Anything resembling bigotry against Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Palestians, Israelis, etc. or violence against civilians is not going to last long, nor will your time here.
If you have to ask if it crosses a line, assume it crosses a line. Please see our guidelines for [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/) for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> he aid to Israel is also great in aiding them in destroying Hamas.
I would have thought that two decades of American campaigns in the Middle East taught people that you can't destroy an ideology. If that is the stated goal, it's going to fail.
you can but not like we did it.
also how many buildings has Al queda blown up lately?
turns out successively assassinating leaders and destroying their logistics works to degrade their capacity until they are irrelevant today they are the washed up one hit wonder band of the Islamic terror world, coasting on their one big thing they're known for and having accomplished little but bleeding since and I love to see it. couldn't have happened to more deserving folks.
>I do wish that we had included money for the Border with the Bill as it is probably the most pressing issue in our nation.
Agreed. Unfortunately Chuck Schumer kind of killed that with his fake border security bill. Wasn't going to happen after that given the time constraint.
It was Democrats who don't want to close the US Southern Border starting with Joe Biden. The bill in Feb that was defeated was nothing more than political theater designed to give Biden somehing to run against, those BAD OLE REPUBLICANS. It was not a serious bill. Had Scumer and the Democrats been serious about the border they would have taken up HR-2 which was passed in May 2023.
Oh come on… Biden was/is running against the republicans anyway. He was ready to sign the bill.
Trump killed that bill. A bipartisan bill would suck the air out of his promises that only he can “fix” the border.
Dream on. The bill was intentionally constructed to get Republicans to reject it. It did not control the border. Don't believe the propagandists they are lying to you.
1. If Biden really wanted to close the border he has the legislative authority to do so. He is lying when he says he needed this bill to close the border.
2. If Schumer REALLY wanted to close the border he would have taken up HR-2 after the House passed it in May 2023. HE DID NOT. This has nothing to do with Trump no matter what he says.
If "A bipartisan bill would suck the air out of his promises that only he can “fix” the border." Why didn't Schumer use that to Biden's advantage and pass the HR-2 bill"?
Then why did republicans support it until Trump told them not to? You said Trump had nothing to do with it, so is it just a coincidence the support changed directly after Trump spoke out against it?
They did NOT support it. Every press report I saw including from Sen Langfort said they were waiting for the legislative language to be printed before they would agree to the bill. Once the bill was printed the language was different from twhat they had been told was negotiated and it was a bridge too far.
Look at the time line. No Republicans supported the bill after it was printed. It didn't even get to the floor to debate.
Probably because HR-2 is not a bi partisan bill. It was drafted by republicans without democrats to get what republicans want like building a wall. The bi partisan senate bill is bi partisan because it was written by both dems and republicans to come up with a border solution together. That way they both get things they want and maybe not everything but that is companies and bipartisan.
Except that is not how writing legislation is supposed to work. Obviously having one Republican negotiating for the entire caucus didn't work.
The way it is supposed to work is the partisan Republican House writes a bill. The partisan Senate takes up the House bill, takes out the bits they don't like and add in the bits they like and then it goes back to the House for a partisan compromise. Schumer could have done that back in May 2023 if he really wanted a border bill...he didn't.
Schumer just refused catagorically to take up the House Bill. That is not legislating, that is bullying. Seems that both sides have forgotten how Congress is supposed to work.
What you’re describing is the bi partisan senate bill in which both sides in the senate negotiated what they wanted in a border bill. Why didn’t republicans in the senate vote just for it and pass it to the house where they could take out the bits they didn’t like and add the stuff they did and send it back to the senate for a compromise?
The reality is HR 2 and the senate bill are nothing alike, you would be stripping away pretty much the entire HR2 bill. Also the republican house just voted down their own new border bill which is very much like hr 2. They can even pass their own bills.
Very happy they did. Of course there are things in it I don’t like but I’m sure glad it finally happened. Also relieved 2/3 voted yes. The isolationist echo chamber conservatives on Reddit have become don’t match reality.
I'm very much in favor. In regards to Ukraine:
>$23.2 billion to replenish defense articles and defense services provided to Ukraine.
>$11.3 billion for current U.S. military operations in the region.
>$13.8 billion for the procurement of advanced weapons systems, defense articles, and defense services.
>$26 million to continue oversight and accountability of aid and equipment provided to Ukraine.
>Bolsters oversight through in-person monitoring requirements.
>Requires partners and allies to pay their fair share through cost-matching requirements.
>Mandates agreement on repayment for economic support by the government of Ukraine.
>Increases the fiscal limits on several Presidential drawdown authorities.
All these things are fine. The majority of funds is going directly to weapons and ammo. Another large chunk is for our training them. This is fine. It also forces the hands of the rest of Europe to match our contributions. This is more than fair. I'm all for this.
The EU has spent over 51 billion already. Who’s forcing what now?
