Can we offer this Ukranian solider a scholarship?

[pawz]

This guy has always been honest about things
http://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1629617236674588673?t=ENMvNku11XFfVCQ7brnlsg&s=19

Public opinion is moving away from limitless support of Ukraine. Joey knows this which is why his twitter is on fire in an attempt to rekindle support. I guess there are more appeasers around the country then just we Tug Cons.

Call for a ceasefire Joey and peace negotiations. I've heard Ukraine is kicking ass and taken back nearly all of Putin's gains so now is the time.

Appease deez nuts.

We just don’t belong in that cesspool. We didn’t belong there before Putin invaded. But it was ok because Hunter and Romney’s kids were getting filthy rich and god knows what other corrupt and evil bullshit was going on.

But but Zelensky is a Jew.

Fuck that. So was Meyer Lanskey and Bugsy Siegel.

So appeasement and isolationism. Got it.

Your words. Not mine.

Mark you down in the corruption and graft crowd? Didn't see that coming.

Then tell me the difference. Go on.

Simply crying about defense spending isn't a serious position. Let's here the geopolitical take.

And yeah, I've been talking about differentiating the graft and corruption from what makes sense. We should be emptying our expiring goods to the foodbank. There's also always pork. I'd have that convo if the peanut gallery could manage it.

"Putin has nukes! If we send mortars it's WW3! Solemani!" Seriously, some TF clones in here.

I've always been a hawk. Big swinging dick deterence and laughing while your enemies engage in a land battle in Eurasia.[/i][/b]

Massive difference between “your enemies” unilaterally deciding to get some and being the catalyst yourself. Which is the under girding poont of most here against. I’m not seeing any pacifists. I’m seeing Classical Liberals.

Russia started this war. No amount of whataboutism changes that.

If the history of the conflict started in Feb 2022 I could be persuaded by this argument. But it didn’t and I can’t.

Just can’t.

 

[WestlinnDuck]

"Russia will use nukes as an existential last resort not "tactically".[/b] That could mean anything. Like getting close to losing Crimea, now a part of Russia. Seems like an existential threat to Putin. Any other talk is a way to rattle the sabre of the US military complex. I've still not had anyone use facts to explain how this war is promoting direct US economic prosperity and border safety. The war is no threat to the US and if the Euros think it is a threat to them, then they could like step up. Team America, World Police.

Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession.

So I did. You just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your narrative.

"No one's addressing the arguments I'm making except all the people that I'm not bothering to read!" Jfc.

At least @RaceBannon and I can disagree but still not swing away like fucking crying retards.

Giving sh*t away doesn't equal economic activity. We already borrowed trillions to give away. Another $100 billion doesn't fix the inflation problem, it increases the problem. Sure, some people make out, but the overall impact of free sh*t and government borrowing is that it edges out actual free market activity that helps both sides. If I borrowed $100,000 and gave it to you and you blew it on hookers and blow like Hunter, then you get what you wanted as do the hookers and drug dealers. But I was going to use that $100,000 to start a plumbing business and sell plumbing services and supplies. That is economic growth. Blowing money on free sh*t doesn't. When Pelosi said that food stamps improved the economy, it doesn't. Borrowing money so some overweight person can buy a frozen pizza from 7-11 isn't economic growth.

You have ignored some pretty basic Econ 101 principles because my question was "inconvenient". We could have put $100 billion of private equity into the US oil and gas industry and distribution and had some real economic growth but your focusing on funding the continued stealing from Ukrainians by Ukrainian theftocrats.

"Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday." Hth.

We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS.

We sent a bunch of old expiring hardware that had already been paid for not new equipment that shows up on fiscal year 2022. How does that get invested in Oil and Gas?

Sounds like you failed accounting 101 let alone any econ.

Yeah, we didn't borrow trillions. But somehow today our national debt is now $31.5 trillion and it was $28.5 trillion on February 26, 2020. Plus we have printed close to $6 trillion in money since covid hit. And what did we do with all that money? We sent checks (free sh*t) to almost everyone. So, once again, the $100 billion we sent to the Ukraine is a drop in the bucket and wasn't the impetus for some huge economic recovery from the chicom crud. Sales of arms to countries that will actually pay us back is an economic win for the US. The key is that the Ukraine is never going to pay us back for any loans. So, it's an economic loss.

You really need to take some economics before sounding like the dementia patient and claim that Milton Friedman is no longer in charge. The point about oil and gas investment is that it is private money that is expected to be returned as loan repayments or investment earnings. The US printing money and borrowing raises the cost of private investing and thus competes for free market investment with government giveaways that are generally counter productive, like funding student loans for ethnic studies. Let's see if any of your fellow Team America World police want to jump on your illiterate take.

 

[UW_Doog_Bot]

"Russia will use nukes as an existential last resort not "tactically".[/b] That could mean anything. Like getting close to losing Crimea, now a part of Russia. Seems like an existential threat to Putin. Any other talk is a way to rattle the sabre of the US military complex. I've still not had anyone use facts to explain how this war is promoting direct US economic prosperity and border safety. The war is no threat to the US and if the Euros think it is a threat to them, then they could like step up. Team America, World Police.

Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession.

So I did. You just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your narrative.

"No one's addressing the arguments I'm making except all the people that I'm not bothering to read!" Jfc.

At least @RaceBannon and I can disagree but still not swing away like fucking crying retards.

Giving sh*t away doesn't equal economic activity. We already borrowed trillions to give away. Another $100 billion doesn't fix the inflation problem, it increases the problem. Sure, some people make out, but the overall impact of free sh*t and government borrowing is that it edges out actual free market activity that helps both sides. If I borrowed $100,000 and gave it to you and you blew it on hookers and blow like Hunter, then you get what you wanted as do the hookers and drug dealers. But I was going to use that $100,000 to start a plumbing business and sell plumbing services and supplies. That is economic growth. Blowing money on free sh*t doesn't. When Pelosi said that food stamps improved the economy, it doesn't. Borrowing money so some overweight person can buy a frozen pizza from 7-11 isn't economic growth.

You have ignored some pretty basic Econ 101 principles because my question was "inconvenient". We could have put $100 billion of private equity into the US oil and gas industry and distribution and had some real economic growth but your focusing on funding the continued stealing from Ukrainians by Ukrainian theftocrats.

"Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday." Hth.

We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS.

We sent a bunch of old expiring hardware that had already been paid for not new equipment that shows up on fiscal year 2022. How does that get invested in Oil and Gas?

Sounds like you failed accounting 101 let alone any econ.

Yeah, we didn't borrow trillions. But somehow today our national debt is now $31.5 trillion and it was $28.5 trillion on February 26, 2020. Plus we have printed close to $6 trillion in money since covid hit. And what did we do with all that money? We sent checks (free sh*t) to almost everyone. So, once again, the $100 billion we sent to the Ukraine is a drop in the bucket and wasn't the impetus for some huge economic recovery from the chicom crud. Sales of arms to countries that will actually pay us back is an economic win for the US. The key is that the Ukraine is never going to pay us back for any loans. So, it's an economic loss.

You really need to take some economics[/b] before sounding like the dementia patient and claim that Milton Friedman is no longer in charge. The point about oil and gas investment is that it is private money that is expected to be returned as loan repayments or investment earnings. The US printing money and borrowing raises the cost of private investing and thus competes for free market investment with government giveaways that are generally counter productive, like funding student loans for ethnic studies. Let's see if any of your fellow Team America World police want to jump on your illiterate take.

Lol are you fucking Gnu here?

 

[UW_Doog_Bot]

"Russia will use nukes as an existential last resort not "tactically".[/b] That could mean anything. Like getting close to losing Crimea, now a part of Russia. Seems like an existential threat to Putin. Any other talk is a way to rattle the sabre of the US military complex. I've still not had anyone use facts to explain how this war is promoting direct US economic prosperity and border safety. The war is no threat to the US and if the Euros think it is a threat to them, then they could like step up. Team America, World Police.

Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession.

So I did. You just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your narrative.

"No one's addressing the arguments I'm making except all the people that I'm not bothering to read!" Jfc.

At least @RaceBannon and I can disagree but still not swing away like fucking crying retards.

Giving sh*t away doesn't equal economic activity. We already borrowed trillions to give away. Another $100 billion doesn't fix the inflation problem, it increases the problem. Sure, some people make out, but the overall impact of free sh*t and government borrowing is that it edges out actual free market activity that helps both sides. If I borrowed $100,000 and gave it to you and you blew it on hookers and blow like Hunter, then you get what you wanted as do the hookers and drug dealers. But I was going to use that $100,000 to start a plumbing business and sell plumbing services and supplies. That is economic growth. Blowing money on free sh*t doesn't. When Pelosi said that food stamps improved the economy, it doesn't. Borrowing money so some overweight person can buy a frozen pizza from 7-11 isn't economic growth.

You have ignored some pretty basic Econ 101 principles because my question was "inconvenient". We could have put $100 billion of private equity into the US oil and gas industry and distribution and had some real economic growth but your focusing on funding the continued stealing from Ukrainians by Ukrainian theftocrats.

"Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday." Hth.

We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS.

We sent a bunch of old expiring hardware that had already been paid for not new equipment that shows up on fiscal year 2022. How does that get invested in Oil and Gas?

Sounds like you failed accounting 101 let alone any econ.

Yeah, we didn't borrow trillions. But somehow today our national debt is now $31.5 trillion and it was $28.5 trillion on February 26, 2020. Plus we have printed close to $6 trillion in money since covid hit. And what did we do with all that money? We sent checks (free sh*t) to almost everyone. So, once again, the $100 billion we sent to the Ukraine is a drop in the bucket and wasn't the impetus for some huge economic recovery from the chicom crud. Sales of arms to countries that will actually pay us back is an economic win for the US. The key is that the Ukraine is never going to pay us back for any loans. So, it's an economic loss.

You really need to take some economics before sounding like the dementia patient and claim that Milton Friedman is no longer in charge. The point about oil and gas investment is that it is private money that is expected to be returned as loan repayments or investment earnings. The US printing money and borrowing raises the cost of private investing and thus competes for free market investment with government giveaways that are generally counter productive, like funding student loans for ethnic studies. Let's see if any of your fellow Team America World police want to jump on your illiterate take.

Wildly swings about screeching about US debt to conflate the argument. Austerity! Sorry, not sorry, defense budgets might need cut but I'd argue this is the greatest $ per defense the US has gotten in decades. Maybe cut out current defense aid to the Middle East first.

You do realize that we didn't put $100B in cash on a plane and send it over right?

Most of the stuff being sent was earmarked on a budget from the time Reagan/Bush/Clinton were in office.

It's now doing what it was designed for, blowing up Russians. Even better it's being done with no American blood being spilled.

 

[WestlinnDuck]

"Russia will use nukes as an existential last resort not "tactically".[/b] That could mean anything. Like getting close to losing Crimea, now a part of Russia. Seems like an existential threat to Putin. Any other talk is a way to rattle the sabre of the US military complex. I've still not had anyone use facts to explain how this war is promoting direct US economic prosperity and border safety. The war is no threat to the US and if the Euros think it is a threat to them, then they could like step up. Team America, World Police.

Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession.

So I did. You just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your narrative.

"No one's addressing the arguments I'm making except all the people that I'm not bothering to read!" Jfc.

At least @RaceBannon and I can disagree but still not swing away like fucking crying retards.

Giving sh*t away doesn't equal economic activity. We already borrowed trillions to give away. Another $100 billion doesn't fix the inflation problem, it increases the problem. Sure, some people make out, but the overall impact of free sh*t and government borrowing is that it edges out actual free market activity that helps both sides. If I borrowed $100,000 and gave it to you and you blew it on hookers and blow like Hunter, then you get what you wanted as do the hookers and drug dealers. But I was going to use that $100,000 to start a plumbing business and sell plumbing services and supplies. That is economic growth. Blowing money on free sh*t doesn't. When Pelosi said that food stamps improved the economy, it doesn't. Borrowing money so some overweight person can buy a frozen pizza from 7-11 isn't economic growth.

You have ignored some pretty basic Econ 101 principles because my question was "inconvenient". We could have put $100 billion of private equity into the US oil and gas industry and distribution and had some real economic growth but your focusing on funding the continued stealing from Ukrainians by Ukrainian theftocrats.

"Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday." Hth.

We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS.

We sent a bunch of old expiring hardware that had already been paid for not new equipment that shows up on fiscal year 2022. How does that get invested in Oil and Gas?

Sounds like you failed accounting 101 let alone any econ.

Yeah, we didn't borrow trillions. But somehow today our national debt is now $31.5 trillion and it was $28.5 trillion on February 26, 2020. Plus we have printed close to $6 trillion in money since covid hit. And what did we do with all that money? We sent checks (free sh*t) to almost everyone. So, once again, the $100 billion we sent to the Ukraine is a drop in the bucket and wasn't the impetus for some huge economic recovery from the chicom crud. Sales of arms to countries that will actually pay us back is an economic win for the US. The key is that the Ukraine is never going to pay us back for any loans. So, it's an economic loss.

You really need to take some economics before sounding like the dementia patient and claim that Milton Friedman is no longer in charge. The point about oil and gas investment is that it is private money that is expected to be returned as loan repayments or investment earnings. The US printing money and borrowing raises the cost of private investing and thus competes for free market investment with government giveaways that are generally counter productive, like funding student loans for ethnic studies. Let's see if any of your fellow Team America World police want to jump on your illiterate take.

Wildly swings about screeching about US debt to conflate the argument. Austerity! Sorry, not sorry, defense budgets might need cut but I'd argue this is the greatest $ per defense the US has gotten in decades. Maybe cut out current defense aid to the Middle East first.

You do realize that we didn't put $100B in cash on a plane and send it over right?

Most of the stuff being sent was earmarked on a budget from the time Reagan/Bush/Clinton were in office.

It's now doing what it was designed for, blowing up Russians. Even better it's being done with no American blood being spilled.

It wasn't me that claimed that shipping arms and money to Ukraine was the reason for our limp economic recovery. "Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession."[/b] I said actual sales would benefit the economy. Give aways of anything don't help the economy.

It wasn't me that said, "We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS."
[/b]
So, we are back to the fact that we get no economic benefit for giving money and arms we will need to replace to Ukraine and we are back to blowing up Russians is Team America, World Police as virtue signaling while Ukraine is being destroyed. Sounds familiar. Rinse, lather and repeat. I'll wait for PGOS to come off the ropes and tell me again that backing the Ukraine is a good thing because it's a good thing. And then you can try again to explain how we are economically benefiting.

 

[PurpleThrobber]

..

 

[PurpleThrobber]

..

 

[PurpleThrobber]

This guy has always been honest about things
http://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1629617236674588673?t=ENMvNku11XFfVCQ7brnlsg&s=19

Public opinion is moving away from limitless support of Ukraine. Joey knows this which is why his twitter is on fire in an attempt to rekindle support. I guess there are more appeasers around the country then just we Tug Cons.

Call for a ceasefire Joey and peace negotiations. I've heard Ukraine is kicking ass and taken back nearly all of Putin's gains so now is the time.

Appease deez nuts.

We just don’t belong in that cesspool. We didn’t belong there before Putin invaded. But it was ok because Hunter and Romney’s kids were getting filthy rich and god knows what other corrupt and evil bullshit was going on.

But but Zelensky is a Jew.

Fuck that. So was Meyer Lanskey and Bugsy Siegel.

So appeasement and isolationism. Got it.

Your words. Not mine.

Mark you down in the corruption and graft crowd? Didn't see that coming.

Then tell me the difference. Go on.

Simply crying about defense spending isn't a serious position. Let's here the geopolitical take.

