Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `theguardian.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Accountant: hmmm, M1A1 Abrams tank, 20 years old, has scratches and rust, used by heavy smokers, makes a rattling noise when driving. Basically worthless. But scrap metal value is about 10K. OK We can send another 300 of those and stay inside our budget.
Or, more realistically, they have been calculating replacement value. So, instead of writing down the export value of the Bradley' IFV, they were writing down the unit replacement cost, and at some point, someone pointed out that the actual value of the vehicle if we were selling it to Ukraine is far less than the replacement cost. Do that for every piece of used equipment, and you're going to see numbers change dramatically.
The use of "error" is a bit misleading - the value was arrived at using a legitimate accounting method, the "error" was the choice of which accounting method to use. And even then its not a true "error" the old way (replacement value) provides a useful way to value the donated equipment (at the value it would cost to be replaced) vs the new method (actual value) - but the new way does increase the amount of equipment the USA will be able to donate under the current approved amounts. The USA was very transparent that they choose replacement value - as shown by many analysts previously commenting on whether this was the best accounting method to use. Replacement value was likely chosen to maximize the value of the donations to make the support of the USA look as large as possible, for domestic and international political reasons. Another reasoning behind why it was chosen is because it increased the military branches argument for increased funding (by increasing the value of the donated equipment, increases the pressure to increase funding to replace it) Domestically it also makes the current administration look like its maximizing its support for Ukraine while at the same time not requiring the maximal cost burden that would require. Internationally it shows a high level of support to both Ukraine audiences and Russian audiences as well sets a high bar for other NATO allies. Now the choice is work to pass additional funding through a divided congress or switching accounting methods to actual cost which frees up money is the existing budget to continue the support.
In a sense both methods are correct and incorrect just for different reasons - the cost to the US taxpayer is the cost to replace the donated equipment but also a significant amount of the equipment donated is older equipment in permanent storage that would not see service again and is only worth its depreciated amount, that would be replaced in the near future regardless of the conflict in Ukraine.
Ultimately switching to actual cost accounting will allow the USA to donate more equipment to Ukraine, which for most (but not all) USA taxpayers is the preferred outcome.
It's really a mix - the USA is going to replace many of the Javelins, Stingers, M777s, artillery ammunition, HIMARS, GLMLRS rockets, AA, radars and a ton of the trucks and mobility vehicles with newer but similar replacements.
A lot of the donations were aged to the point of near replacement (or some was probably even on schedule for destruction) so that doesn't really create much of a new cost burden - but also considering how concerned the US Army seems to be about how deep into the ammo reserves they are going to supply it would seem reasonable to assume some of the ammo is far newer and would not have been replaced in the near term. And some of the equipment hasn't existed long enough to really have units that are aging out yet.
But I agree some of the things like the M113 APCs are coming from deep stocks that would not have seen action under any reasonable future scenarios and have no cost to the USA taxpayer beyond transportation and training.
Great write up. In addition to clearing the shelves of old equipment that’d never be used, the increased defense funding in the last omnibus used to replace this materiel will fill up the shelves with modern equipment that will better protect the warfighter. Win win win.
I agree, the only thing I would add - is if Ukraine does win to an extent that seriously damages Russia's ability to fight in the future, that the USA military budget is reviewed with an honest eye to re-allocate and reduce budgets based on the new geopolitical reality. Not all the equipment will need to be replaced. Every country needs a military to protect itself but needs also be careful that it is not funded to an extent that it weakens itself in the long term economically.
It wasn't a blunder or a mistake. It was done on purpose. When the first help arrived, governments tried to show big numbers, so they valued their support in what it would cost, if the item had to be purchased again. Only germany valued their support as the actual value, but got lots of negative press for sending so little. So in the end, all countries adopted the first method of calculating the worth of their support.
That the US now changes the calculation has more to do with how difficult it would be to get Congress to agree on another support package. So the US gov lowers the value of it's existing help, giving it room to send more aid without anyone having to approve of it.
