Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Senate Passes $40 Billion in Aid to Ukraine During 40-Year-High Inflation


el midgetron
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Senate on Thursday passed legislation to give $40 billion to Ukraine in economic and military aid, while Americans suffer from food shortages and inflation.

The Senate voted on H.R. 7691, the Ukraine Supplemental Aid Package, which passed 86-11. The vote featured strong Republican and Democrat support for the bill; however, some populist Senate Republicans opposed the legislation, believing that America should focus its efforts on domestic crises such as 40-year-high inflation and baby formula shortages…..

….Breitbart News defense reporter Kristina Wong broke down the spending for the Ukraine aid package, which includes $20 billion for the Department of Defense:

— $17 billion for U.S. military operations, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, and to replace U.S. military equipment sent to Ukraine;
— $1.8 billion in U.S. military equipment for Ukraine;
— $414 million for “research, development, test and evaluation” related to the Ukraine war;
— $15 million for U.S. troop pay related to the war; and
— $13.9 million for the Defense Health Program.

Roughly $20 billion was for Ukraine, the State Department, international organizations, and other agencies, including:

— $8.77 billion in economic assistance for Ukraine;
— $4.35 billion in humanitarian aid for Ukraine;
— $4 billion for foreign military financing program (run by the State Department);
— $900 million for the Administration for Children and Families for refugee and entrant assistance;
— $500 million for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development;
— $400 million for international narcotics control and law enforcement to combat human trafficking and collect evidence of war crimes;
— $350 million for the State Department’s Migration and Refugee Assistance;
— $190 million for the State Department for “Diplomatic Programs”;
— $150 million for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program;
— $110 million for the State Department for embassy security, construction, and maintenance;
— $100 million for the State Department for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, de-mining and related programs;
— $67 million for the Justice Department;
— $54 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to carry out public health and disease detection related to Ukraine;
— $17 million for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID);
— $10 million for the State Department’s “Capital Investment Fund”;
— $4 million for the State Department’s Office of Inspector General;
— $2 million for “salaries and expenses” to provide regulatory and technical support; and
— $1 million for USAID’s Office of Inspector General.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/19/senate-passes-40-billion-aid-ukraine-40-year-high-inflation/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another example of how our own Politicians are giving us the middle finger once again while taking care of someone else’s problem.  It’s a disgrace that they’re never this quick to help their own constituents in various ways, ie. healthcare, infrastructure, jobs, etc. 

cormac

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ukrainians are fighting this war for Europe and the West, to prevent further Russian territorial gains.

Give Ukraine all the resources they need, and the expansion will (hopefully) be contained.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

Just another example of how our own Politicians are giving us the middle finger once again while taking care of someone else’s problem.  It’s a disgrace that they’re never this quick to help their own constituents in various ways, ie. healthcare, infrastructure, jobs, etc. 

cormac

But we gotta stop the Evil Dictator at the other end of the world from taking more lands!

Never mind if people here are sleeping on the streets and can't even afford gas or groceries.

Edited by Occult1
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Is this thread the conservative version of asking Elon Musk to spend 40 billion to "solve" world hunger lol

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a more serious note, foreign aide has always been a contraversal topics in the US. Since we do alot of it.

I am fine with it for a couple reasons. For the most part it is ultimately an investment. We benefit from living in a world with a weak Putin and I would like to keep it that way.

Also, as we have seen with the vast amounts of money the government has spent the last couple years. It's really a drop in the bucket.  Spending money on Ukraine is not stopping the government from spending money on whatever other issues people want it spent on. Politics are doing that 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Just another example of how our own Politicians are giving us the middle finger once again while taking care of someone else’s problem.  It’s a disgrace that they’re never this quick to help their own constituents in various ways, ie. healthcare, infrastructure, jobs, etc. 

cormac

It would never pass because it would be labeled "socialism".   Giving guns and ammo to a foreign country is something both liberals and conservatives can get behind regardless of the price tag.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Occult1 said:

Never mind if people here are sleeping on the streets and can't even afford gas or groceries.

Indeed, that is the way of it.  Certainly you don't want the government giving out gas and food money to homeless people.  Every Republican in Congress would blow a gasket if we use tax dollars to coddle drug addicts.

