this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
278 points (97.3% liked)

politics

18870 readers
4799 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Their idea was to tie approval of military assistance to Ukraine to tough border security demands that Democrats would never accept, allowing Republicans to block the money for Kyiv that many of them oppose while simultaneously enabling them to pound Democrats for refusing to halt a surge of migrants at the border. It was to be a win-win headed into November’s elections.

But Democrats tripped them up by offering substantial — almost unheard-of — concessions on immigration policy without insisting on much in return. Now it is Republicans who are rapidly abandoning a compromise that gave them much of what they wanted, leaving aid to Ukraine in deep jeopardy, border policy in turmoil and Congress again flailing as multiple crises at home and abroad go without attention because of a legislative stalemate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I agree that Trump and the Republicans have created a meaningful risk of non-support.

The absolutely huge military spending by the US can make it worthwhile even in light of that risk:

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Considering the massive spend in the US for the generally inferior healthcare, starting to wonder if spending is even a good metric for military.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's a decent one; the US has the ability to project force globally in a way that other countries don't right now.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

the US can't now though because half congress are spineless lickspittles hoping to get some green piss trickledown from russian and US oligarchs.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

In the event of a Russian attack on NATO, the President already has authority to get US troops involved. Having an actual fight like that tends to create a rally-round-the-flag effect which would make it a lot harder for Republicans to start saying 'no'.

This would also escalate to nuclear before Congress could really change their mind, which is an incredible deterrent for Russia.

[–] pearable@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago

I agree spending is not a great indicator. Price of labor is a major cost associated with creating military hardware. China can spend a lot less on their military and get more due to lower labor costs. Percentage of GDP spent on Military might be a better indication? Military personnel, bases, and aircraft carriers are a better metric. Last I heard the US was far ahead of everyone else on the last two cases though.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The two have some links, as well. The full cost of the Vietnam war hit a few decades after the US pulled out. All those veterans started to use their benefits, and a big one is the VA hospital system.

The vets from the first stages of the War on Terror are starting to hit that right about now.

In fact, I believe that to get to the $801B number in the graph above, you have to include vet benefits. Though it'd be a huge chunk of that pie regardless.

[–] HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

One can only hope. Thank you for siding with us anyway