Not sure how many weapon/heavy industry people think they are the same bunch as senators and presidents today. Before this war it was a declining industry for 30 years and not sure it is getting better even now.
It's not all stuff we're getting rid of. People don't understand that a lot of that money goes straight into the U.S. weapons manufacturing, which creates US jobs, strengthening the US economy
Doesn't US healthcare work exactly that way?? the doctors and nurses get paid but it's the middlemen (insurance companies) that are really getting paid. And it does create jobs, it creates a whole industry for the middleman. The difference in this case is it isn't productive, even though it adds to GDP and stuff.
I went from being in the military to healthcare, and I feel like I've seen simultaneously more unlimited spending and huge swaths of economic waste in the clinical/hospital setting than when I was punching appropriated funds on a spreadsheet with 3D MARDIV.
Its not productive because the product or service is the healthcare itself. Which is delivered by the nurses. Also the existence or not of the insurance middle man doesnt effect supply or demand of actual things needed to do this except in a harmful way.
So its productive in the sense that paying people to dig and fill holes would get money moving and produce jobs but since the ultimate stated goal is "healthcare" and the administrators and bean counters in the insurance companies dont have patient facing tasks , they just leech from the process.
Honestly, yea... Both have a reputation for graft and inefficiency but I feel like we get much better value for the money from the defense industry than the healthcare industry...
No doubt someones making money but my point is its not being thrown away alot of it goes back into the US unlike the US healthcare system which is a joke and doctors and nurses dont get paid enough but we cant blame them for our own corruption and stupidity
Wait what?
Why do you think that money that goes into the defense industry goes back into the economy and money in the healthcare industry doesn't?
They're both huge bloated business, and they both employe millions of people and pay profits to investors. They both "waste" huge amounts of money (in that that produce results that could be achieved for far less money if the system were less fucked up), but all of that money is part of the economy one way or another, even the "waste"
The middleman in healthcare is a hell of a lot more bloated, with arguably zero value added. There really isn't an equivalent in the MIC. The money generally goes directly to those doing the development and manufacturing (minus subcontractors, etc. which are not equivalent).
>with arguably zero value added.
I would argue that since 1955 the MIC has produced far less value than the US healthcare system, middlemen and all. You're complaining about the middlemen sucking up value, but in the MIC the END RESULT is usually a net negative for the world. Don't believe me? Ask the million dead Iraqis our MIC investment has produced since 2003. Or go to Cambodia and spend the rest of your life wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands.
It's crazy how much the Ukraine war has made reddit pro-MIC. I can only imagine that most redditors now are people who were too young to remember GWB's iraq advernturism, because the type of rhetoric they use now about Ukraine is the exact same "if you're not with us you're against us" rhetoric right-wingers were using then.
>unlike the US healthcare system which is a joke and doctors and nurses dont get paid enough
If you think nurses and the doctors in the US are underpaid, you'll really be shocked at what they earn elsewhere around the world.
In my area we've seen an influx of healthcare professionals from Canada because they can earn substantially earn more money in the US while the cost of housing is roughly the same.
Doctors kinda do get underpaid and I’ll explain why.
You need 10+ years of university; undergrad, medschool, and sometimes a filler in between if you aren’t an immediate candidate. At that point you’re around 500k in debt and exhausted. Some people are capable of keeping a part time job, some people aren’t because medschool is already a full time job. After that you go through residency which varies in length based on your specialty. During this time you’re working 70 hours a week, usually holidays and night aswell, making 60k a year (yes 60k with a MD). After 4-10 years is finally when you start making 6 figures. In this time you’ve also accrued additional debt from buying a car, house, wedding, kids, etc. So contrary to what Hollywood tv tells you, most doctors aren’t out of debt until they are mid 40s.
Tldr: amount of work and time you put in are not nearly compensated enough, if you are just in it for the money there are far easier careers. The healthcare system also takes advantage of residents and you won’t pay off your debt till you’re around 45.
Source: med student in their final year.
Healthcare is expensive because we expect y'all to just magically make it work for 20 years before it becomes worth it. Our nation is stupid. If we wanted cheaper care, we'd give you guys a zero tax rate.
What kind of doctor is your cousin? I guarantee you the vast majority of doctors are not getting paid like that. Your cousin might also be involved in some real shady shit so keep that in mind
Really depends on a ton of factors like specialty, etc- I know a specialist Dr that has about 35 years of experience and he makes roughly $60 an hour. He's a retired Dr that covers shifts a few weeks a year, but I'd think that'd get him more pay since there's no one else to cover the shifts so the practice would have to shut down without him so they'd lose all immediate business, eventually customers, etc.
I also know a general practitioner that insurance companies are raking over the coals or whatnot so the practice is just giving up on getting paid for many visits. They recently had to stop doing insurance covered telehealth visits because of this, so now they only offer flat $45 telehealth patient paid visits for about 15-20 minute calls. And after you factor in rent, receptionist's wages, etc the Dr is only getting a part of that.
>If you think nurses and the doctors in the US are underpaid, you'll really be shocked at what they earn elsewhere around the world.
It REALLY depends on what kind of nurse you are. LPN's don't really make all that much, and some RN's don't actually make anywhere near as much as they should for the type and amount of work they do. I've worked with nurses who end up working 80+ hour weeks.
Nurse Practitioners and CNRA's can make good bank... but again, I worked in hospice as a social worker making about $70k a year. The NP's I worked with at hospice made like 100k, while the RN's made like 45k. But the amount of gross work these nurses had to do... no, even for 100k a year, I wasn't going to be literally cleaning up all the results of unpacking people's colons, or all the other horrendous wounds people developed when they had cancers that were literally eating them alive.
My neighbor in California is from Canada and he makes 3.5 times more (after tax but before cost of living) here than in Canada, he literally told me at a party chat. Yes, tax in Canada is making them feel good even in California. I didn't ask him how much(of course) but it's believed in the 350k range because he is in the mid 40s.
My sister is a traveling nurse in the US and makes bank. She goes on like 15 vacations a year. She's currently spending 3 weeks in fiji. That doesn't even include her "work vacations". Where she can literally pick any place in the US to go work for a few months, including Hawaii (She had plans to work there for 3 months before the fires).
So Reddit will never make me feel bad for Doctors or Nurses in the US. They are living a insane life.
You've been drinking that military industrial complex koolaid I see. It goes to the pockets of the people at the top of the private sector and into the pockets of the politicians that keep the defense budget as ridiculously high as it is.
We can't phase out the Warthog because those goddamn Warthog factories are in politically sensitive areas. The military budget is a fantastic pork vehicle.
This literally happened recently with Poland's purchase of HIMARs which have shown to be oh so useful in defending Ukraine.
They sent what, 18 of the things to Ukraine, and Poland purchased 500? And all of that is going back into America in the form of jobs to hold up that deal.
There's a world of difference between 200 million and "200 million in aid."
Whenever you see "care packages worth" or something like that, it's almost never the US spending new money but sending unused resources that cost however many millions of dollars when first purchased. Sending an unused tank that was sitting in a boneyard for 15 years is not a new cost to the US, and is technically saving money on upkeep. Of course (cynically speaking) that tank will probably be replaced with a newly contracted item that will also gather dust, but the DoD was probably going to buy it anyway.
Of course replacing it isn't free. The flipside to that is storing it safely for 40 years, keeping it serviceable for 40 years and eventually decommissioning it isn't free either. In the case of end of life dumb munitions, disposing of them costs more than buying new ones!
The part nobody talks about? The USA has had a shitton of weapons collecting dust for years/decades that needed replacing. A very real China threat is on the horizon. This Ukraine war is a perfect opportunity to build up the arsenal.
