This is such an inane point. Yes they are "Americans" but the goal of public policy shouldn't be to just give money to whoever so long as they're Americans. The same $100 means a lot more to a poor person than to a rich person, and they are also a lot more likely to spend the money, stimulating the economy and providing more tax revenue in a virtuous cycle.
Like the difference between public and private, this is extremely basic economics.
Roughly 50% of all Americans. I'm not sure who determines "the consensus" if polls are devided and the side that disagrees just won an election.
Because it could “go to something else”? Sure, anything could go to something else, but you’d have to prove that something else is actually more important/urgent.
Well, I'm a leftist, so naturally I believe that using money on domestic spending to help people is preferable to spending money on bombs to kill people. That's like, most of what it means to be a leftist. I would like to think that this is the natural, base assumption, and that the argument in favor of military spending is the thing that has to be proven.
If you'd like, I could go on about the many, many domestic crises we're facing due to insufficient public funding, everything from healthcare to education to even basic infrastructure like bridges. Seems like a bit of a tangent though.
Ultimately, whichever position is "correct" doesn't really matter. If you don't address domestic problems then you're probably going to lose the election and then you don't get any say in what happens at all, which is, you know, what happened.
It's been like 80 years of unjustified conflicts that have consistently made the world a worse place before you can find any conflict where US bombs were actually used to improve anyone's life, including a twenty year long quagmire that we just got out of before this. Despite making things worse for everyone, pretty much every conflict whether it was Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc were entered into with widespread popular support and they all had the exact same justification: that the other side was just like Hitler and they would keep expanding forever unless we got involved. It's a wonder to me that there's anyone who still believes in "benevolent interventionism."
What I’m not sure about is what you have an issue with. The money invested into arms replenishment is a boost to US jobs/the economy. Why the complaint that it’s left the treasury?
Virtually every possible use of that money is "a boost to jobs/the economy." If they spent more on education, teachers would have more money to spend which would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. If they spent the money building trains, it would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. If they spent the money paying people to dig ditches and then fill the ditches back in, it would create more jobs and stimulate the economy. This talking point is complete nonsense and either ignorant or disingenuous. The arms industry is not particularly good for creating jobs/economic stimulus compared to spending the money on other things like education, you're trying to compare it to what, not spending it at all? That makes no sense.
Not to mention, the investment has been miniscule given the situation, how much is “too much” for peace in Europe/World? There can be no prosperity without security.
That assumes that funding the conflict and building more bombs is necessary to bring about peace and security, which I personally disagree with, but my position on the matter is irrelevant, the original comment was just seeking to answer the question and describe what some people on the right believe. Regardless of whether it's true or not that the military aid is necessary for peace, many people don't agree with that assessment.
"Public funds" refers to money held by the government, tax revenue. The amount of public funds is limited and there are a lot of valid, competing priorities for how the government spends it's money. Every dollar of public funds spent on bombs is a dollar that's not available for things like schools and infrastructure.
Private workers receive only some of the funds spent on manufacturing bombs. A significant portion of it goes to executives and shareholders in the military-industrial complex, as well as finding their way to politicians in the form of bribes. Private funds cannot be allocated to public services unless the individual chooses to donate them, or they are taxed back into being public.
I really shouldn't have to explain this, the difference between public and private is extremely basic. Public in this context doesn't mean "held by a member of the public" (that's what private means) it means "held by the public collectively, as represented by the government."
Exactly one political party in US history ran a candidate from a prison cell, do you know who it was and what the party was called?
Hitler put all the leftists in camps and also purged the left wing of his own party, he came to power by being appointed by center-right big business interests specifically as a way to crush the left and destroy labor unions, and those interests did quite well under his rule, the term "privatization" was literally first coined to describe the Nazi economy.
So those are the points showing the Nazis were right wing. The points showing the Nazis were left wing are... they censored speech (which the right also does, all the time) and they have socialist in their name (curious on whether you consider the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a democracy).
