Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[HeloDude]

10 minutes ago, Prozac said:

And what effect, exactly, would cutting funding to Ukraine have on that clock? How ‘bout cutting half the current DOD budget? Or all of it? The vast majority of our debt problem stems from Social Security & Medicare, neither of which are going anywhere anytime soon. Cutting aid to Ukraine in the name of stemming debt is laughable. 

It would literally not add that much more to the debt.  And I’m all about cutting the defense budget as well.

The same thought that “these cuts wouldn’t amount to much” is the same thought that brings “let’s fund X…it’s not that much in grand scheme of things”.  This is how you get $31 Trillion in debt…and much worse when you look at what SS and Medicare will add over the years.

 

[Prozac]

5 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

It would literally not add that much more to the debt.  And I’m all about cutting the defense budget as well.

The same thought that “these cuts wouldn’t amount to much” is the same thought that brings “let’s fund X…it’s not that much in grand scheme of things”.  This is how you get $31 Trillion in debt…and much worse when you look at what SS and Medicare will add over the years.

 

Bullshit. I’ll just leave this pie chart here.

Until we decide to tackle Medicare and Social Security (and we should), any other discussion about debt is pedantic. It’s like blaming Joe Blow’s debt problem on the sensible shoes he just bought & ignoring the $2k payment on the $70k truck he can’t afford. 
 

[HeloDude]

8 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Bullshit. I’ll just leave this pie chart here.

Until we decide to tackle Medicare and Social Security (and we should), any other discussion about debt is pedantic. It’s like blaming Joe Blow’s debt problem on the sensible shoes he just bought & ignoring the $2k payment on the $70k truck he can’t afford. 
 

You can call it BS…but we didn’t end up here by accident.  It all adds up.  And I’m for tackling all of it—everything should be heavily scrutinized.  Take a look at this from 2013…this way of thinking is why nothing will get dealt with until it’s way too late.  And the GOP is just as at fault.

"The cupboard is bare. There's no more cuts to make. It's really important that people understand that," Pelosi said in an interview on CNN. "We cannot have cuts just for the sake of cuts."

https://reason.com/2014/05/25/nothing-left-to-cut/

[Lord Ratner]

On 1/8/2023 at 4:00 PM, FLEA said:

Wasn't sarcasm. A serious COA. Is it possible some of these border states know the best means of investment for their defense better than we do? Is it possible they could spend that money more effectively and wisely than we could? We gave Ukraine $21B and they have literally crumbled what we thought was our second largest conventional competitor. 

We are geographically the most secure country on the planet but have the largest standing army in history. We also have guaranteed our security through a massive nuclear enterprise. The vast majority of our forces are engaged to security commitments abroad. We can't reduce forces due to those commitments. We spend ~$700B on defense annually but ~$350B is actually spend on personnel cost, benefits, entitlements, salary, wages and insurance. People are the costliest asset in the DoD. We don't need 2 million people though to defend the US borders. We need that because of foreign commitments. And a smaller force would generally be overall healthier for our economy. Imagine reinvesting ~$350B annually back into the US economy, or approximately $1000/person, $4000/family. The average household income in the US is $70K/yr. That's a nearly 5% raise to buying power across the US population. 

It also puts the onus back on most of these other countries that they need to take more responsibility for their own security. I don't think it should be the job of US forces to hold the expectation to absorb the majority of casualties in foreign conflicts designed to protect other countries. I think back to McArthur's support for the South Koreans when he said we weren't there to fight the war for them, but to be their spine, knowing that the US was backing them was a major boost to confidence and morale that allowed them to be successful. Working in South Korea its very clear they feel responsible for their own defense. Working in Europe, its exactly the opposite. They largely believe it is the US's job to pick up the burden of defense and they will assist in support roles later in the conflict. (With the exception of France and the UK, who are pretty reliable and self sufficient.) 

There is absolutely something to be said for this line of reasoning. And we would be fools to ignore the past 30ish years of military failure, while this overwhelming military success stairs us in the face.