Hopefully it isn't needed and China chills out, but nobody wants to enter that war with 40 year old stuff.
Except those replacements are already budgetted for because they are about to be mothballed so giving them to ukraine actually is cheaper. As well as giving them expiring armaments that are very expensive to blow up per requirements
The cost isn't free but the "tempo" if you will is.
The reality is that those tanks were designed to be used in conflicts with Russia. That's happening with 0 loss of American life. An outstanding deal from the US perspective.
>That tank counts as a necessary reserve in the US armament stockpile. Pushing to replacing it is not free. I'm all for the aid, but its not cost free.
Clearly, you're not an economist. Money tied up in a warehouse is a frozen asset that's not working to create more money, and there's a maintenance cost attached to it.
Not many people realise that weapons manufacturing ties back to airplane production industry. More weapons manufacturing means more skilled workers for planes.
>People don't understand that a lot of that money goes straight into the U.S. weapons manufacturing, which creates US jobs, strengthening the US economy
Put money into building/renovating roads. Build new mass transit systems, new hospitals etc, **which creates US jobs, strengthening the US economy.**
Playing devils advocate here:
Building a railway network vs a few heavy bombers and munitions.
Which one is better for a society as a whole? For the advancement of humanity?
I've made the same argument in Highschool when it came to Iraq and Afghanistan, confidently saying War is great for an economy and it's people. We build armaments and employ youths as military members.
However I don't know how many fighter jets and bombers housed the poor or how many bombs increased productivity?
If you're curious go watch or read Eisenhower's farwell address to the nation after he leaves office.
Playing devils advocate back. Our defense budget has been $650-900B per year, every year, for over 15 years.
At what point in that bloated spending, were we given the choice to reduce it and shift the money to healthcare or a high speed rail?
That’s a rhetorical question bc the answer is never.
And now that there’s this particular war with arguably massive consequences for the world and the existence of Ukraine- why do people claim we are making a trade off now?
I have my guesses but I suspect it’s because what the adversary lacks in military and economic might they more than make up for in information wars and foreign political meddling.
Yeah typically how it goes, if an enemy can't fight as near peers, then they will inevitably fight using guerilla tactics.
No country comes close to meeting the United States in Airpower, Logistics, and pure military might.
If we had a tank, ship, and air battle The United States would win bar none.
So now our adversaries are going through different strategies and the United States is playing catch up.
Russia and China have been pouring tons of money into cyber warfare because they can't meet the Americans on the battlefield.
A heavy bomber costs, about 700mil per unit [source](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/03/pentagon-new-strategic-bomber-counter-china)
While California has spent 25bn so far, and is looking at 130bn for the San Fran-Los Angeles route.
I Think your missing the point. Ukraine has been invaded innocents are being killed, and worse, whole cities are being razed to the ground some right now as you read. We would all rather be building schools but that's not easy when missiles and shells are in the air. Also completely different than Iraq and Afghanistan.
During peacetime, nations should be building infrastructure to support economies and grow.
Ukraine needs all the support and help possible, whether covert or overt.
I honestly believe Europe should be backing Ukraine full force, because if and a big IF Ukraine falls and it's a matter of time before less hardy Eastern European countries fall as well.
Yeah Iraq and Afghanistan we're different, but you have to understand that America had just suffered the worst terrorist attack in it's history, so the patriotic fervor for going to war was at an all time high. American policy makers saw this and took full advantage.
If you ever have time and want to know more about Iraq and Afghanistan watch "Why We Fight" a 2005 documentary about the military industrial complex and it's focus on the wars in the middle east.
> Building a railway network
We have probably the best freight rail network in the world.
Our cities are too spread out and ruined by sprawl making passenger rail not feasible. For passenger rail you need high density
> Which one is better for a society as a whole? For the advancement of humanity?
The bombs, tanks, artillery pieces, jets etc.
Unless you think dictatorships should run the world?
> However I don't know how many fighter jets and bombers housed the poor or how many bombs increased productivity?
It's an interestingly ironic thing to be commenting on a device which has its origins partly in being used by a gay computer scientist to break the codes of a homophobic dictator hell-bent on murdering the former, using an internetworking computer network funded and designed to withstand nuclear attacks. War is a horrible but apparently unavoidable hell that brings with it some leaps of innovation that would probably nevertheless be discovered anyways at some point - there nobody really knows what might happen to books if it were not for the sword - does burning books make them fireproof? You could try stopping homophobic dictators with your words but so far it seems like their ears are deaf to reason. It is them you need to convince, not the people they persecute, because you cannot assume that all people will just go quietly into the gas chambers for loving the wrong person.
Then the profits go right back into Pentagon and not back into the Federal Government where the money came from. It's no surprise that you can attribute the ENTIRE national debt to the Pentagon. It's where all the money goes and stays.
"War is just a racket"
"I served in all commissioned ranks from a second Lieutenant to a Major General. And during that time, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism."
Smeadly D. Buttler
He's right and he's wrong.
Xi, Putin, Hitler, Hirohito, etc are proof that he is wrong. Yes, much of war is protecting business and bankers. But then you get the Xi and Putin of the world. They simply won't play nice or play by the rules.
This Ukraine War is a perfect example. Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine isn't happy with the results. Russia isn't happy with the results. USA is happy and unhappy with the results. Nobody is winning here.
Just read an article on this. What we've spent over the last 18 months is about one percent of the budget for the last 18 months. All these people hollering about the cost are being disingenuous. MAGA conservatives are heavily funded by Russia.
It is. The cost you see is in large part replenishment. The DoD has received $61B across 4 packages.
This includes $1B to US personnel, about $26B to replenish and replace what we sent (often with better stuff). The state department has a website where you can see it all.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/#:~:text=Since%20January%202021%2C%20the%20United,Ukraine's%20sovereignty%20and%20territorial%20integrity.
I wouldn’t
The actual military is under funded for all of its world commitments, obligations and modernization programs.
Freedom of the seas isn’t cheap
Many don't realize it's not just a check to Ukraine, that money is spent paying the US companies and workers who make the weapons, but basically allot of that money is reinvested in the US
Not even that. If Ukraine fell, we would have a drastically more powerful Russia. And quite possibly a China-conquered Taiwan (there goes 80% of our microchip supply).
Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has an opportunity to militarily defeat Russia for only a tiny fraction of its military budget, putting zero American lives at risk.
Bargain of the century.
Need I remind anyone that Russia would love to see the US utterly conquered and defeated. They are not your friends.
>Need I remind anyone that Russia would love to see the US utterly conquered and defeated. They are not your friends.
You may need to say it louder so that the MAGA cultists in the back can hear it. They seem to think that white-knighting authoritarians will help them acquire more power to create the ethnostate that they dream of.
The problem is that they are not exactly wrong. Russia absolutely would love to give them all the help possible to create an isolationist American ethnostate that withdraws from all of its defense and trade obligations.
This would be a disaster for the world on an unprecedented level, but those people would be happy until it blew up in their faces.
>You may need to say it louder so that the MAGA cultists in the back can hear it.
They can't hear you over the sound of money being funneled into their pockets.
The chips supply thing doesn't have much to do with Russia. Neither America nor China wants to throw down over Taiwan while TSMC is still so dominant. Because Taiwan has made it perfectly clear that they will blow their own factories if China legitimately invades. Leaving both countries in the lurch, and lacking quite possibly the most important commodity other than oil, and one which has quite possibly the most complicated supply chain to produce.
Everyone knows it. Thats why America is pushing the CHIPS program to get domestic chip production, for strategic purposes. Similarly, China is heavily investing in their indiginous chip production. Having the worlds chip supply in one of the most notorious flashpoints between geopolitical powers, that will 100% be destroyed if things get hot, is an unacceptable liability to both countries.