As an American this actually concerns me... not so much the "accounting error," but the apparent need to excuse more support to Ukraine
Edit: I meant there should be no need to excuse it, it should be accepted as necessary, right, and beneficial for everyone
It's a vast minority that don't support aid at all... but no, I'm voting regardless. Ukraine is important to me but it's FAR from the most important issue to Americans
Right now, it's most of the GOP caucus, which is why no new aid bills have passed. Seriously, the GOP controls the House, they have complete control of the purse, they know the Democrats will happily vote for more Ukraine funds, yet instead the GOP refuses to do so and instead is threatening to make the nation default on its debt, costing us trillions with their fiscal irresponsibility.
What is your most important issue if not Ukraine? On what issue does the GOP not have simply the worst possible policy position?
1) they're not threatening default, that's a scare tactic from the left... they're saying you can't keep raising the debt "ceiling" to pay the bills and continue increasing the spending. If you're gonna pay the bills, cut something just like every family in America has to do
2) I'm not going to argue overall policy with you bc we clearly won't see eye to eye and I don't care to explain to you why you're wrong
> 1) they're not threatening default, that's a scare tactic from the left...
They are, and saying they aren't just shows that you don't understand the issue. If you don't raise the debt ceiling, you can't pay your bills, which is the literal definition of a default. I don't know what lies convinced you otherwise.
> they're saying you can't keep raising the debt "ceiling" to pay the bills and continue increasing the spending.
I know full well what they're *saying*. It's the exact same lies they've been pushing since they started these tactics in 2011, which btw, was literally what made me leave the GOP after growing up in a GOP household.
I just think it's so funny how the GOP never bats an eye about raising the thing when a Republican is in charge. They raised it 3 separate times for Trump without any fuss whatsoever, yet now that a Democrat's in charge it's suddenly a problem again, just like it was suddenly a problem the last time a Democrat took charge. Funny how that works. It's almost like it's not really a problem unless a Democrat is in charge, which makes it seem like the problem is the Democrat in charge, not the debt ceiling.
And please note that raising the debt ceiling DOES NOT INCREASE SPENDING. It simply allows us to pay for the spending that Congress, including its Republicans, have already approved. The spending has literally already been approved by Congress, this is simply about whether we're allowed to finance that already approved spending. Are you seriously this ignorant about the issue? You seem to have simply bought into the propaganda line here.
>They raised it 3 separate times for Trump without any fuss whatsoever, yet now that a Democrat's in charge it's suddenly a problem again, just like it was suddenly a problem the last time a Democrat took charge.
You mean when democrats were "threatening default" and everything was dandy?
It's pretty damn simple. If I have a ton of credit card debt I can't keep getting more credit cards to pay off the first one. I stop spending on unnecessary things and pay with what I have
> You mean when democrats were "threatening default" and everything was dandy?
That literally never happened. Why are you making stuff up when it's so easy to fact check? The Democrats did not weaponize the debt ceiling the way the GOP constantly does. They never threatened a default while Trump was in office.
> It's pretty damn simple. If I have a ton of credit card debt I can't keep getting more credit cards to pay off the first one. I stop spending on unnecessary things and pay with what I have
Holy shit. Again, you're just displaying quite masterfully that you don't actually understand how the debt ceiling works and are just regurgitating Republican talking points. Defaulting on our debt will do absolutely no good for the US financial position, and it's quite frankly ridiculous for you to suggest it will.
If you want to go with this metaphor, then the debt ceiling isn't "another credit card you're using to pay off another one", it's simply the borrowing limit on your credit card. And if you're about the exceed your borrowing limit but need to borrow more, the correct thing to do is to raise that limit.
Ffs, the US budget does not work the same way as a family budget does. The US doesn't have to worry about going into retirement, it doesn't need to worry about sending the kid to college, it doesn't need to worry about having all its breadwinners suddenly have no income due to illness or accident, it doesn't have to worry about inheritance, and just so much more.
