How much?

[Gadianton]

Trump negotiating a peace between Russia and Ukraine is a good thing

I think you mean Trump coercing a ceasefire, not Trump bringing peace. Trump might be able to temporarily force an end to the conflict at the threat of no more weapons for Ukraine and buy Russia a few years to recover so that they can try again.

One possibility where Trump might become an accidental hero is if he forces the peace deal at the threat of no more support for Ukraine, but then Russia can't switch away from a wartime economy and sustains catastrophic economic decline such that they need many more years to recover and in that time, Europe can take over aiding Ukraine.

[Dr. Shades]

Unfortunately, it’s harder to build houses than buy weapons, and sometimes harder still to get someone to live in one.

Then hire more teachers. Or repair infrastructure. Or pay down the deficit. Or refund it to the taxpayers. Or pretty much anything else in-house.

Housing the homeless was just one example among potentially thousands of things on which that money could’ve been better spent, you know.

[canpakes]

Unfortunately, it’s harder to build houses than buy weapons, and sometimes harder still to get someone to live in one.

Then hire more teachers. Or repair infrastructure. Or pay down the deficit. Or refund it to the taxpayers. Or pretty much anything else in-house.

Housing the homeless was just one example among potentially thousands of things on which that money could’ve been better spent, you know.

Sure, if one assumes that US aid to Ukraine amounts to stacking pallets of cash into the cargo hold of a C-130 and dropping it off in Kyiv. But the reality is a bit different:

“Here is the best-kept secret about U.S. military aid to Ukraine: Most of the money is being spent here in the United States. That’s right: Funds that lawmakers approve to arm Ukraine are not going directly to Ukraine but being used stateside to build new weapons or to replace weapons sent to Kyiv from U.S. stockpiles. Of the $68 billion in military and related assistance Congress has approved since Russia invaded Ukraine, almost 90 percent is going to Americans, one analysis found.”

Link, from the American Enterprise Institute:
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/ukraine-aids ... the-u-s-a/

The study referenced is from the Kiel Institute, when about $60 billion had been provided. The numbers have risen since but the process and ratio remains pretty much the same.

There’s a more in-depth excellent discussion of this and other practical benefits of our assistance in terms of simple humanitarian and national security implications, available at:
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/10/mos ... sponsible/

When we ‘give’ to Ukraine, we are helping American employment and prosperity. It’s not as obvious as Walmart hiring another door greeter but that’s still the reality of the situation.

[Moksha]

One possibility where Trump might become an accidental hero is if he forces the peace deal at the threat of no more support for Ukraine, but then Russia can't switch away from a wartime economy and sustains catastrophic economic decline such that they need many more years to recover and in that time, Europe can take over aiding Ukraine.

What if Trump furnished air cover for Russian tanks and North Korean ground troops as they entered Kyiv?

[I Have Questions]

Putin is invading Ukraine because he was allowed to take Crimea without anyone lifting a finger to stop him. The West did nothing, same as with Hitler and Czechoslovakia.

The West entered into an alliance with Poland, which counts as doing something. They would've been better off doing nothing, because that alliance dragged them into World War II.

I can’t tell if you’re joking. You don’t seriously harbour the opinion that, left to his own devices, Hitler would have stopped at Poland, do you?

[Dr. Shades]

“Here is the best-kept secret about U.S. military aid to Ukraine: Most of the money is being spent here in the United States. That’s right: Funds that lawmakers approve to arm Ukraine are not going directly to Ukraine but being used stateside to build new weapons or to replace weapons sent to Kyiv from U.S. stockpiles. Of the $68 billion in military and related assistance Congress has approved since Russia invaded Ukraine, almost 90 percent is going to Americans, one analysis found.”

That quote ignores the fact that the money being spent was siphoned out of the pockets of Americans to begin with. If not through taxation, then through borrowing money, a.k.a. deficit spending, which will need to be paid back at some point.

So, the money wasn't "generated," it was simply reallocated to those involved with supplying or otherwise working for the armaments industry. If you're not one of them, then you're not benefitting from others' tax dollars.

Let's break the figures down: Your quote says that $68 billion was sent to Ukraine. The U.S.A. has roughly 335 million people living in it. $68,000,000,000 ÷ 335,000,000 = $202.98 (rounded down to the nearest penny) for every man, woman, and child. So, if you have a family of four (for example) living in your home, that's $811.92 that your family could've NOT paid in taxes if the U.S.A. had adopted a non-interventionist stance. (Of course, you didn't pay the taxes all at once; some military hardware was already bought, and some is borrowed through increasing the deficit for payback later, but the fact of the matter is that that much money was or will be taken from you somehow, some way, at some time.) If one of ceeboo's figures is the correct one--$115 billion to $175 billion--then those figures are nearly doubled, MINIMUM.

Personally, I'd rather have the $202.98 (or $405.96, if you count my girlfriend who lives with me but doesn't work) in my pocket than have it sent to Ukraine, because I earned it and Ukraine didn't. But hey, you do you.

The West entered into an alliance with Poland, which counts as doing something. They would've been better off doing nothing, because that alliance dragged them into World War II.

I can’t tell if you’re joking. You don’t seriously harbour the opinion that, left to his own devices, Hitler would have stopped at Poland, do you?

No. He would've moved on to the Soviet Union, because it was his stated intent to gain "lebensraum," or living space, for the German people.

[I Have Questions]

I can’t tell if you’re joking. You don’t seriously harbour the opinion that, left to his own devices, Hitler would have stopped at Poland, do you?

No. He would've moved on to the Soviet Union, because it was his stated intent to gain "lebensraum," or living space, for the German people.

Because you trust what Hitler said? Really? Okay. I’ll leave you to your planet. But don’t really think the money spent on defending the West would otherwise have gone to helping the homeless in America? You cannot possibly think that.

[Dr. Shades]

No. He would've moved on to the Soviet Union, because it was his stated intent to gain "lebensraum," or living space, for the German people.

Because you trust what Hitler said? Really? Okay. I’ll leave you to your planet.

That was his priority. But even if the Soviet Union didn't kick Germany's butt as happened historically, his forces would've been stretched to the breaking point trying to occupy so much real estate, making it far, far easier for any Western country to defend itself had Hitler been foolish enough to declare war on it afterward.

But if you're able to read Hitler's mind posthumously, then by all means, tell me what he would've done had France and the United Kingdom not drawn up a mutual defense pact with Poland in 1939.

But [you] don’t really think the money spent on defending the West would otherwise have gone to helping the homeless in America? You cannot possibly think that.

As I already explained, "helping the homeless in America" was simply one quick example among thousands of potential others. If nothing else, we would've avoided ballooning the deficit.

[I Have Questions]

As I already explained, "helping the homeless in America" was simply one quick example among thousands of potential others. If nothing else, we would've avoided ballooning the deficit.

But at what cost to your relationship with NATO?

Anyhow, Trump’s got it covered with his Tariff and Deportation plans.

[Dr. Shades]

As I already explained, "helping the homeless in America" was simply one quick example among thousands of potential others. If nothing else, we would've avoided ballooning the deficit.

But at what cost to your relationship with NATO?

There's no need for a relationship with NATO, so the "cost" isn't a factor.

Think of all the money the United States has flushed down the toilet thanks to NATO. Now imagine if that money was divided among you and every other taxpayer. Could you find some use for it? Would it improve your life in some way? Or would you rather that NATO have your money and not you?