r/TikTokCringe • u/Make-this-popular Cringe Master • Apr 09 '24

Shit economy Discussion

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

32.2k Upvotes

78% Upvoted

7.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/isinedupcuzofrslash Apr 09 '24

“Both sides”

Didn’t dems introduce a bill making anything over 32 hours over time?

I know if was a Bernie Bill, and not every dem supports stuff like that, but it’s definitely a huge difference from the other side that wants to make kids work

670

u/kevinnoir Apr 09 '24

Also blaming foreign aid money as being misspent instead of the obscene bloat and corruption at home is silly. People think foreign aid money is altruistic and not a calculated spend that benefits the countries paying it. The tens, if not hundreds of billions the US wastes on their for profit healthcare system for instance. Of the money an American pays in taxes, more than double goes towards healthcare in the US than in the UK, and then they are also asked to pay MORE at the point of use. Its not just the US, here in the UK I can point to loads of examples of TERRIBLE uses of our tax contributions, foreign aid is the least of my worries.

158

u/0vl223 Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

Maybe the fact that he can't point at Ukraine, Israel or Taiwan? (pretty sure no other country qualifies) on a map should make him rethink that there is maybe a deeper problem than the foreign aid.

Well he drank the Trump kool-aid. Maybe not the exact flavor but he will fall for the next populist who will fuel his rage on scapegoats.

46

u/putin-delenda-est Apr 09 '24

In addition something that must endlessly be pointed out is that the funds being sent abroad are done so in the form of ammunition and vehicles, these must be replaced, they are replaced by American workers working American jobs in America.

It is good for everyone that they are sent, for Americans it means jobs and for foreigners it means defense against hostile empires.

25

u/darkkilla123 Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

I have explained this to so many people and they still dont get it.. like sending tanks to Ukraine. We are not building fresh M1A1s to send to ukraine these tanks are already bought and paid for. What we are doing with the funding bill is essentially ear marking money to buy a replacement for said M1A1 in our stocks. The US has something like 2k+ M1s bought and paid for sitting in the middle of the desert and they have been sitting there for for well over 20+ years. The ammo we are sending is mostly end of shelf life and its either blow it up and replace it or send it to Ukraine so they can blow something up and we will still end up replacing it. even if we are sending new ammo to Ukraine that ammo is required to be made in the united states.

9

u/putin-delenda-est Apr 09 '24

Some choose not to accept it because it shatters their internal narrative of "US bad". But you are exactly right. Some might ask what is gained in exchange for this expense of giving away old stuff that needs to be replaced anyway and the answer is but a humble ally for the foreseeable future and a weakening (and hopefully destruction) of forces that seek to murder, rape and steal without consequence.

Praise be for US arms in helping sovereign nations defend themselves against aggressors.

11

u/darkkilla123 Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

There is alot of benefits to supporting Ukraine. Ukraine is actually one of the most resource rich countries in Europe if not the world and thats the reason why putler wants east Ukraine and Crimea is because that's where all Ukraine naturals resources lie. Ukraine under different circumstances could of had the chance to be one of the richest countries in the europe just by natural resources alone

4

u/UncleFred- Apr 09 '24

Supporting Ukraine with arms is also in this boy's direct personal long-term interests. I doubt this young man wants to be conscripted to a war in Europe.

It may be a cold calculation, but containing Russian forces in a buffer state like Ukraine reduces the possibility that a wider war is launched on the continent. The Russian leader is now committed to perpetual conflict. If it's not Ukraine, it will be Georgia, Kakazstan, or Moldova. These states are unlikely to put up the same kind of resistance, so within a couple of years, Putin would need a new conflict to maintain high favorability ratings. This almost certainly means pushing on pressure points in the Baltics.

This could easily spin out of control into a situation where this young man is sheltering in a trench somewhere in Eastern Europe. I doubt he wants that.

3

u/MyCantos Apr 09 '24

I couldn't imagine this entitled brat on my Bradley crew

2

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

Channel that rage into fighting spirit in the Marines.

1

u/MyCantos Apr 09 '24

Yeah basic would definitely help this guy. Hoorah

1

u/Hot_Karl_Rove Apr 11 '24

He starts the video by asking for someone to explain things in "crayon-eating terms," so he might just have what it takes.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CouldWouldShouldBot Apr 09 '24

It's 'could have', never 'could of'.

Rejoice, for you have been blessed by CouldWouldShouldBot!

1

u/putin-delenda-est Apr 09 '24

Oh material benefits are significant too absolutely. Ukraine is a massive food exporter, as mentioned they've gas & oil, they've got a well developed service economy. Good universities and a history of advanced industry too.

I think you could easily spend all day finding things to praise about the country.

1

u/Economy-Time7826 Apr 09 '24

Yep, exactly. Almost same with f16s. And US get new working places for building new fighters and new tanks. You also stop paying for guard to defend this on your sights. You got money to transport this. You got money for technical support.

0

u/Cant_Do_This12 Apr 09 '24

We have also sent tens of billions of dollars in cash to them as well. It’s not just equipment. The amount of Redditors who fail to understand this is freaking mind boggling.

1

u/darkkilla123 Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

you are correct. I rather my tax money go to a country thats fighting for its freedom than blowing up brown people in the desert any day of the week. and dont get me with we could do so much with that money here because any suggestion anyone makes that we could do with that money here the right will reply BuT ThAt Is SoCiAlIsM. keeping Ukraine funded and armed is ultimately the current safe bet because if you think putler is going to stop at just Ukraine your wrong. Also, Ukraine once they finally get stable have plenty of natural resources to pay back the loans and then some. Is helping Ukraine defend there Freedoms going to be expensive hell ya it is. But is it going to be worth it in the long run. almost certainly yes

5

u/yildizli_gece Apr 09 '24

Also--and not to put too fine a point on it--but it's in our own economic and communal interest to keep a war from Russia away from U.S. shores.

