comment: >
  
  Most of that $40B is for equipment built in the 1990s or for the GWOT in the mid-2000’s. HIMARS, Bradley armored vehicles, ATACMs, munitions for them, etc.  
  Part of the $40B pays for the flights, board, food, etc to train Ukrainian troops on those systems in the US or Germany.  
  And part of the $40B pays for replacement, next-Gen weapons for the US.  All will be made in the USA, by Americans, mainly in rust belt and southern poor states like Arkansas, Ohio, Alabama etc.  
  Very little of the $40B goes into the Ukrainian treasury, but a few billion will, to help them make payroll for their military, make social security payments for their elderly, etc.  If the Ukraine currency fails, it will harm Ukraine’s ability to fight the war.  
  I’m fine with my 1995-2005 tax dollars that paid for defense hardware going to Ukraine to keep them free from Putin’s fascist boot.
context: They don't have the votes to block it, fortunately. >
  
  Couldn't McCarthy just not bring it up for a vote? >
  
  If he wants to go against the majority within his own party to appease people like Gaetz, sure. >
  
  The house rules they adopted allow the Russian caucus to force another vote for speaker.
  The GOP is controlled by Putin, because their majority is dependent on a minority that is controlled by him. >
  
  “The GOP is controlled by Putin”
  Jack pot. The GOP has sold our country out. >
  
  Republicans want an unstable world because it helps them argue “you need hard liners like us to save you in this uncertain time!”
  Peace is bad for their political prospects, so escalating global tensions is in their favor. >
  
  This is how our current era will end. Individual selfish politicians looking to increase their power at the expense of the system, and thinking that it couldn't possibly collapse or even worse, just not caring.
  It only takes a few idiots to cause untold suffering, and as the war in Ukraine demonstrated, in a global supply chain, everything is connected. >
  
  
  This is how our current era will end. Individual selfish politicians looking to increase their power at the expense of the system, and thinking that it couldn't possibly collapse or even worse, just not caring.
  
  This pretty much perfectly describes the downfall of the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. Constantly striving for individual power and victories by lower lords who intentionally crippled their empires ability to stop them while the empires slowly collapsed both internally and externally. >
  
  What's insane is the same story throughout human history that is it was the system that brought wealth and prosperity. So those who were already prospering destroyed the system within bringing everyone down. Like you figure humans would have learned this lesson a few thousand times over already. >
  
  I think those people realize that it doesn't matter if everyone else is poorer, as long as they themselves get richer.
  It's not that humans haven't learned the lesson so much as we haven't developed a good way to apply it. >
  
  I think it is more than that, I think there is a feeling that if other people are prosperous it somehow makes the rich less rich (even if their objective financial value hasn’t changed). >
  
  once you get rich enough, there is literally no further difference in your lifestyle to feel richer, as there is NOTHING that you cant simply buy. once the rich hit that point the only way to feel richer is to make others noticeably poorer, then they can still feel richer by comparison. its yet another unachievable form of infinite growth the rich seem to love >
  
  Money up top isn't just about living a comfortable lifestyle or having decently nice things, it's about the ability to wield influence and holding power, a social structure based on being more or less wealthy than the other guy, and not just having "nice" things but rare things. The social structure varies depending on how much money you have. Just having the money itself really isn't what matters, because everyone in your circle has that money. At that point, you need other ways to put yourself up top. Networking and power. >
  
  This was 100% what that whole standoff with the treason caucus was about >
  
  This is where you’ll see a revolt of the “moderate Republicans.” Because remember, “moderate Republican” means in the defense contractors’ pockets and I’m sure they are making a fortune off of this war. So it might be one of those rare occurrences where the morally right thing to do aligns with what “moderate Republicans” want to do and that forces McCarthy’s hand. >
  
  So far, the only thing McCarthy seems capable of doing is keeping the moderate Republicans in line with whatever the loons want. >
  
  Watch how quickly that changes if he starts pissing off the moderates big donors. >
  
  I hope you’re right. Big Republican donors seem content to let democracy go to hell as long as they have lax regulation and low taxes. >
  
  The military industrial complex is making money hand over fist in Ukraine, there's no universe where Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and their fellows allow this to happen. >
  
  I’m surprised they’ve let Fox News spew on as long as they have >
  
  The republican party favors russia.  The United States does not.  But that won't stop the republicans, nor the Russians in the US. >
  
  Russian stooges and traitors to the United States >
  
  Some republicans in the house probably cannot spell foreign policy or Ukraine.
  ^
  
  Foreign policy experts have sounded the alarm about the House GOP's fringe right potentially blocking the US from providing critical weapons like artillery and tanks that Ukraine needs to regain its territory. Indeed, sustained assistance to Ukraine looms as perhaps the biggest foreign policy battle in the new, divided Congress.
  "The success of US assistance to date and the changing battlefield situation mean that many are worried about the fragility of the US Congress following the speaker vote, where a small number of members could derail future US assistance," Sean Monaghan, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Insider in an interview.
  