We spend a lot of money having the world's most advanced fighting force as a deterrent, but the world is not going to forget what happened to Russia soon, so perhaps the threat of American funding and support could be a deterrent, for at least the few decades that people remember what happened in Ukraine.

However, we would have to fight the urge to maintain a larger force with lesser training. Our expertise is a very marketable form of aid. I don't know if it's possible. Politically, but if we could cut the force by 50%, but make sure that the remaining 50% were absolutely at the top of their game and capable of being instructors should a draft one day be necessary, well, it's certainly an interesting possibility.

 

 

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

Because waiting to be invaded and hoping your adversary has terrible logistics isn't a great strategy. If Russia were competent and less corrupt, this easily could have gone much, much worse. 

Lets be honest for a minute..... we aren't talking about the US ever getting invaded. This is 100% about us being able to flex power on different continents. For the foreseeable future, at least several generations, the US is a fortress due to perfect oceanic terrain. 

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

We do not have the largest standing military in history. China does. Which is a good reason not to slash our budget. 

Was already mentioned this above but by sheer force projection, spending, capability we do. If you are measuring raw manpower fine but its not a good measure. Also are you really worried about China invading the US? We are skeptical China can even invade Taiwan right now.... What is your concern here?

[SurelySerious]

We’re no longer definitively better, we’re moderately better if you’re going by capability. Thinking otherwise is some serious complacency or ignoring intel/open source. Our spending, while large, gets us less due to the waste in bureaucracy.

[nsplayr]

16 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

We’re no longer definitively better, we’re moderately better if you’re going by capability. Thinking otherwise is some serious complacency or ignoring intel/open source. Our spending, while large, gets us less due to the waste in bureaucracy.

And Russia/China famously have no corruption, waste or bureaucracy 😅

As much as it sucks to see some Lockheed bean counter nonner get a fat paycheck knowing that the product could be better, capitalism still produces waaay less waste than bribing every party official from the manufacturing shop foreman up to the General Secretary.

Remember it's all relative, like some of y'all's marriages down there in lower Alabama.

Are we more or less corrupt/bureaucratic/wasteful than our likely opponents? Can we generate reliable combat power more often or less often than them? Can we bring coordinated fires and effects to bear in more or less key places than them? Can we communicate better up and down the chain or worse? Etc. etc. As always during my entire lifespan, I'm putting us ahead in almost every category.

No sane person would look at the world's balance of power, be it economic, military, cultural, technological, etc. and choose to be anyone other than the United States. "America! America. God shed his grace on thee."

Edited January 10, 2023 by nsplayr

[SurelySerious]

And Russia/China famously have no corruption, waste or bureaucracy 
As much as it sucks to see some Lockheed bean counter nonner get a fat paycheck knowing that the product could be better, capitalism still produces waaay less waste than bribing every party official from the manufacturing shop foreman up to the General Secretary.
Remember it's all relative, like some of y'all's marriages down there in lower Alabama.
Are we more or less corrupt/bureaucratic/wasteful than our likely opponents? Can we generate reliable combat power more often or less often than them? Can we bring coordinated fires and effects to bear in more or less key places than them? Can we communicate better up and down the chain or worse? Etc. etc. As always during my entire lifespan, I'm putting us ahead in almost every category.
No sane person would look at the world's balance of power, be it economic, military, cultural, technological, etc. and choose to be anyone other than the United States. "America! America. God shed his grace on thee."

They may not choose to be somewhere else, but our system is causing us to get less for more spending. Our ability to develop and field capabilities severely hampered, and our military capability is no longer as dominantly ahead of others no matter how much cheer leading you want to do. Probably want to Read some more intel.

[nsplayr]

While I support the neat psychological trick of The Missile Gap in order to motivate our industry/leaders/people to stay sharp, I just don't actually believe in it myself.

There are indeed some areas where we are not dominant, or not as dominant as we used to be, or not or even ahead at all right now. I do work in a SCIF every day and have the benefit of a great cadre of intel professionals as colleagues as well as my own ability to read.

But when taken as a whole, again, there is absolutely zero chance a rational person would rather be Russia/China/etc. than the USA if this were all just a big game of Risk.

