Churchill and Zelensky

[Helmut-WK]

I had not considered that the election math made it impossible to eliminate the debt brake. Defence spending can still be boosted by special funds like the one Scholz raised,

Even this need a 2/3-majority in the parliament (Bundestag) and the chamber of states (Bundesrat).

The now plan is, that the old parliament will decide (after the new one has been elected, but not opened). This is rather s dirty trick that will drop the trust in democracy.

Europe is not ready to take on Russia, and America holds the cards. In the long run, this needs to change. But right now, Trump is probably going to get his way, and Zelensky has no option but to give up some land for peace.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-halts-all-us-military-aid-ukraine-white-house-official-says-2025-03-04/

Trump is not allowed to do that: He cannot stop aid that the congress has enacted. If he wants to stop it, he needs a law decided in the congress.

But Trump does not care, he already had said that a president can do whatever he wants. And there is a verdict from the supreme court that a president cannot be punished for an action he does in fulfillment of his office.

Hmm, there is a déja-vu in 1932, the Prussian government, which had no longer the majority in the Prussian government (Nazis ans Communists has an »negative majority«) was replaced by a governor subjected to the Reichskanzler. Hitler later used that.

But in late 1932 the supreme court (Reichsgericht) decided that, while this was in principle legal, the old government should still represent Prussia in the state chamber (Reichsrat). Which later meant that the SPD, the parts of the Prussian prime minister Braun, was able to block the enabling law (Ermächtigungsgesetz, or Ermaechtigungsgesetz in ASCII) which Hitler gave the power to become dictator.

But no-one cared, this court decision was silently ignored, so the enabling law passed the Reichsrat … strictly speaking, this was illegal, and edicts from Hitler (Führerbefehle) had no power to change the law. But who cared? Certainly no Nazi.

Who will care when Trump fulfills his promise »You will never have to vote again«?

 

[HarleyER]

In a $6.5 trillion yearly budget, if $4.7 trillion is missing, over 60% of the US budget would be unaccounted for. This suggests that funding for Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare might not have been distributed, payments to federal employees, including military personnel, likely were not made, and most federal agencies possibly did not operate.

Do you have any evidence that this occurred within the last four years? If not, I will rely on your judgment to determine whether the news you provided is accurate or not.

You are misreading that $4.7 trillion. That isn't in one year but over a period of time, probably a 5 year budget cycle.

My evidence will simply be when they reduce the deficit. If all of a sudden the budget is brought under control and taxes goes down, the ONLY reason this is possible is because they have cleaned up (for the most part) the waste and fraud.

However, if the Democrats don't want someone looking for waste and fraud, one has to wonder why not? Do you think it is a good thing to look for waste and fraud?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

You are misreading that $4.7 trillion. That isn't in one year but over a period of time, probably a 5 year budget cycle.

My evidence will simply be when they reduce the deficit. If all of a sudden the budget is brought under control and taxes goes down, the ONLY reason this is possible is because they have cleaned up (for the most part) the waste and fraud.

However, if the Democrats don't want someone looking for waste and fraud, one has to wonder why not? Do you think it is a good thing to look for waste and fraud?

Investigating fraud and abuse is important, but it is essential to rely on verified information. Claiming that 4 trillion dollars are missing from a 6.4 trillion dollar budget is not fact-based and appears to be complete fabrication. What is even more frustrating is that in America people believe these kind of fabrication.

 

[HarleyER]

Investigating fraud and abuse is important, but it is essential to rely on verified information. Claiming that 4 trillion dollars are missing from a 6.4 trillion dollar budget is not fact-based and appears to be complete fabrication. What is even more frustrating is that in America people believe these kind of fabrication.

You didn't read what I stated. This isn't 4 trillion out of ONE budget of 6.4 trillion. This is 4 trillion out of MULTIPLE years of budgets. The US federal budget in the last four years was $7.77 trillion in 2021, $6.73 trillion in 2022, $6.16 trillion in 2023, and $7.0 trillion projected for 2025. So there could have been missing 1 trillion in 2023, 1 trillion in 2022, 1 trillion in 2021, etc.

Given the waste and fraud that has taken place (e.g. $20 million for a sock puppet show in Iraq), I don't think it would be too hard to find 4 tillion dollars over five years.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

You didn't read what I stated. This isn't 4 trillion out of ONE budget of 6.4 trillion. This is 4 trillion out of MULTIPLE years of budgets. The US federal budget in the last four years was $7.77 trillion in 2021, $6.73 trillion in 2022, $6.16 trillion in 2023, and $7.0 trillion projected for 2025. So there could have been missing 1 trillion in 2023, 1 trillion in 2022, 1 trillion in 2021, etc.

Given the waste and fraud that has taken place (e.g. $20 million for a sock puppet show in Iraq), I don't think it would be too hard to find 4 tillion dollars over five years.

