11-27-2024, 03:47 PM
(11-26-2024, 10:18 PM)rothschild Wrote:(11-26-2024, 08:32 PM)username Wrote:(11-26-2024, 04:33 PM)rothschild Wrote: If the hundreds of billions of dollars that The Democratic Party invested in the continuation of the War in Ukraine had instead been invested in fixing our broken economy, they would have won the election. The poor sods that voted for Trump because of the rising cost of basic necessities would have instead voted for Harris.
You reap what you sow.
Like that EVER would have or could have happened. Since WHEN does the government “save” on overseas military spending and instead invest that money in the domestic economy? It doesn’t happen. Trump has said there were no wars under his first administration (except winding up Afghanistan) but did he move money “saved” to some domestic agenda? He cut some taxes but grew the national debt substantially in the process. RC can probably tell us in painfully boring detail why it doesn’t work that way but to me…it’s all a budget issue. U can’t save from Peter to pay Paul. I’d rather get my hands on campaign money anyway. Put that to better use.
It could and would have happened if the Democratic Party had the will to make it happen. They don't, so we're back to Trump.
Why make excuses for a rotten, broken down system?
I’m not making excuses for anyone (certainly not the system) but the debt has risen over many administrations irrespective (to some degree) to what extent we’re participating in military events overseas. I’m just saying if we cut off aid to Ukraine it absolutely doesn’t mean that money will instead be used fruitfully at home. It will still stay in the military budget—it’s not going to get diverted to building housing or applied directly to paying down debt or to climate change investments or anything else.
Commando Cunt Queen