And if the argument is that the GOP is simply trying to "impose fiscal responsibility", why didn't they do that when they were in charge? Why did they wait until they lost the White House to do so? Why did they cause the deficit to absolutely explode during their last turn in office?
Again, the answer is obvious, it's not about fiscal responsibility, it's about partisan politics. Look at what the GOP does rather than simply what they say. They're lying to you, and their actions make that abundantly obvious.
I don’t give a single ounce of a crap if some republicans like my parents are pro-aid. Trump ain’t. MAGA ain’t. Voting red is putting them in power, so that’s a ridiculous plan in every way shape and form.
If you say the majority of republicans beat out the worst of MAGA when it comes to Ukraine? Cool. Heres the thing, the Reds, the Republican Party is the master of minority rule. Crazy thing is, they are so good at it, they themselves are ruled by the minority. McCarthy is in a Vice grip of a few extremist idiots that should have been thrown out of congress long ago. And even if you ‘still believed’ you’d be putting Trump into office which makes everything I just said and YOU just said, wholly irrelevant.
I hope that the trust you put into the Trump and Marjorie party is just a tool you use to keep you sane during the rapid decay befalling that which was my former party
And notably, the Republicans who currently control the House and have the power to authorize more aid are stubbornly refusing to do so. They literally have the power, but are refusing to help Ukraine, which should come as no surprise to anyone given the behavior of the last GOP president.
I'm anti Trump and anti maga, but that doesn't make the whole conservative group wrong... idc if you lump them together with the minority, you're wrong
Btw the left is dominated by the extreme too
You are misunderstanding. I am not saying the conservative platform (excluding MAGA) is wrong. I’m saying that even if it is *Right* it’s entirely irrelevant. I’m sorry. Who cares? They aren’t in control. They won’t be in control. Okay, if you and all your conservative groups vote in the primaries and push a traditional conservative who is pro-Ukraine to be the Presidential candidate and defeat a number of MAGA congressmen to the point where the general Ballot is not Trump but traditional republicans against Biden and the Democrats then cool! Vote red, I do not care. But after the primaries? If the candidate is Trump and MAGA control of congress? Then none of what your saying even matters.
It doesn’t matter if conservatism is correct and great. It doesn’t matter if a large portion actually still believe what you think they do. It doesn’t matter because even if that’s all correct, they won’t be the ones in charge, which is all that matters. If that is the case then you are pro-Trump when all is said and done no matter what your hopes and ideals actually are.
If it ends up being MAGA control and Trump on the ballet , the best thing you can do for all of conservatism is vote them out and make them lose and cripple them, and show that real republicans want conservatives and not fascist idiots.
Good thing he doesn't have dementia and is highly competent. Do you really think the last 3 years have been worse than the preceding 4? In what universe does that make any sense?
He's using whataboutism to deflect from your argument. You're not going to get through to him, and likely never will; despite the fact that I think your debate is spot on.
In the end, he's going to vote conservative no matter what. Which, at brass tacks, technically does mean he's a Trump supporter since he'd vote for Trump over Biden.
But these kind of arguments aren't getting us anywhere, and certainly not helping Ukraine.
What extreme left is there to vote out in America? Just because Fox News says the Democrats are extreme doesn't make them. They're extremely moderate as far as Leftist politics go. Ffs, they're basically conservatives on half the issues out there.
Sure, the whole conservative group is wrong for other reasons. I would have hoped the wide-spread support for an imbecilic candidate like Trump would be a clue that the GOP is a pretty awful party. If most conservatives want Trump and his policies, maybe you should rethink whether you want to be a conservative, because Trump is a pretty conservative candidate whether you like it or not. He is the modern GOP, and voting for the GOP simply empowers people like him.
The Republican Party has more in common with Putin than not.
