Do you support aid for Ukraine?

[middleview]

Does it bother you that republicans say they may end our aid to Ukraine?

Kevin McCarthy Warns Of Ukraine Aid Cuts If GOP Wins
Kevin McCarthy Warns Of Ukraine Aid Cuts If GOP Wins (yahoo.com)

Do you have a problem with cuts to Social Security and Medicare?

 

[Zam-Zam]

Does it bother you that republicans say they may end our aid to Ukraine?

Kevin McCarthy Warns Of Ukraine Aid Cuts If GOP Wins
Kevin McCarthy Warns Of Ukraine Aid Cuts If GOP Wins (yahoo.com)

Do you have a problem with cuts to Social Security and Medicare?

What McCarthy said:

“I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” McCarthy said. “They just won’t do it.”


Do you favor a blank check?

Hint: Try discussing the issue rather than the person.

 

[middleview]

What McCarthy said:

“I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” McCarthy said. “They just won’t do it.”


Do you favor a blank check?

Hint: Try discussing the issue rather than the person.

Did you read the article?

“Count me against throwing more money at Ukraine without having a serious conversation about guns and butter, a serious conversation about why we’re spending it and how it’s in our national security interest,” Roy said.

.D. Vance, the Trump-endorsed nominee in Ohio, said there needs to be an end to “the money spigot to Ukraine eventually.”

“We cannot fund a long-term military conflict that I think ultimately has diminishing returns for our own country,” Vance told the ABC affiliate in Toledo last month

 

[Sickofleft]

Nope, not at all. We are not even sure where all of it is going, a question Kevin should have asked months ago.

 

[Sickofleft]

Did you read the article?

“Count me against throwing more money at Ukraine without having a serious conversation about guns and butter, a serious conversation about why we’re spending it and how it’s in our national security interest,” Roy said.

.D. Vance, the Trump-endorsed nominee in Ohio, said there needs to be an end to “the money spigot to Ukraine eventually.”

“We cannot fund a long-term military conflict that I think ultimately has diminishing returns for our own country,” Vance told the ABC affiliate in Toledo last month

All true. Someone needs to start asking real questions about all of this.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Did you read the article?

“Count me against throwing more money at Ukraine without having a serious conversation about guns and butter, a serious conversation about why we’re spending it and how it’s in our national security interest,” Roy said.

.D. Vance, the Trump-endorsed nominee in Ohio, said there needs to be an end to “the money spigot to Ukraine eventually.”

“We cannot fund a long-term military conflict that I think ultimately has diminishing returns for our own country,” Vance told the ABC affiliate in Toledo last month

Yes.

He advocated for limits.

Do you oppose limits?

 

[middleview]

Yes.

He advocated for limits.

Do you oppose limits?

Yes. Would you want to telegraph a limit on support to Putin? If you only keep the war going a bit longer the republicans will bail you out.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Yes. Would you want to telegraph a limit on support to Putin? If you only keep the war going a bit longer the republicans will bail you out.

So, you favor a blank check, without any limitations whatsoever...If that is not the case, feel free to set the record straight.

I personally disagree. Money, like any other resource, is not limitless (despite what some in government appear to believe), and it would be reckless and irresponsible to suggest otherwise. There should be, in my opinion, serious discussions on how to allocate resources, set spending limits, adjust them as necessary, and so on.

That is not to say we send zero aid to Ukraine, and nowhere in the source you linked did I find anyone suggesting that we do that.

To me, it seems sensible to have limits. To you, apparently, that is an absurdity.

So, no, I'm not outraged.

 

[middleview]

So, you favor a blank check, without any limitations whatsoever...If that is not the case, feel free to set the record straight.

I personally disagree. Money, like any other resource, is not limitless (despite what some in government appear to believe), and it would be reckless and irresponsible to suggest otherwise. There should be, in my opinion, serious discussions on how to allocate resources, set spending limits, adjust them as necessary, and so on.

That is not to say we send zero aid to Ukraine, and nowhere in the source you linked did I find anyone suggesting that we do that.

