Why Should the security of Ukraine cause the U.S. government to shut down?

[Crezth]

In the U.S. news lately, we're seeing an impending government shutdown become more and more impending, and currently stand about five days away from such a shutdown.

Congress has returned to Washington with a government shutdown less than five days away and lawmakers are still scrambling for ways to avoid it.

Particularly interesting however is the focus that current talks seem to have on the subject of aid to Ukraine:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced Tuesday that the Senate will vote today to start debate on a bipartisan stop-gap spending bill with funding for Ukraine and disaster relief. Even if the Senate is able to quickly pass the legislation, there is no guarantee House leaders will even schedule a vote on the measure.

"Over the weekend Senate Democrats and Republicans together worked in good faith to reach an agreement on a continuing resolution that will keep the government open beyond Sept. 30," Schumer said on the Senate floor.

"While for sure this bill does not have everything either side wants, it will continue to fund the government at present levels while maintaining our commitment to Ukraine's security and humanitarian needs while also ensuring that those impacted by natural disasters across the country begin to get the resources they need."

Yesterday, the New York Times posted that the money for Ukraine was actually at the center of the current shutdown negotiations.

Money for Ukraine at Center of Senate Bid to Avert Shutdown​

With the House in chaos over its spending plans, senators of both parties were deep in negotiations on Monday over efforts to head off a government shutdown this weekend through a stopgap measure and whether to include additional aid to Ukraine in the legislation.

Senators and senior staff members engaged in intense discussions over the past few days on how to proceed given the House impasse, officials said, with the Senate taking steps toward an emergency spending bill that would keep dollars flowing to federal agencies after the current fiscal year ends at midnight Saturday.

People familiar with the talks said a major sticking point was whether to add up to $25 billion in new assistance to Ukraine to what is formally known as a continuing resolution or to keep the legislation free of contentious provisions in what would be a “clean” measure that might enjoy broader support among Republicans in the House, which would also have to pass it to keep the government open.

In other words, it would seem that Americans who might ordinarily be able to rely on government aid and normal operations may have to do without such things as pay increases for teachers, lunches for schoolchildren, and medical care for the disabled and the elderly, in order to fund a large and expensive lobby that is pushing for more and more contributions for war profiteering and the proliferation of dangerous weapons such as cluster munitions.

The question for the thread is this: how much should America continue to support Ukraine and should that support include weapons and military training officers, or be restricted to things like food and medicine? Should America continue to support Ukraine even if it must shut down its own government to do so? And finally, which of these two is a better use of American tax dollars: 1. sending weapons to foreign countries, or 2. feeding the hungry, housing the unhoused, and treating the sick?

 

[Birdjaguar]

The US should give Ukraine missiles to strike anywhere in the Crimea. Any other uses would be up the the Ukraine. The anti Ukraine chatter is from Trump Republicans. The US government shut down is the work of the same group of Republicans. The US can afford to both support Ukraine and increase its spending on the poor and sick.

 

[Kaitzilla]

As far as I know, the Ukraine matter has been declared a national security concern by the Pentagon, so the money will not stop flowing just because the government will shut down soon.

But the already-approved spending is close to running out which is a problem.

The new $24 billion proposal would last until the end of 2023?


President Zelensky has said without the aid Ukraine will lose the war.


About half the USA citizens oppose more aid, so the political pressure to scale back is there a bit, but nothing too strong to resist.

As the global reserve currency, the USA is the only one who can afford guns, butter, and funding another country's war against Russia at the same time.
Just a bit more inflation.

 

[Hygro]

This isn’t a principled stand. The republicans will find any excuse if they have already decided to play this game. So don’t give them an inch.

 

[IglooDame]

The question for the thread is this: how much should America continue to support Ukraine and should that support include weapons and military training officers, or be restricted to things like food and medicine? Should America continue to support Ukraine even if it must shut down its own government to do so? And finally, which of these two is a better use of American tax dollars: 1. sending weapons to foreign countries, or 2. feeding the hungry, housing the unhoused, and treating the sick?

1 - Lots, and include military aid.
2 - False assumption that supporting Ukraine requires shutting down its government.
3 - Feeding the hungry etc is a better use of tax dollars, but fortunately the US can do both.

 

[IglooDame]

This isn’t a principled stand. The republicans will find any excuse if they have already decided to play this game. So don’t give them an inch.

This. If it wasn't Ukraine aid, it would be a border wall, or abortion funding, or something.

 

[r16]

the US Goverment Shut-down is a scam and it actually has never provided the extra money desired . And , yes , all the bragging about the rounding errors and smart moves and everything will bite somebody in the backside ; one of these days . Yes , nobody has been scared of Z and T intentionally bringing some rather old person to the Canadian Parliament . Yes , closing down the internet will not solve that .