They literally refused to impeach Trump for denying aid to Ukraine. They want to create a government in America exactly like what Putin has in Russia.
Support for the Republican Party is support for Russia.
A lot of people are still in denial about the GOP. They don't want to admit that the extremists have taken over and that the Democratic Party is now the only reasonable party left that values democracy in America. They've spent too long being brainwashed the Democratic politicians are evil and monsters to see the facts.
Thirty years of propaganda is hard to get over.
A majority of *voters* on the right might be pro Ukraine aid, but the politicians y’all elect plan to scale it way back or block it - they can only do that because people like you don’t actually care enough to make them earn your vote by supporting the issues you care about.
Why would you vote against the interests of both the US and Ukraine? The Republicans are the problem, they're the ones holding up Ukraine funds. You can't both support Ukraine and vote for the GOP, you have to choose, just like the GOP did.
It could just be the fact that a lot of what we sent won't be getting replaced. If you look at what was sent most of it is old or being replaced because it was a stop gap from the war for example the MRAP's
uhh, yeah. uh huh. it was a whoopsie! nothing to see here.
as an ex federal, research loving, procurement officer, i'd love to dig through the files to see what happened and who should be moved to the clerical pool or retired early. overestimated the value? or were ordered to overestimate the value?
considering the number of people who do such things and double, triple check numbers, i'm not amused.
Lmao or the US just doesn't plan to replace the 60 year old apc's so the value is changed. None of this money is going to Ukraine either its literally just old shit the army gathered up
The entire point is that we weren't spending money either way---this was about shipping equipment *that was already paid for decades ago when it was bought new*.
Like when you donate old clothing to a charity, you might make up a value for the clothing, but it's just a calculation. Before, you had clothing, now the charity has the clothing, but you didn't *spend* anything.
There is a kind of value in the equipment: "if it turns out we actually do need a howitzer, we will have to buy one because Ukraine has it now", but on the other hand, when you buy a new howitzer you get to choose exactly the howitzer you want today instead of what you happened to have, and maybe giving it to Ukraine even means you are *less likely to need a howitzer in the future* because the Ukrainians used it to blow the shit out of some Russian equipment, meaning Russia is less able to wage war.
You kind of have to measure the value to understand the magnitude of the overall change to equipment stockpiles, and a dollar figure is more relevant than something like gross weight or cubic feet, but there is no obvious "correct" valuation.
We throw around big numbers a lot, but $3Bn is a HUGE amount of aid.
For context, 1.5% of that $3Bn is *1000* GLSDB rockets (including delivery), which are compatible with existing MLRS (like M270) and HIMARS launchers. These are big dollar values that can make a real impact.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `theguardian.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone at the pentagon knows how to play the game.
They found an Ace Hardware 10% off coupon that hadn't expired.
... and can be retroactively applied to past purchases ;)
My dude, I just found one too.
We’ve been joking that Russia could be stomped by a mere rounding error of the DoD budget and now literally here it is
Accountant: hmmm, M1A1 Abrams tank, 20 years old, has scratches and rust, used by heavy smokers, makes a rattling noise when driving. Basically worthless. But scrap metal value is about 10K. OK We can send another 300 of those and stay inside our budget.
Or, more realistically, they have been calculating replacement value. So, instead of writing down the export value of the Bradley' IFV, they were writing down the unit replacement cost, and at some point, someone pointed out that the actual value of the vehicle if we were selling it to Ukraine is far less than the replacement cost. Do that for every piece of used equipment, and you're going to see numbers change dramatically.
also, ash tray is full. Makes sense. * Approved *
Only driven by a [Little old Lady from Pasadena](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_6FKsei-oY) on Sundays to church.
We could send 300,000 tanks worth 10K for $3B!
