Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Shut down averted (for now)

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Sohogator, Sep 30, 2023.

  1. Sohogator

    Sohogator GC Hall of Fame

    3,568
    576
    358
    Aug 22, 2012
    I’ll allow it.
     
  2. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    14,481
    1,724
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    Don't know. Possibly. Just pointing out that the theories don't make much sense.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. gaterzfan

    gaterzfan GC Hall of Fame

    1,255
    260
    1,698
    Feb 6, 2020
    So, no evidence to support something you just “conjured up”. Really, you have absolutely how the cut spend on Ukraine vs Russia will have on future military budgets; no one knows, it’s all just a SWAG.

    Now, we can reasonably project the spend thus far will cost the US 3+ billion/year at current treasury rates. So, as long as rates stay at the current level and until the public debt is reduced to the pre-Ukraine vs Russia level, the US will be borrowing another $3+ billion/year just to pay interest on the borrowings required to fund Ukraine. And this will continue to increase as the spend on Ukraine vs Russia continues.

    I don’t know if supporting Ukraine at current or higher levels is a good or bad investment, I just know it’s costing the US with no guarantee that future US military spending needs will benefit (ie will be lower) from it.
     
  4. Sohogator

    Sohogator GC Hall of Fame

    3,568
    576
    358
    Aug 22, 2012
    It is a certainty that military spending will go up even though it’s likely that our need to prep for a two front war will be diminished. You take the opportunity to diminish your enemy at a relative pittance each and every time.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  5. danmanne65

    danmanne65 GC Hall of Fame

    3,272
    657
    243
    Jul 2, 2022
    DeLand
    How much of our defense budget is based on countering Russia? We may pivot to China and there may be little savings but most of the stuff we have sent has been stored in warehouses. Out with the old in with the new.

    Your math presumes that we will be replacing all of the stuff we had in storage. If we do it will be with 20 years newer stuff which will be better and battle tested. You made a stupid point and you keep on digging.