And yeah, I've been talking about differentiating the graft and corruption from what makes sense. We should be emptying our expiring goods to the foodbank. There's also always pork. I'd have that convo if the peanut gallery could manage it.

"Putin has nukes! If we send mortars it's WW3! Solemani!" Seriously, some TF clones in here.

I've always been a hawk. Big swinging dick deterence and laughing while your enemies engage in a land battle in Eurasia.

https://twitter.com/libertylockpod/status/1629590461798129668

This is the Throbbers position on any intervention in foreign affairs.

And, no, not willing to die for Ukraine. Not even close.

 

[Sledog]

"Russia will use nukes as an existential last resort not "tactically".[/b] That could mean anything. Like getting close to losing Crimea, now a part of Russia. Seems like an existential threat to Putin. Any other talk is a way to rattle the sabre of the US military complex. I've still not had anyone use facts to explain how this war is promoting direct US economic prosperity and border safety. The war is no threat to the US and if the Euros think it is a threat to them, then they could like step up. Team America, World Police.

Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession.

So I did. You just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your narrative.

"No one's addressing the arguments I'm making except all the people that I'm not bothering to read!" Jfc.

At least @RaceBannon and I can disagree but still not swing away like fucking crying retards.

Giving sh*t away doesn't equal economic activity. We already borrowed trillions to give away. Another $100 billion doesn't fix the inflation problem, it increases the problem. Sure, some people make out, but the overall impact of free sh*t and government borrowing is that it edges out actual free market activity that helps both sides. If I borrowed $100,000 and gave it to you and you blew it on hookers and blow like Hunter, then you get what you wanted as do the hookers and drug dealers. But I was going to use that $100,000 to start a plumbing business and sell plumbing services and supplies. That is economic growth. Blowing money on free sh*t doesn't. When Pelosi said that food stamps improved the economy, it doesn't. Borrowing money so some overweight person can buy a frozen pizza from 7-11 isn't economic growth.

You have ignored some pretty basic Econ 101 principles because my question was "inconvenient". We could have put $100 billion of private equity into the US oil and gas industry and distribution and had some real economic growth but your focusing on funding the continued stealing from Ukrainians by Ukrainian theftocrats.

"Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday." Hth.

We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS.

We sent a bunch of old expiring hardware that had already been paid for not new equipment that shows up on fiscal year 2022. How does that get invested in Oil and Gas?

Sounds like you failed accounting 101 let alone any econ.

I guarantee our old shit will kill new Chinese and Russian shit. Still useful if the shit hits the fan. Where are the embedded reporters? Why are there no regular news footage of Ukraine/ Russia? Something smells.

 

[UW_Doog_Bot]

"Russia will use nukes as an existential last resort not "tactically".[/b] That could mean anything. Like getting close to losing Crimea, now a part of Russia. Seems like an existential threat to Putin. Any other talk is a way to rattle the sabre of the US military complex. I've still not had anyone use facts to explain how this war is promoting direct US economic prosperity and border safety. The war is no threat to the US and if the Euros think it is a threat to them, then they could like step up. Team America, World Police.

Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession.

So I did. You just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your narrative.

"No one's addressing the arguments I'm making except all the people that I'm not bothering to read!" Jfc.

At least @RaceBannon and I can disagree but still not swing away like fucking crying retards.

Giving sh*t away doesn't equal economic activity. We already borrowed trillions to give away. Another $100 billion doesn't fix the inflation problem, it increases the problem. Sure, some people make out, but the overall impact of free sh*t and government borrowing is that it edges out actual free market activity that helps both sides. If I borrowed $100,000 and gave it to you and you blew it on hookers and blow like Hunter, then you get what you wanted as do the hookers and drug dealers. But I was going to use that $100,000 to start a plumbing business and sell plumbing services and supplies. That is economic growth. Blowing money on free sh*t doesn't. When Pelosi said that food stamps improved the economy, it doesn't. Borrowing money so some overweight person can buy a frozen pizza from 7-11 isn't economic growth.

You have ignored some pretty basic Econ 101 principles because my question was "inconvenient". We could have put $100 billion of private equity into the US oil and gas industry and distribution and had some real economic growth but your focusing on funding the continued stealing from Ukrainians by Ukrainian theftocrats.

"Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday." Hth.

We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS.

We sent a bunch of old expiring hardware that had already been paid for not new equipment that shows up on fiscal year 2022. How does that get invested in Oil and Gas?

Sounds like you failed accounting 101 let alone any econ.

Yeah, we didn't borrow trillions. But somehow today our national debt is now $31.5 trillion and it was $28.5 trillion on February 26, 2020. Plus we have printed close to $6 trillion in money since covid hit. And what did we do with all that money? We sent checks (free sh*t) to almost everyone. So, once again, the $100 billion we sent to the Ukraine is a drop in the bucket and wasn't the impetus for some huge economic recovery from the chicom crud. Sales of arms to countries that will actually pay us back is an economic win for the US. The key is that the Ukraine is never going to pay us back for any loans. So, it's an economic loss.

You really need to take some economics before sounding like the dementia patient and claim that Milton Friedman is no longer in charge. The point about oil and gas investment is that it is private money that is expected to be returned as loan repayments or investment earnings. The US printing money and borrowing raises the cost of private investing and thus competes for free market investment with government giveaways that are generally counter productive, like funding student loans for ethnic studies. Let's see if any of your fellow Team America World police want to jump on your illiterate take.

Wildly swings about screeching about US debt to conflate the argument. Austerity! Sorry, not sorry, defense budgets might need cut but I'd argue this is the greatest $ per defense the US has gotten in decades. Maybe cut out current defense aid to the Middle East first.

You do realize that we didn't put $100B in cash on a plane and send it over right?

Most of the stuff being sent was earmarked on a budget from the time Reagan/Bush/Clinton were in office.

It's now doing what it was designed for, blowing up Russians. Even better it's being done with no American blood being spilled.

It wasn't me that claimed that shipping arms and money to Ukraine was the reason for our limp economic recovery. "Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession."[/b] I said actual sales would benefit the economy. Give aways of anything don't help the economy.

It wasn't me that said, "We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS."
[/b]
So, we are back to the fact that we get no economic benefit for giving money and arms we will need to replace to Ukraine and we are back to blowing up Russians is Team America, World Police as virtue signaling while Ukraine is being destroyed. Sounds familiar. Rinse, lather and repeat. I'll wait for PGOS to come off the ropes and tell me again that backing the Ukraine is a good thing because it's a good thing. And then you can try again to explain how we are economically benefiting.

Except Nato donations to Ukraine meant Nato countries buying billions more in defense from US defense suppliers.

You seem to lack a basic ability to follow. Let me help, we doubled our sales of weapons to countries not named Ukraine. Not loans, sales.

 

[UW_Doog_Bot]

This guy has always been honest about things
http://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1629617236674588673?t=ENMvNku11XFfVCQ7brnlsg&s=19

Public opinion is moving away from limitless support of Ukraine. Joey knows this which is why his twitter is on fire in an attempt to rekindle support. I guess there are more appeasers around the country then just we Tug Cons.

Call for a ceasefire Joey and peace negotiations. I've heard Ukraine is kicking ass and taken back nearly all of Putin's gains so now is the time.

Appease deez nuts.

We just don’t belong in that cesspool. We didn’t belong there before Putin invaded. But it was ok because Hunter and Romney’s kids were getting filthy rich and god knows what other corrupt and evil bullshit was going on.

But but Zelensky is a Jew.

Fuck that. So was Meyer Lanskey and Bugsy Siegel.

So appeasement and isolationism. Got it.

Your words. Not mine.

Mark you down in the corruption and graft crowd? Didn't see that coming.

Then tell me the difference. Go on.

Simply crying about defense spending isn't a serious position. Let's here the geopolitical take.

And yeah, I've been talking about differentiating the graft and corruption from what makes sense. We should be emptying our expiring goods to the foodbank. There's also always pork. I'd have that convo if the peanut gallery could manage it.

