Ukraine Aid Packages Leave Many Unanswered Questions

[Vambram]

Ukraine Aid Packages Leave Many Unanswered Questions

Leaders in Washington should have answered all these questions, and more, before sending billions to Ukraine. The truth is, though, few have even considered them.

www.newsweek.com

It didn't even last a month.
In late April, Congress waved Ukraine's colors once again while appropriating another $60 billion for the Ukraine war. Within days, though, the same people who pushed for the package on the Hill, in the White House, and throughout the Washington establishment began saying our aid wouldn't be enough for Ukraine to stop Russian advances.

They're already beating the drum for more support.

Make no mistake. My organization, the Heritage Foundation, wants Ukraine to win and America to flourish. So do the American people. What most Americans don't want, however, is for Washington to prioritize Ukraine's security to the detriment of our fiscal health and other pressing domestic priorities, such as the crisis at the southern border.

A recent poll we conducted of voters in battleground states found that three out of four respondents opposed sending more aid to Ukraine without fortifying our own border. Most (56 percent) also felt that the United States had already sent too much aid to Ukraine—and that was before this latest package passed.

They're right. Since 2022, Congress has designated more than $173 billion for the conflict in Ukraine—nearly as much as the Army's annual budget and about $1,300 per American household—and there is still no plan for victory or peace from the commander in chief. All of this, of course, comes on top of an $895 billion budget for the Department of Defense this year.
The lack of serious thought behind this massive investment is startling, and merits further scrutiny. Even as Democrats and Republicans inside the beltway congratulate one another on doing "the right thing" by shoveling another unpaid-for tranche of taxpayer dollars at the problem, there remain many unanswered questions on the war in Ukraine.

 

[AlexB23]

Ukraine Aid Packages Leave Many Unanswered Questions

Leaders in Washington should have answered all these questions, and more, before sending billions to Ukraine. The truth is, though, few have even considered them.

www.newsweek.com

It didn't even last a month.
In late April, Congress waved Ukraine's colors once again while appropriating another $60 billion for the Ukraine war. Within days, though, the same people who pushed for the package on the Hill, in the White House, and throughout the Washington establishment began saying our aid wouldn't be enough for Ukraine to stop Russian advances.

They're already beating the drum for more support.

Make no mistake. My organization, the Heritage Foundation, wants Ukraine to win and America to flourish. So do the American people. What most Americans don't want, however, is for Washington to prioritize Ukraine's security to the detriment of our fiscal health and other pressing domestic priorities, such as the crisis at the southern border.

A recent poll we conducted of voters in battleground states found that three out of four respondents opposed sending more aid to Ukraine without fortifying our own border. Most (56 percent) also felt that the United States had already sent too much aid to Ukraine—and that was before this latest package passed.

They're right. Since 2022, Congress has designated more than $173 billion for the conflict in Ukraine—nearly as much as the Army's annual budget and about $1,300 per American household—and there is still no plan for victory or peace from the commander in chief. All of this, of course, comes on top of an $895 billion budget for the Department of Defense this year.
The lack of serious thought behind this massive investment is startling, and merits further scrutiny. Even as Democrats and Republicans inside the beltway congratulate one another on doing "the right thing" by shoveling another unpaid-for tranche of taxpayer dollars at the problem, there remain many unanswered questions on the war in Ukraine.

For reference, $1300 per household is the equivalent of the government asking each household to buy a nice Apple MacBook for them. This money is probably going to military contractors. The aid could be $30B instead of $60B, and could buy some nice jets and bombers for the Ukrainians (anti war guy here by the way). I wish we can opt out of paying for wars, and choose where our tax money goes.

If a person pays say $20,000 in taxes, he/she should have every right to choose where his $20K go. If he wants that money to help fix our roads, he should be able to check a box that goes to infrastructure. If he wants to fund NASA, then he can check another box. If he wants to allot some of the money to NASA, and some of that money to education, he could do that.

2011 article on a hypothetical tax choice system, where some tax money can be allotted to different government programs: Your Money, Your Choice

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

For reference, $1300 per household is the equivalent of the government asking each household to buy a nice Apple MacBook for them. This money is probably going to military contractors. The aid could be $30B instead of $60B, and could buy some nice jets and bombers for the Ukrainians (anti war guy here by the way). I wish we can opt out of paying for wars, and choose where our tax money goes.

If a person pays say $20,000 in taxes, he/she should have every right to choose where his $20K go. If he wants that money to help fix our roads, he should be able to check a box that goes to infrastructure. If he wants to fund NASA, then he can check another box. If he wants to allot some of the money to NASA, and some of that money to education, he could do that.