For all the doomsaying and whining/bitching/complaining that happens around here on every imaginable subject, I like to highlight the positive once in a while...so sue me.

America is great, the future is bright, hug your wife & your kids, bang your mistresses, and drink every last drop of good whiskey 🇺🇸

Edited January 10, 2023 by nsplayr

[dream big]

4 hours ago, Prozac said:

And what effect, exactly, would cutting funding to Ukraine have on that clock? How ‘bout cutting half the current DOD budget? Or all of it? The vast majority of our debt problem stems from Social Security & Medicare, neither of which are going anywhere anytime soon. Cutting aid to Ukraine in the name of stemming debt is laughable. 

Dude, no one is advocating eliminating aid to Ukraine. What we are asking for is to not give them a blank check, maybe an audit/accountability like any other major expenditure. Let’s not forget the corruption problems in Ukraine throughout recent history.  Also let’s not forget NATO…Britain and Germany have made several contributions but many nations are just strap hanging. 

[Prozac]

11 hours ago, HeloDude said:

You can call it BS…but we didn’t end up here by accident.  It all adds up.  And I’m for tackling all of it—everything should be heavily scrutinized.  Take a look at this from 2013…this way of thinking is why nothing will get dealt with until it’s way too late.  And the GOP is just as at fault.

"The cupboard is bare. There's no more cuts to make. It's really important that people understand that," Pelosi said in an interview on CNN. "We cannot have cuts just for the sake of cuts."

https://reason.com/2014/05/25/nothing-left-to-cut/

Here’s the overarching point you keep missing: the people in power who claim to care about the national debt….don’t.  It’s simply a talking point that they know their base likes to hear, so they repeat it over and over, knowing full well that they will do nothing meaningful to address the issue. So when they argue that debt is a reason to withhold aid to Ukraine, I’m sorry but they’re absolutely full of shit. 

[HeloDude]

1 minute ago, Prozac said:

Here’s the overarching point you keep missing: the people in power who claim to care about the national debt….don’t.  It’s simply a talking point that they know their base likes to hear, so they repeat it over and over, knowing full well that they will do nothing meaningful to address the issue. So when they argue that debt is a reason to withhold aid to Ukraine, I’m sorry but they’re absolutely full of shit. 

If they’re only arguing about Ukraine spending, then you’re right, they’re full of shit.  If they’re arguing that spending is a problem across the board then they’re not full of shit, and Ukraine spending is only adding to the problem.

As for politicians not caring about future problems due to what they’re doing today—call me shocked.  Funny, people worry more about “climate change” than an increasing massive debt…I’m sure one will cause us more problems in the next 10-20 years than the other.

 

[Prozac]

8 hours ago, dream big said:

Dude, no one is advocating eliminating aid to Ukraine. What we are asking for is to not give them a blank check, maybe an audit/accountability like any other major expenditure. Let’s not forget the corruption problems in Ukraine throughout recent history.  Also let’s not forget NATO…Britain and Germany have made several contributions but many nations are just strap hanging. 

Sorry. Didn’t realize we were just cutting blank checks. DOS seems to have some idea where things are going: https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/

[pawnman]

10 hours ago, FLEA said:

Lets be honest for a minute..... we aren't talking about the US ever getting invaded. This is 100% about us being able to flex power on different continents. For the foreseeable future, at least several generations, the US is a fortress due to perfect oceanic terrain. 

Was already mentioned this above but by sheer force projection, spending, capability we do. If you are measuring raw manpower fine but its not a good measure. Also are you really worried about China invading the US? We are skeptical China can even invade Taiwan right now.... What is your concern here?

My concern is to not follow other great powers who could never be invaded or who had unprecedented military power. I don't want us to follow the road of the English Empire. 

[DSG]

On 1/8/2023 at 1:12 AM, JimNtexas said:

Someone please explain to me how it could possibly be in the best interest of the United States to not give Ukraine really significant military assistance.

They are killing Russians and blowing up their stuff.  Russia is one of our two near-peer adversaries.  The one that is run by a crazy man.