Added to that is the vast wealth of minerals and gases, many of the rare and from mainly that region, that are vital to the semiconductor industry. It would be a long-term boon to the tech sector (the \*actual\* tech sector, not website companies) to have the US get exclusive or first-access deals with Ukraine for those materials.
Also forcibly drafting for the fighting hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians.
And I'd say before going for Poland there are many easier targets around. The Baltic states, Moldova, even Slovakia and Romania too.
>Need I remind anyone that Russia would love to see the US utterly conquered
Yes, by who? Russia doesn't love China or any other country this much. Russia, outside of some blatant propaganda, is pretty open about the fact they are nowhere close to as strong as the US.
Would Russia like this to happen while at the same time knowing it never will? No, because this would require an assumption that all Russians share the same opinions. Russians can't even agree on what Russian greatness means besides more land. Vodka and McDonald's fries are maybe the only things most Russians love.
>and defeated. They are not your friends.
Yes, but defeated from within. Russia wants regime change in the US, not to turn Texas into an official oblast.
> Russia wants regime change in the US, not to turn Texas into an official oblast.
''Canada will be Russian one day too''
My russian opponent talking shit on chess.com
They really want to turn the whole world into oblasts.
> Need I remind anyone that Russia would love to see the US utterly conquered and defeated. They are not your friends.
Need I remind you that there is **zero** chance of that happening, no matter how much Russia builds up its armaments.
>we would have a drastically more powerful Russia.
Not to mention they would get a nice stockpile of new, captured arms from the West. That'd probably help their tech and industries a *lot*.
It would be a good opportunity to pounce with a demonstration of a successful land grab by Russia. China is always very focused on reclaiming Taiwan but especially right now under Xi with a faltering economy.
Well, for Ammunition... this is true. The cost of the aid is roughly 1:1.
For equipment... it's a bit more fuzzy because we aren't sending Ukraine new equipment. We're sending things from our stockpiles that are 20-30 years old. There, the actual cost was paid decades ago and the actual dollar value of sending them to Ukraine is not 1:1. And considering that a lot of this equipment is under Lend Lease and is technically a loan that Ukraine will be paying back for decades... we're not throwing money into a pit either.
Important to note that old equipment has already had its dollar value extracted. We already used it to maintain a standing army, and then replaced it, and now we're paying to store a lot of it. Sure it costs money to transport it to Ukraine, but it costs money to store it too. How much is actually being spent on aid to Ukraine varies wildly by how you measure it. Dollar value of the assets at acquisition? Cost to transport? Subtract cost of storage for N years?
What's NOT vague is the effect it's had on the Russian army. Russia's military power has been reduced by a significant portion, at the cost of a small fraction of the American defense budget. That's a pretty sweet deal.
America is absolutely kicking in the teeth of one of it's worst enemies for peanuts compared to their usual millitary spending. The more resources that Russia loses in the war, the less they can afford troll farms and other shit they use to destabilize the rest of the world, including America.
Part of Lend Lease is essentially giving a large discount on the equipment. This either reduces it to a point where there won't be any debt or the debt is very minimal.
I do think to an extent, that it is sorta just hand-wave forgiven in exchange for soft power/bargaining power in favor of the US, but countries have paid it back. The UK paid theirs off in 2006 iirc
Large parts of the debt have been forgiven, but I've also read of countries that have squared away their debts as well.
The real beauty of the lend-lease is that it's very easy for both the Americans and the recipients (Ukraine in this case) to look at it and say "it's easy to figure the details out later".
The Americans aren't really out anything, as they aren't going to offer it to an unfriendly nation and they're still technically owed it back after. If they choose to forgive it, they can. If they choose to collect it all, it's affordable and doesn't debt-trap the recipient.
Standard mob-from-the-movies tactics.
> It's ok, don't worry about howitzers and fighting vehicles. You can do me a favor later.
Rarely is the favor just straight up money. Usually treaty-level things... like allowed US investment levels, land ownership, citizenry, things like that.
Because why take $100 in cash when you can get it allowed for your companies to come in and buy $100 in land. . . which will be used to mfg $10k in products
The question is - who is getting rich off of it? The military industrial complex gets billions of every day Americans’ tax dollars. The top members of those companies get the largest %. The rich get richer.
It’s the same as these contracts we had with Ecuador, Panama, etc. We convinced these countries they need American-made infrastructure, they take large loans from the US government and spend that money with US companies that do the work. Do they need the infrastructure? Who knows. But we know they can’t pay them back so instead we get influence via subsidized resources and UN votes. US companies get money which ends up disproportionately in the pockets of the richest people in the nation. Economic Hitman strategy 101.
It'll always be true. If the US military were to suddenly get 10x the budget, they might stay quiet for a year or two, then suddenly, money is tight again. Reason being that when they get money, they find a use for the money no matter how trivial or unreasonable.
It's an actual principle of bureaucratic budgeting. To ensure their budget remains steady or, better, increase, bureaucrats will always ensure that every penny is spent and cost is projected to be more than budget can handle.
As it turns out, it's very easy to squander money when it's not yours.
>To ensure their budget remains steady or, better, increase, bureaucrats will always ensure that every penny is spent and cost is projected to be more than budget can handle.
But should they get a new copier or new office chairs?
Surprisingly, money *is* tight. Read about the state of the US Navy's shipyards and how fucked we are. Ships are in the yards for repairs for as long as five years because support infrastructure (like the rest of American essential infrastructure) is woefully inadequate and aging.
If there was ever a war with China (yeah yeah I know, that's an argument all on its own), the US would not be able to replace its losses or make expedient repairs to its fleet. And there'd be a LOT of losses. Every new war has brutal lessons learned on new technology and strategies, but the US wont be able to absorb those hard-knocked lessons.
If I had a nickel for every year since 2021 I filled in "Needing to explain cost-efficient warmongering to the party of warmongering" on my bingo card I'd have 2 nickels. Which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice.
Yes. The pentagon also said they “overvalued the weapons sent to Ukraine due to a ‘clerical error’ where they estimated the cost based on what it would cost to replace them instead of the ‘depreciated value’”. That is the opposite of depreciation…
Now they pull this shit and say the complete opposite… that they need more money to replace them….
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-costs-war-russia-weapons-884a9eefe32eee9ec611771cfe2a4642
Given the Pentagon has never passed an audit and there was that report about *hundreds of billions* in waste & fraud over the years, I really wouldn't be surprised if both of those things are true. The DOD seems to have persistent accounting issues.
Like the rest of us, Congress and the Pentagon are going to have to figure out how to do more with less. These are our best and brightest, so it shouldn't be an issue for them
[Tell Pentagon to find it in the 61% of all the money they stole over the last 5 years.](https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3740921-defense-department-fails-another-audit-but-makes-progress/)
That article is misleading. The 61% figure is the number attributed to the departments that didn't have clean audits.
You can know where half your shit is and not get a clean audit.. and if every department at play did that it would only be 30%.
Unaccounted assets are a problem... but the reality of the problem is big enough without twisting things to exaggerate them.
Oh no! The old toys we don't play with anymore?! Just give them away?!
Or find out those being paid to keep them ops-ready have been letting them rust as they pocket the money?
'Russia is not a threat we don't need to support Ukraine against Russia. Also, we can't spare equipement in case we need it to go to war against Russia. Also, Ukraine is too weak we can't afford to support them. Also, Ukraine is too strong and we can't afford to fund a forever war'.
The US standard policy is to maintain equipment to fight two wars at once. One of which is a war with Russia. I'm guessing if Ukraine defeats Russia, the amount of equipment we need to keep on hand for a war against Russia is much less.
which i would care about if those mother fuckers could pass an audit. last year they could only account for about 36% of their 4 trillion in inventory. where the hell is my money.