2011 article on a hypothetical tax choice system, where some tax money can be allotted to different government programs: Your Money, Your Choice

For perspective:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/28/wealth-of-the-1percent-hits-a-record-44-trillion.html

That's enough to give every man, woman and child in the U.S. $133,000. If that wealth were taxed at an average of just 1% it would pay for all of the wars and conflicts the U.S. has given aid in support, and foreign aid with money left over to feed and house every homeless person in the country.

 

[AlexB23]

For perspective:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/28/wealth-of-the-1percent-hits-a-record-44-trillion.html

That's enough to give every man, woman and child in the U.S. $133,000. If that wealth were taxed at an average of just 1% it would pay for all of the wars and conflicts the U.S. has given aid in support, and foreign aid with money left over to feed and house every homeless person in the country.

Agreed. But America can not figure this one out, as the politicians on both sides can not find their way out of a paper bag, and are funded by mega corporations. We will never figure this one out, as we live in a fallen world.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Agreed. But America can not figure this one out, as the politicians on both sides can not find their way out of a paper bag, and are funded by mega corporations. We will never figure this one out, as we live in a fallen world.

That's a pretty cynical view. And I, of course, don't subscribe to your "fallen world" rhetoric.

 

[AlexB23]

That's a pretty cynical view. And I, of course, don't subscribe to your "fallen world" rhetoric.

Even you do not subscribe to the "fallen world" belief, America cares too much about their own greed to make an idea like this ever happen.

 

[rambot]

Do you take ANY comfort at all into the fact that ALL that money is going to American companies and workers?

 

[AlexB23]

Do you take ANY comfort at all into the fact that ALL that money is going to American companies and workers?

Operative Keywords: Companies, workers
Translation: Corporate CEOs, investors, upper management

Yes, I would like the money to go to the workers, but sadly, the CEOs, upper management and investors take a huge cut out of the pie.

 

[rambot]

Operative Keywords: Companies, workers
Translation: Corporate CEOs, investors, upper management

Yes, I would like the money to go to the workers, but sadly, the CEOs, upper management and investors take a huge cut out of the pie.

Hey. You won't find ANYONE more committed to the "up/down" class fight OVER the left/right wing fight.

 

[AlexB23]

Hey. You won't find ANYONE more committed to the "up/down" class fight OVER the left/right wing fight.

I am committed to putting profit margin caps on military contractors, but there is sadly not an option on the ballot to vote for that. Like, come on politicians. Give us an option to vote, or a referendum on this. Heck, an AI can write a ballot referendum question about this in 5 seconds.

Hypothetical Ballot Below (written by AI):
--------------------------
"Shall there be a legally enforceable 20% limit placed on the profit margins of military contractors, to ensure that these companies are fairly compensated for their work while also protecting taxpayers and promoting responsible use of public funds?"

A. Yes
B. No
--------------------------
For myself, I vote Yes, to place a profit margin limit on military contractors. What would you vote for on this hypothetical ballot, @rambot?

 

[rambot]

I am committed to putting profit margin caps on military contractors, but there is sadly not an option on the ballot to vote for that. Like, come on politicians. Give us an option to vote, or a referendum on this. Heck, an AI can write a ballot referendum question about this in 5 seconds.

Hypothetical Ballot Below (written by AI):
--------------------------
"Shall there be a legally enforceable 20% limit placed on the profit margins of military contractors, to ensure that these companies are fairly compensated for their work while also protecting taxpayers and promoting responsible use of public funds?"

A. Yes
B. No
--------------------------
For myself, I vote Yes, to place a profit margin limit on military contractors. What would you vote for on this hypothetical ballot, @rambot?

Oh man...if you started down this path, I'd end up looking like a TRUE socialist I think sadly.

I love the idea of profit margin caps; of recriminalizing stock buybacks; abandoning "trickle down" as an economic theory and leave it only to describe prostate health; Capital gains taxes OR taxes on unrealized income from stock....

 

[AlexB23]

Oh man...if you started down this path, I'd end up looking like a TRUE socialist I think sadly.

I love the idea of profit margin caps; of recriminalizing stock buybacks; abandoning "trickle down" as an economic theory and leave it only to describe prostate health; Capital gains taxes OR taxes on unrealized income from stock....

Well, this would be a good idea. Hopefully a country could test this idea out, and then we can adopt this concept. Also, ban private equity firms from getting big tax breaks.

 

[Hans Blaster]

For reference, $1300 per household is the equivalent of the government asking each household to buy a nice Apple MacBook for them. This money is probably going to military contractors. The aid could be $30B instead of $60B, and could buy some nice jets and bombers for the Ukrainians (anti war guy here by the way). I wish we can opt out of paying for wars, and choose where our tax money goes.

If a person pays say $20,000 in taxes, he/she should have every right to choose where his $20K go. If he wants that money to help fix our roads, he should be able to check a box that goes to infrastructure. If he wants to fund NASA, then he can check another box. If he wants to allot some of the money to NASA, and some of that money to education, he could do that.

