The Biden administration on Monday sent Congress an urgent warning about the need to approve tens of billions of dollars in military and economic assistance to Ukraine, saying Kyiv’s war effort to defend itself from Russia’s invasion may grind to a halt without it.

In a letter to House and Senate leaders and also released publicly, Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young warned the U.S. will run out of funding to send weapons and assistance to Ukraine by the end of the year, saying that would “kneecap” Ukraine on the battlefield.

She added that the U.S. already has run out of money that it has used to prop up Ukraine’s economy, and “if Ukraine’s economy collapses, they will not be able to keep fighting, full stop.”

  • Lemonstealingwhore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    They could stop funding Ukraine and have Ukraine somehow pay back everything today and none of those issues would be fixed. Road maintenance and local crime are state/county responsibilities so they’re not impacted by the Ukraine war or funding at all. Your job wages, unless tied to the defense industry, aren’t going to be tied to this war at all and if they were, you most likely wouldn’t be complaining about your expenses. Another side of the expenses argument would be inflation, but that’s not impacted by the Ukraine war either.

    • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      You didn’t get my point in that post. I have issues in my life and around my city that I’m concerned with. I listed some of those issues in the previous post. Nowhere in there is Ukraine. Yet instead of addressing the issues I face or, more importantly, the average American faces the government is sending money to Ukraine. Taxpayer’s money, our money. If I could choose where my tax dollars went (federal, state, and local) none of it would go to Ukraine. A good portion of Americans would do the same.

      The user who replied to one of my comments said that throwing money at some of these issues won’t solve it. Throwing billions at some of those issues and funding well run projects will absolutely make a difference. They said that most of the problems I talk about are local and state as if federal spending cannot be diverted to the local and state. Haven’t we been complaining for years about how underpaid our educators are? Aren’t they important. The billions given to Ukraine could have been given to them and I would 100% support that.

      You also said that some of my examples, road maintenance and local crime, are state/county responsibilities. You don’t think that those topics are subject to federal funding? The feds aid in fighting crime at all levels, not just federal level. The feds give money to states and cities all the time to fund infrastructure. One of the policies that Biden ran on was IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE. Did you think he meant only federal roads and bridges?

      So yeah the money we give away in federal aid (not just Ukraine) can be used here for the benefit of the people who are taxed to generate that revenue.

      • alienanimals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        They get your point. The problem is you’re using a false choice fallacy.

        We don’t have to choose between funding Ukraine’s defense or improving infrastructure in the USA. We can do both. If you look a the US federal budget, you’ll find that the money we send to Ukraine pales in comparison to our other spending. There are lots of places we could re-allocate funds to increase infrastructure spending without letting our allies (Ukraine) be invaded and murdered by our cold war enemy (Russia). The real question is why you’d rather see these people die than look at the federal budget.

        • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          First off we do not have an alliance with Ukraine. We do not have any official defense treaty with them so they are not allies, just quasi-allies since we supply them with weapons. There is a difference because if they were allies then we’d be directly fighting Russia now. And yes we can do both, fund Ukraine and infrastructure, or we can focus on just one. How is that a false choice fallacy? A false choice fallacy is based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. I didn’t limit any options, I merely stated that I don’t like the option chosen and think another option is the better choice.

          • alienanimals@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sorry I misunderstood. I now see that you would prefer that the people of Ukraine get invaded and murdered by our cold war enemy and that we should just let it happen. You’d rather save that drop in the bucket rather than look at the entire federal budget and see how insignificant the Ukraine funding really is in the grande scheme of things. Got it.

            • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well now speaking of fallacies you reply with an Ad Hominem one. I never said anything about wanting the people of Ukraine murdered. My original post was criticizing why the US govt spends so much energy prioritizing Ukraine’s defense when we have Americans struggling here in the US.