  ....
  
  The GOP's shift away from Ukraine and toward Russia has been years in the making, and reached a turning point when Donald Trump ascended to the White House.
  In addition to repeatedly castigating Ukraine and amplifying Russian leader Vladimir Putin's pro-Russian conspiracy theories, Trump leveraged US aid to Ukraine while trying to strong-arm Zelenskyy into supporting his domestic political campaign, a scheme that eventually led to his first impeachment.
  Gérard Araud, a former French ambassador to the US and the United Nations, told Insider that Putin couldn't have asked for more from the US vis-a-vis Ukraine.
  
  Article continues.... >
  
  Who would've thought that the Republicans would become the anti-war party.... >
  
  Yes because fascists in this country want to support the fascist in Russia. >
  
  It turns out they're the actual globalists.  Everything they say is projection. >
  
  Democrats need to call out the Party of Putin by name. >
  
  This isn't because they are far right this is because these legislators have been paid off with Russian money. >
  
  We’re all the victims of Kevin’s pact with the extremists. >
  
  Funny thing is they don't have religion to control people anymore >
  
  This was always the objective. Remember these fascists obey DJT, and DJT obeys Putin. >
  
  I’m pretty sure there’s a direct line from Putin to the fascists without needing to go through trump. They all know who their daddy is >
  
  So we gave Ukraine a huge amount of resources right before the congressional switch.  That gives Ukraine about a year to really push Russia out, but also gives Russia a timeframe when they know the aid is going to drop significantly.  
  Not providing the aid is really going set the tone for the US this century.  We like to claim to be the leader of the free world, but if we don't put up here that's going to be a very hollow claim.  Not supporting Ukraine is going to push someone else to the forefront, and I'm not sure how that plays out. >
  
  Look, I support Ukraine, I don't want the aid to stop, but the US is supplying more military aid to Ukraine than everyone else COMBINED. Not empty pledges, I mean actual deliveries. If the rest of the west can't fill in a 1 year gap, I am not sure they are even worth our protection to begin with. >
  
  FWIW, the EU population is roughly 440m citizens.  The US population is roughly 330m citizens.  The US is 75% the size of the EU in population.  There are efficiencies of scale that allow the US to be more effective.  France, Spain, UK, etc all support duplicative military structures to defend each state, whereas the US can leave vast swaths if states UN defended because so many assets are placed at the coastlines. >
  
  Ronald Reagan became a conservative hero telling russia to “Tear down this wall”.
  Now they only vote for candidates who say “put it up again”. >
  
  Putin likes this. >
  
  POTUS has a record Defense Budget of over $800bn this year alone. If these "America First" isolationist fascist apologists block aid, Biden can just take money from the Defense Budget.
  While it would be ideal for Congress to sign off on additional aid as it's needed, the Defense Budget can be used. >
  
  The GOP is such a shit show. >
  
  Because he and the GQP insurrections are in league with Putin. >
  
  Republicans will do whatever the Russians pay them to do because they are traitors. >
  
  Well it’s the Putin party since 2014. Not surprising. >
  
  Old Marge is complaining about the conditions at the border with seemingly little awareness that this Congress led by her party could actually start doing something to deal with our immigration problem and the border.
  FFS >
  
  She is acting as Trump's messaging service to the House GOP. >
  
  GOP
  Grievance Over Pragmatism >
  
  It’s almost like history is repeating itself regarding the GOP and appeasement..
  ​
  
  The America First Committee (AFC) was the foremost United States isolationist pressure group against American entry into World War II. Launched in September 1940, it surpassed 800,000 members in 450 chapters at its peak. The AFC principally supported isolationism for its own sake, and its coalition included many Midwesterners, Republicans, conservatives, socialists, students, and leading industrialists, but it was controversial for the anti-Semitic and pro-fascist views of some of its most prominent speakers, leaders, and members. The AFC was dissolved on December 11, 1941, four days after the attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States into the war. >
  
  yep. never forget that the first group to use "america first" were fascists too. >
  
  The treason caucus. >
  
  gotta produce that work-product or daddy will release the kompromat. >
  
  Sick of these Russian stooges >
  
  I mean, they can try... It's not going to get past the Senate or White House, but they can try. The Pentagon can send whatever it wants, and can buy whatever it wants with it's budget. House Republicans are going to realize they don't control shit other than the blame when their idiocy messes everything up. >
  
  They very much do.  The House controls the actual budget, that's what got Trump in trouble when he withheld the aid to Ukraine.  They said X had to be dispersed by Y and he missed those dates. >
  
  Reading these comments. When did the left become the defenders of military spending? >
  
  Since Russia invaded Ukraine >
  
  $40 billion?