That's not the way government, taxes, or voting works.

If you pay $20,000 in taxes and you are a citizen, you get 1 vote.
If you pay $20 in taxes and you are a citizen, you get 1 vote.
If you pay $20,000,000 in taxes and you are NOT a citizen, you don't get a vote.

Those votes elect (or fail to elect) people you'd like to make the decisions.

2011 article on a hypothetical tax choice system, where some tax money can be allotted to different government programs: Your Money, Your Choice

That's what the people you vote for are tasked with doing.

 

[AlexB23]

That's not the way government, taxes, or voting works.

If you pay $20,000 in taxes and you are a citizen, you get 1 vote.
If you pay $20 in taxes and you are a citizen, you get 1 vote.
If you pay $20,000,000 in taxes and you are NOT a citizen, you don't get a vote.

Those votes elect (or fail to elect) people you'd like to make the decisions.


That's what the people you vote for are tasked with doing.

Ooh, I get your point now (haven't thought of this). Cos, if someone pays $1M in taxes, and the money goes to something a person who pays $100 in taxes, then, the rich would have more say into which the government spends money on.

So, a better solution would be to have these issues on the ballot then, however, then the ballot would have multiple pages of issues to vote on. But, I'd rather have a ballot, then some non-citizen deciding to put his $20M in taxes into some program which another person such as myself may not support.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ooh, I get your point now (haven't thought of this). Cos, if someone pays $1M in taxes, and the money goes to something a person who pays $100 in taxes, then, the rich would have more say into which the government spends money on.

So, a better solution would be to have these issues on the ballot then, however, then the ballot would have multiple pages of issues to vote on. But, I'd rather have a ballot, then some non-citizen deciding to put his $20M in taxes into some program which another person such as myself may not support.

My ballot is too long already and it almost never includes spending items. (Things like referenda for building projects) Things are fine the way they are.

 

[AlexB23]

My ballot is too long already and it almost never includes spending items. (Things like referenda for building projects) Things are fine the way they are.

Yeah, somewhat. We always have room for improvement though. The ballots sadly focus on local issues, or gender stuff.

(Yes, that is my boomer side in a 24 year old body showing again)

 

[RocksInMyHead]

So, a better solution would be to have these issues on the ballot then, however, then the ballot would have multiple pages of issues to vote on. But, I'd rather have a ballot, then some non-citizen deciding to put his $20M in taxes into some program which another person such as myself may not support.

What you're proposing here is, essentially, a direct democracy: every issue is decided by a ballot among all citizens. The problem with such a system is that it inevitably stalls out - conducting a national vote any time you want to do something means that nothing ever gets done. The logistics of voting on that scale are enormous, and, by nature, such a system is incapable of making decisions in any sort of a timely manner once the population gets above a few thousand. That's why we (along with pretty much every other non-autocratic nation on the planet) use a representative democracy system - we elect a small body of individuals to represent our interests, and those people are able to devote the time and energy required to craft good legislation, research measures they're voting on, and conduct votes in a timely fashion so that the country does not get bogged down in red tape.

 

[AlexB23]

What you're proposing here is, essentially, a direct democracy: every issue is decided by a ballot among all citizens. The problem with such a system is that it inevitably stalls out - conducting a national vote any time you want to do something means that nothing ever gets done - the logistics of voting on that scale are enormous, and, by nature, such a system is incapable of making decisions in any sort of a timely manner once the population gets above a few thousand. That's why we (along with pretty much every other non-autocratic nation on the planet) use a representative democracy system - we elect a small body of individuals to represent our interests, and those people are able to devote the time and energy required to craft good legislation, research measures they're voting on, and conduct votes in a timely fashion so that the country does not get bogged down in red tape.

I agree. Direct democracies do tend to get bogged down. Hmm, what if a computer could parse all the votes written down on the ballots? Could a hypothetically advanced computer be able to analyze what the public wants, and then generate potential decisions for leadership to follow? (I do not trust computers with politics, but just asking this as a hypothetical).

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I agree. Direct democracies do tend to get bogged down. Hmm, what if a computer could parse all the votes written down on the ballots? Could a hypothetically advanced computer be able to analyze what the public wants, and then generate potential decisions for leadership to follow? (I do not trust computers with politics, but just asking this as a hypothetical).

Hypothetically, sure, but once you have computers making decisions, you have to start asking who programmed the computer.

 

[AlexB23]

Hypothetically, sure, but once you have computers making decisions, you have to start asking who programmed the computer.

Agreed. And as the old saying goes, Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO). If the programmer has a bias, then the computer might have a bias as well. Even if another computer (say computer 1) has an AI which programmed the main computer (computer 2), computer 1's software could be biased as well, potentially leading to a bias in computer 2.