]. Relative to the economy funding it (and which it protects), we aren’t in the top 15 [2]. We spend a metric fuckton on our military. But it’s not crowding out other spending by necessity. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highe...
- mmooss 2y ago
  One way people misunderstand it is to assume the current amount of tax revenue, and say there's not enough money to pay for things. That fits the 'Starve the Beast' strategy of parties who want to reduce taxes and government: Cut taxes, say there's not enough revenue, then cut spending to match. Obviously there's enough money in the economy; Americans just need to decide to invest in these things. They seem to agree on military spending.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Cut taxes, say there's not enough revenue, then cut spending to match I’ve never seen this playbook play out. The tax cutters and free spenders both count on future generations to settle their tabs.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      My impression is that the GOP in Congress does it reliably. When they have the White House, they do spend. When the Dems have the White House the Congressional GOP cries 'debt' and 'deficit'; raising taxes is never an option (and the Dems are such terrible negotiators that they concede that almost as their own starting position) and thus spending must be cut. Look at the current spending law - part of the deal to raise the borrowing limit - which caps all spending. That's just one data point, though. I'd have to see the data to know. Certainly the GOP opposes all tax increases.

You can't expect the ignorant to understand that you can't feed outdated tanks and missile systems to the needy. The same folks who wanted to defund NOAA and FEMA a month ago are now complaining that we're sending old military equipment to Ukraine instead of North Carolina because apparently multitasking is impossible. They're also the people who want to know why the Biden Administration hasn't been wasting everyone's time with photo ops at the scene, and also refuse to acknowledge that the aid rendered is the aid that the states have asked for.

jncfhnb 2y ago
Frankly I’m upset we haven’t sent 5x more to Ukraine
glenstein 2y ago
>The same folks who wanted to defund NOAA and FEMA a month ago are now complaining that we're sending old military equipment to Ukraine instead of North Carolina because apparently multitasking is impossible I'm heartened at seeing these arguments being dismantled like they deserve. For me it's a red flag when args depend on the "only one thing can be true" assumption.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

Would add that U.S. military spending as a fraction of GDP is close to post-WWII lows [1]. Relative to the economy funding it (and which it protects), we aren’t in the top 15 [2]. We spend a metric fuckton on our military. But it’s not crowding out other spending by necessity. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highe...

mmooss 2y ago
One way people misunderstand it is to assume the current amount of tax revenue, and say there's not enough money to pay for things. That fits the 'Starve the Beast' strategy of parties who want to reduce taxes and government: Cut taxes, say there's not enough revenue, then cut spending to match. Obviously there's enough money in the economy; Americans just need to decide to invest in these things. They seem to agree on military spending.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Cut taxes, say there's not enough revenue, then cut spending to match I’ve never seen this playbook play out. The tax cutters and free spenders both count on future generations to settle their tabs.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    My impression is that the GOP in Congress does it reliably. When they have the White House, they do spend. When the Dems have the White House the Congressional GOP cries 'debt' and 'deficit'; raising taxes is never an option (and the Dems are such terrible negotiators that they concede that almost as their own starting position) and thus spending must be cut. Look at the current spending law - part of the deal to raise the borrowing limit - which caps all spending. That's just one data point, though. I'd have to see the data to know. Certainly the GOP opposes all tax increases.