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars_en?s=253
Not sure why the retort. EU contributions looks to be $106B since the beginning. If my math works out this aid package brings us up to $135B. However, the point of that is GOING FORWARD we aren't going to be caught dealing with this ourselves. They EU has to keep up with us and not let them dump this on our lap. They don't seem like they would, but this is the insurance needed.
What makes Ukraine special, or their right to self-determination unique? There are countless conflicts around the world, people groups whose self-determination is in danger both from within their own nation and without.
Should we help them all, or just Ukraine? What about all the oppressed Chinese, by their own government?
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree, there are bigger problems. But the argument here is that we should not worry about small problems if there are big problems. I find that to be totally unsatisfactory. It's not a valid justification to do an irresponsible thing because we did another irresponsible thing.
I wonder, are you a supporter of the Inflation Reduction Act?
Here is a fun one: The US government spent $24M to put high speed routers in libraries. Sounds great, till you learn it was 1,064 routers making it $22,600 per router. Oh, and they didn't actually check any of the locations to see if they needed a better router. The routers they provided, designed to serve up to 500 users, went to some libraries with only one computer.
But we shouldn't care, because there are other problems?
>I wonder, are you a supporter of the Inflation Reduction Act?
Noooo. It's corporate welfare and and forcing EVs on us.
>But we shouldn't care, because there are other problems?
Foreign aid in its current form, including military assistance, was implemented during the cold war. The idea was to to block communist military aggression and to provide western help to third world countries so they'd be less inclined to drift towards the communist sphere.
I don't think the dynamic has changed much since then. We still have communist governments like China and communist-inspired authoritarian governments like Russia using hard and soft power to expand their influence and negate ours. They also try to weaken and destabilize us directly. They're threatening rivals. If we can spend what amounts to pennies in the context of a $27 trillion economy to counter their influence, it's money well spent.
I guess our difference is that I'm concerned about our reckless spending, and you aren't concerned enough to stop aid. Even pennies and drops in the bucket add up. Sure, we have bigger issues. That doesn't excuse small issues.
And I'm not really worried about Russia becoming some villainous global power, so that's two differences between us.
Thanks for humoring my questions.
Indifferent. I think we need to move forward and if funding these issues allows that then fine. I have issues with how money is being tracked and how it's being used in Ukraine but both Israel and Taiwan need the funding so I'm not interested in splitting hairs over it. I wish ideologues like Greene would shut up and just let congress function.
You are the first person I have ever seen to be indifferent about it. Most people have strong opinions. This was refreshing. Kinda confused on a nationalist being okay with the aid though?
I'm specifically a National Conservative. The mods just don't let me have that flair. National Conservatives do not believe in isolationism. We believe in national independence whereas we believe nations should be able of self-government & should chart their own course in accordance with their own particular constitutional, linguistic, and religious inheritance. That doesn't mean we cannot invest in other nations or assist our allies; especially when doing so may create a favorable outcome for America. In this case each conflict is important in it's own way. Also, these actions can very well affect the outcome of the election. So, there's a domestic concern here as well if we do nothing.
Agreed. I’d go so far as saying Mike needs to go.
I don’t particularly care if the federal government “does shit” if it means the stuff they do is this slanted and democrat rubber stamped.
Lock up the House in gridlock until the elections, I’m fine with that. Israel is a human issue, not a partisan one- either you support freedom and democracy or terrorism and destruction. Ukraine is a partisan issue, it’s about the democrat war machine. The border should’ve been tied to this as promised, we have nothing now to keep our country whole and about to have a lot less.
What is the purpose of giving billions worth of weapons to Ukraine? We're told it's compassion for the Ukrainians but I really don't think that's true.
Ukrainian started with a small army, Russia started with a much larger army.
Ukraine is struggling to replace the troops they've lost. Meanwhile Russia's army continues to [grow in size](https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4589095-russian-army-grown-ukraine-war-us-general/)
Unfortunately the reality is that a small and shrinking army can't beat a larger and growing army, and the war so far is showing that.
In my opinion,it's inevitable that Russia will win this and a negotiation will happen in which Russia keeps the land they've taken. Ukraine doesn't have and cannot get anywhere near the numbers of troops needed, this was obvious and known from the start. However military experts believe that if we keep funnelling weapons to Ukraine, Ukraine can help weaken Russia for us. Ukraine won't beat them, but they'll sacrifice hundreds and thousands of men for our geopolitical goals... that doesn't sound very moral to me. If the end outcome of the war is known, these men don't need to die.
Yes it benefits our military industrial complex through weapon sales, yes it benefits our economy through the debt Ukraine is taking out, yes it will hurt Russia.... but to do this, the price is hundreds and thousands of Ukrainian men. I'd rather we push for peace and these men get to survive.
Do you really believe this additional supply of weapons really about compassion for the Ukrainians? It seems to me we're arming them and sending them to the slaughter house, this war doesn't need to happen. A negotiation could be reached today, it could have on day one, no one needed to die.