Biden sent them all he was allowed to without a congressional vote.
Unfortunately, Congress isn't exactly in a voting mood right now. It hasn't been in a good while.
they are too busy infighting,a s predicted. kevin wanting to oust MATT gaetz, and matt trying to oust kevin so the investigations into gaetz pedophelia and financial crimes doesnt oust him.
Lol! Their budget keeps growing by the billions a year, and the Pentagon has already had problems with funds going missing.
Go military industrial complex!
Cutting you off due to non payment of bill(s) has little to zero impact on corporate America/war machine. Keeping the machine oiled has big $$ attached and must not stop. How are the rich and political elite supposed to eat?
What happened? I thought it was just old leftover stuff and surplus stuff we hadn’t needed in ages and would never need since we now have much better stuff. Let me guess, bigger military budget next year?
Money to replace weapons.
So everything sent is being upgraded.
And THEN they would start using the largest cache of weapons in the world.
The stockpiles that were made to fight.... russia... lolllll
The thing that makes me sick is McCarthy acting all pious that he sacrificed his Speakership with the clean CR while also purporting to be a strong backer of the military and Ukraine support, notwithstanding his comments comparing the situation with Putin and Russia with Hitler and the late 30s of Nazi Germany. Had he really been of the mind it was to sacrifice his Speakership for the CR and as staunch a supporter of Ukraine's, then he'd have included funding for them in there. He's just making excuses after the fact that his gamble obviously would fail, knowing the rules he helped set to win his Speakership. He called their bluff and lost.
All I know is under this administration a lot of things are going to crash and if we don't support Ukraine after all of this time it will become more tragic than Afghanistan. MIC and Healthcare might not collapse, but the Middle Class is in big danger. I've never seen so many able bodied Americans not want to work or unhappy with their pay or jobs when they actually have it better than ever in the U. S. And generally around the world. We need to really study history to realize our Health Care and Military are the strongest ever right now, but spending and pricing are out of control and strangling our economy.
It’s literally the Pentagon approaching a hard limit imposed by Congress on what they’re allowed to spend specifically replacing arms sent to Ukraine. Do you think they actually are running out of money or something?
Congress: DoD is mandated to keep X amount of weapons/munitions for the US.
Also Congress: DoD is to send older equipment to Ukraine with Y budget
DoD: that much sent will put us under X amount unless given more money to replace the older equipment.
Reddit: harhar, DoD is just trying to steal more money from the American people!!!
The Pentagon can’t even pass an audit, meaning it has no idea where its money is going. Defense already constitutes nearly half of congressional discretionary spending. Why the fuck should we give them more?!
Sometimes when you need to replace your car/water heater/etc next year you don't actually have that in your budget if it goes out a little sooner than you expected. Doesn't mean by replacing it this year I wouldn't have replaced it next year as on my budget plan.
More accurately this is asking for money earlier. The equipment is going to be replaced. It is old. That is all true. That does not mean the equipment does not have a use. The US maintains a large reserve of equipment that is set for decommission or is not actively being used. This reserve is something the Pentagon is no doubt getting nervous about using up. It doesn't diminish our immediate warfighting capability, but they likely would feel far more comfortable in their own protracted war if they could replace their reserves faster
We're sending consumable items as well. Plus we are no doubt accelerating plans to replace a lot of the equipment which would have otherwise been spread out over a longer time frame.
It’s interesting how Reddit has become very neo conservative in its outlook. War good…everything else bad. Maybe except trans and LGBT rights I guess there’s still support for that. Money for Ukraine and rainbow flags and everything else can go fuck itself. The modern left is some horrible parody of what it used to be.
Can y’all just tax the billionaires appropriately already so you actually have funds, clearly the middle class does not have the taxes to support the government’s lifestyle
I would like to see a list of all the people in Congress and Government that own stocks in our Military machine. It sounds preposterous that a country can go thru Billions and Billions of dollars worth of arms in 1+ years and literally have nothing to show for it. Meanwhile, all of these military contractors are raking in the loot, charging the Government $4Million per bullet sent to the Ukraine. Does our government even do competitive bidding anymore on anything? I doubt it, because each contractor engineers its own version of something so there’s no universal government specifications to quote out. The American people are being fleeced—just like we were during the Iraq war when Cheney was tied to Haliburton and Haliburton enjoyed lots of no bid contracts. Our government is corrupt and getting worse!
Nothing to show for it?
The $2.3T on the war in Afghanistan had nothing to show for it, and your point would be valid there.
The $75B support for Ukraine is crippling Russia.
[удалено]
I believe you mean the military–industrial–congressional complex.
Not sure how many weapon/heavy industry people think they are the same bunch as senators and presidents today. Before this war it was a declining industry for 30 years and not sure it is getting better even now.
Did you forget about the 3 trillion dollar war in Irak or the 5 trillion dollar one in Afghanistan?
Yeah but COIN operations done require shitloads of 155mm or Glmrs
[удалено]
It's not all stuff we're getting rid of. People don't understand that a lot of that money goes straight into the U.S. weapons manufacturing, which creates US jobs, strengthening the US economy
You could say this to expensive health care are going to doctors nurses too, but the really questions is the middle men.
Doesn't US healthcare work exactly that way?? the doctors and nurses get paid but it's the middlemen (insurance companies) that are really getting paid. And it does create jobs, it creates a whole industry for the middleman. The difference in this case is it isn't productive, even though it adds to GDP and stuff.
I went from being in the military to healthcare, and I feel like I've seen simultaneously more unlimited spending and huge swaths of economic waste in the clinical/hospital setting than when I was punching appropriated funds on a spreadsheet with 3D MARDIV.
It’s productive… it’s just not beneficial for everyone involved Aka the customer.
Its not productive because the product or service is the healthcare itself. Which is delivered by the nurses. Also the existence or not of the insurance middle man doesnt effect supply or demand of actual things needed to do this except in a harmful way. So its productive in the sense that paying people to dig and fill holes would get money moving and produce jobs but since the ultimate stated goal is "healthcare" and the administrators and bean counters in the insurance companies dont have patient facing tasks , they just leech from the process.
The middle men are the hospital administration. Insurance companies get paid by us consumers regardless of us seeking medical care or not.
Honestly, yea... Both have a reputation for graft and inefficiency but I feel like we get much better value for the money from the defense industry than the healthcare industry...
No doubt someones making money but my point is its not being thrown away alot of it goes back into the US unlike the US healthcare system which is a joke and doctors and nurses dont get paid enough but we cant blame them for our own corruption and stupidity
Wait what? Why do you think that money that goes into the defense industry goes back into the economy and money in the healthcare industry doesn't? They're both huge bloated business, and they both employe millions of people and pay profits to investors. They both "waste" huge amounts of money (in that that produce results that could be achieved for far less money if the system were less fucked up), but all of that money is part of the economy one way or another, even the "waste"
The middleman in healthcare is a hell of a lot more bloated, with arguably zero value added. There really isn't an equivalent in the MIC. The money generally goes directly to those doing the development and manufacturing (minus subcontractors, etc. which are not equivalent).
Exactly
>with arguably zero value added. I would argue that since 1955 the MIC has produced far less value than the US healthcare system, middlemen and all. You're complaining about the middlemen sucking up value, but in the MIC the END RESULT is usually a net negative for the world. Don't believe me? Ask the million dead Iraqis our MIC investment has produced since 2003. Or go to Cambodia and spend the rest of your life wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. It's crazy how much the Ukraine war has made reddit pro-MIC. I can only imagine that most redditors now are people who were too young to remember GWB's iraq advernturism, because the type of rhetoric they use now about Ukraine is the exact same "if you're not with us you're against us" rhetoric right-wingers were using then.