What’s the point of being in NATO if just fold our arms and say ‘not our problem, we need the money for dish washer rebates and drag queen shows’.    Yes, I know that Ukraine isn’t a member, but all their neighbors are.  What will we do if we see Putin dancing down main  street Kyiv while the FSB is going door to door kidnapping kids and sending Mom and Dad to Siberia?

 

And why are Republicans suddenly whining about defense spending?   Are we now in bizzaro world?

The military (and even more so, the foreign policy establishment as a whole) has been captured by their social and political adversaries.  It thus it no longer enjoys the unqualified, credulous support from Republicans it once did.  It's not terribly mysterious.

 

[DSG]

On 1/9/2023 at 8:57 PM, Prozac said:

And what effect, exactly, would cutting funding to Ukraine have on that clock? How ‘bout cutting half the current DOD budget? Or all of it? The vast majority of our debt problem stems from Social Security & Medicare, neither of which are going anywhere anytime soon. Cutting aid to Ukraine in the name of stemming debt is laughable. 

The principal material problem in supporting Ukraine without bound relates to the depletion of material and munitions stocks that the defense industrial base lacks the capacity to readily replace.  This presents opportunity costs, particularly re the Taiwan situation.  Moreover, the perpetuation of the conflict prolongs global economic disruption that has knock-on effects at home.  Why so much of the right still defaults to talking about the debt, is a bit beyond me -- it's counterproductive.  

[Prozac]

37 minutes ago, DSG said:

The principal material problem in supporting Ukraine without bound relates to the depletion of material and munitions stocks that the defense industrial base lacks the capacity to readily replace.  This presents opportunity costs, particularly re the Taiwan situation.  Moreover, the perpetuation of the conflict prolongs global economic disruption that has knock-on effects at home.  Why so much of the right still defaults to talking about the debt, is a bit beyond me -- it's counterproductive.  

Good points all. If there’s a debate about supporting Ukraine, this is it. On the question of whether the fallout of a long war in Europe’s breadbasket are worth it, I think most Americans will say yes. We’re willing to live with some relatively minor inconveniences in order to support the Ukrainian people & bleed our adversary. Of course, people in places like sub Saharan Africa are suffering much more. Is it worth it to them? Should their suffering factor into our decisions? Is there a racial aspect to supporting Ukrainians while ignoring suffering in Africa? All questions we should be contemplating. Regarding depleting our own munitions stocks; I simply don’t have the information to have an informed opinion on the topic, & neither do the vast majority of Americans. Be nice to see some of our more so-called ‘serious’ media outlets covering this angle. Bottom line: there ARE some thorny issues to confront when deciding whether or not to support the Ukrainians. National debt? Not one of them. 

[HeloDude]

33 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Bottom line: there ARE some thorny issues to confront when deciding whether or not to support the Ukrainians. National debt? Not one of them. 

Should there ever be any limitations/concerns on federal spending, wrt to the national debt, to help a country in need?

[Prozac]

6 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Should there ever be any limitations/concerns on federal spending, wrt to the national debt, to help a country in need?

See our previous discussion. I do not believe either party is remotely serious about tackling national debt. Conservatives like to rattle that cage, but watch what they do, not what they say. So, no, I do not believe national debt should play any meaningful role in this debate. 

[HeloDude]

8 minutes ago, Prozac said:

See our previous discussion. I do not believe either party is remotely serious about tackling national debt. Conservatives like to rattle that cage, but watch what they do, not what they say. So, no, I do not believe national debt should play any meaningful role in this debate. 

So why aren’t we spending hundreds of billions (or even trillions) more to help countries in need?  If the national debt is irrelevant when it comes to spending to help out countries, shouldn’t we be doing quite a bit more?

[Lord Ratner]

1 minute ago, HeloDude said:

So why aren’t we spending hundreds of billions (or even trillions) more to help countries in need?  If the national debt is irrelevant when it comes to spending to help out countries, shouldn’t we be doing quite a bit more?

