Neutral Politics: Evidence. Logic. Respect.
r/NeutralPolitics
A recent poll (PDF) shows that 50% of Americans support the continued provision of weapons to Ukraine, while 23% oppose it. This support represents a slight increase from the 48% back in January, but a notable decline from the 60% of a year ago. Even for those who do support continued military aid, some feel that the US is providing too much.
Since the Russian invasion of February 2022, lawmakers have approved the disbursement of $48.9 billion in military aid to Ukraine. That works out to $3.26 billion per month or $39.12 billion per year.
The total expenditures of the US government for fiscal year 2022 were $6.272 trillion, so the country is spending about 0.6% of its budget to help Ukraine defend itself. As a means of comparison, the US spent an estimated $2.261 trillion on its 20-year war in Afghanistan, which works out to $113 billion per year, or roughly triple its rate of spending in Ukraine (not counting, of course, the incalculable value of the troops lost).
Of the roughly 40 countries that have sent military aid to Ukraine since the invasion, the US share is about 70%, but as a percentage of GDP, US contributions fall somewhere in the middle of the pack.
Some lawmakers believe this conflict is not be the responsibility of US taxpayers and that the money would be better spent elsewhere. They have introduced legislation to cut off all aid to Ukraine.
Since we're over a year into this conflict and the US is preparing to announce another package of aid soon, it's worth asking some questions:
How does the US determine what is enough or too much military aid to Ukraine?
What are Ukraine's final goals worth to the US?
Aside from supporting Ukraine's goals, what other advantages, if any, does the US get out of providing this aid and what's the value of those advantages?
There are currently 7 candidates who have announced running for the Republican nomination. These candidates state their policy goals on their official campaign websites:
Trump: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues
DeSantis: https://rondesantis.com/
Elder: https://www.larryelder.com/
Asa: https://www.asa2024.com/solutions
Vivek: https://www.vivek2024.com/america-first-2-0/
Haley: https://nikkihaley.com/
Scott: https://votetimscott.com/
Pence (likely to join): https://advancingamericanfreedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Freedom-Agenda-English.pdf (policy list from 501(c)(4) organization Pence started)
Policy Page Summary:
In transitional justice, reparations are measures taken by the state to redress gross and systematic violations of human rights law or humanitarian law through the administration of some form of compensation or restitution to the victims.
Recently, there's been renewed discussion of paying reparations to the descendants of Black slaves in the United States. Earlier this month, a California task force approved recommendations that would apologize and pay reparations to Black residents for the discrimination they have faced. If passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, some economists have projected the state could owe upwards of $800 billion, or more than 2.5 times its annual budget.
There is some history to support reparations. Japanese Americans who were imprisoned in World War II later won an apology and compensation from the Federal government and some of them now support reparations for Black Americans. Between 1946 and 1978, the Indian Claims Commission paid $818 million to Native American tribes to address their grievances against the United States. In 2006, a collection of groups in Canada agreed to a $2 billion settlement package for the estimated 80,000 survivors of the Indian Residential Schools program.
What are the pros and cons of a government paying reparations to groups that have faced historical discrimination, oppression, and/or victimization?
Have previous efforts at reparations had the desired effect of redressing grievances and improving the lives of groups who were historically wronged?
In cases of mixed families, lost records, and Black Americans whose families emigrated to the US long after slavery, how do we determine eligibility for reparations due to slavery?
What alternatives to reparations have been explored and how did those turn out?
Reading through the Durham report, on page 288 he notes "failures" made by the FBI during the opening and throughout the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
"As the more complete record now shows, there are specific areas of Crossfire Hurricane activity in which the FBI badly underperformed and failed, not only in its duties to the public, but also in preventing the severe reputational harm that has befallen the FBI as a consequence of Crossfire Hurricane."
What "failures" did Durham uncover?
Also, as the source for a variety of claims that would be found in the Steele Dossier, what do we know about Igor Danchenko's motivation?
https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation)
In the United States, Supreme Court justices have life tenure. Alexander Hamilton explains in Federalist #78 that the reasoning for this provision was so the justices' objectivity would be preserved by not having to stand for reelection/reappointment.
The first five justices served an average of 8.5 years, because longevity at the time wasn't as great as today.
The average age of the most recent five justices when they were appointed was 50.8 years and the average life expectancy today of a person that age is an additional 33 years. So, the effective tenure of a Supreme Court justice today is nearly four times the term of the original justices. The oldest justice on the court today, Clarence Thomas, is 74. He has served for 32 years and his life expectancy is another 12 years, meaning he could be expected to serve for a total of 44 years, which is more than five times the average tenure of the original justices.
Current trust in the court is at historic lows and most Americans want to end lifetime appointments.
Hamilton's original concern could be resolved by proposals to limit justices to a single, longer term. However, some experts argue that imposing term limits would "make the institution appear more, not less, political" and compromise the court's objectivity:
Presidents, knowing that their appointees will be on the high court for a relatively short time, might well search out the most extremist judges who can further their short-term aspirations or uphold favorable policies. Given the political polarization of the Senate, that will make the confirmation process even more divisive rather than less so. [...]
Even worse, justices who know that they will likely need another job after they retire from the Supreme Court may well tailor their rulings to curry favor from potential employers. [...] If the court seems to be polarized and political now, imagine if some justices plan to work for the conservative Heritage Foundation when their time on the high court is up and others plan to work for the Brookings Institution or the left-leaning Center for American Progress.
Questions:
What are the pros and cons of lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court?
Which proposals, if any, best address the perceived problems with the court?
About Community
Guidelines
This subreddit is best viewed using Old.Reddit
Neutral Politics is a strictly moderated community. Please read through and familiarize yourself with our rules and guidelines:
https://reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index
What is Neutral Politics?
Neutral Politics is a community dedicated to evenhanded, empirical discussion of political issues. It is a space to discuss policy and the tone of political debate.
Is this a subreddit for people who are politically neutral?
No - in fact we welcome and encourage any viewpoint to engage in discussion. The idea behind r/NeutralPolitics is to set up a neutral space where those of differing opinions can come together and rationally lay out their respective arguments. We are neutral in that no political opinion is favored here - only facts and logic.
r/NeutralPolitics Rules
Demeaning language, rudeness or hostility towards another user will get your comment removed. Repeated violations may result in a ban.
If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
NeutralPolitics is a serious discussion based subreddit. We do not allow bare expressions of opinion, comments without context, sarcasm, jokes, memes, off topic replies, or pejorative name calling.
The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.
We do not allow overly broad questions, solicitations of pure opinion, surveys, requests to explain public opinion or media coverage, posts about other subreddits, or meta posts.
The post must not be inflammatory, editorialized, leading towards a particular answer, a statement of opinion, or a request to critique your theory.
Give more than just a headline. Provide some background information.
Statements of fact must cite qualified sources. Nothing is "common knowledge."
The purpose of this forum is to discuss issues. We do not allow polls, surveys or requests for fact checking.
The title must match the contents.
If the question cannot be answered with facts — which includes any that are phrased in the future tense (What will/would/could happen?) — then it's not appropriate for NeutralPolitics.
Moderation Policy
Neutral Politics is strictly moderated.
Other Important Information
Guide to Upvoting and Downvoting Resource Guide for Building Fact-Based Opinions
Relevant Subreddits
265,062 members
113,206 members
3,231,080 members
620,707 members
287,223 members
2,179,433 members
93,498 members
520,415 members