"Putin has nukes! If we send mortars it's WW3! Solemani!" Seriously, some TF clones in here.

I've always been a hawk. Big swinging dick deterence and laughing while your enemies engage in a land battle in Eurasia.

https://twitter.com/libertylockpod/status/1629590461798129668

This is the Throbbers position on any intervention in foreign affairs.

And, no, not willing to die for Ukraine. Not even close.

False binary.

That's also isolationism in a nutshell. If it isn't the US then do nothing. Tell me how it isn't.

There's about ten thousand shades between sending troops to die and doing nothing.

Help spell out where exactly on that line you fall. Should the US stop selling Ukraine goods entirely? Use your own words, not a tweet if you can.

 

[Sledog]

"Russia will use nukes as an existential last resort not "tactically".[/b] That could mean anything. Like getting close to losing Crimea, now a part of Russia. Seems like an existential threat to Putin. Any other talk is a way to rattle the sabre of the US military complex. I've still not had anyone use facts to explain how this war is promoting direct US economic prosperity and border safety. The war is no threat to the US and if the Euros think it is a threat to them, then they could like step up. Team America, World Police.

Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession.

So I did. You just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your narrative.

"No one's addressing the arguments I'm making except all the people that I'm not bothering to read!" Jfc.

At least @RaceBannon and I can disagree but still not swing away like fucking crying retards.

Giving sh*t away doesn't equal economic activity. We already borrowed trillions to give away. Another $100 billion doesn't fix the inflation problem, it increases the problem. Sure, some people make out, but the overall impact of free sh*t and government borrowing is that it edges out actual free market activity that helps both sides. If I borrowed $100,000 and gave it to you and you blew it on hookers and blow like Hunter, then you get what you wanted as do the hookers and drug dealers. But I was going to use that $100,000 to start a plumbing business and sell plumbing services and supplies. That is economic growth. Blowing money on free sh*t doesn't. When Pelosi said that food stamps improved the economy, it doesn't. Borrowing money so some overweight person can buy a frozen pizza from 7-11 isn't economic growth.

You have ignored some pretty basic Econ 101 principles because my question was "inconvenient". We could have put $100 billion of private equity into the US oil and gas industry and distribution and had some real economic growth but your focusing on funding the continued stealing from Ukrainians by Ukrainian theftocrats.

"Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday." Hth.

We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS.

We sent a bunch of old expiring hardware that had already been paid for not new equipment that shows up on fiscal year 2022. How does that get invested in Oil and Gas?

Sounds like you failed accounting 101 let alone any econ.

Yeah, we didn't borrow trillions. But somehow today our national debt is now $31.5 trillion and it was $28.5 trillion on February 26, 2020. Plus we have printed close to $6 trillion in money since covid hit. And what did we do with all that money? We sent checks (free sh*t) to almost everyone. So, once again, the $100 billion we sent to the Ukraine is a drop in the bucket and wasn't the impetus for some huge economic recovery from the chicom crud. Sales of arms to countries that will actually pay us back is an economic win for the US. The key is that the Ukraine is never going to pay us back for any loans. So, it's an economic loss.

You really need to take some economics before sounding like the dementia patient and claim that Milton Friedman is no longer in charge. The point about oil and gas investment is that it is private money that is expected to be returned as loan repayments or investment earnings. The US printing money and borrowing raises the cost of private investing and thus competes for free market investment with government giveaways that are generally counter productive, like funding student loans for ethnic studies. Let's see if any of your fellow Team America World police want to jump on your illiterate take.

Wildly swings about screeching about US debt to conflate the argument. Austerity! Sorry, not sorry, defense budgets might need cut but I'd argue this is the greatest $ per defense the US has gotten in decades. Maybe cut out current defense aid to the Middle East first.

You do realize that we didn't put $100B in cash on a plane and send it over right?

Most of the stuff being sent was earmarked on a budget from the time Reagan/Bush/Clinton were in office.

It's now doing what it was designed for, blowing up Russians. Even better it's being done with no American blood being spilled.

It wasn't me that claimed that shipping arms and money to Ukraine was the reason for our limp economic recovery. "Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession."[/b] I said actual sales would benefit the economy. Give aways of anything don't help the economy.

It wasn't me that said, "We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS."
[/b]
So, we are back to the fact that we get no economic benefit for giving money and arms we will need to replace to Ukraine and we are back to blowing up Russians is Team America, World Police as virtue signaling while Ukraine is being destroyed. Sounds familiar. Rinse, lather and repeat. I'll wait for PGOS to come off the ropes and tell me again that backing the Ukraine is a good thing because it's a good thing. And then you can try again to explain how we are economically benefiting.

Except Nato donations to Ukraine meant Nato countries buying billions more in defense from US defense suppliers.

You seem to lack a basic ability to follow. Let me help, we doubled our sales of weapons to countries not named Ukraine. Not loans, sales.

Old German tanks are made in Germany. What did they send? A half dozen? NATO needs to pony up.

 

[WestlinnDuck]

"Russia will use nukes as an existential last resort not "tactically".[/b] That could mean anything. Like getting close to losing Crimea, now a part of Russia. Seems like an existential threat to Putin. Any other talk is a way to rattle the sabre of the US military complex. I've still not had anyone use facts to explain how this war is promoting direct US economic prosperity and border safety. The war is no threat to the US and if the Euros think it is a threat to them, then they could like step up. Team America, World Police.

Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession.

So I did. You just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your narrative.

"No one's addressing the arguments I'm making except all the people that I'm not bothering to read!" Jfc.

At least @RaceBannon and I can disagree but still not swing away like fucking crying retards.

Giving sh*t away doesn't equal economic activity. We already borrowed trillions to give away. Another $100 billion doesn't fix the inflation problem, it increases the problem. Sure, some people make out, but the overall impact of free sh*t and government borrowing is that it edges out actual free market activity that helps both sides. If I borrowed $100,000 and gave it to you and you blew it on hookers and blow like Hunter, then you get what you wanted as do the hookers and drug dealers. But I was going to use that $100,000 to start a plumbing business and sell plumbing services and supplies. That is economic growth. Blowing money on free sh*t doesn't. When Pelosi said that food stamps improved the economy, it doesn't. Borrowing money so some overweight person can buy a frozen pizza from 7-11 isn't economic growth.

You have ignored some pretty basic Econ 101 principles because my question was "inconvenient". We could have put $100 billion of private equity into the US oil and gas industry and distribution and had some real economic growth but your focusing on funding the continued stealing from Ukrainians by Ukrainian theftocrats.

"Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday." Hth.

We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS.

We sent a bunch of old expiring hardware that had already been paid for not new equipment that shows up on fiscal year 2022. How does that get invested in Oil and Gas?

Sounds like you failed accounting 101 let alone any econ.

Yeah, we didn't borrow trillions. But somehow today our national debt is now $31.5 trillion and it was $28.5 trillion on February 26, 2020. Plus we have printed close to $6 trillion in money since covid hit. And what did we do with all that money? We sent checks (free sh*t) to almost everyone. So, once again, the $100 billion we sent to the Ukraine is a drop in the bucket and wasn't the impetus for some huge economic recovery from the chicom crud. Sales of arms to countries that will actually pay us back is an economic win for the US. The key is that the Ukraine is never going to pay us back for any loans. So, it's an economic loss.

You really need to take some economics before sounding like the dementia patient and claim that Milton Friedman is no longer in charge. The point about oil and gas investment is that it is private money that is expected to be returned as loan repayments or investment earnings. The US printing money and borrowing raises the cost of private investing and thus competes for free market investment with government giveaways that are generally counter productive, like funding student loans for ethnic studies. Let's see if any of your fellow Team America World police want to jump on your illiterate take.

Wildly swings about screeching about US debt to conflate the argument. Austerity! Sorry, not sorry, defense budgets might need cut but I'd argue this is the greatest $ per defense the US has gotten in decades. Maybe cut out current defense aid to the Middle East first.