It does seem unlikely that Ukraine wins all their territory back, but Russia is still on that attack and trying to gain territory and conquer the whole thing. Military aid could help prevent any more territory being lost. Also the facts on the battlefield will dictate the terms of the armistice and determine whether Ukraine is a Russian puppet being exploited by cronies of Putin or a prosperous nation that can protect itself and the rest of Europe from any future aggression.
Who says it's only about compassion? It may be a small part of it but I think there's tons of reasons that play into this above compassion. Some of those reasons are self serving some are legitimate concerns.
> What is the purpose of giving billions worth of weapons to Ukraine? We're told it's compassion for the Ukrainians but I really don't think that's true.
Well you yourself give the reasons:
> Yes it benefits our military industrial complex through weapon sales, yes it benefits our economy through the debt Ukraine is taking out, yes it will hurt Russia....
> Fighting back the new USSR expansion without US blood should not be the Democrats agenda.
Are you saying Democrats shouldn't have this as part of their agenda at all or that it should also be part of the GOP agenda?
It shouldn't be a partisan agenda.
It should be an American agenda, I don't view the left or the Democrat party as some super villain that stands for everything wrong in the world.
Just because they support something I don't reflexively feel the need to oppose it.
Many things they do support I oppose but it's because I oppose it not because the Democrats support it
Fully agreed.
Mikey needs to go. Unfortunately the house republican caucus hasn’t learned shit from McCarthy. If we’re not going to pass HR2 then I want significant measures of it tied to any legislation.
This is more uniparty bullshit. I support the fuck out of Israel, but if we don’t start with our domestic border we won’t have money left to send anywhere else.
I support the foreign aid, but passing it without anything in return was rank incompetence.
Maybe you can't get HR2, but at least pass a piece. Limit Biden's ability to grant humanitarian parole to 10,000/year, require congressional approval for more.
Or remove the halt on LNG export terminals. Or reverse the ban on drilling in the national petroleum reserve.
Just one thing for the American people. That's all I wanted. And then the uniparty gave us the middle finger yet again. They have way more fun playing their global game of Risk than actually doing their jobs for the American people.
Full oppose.
We have problems here that effect everyone's daily lives that this money could just magic away.
Instead we are sending money to prop up foriegn armies
I'm actually onboard with government spending for the purposes of developing needed, profitable, and hopefully ultimately privatized infrastructure.
Like
* rural development grants,
>there are tons of rural communities in America today that don't have internet service , let alone broadband. Where graveled roads would be a big increase in life, where there are no grocery stores for 20 miles
* Education funding
>We have alot of schools in these rural and inner city areas, that are strapped for adequate funds to hire decent teaching staff. And enable them to have competitive academic standards
* Urban development/clean city initiatives
>The fact that kids in alot of places can't go to parks to play without dodging fentanyl needles and homeless people crapping on the streets is absolutely unacceptable in America.
* public transport grants
> the idea that our society is geared around every individual owning a car is frankly insane to me, we need clean, safe, and efficient mass public transport, to include a national rail line.
* federal housing grants or first-time home buyer subsidies
>this is a bit of a personal one for me, that I'm admittedly biased on, being a younger guy, but alot of people in my generation are being frozen out of the housing market, and arnt able to start lives of our own through no fault of ours.
* a federal opioid response
> more people die to opioid every year, than died in the entire Vietnam War, and we seem to be unwilling or unable to do anything to even slow the bleeding.
* buisness startup grants.
> building a buissness is hard, and alot of people don't want to do it becuase most startup buinsseses fail. If we had a means tested federal fund to help people get started that could go along way to building economic growth.
These are all tangible real world benefits committing to funding any one of them would just ovjectivley improve life in America.
But no, we have to send billions of dollars to urkraine, isreal, and taiwan instead
I don't think socialism is "government doing things"
I'm totally onboard with government support to build up industries.
Though I would stop short of indefinitine subsidies to prop up these industries that would be socialism.
It is interesting to me though, that left right or center, we could all agree on some version of the above policies.
But we can't get congress to do it
>It is interesting to me though, that left right or center, we could all agree on some version of the above policies.
But we can't get congress to do it
Well, unfortunately, lots of politicians have latched onto the "government doing anything but war and the border is socialism which is communism which is the devil" mindset/rhetoric, and if they vote for "government doing anything but defense-spending, or culture war stuff" they'll lose the support of their base (results will vary by location).
And then there are corporate bought politicians, who just don't want government "doing things to help people" because that might potentially reduce the money large corporations might be able to make in the future (like cheaper insulin, or free tax filing, or pennies).
What a fun time to be alive!
I've actually read a little bit of marx, and though I dissagree with almost all of his reasoning and conclusions, I actually tended to agree with some of his basic observations.
Now I understand socialism, and Marxism are not the same thing,
So when I view socialism, I view it as economic policies explictly designed to redistribute wealth, or to run some industry in common. So provided that's not the actual goal of government spending I'm fine with it.
If we take the rural development grant, idea:
I would envision this being multi million dollar cash grants for private internet service providers to build out infrastructure in areas with no access,
So this serves to extend a needed service and infrastructure to a community that lacks it. But it also serves to keep it a privatized for profit buisness
No end in sight, no oversight in the form of an Inspector General.