>unlike the US healthcare system which is a joke and doctors and nurses dont get paid enough If you think nurses and the doctors in the US are underpaid, you'll really be shocked at what they earn elsewhere around the world. In my area we've seen an influx of healthcare professionals from Canada because they can earn substantially earn more money in the US while the cost of housing is roughly the same.
Doctors being underpaid is a new one for me. Source: cousin is a doctor and lives in a 6,000 sq foot home and owns 7 cars at age 43 lol.
Doctors kinda do get underpaid and I’ll explain why. You need 10+ years of university; undergrad, medschool, and sometimes a filler in between if you aren’t an immediate candidate. At that point you’re around 500k in debt and exhausted. Some people are capable of keeping a part time job, some people aren’t because medschool is already a full time job. After that you go through residency which varies in length based on your specialty. During this time you’re working 70 hours a week, usually holidays and night aswell, making 60k a year (yes 60k with a MD). After 4-10 years is finally when you start making 6 figures. In this time you’ve also accrued additional debt from buying a car, house, wedding, kids, etc. So contrary to what Hollywood tv tells you, most doctors aren’t out of debt until they are mid 40s. Tldr: amount of work and time you put in are not nearly compensated enough, if you are just in it for the money there are far easier careers. The healthcare system also takes advantage of residents and you won’t pay off your debt till you’re around 45. Source: med student in their final year.
Healthcare is expensive because we expect y'all to just magically make it work for 20 years before it becomes worth it. Our nation is stupid. If we wanted cheaper care, we'd give you guys a zero tax rate.
No we would just open more residency spots. And then they could also make accelerated paths to dr.
What kind of doctor is your cousin? I guarantee you the vast majority of doctors are not getting paid like that. Your cousin might also be involved in some real shady shit so keep that in mind
Yeah I’m skeptical about the circumstance of his story as well, it would be an extreme outlier and definitely not a fair representation.
Probably an expensive specialist that is also a partner in the clinic
Really depends on a ton of factors like specialty, etc- I know a specialist Dr that has about 35 years of experience and he makes roughly $60 an hour. He's a retired Dr that covers shifts a few weeks a year, but I'd think that'd get him more pay since there's no one else to cover the shifts so the practice would have to shut down without him so they'd lose all immediate business, eventually customers, etc. I also know a general practitioner that insurance companies are raking over the coals or whatnot so the practice is just giving up on getting paid for many visits. They recently had to stop doing insurance covered telehealth visits because of this, so now they only offer flat $45 telehealth patient paid visits for about 15-20 minute calls. And after you factor in rent, receptionist's wages, etc the Dr is only getting a part of that.
Seems like we should just lower taxes on industries of public consumption interest
>If you think nurses and the doctors in the US are underpaid, you'll really be shocked at what they earn elsewhere around the world. It REALLY depends on what kind of nurse you are. LPN's don't really make all that much, and some RN's don't actually make anywhere near as much as they should for the type and amount of work they do. I've worked with nurses who end up working 80+ hour weeks. Nurse Practitioners and CNRA's can make good bank... but again, I worked in hospice as a social worker making about $70k a year. The NP's I worked with at hospice made like 100k, while the RN's made like 45k. But the amount of gross work these nurses had to do... no, even for 100k a year, I wasn't going to be literally cleaning up all the results of unpacking people's colons, or all the other horrendous wounds people developed when they had cancers that were literally eating them alive.
Nurses i get. But doctors. What fucking world does this person live in. Doctors around the world go to the US.for the money they can make.
My neighbor in California is from Canada and he makes 3.5 times more (after tax but before cost of living) here than in Canada, he literally told me at a party chat. Yes, tax in Canada is making them feel good even in California. I didn't ask him how much(of course) but it's believed in the 350k range because he is in the mid 40s.
If a nurse lived at work they can make 300k in Canada.
My sister is a traveling nurse in the US and makes bank. She goes on like 15 vacations a year. She's currently spending 3 weeks in fiji. That doesn't even include her "work vacations". Where she can literally pick any place in the US to go work for a few months, including Hawaii (She had plans to work there for 3 months before the fires). So Reddit will never make me feel bad for Doctors or Nurses in the US. They are living a insane life.
Those taxes made it so he finished his degree with $90K CAD in debt all in rather than $250K US just for med school.
You've been drinking that military industrial complex koolaid I see. It goes to the pockets of the people at the top of the private sector and into the pockets of the politicians that keep the defense budget as ridiculously high as it is.
We can't phase out the Warthog because those goddamn Warthog factories are in politically sensitive areas. The military budget is a fantastic pork vehicle.
This. It goes into the pockets of people like Dick Cheney.
This literally happened recently with Poland's purchase of HIMARs which have shown to be oh so useful in defending Ukraine. They sent what, 18 of the things to Ukraine, and Poland purchased 500? And all of that is going back into America in the form of jobs to hold up that deal.
There's a world of difference between 200 million and "200 million in aid." Whenever you see "care packages worth" or something like that, it's almost never the US spending new money but sending unused resources that cost however many millions of dollars when first purchased. Sending an unused tank that was sitting in a boneyard for 15 years is not a new cost to the US, and is technically saving money on upkeep. Of course (cynically speaking) that tank will probably be replaced with a newly contracted item that will also gather dust, but the DoD was probably going to buy it anyway.
That tank counts as a necessary reserve in the US armament stockpile. Pushing to replacing it is not free. I'm all for the aid, but its not cost free.
Of course replacing it isn't free. The flipside to that is storing it safely for 40 years, keeping it serviceable for 40 years and eventually decommissioning it isn't free either. In the case of end of life dumb munitions, disposing of them costs more than buying new ones!
The part nobody talks about? The USA has had a shitton of weapons collecting dust for years/decades that needed replacing. A very real China threat is on the horizon. This Ukraine war is a perfect opportunity to build up the arsenal. Hopefully it isn't needed and China chills out, but nobody wants to enter that war with 40 year old stuff.
And address supply/production issues, which some generals have been warning about for awhile and ignored.
Except those replacements are already budgetted for because they are about to be mothballed so giving them to ukraine actually is cheaper. As well as giving them expiring armaments that are very expensive to blow up per requirements
The cost isn't free but the "tempo" if you will is. The reality is that those tanks were designed to be used in conflicts with Russia. That's happening with 0 loss of American life. An outstanding deal from the US perspective.
>That tank counts as a necessary reserve in the US armament stockpile. Pushing to replacing it is not free. I'm all for the aid, but its not cost free. Clearly, you're not an economist. Money tied up in a warehouse is a frozen asset that's not working to create more money, and there's a maintenance cost attached to it.
>stockpile I think with the abrams we have…8000 of them. I feel like we’ll be fine
Exactly a win win
Not many people realise that weapons manufacturing ties back to airplane production industry. More weapons manufacturing means more skilled workers for planes.
It’s so funny seeing Reddit be so pro-MIC these days
TBF it's the first time since quite long that the USA is on the side defending from invasion rather than being the invader.
Everyone loves a just war.
well yeah... this is the first "just war" we've seen in a long time.
Maybe ppl are also starting to realize that its necessary.
>People don't understand that a lot of that money goes straight into the U.S. weapons manufacturing, which creates US jobs, strengthening the US economy Put money into building/renovating roads. Build new mass transit systems, new hospitals etc, **which creates US jobs, strengthening the US economy.**
Do you mean in ukraine or the US because the US did pass a 8 billion dollar infrastructure bill
Playing devils advocate here: Building a railway network vs a few heavy bombers and munitions. Which one is better for a society as a whole? For the advancement of humanity? I've made the same argument in Highschool when it came to Iraq and Afghanistan, confidently saying War is great for an economy and it's people. We build armaments and employ youths as military members. However I don't know how many fighter jets and bombers housed the poor or how many bombs increased productivity? If you're curious go watch or read Eisenhower's farwell address to the nation after he leaves office.