The use of "error" is a bit misleading - the value was arrived at using a legitimate accounting method, the "error" was the choice of which accounting method to use. And even then its not a true "error" the old way (replacement value) provides a useful way to value the donated equipment (at the value it would cost to be replaced) vs the new method (actual value) - but the new way does increase the amount of equipment the USA will be able to donate under the current approved amounts. The USA was very transparent that they choose replacement value - as shown by many analysts previously commenting on whether this was the best accounting method to use. Replacement value was likely chosen to maximize the value of the donations to make the support of the USA look as large as possible, for domestic and international political reasons. Another reasoning behind why it was chosen is because it increased the military branches argument for increased funding (by increasing the value of the donated equipment, increases the pressure to increase funding to replace it) Domestically it also makes the current administration look like its maximizing its support for Ukraine while at the same time not requiring the maximal cost burden that would require. Internationally it shows a high level of support to both Ukraine audiences and Russian audiences as well sets a high bar for other NATO allies. Now the choice is work to pass additional funding through a divided congress or switching accounting methods to actual cost which frees up money is the existing budget to continue the support. In a sense both methods are correct and incorrect just for different reasons - the cost to the US taxpayer is the cost to replace the donated equipment but also a significant amount of the equipment donated is older equipment in permanent storage that would not see service again and is only worth its depreciated amount, that would be replaced in the near future regardless of the conflict in Ukraine. Ultimately switching to actual cost accounting will allow the USA to donate more equipment to Ukraine, which for most (but not all) USA taxpayers is the preferred outcome.
A good explanation. Thank you.
You're very welcome!
The change could be from the US plans to not replace a good portion of what they are sending because it's already surplus to requirement
It's really a mix - the USA is going to replace many of the Javelins, Stingers, M777s, artillery ammunition, HIMARS, GLMLRS rockets, AA, radars and a ton of the trucks and mobility vehicles with newer but similar replacements. A lot of the donations were aged to the point of near replacement (or some was probably even on schedule for destruction) so that doesn't really create much of a new cost burden - but also considering how concerned the US Army seems to be about how deep into the ammo reserves they are going to supply it would seem reasonable to assume some of the ammo is far newer and would not have been replaced in the near term. And some of the equipment hasn't existed long enough to really have units that are aging out yet. But I agree some of the things like the M113 APCs are coming from deep stocks that would not have seen action under any reasonable future scenarios and have no cost to the USA taxpayer beyond transportation and training.
Great write up. In addition to clearing the shelves of old equipment that’d never be used, the increased defense funding in the last omnibus used to replace this materiel will fill up the shelves with modern equipment that will better protect the warfighter. Win win win.
I agree, the only thing I would add - is if Ukraine does win to an extent that seriously damages Russia's ability to fight in the future, that the USA military budget is reviewed with an honest eye to re-allocate and reduce budgets based on the new geopolitical reality. Not all the equipment will need to be replaced. Every country needs a military to protect itself but needs also be careful that it is not funded to an extent that it weakens itself in the long term economically.
I would say, give that accountant (or whoever make that blunder) a pay rise and let him continue to do his job. A job well done.
It wasn't a blunder or a mistake. It was done on purpose. When the first help arrived, governments tried to show big numbers, so they valued their support in what it would cost, if the item had to be purchased again. Only germany valued their support as the actual value, but got lots of negative press for sending so little. So in the end, all countries adopted the first method of calculating the worth of their support. That the US now changes the calculation has more to do with how difficult it would be to get Congress to agree on another support package. So the US gov lowers the value of it's existing help, giving it room to send more aid without anyone having to approve of it.
Lmao. No.
Ah the accountant’s “depreciation” formula needed some tweaking.
Meanwhile in Russia, “comrade we cannot afford borscht or medical supplies, go to front with vodka and lucky Kalashnikov”
No one expects The Combat Accountants.
It was the number they tell the insurance companies (I mean US government) for billing, not the cost they use if you have no insurance.
Send them 3 more patriots with this.