To me, it seems sensible to have limits. To you, apparently, that is an absurdity.

So, no, I'm not outraged.

I read what was said by several republicans that they are preparing for a substantial cut in aid. Ukraine doesn't have an unlimited access to US aid. We are selectively supplying them as the battlefield changes. One republican said there had to be an end to aid.

A lot of the equipment we are sending is currently in our own inventories. Some of that equipment was already scheduled to be replaced with more advanced weapons.

 

[PhilFish]

I support aid to Ukraine. Russia is just about done.

 

[middleview]

I support aid to Ukraine. Russia is just about done.

What price should we put on doing what is right?

I'm stunned at the value system in evidence by other posters on this thread.

 

[Zam-Zam]

I read what was said by several republicans that they are preparing for a substantial cut in aid. Ukraine doesn't have an unlimited access to US aid. We are selectively supplying them as the battlefield changes. One republican said there had to be an end to aid.

A lot of the equipment we are sending is currently in our own inventories. Some of that equipment was already scheduled to be replaced with more advanced weapons.

I read what you linked to in the top post

I find nothing to be outraged over.

I think putting limits in place is rational and logical...There is room for debate over what those limits might be, but the notion of having limits seems like common sense.

My two cents.

 

[Zam-Zam]

What price should we put on doing what is right?

I'm stunned at the value system in evidence by other posters on this thread.

What if step one was for you, personally, to empty your own bank account and all future earnings of your own went directly to Ukraine...At the expense of feeding your own family?

Would that be a price you would be eager to pay? The cost of doing what is right, after all.

 

[PhilFish]

What price should we put on doing what is right?

I'm stunned at the value system in evidence by other posters on this thread.

Some positions seem to run counter to the reality that we're all experiencing. Mainly that this conflict has a global reach by way of its effect on the transit of fuel, food and other goods. The sooner Russia can be expelled, the sooner export, of at least goods based out of Ukraine, can be returned to normal functioning and Transit

 

[PhilFish]

What if step one was for you, personally, to empty your own bank account and all future earnings of your own went directly to Ukraine...At the expense of feeding your own family?

Would that be a price you would be eager to pay? The cost of doing what is right, after all.

Which isn't really analogous to what we're doing, is it?

 

[middleview]

What if step one was for you, personally, to empty your own bank account and all future earnings of your own went directly to Ukraine...At the expense of feeding your own family?

Would that be a price you would be eager to pay? The cost of doing what is right, after all.

What if step one was for you to admit nobody is about to commit all current federal assets and future tax revenue to Ukraine?

I get to have an opinion on the support our country gives to the victim of the brutal invasion by Russia. You know why? Because I pay a large chunk of money in taxes.

Meanwhile, I have donated my own money to Ukraine.

 

[middleview]

Which isn't really analogous to what we're doing, is it?

Should we suggest that for Israel as well? If you want to support them, send a check. Otherwise, they are on their own.

 

[PhilFish]

Should we suggest that for Israel as well? If you want to support them, send a check. Otherwise, they are on their own.

I don't know let's think on that. Right now Israel is contemplating a decision on whether or not to join in the sending of at ukraine. So let's not give anybody any ideas until that's decided

 

[PhilFish]

Should we suggest that for Israel as well? If you want to support them, send a check. Otherwise, they are on their own.

But then again, maybe we're onto something here. Maybe we ought to stop heaping money on all the fat asses that are sitting around doing nothing that are able-bodied. Shake all them hillbillies and podunks out of their lethargy and send them to work. After all the United States taxpayer doesn't have time to be paying all these freeloaders and stuff..

Too much?

 

[Zam-Zam]

What if step one was for you to admit nobody is about to commit all current federal assets and future tax revenue to Ukraine?

I get to have an opinion on the support our country gives to the victim of the brutal invasion by Russia. You know why? Because I pay a large chunk of money in taxes.

Meanwhile, I have donated my own money to Ukraine.

I freely admit that.

That is setting a limit.

I thought you were against that, no?