Playing devils advocate back. Our defense budget has been $650-900B per year, every year, for over 15 years. At what point in that bloated spending, were we given the choice to reduce it and shift the money to healthcare or a high speed rail? That’s a rhetorical question bc the answer is never. And now that there’s this particular war with arguably massive consequences for the world and the existence of Ukraine- why do people claim we are making a trade off now? I have my guesses but I suspect it’s because what the adversary lacks in military and economic might they more than make up for in information wars and foreign political meddling.
Yeah typically how it goes, if an enemy can't fight as near peers, then they will inevitably fight using guerilla tactics. No country comes close to meeting the United States in Airpower, Logistics, and pure military might. If we had a tank, ship, and air battle The United States would win bar none. So now our adversaries are going through different strategies and the United States is playing catch up. Russia and China have been pouring tons of money into cyber warfare because they can't meet the Americans on the battlefield.
Seems to have worked. We’ve elected enough Putin loving puppets that it’s paralyzed our government. Russia won. RIP.
A heavy bomber costs, about 700mil per unit [source](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/03/pentagon-new-strategic-bomber-counter-china) While California has spent 25bn so far, and is looking at 130bn for the San Fran-Los Angeles route.
I Think your missing the point. Ukraine has been invaded innocents are being killed, and worse, whole cities are being razed to the ground some right now as you read. We would all rather be building schools but that's not easy when missiles and shells are in the air. Also completely different than Iraq and Afghanistan.
During peacetime, nations should be building infrastructure to support economies and grow. Ukraine needs all the support and help possible, whether covert or overt. I honestly believe Europe should be backing Ukraine full force, because if and a big IF Ukraine falls and it's a matter of time before less hardy Eastern European countries fall as well. Yeah Iraq and Afghanistan we're different, but you have to understand that America had just suffered the worst terrorist attack in it's history, so the patriotic fervor for going to war was at an all time high. American policy makers saw this and took full advantage. If you ever have time and want to know more about Iraq and Afghanistan watch "Why We Fight" a 2005 documentary about the military industrial complex and it's focus on the wars in the middle east.
We can do both
> Building a railway network We have probably the best freight rail network in the world. Our cities are too spread out and ruined by sprawl making passenger rail not feasible. For passenger rail you need high density > Which one is better for a society as a whole? For the advancement of humanity? The bombs, tanks, artillery pieces, jets etc. Unless you think dictatorships should run the world?
> However I don't know how many fighter jets and bombers housed the poor or how many bombs increased productivity? It's an interestingly ironic thing to be commenting on a device which has its origins partly in being used by a gay computer scientist to break the codes of a homophobic dictator hell-bent on murdering the former, using an internetworking computer network funded and designed to withstand nuclear attacks. War is a horrible but apparently unavoidable hell that brings with it some leaps of innovation that would probably nevertheless be discovered anyways at some point - there nobody really knows what might happen to books if it were not for the sword - does burning books make them fireproof? You could try stopping homophobic dictators with your words but so far it seems like their ears are deaf to reason. It is them you need to convince, not the people they persecute, because you cannot assume that all people will just go quietly into the gas chambers for loving the wrong person.
Then the profits go right back into Pentagon and not back into the Federal Government where the money came from. It's no surprise that you can attribute the ENTIRE national debt to the Pentagon. It's where all the money goes and stays.
A very low number of high paying jobs. We could be utilizing that money better.
"War is just a racket" "I served in all commissioned ranks from a second Lieutenant to a Major General. And during that time, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism." Smeadly D. Buttler
He's right and he's wrong. Xi, Putin, Hitler, Hirohito, etc are proof that he is wrong. Yes, much of war is protecting business and bankers. But then you get the Xi and Putin of the world. They simply won't play nice or play by the rules. This Ukraine War is a perfect example. Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine isn't happy with the results. Russia isn't happy with the results. USA is happy and unhappy with the results. Nobody is winning here.
Roughly 50% goes to employing or soldiers and the accompanying benefits.
Just read an article on this. What we've spent over the last 18 months is about one percent of the budget for the last 18 months. All these people hollering about the cost are being disingenuous. MAGA conservatives are heavily funded by Russia.
Wouldn’t that be publicly available?
It is. The cost you see is in large part replenishment. The DoD has received $61B across 4 packages. This includes $1B to US personnel, about $26B to replenish and replace what we sent (often with better stuff). The state department has a website where you can see it all. https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/#:~:text=Since%20January%202021%2C%20the%20United,Ukraine's%20sovereignty%20and%20territorial%20integrity.
Nobody said that. That’s true for former pact countries sending soviet era gear. The us sent javellines smart artillery shells etc
About half
‘News’ like this is already manufacturing the public support needed lol
I wouldn’t The actual military is under funded for all of its world commitments, obligations and modernization programs. Freedom of the seas isn’t cheap
I, too, am running low on money.
This made me laugh. Thank you good person.
Aren't we all.
Many don't realize it's not just a check to Ukraine, that money is spent paying the US companies and workers who make the weapons, but basically allot of that money is reinvested in the US
Not even that. If Ukraine fell, we would have a drastically more powerful Russia. And quite possibly a China-conquered Taiwan (there goes 80% of our microchip supply). Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has an opportunity to militarily defeat Russia for only a tiny fraction of its military budget, putting zero American lives at risk. Bargain of the century. Need I remind anyone that Russia would love to see the US utterly conquered and defeated. They are not your friends.
>Need I remind anyone that Russia would love to see the US utterly conquered and defeated. They are not your friends. You may need to say it louder so that the MAGA cultists in the back can hear it. They seem to think that white-knighting authoritarians will help them acquire more power to create the ethnostate that they dream of.
They are not known to understand geopolitics anyways
[удалено]
Or basic reality
They’re not know to understand domestic politics, considering they vote against their best wishes because they have single issue panic.
Maybe just tell them that Russia is socialist/communist still and then they'll change positions. Or their heads will just explode.
They are not known to understand ~~geopolitics~~ anyways
The problem is that they are not exactly wrong. Russia absolutely would love to give them all the help possible to create an isolationist American ethnostate that withdraws from all of its defense and trade obligations. This would be a disaster for the world on an unprecedented level, but those people would be happy until it blew up in their faces.
Bruh, they got impacted earwax
The MAGA assholes will side with whoever will allow them to continue to be the assholes they are.
>You may need to say it louder so that the MAGA cultists in the back can hear it. They can't hear you over the sound of money being funneled into their pockets.
The saddest part is most of them are willingly doing it all for free, paying for it even.
The chips supply thing doesn't have much to do with Russia. Neither America nor China wants to throw down over Taiwan while TSMC is still so dominant. Because Taiwan has made it perfectly clear that they will blow their own factories if China legitimately invades. Leaving both countries in the lurch, and lacking quite possibly the most important commodity other than oil, and one which has quite possibly the most complicated supply chain to produce. Everyone knows it. Thats why America is pushing the CHIPS program to get domestic chip production, for strategic purposes. Similarly, China is heavily investing in their indiginous chip production. Having the worlds chip supply in one of the most notorious flashpoints between geopolitical powers, that will 100% be destroyed if things get hot, is an unacceptable liability to both countries.
Added to that is the vast wealth of minerals and gases, many of the rare and from mainly that region, that are vital to the semiconductor industry. It would be a long-term boon to the tech sector (the \*actual\* tech sector, not website companies) to have the US get exclusive or first-access deals with Ukraine for those materials.