You do realize that we didn't put $100B in cash on a plane and send it over right?

Most of the stuff being sent was earmarked on a budget from the time Reagan/Bush/Clinton were in office.

It's now doing what it was designed for, blowing up Russians. Even better it's being done with no American blood being spilled.

It wasn't me that claimed that shipping arms and money to Ukraine was the reason for our limp economic recovery. "Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession."[/b] I said actual sales would benefit the economy. Give aways of anything don't help the economy.

It wasn't me that said, "We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS."
[/b]
So, we are back to the fact that we get no economic benefit for giving money and arms we will need to replace to Ukraine and we are back to blowing up Russians is Team America, World Police as virtue signaling while Ukraine is being destroyed. Sounds familiar. Rinse, lather and repeat. I'll wait for PGOS to come off the ropes and tell me again that backing the Ukraine is a good thing because it's a good thing. And then you can try again to explain how we are economically benefiting.

Except Nato donations to Ukraine meant Nato countries buying billions more in defense from US defense suppliers.

You seem to lack a basic ability to follow. Let me help, we doubled our sales of weapons to countries not named Ukraine. Not loans, sales.

I said real sales are a benefit. You seem to lack a basic ability to follow. Our transactions with Ukraine either cash or pretend sales which will never be paid back are not a benefit. Unlike you, I can separate the wheat from the chaff. Again, those transactions are either paid with more debt or by printing money. I'm not the one playing unicorn economics.

If NATO wants to protect Ukraine, let them. They don't, their transactions with Ukraine are a small fraction of ours if you were using any basic ability to follow the money and arms transactions.

 

[UW_Doog_Bot]

"Russia will use nukes as an existential last resort not "tactically".[/b] That could mean anything. Like getting close to losing Crimea, now a part of Russia. Seems like an existential threat to Putin. Any other talk is a way to rattle the sabre of the US military complex. I've still not had anyone use facts to explain how this war is promoting direct US economic prosperity and border safety. The war is no threat to the US and if the Euros think it is a threat to them, then they could like step up. Team America, World Police.

Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession.

So I did. You just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your narrative.

"No one's addressing the arguments I'm making except all the people that I'm not bothering to read!" Jfc.

At least @RaceBannon and I can disagree but still not swing away like fucking crying retards.

Giving sh*t away doesn't equal economic activity. We already borrowed trillions to give away. Another $100 billion doesn't fix the inflation problem, it increases the problem. Sure, some people make out, but the overall impact of free sh*t and government borrowing is that it edges out actual free market activity that helps both sides. If I borrowed $100,000 and gave it to you and you blew it on hookers and blow like Hunter, then you get what you wanted as do the hookers and drug dealers. But I was going to use that $100,000 to start a plumbing business and sell plumbing services and supplies. That is economic growth. Blowing money on free sh*t doesn't. When Pelosi said that food stamps improved the economy, it doesn't. Borrowing money so some overweight person can buy a frozen pizza from 7-11 isn't economic growth.

You have ignored some pretty basic Econ 101 principles because my question was "inconvenient". We could have put $100 billion of private equity into the US oil and gas industry and distribution and had some real economic growth but your focusing on funding the continued stealing from Ukrainians by Ukrainian theftocrats.

"Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday." Hth.

We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS.

We sent a bunch of old expiring hardware that had already been paid for not new equipment that shows up on fiscal year 2022. How does that get invested in Oil and Gas?

Sounds like you failed accounting 101 let alone any econ.

Yeah, we didn't borrow trillions. But somehow today our national debt is now $31.5 trillion and it was $28.5 trillion on February 26, 2020. Plus we have printed close to $6 trillion in money since covid hit. And what did we do with all that money? We sent checks (free sh*t) to almost everyone. So, once again, the $100 billion we sent to the Ukraine is a drop in the bucket and wasn't the impetus for some huge economic recovery from the chicom crud. Sales of arms to countries that will actually pay us back is an economic win for the US. The key is that the Ukraine is never going to pay us back for any loans. So, it's an economic loss.

You really need to take some economics before sounding like the dementia patient and claim that Milton Friedman is no longer in charge. The point about oil and gas investment is that it is private money that is expected to be returned as loan repayments or investment earnings. The US printing money and borrowing raises the cost of private investing and thus competes for free market investment with government giveaways that are generally counter productive, like funding student loans for ethnic studies. Let's see if any of your fellow Team America World police want to jump on your illiterate take.

Wildly swings about screeching about US debt to conflate the argument. Austerity! Sorry, not sorry, defense budgets might need cut but I'd argue this is the greatest $ per defense the US has gotten in decades. Maybe cut out current defense aid to the Middle East first.

You do realize that we didn't put $100B in cash on a plane and send it over right?

Most of the stuff being sent was earmarked on a budget from the time Reagan/Bush/Clinton were in office.

It's now doing what it was designed for, blowing up Russians. Even better it's being done with no American blood being spilled.

It wasn't me that claimed that shipping arms and money to Ukraine was the reason for our limp economic recovery. "Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession."[/b] I said actual sales would benefit the economy. Give aways of anything don't help the economy.

It wasn't me that said, "We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS."
[/b]
So, we are back to the fact that we get no economic benefit for giving money and arms we will need to replace to Ukraine and we are back to blowing up Russians is Team America, World Police as virtue signaling while Ukraine is being destroyed. Sounds familiar. Rinse, lather and repeat. I'll wait for PGOS to come off the ropes and tell me again that backing the Ukraine is a good thing because it's a good thing. And then you can try again to explain how we are economically benefiting.

Except Nato donations to Ukraine meant Nato countries buying billions more in defense from US defense suppliers.

You seem to lack a basic ability to follow. Let me help, we doubled our sales of weapons to countries not named Ukraine. Not loans, sales.

Old German tanks are made in Germany. What did they send? A half dozen? NATO needs to pony up.

Ze Germans just shat a brick and are completely overhauling defense spending. It's going to take them a while to spin that up though. Still, they signed a $10B deal for F35's.

Aerospace is probably going to be the real winner with the F-35 gaining a bunch of sales and orders from countries that previously thought of them as a luxury item.

Poland on the other hand just bought $6b worth of Abrams alone after sending their T-72's to Ukraine.

Then you have Sweden and Finland becoming Nato integrated(read now will buy American shit).

 

[WestlinnDuck]

"Russia will use nukes as an existential last resort not "tactically".[/b] That could mean anything. Like getting close to losing Crimea, now a part of Russia. Seems like an existential threat to Putin. Any other talk is a way to rattle the sabre of the US military complex. I've still not had anyone use facts to explain how this war is promoting direct US economic prosperity and border safety. The war is no threat to the US and if the Euros think it is a threat to them, then they could like step up. Team America, World Police.

Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession.

So I did. You just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your narrative.

"No one's addressing the arguments I'm making except all the people that I'm not bothering to read!" Jfc.

At least @RaceBannon and I can disagree but still not swing away like fucking crying retards.

Giving sh*t away doesn't equal economic activity. We already borrowed trillions to give away. Another $100 billion doesn't fix the inflation problem, it increases the problem. Sure, some people make out, but the overall impact of free sh*t and government borrowing is that it edges out actual free market activity that helps both sides. If I borrowed $100,000 and gave it to you and you blew it on hookers and blow like Hunter, then you get what you wanted as do the hookers and drug dealers. But I was going to use that $100,000 to start a plumbing business and sell plumbing services and supplies. That is economic growth. Blowing money on free sh*t doesn't. When Pelosi said that food stamps improved the economy, it doesn't. Borrowing money so some overweight person can buy a frozen pizza from 7-11 isn't economic growth.

You have ignored some pretty basic Econ 101 principles because my question was "inconvenient". We could have put $100 billion of private equity into the US oil and gas industry and distribution and had some real economic growth but your focusing on funding the continued stealing from Ukrainians by Ukrainian theftocrats.

"Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday." Hth.

We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS.

We sent a bunch of old expiring hardware that had already been paid for not new equipment that shows up on fiscal year 2022. How does that get invested in Oil and Gas?

