The G.O.P. abandoned a bipartisan border security bill that also aided Ukraine after Democrats called their bluff on immigration, agreeing to tough measures Republicans demanded.

Their idea was to tie approval of military assistance to Ukraine to tough border security demands that Democrats would never accept, allowing Republicans to block the money for Kyiv that many of them oppose while simultaneously enabling them to pound Democrats for refusing to halt a surge of migrants at the border. It was to be a win-win headed into November’s elections.

But Democrats tripped them up by offering substantial — almost unheard-of — concessions on immigration policy without insisting on much in return. Now it is Republicans who are rapidly abandoning a compromise that gave them much of what they wanted, leaving aid to Ukraine in deep jeopardy, border policy in turmoil and Congress again flailing as multiple crises at home and abroad go without attention because of a legislative stalemate.

    • ddh@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      82·
      9 months ago

      Considering the massive spend in the US for the generally inferior healthcare, starting to wonder if spending is even a good metric for military.

      • pearable@lemmy.ml
        5·
        9 months ago

        I agree spending is not a great indicator. Price of labor is a major cost associated with creating military hardware. China can spend a lot less on their military and get more due to lower labor costs. Percentage of GDP spent on Military might be a better indication? Military personnel, bases, and aircraft carriers are a better metric. Last I heard the US was far ahead of everyone else on the last two cases though.

      • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
        5·
        9 months ago

        It’s a decent one; the US has the ability to project force globally in a way that other countries don’t right now.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          51·
          9 months ago

          the US can’t now though because half congress are spineless lickspittles hoping to get some green piss trickledown from russian and US oligarchs.

          • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
            2·
            9 months ago

            In the event of a Russian attack on NATO, the President already has authority to get US troops involved. Having an actual fight like that tends to create a rally-round-the-flag effect which would make it a lot harder for Republicans to start saying ‘no’.

            This would also escalate to nuclear before Congress could really change their mind, which is an incredible deterrent for Russia.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        2·
        9 months ago

        The two have some links, as well. The full cost of the Vietnam war hit a few decades after the US pulled out. All those veterans started to use their benefits, and a big one is the VA hospital system.

        The vets from the first stages of the War on Terror are starting to hit that right about now.

        In fact, I believe that to get to the $801B number in the graph above, you have to include vet benefits. Though it’d be a huge chunk of that pie regardless.