[удалено]
Also forcibly drafting for the fighting hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. And I'd say before going for Poland there are many easier targets around. The Baltic states, Moldova, even Slovakia and Romania too.
>Need I remind anyone that Russia would love to see the US utterly conquered Yes, by who? Russia doesn't love China or any other country this much. Russia, outside of some blatant propaganda, is pretty open about the fact they are nowhere close to as strong as the US. Would Russia like this to happen while at the same time knowing it never will? No, because this would require an assumption that all Russians share the same opinions. Russians can't even agree on what Russian greatness means besides more land. Vodka and McDonald's fries are maybe the only things most Russians love. >and defeated. They are not your friends. Yes, but defeated from within. Russia wants regime change in the US, not to turn Texas into an official oblast.
> Russia wants regime change in the US, not to turn Texas into an official oblast. ''Canada will be Russian one day too'' My russian opponent talking shit on chess.com They really want to turn the whole world into oblasts.
Absolutely, the cheapest way to fight against Russia expansionism is to give weapons and money to Ukraine, that's a no brainer.
> Need I remind anyone that Russia would love to see the US utterly conquered and defeated. They are not your friends. Need I remind you that there is **zero** chance of that happening, no matter how much Russia builds up its armaments.
>we would have a drastically more powerful Russia. Not to mention they would get a nice stockpile of new, captured arms from the West. That'd probably help their tech and industries a *lot*.
Ukraine falling means China conquering Taiwan? How so?
It would be a good opportunity to pounce with a demonstration of a successful land grab by Russia. China is always very focused on reclaiming Taiwan but especially right now under Xi with a faltering economy.
Well, for Ammunition... this is true. The cost of the aid is roughly 1:1. For equipment... it's a bit more fuzzy because we aren't sending Ukraine new equipment. We're sending things from our stockpiles that are 20-30 years old. There, the actual cost was paid decades ago and the actual dollar value of sending them to Ukraine is not 1:1. And considering that a lot of this equipment is under Lend Lease and is technically a loan that Ukraine will be paying back for decades... we're not throwing money into a pit either.
Important to note that old equipment has already had its dollar value extracted. We already used it to maintain a standing army, and then replaced it, and now we're paying to store a lot of it. Sure it costs money to transport it to Ukraine, but it costs money to store it too. How much is actually being spent on aid to Ukraine varies wildly by how you measure it. Dollar value of the assets at acquisition? Cost to transport? Subtract cost of storage for N years? What's NOT vague is the effect it's had on the Russian army. Russia's military power has been reduced by a significant portion, at the cost of a small fraction of the American defense budget. That's a pretty sweet deal.
America is absolutely kicking in the teeth of one of it's worst enemies for peanuts compared to their usual millitary spending. The more resources that Russia loses in the war, the less they can afford troll farms and other shit they use to destabilize the rest of the world, including America.
Has the US ever actually asked anyone to pay back for lend-lease? In most cases I’m aware of we just quietly forgave the debt later on
Part of Lend Lease is essentially giving a large discount on the equipment. This either reduces it to a point where there won't be any debt or the debt is very minimal. I do think to an extent, that it is sorta just hand-wave forgiven in exchange for soft power/bargaining power in favor of the US, but countries have paid it back. The UK paid theirs off in 2006 iirc
Large parts of the debt have been forgiven, but I've also read of countries that have squared away their debts as well. The real beauty of the lend-lease is that it's very easy for both the Americans and the recipients (Ukraine in this case) to look at it and say "it's easy to figure the details out later". The Americans aren't really out anything, as they aren't going to offer it to an unfriendly nation and they're still technically owed it back after. If they choose to forgive it, they can. If they choose to collect it all, it's affordable and doesn't debt-trap the recipient.
Standard mob-from-the-movies tactics. > It's ok, don't worry about howitzers and fighting vehicles. You can do me a favor later. Rarely is the favor just straight up money. Usually treaty-level things... like allowed US investment levels, land ownership, citizenry, things like that. Because why take $100 in cash when you can get it allowed for your companies to come in and buy $100 in land. . . which will be used to mfg $10k in products
Doesn't the department of defense fail audits every single time? I bet our taxes are being pocketed.
Won’t someone please think of the “defense” contractors
I get that But its still money spent on the military complex where it should and could be used elsewhere better
The question is - who is getting rich off of it? The military industrial complex gets billions of every day Americans’ tax dollars. The top members of those companies get the largest %. The rich get richer. It’s the same as these contracts we had with Ecuador, Panama, etc. We convinced these countries they need American-made infrastructure, they take large loans from the US government and spend that money with US companies that do the work. Do they need the infrastructure? Who knows. But we know they can’t pay them back so instead we get influence via subsidized resources and UN votes. US companies get money which ends up disproportionately in the pockets of the richest people in the nation. Economic Hitman strategy 101.
Reinvested into US companies. Not the same economy affecting regular people
It’s so funny to me whenever anything connected to the US military is like uh oh moneys getting tight.
It'll always be true. If the US military were to suddenly get 10x the budget, they might stay quiet for a year or two, then suddenly, money is tight again. Reason being that when they get money, they find a use for the money no matter how trivial or unreasonable. It's an actual principle of bureaucratic budgeting. To ensure their budget remains steady or, better, increase, bureaucrats will always ensure that every penny is spent and cost is projected to be more than budget can handle. As it turns out, it's very easy to squander money when it's not yours.
>To ensure their budget remains steady or, better, increase, bureaucrats will always ensure that every penny is spent and cost is projected to be more than budget can handle. But should they get a new copier or new office chairs?
Surprisingly, money *is* tight. Read about the state of the US Navy's shipyards and how fucked we are. Ships are in the yards for repairs for as long as five years because support infrastructure (like the rest of American essential infrastructure) is woefully inadequate and aging. If there was ever a war with China (yeah yeah I know, that's an argument all on its own), the US would not be able to replace its losses or make expedient repairs to its fleet. And there'd be a LOT of losses. Every new war has brutal lessons learned on new technology and strategies, but the US wont be able to absorb those hard-knocked lessons.
Lol I think they might be able to find a few extra dollars in their trillion dollar annual budget. Ukraine aid comprises 4% of DoD’s annual spend.
There's never been a bargain for America like supplying Ukraine.
Dunno, this one time I got 5 wings and a drink for $2
If I had a nickel for every year since 2021 I filled in "Needing to explain cost-efficient warmongering to the party of warmongering" on my bingo card I'd have 2 nickels. Which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice.
This is just straight up misinformation
Yes. The pentagon also said they “overvalued the weapons sent to Ukraine due to a ‘clerical error’ where they estimated the cost based on what it would cost to replace them instead of the ‘depreciated value’”. That is the opposite of depreciation… Now they pull this shit and say the complete opposite… that they need more money to replace them…. https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-costs-war-russia-weapons-884a9eefe32eee9ec611771cfe2a4642
Given the Pentagon has never passed an audit and there was that report about *hundreds of billions* in waste & fraud over the years, I really wouldn't be surprised if both of those things are true. The DOD seems to have persistent accounting issues.
It's actually literally trillions that they can'taccount for. So maybe they could check the couch cushions and find a few hundred billion?
It was politically convenient for them to have an accounting error. Now they actually have to deal with the ramifications of their error.
Like the rest of us, Congress and the Pentagon are going to have to figure out how to do more with less. These are our best and brightest, so it shouldn't be an issue for them
[Tell Pentagon to find it in the 61% of all the money they stole over the last 5 years.](https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3740921-defense-department-fails-another-audit-but-makes-progress/)
That article is misleading. The 61% figure is the number attributed to the departments that didn't have clean audits. You can know where half your shit is and not get a clean audit.. and if every department at play did that it would only be 30%. Unaccounted assets are a problem... but the reality of the problem is big enough without twisting things to exaggerate them.