Sounds like you failed accounting 101 let alone any econ.

Yeah, we didn't borrow trillions. But somehow today our national debt is now $31.5 trillion and it was $28.5 trillion on February 26, 2020. Plus we have printed close to $6 trillion in money since covid hit. And what did we do with all that money? We sent checks (free sh*t) to almost everyone. So, once again, the $100 billion we sent to the Ukraine is a drop in the bucket and wasn't the impetus for some huge economic recovery from the chicom crud. Sales of arms to countries that will actually pay us back is an economic win for the US. The key is that the Ukraine is never going to pay us back for any loans. So, it's an economic loss.

You really need to take some economics before sounding like the dementia patient and claim that Milton Friedman is no longer in charge. The point about oil and gas investment is that it is private money that is expected to be returned as loan repayments or investment earnings. The US printing money and borrowing raises the cost of private investing and thus competes for free market investment with government giveaways that are generally counter productive, like funding student loans for ethnic studies. Let's see if any of your fellow Team America World police want to jump on your illiterate take.

Wildly swings about screeching about US debt to conflate the argument. Austerity! Sorry, not sorry, defense budgets might need cut but I'd argue this is the greatest $ per defense the US has gotten in decades. Maybe cut out current defense aid to the Middle East first.

You do realize that we didn't put $100B in cash on a plane and send it over right?

Most of the stuff being sent was earmarked on a budget from the time Reagan/Bush/Clinton were in office.

It's now doing what it was designed for, blowing up Russians. Even better it's being done with no American blood being spilled.

It wasn't me that claimed that shipping arms and money to Ukraine was the reason for our limp economic recovery. "Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession."[/b] I said actual sales would benefit the economy. Give aways of anything don't help the economy.

It wasn't me that said, "We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS."
[/b]
So, we are back to the fact that we get no economic benefit for giving money and arms we will need to replace to Ukraine and we are back to blowing up Russians is Team America, World Police as virtue signaling while Ukraine is being destroyed. Sounds familiar. Rinse, lather and repeat. I'll wait for PGOS to come off the ropes and tell me again that backing the Ukraine is a good thing because it's a good thing. And then you can try again to explain how we are economically benefiting.

Except Nato donations to Ukraine meant Nato countries buying billions more in defense from US defense suppliers.

You seem to lack a basic ability to follow. Let me help, we doubled our sales of weapons to countries not named Ukraine. Not loans, sales.

Old German tanks are made in Germany. What did they send? A half dozen? NATO needs to pony up.

Ze Germans just shat a brick and are completely overhauling defense spending. It's going to take them a while to spin that up though. Still, they signed a $10B deal for F35's.

Aerospace is probably going to be the real winner with the F-35 gaining a bunch of sales and orders from countries that previously thought of them as a luxury item.

Poland on the other hand just bought $6b worth of Abrams alone after sending their T-72's to Ukraine.

Then you have Sweden and Finland becoming Nato integrated(read now will buy American shit).

Let me know when we get within $50 billion of getting out of the hole we are still digging with no end in sight.

PS Sales don't equal profit. Give aways are 100% expensed to the bottom line. Some more of that finance sh*t I picked up as a CPA for which you need some actual ability to understand numbers and sh*t.

 

[UW_Doog_Bot]

"Russia will use nukes as an existential last resort not "tactically".[/b] That could mean anything. Like getting close to losing Crimea, now a part of Russia. Seems like an existential threat to Putin. Any other talk is a way to rattle the sabre of the US military complex. I've still not had anyone use facts to explain how this war is promoting direct US economic prosperity and border safety. The war is no threat to the US and if the Euros think it is a threat to them, then they could like step up. Team America, World Police.

Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession.

So I did. You just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your narrative.

"No one's addressing the arguments I'm making except all the people that I'm not bothering to read!" Jfc.

At least @RaceBannon and I can disagree but still not swing away like fucking crying retards.

Giving sh*t away doesn't equal economic activity. We already borrowed trillions to give away. Another $100 billion doesn't fix the inflation problem, it increases the problem. Sure, some people make out, but the overall impact of free sh*t and government borrowing is that it edges out actual free market activity that helps both sides. If I borrowed $100,000 and gave it to you and you blew it on hookers and blow like Hunter, then you get what you wanted as do the hookers and drug dealers. But I was going to use that $100,000 to start a plumbing business and sell plumbing services and supplies. That is economic growth. Blowing money on free sh*t doesn't. When Pelosi said that food stamps improved the economy, it doesn't. Borrowing money so some overweight person can buy a frozen pizza from 7-11 isn't economic growth.

You have ignored some pretty basic Econ 101 principles because my question was "inconvenient". We could have put $100 billion of private equity into the US oil and gas industry and distribution and had some real economic growth but your focusing on funding the continued stealing from Ukrainians by Ukrainian theftocrats.

"Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday." Hth.

We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS.

We sent a bunch of old expiring hardware that had already been paid for not new equipment that shows up on fiscal year 2022. How does that get invested in Oil and Gas?

Sounds like you failed accounting 101 let alone any econ.

Yeah, we didn't borrow trillions. But somehow today our national debt is now $31.5 trillion and it was $28.5 trillion on February 26, 2020. Plus we have printed close to $6 trillion in money since covid hit. And what did we do with all that money? We sent checks (free sh*t) to almost everyone. So, once again, the $100 billion we sent to the Ukraine is a drop in the bucket and wasn't the impetus for some huge economic recovery from the chicom crud. Sales of arms to countries that will actually pay us back is an economic win for the US. The key is that the Ukraine is never going to pay us back for any loans. So, it's an economic loss.

You really need to take some economics before sounding like the dementia patient and claim that Milton Friedman is no longer in charge. The point about oil and gas investment is that it is private money that is expected to be returned as loan repayments or investment earnings. The US printing money and borrowing raises the cost of private investing and thus competes for free market investment with government giveaways that are generally counter productive, like funding student loans for ethnic studies. Let's see if any of your fellow Team America World police want to jump on your illiterate take.

Wildly swings about screeching about US debt to conflate the argument. Austerity! Sorry, not sorry, defense budgets might need cut but I'd argue this is the greatest $ per defense the US has gotten in decades. Maybe cut out current defense aid to the Middle East first.

You do realize that we didn't put $100B in cash on a plane and send it over right?

Most of the stuff being sent was earmarked on a budget from the time Reagan/Bush/Clinton were in office.

It's now doing what it was designed for, blowing up Russians. Even better it's being done with no American blood being spilled.

It wasn't me that claimed that shipping arms and money to Ukraine was the reason for our limp economic recovery. "Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession."[/b] I said actual sales would benefit the economy. Give aways of anything don't help the economy.

It wasn't me that said, "We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS."
[/b]
So, we are back to the fact that we get no economic benefit for giving money and arms we will need to replace to Ukraine and we are back to blowing up Russians is Team America, World Police as virtue signaling while Ukraine is being destroyed. Sounds familiar. Rinse, lather and repeat. I'll wait for PGOS to come off the ropes and tell me again that backing the Ukraine is a good thing because it's a good thing. And then you can try again to explain how we are economically benefiting.

Except Nato donations to Ukraine meant Nato countries buying billions more in defense from US defense suppliers.

You seem to lack a basic ability to follow. Let me help, we doubled our sales of weapons to countries not named Ukraine. Not loans, sales.

Old German tanks are made in Germany. What did they send? A half dozen? NATO needs to pony up.

Ze Germans just shat a brick and are completely overhauling defense spending. It's going to take them a while to spin that up though. Still, they signed a $10B deal for F35's.

Aerospace is probably going to be the real winner with the F-35 gaining a bunch of sales and orders from countries that previously thought of them as a luxury item.

Poland on the other hand just bought $6b worth of Abrams alone after sending their T-72's to Ukraine.

Then you have Sweden and Finland becoming Nato integrated(read now will buy American shit).