It is not sufficient to present hypothetical statements such as "could have been" for this year's budget or last year's budget. Instead, it is necessary to provide specific accounts detailing the discrepancies, such as the 2023 budget showing a shortfall of 300 billion and the 2024 budget indicating a discrepancies of 800 billion. In accounting, there is no room for conjecture; precise and accurate figures are required. Can you provide a concrete example, or are you only using what's been posted on X?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Given the waste and fraud that has taken place (e.g. $20 million for a sock puppet show in Iraq), I don't think it would be too hard to find 4 tillion dollars over five years.

The topic of "$20 million for a sock puppet show in Iraq" has recently gained significant attention in various media outlets. This has become an example of the misuse of US taxpayer money today.

A recent Republican president's US foreign policy toward the Middle East focused on "changing the hearts and minds of people in Iraq." President Bush aimed to promote democracy in the Middle East as a foundational element of his strategy.

In that context, it might be beneficial for the United States to invest $20 million in creating an sesame street puppet show in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. This could provide children the opportunity to watch a U.S.-made version of Sesame Street, rather than Saudi Arab funded show which teaches confronting infidel Jews is the will of Allah. Those kind of Saudi Arab show and teaching led to the events of September 11 and the expenditure of 9 trillion US dollars on two wars in Iraq.

I understand that politics often focuses on winning the next news cycle. However, the US national security strategy involves building a society over the next 30 years that will be pro-American rather than anti-American. In this context, spending $20 million is merely a drop in the ocean.

 

[Helmut-WK]

I understand that politics often focuses on winning the next news cycle. However, the US national security strategy involves building a society over the next 30 years that will be pro-American rather than anti-American. In this context, spending $20 million is merely a drop in the ocean.

In the 1950's the UK fought a jungle war in Malaysia, against communist rebels, and won in the end.
In the 1960's, there was a similar jungle war in Vietnam. The USA used similar methods (e.g. »agent orange«), but lost.

One difference was: The UK made sure the operation involved also winning the hearts of the people. The US army did not.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

In the 1950's the UK fought a jungle war in Malaysia, against communist rebels, and won in the end.
In the 1960's, there was a similar jungle war in Vietnam. The USA used similar methods (e.g. »agent orange«), but lost.

One difference was: The UK made sure the operation involved also winning the hearts of the people. The US army did not.

A few years ago, I read an article about Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries funding and establishing madrasas in Southeast Asia. Poor and uneducated families send their children to these schools.

Thirty years ago, madrasas focused solely on teaching the Quran and Islamic studies. Consequently, educated and affluent families avoided sending their children there. Today, madrasas have revamped their curriculum, which now includes both religious education and modern subjects, often surpassing many charter and private schools. As a result, even wealthy families are enrolling their children in these free madrasas, funded by Middle Eastern countries. Students receive education while being influenced by Middle Eastern culture in South Asia.

And what we are doing?

We are currently debating whether we should allocate 0.5% of our GDP to foreign aid.

 

[Gene2memE]

Your post contains many inaccuracy.

There is a significant difference between $100 billion and $300 billion. The fact is that U.S. aid to Ukraine amounts to $176 billion, not $300 billion.

It's not even that much. The US has committed $174.2 billion since the invasion got underway.

However, to the end of 2024, $83.4 billion of that amount had actually been disbursed. That's under 50% of the funds committed.

$57 billion has been obligated, but has not yet been disbursed.
A further $39.6 billion has been appropriated, but not obligated.
$2.6 billion has been approved and appropriated, but was not spent by the time the obligation expired.

Source: Funding

The majority of this aid has been provided in the form of weapons rather than cash. Therefore, the argument that "they can’t account for the money" is misleading. While it is true that some politicians in Ukraine may have misappropriated aid, this issue is not unique to Ukraine; corruption exists among politicians in every country, including the United States. Finding completely honest politicians is challenging as such individuals are rare globally.

It's also not Ukraine that can't account for the money, it's the US. And, it's not been with aid money where the issues lay, but military aid.

That's mostly because end-use monitoring in an active warzone tends to be difficult.

There's been delays in communicating things like serial numbers of parts, weapons and munitions supplied to Ukraine between Office of Defense Cooperation Ukraine (ODC-Ukraine) and Ukrainian Armed Forces, as well as between the DoD and the various oversight bodies.

In addition, there has been issues with US produced items which have been later transferred to Ukraine. These add another layer or two of communications/tracking complexity.

So, it's more that things haven't been properly catalogued and databased properly, rather than they're missing/unaccounted for.

At the end of 2022, inventory delinquency was 60%. By mid May 2024 this had fallen to 12%. As of January 2025 it was under 8%.


I'm not saying zero fraud takes place (it's a former Soviet republic afterall), but as far as weapons and civil funding goes, any level of fraud has not been noteworthy.

 

[Gene2memE]

How do you know it is false? Can you account for where the money has been spent?

Ukraine Oversight - Oversight

Here you go. Almost everything you could want to know about tracking US funding for Ukraine.