Adding my two cents(which admittedly no one gives a shit about) -- The point of debate for the more sophisticated republicans (or maga's, if one prefers that moniker) is not that they don't see the benefit and the righteousness of providing aid to the Ukraine, but is that they just would like an explanation of the end game by the Biden administration and Western Europe. A reasonable request from a check and balance government structure. But make no mistakes about it, history is not lacking for examples of the terrible consequences when free people do not stand up to "real" nazis, fascists, and dictators.. Waiting to respond completely is never a good strategy.
I don't see any substitution effect of spending money on aid to the Ukraine--our government is quite adept at printing trillions of dollars to support all the "needs" of here and there. Failings in our policies here are not due to lack of money, but instead leadership. However, if one did want to become a bit more circumspect and frugal in one's foreign aid, I would suggest stopping the $600 mm annual aid to Palestine and delivering some more bullets to the Ukraine and Israel. No doubt there are probably, a few more examples of utilizing resources better.
Finally, I do see the argument for the EU committing "more" aid to the Ukrainian defense effort, but on the other hand we are America. We need to put an end to our current victim, woke, apologetic mentality and embrace our leadership role in the world. And damn it, isn't it obvious to the sane amongst us that capitalism and democracy is the best thing going for all free people. If it is the right thing to defend freedom in the Ukraine then who gives a fuck about a contribution competition... we're America, god damn it... we can take care of our own-- also handle our responsibility as the leader of the free world. But to get back there, we'll need to find some true leaders or resurrect Reagan and Thatcher. ugh. God bless the Israelis and Ukrainians in their fight against terror and genocide.
With respect, it’s not just ‘MAGA extremists’ who oppose unlimited U.S. taxpayer support to Ukraine, but about 140 million ordinary Americans (if the polls are correct), and tbh it’s pretty offensive for you to insult and disrespect so many decent people.
I have no particular issue with supplying Ukraine with surplus weapons out of inventory storage, but I’m not convinced that $100 billion (or whatever the actual number is) couldn’t better be spent elsewhere, and closer to home.
I’m thinking health care, infrastructure, poverty alleviation measures, etc. within the United States.
The EU is sufficiently wealthy and populous to step in and assist Ukraine with financial support if it chose to do so, rather than once again freeloading on the generosity of Uncle Sam. After all, their interests are far more closely aligned with Ukraine than are ours.
Aside from that, thanks for your articles - always worth reading.
the last time i checked, team usa's limited contributions were lagging behind europe's. https://shorturl.at/pxEP6 the view that us taxpayer money would be better spent at home than abroad is widely held and misplaced, i think. foreign assistance (humanitarian, military, etc) is about one (1) percent of gdp. that's ridiculously low. the *freeloading on generosity of uncle sam* cliche is misplaced for reasons uncle joe explained last night. i would have made the argument differently, but the line i quoted in the post will have to suffice. the benefits team usa accrues by supporting open societies abroad far outweigh risks of not doing so. we learned that, i hope, from the inadequacy of support to individuals in former soviet and east bloc states promoting free speech liberties, rule of law, human rights, education, etc -- the kinds of stuff that would-be demagogues fear the most.
markets don't work well when time is at stake. in war, time is really important. that most americans don't realize *yet* they are in a war is the fault of the nation's politicians. no general fights a war by saying *let's use the price system in the military.* there are good reasons reflecting the limits of markets and prices. unfortunately, on both sides of the atlantic, this has been hard for policymakers to grasp.
Adding my two cents(which admittedly no one gives a shit about) -- The point of debate for the more sophisticated republicans (or maga's, if one prefers that moniker) is not that they don't see the benefit and the righteousness of providing aid to the Ukraine, but is that they just would like an explanation of the end game by the Biden administration and Western Europe. A reasonable request from a check and balance government structure. But make no mistakes about it, history is not lacking for examples of the terrible consequences when free people do not stand up to "real" nazis, fascists, and dictators.. Waiting to respond completely is never a good strategy.
I don't see any substitution effect of spending money on aid to the Ukraine--our government is quite adept at printing trillions of dollars to support all the "needs" of here and there. Failings in our policies here are not due to lack of money, but instead leadership. However, if one did want to become a bit more circumspect and frugal in one's foreign aid, I would suggest stopping the $600 mm annual aid to Palestine and delivering some more bullets to the Ukraine and Israel. No doubt there are probably, a few more examples of utilizing resources better.
Finally, I do see the argument for the EU committing "more" aid to the Ukrainian defense effort, but on the other hand we are America. We need to put an end to our current victim, woke, apologetic mentality and embrace our leadership role in the world. And damn it, isn't it obvious to the sane amongst us that capitalism and democracy is the best thing going for all free people. If it is the right thing to defend freedom in the Ukraine then who gives a fuck about a contribution competition... we're America, god damn it... we can take care of our own-- also handle our responsibility as the leader of the free world. But to get back there, we'll need to find some true leaders or resurrect Reagan and Thatcher. ugh. God bless the Israelis and Ukrainians in their fight against terror and genocide.
With respect, it’s not just ‘MAGA extremists’ who oppose unlimited U.S. taxpayer support to Ukraine, but about 140 million ordinary Americans (if the polls are correct), and tbh it’s pretty offensive for you to insult and disrespect so many decent people.
I have no particular issue with supplying Ukraine with surplus weapons out of inventory storage, but I’m not convinced that $100 billion (or whatever the actual number is) couldn’t better be spent elsewhere, and closer to home.
I’m thinking health care, infrastructure, poverty alleviation measures, etc. within the United States.
The EU is sufficiently wealthy and populous to step in and assist Ukraine with financial support if it chose to do so, rather than once again freeloading on the generosity of Uncle Sam. After all, their interests are far more closely aligned with Ukraine than are ours.
Aside from that, thanks for your articles - always worth reading.
the last time i checked, team usa's limited contributions were lagging behind europe's. https://shorturl.at/pxEP6 the view that us taxpayer money would be better spent at home than abroad is widely held and misplaced, i think. foreign assistance (humanitarian, military, etc) is about one (1) percent of gdp. that's ridiculously low. the *freeloading on generosity of uncle sam* cliche is misplaced for reasons uncle joe explained last night. i would have made the argument differently, but the line i quoted in the post will have to suffice. the benefits team usa accrues by supporting open societies abroad far outweigh risks of not doing so. we learned that, i hope, from the inadequacy of support to individuals in former soviet and east bloc states promoting free speech liberties, rule of law, human rights, education, etc -- the kinds of stuff that would-be demagogues fear the most.
markets don't work well when time is at stake. in war, time is really important. that most americans don't realize *yet* they are in a war is the fault of the nation's politicians. no general fights a war by saying *let's use the price system in the military.* there are good reasons reflecting the limits of markets and prices. unfortunately, on both sides of the atlantic, this has been hard for policymakers to grasp.