World War Three?

[Mountain Man]

Even if the US was actually spending $40 billion (which as others have pointed out, it doesn't seem to be, meaning the US isn't actually spending a full $40 billion), how exactly would the US go bankrupt over spending $40 billion? It's less than 1% of the amount the US spends in a year ($6.82 trillion according to https://datalab.usaspending.gov/amer...uide/spending/).

It's spending money the country doesn't have.

[Ronson]

It's spending money the country doesn't have.

Besides, Zelensky and the western media are claiming Russia is getting their behinds whooped all over the place. So why the constant need to reach into the wallets of US taxpayers? Perhaps Congress gets kickbacks for it? As we all know, Pelosi didn't get her $100 million from her House salary.

This all smacks of corruption. NPR reported the amount is "$40 billion in additional military, economic and humanitarian aid to Ukraine", so there must be a sizeable cash portion here. Hopefully, Rand Paul's interference will expose some of it.

[Reepicheep]

Even if the US was actually spending $40 billion...

By way of comparison, the United States spent roughly $1 trillion in each of the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars. Corruption was very wide spread in each of these wars with much of the money wasted. Two of these wars ended in defeat, and Iraq was very nearly defeated by ISIS.

The Ukrainian people are unified in wanting to fight Russia, the weapons being sent are being used for their intended purpose, no American lives are being put at risk, the Russian military is being decimated, and NATO is expanding. Seems like the money is going to a good cause.

Incidentally, during Trump's four years in power, US total public debt increased by $8.2 trillion, from $20.2 trillion to $28.4 trillion.

[Mountain Man]

Besides, Zelensky and the western media are claiming Russia is getting their behinds whooped all over the place. So why the constant need to reach into the wallets of US taxpayers? Perhaps Congress gets kickbacks for it? As we all know, Pelosi didn't get her $100 million from her House salary.

This all smacks of corruption. NPR reported the amount is "$40 billion in additional military, economic and humanitarian aid to Ukraine", so there must be a sizeable cash portion here. Hopefully, Rand Paul's interference will expose some of it.

You are, of course, asking the right questions, and these are precisely the questions that Washington doesn't want to answer. I know a significant portion of the aid is going to pay the salaries and pensions of Ukranian politicians, because when a country is at war, it's important to ensure its politicians get to enjoy a well-funded retirement account, am I right?

There's also the matter of the ease with which US dignitaries are able to visit the country and shake hands with Zelinsky. One commentator called Ukraine "the safest war zone in history".

According to the Pentagon, even with the billions of dollars being flushed down the toilet, an extended stalemate is a best case scenario.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...o-one-noticed/

[rogue06]

Besides, Zelensky and the western media are claiming Russia is getting their behinds whooped all over the place. So why the constant need to reach into the wallets of US taxpayers? Perhaps Congress gets kickbacks for it? As we all know, Pelosi didn't get her $100 million from her House salary.

This all smacks of corruption. NPR reported the amount is "$40 billion in additional military, economic and humanitarian aid to Ukraine", so there must be a sizeable cash portion here. Hopefully, Rand Paul's interference will expose some of it.

Pelosi got some of it through inside trading. For instance in the weeks leading up to old Joe announcing his plan to switch all federal vehicles to electric, her hubby was real busy buying up whatever stock, options, futures... whatever in companies that made electric vehicles. When the announcement was made, the Pelosi's made a tidy bundle.

[Terraceth]

It's spending money the country doesn't have.

As opposed to all the other spending the country does of money it doesn't have? The last time the United States wasn't in debt was 1836. And as noted, the $40 billion (which, again, seems to be less than that in terms of actual spending) is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount the country spends each year. The idea that this is something that will make the country go bankrupt, or is even particularly out of the ordinary, doesn't make sense.

[seanD]

As opposed to all the other spending the country does of money it doesn't have? The last time the United States wasn't in debt was 1836. And as noted, the $40 billion (which, again, seems to be less than that in terms of actual spending) is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount the country spends each year. The idea that this is something that will make the country go bankrupt, or is even particularly out of the ordinary, doesn't make sense.

In an environment of high inflation, food shortages, and when the public's main concern is economic, giving out 40 billion (on top of the other 20 or so billion) to a foreign country is not a good look. But, hey, whatever adds fuel to the "red wave" in November.

[Mountain Man]

As opposed to all the other spending the country does of money it doesn't have? The last time the United States wasn't in debt was 1836. And as noted, the $40 billion (which, again, seems to be less than that in terms of actual spending) is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount the country spends each year. The idea that this is something that will make the country go bankrupt, or is even particularly out of the ordinary, doesn't make sense.

None of that justifies a $40 billion money laundering operation using money we don't have, especially when the Pentagon is saying that a prolonged stalemate is a best case scenario.

[Terraceth]

None of that justifies a $40 billion money laundering operation using money we don't have, especially when the Pentagon is saying that a prolonged stalemate is a best case scenario.

Now you're moving the goalposts. You claimed that the United States would go bankrupt as a result of this. When confronted on that, you switched to arguing that it's just a waste of money. Even if it is a waste of money, it isn't going to bankrupt the country, as was your ridiculous claim.

[Mountain Man]

Now you're moving the goalposts. You claimed that the United States would go bankrupt as a result of this. When confronted on that, you switched to arguing that it's just a waste of money. Even if it is a waste of money, it isn't going to bankrupt the country, as was your ridiculous claim.

Bankrupt simply means "having insufficient assets to cover one's debt", which is the we're currently at as a country.

[seanD]

Now you're moving the goalposts. You claimed that the United States would go bankrupt as a result of this. When confronted on that, you switched to arguing that it's just a waste of money. Even if it is a waste of money, it isn't going to bankrupt the country, as was your ridiculous claim.

I think you're confusing "default" with the term bankrupt. The fact we have 40 year high inflation and 30 trillion in debt is proof we're bankrupted. It's true we haven't defaulted yet because we can print money (inflation) to cover our debts. But that doesn't come without eventual severe consequences.

[Sparko]

It's spending money the country doesn't have.

They have been doing that for decades now. It's called 'the Deficit.'

[Alien]

Bankrupt simply means "having insufficient assets to cover one's debt", which is the we're currently at as a country.

No. If that were true, people who were "underwater" on their house value and debt would all be bankrupt. That's fine so long as the payments continue to be made. Bankruptcy is declared by the debtor or forced by the creditor, and allows the creditor to pay what he can and eventually leave it all behind. It's more complicated than that, but you probably already know it.

[Alien]

I think you're confusing "default" with the term bankrupt. The fact we have 40 year high inflation and 30 trillion in debt is proof we're bankrupted. It's true we haven't defaulted yet because we can print money (inflation) to cover our debts. But that doesn't come without eventual severe consequences.

See my previous post. Default comes before bankruptcy and often triggers it. And the situation with Sovereign debt and personal debt is very different as you note.

[Mountain Man]

No. If that were true, people who were "underwater" on their house value and debt would all be bankrupt. That's fine so long as the payments continue to be made. Bankruptcy is declared by the debtor or forced by the creditor, and allows the creditor to pay what he can and eventually leave it all behind. It's more complicated than that, but you probably already know it.

You're referring to the legal act of declaring bankruptcy. The word itself, however, has a broader application such that people who do not have enough assets to cover their debts are literally if not legally bankrupt.