2013 US budget: ‘difficult cuts’ for Americans, jackpot for Israel

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by BrownMeetPurple, Feb 23, 2012.

  1. Speaking before students at Northern Virginia Community College on February 13, President Obama unveiled his 2013 budget request, in which he proposed "some difficult cuts that, frankly, I wouldn’t normally make if they weren't absolutely necessary. But they are." These budget cuts are unavoidable, the President argued, because "the truth is we're going to have to make some tough choices in order to put this country back on a more sustainable fiscal path." In a sad commentary on the misplaced priorities of the Obama Administration, however, these "tough choices" will affect the delivery of basic services to U.S. citizens while the Israeli military hits the jackpot at taxpayer expense.

    As part of its budget request, the White House released a 205-page document detailing the cuts, consolidations, and savings the Obama Administration is proposing. These proposed cuts include $5 million to the USDA to analyze food-borne pathogens, potentially making the U.S. food supply even less safe than it already is after 30 people died last year after eating listeria-infected cantaloupe; a $359 million cut to the EPA to provide grants to states for water infrastructure projects when an estimated 1.7 million Americans shockingly lack access to basic water and sanitation services according to the Water Infrastructure Network; and a whopping $360 billion cut over ten years in Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs even though the World Health Organization rates the U.S. health system as only 37th globally in health care performance.

    Given these "difficult cuts" to the budget, it is easy to agree with Israeli journalist Ran Dagoni, who wrote last year in the Israeli business newspaper Globes, that "the time has come to bid goodbye to the military aid that the US extends to Israel, that generous package..that enables the Israeli taxpayer to share the cost of procuring equipment for the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] with the US taxpayer." After all, Israel – the 28th wealthiest country in the world in 2011, with a per capita gross domestic product greater than Korea and Saudi Arabia according to the International Monetary Fund – hardly needs U.S. charity more than we need safe food, clean water, and health care.

    Yet, instead of reducing or even just freezing levels of U.S. military aid to Israel, President Obama wants to provide Israel with $3.1 billion of U.S. taxpayer-funded weapons next year, an increase from $3.075 billion in 2012, making the State Department’s claim that this budget request "maintains last year's record funding levels" for Israel both immodest and inaccurate. By comparison, of the nine other Near Eastern countries receiving U.S. military aid, the budget request for eight of them is unchanged from last year’s budget while the request for Tunisia declined.

    Were Israel using these weapons for legitimate purposes and to further U.S. foreign policy objectives, then perhaps a persuasive case could be constructed for why the United States does not need to make any budgetary "tough choices" when it comes to Israel. However, Israel misuses U.S. weapons, in violation of U.S. laws, to commit grave and systematic human rights abuses against Palestinians in furtherance of its 44-year military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip and its illegal colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. From 2000 to 2009, the United States provided Israel with more than $24 billion of military aid and delivered more than 670 million weapons, rounds of ammunition, and related military equipment. During that same period, according to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, Israel killed at least 2,969 Palestinians "who did not take part in the hostilities and were killed by Israeli security forces (not including the objects of targeted killings)."

    Israel often kills Palestinians with these same U.S. weapons provided at taxpayer expense. Such was likely the case last December when an Israeli soldier fired a high-velocity tear gas canister at 28-year-old Mustafa Tamimi, a resident of the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh, who was protesting against Israeli settlers seizing land on which his village's natural spring is located. The canister, fired from an Israeli armored vehicle, struck the activist in the face. He died the next day from his wounds. Strong evidence exists that the tear gas canister that killed Mustafa was made by Combined Systems, Inc. of Jamestown, Pennsylvania and likely could have been one of more than 595,000 tear gas canisters and other "riot control" equipment, valued at more than $20.5 million, which were funded by U.S. taxpayers and given to the Israeli military between 2000 and 2009.

    Not only does U.S. military aid to Israel make U.S. taxpayers complicit in Israel’s human rights abuses of Palestinians; it also acts as a disincentive for Israel to work in tandem with the Obama Administration to achieve stated U.S. foreign policy goals of freezing Israeli settlement expansion, ending Israeli military occupation, and establishing a Palestinian state and a just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace.

    The United States cannot afford the moral and economic costs of providing ever-increasing amounts of U.S. taxpayer-funded weapons to Israel. In this era of "tough choices" for the budget, here is a clear-cut example of a subsidy that should be ended.

    2013 budget: 'difficult cuts' for Americans, gravy for Israel
  2. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Was this about our duty to god to protect "his people" or is this really about using the Israelis as the middle men to boost the profits of the lead corporations of the military industrial complex? Could this be nothing more than socialist wealth re-distribution capitalist style? Yet those who howl at the moon about public welfare sit on their hands with gag in mouth and never say a word. Pure hypocrisy at it's best IMO!
  3. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Paul bots never cease to amaze me with their level of antisemitism. When listening to talk radio better than 50% of them get cut off when they go into their anti-zionist rants. Personally I believe a lot of you(meaning blind ron paul supporters) would be giggling like school girls the day pictures are published of that ominous mushroom cloud hanging over Tel Aviv. Sure one can make the case that one reason the U.S. backs Israel so fiercely is due to business interests in the region, but I believe it goes deeper than that. I think its more based on the principle that you simply back up your allies no matter what because what good is an alliance between two nations if both are not willing to fight in order to fend off their adversaries. Israel is a small country based in a highly contested part of the world where all its neighbors hate it with a passion and want nothing more than to see it wiped off the face of the earth. We know this because countries like Iran have made this very statement. They are our ally therefore we will support them militarily in order to help maintain their existance. I personally find nothing wrong with that.
  4. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    :hamwheelsmilf: and :panicsmiley::panicsmiley::panicsmiley:

    while others are beginning too.........