The money is still in the US but in private hands rather than public. Just because the money primarily stays in the domestic economy doesn't mean there's no cost to it.
Mic drop.
You don't win by just saying you win. That's not how any of this works.
At no point did I ever claim you were a billionaire (lying again), you obviously aren't. You're just a dumbass who licks their boots because you've accepted their lies and propaganda that their interests are yours.
You are arguing that we should ignore class interests in favor or national interests, which is nationalism and nonsense. Workers in the first world may be less exploited than workers in other countries, but we are still exploited. We produce more than we take. And our purchasing power has been plummetting thanks to the things you support, and the rich are constantly working towards hastening that decline.
If we ended both American hegemony in the world and capitalist exploitation, workers would be better off. If we only ended American hegemony, we would still be better off because it's public funds that go into projects like Afghanistan and private corporations that reap the benefits. And again, the rich being richer doesn't 'trickle down' to us in any way, what it does do is empower them relative to us, granting them more ability to suppress wages and cause conditions to decline.
Thank you for finally at least acknowledging the fact that I responded to your answer instead of lying about it like you've been doing.
And my answer has gone completely ignored
You fucking liar. I responded to your answer and completely refuted it, you failed to acknowlede my counterarguments whatsoever, blindly declaring that you had "won" just because you responded to my question at all.
This was my response, since you're pretending it doesn't exist:
"And in the meantime, their tax money has to go to support it, and the military equipment that’s produced for the war is brought home and given to police, where it can be used against protests and labor organizing. All in the name of “cheaper foreign goods,” which also means that it won’t be as profitable to produce goods domestically. Fucking Reaganite, supply side economics. Hey, notice how in the time we’ve been doing the thing you want, wages have become completely divorced from productivity and everything’s getting more expensive anyway?"
You are so incredibly privileged to think that Amazon was cherry picked. I chose it because it's one of the largest employers, and because I worked there. And as a matter of fact, it was better than the jobs I had previously. There are a lot of people in this country making a lot less money than Amazon workers, but you can't even imagine it.
God, I hope you find up on the receiving end of what you support so bad. You deserve it.
As I said, that is the one, singular time in the last 80 years of war that military intervention benefitted anyone in any way. Every conflict is "the most justified use of armament in a very long time." Y'all just think you're special because you're living in the present and think everyone in the past was just dumb, it's hubris. Bush went into Afghanistan with like a 90% approval rating. There was near-universal agreement that the conflict was justified. 20 years later and millions dead, we have nothing whatsoever to show for it.
I was alive when that war started, and I was part of that 10% who never approved of Bush, and people accused me of being a terrorist sympathizer when I said I thought we should turn the other cheek. The same sort of people now call me a Russian bot or Putin shill for advocating diplomatic solutions now. But I was completely vindicated and they were all dead wrong.
It's funny that you can't help but turn to the WWII example even after I preempted it. It's because it's an easy, go to justification that you can just plop on to any war ever. If that's all it takes to get you to support a war, you would've supported Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Vietnam, and Korea. The historical record of "wars justified by pointing to WWII" is absolutely abysmal.
But sure, I'll grant that there are times when the use of force is justified, when you can make a clear argument as to how the average person will materially benefit from it. You can't do that with this war, except by plugging in the generic WWII line, which is bullshit now just as it always is. The reality is that quality of life is not very different between Ukraine and Russia, it's just a question of which group of capitalists gets to exploit people.
Again, I want to make the point that regardless of whether you agree or disagree, there are a lot of people who have soured on the idea of "benevolent interventionism" and on this conflict specifically. I'd also mention that I predicted Americans would eventually lost interest in the conflict and move on, as is happening now. We never had a real material stake in the conflict, Russia doesn't pose an existential threat, and Americans are easily excitable but have goldfish memories. Enthusiasm was always going to wane so unless the conflict was resolved quickly it was always going to result in a loss, and the only question was how long the meat grinder would have to keep running before people could accept it.