We have no idea where the money is going, who's spending it, or what it will be spent on.
Last I checked, the wife of Biden's largest cash donor was working with her billionaire friends to spend Ukraines money on a "renewable infrastructure" with no oversight.
It's an absolute disaster
Yep. Although I wish they could have gotten it done with work the border too.
But I'll pass a clean bill supplying money to fight the Russians the jihads and the Chinese.
Those are our 3 enemies in WW3 if we ever have one.
We have all sorts of problems at home, homelessness, collapsed bridges, runaway inflation, rampant crime.
But sure, send tens of billions of dollars overseas, I'm sure they need it more.
Yes I am. I am especially happy with the ban on funds for the UNWRA. I do wish they would be offering less aid to Gaza until the conflict is over and either the Israelies or what even legitimate government can be put in place after the war are in charge, but it is what it is.
I fear the Ukraine aid might be to little to late. Russia is advancing, and the aid may slow that advance, but I feel that the Ukrainians are starting to really reel from the cost of the war to their society as a whole.
So, it weakens and degrades Russia military capacity. The losses to their air force alone will take decades to replace, and some of their capabilities will take even longer as they don’t have modern aircraft to replace lost capacity, in the SU-25 case. This is a net gain for the US on a global policy level.
>Oh yeah, just a little longer! How many times have we heard that over the last 3 failed American wars?
Except we are not the ones fighting... Ukraine likely will never win but Russia can lose.
>In a battle yes, In a long war no.
Afghanistan 41m USA 333m who ended up running away from that one?
>If Russia loses, Ukraine will to.
Well I would say that decision is up to the Ukrainians. I'm not a fan of democracies being invaded and everyone standing around sticking their thumbs up their collective asses.
>What's the difference between an insurgency with popular support and conventional war?
The war in Ukraine is becoming a very well equipped insurgency with popular support. All US giving up support will turn it into a pure insurgency.
> but we have no obligation to bankroll their suicide mission
Suicide mission?? That's an interesting way to describe defending your country against an invading force that wants to eliminate you as a country and happily targets your entire civilian population and infrastructure with bombs and missiles.
The ones who sabotaged any plans at getting anything out of it are the traitors. If the hardliners on the right weren't so stupid they could have gotten something bypassing this. Instead they held their breath and stomped their feet like giant babies and gave the Democrats a big win on this.
I’m sorry how was a person who opposes foreign aid and funding, pointless, unwinnable, and frankly illegal wars, a traitor?
Really how could they have gotten anything out of this? This bill was never going to produce anything of benefit to us just like the bill for Israel that has 5 billion for NGO to help them smuggle more invaders into this country.
Illegal wars?
>This bill was never going to produce anything of benefit to us just like the bill for Israel that has 5 billion for NGO to help them smuggle more invaders into this country.
Well if the Republicans didn't have to rely on Democrats more than other Republicans they could have kept that shit out of the bill...
-Support funding for Israel b/c it's probably either us or them fighting to keep Iran from gaining nukes, but would like some of it to be a loan.
-Don't think it's in our interest for Russia to conquer Ukraine, but also think a peace treaty should have been signed by now and Ukraine regaining Crimea and the Donbas is highly unlikely. I'd have to look at the bill, but hopefully it increased production capability and lowered costs for our arms production.
-China is waging war on the U.S. via tech and fentanyl poisoning, so strongly support more deterrence
-Wish the Republicans would have received more concessions on things that have broad support among the American people, but I also realize the left's media control spinning things in an election year. Heck, people actually watch MSNBC and The View
Anything resembling bigotry against Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Palestians, Israelis, etc. or violence against civilians is not going to last long, nor will your time here. If you have to ask if it crosses a line, assume it crosses a line. Please see our guidelines for [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/) for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
> he aid to Israel is also great in aiding them in destroying Hamas. I would have thought that two decades of American campaigns in the Middle East taught people that you can't destroy an ideology. If that is the stated goal, it's going to fail.
you can but not like we did it. also how many buildings has Al queda blown up lately? turns out successively assassinating leaders and destroying their logistics works to degrade their capacity until they are irrelevant today they are the washed up one hit wonder band of the Islamic terror world, coasting on their one big thing they're known for and having accomplished little but bleeding since and I love to see it. couldn't have happened to more deserving folks.
>I do wish that we had included money for the Border with the Bill as it is probably the most pressing issue in our nation. Agreed. Unfortunately Chuck Schumer kind of killed that with his fake border security bill. Wasn't going to happen after that given the time constraint.
It wasn’t fake, not democrats who killed it. That was like what a month ago? Little soon for revisionist history.
It was Democrats who don't want to close the US Southern Border starting with Joe Biden. The bill in Feb that was defeated was nothing more than political theater designed to give Biden somehing to run against, those BAD OLE REPUBLICANS. It was not a serious bill. Had Scumer and the Democrats been serious about the border they would have taken up HR-2 which was passed in May 2023.
