A Ukrainian soldier went to Washington to explain the war. He says American politicians don't realize much of the funding actually stays in the US.
A Ukrainian soldier went to Washington to explain the war. He says American politicians don't realize much of the funding actually stays in the US.
A Ukrainian soldier in Washington, DC told Insider he's using his break from the front lines of the war against Russia to educate US lawmakers.
A Ukrainian soldier in Washington, DC told Insider he's using his break from the front lines of the war against Russia to educate US lawmakers.
You're viewing a single thread.
That's the whole point of how any aid works in most situations. Especially with the US's military-industrial complex. Ukraine gets munitions, US industry gets the money. The point is not to build a military industry for Ukraine.
The infamous "government cheese" was given to the needy in the US not because poor people have a dire need for cheese, but because the government wanted to give a lot of money to wealthy dairy farmers.
To suggest that lawmakers don't understand that that is what they are doing is crazy.
The infamous "government cheese" was given to the needy in the US not because poor people have a dire need for cheese, but because the government wanted to give a lot of money to wealthy dairy farmers.
Jimmy Carter gave struggling dairy farmers money to encourage dairy production at a time when the costs of these products were rising like crazy.
The government bought a bunch to spur production and decrease costs for the average family. It was literally meant to help poor people the most.*I must correct myself, the dairy farmers were struggling because previous government interventions had tanked the cost of dairy so low that farms weren’t turning a profit. So the government bought up supply to increase prices to a more sustainable baseline for everyone. I apologize for my mistake and will post links below so people can read some sources and decide for themselves.
They also never intended to give the cheese away at all. They were hoping to eventually sell it in some capacity.
It was only later in the early 80s under Reagan that they decided to give the cheese away, once again, to poor people and the elderly specifically.
And they only did that after a public spectacle was made when Agriculture Secretary John R. Block showed up at a White House event with a five-pound block of greening, moldy cheese and showed it to the press. “We’ve got 60 million of these that the government owns,” he said. “It’s moldy, it’s deteriorating … we can’t find a market for it, we can’t sell it, and we’re looking to try to give some of it away.”
At one point they had so much cheese it was recommended they just dump it all into the ocean because it would be the cheapest thing to do.
But yeah, it was given away mostly because we had a lot of it and we needed to get rid of it somehow.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999144678/big-government-cheese-classic
https://www.history.com/news/government-cheese-dairy-farmers-reagan
Jimmy Carter gave struggling dairy farmers money to encourage dairy production at a time when the costs of these products were rising like crazy. The government bought a bunch to spur production and decrease costs for the average family.
This makes little sense. If the government makes big purchases of a product, the increase in demand raises, not lowers, prices. Also, if people aren't interested in eating that much cheese that the government has trouble giving it away, "spurring production" is an insane objective. It only makes sense if, as OP said, the whole point was a giveaway to farmers.
I’m no economist, I apologize, it went like this:
During the 1970s, as Americans sat in long gas lines and watched the economy tank, they faced another crisis: an unprecedented shortage of dairy products. In 1973, dairy prices shot up 30 percent as the price of other foods inflated. When the government tried to intervene, prices fell so low that the dairy industry balked. Then, in 1977, under President Jimmy Carter, the government set a new subsidy policy that poured $2 billion into the dairy industry in just four years.
Suddenly, dairy farmers who had been hurting were flush with cash—and producing as much milk as they could in order to take advantage of government support. The government purchased the milk dairy farmers couldn’t sell and began to process it into cheese, butter and dehydrated milk powder.
So they were struggling due to inflation, and the government was buying their products to prop them up for the time.
Edit: this is to add to your point.
The lawmakers pretend they don’t understand. They know the benefits of aid aren’t going to the American workers, and because of suppressed wages and non-existent mandatory benefits, the tactic works. The general public is purposefully removed from how any of this works and that allows manipulators to run around yelling bullshit lies that sound true. The bureaucracy works to their advantage, and it’s why we are buried in it.
They know the benefits of aid aren’t going to the American workers
They literally do though. It feels like you're conflating government purchases and like, tax breaks. Those aren't the same thing at all
Gov makes big purchases:
- company fills larger order
- suppliers make money from selling the additional supplies
- Multiple manufacturers make money because of how manufacturing works in interrelated ways
- employees get OT, new jobs, raises, bonuses, etc all the way up the chain
- employees spend that additional money, on haircuts and in restaurants, and on jet skis, and all kinds of shit
Whereas with tax breaks:
- CEO keeps more of what he already makes
- specialized industries get some smaller amount of money, lowering the velocity of the money "spent" due to fewer employees and lack of scale in material needs
- that's kind of it
You ignore the part of suppressed wages and denial of benefits. The average American worker does not receive the benefits of the aid
That is nonsensical.
How does billions of tax dollars going into the military-industrial complex make it better?
Because that's effectively giving a lot of money to US citizens.
Turns out most people you trust to build your weapons and shit are your own citizens.
The call is coming from inside the house!
Those "US citizens" being weapons and military vehicle manufacturers, with most of the money going to executives. Cute how you're trying to frame it as going to "our guys" but your nationalistic thinking doesn't stand up to the reality that we're just lining the pockets of a few at the expense of people's lives. Before you say "b-b-but the Ukraine situation is a defensive one" that's usually not the case with the military-industrial complex and also it incentivizes the complex to set up situations where countries have to rely on them regardless.
Except we aren't, which I lay out step by step in a post right next to this one.
You're laying out the exact same trickle down bullshit. Oh joy, more jobs making killing machines! Are you unaware of the disparity between executive pay and regular worker pay? Again, most of the money goes to the executives anyway. Still, if you want to make this argument: why doesn't the government simply invest in manufacturing things other than killing machines?
Are you unaware of the disparity between executive pay and regular worker pay?
I literally acknowledge this disparity in one of my bullets.
why doesn’t the government simply invest in manufacturing things other than killing machines?
The US government subsidies many industries and makes internal purchases from a lot more industries.
Do you believe FEMA makes all their shit? Because they don't. They buy it.