  5. Oh Lord. Here we go again. Typical AIPAC victim card played once again. Nobody is buying that BS these days. People are starting to wake up. You should too unless you want to be on the losing side. ;)
  6. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    I simply call it as I see it. No real religious or agenda based conclusions here, just simply looking at the historical facts of the situation and coming to the only real conclusion a rational or logical individual can come to. I use the same procedure when deciding whether a religion is based on violence or not. For example in the Quran a non believer is to be either converted, enslaved, or killed(link), and when I see this practiced today by muslims I can only come to the conclusion that the religion of Islam is a violent religion not worthy of my respect mostly in part of because of this. Its simple logical conclusions based on real world observations guided by historical facts.
  7. *laughs*,

    victim card played - check
    divert attention by attacking muslims - check

    waiting for your next move
  8. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Just google "jews against zionism" for starters and the curtains of delusion will begin to fall away!

    And I guess Brett never considered that 2 men that influenced Ron Paul the most when it comes to economics were Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard (both jewish) as well as his longtime close friendship with economist Walter Block (also jewish). It also never dawned on Brett to consider the rich and lush jewish history and tradition that permeates the idea of historical libertarianism and the idea of individualist political, economic and social liberty foundational principles. Remove those many, many jewish thinkers and what we call liberty and freedom holds a far, far different POV.

    But then it's far easier to follow the establishment's (read bird of prey here) sound bites and talking points and then to the old fall back position of panic and hysteria.

    Why think when your position doesn't require it and even worse falls completely apart should you even do so!

    For someone who screamed like hell at the "false charges" leveled against his guy in Herman Cain, he sure is quick to pull that trigger himself when it comes to someone he doesn't like.

    Class, our word of the day comes to us thanks to Brett. That word is:

  9. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    You are 100% right about the "waking up" part. Nobody ever gave much ado about islam, muslims or any of that. They are finally waking up to see how perverted believers in the koran are. People are starting to notice a bit of encroachment here and there.....and they don't like it. They don't want their American laws changed just to accomodate one religious sect. There are no sides.......there's only America or elsewhere!!
  10. You mean Christian right/israhell or elsewhere! Yawwwn....
  11. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    For a nation who claims 80% of it's 350 million population is christian, you sure are sacred schittless by a couple of million muslims of whom a small single digit % are even fundamentalist to begin with. If I were you, I'd be more afraid of the far faster growing atheist/agnostic/disbelief population in America who are rejecting all forms of superstitious belief and looking to real evidence and facts for answers going forward. Even the muslim community is starting to loose people to this new ideal of non-belief.

    Besides, do you really honestly believe the vast majority of women would just roll over, do as they are told and wear burka's? And do you honestly believe the vast majority of men would give up seeing the ladies in thongs, short skirts and short shorts?

    As I said, some of YOU (MORELUCK) just don't really think things out very well.

    Go back to sleep and leave the thinking to people far more capable of actually doing it!


    Dave's got your number and I applaud him for hammering you relentlessly on it!
  12. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    I'm sure Moreluck has it right, and US prisons are just filled up with Islamic people ! Those most dangerous in the world.
    Yet, they all not known for basic crime, shootings, drug dealing, or even having gang affilations. Not even in the sex trade. :(
  13. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Lack of a factual based response - check
    Lack of complete sentences - check

    I guess that makes me the winner of this debate. thanks for playing!
  14. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    I see a lot of words written, but there is no substance. I am in fact familiar with Murray Rothbard, an anarchist who held nothing but disdain for conservatives. Isn't it interesting that Ron Paul dismisses conservatism then claims he himself is the mantle of conservatism? I am also interested in hearing your opinion on the alliance between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Curious that a politician who claims to be a strict constitutionalist joins forces with the least conservative member of the group. It should be like mixing oil and water, yet they seem to work so well together. I guess that dismisses any notion that Ron Paul is any different from the rest!

    Either way its obvious my earlier post must have hit some level of truth on your part otherwise you would have atleast attempted to counter it. Tell me, what kind of belief system is worthy of my respect that of which desires a nuclear holocaust?
  15. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Stop looking in the mirror then!
  16. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Cute, your own rendition of Pee Wee Herman's "I know you are but what am I!" Look, when you have a real argument to be made I will be glad to respond. Until then I think we both have better ways to spend our time.
  17. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    If you were serious about truly avoiding nuclear holocaust and tyrannical cruelty you'd completely abandon the nationstate system. It was the nationstate that created nuclear weapons, the tyranny of fascism, the deadly reality of gas chambers, the brutality of the gulag and the domination of the communist statism, deficit spending, fiat currency, generational debt slavery and theft of labor through the means of any and all forms of compulsory taxation. All of this is conservativism and yet it is also liberalism so in that regard I stand with Rothbard and a whole host of folks who reject both systematic ideals of plunder.

    As I said, you just aren't willing to think things out to their ultimate conclusions!
  18. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Also Brett, you didn't strike a cord but I saw an opportunity to talk with others by bouncing the ball off of your head. Just because you think I'm debating with you doesn't mean I'm not really talking with others here!
  19. menotyou

    menotyou bella amicizia

    Love the picture!
  20. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    "While everyone can agree that the Koran asks women to veil themselves out of modesty, religious scholars can't agree how much of the body should be veiled.

    Read more: Why Do Islamic Women Wear Veils? | eHow.com Why Do Islamic Women Wear Veils? | eHow.com

    It says, "everyone agrees" on the veil thing. So, for whatever the reason, the women DO wear veils. I didn't make the rule.

    "Firstly the matter of dress. A Muslim woman may wear whatever she pleases in the presence of her husband and family or among women friends. But when she goes out or when men other than her husband or close family are present she is expected to wear a dress which will cover all parts of her body, and which should not reveal the figure."