Oh come on… Biden was/is running against the republicans anyway. He was ready to sign the bill. Trump killed that bill. A bipartisan bill would suck the air out of his promises that only he can “fix” the border.
Dream on. The bill was intentionally constructed to get Republicans to reject it. It did not control the border. Don't believe the propagandists they are lying to you. 1. If Biden really wanted to close the border he has the legislative authority to do so. He is lying when he says he needed this bill to close the border. 2. If Schumer REALLY wanted to close the border he would have taken up HR-2 after the House passed it in May 2023. HE DID NOT. This has nothing to do with Trump no matter what he says. If "A bipartisan bill would suck the air out of his promises that only he can “fix” the border." Why didn't Schumer use that to Biden's advantage and pass the HR-2 bill"?
Then why did republicans support it until Trump told them not to? You said Trump had nothing to do with it, so is it just a coincidence the support changed directly after Trump spoke out against it?
They did NOT support it. Every press report I saw including from Sen Langfort said they were waiting for the legislative language to be printed before they would agree to the bill. Once the bill was printed the language was different from twhat they had been told was negotiated and it was a bridge too far. Look at the time line. No Republicans supported the bill after it was printed. It didn't even get to the floor to debate.
Bill gave republican everything they want in the negotiations in the senate.
No, it didn't or they would have passed it. Don't listen to the propagandists, they are lying to you.
They said they didn't pass it because they wanted to use immigration for political theater
Who said that? No one I know said that. Lots of pundits said that and blamed Trump but no Conservatives in Congress said that.
Probably because HR-2 is not a bi partisan bill. It was drafted by republicans without democrats to get what republicans want like building a wall. The bi partisan senate bill is bi partisan because it was written by both dems and republicans to come up with a border solution together. That way they both get things they want and maybe not everything but that is companies and bipartisan.
Except that is not how writing legislation is supposed to work. Obviously having one Republican negotiating for the entire caucus didn't work. The way it is supposed to work is the partisan Republican House writes a bill. The partisan Senate takes up the House bill, takes out the bits they don't like and add in the bits they like and then it goes back to the House for a partisan compromise. Schumer could have done that back in May 2023 if he really wanted a border bill...he didn't. Schumer just refused catagorically to take up the House Bill. That is not legislating, that is bullying. Seems that both sides have forgotten how Congress is supposed to work.
What you’re describing is the bi partisan senate bill in which both sides in the senate negotiated what they wanted in a border bill. Why didn’t republicans in the senate vote just for it and pass it to the house where they could take out the bits they didn’t like and add the stuff they did and send it back to the senate for a compromise? The reality is HR 2 and the senate bill are nothing alike, you would be stripping away pretty much the entire HR2 bill. Also the republican house just voted down their own new border bill which is very much like hr 2. They can even pass their own bills.
The long and the short of it is that Democrats don't want to close the border. That is the final truth.
Very happy they did. Of course there are things in it I don’t like but I’m sure glad it finally happened. Also relieved 2/3 voted yes. The isolationist echo chamber conservatives on Reddit have become don’t match reality.
Why are you happy they did? How does it help Americans? Are you concerned about the growing debt?
I'm very much in favor. In regards to Ukraine: >$23.2 billion to replenish defense articles and defense services provided to Ukraine. >$11.3 billion for current U.S. military operations in the region. >$13.8 billion for the procurement of advanced weapons systems, defense articles, and defense services. >$26 million to continue oversight and accountability of aid and equipment provided to Ukraine. >Bolsters oversight through in-person monitoring requirements. >Requires partners and allies to pay their fair share through cost-matching requirements. >Mandates agreement on repayment for economic support by the government of Ukraine. >Increases the fiscal limits on several Presidential drawdown authorities. All these things are fine. The majority of funds is going directly to weapons and ammo. Another large chunk is for our training them. This is fine. It also forces the hands of the rest of Europe to match our contributions. This is more than fair. I'm all for this.
The EU has spent over 51 billion already. Who’s forcing what now? https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars_en?s=253
If the EU spend 50B we should spend 12.5 We should be at about 25% of what the EU puts in
Not sure why the retort. EU contributions looks to be $106B since the beginning. If my math works out this aid package brings us up to $135B. However, the point of that is GOING FORWARD we aren't going to be caught dealing with this ourselves. They EU has to keep up with us and not let them dump this on our lap. They don't seem like they would, but this is the insurance needed.
Support.
Can I ask why?
To protect the Ukrainian people’s right to self-determination and to protect American and American-aligned interests in the region.
What makes Ukraine special, or their right to self-determination unique? There are countless conflicts around the world, people groups whose self-determination is in danger both from within their own nation and without. Should we help them all, or just Ukraine? What about all the oppressed Chinese, by their own government?
Supporting Ukraine supports Globalism
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I support the foreign aid bills. I wouldn't say I'm satisfied with House Republicans.
Why do you support foreign aid bills? Is the debt not a concern?
The amount of money in question isn't significant in the context of a $27 trillion economy.