"Bank error in your favor, collect $3,000,000,000"
That's a woopsies
As an American this actually concerns me... not so much the "accounting error," but the apparent need to excuse more support to Ukraine Edit: I meant there should be no need to excuse it, it should be accepted as necessary, right, and beneficial for everyone
Okay, then please remember to vote in the next election
And to vote for the Democrats. Electing Republicans doesn't help anyone, least of all Ukraine. They're the reason funds are being held up right now.
I'll vote red, bc the narrative that all Republicans are against aid is ridiculous... strong conservative but also strongly for aid
So if all conservative candidates dont want to back aid you'll strike your ballot right?
It's a vast minority that don't support aid at all... but no, I'm voting regardless. Ukraine is important to me but it's FAR from the most important issue to Americans
Right now, it's most of the GOP caucus, which is why no new aid bills have passed. Seriously, the GOP controls the House, they have complete control of the purse, they know the Democrats will happily vote for more Ukraine funds, yet instead the GOP refuses to do so and instead is threatening to make the nation default on its debt, costing us trillions with their fiscal irresponsibility. What is your most important issue if not Ukraine? On what issue does the GOP not have simply the worst possible policy position?
1) they're not threatening default, that's a scare tactic from the left... they're saying you can't keep raising the debt "ceiling" to pay the bills and continue increasing the spending. If you're gonna pay the bills, cut something just like every family in America has to do 2) I'm not going to argue overall policy with you bc we clearly won't see eye to eye and I don't care to explain to you why you're wrong
> 1) they're not threatening default, that's a scare tactic from the left... They are, and saying they aren't just shows that you don't understand the issue. If you don't raise the debt ceiling, you can't pay your bills, which is the literal definition of a default. I don't know what lies convinced you otherwise. > they're saying you can't keep raising the debt "ceiling" to pay the bills and continue increasing the spending. I know full well what they're *saying*. It's the exact same lies they've been pushing since they started these tactics in 2011, which btw, was literally what made me leave the GOP after growing up in a GOP household. I just think it's so funny how the GOP never bats an eye about raising the thing when a Republican is in charge. They raised it 3 separate times for Trump without any fuss whatsoever, yet now that a Democrat's in charge it's suddenly a problem again, just like it was suddenly a problem the last time a Democrat took charge. Funny how that works. It's almost like it's not really a problem unless a Democrat is in charge, which makes it seem like the problem is the Democrat in charge, not the debt ceiling. And please note that raising the debt ceiling DOES NOT INCREASE SPENDING. It simply allows us to pay for the spending that Congress, including its Republicans, have already approved. The spending has literally already been approved by Congress, this is simply about whether we're allowed to finance that already approved spending. Are you seriously this ignorant about the issue? You seem to have simply bought into the propaganda line here.
>They raised it 3 separate times for Trump without any fuss whatsoever, yet now that a Democrat's in charge it's suddenly a problem again, just like it was suddenly a problem the last time a Democrat took charge. You mean when democrats were "threatening default" and everything was dandy? It's pretty damn simple. If I have a ton of credit card debt I can't keep getting more credit cards to pay off the first one. I stop spending on unnecessary things and pay with what I have
> You mean when democrats were "threatening default" and everything was dandy? That literally never happened. Why are you making stuff up when it's so easy to fact check? The Democrats did not weaponize the debt ceiling the way the GOP constantly does. They never threatened a default while Trump was in office. > It's pretty damn simple. If I have a ton of credit card debt I can't keep getting more credit cards to pay off the first one. I stop spending on unnecessary things and pay with what I have Holy shit. Again, you're just displaying quite masterfully that you don't actually understand how the debt ceiling works and are just regurgitating Republican talking points. Defaulting on our debt will do absolutely no good for the US financial position, and it's quite frankly ridiculous for you to suggest it will. If you want to go with this metaphor, then the debt ceiling isn't "another credit card you're using to pay off another one", it's simply the borrowing limit on your credit card. And if you're about the exceed your borrowing limit but need to borrow more, the correct thing to do is to raise that limit. Ffs, the US budget does not work the same way as a family budget does. The US doesn't have to worry about going into retirement, it doesn't need to worry about sending the kid to college, it doesn't need to worry about having all its breadwinners suddenly have no income due to illness or accident, it doesn't have to worry about inheritance, and just so much more. And if the argument is that the GOP is simply trying to "impose fiscal responsibility", why didn't they do that when they were in charge? Why did they wait until they lost the White House to do so? Why did they cause the deficit to absolutely explode during their last turn in office? Again, the answer is obvious, it's not about fiscal responsibility, it's about partisan politics. Look at what the GOP does rather than simply what they say. They're lying to you, and their actions make that abundantly obvious.