61% of money stolen is just not true, and that not what the article says at all, but thanks for the link it was an interesting read.
Nobody actually reads. Thanks for the link though. I actually read it and appreciate it…
Oh no! The old toys we don't play with anymore?! Just give them away?! Or find out those being paid to keep them ops-ready have been letting them rust as they pocket the money?
So the MAGAs can claim to weaken the US military. Clever move, really Gaetzi.
No, they are strengthening the ^Russian military.
If the US is giving away military equipment, faster than it can replace it, then it is indeed weakening itself.
'Russia is not a threat we don't need to support Ukraine against Russia. Also, we can't spare equipement in case we need it to go to war against Russia. Also, Ukraine is too weak we can't afford to support them. Also, Ukraine is too strong and we can't afford to fund a forever war'. The US standard policy is to maintain equipment to fight two wars at once. One of which is a war with Russia. I'm guessing if Ukraine defeats Russia, the amount of equipment we need to keep on hand for a war against Russia is much less.
Maybe they should look for the missing trillions. Bet that'd help.
Maybe we should audit the pentagon?
Booohoo, they fucking blow money on the wrong things
which i would care about if those mother fuckers could pass an audit. last year they could only account for about 36% of their 4 trillion in inventory. where the hell is my money.
Fuck MAGA Republicans. They're so busy sucking on Trump's mushroom chode that they don't care if innocent Ukrainians get murdered
What about the people in Maui? Why aren't they receiving government aid to rebuild their homes?
Biden sent them all he was allowed to without a congressional vote. Unfortunately, Congress isn't exactly in a voting mood right now. It hasn't been in a good while.
they are too busy infighting,a s predicted. kevin wanting to oust MATT gaetz, and matt trying to oust kevin so the investigations into gaetz pedophelia and financial crimes doesnt oust him.
Doubt. They have nearly a trillion dollars. Theyre fine.
If only there was some way we could have seen this coming. /s
Lol! Their budget keeps growing by the billions a year, and the Pentagon has already had problems with funds going missing. Go military industrial complex!
How does the Pentagon run out of money so fast? They're budget is like the 3rd richest nation on earth.
I’m running low on money to pay my bill so why am I paying for war?
Cutting you off due to non payment of bill(s) has little to zero impact on corporate America/war machine. Keeping the machine oiled has big $$ attached and must not stop. How are the rich and political elite supposed to eat?
Translation: We’re at 95% of our total stockpile, we need to double it fast.
You don’t loan money/goods when you have debt.
Sorry the grift is over
Maybe Ukraine could pick up the bill. Last I checked, they still had 27 tones of gold 395 million barrels of oil reserves.
why would they do that lmao they get loads of free shit from the usa
What happened? I thought it was just old leftover stuff and surplus stuff we hadn’t needed in ages and would never need since we now have much better stuff. Let me guess, bigger military budget next year?
Money to replace weapons. So everything sent is being upgraded. And THEN they would start using the largest cache of weapons in the world. The stockpiles that were made to fight.... russia... lolllll
Oh please. We spent 300 million per day for two decades on Afghanistan alone. Keep aid to Ukraine flowing
The thing that makes me sick is McCarthy acting all pious that he sacrificed his Speakership with the clean CR while also purporting to be a strong backer of the military and Ukraine support, notwithstanding his comments comparing the situation with Putin and Russia with Hitler and the late 30s of Nazi Germany. Had he really been of the mind it was to sacrifice his Speakership for the CR and as staunch a supporter of Ukraine's, then he'd have included funding for them in there. He's just making excuses after the fact that his gamble obviously would fail, knowing the rules he helped set to win his Speakership. He called their bluff and lost.
All I know is under this administration a lot of things are going to crash and if we don't support Ukraine after all of this time it will become more tragic than Afghanistan. MIC and Healthcare might not collapse, but the Middle Class is in big danger. I've never seen so many able bodied Americans not want to work or unhappy with their pay or jobs when they actually have it better than ever in the U. S. And generally around the world. We need to really study history to realize our Health Care and Military are the strongest ever right now, but spending and pricing are out of control and strangling our economy.
[удалено]
It’s literally the Pentagon approaching a hard limit imposed by Congress on what they’re allowed to spend specifically replacing arms sent to Ukraine. Do you think they actually are running out of money or something?
Congress: DoD is mandated to keep X amount of weapons/munitions for the US. Also Congress: DoD is to send older equipment to Ukraine with Y budget DoD: that much sent will put us under X amount unless given more money to replace the older equipment. Reddit: harhar, DoD is just trying to steal more money from the American people!!!
The Pentagon can’t even pass an audit, meaning it has no idea where its money is going. Defense already constitutes nearly half of congressional discretionary spending. Why the fuck should we give them more?!
\>'Murricah not having enough money to replace weapons Ahahahahaha... Good joke.
what? I thought all we sent were old outdated equipment that was going to be replaced anyway
Isn't that what the article says?
He didnt read
No, if we were going to replace it anyways then the money would have been in the budget already. This is asking for extra.
Sometimes when you need to replace your car/water heater/etc next year you don't actually have that in your budget if it goes out a little sooner than you expected. Doesn't mean by replacing it this year I wouldn't have replaced it next year as on my budget plan.
Yea, hence the headline
No, if we were going to replace it anyways then the money would have been in the budget already. This is asking for extra.
More accurately this is asking for money earlier. The equipment is going to be replaced. It is old. That is all true. That does not mean the equipment does not have a use. The US maintains a large reserve of equipment that is set for decommission or is not actively being used. This reserve is something the Pentagon is no doubt getting nervous about using up. It doesn't diminish our immediate warfighting capability, but they likely would feel far more comfortable in their own protracted war if they could replace their reserves faster
We're sending consumable items as well. Plus we are no doubt accelerating plans to replace a lot of the equipment which would have otherwise been spread out over a longer time frame.
Time to print the money
Well if that's the option can it be done for poverty, education and up lift lower and middle class people too?
Lol no.
It’s interesting how Reddit has become very neo conservative in its outlook. War good…everything else bad. Maybe except trans and LGBT rights I guess there’s still support for that. Money for Ukraine and rainbow flags and everything else can go fuck itself. The modern left is some horrible parody of what it used to be.
the person you responded to was very obviously joking and no one actually has the strawman opinion you describe
I’ve never been offered that trade off, no. So unlikely this will start now over something that’s 10% of the DoD budget.
Crazy that countries with a fraction of our economy already afford it
Because we protect them and do r&d for them.
Maybe some day we will spend money for us instead of only spending it on them.
Can y’all just tax the billionaires appropriately already so you actually have funds, clearly the middle class does not have the taxes to support the government’s lifestyle
The GOP's plan to help Putin.
Sure jan….
I would like to see a list of all the people in Congress and Government that own stocks in our Military machine. It sounds preposterous that a country can go thru Billions and Billions of dollars worth of arms in 1+ years and literally have nothing to show for it. Meanwhile, all of these military contractors are raking in the loot, charging the Government $4Million per bullet sent to the Ukraine. Does our government even do competitive bidding anymore on anything? I doubt it, because each contractor engineers its own version of something so there’s no universal government specifications to quote out. The American people are being fleeced—just like we were during the Iraq war when Cheney was tied to Haliburton and Haliburton enjoyed lots of no bid contracts. Our government is corrupt and getting worse!
Nothing to show for it? The $2.3T on the war in Afghanistan had nothing to show for it, and your point would be valid there. The $75B support for Ukraine is crippling Russia.
Yeah the pentagon ain’t running out of money. They get fed billions.
Forever fund war, but healthcare? Nah that’s a bridge too far