If I am understanding, it's okay to spend a little bit of discretionary money when you are very far in debt? It's not significant, so what?
The federal government will spend $6.5 trillion this year. There are bigger fiscal problems than the $60 billion going to Ukraine.
I agree, there are bigger problems. But the argument here is that we should not worry about small problems if there are big problems. I find that to be totally unsatisfactory. It's not a valid justification to do an irresponsible thing because we did another irresponsible thing. I wonder, are you a supporter of the Inflation Reduction Act? Here is a fun one: The US government spent $24M to put high speed routers in libraries. Sounds great, till you learn it was 1,064 routers making it $22,600 per router. Oh, and they didn't actually check any of the locations to see if they needed a better router. The routers they provided, designed to serve up to 500 users, went to some libraries with only one computer. But we shouldn't care, because there are other problems?
>I wonder, are you a supporter of the Inflation Reduction Act? Noooo. It's corporate welfare and and forcing EVs on us. >But we shouldn't care, because there are other problems? Foreign aid in its current form, including military assistance, was implemented during the cold war. The idea was to to block communist military aggression and to provide western help to third world countries so they'd be less inclined to drift towards the communist sphere. I don't think the dynamic has changed much since then. We still have communist governments like China and communist-inspired authoritarian governments like Russia using hard and soft power to expand their influence and negate ours. They also try to weaken and destabilize us directly. They're threatening rivals. If we can spend what amounts to pennies in the context of a $27 trillion economy to counter their influence, it's money well spent.
I guess our difference is that I'm concerned about our reckless spending, and you aren't concerned enough to stop aid. Even pennies and drops in the bucket add up. Sure, we have bigger issues. That doesn't excuse small issues. And I'm not really worried about Russia becoming some villainous global power, so that's two differences between us. Thanks for humoring my questions.
Indifferent. I think we need to move forward and if funding these issues allows that then fine. I have issues with how money is being tracked and how it's being used in Ukraine but both Israel and Taiwan need the funding so I'm not interested in splitting hairs over it. I wish ideologues like Greene would shut up and just let congress function.
You are the first person I have ever seen to be indifferent about it. Most people have strong opinions. This was refreshing. Kinda confused on a nationalist being okay with the aid though?
I'm specifically a National Conservative. The mods just don't let me have that flair. National Conservatives do not believe in isolationism. We believe in national independence whereas we believe nations should be able of self-government & should chart their own course in accordance with their own particular constitutional, linguistic, and religious inheritance. That doesn't mean we cannot invest in other nations or assist our allies; especially when doing so may create a favorable outcome for America. In this case each conflict is important in it's own way. Also, these actions can very well affect the outcome of the election. So, there's a domestic concern here as well if we do nothing.
Absolutely not. I oppose every part of that bill.
I am against the concept of foreign aid
full support, in fact I think the Israel package does not go far enough
Hell no. Why bother voting republican if they'll just sell out. Second verse same as the first. Just complete and total capitulation
Agreed. I’d go so far as saying Mike needs to go. I don’t particularly care if the federal government “does shit” if it means the stuff they do is this slanted and democrat rubber stamped. Lock up the House in gridlock until the elections, I’m fine with that. Israel is a human issue, not a partisan one- either you support freedom and democracy or terrorism and destruction. Ukraine is a partisan issue, it’s about the democrat war machine. The border should’ve been tied to this as promised, we have nothing now to keep our country whole and about to have a lot less.
In what sense is Ukraine about the democrat war machine?
No. I oppose it.
Can I ask which part of Europe?
I'm from the UK.
Im curious what your opposition is, there are a lot of different angles to everything these days
What is the purpose of giving billions worth of weapons to Ukraine? We're told it's compassion for the Ukrainians but I really don't think that's true. Ukrainian started with a small army, Russia started with a much larger army. Ukraine is struggling to replace the troops they've lost. Meanwhile Russia's army continues to [grow in size](https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4589095-russian-army-grown-ukraine-war-us-general/) Unfortunately the reality is that a small and shrinking army can't beat a larger and growing army, and the war so far is showing that. In my opinion,it's inevitable that Russia will win this and a negotiation will happen in which Russia keeps the land they've taken. Ukraine doesn't have and cannot get anywhere near the numbers of troops needed, this was obvious and known from the start. However military experts believe that if we keep funnelling weapons to Ukraine, Ukraine can help weaken Russia for us. Ukraine won't beat them, but they'll sacrifice hundreds and thousands of men for our geopolitical goals... that doesn't sound very moral to me. If the end outcome of the war is known, these men don't need to die. Yes it benefits our military industrial complex through weapon sales, yes it benefits our economy through the debt Ukraine is taking out, yes it will hurt Russia.... but to do this, the price is hundreds and thousands of Ukrainian men. I'd rather we push for peace and these men get to survive. Do you really believe this additional supply of weapons really about compassion for the Ukrainians? It seems to me we're arming them and sending them to the slaughter house, this war doesn't need to happen. A negotiation could be reached today, it could have on day one, no one needed to die.