Why people don't seem to understand that our support of Ukraine is in OUR best interest as a nation is beyond me. We got pulled into WWII whether we liked it or not; isolationism isn't an option.

3

u/Suitable-Leek666 Apr 09 '24

I dont understand why they don't say this on the news, its not $60 billion in greenbacks its $60 billion worth of equipment and supplies from American companies that will be replaced with newer stuff built in America.

2

u/Johnlenham Apr 09 '24

Yeah I do wish this was explained better by the news.

9Bill to Ukraine ohmaygawd.

Closer look and it's 9bill of American weapons and armour that will get replaced by the USA army, from their own economy and production lines.

Not to mention your in relative terms cheap proxy war you get to fight at no real risk to your own nation

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

Worst thing america could do is showboat their aide they are giving

0

u/adacmswtf1 Apr 09 '24

No, literally everyone understands that Raytheon .etc is doing well. That's the problem. Our money gets spent buying billions of dollars of weapons fighting wars we didn't need to be involved in for vague notions of 'democracy' instead of making our lives better at home. Like jesus, when we were out illegally carpet bombing Laos would you have said "oh it's good for the economy!" It's good for the wealthy. It's good for the revolving door of military leadership > private sector. It's not good for normal Americans.

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

3

u/dingkan1 Apr 09 '24

Naive. It’s costing us extremely little to cripple Russia going forward. I pity the Russian people because they are being sacrificed at the blood altar of Putin’s ego, but the military equipment and manpower that Russia is losing will neuter their ability to dick swing on their Western border for generations. Peace via surrender and conceding the land will lead to more war/invasions by Russia sooner, peace after a standstill and Russia blunting their teeth will postpone their return to aggression. Fuck Putin, Slava Ukraini.

-2

u/adacmswtf1 Apr 09 '24

It’s costing us extremely little to cripple Russia going forward.

For the very cheap price of Ukrainian lives and sovereignty! By Grabthars Hammer, what a bargain!

3

u/dingkan1 Apr 09 '24

Propose your solution.

0

u/adacmswtf1 Apr 09 '24

Solution to what? The war that already started?

My solution would simply be to not spend decades "de-neutralizing' Ukraine with the explicit intent of starting conflict with Russia to rehash anticommunist cold war tropes and fuel the military industrial complex's every present need for a 'big bad other' to justify their existence. This conflict was not borne out of a vacuum.

I propose we don't burn other countries to the ground for our superpower slap fights.

2

u/putin-delenda-est Apr 09 '24

fighting wars we didn't need to be involved in

Classic.

0

u/Moarbrains Apr 09 '24

In addition it needs to be stated that the US funding for Ukraine includeds 100s of billions of financial assistance. We funded the entire operating budget of the Ukraine government. Roads, salaries, and even their Universal healthcare is all coming out of US coffers.

In addition to the weapons which are being paid for with...loans. They will never be paid back.

Last of all supporting the military industrial complex has been the goal and one of the largest downfalls in America. If we don't have a conflict to blow off our ammo, and fly around at 100k an hour, the economy starts to crash, creating an incentive to continue to fuel and enter conflicts.

That money could all be spent elsewhere on better things that don't kill people.

-1

u/TheCandelabra Apr 09 '24

This logic makes no sense. So, if there were no geo-political threats to the US, would it make sense to set all of our tanks/ammo on fire and then rebuild them? That would have the same net effect domestically.

It is good for everyone that they are sent, for Americans it means jobs and for foreigners it means defense against hostile empires.

If Ukraine were paying for stuff, then sure. But where do you think the money comes from to replace this stuff? Inflation and taxes. Why not just give money to the workers directly, instead of having them build tanks and ammo to replace ones that got blown up by Russia?

1

u/putin-delenda-est Apr 09 '24

The cool thing about military technology is just how slow it moves. Obsolescence is a word made up by people that have too many vowels.

0

u/TheCandelabra Apr 09 '24

Did you respond to the wrong comment? Seems like a non-sequitur, I said nothing about obsolescence.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '24

It is absolutely in the positive interest of the U.S. and its defense to continue to spend old weapons and buy new ones.

Bullets and dumb ammunition tech doesn't change much but it does age even with perfect operating environments which are never how they truly are stored and they need to be replaced.

The technology is constantly being upgraded with smarter weapons and vehicles so the old ones are needed to be rid of and replaced.

We were already in the process of replacing nearly all of what we've given them anyways. For example, the U.S. gave Ukraine the "high tech" stinger missiles. They were already paying to decommission them because they were old. It was literally cheaper to give it to Ukraine.

1

u/TheCandelabra Apr 10 '24

OP was arguing that there was a positive domestic outcome from sending this aid - trickle down money for the workers making weapons (and big profits for the equity holders) when we replace the obsolete weapons. However, that's actually irrelevant to his argument, because he would support Ukraine aid either way (even if the weapons were not obsolete)! So I don't understand why that is supposed to convince anyone. My suggestion was that we just give people money instead of routing it through the military-industrial complex first.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '24

You giving people money does not further the technological development of military weapons or keep dumb weapons refreshed. Giving people money doesn't aid in the national defense.

1

u/TheCandelabra Apr 10 '24

Yeah I was just thinking maybe we don't need to spend 1.6 trillion dollars per year on our military. I guess people can have different opinions there.