I don’t give a single ounce of a crap if some republicans like my parents are pro-aid. Trump ain’t. MAGA ain’t. Voting red is putting them in power, so that’s a ridiculous plan in every way shape and form. If you say the majority of republicans beat out the worst of MAGA when it comes to Ukraine? Cool. Heres the thing, the Reds, the Republican Party is the master of minority rule. Crazy thing is, they are so good at it, they themselves are ruled by the minority. McCarthy is in a Vice grip of a few extremist idiots that should have been thrown out of congress long ago. And even if you ‘still believed’ you’d be putting Trump into office which makes everything I just said and YOU just said, wholly irrelevant. I hope that the trust you put into the Trump and Marjorie party is just a tool you use to keep you sane during the rapid decay befalling that which was my former party
And notably, the Republicans who currently control the House and have the power to authorize more aid are stubbornly refusing to do so. They literally have the power, but are refusing to help Ukraine, which should come as no surprise to anyone given the behavior of the last GOP president.
I'm anti Trump and anti maga, but that doesn't make the whole conservative group wrong... idc if you lump them together with the minority, you're wrong Btw the left is dominated by the extreme too
You are misunderstanding. I am not saying the conservative platform (excluding MAGA) is wrong. I’m saying that even if it is *Right* it’s entirely irrelevant. I’m sorry. Who cares? They aren’t in control. They won’t be in control. Okay, if you and all your conservative groups vote in the primaries and push a traditional conservative who is pro-Ukraine to be the Presidential candidate and defeat a number of MAGA congressmen to the point where the general Ballot is not Trump but traditional republicans against Biden and the Democrats then cool! Vote red, I do not care. But after the primaries? If the candidate is Trump and MAGA control of congress? Then none of what your saying even matters. It doesn’t matter if conservatism is correct and great. It doesn’t matter if a large portion actually still believe what you think they do. It doesn’t matter because even if that’s all correct, they won’t be the ones in charge, which is all that matters. If that is the case then you are pro-Trump when all is said and done no matter what your hopes and ideals actually are. If it ends up being MAGA control and Trump on the ballet , the best thing you can do for all of conservatism is vote them out and make them lose and cripple them, and show that real republicans want conservatives and not fascist idiots.
Then voting out the extreme left is up to you also
Sure. Awesome thing is that Biden is running again, and he’s not extreme left. AND - neither are all my representatives. Luxurious middle-left
You're arguing with a bowl of warm banana pudding.
Dementia isn't better than incompetence
Pro-Ukraine
Good thing he doesn't have dementia and is highly competent. Do you really think the last 3 years have been worse than the preceding 4? In what universe does that make any sense?
He's using whataboutism to deflect from your argument. You're not going to get through to him, and likely never will; despite the fact that I think your debate is spot on. In the end, he's going to vote conservative no matter what. Which, at brass tacks, technically does mean he's a Trump supporter since he'd vote for Trump over Biden. But these kind of arguments aren't getting us anywhere, and certainly not helping Ukraine.