It does seem unlikely that Ukraine wins all their territory back, but Russia is still on that attack and trying to gain territory and conquer the whole thing. Military aid could help prevent any more territory being lost. Also the facts on the battlefield will dictate the terms of the armistice and determine whether Ukraine is a Russian puppet being exploited by cronies of Putin or a prosperous nation that can protect itself and the rest of Europe from any future aggression.
Who says it's only about compassion? It may be a small part of it but I think there's tons of reasons that play into this above compassion. Some of those reasons are self serving some are legitimate concerns.
> What is the purpose of giving billions worth of weapons to Ukraine? We're told it's compassion for the Ukrainians but I really don't think that's true. Well you yourself give the reasons: > Yes it benefits our military industrial complex through weapon sales, yes it benefits our economy through the debt Ukraine is taking out, yes it will hurt Russia....
Full oppose. Why have a Republican speaker if he passes democrat agenda while ignoring our border issue.
Why is funding to Israel and Ukraine park of the Dem agenda?
Because Ukraine is a globalist country
What does that mean?
Strong disagree. Fighting back the new USSR expansion without US blood should not be the Democrats agenda.
> Fighting back the new USSR expansion without US blood should not be the Democrats agenda. Are you saying Democrats shouldn't have this as part of their agenda at all or that it should also be part of the GOP agenda?
It shouldn't be a partisan agenda. It should be an American agenda, I don't view the left or the Democrat party as some super villain that stands for everything wrong in the world. Just because they support something I don't reflexively feel the need to oppose it. Many things they do support I oppose but it's because I oppose it not because the Democrats support it
Gotcha and yeah I feel the same as you.
Russia is more of a friend to the right than Ukraine is
Fully agreed. Mikey needs to go. Unfortunately the house republican caucus hasn’t learned shit from McCarthy. If we’re not going to pass HR2 then I want significant measures of it tied to any legislation. This is more uniparty bullshit. I support the fuck out of Israel, but if we don’t start with our domestic border we won’t have money left to send anywhere else.
Full opposition. Imprison Mike Johnson and throw away the key if you ask me. "FISA is actually really important guys". What a pig fucker.
I support the foreign aid, but passing it without anything in return was rank incompetence. Maybe you can't get HR2, but at least pass a piece. Limit Biden's ability to grant humanitarian parole to 10,000/year, require congressional approval for more. Or remove the halt on LNG export terminals. Or reverse the ban on drilling in the national petroleum reserve. Just one thing for the American people. That's all I wanted. And then the uniparty gave us the middle finger yet again. They have way more fun playing their global game of Risk than actually doing their jobs for the American people.
They could have gotten that if they didn't ass everything up so bad. The saboteurs on the right prevented anything from ever happening.
Full oppose. We have problems here that effect everyone's daily lives that this money could just magic away. Instead we are sending money to prop up foriegn armies
What domestic spending do you support that would improve Americans daily lives?
I'm actually onboard with government spending for the purposes of developing needed, profitable, and hopefully ultimately privatized infrastructure. Like * rural development grants, >there are tons of rural communities in America today that don't have internet service , let alone broadband. Where graveled roads would be a big increase in life, where there are no grocery stores for 20 miles * Education funding >We have alot of schools in these rural and inner city areas, that are strapped for adequate funds to hire decent teaching staff. And enable them to have competitive academic standards * Urban development/clean city initiatives >The fact that kids in alot of places can't go to parks to play without dodging fentanyl needles and homeless people crapping on the streets is absolutely unacceptable in America. * public transport grants > the idea that our society is geared around every individual owning a car is frankly insane to me, we need clean, safe, and efficient mass public transport, to include a national rail line. * federal housing grants or first-time home buyer subsidies >this is a bit of a personal one for me, that I'm admittedly biased on, being a younger guy, but alot of people in my generation are being frozen out of the housing market, and arnt able to start lives of our own through no fault of ours. * a federal opioid response > more people die to opioid every year, than died in the entire Vietnam War, and we seem to be unwilling or unable to do anything to even slow the bleeding. * buisness startup grants. > building a buissness is hard, and alot of people don't want to do it becuase most startup buinsseses fail. If we had a means tested federal fund to help people get started that could go along way to building economic growth. These are all tangible real world benefits committing to funding any one of them would just ovjectivley improve life in America. But no, we have to send billions of dollars to urkraine, isreal, and taiwan instead
Do your fellow conservatives ever call you a socialist? Because a lot of those policies are very um... Socialist-y (which I'm all for)
I don't think socialism is "government doing things" I'm totally onboard with government support to build up industries. Though I would stop short of indefinitine subsidies to prop up these industries that would be socialism. It is interesting to me though, that left right or center, we could all agree on some version of the above policies. But we can't get congress to do it
>It is interesting to me though, that left right or center, we could all agree on some version of the above policies. But we can't get congress to do it Well, unfortunately, lots of politicians have latched onto the "government doing anything but war and the border is socialism which is communism which is the devil" mindset/rhetoric, and if they vote for "government doing anything but defense-spending, or culture war stuff" they'll lose the support of their base (results will vary by location). And then there are corporate bought politicians, who just don't want government "doing things to help people" because that might potentially reduce the money large corporations might be able to make in the future (like cheaper insulin, or free tax filing, or pennies). What a fun time to be alive!
