The end products are, but the money, aside from filling pockets of the defense contractors also supports American jobs.
That’s the thing. This is money coming from American taxpayers to support defense contracts and jobs that don’t benefit the American people.
All of the money being spent to make weapons we give away could be better spent helping the American people. This way, their tax dollars are used for services that actually benefit them.
Tanks don’t benefit us unless we sell them or use them.
But now we’re in critic of the industrial military industry per se, not where those weapons are delivered to. And we’re far away from the claim whether America is sending money, because it isn’t.
My point, from the beginning, is that US arms can be sold. They are not worthless, and giving them away means taxpayers funded jobs that give no benefit to the American people and line the pockets of for-profit business owners.
weapons produced by Americans paid for by Americans.
only now it’s not American soldiers who do the shooting.
You’re trying to argue that it’s a win for the US because Americans aren’t using it. If the US sold its equipment instead of giving it away, you would have a point that it is good for the American economy.
My counterpoint, from the beginning, was that giving away equipment “just means a defense contractor got richer at the expense of American taxpayers.”
The taxpayer money that was spent on equipment we gave away could’ve been better spent on something that actually benefits the American people. It would still create jobs, but those jobs would be benefiting us instead of defense contractors and whoever we give our equipment too.
That’s the thing. This is money coming from American taxpayers to support defense contracts and jobs that don’t benefit the American people.
All of the money being spent to make weapons we give away could be better spent helping the American people. This way, their tax dollars are used for services that actually benefit them.
Tanks don’t benefit us unless we sell them or use them.
But now we’re in critic of the industrial military industry per se, not where those weapons are delivered to. And we’re far away from the claim whether America is sending money, because it isn’t.
My point, from the beginning, is that US arms can be sold. They are not worthless, and giving them away means taxpayers funded jobs that give no benefit to the American people and line the pockets of for-profit business owners.
You’re trying to argue that it’s a win for the US because Americans aren’t using it. If the US sold its equipment instead of giving it away, you would have a point that it is good for the American economy.
My counterpoint, from the beginning, was that giving away equipment “just means a defense contractor got richer at the expense of American taxpayers.”
The taxpayer money that was spent on equipment we gave away could’ve been better spent on something that actually benefits the American people. It would still create jobs, but those jobs would be benefiting us instead of defense contractors and whoever we give our equipment too.