Because those causes aren't as worthy, or favored, or popular, or whatever you want to inject as the adjective.

Just because nobody cares about the debt enough to do anything about it, doesn't mean we don't still prioritize and select for spending opportunities. 

The consequences for the global debt bonanza are going to be devastating. On that we agree entirely. The same reason I don't support slashing the defense budget to zero, due to our massive debt, is why I support spending the money on Ukraine. At some point in the next 50 years the debt issue is going to be resolved. And while it is going to get worse each year we wait, it will still be resolvable.

 

The Ukrainian situation/opportunity does not have the luxury of time.

[FLEA]

26 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Because those causes aren't as worthy, or favored, or popular, or whatever you want to inject as the adjective.

Just because nobody cares about the debt enough to do anything about it, doesn't mean we don't still prioritize and select for spending opportunities. 

The consequences for the global debt bonanza are going to be devastating. On that we agree entirely. The same reason I don't support slashing the defense budget to zero, due to our massive debt, is why I support spending the money on Ukraine. At some point in the next 50 years the debt issue is going to be resolved. And while it is going to get worse each year we wait, it will still be resolvable.

 

The Ukrainian situation/opportunity does not have the luxury of time.

So people aren't worthy because they were born in Africa and not Europe? What makes Ukrainians more worthy than say Nigerians? 

Hell of a choice of language.....

Edited January 11, 2023 by FLEA

[HeloDude]

24 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Because those causes aren't as worthy, or favored, or popular, or whatever you want to inject as the adjective.

Just because nobody cares about the debt enough to do anything about it, doesn't mean we don't still prioritize and select for spending opportunities. 

The consequences for the global debt bonanza are going to be devastating. On that we agree entirely. The same reason I don't support slashing the defense budget to zero, due to our massive debt, is why I support spending the money on Ukraine. At some point in the next 50 years the debt issue is going to be resolved. And while it is going to get worse each year we wait, it will still be resolvable.

 

The Ukrainian situation/opportunity does not have the luxury of time.

You’re missing my point bud—if the massive increases in spending doesn’t matter, then there’s no need to prioritize.  Whatever wants to get funded, gets funded.  So why not do much more across the globe?

As for the debt getting “resolved”…not sure what that means, exactly?  I guess we could just default on some of our payments, tax ourselves considerably more, and/or just print off more money, but this is not the kind of the “resolve” I think will be healthy for the country.  And as I’ve said before, it’s not just Ukraine (though Ukraine is a massive new symptom of the spending problem)—it’s all of it.  
 

[gearhog]

14 minutes ago, FLEA said:

So people aren't worthy because they were born in Africa and not Europe? What makes Ukrainians more worthy than say Nigerians? 

Hell of a choice of language.....

 

2 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

You’re missing my point bud—if the massive increases in spending doesn’t matter, then there’s no need to prioritize.  Whatever wants to get funded, gets funded.  So why not do much more across the globe?

As for the debt getting “resolved”…not sure what that means, exactly?  I guess we could just default on some of our payments, tax ourselves considerably more, and/or just print off more money, but this is not the kind of the “resolve” I think will be healthy for the country.  And as I’ve said before, it’s not just Ukraine (though Ukraine is a massive new symptom of the spending problem)—it’s all of it. 

I believe humanitarian/moral concerns aren't a part of the calculus with regard to these types of foreign policy, economic, and conflict decisions. They're the justification, the fuel, and the propaganda used to emotionally manipulate the population, but they're not the reason we (our leadership) spend or fight. Superpower status is. None of us here are indifferent to human suffering, I'm sure, but that's not why we're supporting them. Not to help Ukraine, but weaken Russia.

Everyone knows unlimited debt spending ends tragically, and we're too far down the road to turn back. The United States and partner nations are attempting to prepare a landscape that when the devastation occurs, we just won't be devastated as badly as the rest of the world. We're the reserve currency, the dollar kicking ass, our military is unmatched. We can't maintain that forever, but once we fail, we hope to fail last, and be the best of what's left.

 

 

[Vetter]

Why am I paying taxes if .gov can just print money?