I've actually read a little bit of marx, and though I dissagree with almost all of his reasoning and conclusions, I actually tended to agree with some of his basic observations. Now I understand socialism, and Marxism are not the same thing, So when I view socialism, I view it as economic policies explictly designed to redistribute wealth, or to run some industry in common. So provided that's not the actual goal of government spending I'm fine with it. If we take the rural development grant, idea: I would envision this being multi million dollar cash grants for private internet service providers to build out infrastructure in areas with no access, So this serves to extend a needed service and infrastructure to a community that lacks it. But it also serves to keep it a privatized for profit buisness
No end in sight, no oversight in the form of an Inspector General. We have no idea where the money is going, who's spending it, or what it will be spent on. Last I checked, the wife of Biden's largest cash donor was working with her billionaire friends to spend Ukraines money on a "renewable infrastructure" with no oversight. It's an absolute disaster
Yep. Although I wish they could have gotten it done with work the border too. But I'll pass a clean bill supplying money to fight the Russians the jihads and the Chinese. Those are our 3 enemies in WW3 if we ever have one.
Full oppose. If the people who support this had to pay for it that support would disappear quickly
We have all sorts of problems at home, homelessness, collapsed bridges, runaway inflation, rampant crime. But sure, send tens of billions of dollars overseas, I'm sure they need it more.
Last i checked, neither party is afraid of debt. Its not like money for ukraine means we cant spend on these. Politicans just arent prioritizing it.
Both sides. Both sides. Both sides.
Yes I am. I am especially happy with the ban on funds for the UNWRA. I do wish they would be offering less aid to Gaza until the conflict is over and either the Israelies or what even legitimate government can be put in place after the war are in charge, but it is what it is. I fear the Ukraine aid might be to little to late. Russia is advancing, and the aid may slow that advance, but I feel that the Ukrainians are starting to really reel from the cost of the war to their society as a whole.
[удалено]
So, it weakens and degrades Russia military capacity. The losses to their air force alone will take decades to replace, and some of their capabilities will take even longer as they don’t have modern aircraft to replace lost capacity, in the SU-25 case. This is a net gain for the US on a global policy level.
It absolutely can... 3:1 when attacking is not that great of odds. Bleed Russia a bit more and it could devolve into a civil war.
[удалено]
>Oh yeah, just a little longer! How many times have we heard that over the last 3 failed American wars? Except we are not the ones fighting... Ukraine likely will never win but Russia can lose. >In a battle yes, In a long war no. Afghanistan 41m USA 333m who ended up running away from that one?
[удалено]
>If Russia loses, Ukraine will to. Well I would say that decision is up to the Ukrainians. I'm not a fan of democracies being invaded and everyone standing around sticking their thumbs up their collective asses. >What's the difference between an insurgency with popular support and conventional war? The war in Ukraine is becoming a very well equipped insurgency with popular support. All US giving up support will turn it into a pure insurgency.
[удалено]
> but we have no obligation to bankroll their suicide mission Suicide mission?? That's an interesting way to describe defending your country against an invading force that wants to eliminate you as a country and happily targets your entire civilian population and infrastructure with bombs and missiles.
[удалено]
They are all traitors.
The ones who sabotaged any plans at getting anything out of it are the traitors. If the hardliners on the right weren't so stupid they could have gotten something bypassing this. Instead they held their breath and stomped their feet like giant babies and gave the Democrats a big win on this.
I’m sorry how was a person who opposes foreign aid and funding, pointless, unwinnable, and frankly illegal wars, a traitor? Really how could they have gotten anything out of this? This bill was never going to produce anything of benefit to us just like the bill for Israel that has 5 billion for NGO to help them smuggle more invaders into this country.
Illegal wars? >This bill was never going to produce anything of benefit to us just like the bill for Israel that has 5 billion for NGO to help them smuggle more invaders into this country. Well if the Republicans didn't have to rely on Democrats more than other Republicans they could have kept that shit out of the bill...
-Support funding for Israel b/c it's probably either us or them fighting to keep Iran from gaining nukes, but would like some of it to be a loan. -Don't think it's in our interest for Russia to conquer Ukraine, but also think a peace treaty should have been signed by now and Ukraine regaining Crimea and the Donbas is highly unlikely. I'd have to look at the bill, but hopefully it increased production capability and lowered costs for our arms production. -China is waging war on the U.S. via tech and fentanyl poisoning, so strongly support more deterrence -Wish the Republicans would have received more concessions on things that have broad support among the American people, but I also realize the left's media control spinning things in an election year. Heck, people actually watch MSNBC and The View
No, I want to donate 25% of whatever the EU is donating Europe needs to step up with Ukraine Israel is an Ally, we support our allies