Helping Ukraine on the other hand is good for business.   Helping business is America First.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Occult1 said:

Never mind if people here are sleeping on the streets and can't even afford gas or groceries.

Yeah, Russia has always had it tough, even before the current sanctions.

I feel bad for ya.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I am fine with it for a couple reasons. For the most part it is ultimately an investment. We benefit from living in a world with a weak Putin and I would like to keep it that way.

I disagree. An isolated, outcast Russia is actually more dangerous and unpredictable than one that is well-integrated into the international community. They have the most powerful nuclear arsenal on the planet, and nothing will take that away from them. A ''severely weakened'' Russia can still wipe countries off the face of the earth. A North Korea 10X more powerful wouldn't be a good investment, in my view. All the contrary.

Edited by Occult1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

IMO any amount we have to throw at this war and stop Russia is worth it.  If Russia accomplishes this takeover and then relations are over time normalized, which they would be, then China will take that as a green light to take Taiwan.  That would probably be the beginning of a long list of territorial takeovers by many other countries.  For the sake of the world that cannot be allowed.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Just another example of how our own Politicians are giving us the middle finger once again while taking care of someone else’s problem.  It’s a disgrace that they’re never this quick to help their own constituents in various ways, ie. healthcare, infrastructure, jobs, etc. 

cormac

The money goes directly to American arms manufacturers.  This is actually good for the economy in a sick way.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

IMO any amount we have to throw at this war and stop Russia is worth it.  If Russia accomplishes this takeover and then relations are over time normalized, which they would be, then China will take that as a green light to take Taiwan.  For the sake of the world that cannot be allowed.

Then it’s just as likely IMO that Russia will see that as justification to do it again, possibly to someone else. At what point is enough really enough? 
 

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, cormac mac airt said:

Then it’s just as likely IMO that Russia will see that as justification to do it again, possibly to someone else. At what point is enough really enough? 
 

cormac

It's not Russia so much as it's their leader I think.  And after this failure his time will be short.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

It's not Russia so much as it's their leader I think.  And after this failure his time will be short.

Just in time for the next dictator to rise to power, after all even human nature abhors a vacuum. 
 

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

I disagree. An isolated, outcast Russia is actually more dangerous and unpredictable than one that is well-integrated into the international community. They have the most powerful nuclear arsenal on the planet, and nothing will take that away from them. A ''severely weakened'' Russia can still wipe countries off the face of the earth. A North Korea 10X more powerful wouldn't be a good investment, in my view. All the contrary.

Do they really? 
 

7D76B9C7-CF24-48B9-96BD-B4D504E8E7A3.thumb.jpeg.db8b3b60505b2e137b1c7bc0b0ffecf3.jpeg

https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/

As of this year the US has more deployed nukes and even if we never used them Putin using his available arsenal would effectively screw ****e up for everyone, INCLUDING RUSSIA. What’s the point of winning if he destroys his own country. And that doesn’t even take into account any retaliatory strikes towards Russia by Europe. There’s a reason it’s called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

cormac

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

IMO any amount we have to throw at this war and stop Russia is worth it.  If Russia accomplishes this takeover and then relations are over time normalized, which they would be, then China will take that as a green light to take Taiwan.  That would probably be the beginning of a long list of territorial takeovers by many other countries.  For the sake of the world that cannot be allowed.

Unless it’s NATO?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Do they really? 
 

7D76B9C7-CF24-48B9-96BD-B4D504E8E7A3.thumb.jpeg.db8b3b60505b2e137b1c7bc0b0ffecf3.jpeg

https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/

As of this year the US has more deployed nukes and even if we never used them Putin using his available arsenal would effectively screw ****e up for everyone, INCLUDING RUSSIA. What’s the point of winning if he destroys his own country. And that doesn’t even take into account any retaliatory strikes towards Russia by Europe. There’s a reason it’s called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

cormac

Does it matter? Does one country have supremacy if they can destroy all life on the planet 10 times over, when the other country can only kill all life on the planet 7 times over.?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

Does it matter? Does one country have supremacy if they can destroy all life on the planet 10 times over, when the other country can only kill all life on the planet 7 times over.?