Let me know when we get within $50 billion of getting out of the hole we are still digging with no end in sight.

PS Sales don't equal profit. Give aways are 100% expensed to the bottom line. Some more of that finance sh*t I picked up as a CPA for which you need some actual ability to understand numbers and sh*t.

Are CPA's experts at moving goalposts?

Bc they sure as shit aren't economics experts. You'd probably want someone with oh idk, an economics degree or something...

 

[PurpleThrobber]

This guy has always been honest about things
http://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1629617236674588673?t=ENMvNku11XFfVCQ7brnlsg&s=19

Public opinion is moving away from limitless support of Ukraine. Joey knows this which is why his twitter is on fire in an attempt to rekindle support. I guess there are more appeasers around the country then just we Tug Cons.

Call for a ceasefire Joey and peace negotiations. I've heard Ukraine is kicking ass and taken back nearly all of Putin's gains so now is the time.

Appease deez nuts.

We just don’t belong in that cesspool. We didn’t belong there before Putin invaded. But it was ok because Hunter and Romney’s kids were getting filthy rich and god knows what other corrupt and evil bullshit was going on.

But but Zelensky is a Jew.

Fuck that. So was Meyer Lanskey and Bugsy Siegel.

So appeasement and isolationism. Got it.

Your words. Not mine.

Mark you down in the corruption and graft crowd? Didn't see that coming.

Then tell me the difference. Go on.

Simply crying about defense spending isn't a serious position. Let's here the geopolitical take.

And yeah, I've been talking about differentiating the graft and corruption from what makes sense. We should be emptying our expiring goods to the foodbank. There's also always pork. I'd have that convo if the peanut gallery could manage it.

"Putin has nukes! If we send mortars it's WW3! Solemani!" Seriously, some TF clones in here.

I've always been a hawk. Big swinging dick deterence and laughing while your enemies engage in a land battle in Eurasia.

https://twitter.com/libertylockpod/status/1629590461798129668

This is the Throbbers position on any intervention in foreign affairs.

And, no, not willing to die for Ukraine. Not even close.

False binary.

That's also isolationism in a nutshell. If it isn't the US then do nothing. Tell me how it isn't.

There's about ten thousand shades between sending troops to die and doing nothing.

Help spell out where exactly on that line you fall. Should the US stop selling Ukraine goods entirely? Use your own words, not a tweet if you can.

It's not a false binary or whatever catchphrase you want to attach. A war in Ukraine threatens neither me, my family or any "national security" of US citizens. It is a war between two neighboring states that have warred for centuries. Not our circus, not our monkeys.

Because you've clearly been conditioned to play a global game of Risk, that does not absolve the immorality of encouraging the loss of innocent lives. And, yes, the US should stop selling weapons of war to the Ukraine for that reason.

Why would the US stop selling tangible goods to either Ukraine or Russia?

We ain't got no quarrel with them Russians.

Or something like that, eh, @RaceBannon?

 

[46XiJCAB]

"Russia will use nukes as an existential last resort not "tactically".[/b] That could mean anything. Like getting close to losing Crimea, now a part of Russia. Seems like an existential threat to Putin. Any other talk is a way to rattle the sabre of the US military complex. I've still not had anyone use facts to explain how this war is promoting direct US economic prosperity and border safety. The war is no threat to the US and if the Euros think it is a threat to them, then they could like step up. Team America, World Police.

Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession.

So I did. You just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your narrative.

"No one's addressing the arguments I'm making except all the people that I'm not bothering to read!" Jfc.

At least @RaceBannon and I can disagree but still not swing away like fucking crying retards.

Giving sh*t away doesn't equal economic activity. We already borrowed trillions to give away. Another $100 billion doesn't fix the inflation problem, it increases the problem. Sure, some people make out, but the overall impact of free sh*t and government borrowing is that it edges out actual free market activity that helps both sides. If I borrowed $100,000 and gave it to you and you blew it on hookers and blow like Hunter, then you get what you wanted as do the hookers and drug dealers. But I was going to use that $100,000 to start a plumbing business and sell plumbing services and supplies. That is economic growth. Blowing money on free sh*t doesn't. When Pelosi said that food stamps improved the economy, it doesn't. Borrowing money so some overweight person can buy a frozen pizza from 7-11 isn't economic growth.

You have ignored some pretty basic Econ 101 principles because my question was "inconvenient". We could have put $100 billion of private equity into the US oil and gas industry and distribution and had some real economic growth but your focusing on funding the continued stealing from Ukrainians by Ukrainian theftocrats.

"Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday." Hth.

We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS.

We sent a bunch of old expiring hardware that had already been paid for not new equipment that shows up on fiscal year 2022. How does that get invested in Oil and Gas?

Sounds like you failed accounting 101 let alone any econ.

Yeah, we didn't borrow trillions. But somehow today our national debt is now $31.5 trillion and it was $28.5 trillion on February 26, 2020. Plus we have printed close to $6 trillion in money since covid hit. And what did we do with all that money? We sent checks (free sh*t) to almost everyone. So, once again, the $100 billion we sent to the Ukraine is a drop in the bucket and wasn't the impetus for some huge economic recovery from the chicom crud. Sales of arms to countries that will actually pay us back is an economic win for the US. The key is that the Ukraine is never going to pay us back for any loans. So, it's an economic loss.

You really need to take some economics before sounding like the dementia patient and claim that Milton Friedman is no longer in charge. The point about oil and gas investment is that it is private money that is expected to be returned as loan repayments or investment earnings. The US printing money and borrowing raises the cost of private investing and thus competes for free market investment with government giveaways that are generally counter productive, like funding student loans for ethnic studies. Let's see if any of your fellow Team America World police want to jump on your illiterate take.

Wildly swings about screeching about US debt to conflate the argument. Austerity! Sorry, not sorry, defense budgets might need cut but I'd argue this is the greatest $ per defense the US has gotten in decades. Maybe cut out current defense aid to the Middle East first.

You do realize that we didn't put $100B in cash on a plane and send it over right?

Most of the stuff being sent was earmarked on a budget from the time Reagan/Bush/Clinton were in office.

It's now doing what it was designed for, blowing up Russians. Even better it's being done with no American blood being spilled.

It wasn't me that claimed that shipping arms and money to Ukraine was the reason for our limp economic recovery. "Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession."[/b] I said actual sales would benefit the economy. Give aways of anything don't help the economy.

It wasn't me that said, "We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS."
[/b]
So, we are back to the fact that we get no economic benefit for giving money and arms we will need to replace to Ukraine and we are back to blowing up Russians is Team America, World Police as virtue signaling while Ukraine is being destroyed. Sounds familiar. Rinse, lather and repeat. I'll wait for PGOS to come off the ropes and tell me again that backing the Ukraine is a good thing because it's a good thing. And then you can try again to explain how we are economically benefiting.

Except Nato donations to Ukraine meant Nato countries buying billions more in defense from US defense suppliers.

You seem to lack a basic ability to follow. Let me help, we doubled our sales of weapons to countries not named Ukraine. Not loans, sales.

Buying billions from US defense contractors.

We’re saving a DeMoCrAcY!

MIC for the WIN!

 

[GrundleStiltzkin]

"Russia will use nukes as an existential last resort not "tactically".[/b] That could mean anything. Like getting close to losing Crimea, now a part of Russia. Seems like an existential threat to Putin. Any other talk is a way to rattle the sabre of the US military complex. I've still not had anyone use facts to explain how this war is promoting direct US economic prosperity and border safety. The war is no threat to the US and if the Euros think it is a threat to them, then they could like step up. Team America, World Police.

Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession.

So I did. You just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your narrative.

"No one's addressing the arguments I'm making except all the people that I'm not bothering to read!" Jfc.

At least @RaceBannon and I can disagree but still not swing away like fucking crying retards.