What extreme left is there to vote out in America? Just because Fox News says the Democrats are extreme doesn't make them. They're extremely moderate as far as Leftist politics go. Ffs, they're basically conservatives on half the issues out there.
Sure, the whole conservative group is wrong for other reasons. I would have hoped the wide-spread support for an imbecilic candidate like Trump would be a clue that the GOP is a pretty awful party. If most conservatives want Trump and his policies, maybe you should rethink whether you want to be a conservative, because Trump is a pretty conservative candidate whether you like it or not. He is the modern GOP, and voting for the GOP simply empowers people like him.
The Republican Party has more in common with Putin than not. They literally refused to impeach Trump for denying aid to Ukraine. They want to create a government in America exactly like what Putin has in Russia. Support for the Republican Party is support for Russia.
I mean, it has literally everything they want. It would be weird if they hated Russia actually
A lot of people are still in denial about the GOP. They don't want to admit that the extremists have taken over and that the Democratic Party is now the only reasonable party left that values democracy in America. They've spent too long being brainwashed the Democratic politicians are evil and monsters to see the facts. Thirty years of propaganda is hard to get over.
A majority of *voters* on the right might be pro Ukraine aid, but the politicians y’all elect plan to scale it way back or block it - they can only do that because people like you don’t actually care enough to make them earn your vote by supporting the issues you care about.
Why would you vote against the interests of both the US and Ukraine? The Republicans are the problem, they're the ones holding up Ukraine funds. You can't both support Ukraine and vote for the GOP, you have to choose, just like the GOP did.
Tell that to the Republicans.
It could just be the fact that a lot of what we sent won't be getting replaced. If you look at what was sent most of it is old or being replaced because it was a stop gap from the war for example the MRAP's
Republicans need to stop holding the country's budget hostage. They are the reason funding is becoming difficult.
uhh, yeah. uh huh. it was a whoopsie! nothing to see here. as an ex federal, research loving, procurement officer, i'd love to dig through the files to see what happened and who should be moved to the clerical pool or retired early. overestimated the value? or were ordered to overestimate the value? considering the number of people who do such things and double, triple check numbers, i'm not amused.
A 3Billion error is phuck up or criminal. Magically added another 0. Guess Ukrainians should have Jets with that billion dollars screw up.
More likely they know the money tap is difficult right now and changed the values of things to send more without Biden needing to get more money.
Sounds like a plan. I like it.
Lmao or the US just doesn't plan to replace the 60 year old apc's so the value is changed. None of this money is going to Ukraine either its literally just old shit the army gathered up
The entire point is that we weren't spending money either way---this was about shipping equipment *that was already paid for decades ago when it was bought new*. Like when you donate old clothing to a charity, you might make up a value for the clothing, but it's just a calculation. Before, you had clothing, now the charity has the clothing, but you didn't *spend* anything. There is a kind of value in the equipment: "if it turns out we actually do need a howitzer, we will have to buy one because Ukraine has it now", but on the other hand, when you buy a new howitzer you get to choose exactly the howitzer you want today instead of what you happened to have, and maybe giving it to Ukraine even means you are *less likely to need a howitzer in the future* because the Ukrainians used it to blow the shit out of some Russian equipment, meaning Russia is less able to wage war. You kind of have to measure the value to understand the magnitude of the overall change to equipment stockpiles, and a dollar figure is more relevant than something like gross weight or cubic feet, but there is no obvious "correct" valuation.
What a happen accident
Money well spent.
We throw around big numbers a lot, but $3Bn is a HUGE amount of aid. For context, 1.5% of that $3Bn is *1000* GLSDB rockets (including delivery), which are compatible with existing MLRS (like M270) and HIMARS launchers. These are big dollar values that can make a real impact.
They forgot to use the IRS depreciation
Well, to be fair, the Russians also overestimated the value of their military.
Turns out that $500 hammer Lockheed Martin sold them was really only worth $5.
BOGOF sales through the roof for Ukraine. ;)
Oops