In the long run it doesn’t matter as dead is dead. In the short term though he’s using everyone’s fears and paranoia concerning the use of nukes to prevent them from taking any meaningful physical action against him, AND ITS WORKING. He’s playing the bully and everyone else might as well be playing the victim for all the difference they’re making. The best way to handle a bully is to stand up to him IMO but apparently NATO doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to do so.  If that’s really the case then why do they even exist as an organization? 
 

cormac

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

Do they really? 
 

7D76B9C7-CF24-48B9-96BD-B4D504E8E7A3.thumb.jpeg.db8b3b60505b2e137b1c7bc0b0ffecf3.jpeg

https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/

As of this year the US has more deployed nukes and even if we never used them Putin using his available arsenal would effectively screw ****e up for everyone, INCLUDING RUSSIA. What’s the point of winning if he destroys his own country. And that doesn’t even take into account any retaliatory strikes towards Russia by Europe. There’s a reason it’s called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

cormac

They still have the largest nuclear arsenal. Those 1.500+  warheads are deployed on strategic long-range systems and they have almost 3.000 more in reserve. Russia has invested in a variety of ways over the years to employ those warheads, including land-based ballistic missiles that could reach the U.S., submarines-based missiles and bombs and missiles that could be deployed from aircraft. Do we really want them to become a far more threatening 'North Korea'?

Edited by Occult1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

They still have the largest nuclear arsenal. Those 1.500+  warheads are deployed on strategic long-range systems and they have almost 3.000 more in reserve. Russia has invested in a variety of ways over the years to employ those warheads, including land-based ballistic missiles that could reach the U.S., submarines-based missiles and bombs and missiles that could be deployed from aircraft. Do we really want them to become a far more threatening 'North Korea'?

I’ll tell you the same thing my Grandfather, who served in WWII in what eventually became designated as Patton's 3rd Army, 2nd Armored Division, 41st Armored Infantry Battalion, Company C. said to me once before I joined the military. “Son, do you know what half of nothing is? Not a damn thing”. Which was his way of saying if everyone loses it doesn’t matter who started out with more. 
 

cormac

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Just another example of how our own Politicians are giving us the middle finger once again while taking care of someone else’s problem.  It’s a disgrace that they’re never this quick to help their own constituents in various ways, ie. healthcare, infrastructure, jobs, etc. 

cormac

Yeah whenever we try doing that conservatives call us communists. Helping the poor? Protecting the weak? Giving people healthcare? That sounds VERY unprofitable and our masters in corporate america we rely on to keep us in power despite the fact that 70 percent of the country straight up hates us wouldn't like it! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Occult1 said:

But we gotta stop the Evil Dictator at the other end of the world from taking more lands!

Never mind if people here are sleeping on the streets and can't even afford gas or groceries.

"Are you going to let us do anything about the people sleeping on the streets and being broke?" "NO THAT'S COMMUNISM, REEEEEEEEEEE!!!1"

Ya'll don't get to whine about the problem but refuse to let us do anything to fix it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, we've done plenty of terrible interventions over the decades since WWII. That time we overthrew a democratically elected government for a fruit company, Iran, both gulf wars, Afghanistan, Vietnam. But this is a no brainer, it's an invading army ruled by a man with delusions of Tsardom. I say it's a sound investment to protect the weak from his wickedness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Look, we've done plenty of terrible interventions over the decades since WWII. That time we overthrew a democratically elected government for a fruit company, Iran, both gulf wars, Afghanistan, Vietnam. But this is a no brainer, it's an invading army ruled by a man with delusions of Tsardom. I say it's a sound investment to protect the weak from his wickedness. 

That’s just it, “we” meaning the US aren’t protecting anyone, in this case we’re playing ‘banker’ and ‘arms dealer’ to Ukraine so we don’t have to actually get our hands dirty. If we really cared about democracy and democratically elected governments we’d be taking a more active role in pushing Russia out of Ukrainian territory, and considering its really more a Eurasian problem Europe should be taking the lead in doing so IMO. 
 

cormac

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.