No such thing. Ask away!
-
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
-
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
-
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Moderators
Governments need to do things, sometimes expensive things, so generally all the debt capacity and revenue (i.e. taxes) goes into a big bucket and we spend out of that. So the real answer for you is "some vague combination of debt and revenue" that is, admittedly, an extremely unsatisfying answer, but it's accurate.
If you're curious what our debt capacity is... well, there's no answer to that. So long as we're spending money in a way that we'll get a return over interest (in this case, funding Ukraine can be measured against fighting Russia ourselves but it's vague and hard to quantify) then debt is totally fine... when we start diverting a large portion of our revenue and debt to issue kickbacks (outlandish military contractors, unproductive tax cuts, political favor currying) that's when we get into trouble.
IMO, and this is highly subjective, our expenditures to defend Ukraine are pretty clear budgetary wins.
There are three ways governments obtain money.
The US government does all three. In this particular case, it's likely just borrowing money.
The biggest thing people don't understand about this is that governments don't borrow money like people do. Borrowing money today has the potential to increase tax revenue tomorrow if spent on the right things, which covers part (or all) of the cost.
The US government isn't just shipping $100 billion in cash to these countries. They're mostly paying American companies to send products or provide services to Ukraine and Israel. Those spent dollars have an economic effect inside the country, stimulating the economy.
Will that make up for the cost? Probably not, but it's also not as bad as the number sounds and it keeps certain industries well stocked and ready in case the US government needs them if a global conflict escalates to where the US needs to get directly involved.
I think you're being a bit too conservative here, especially with your finishing point about direct US involvement there is a compelling argument that 60B today would quite a steal if it avoided the cost of waging a direct war against Russia in military expenses alone. If we start considering lost productivity due to a draft and especially economic damage on US soil and *especially especially* the damage if nukes were involved... then it's hugely profitable. All that, of course, depends on the likelihood of direct conflict.
*In addition,* Ukraine is a valuable economic partner and investing in their future stability might also be a fair justification.
The TL;DR is that I don't really disagree with anything you said but I think you're under valuing how good of an RoI this grant is.
You could be right, it really depends on what you assume it's buying. I was more referring to the direct economic stimulation paying itself off.
I mean, 60B isn't an outrageous amount for just the grain. 5% of the world's grain comes from Ukraine, and Russia already has a rich history of using their resource exports to extort Western governments.
Added clarity and more money sources:
For 2, If you want to get technical it's not just bonds. The government also issues Treasury Bills and Notes.
For 4 and 5, I would classify both of those as "taxes" but they're such a small amount individually that they get grouped into a giant "Other" bucket in the general summaries the US government puts out about their revenue.
Part of the previous package was explained as....
1- send some of our old stockpiled munitions
2- pay US companies to build new ones to replenish
So it's a value, not a lump of cash.
2- is still money though, even if it remains domestic. So debt?
Would it still be pulled from the Military spend budget? (Not that it’s not debt - but if it is part of that budget it’s not exactly pulled from thin air.)
For pretty much all big spending projects it’s a bit of all of the above. Also how the money is actually spent is usually the far more interesting part.
For example, while I haven’t looked at the latest aid package for Ukraine, if it follows the same pattern as the previous ones, most the the money doesn’t actually go to Ukraine. What actually happens with most of it is that the US military is told to give Ukraine some of their old kit, the US military then uses the money from the aid package to replace what they shipped off with new kit. The money stays in the US and effectively doesn’t get spent as it winds up back in Uncle Sam’s pocket one way or another.
At the scale of governments, especially governments that control their own currency, the money isn’t what’s truly important. It’s the resources that matter. Manpower, materials and energy.
It's debt. And they don't pay it.