 

[Crezth]

This isn’t a principled stand. The republicans will find any excuse if they have already decided to play this game. So don’t give them an inch.

I often feel like we all use the republicans as an excuse not to have any morals ourselves, so…

 

[Hygro]

I often feel like we all use the republicans as an excuse not to have any morals ourselves, so…

I neither feel that way nor know what you mean.

 

[Gori the Grey]

We should fund Ukraine and starve Republicans.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nice logic and morals. Another country invades another using artillery and incendiarys on civilians and America is the bad guy go figure.

The why is stupid American political system combined with stupid American politicians seeking power.

 

[Lexicus]

In the U.S. news lately, we're seeing an impending government shutdown become more and more impending, and currently stand about five days away from such a shutdown.



Particularly interesting however is the focus that current talks seem to have on the subject of aid to Ukraine:



Yesterday, the New York Times posted that the money for Ukraine was actually at the center of the current shutdown negotiations.



In other words, it would seem that Americans who might ordinarily be able to rely on government aid and normal operations may have to do without such things as pay increases for teachers, lunches for schoolchildren, and medical care for the disabled and the elderly, in order to fund a large and expensive lobby that is pushing for more and more contributions for war profiteering and the proliferation of dangerous weapons such as cluster munitions.

The question for the thread is this: how much should America continue to support Ukraine and should that support include weapons and military training officers, or be restricted to things like food and medicine? Should America continue to support Ukraine even if it must shut down its own government to do so? And finally, which of these two is a better use of American tax dollars: 1. sending weapons to foreign countries, or 2. feeding the hungry, housing the unhoused, and treating the sick?

The Republican Party is shutting down the government because they're insane. It has nothing to do with Ukraine.

 

[r16]

and a most welcome result will be the end of shaming people with contrary views .

...

one of these days

 

[Birdjaguar]

and a most welcome result will be the end of shaming people with contrary views .

...

one of these days

There are some views that need to be shamed and then buried. We see them daily among the MAGA voters and legislators. Their only goal is destruction so they can stay in power.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The Republican Party is shutting down the government because they're insane. It has nothing to do with Ukraine.

This whole government shutdown is baffling. Money-related Parliamentary arguments in Canada may lead to a non-confidence vote which automatically triggers a new election, or the Prime Minister may decide to call an election anyway, but the ordinary workings of Parliament aren't shut down. People get their pensions, parks are still open... we get more disruption when Canada Post goes on strike, even though they're still supposed to deliver essential mail (government cheques).

 

[Hygro]

I often feel like we all use the republicans as an excuse not to have any morals ourselves, so…

Relevant

 

[Birdjaguar]

Relevant

That was an awfully long read read to get to this:

"The whole point here is that the target demo for AJA is not smart, and I know this because no one smart would watch TV news. If you are watching TV news, then you're not smart, this isn't me saying this, this is TV news predicting this: no one smart would ever ask another person, let alone the news, to explain to them how the news relates to them. TV news thinks you're as stupid as Time Magazine."

I'm not surprised they stopped posting a decade ago.

 

[E.man]

This whole government shutdown is baffling. Money-related Parliamentary arguments in Canada may lead to a non-confidence vote which automatically triggers a new election, or the Prime Minister may decide to call an election anyway, but the ordinary workings of Parliament aren't shut down. People get their pensions, parks are still open... we get more disruption when Canada Post goes on strike, even though they're still supposed to deliver essential mail (government cheques).

Yes, from Aussie. More strange stuff from the Murcans. Collapse the country or minor point scoring.
Once in our history supply was blocked in parliament. Govt was dismissed and election held.

 

[uppi]

This whole government shutdown is baffling. Money-related Parliamentary arguments in Canada may lead to a non-confidence vote which automatically triggers a new election, or the Prime Minister may decide to call an election anyway, but the ordinary workings of Parliament aren't shut down. People get their pensions, parks are still open... we get more disruption when Canada Post goes on strike, even though they're still supposed to deliver essential mail (government cheques).

Yes, from Aussie. More strange stuff from the Murcans. Collapse the country or minor point scoring.
Once in our history supply was blocked in parliament. Govt was dismissed and election held.

That is an inherent difference between a parliamentary and a presidential system.

In a parliamentary system, the government needs to command a majority in parliament at all times, so it is done for in such a situation.

In a presidential system, the government stays as it is until the next, even if it has no chance of ever passing a law. So this sort of thing is by design.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think Canada is actually unusual in the Americas, using a parliamentary system rather than a presidential one. Not that that's particularly an endorsement of one system over the other. If I were a benevolent god-king with magic powers, I'm not sure which one I'd pick, that my subjects could manage the day-to-day themselves and I could just go to film festivals and concerts.