Giving sh*t away doesn't equal economic activity. We already borrowed trillions to give away. Another $100 billion doesn't fix the inflation problem, it increases the problem. Sure, some people make out, but the overall impact of free sh*t and government borrowing is that it edges out actual free market activity that helps both sides. If I borrowed $100,000 and gave it to you and you blew it on hookers and blow like Hunter, then you get what you wanted as do the hookers and drug dealers. But I was going to use that $100,000 to start a plumbing business and sell plumbing services and supplies. That is economic growth. Blowing money on free sh*t doesn't. When Pelosi said that food stamps improved the economy, it doesn't. Borrowing money so some overweight person can buy a frozen pizza from 7-11 isn't economic growth.

You have ignored some pretty basic Econ 101 principles because my question was "inconvenient". We could have put $100 billion of private equity into the US oil and gas industry and distribution and had some real economic growth but your focusing on funding the continued stealing from Ukrainians by Ukrainian theftocrats.

"Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday." Hth.

We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS.

We sent a bunch of old expiring hardware that had already been paid for not new equipment that shows up on fiscal year 2022. How does that get invested in Oil and Gas?

Sounds like you failed accounting 101 let alone any econ.

Yeah, we didn't borrow trillions. But somehow today our national debt is now $31.5 trillion and it was $28.5 trillion on February 26, 2020. Plus we have printed close to $6 trillion in money since covid hit. And what did we do with all that money? We sent checks (free sh*t) to almost everyone. So, once again, the $100 billion we sent to the Ukraine is a drop in the bucket and wasn't the impetus for some huge economic recovery from the chicom crud. Sales of arms to countries that will actually pay us back is an economic win for the US. The key is that the Ukraine is never going to pay us back for any loans. So, it's an economic loss.

You really need to take some economics before sounding like the dementia patient and claim that Milton Friedman is no longer in charge. The point about oil and gas investment is that it is private money that is expected to be returned as loan repayments or investment earnings. The US printing money and borrowing raises the cost of private investing and thus competes for free market investment with government giveaways that are generally counter productive, like funding student loans for ethnic studies. Let's see if any of your fellow Team America World police want to jump on your illiterate take.

Wildly swings about screeching about US debt to conflate the argument. Austerity! Sorry, not sorry, defense budgets might need cut but I'd argue this is the greatest $ per defense the US has gotten in decades. Maybe cut out current defense aid to the Middle East first.

You do realize that we didn't put $100B in cash on a plane and send it over right?

Most of the stuff being sent was earmarked on a budget from the time Reagan/Bush/Clinton were in office.

It's now doing what it was designed for, blowing up Russians. Even better it's being done with no American blood being spilled.

It wasn't me that claimed that shipping arms and money to Ukraine was the reason for our limp economic recovery. "Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession."[/b] I said actual sales would benefit the economy. Give aways of anything don't help the economy.

It wasn't me that said, "We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS."
[/b]
So, we are back to the fact that we get no economic benefit for giving money and arms we will need to replace to Ukraine and we are back to blowing up Russians is Team America, World Police as virtue signaling while Ukraine is being destroyed. Sounds familiar. Rinse, lather and repeat. I'll wait for PGOS to come off the ropes and tell me again that backing the Ukraine is a good thing because it's a good thing. And then you can try again to explain how we are economically benefiting.

Except Nato donations to Ukraine meant Nato countries buying billions more in defense from US defense suppliers.

You seem to lack a basic ability to follow. Let me help, we doubled our sales of weapons to countries not named Ukraine. Not loans, sales.

Buying billions from US defense contractors.

We’re saving a DeMoCrAcY!

MIC for the WIN!

What’s your favorite Dixie Chicks song?

Fuck, excuse my deadnaming, The Chicks song?

 

[PurpleThrobber]

"Russia will use nukes as an existential last resort not "tactically".[/b] That could mean anything. Like getting close to losing Crimea, now a part of Russia. Seems like an existential threat to Putin. Any other talk is a way to rattle the sabre of the US military complex. I've still not had anyone use facts to explain how this war is promoting direct US economic prosperity and border safety. The war is no threat to the US and if the Euros think it is a threat to them, then they could like step up. Team America, World Police.

Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession.

So I did. You just ignore it because it's inconvenient to your narrative.

"No one's addressing the arguments I'm making except all the people that I'm not bothering to read!" Jfc.

At least @RaceBannon and I can disagree but still not swing away like fucking crying retards.

Giving sh*t away doesn't equal economic activity. We already borrowed trillions to give away. Another $100 billion doesn't fix the inflation problem, it increases the problem. Sure, some people make out, but the overall impact of free sh*t and government borrowing is that it edges out actual free market activity that helps both sides. If I borrowed $100,000 and gave it to you and you blew it on hookers and blow like Hunter, then you get what you wanted as do the hookers and drug dealers. But I was going to use that $100,000 to start a plumbing business and sell plumbing services and supplies. That is economic growth. Blowing money on free sh*t doesn't. When Pelosi said that food stamps improved the economy, it doesn't. Borrowing money so some overweight person can buy a frozen pizza from 7-11 isn't economic growth.

You have ignored some pretty basic Econ 101 principles because my question was "inconvenient". We could have put $100 billion of private equity into the US oil and gas industry and distribution and had some real economic growth but your focusing on funding the continued stealing from Ukrainians by Ukrainian theftocrats.

"Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 49% to $205.6 billion in the latest fiscal year, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday." Hth.

We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS.

We sent a bunch of old expiring hardware that had already been paid for not new equipment that shows up on fiscal year 2022. How does that get invested in Oil and Gas?

Sounds like you failed accounting 101 let alone any econ.

Yeah, we didn't borrow trillions. But somehow today our national debt is now $31.5 trillion and it was $28.5 trillion on February 26, 2020. Plus we have printed close to $6 trillion in money since covid hit. And what did we do with all that money? We sent checks (free sh*t) to almost everyone. So, once again, the $100 billion we sent to the Ukraine is a drop in the bucket and wasn't the impetus for some huge economic recovery from the chicom crud. Sales of arms to countries that will actually pay us back is an economic win for the US. The key is that the Ukraine is never going to pay us back for any loans. So, it's an economic loss.

You really need to take some economics before sounding like the dementia patient and claim that Milton Friedman is no longer in charge. The point about oil and gas investment is that it is private money that is expected to be returned as loan repayments or investment earnings. The US printing money and borrowing raises the cost of private investing and thus competes for free market investment with government giveaways that are generally counter productive, like funding student loans for ethnic studies. Let's see if any of your fellow Team America World police want to jump on your illiterate take.

Wildly swings about screeching about US debt to conflate the argument. Austerity! Sorry, not sorry, defense budgets might need cut but I'd argue this is the greatest $ per defense the US has gotten in decades. Maybe cut out current defense aid to the Middle East first.

You do realize that we didn't put $100B in cash on a plane and send it over right?

Most of the stuff being sent was earmarked on a budget from the time Reagan/Bush/Clinton were in office.

It's now doing what it was designed for, blowing up Russians. Even better it's being done with no American blood being spilled.

It wasn't me that claimed that shipping arms and money to Ukraine was the reason for our limp economic recovery. "Except I already did explain that defense exports literally took us out of a recession."[/b] I said actual sales would benefit the economy. Give aways of anything don't help the economy.

It wasn't me that said, "We didn't borrow trillions to give away. This is just FS."
[/b]
So, we are back to the fact that we get no economic benefit for giving money and arms we will need to replace to Ukraine and we are back to blowing up Russians is Team America, World Police as virtue signaling while Ukraine is being destroyed. Sounds familiar. Rinse, lather and repeat. I'll wait for PGOS to come off the ropes and tell me again that backing the Ukraine is a good thing because it's a good thing. And then you can try again to explain how we are economically benefiting.

Except Nato donations to Ukraine meant Nato countries buying billions more in defense from US defense suppliers.

You seem to lack a basic ability to follow. Let me help, we doubled our sales of weapons to countries not named Ukraine. Not loans, sales.

So if the Chinese are selling billions of dollars of fentanyl to the cartels to dish off to Americans it’s, you know, just business.