In the US, $3.8 BILLION to Israel's weapons could instead fund...
Posted by IntnsRed@reddit | EndlessWar | View on Reddit | 33 comments
Posted by IntnsRed@reddit | EndlessWar | View on Reddit | 33 comments
reddit_is_geh@reddit
I wonder if this person is the type of person who still wears a mask outside in public. Like, who else would even consider using masks as a metric in something like this unless it's a crazy person still freaking out over COVID
IntnsRed@reddit (OP)
Like 7+ million other Americans -- everyone with an organ transplant, who have an auto-immune disease, etc. -- I'm on immuno-suppressants. Serious sh*t!
Thus, I'm very susceptible to COVID-19 or even the common colds or flus. I had COVID once and was in a hospital ICU for 3 days. So yes, I'm one of "those people" who wear a mask in public when our county has a large number of infections -- my doctor tells me I'd be a damn fool not to because the risk is high.
Every person over 60 should be wearing masks for the same reason. Or are you an RFK Jr. fan who believes in "herd immunity" and it's okay if some people die?
reddit_is_geh@reddit
Okay, yeah, but you're an exceptional outlier. Most people aren't still thinking about face masks. Life has to go on at some point, and it seems like it's chugging along just fine for the overwhelming majority.
IntnsRed@reddit (OP)
No way. Ask any doctor who should be wearing masks. 7+ million people on immuno-suppressants, everyone over 60, people in "high volume" professions like store cashiers, many hospital/doctor's office workers, that adds up to a lot of people.
What's tragic is the "lessons" we've learned from COVID-19 -- none!
We saw hospitals in the Bronx, NY completely break down, riots and turning away sick people. Have any laws been passed to increase capacity or number of hospital beds? No! (The US has among the lowest number of hospital beds per population of any advance country.)
Today scientists predict we'll see more pandemics and that COVID-19 was an "easy" one. The death rate for COVID-19 was only 5% dropping to 2-3%. But the e-bola pandemic Obama dodged had a death rate of more than 30% -- we're talking Black Plague of Europe stuff here.
Scientists are tracking several viruses that have a 25%+ death rate that could easily hop over into being human-to-human transmittable diseases.
Do we think the gov't has any stockpiles of masks or respirators or supplies? Don't laugh, a good gov't would be doing such things. But hell, our gov't doesn't even bother to stockpile military supplies for its endless wars.
And to add stupidity to our laziness, in the next pandemic we'll have clowns touting their "constitutional right" to endanger the public's health by not wearing a mask or by breaking quarantine rules.
Think Big Pharm will rescue us again? The Pentagon funded a promising project that would create a vaccine for all coronaviruses -- everything COVID, from the common cold and flu to COVID-19 or COVID-25. But Big Pharma saw that as a threat (they make a lot of money from annual flu and COVID-19 shots!) so they lobbied and had that project terminated.
And our bought-and-paid-for gov't forces that viewpoint. We don't even keep track of COVID-19 cases any more, and people are still dying of it daily.
PLUTO_HAS_COME_BACK@reddit
US debt interest is more 1 trillion a year.
That does not stop the president from funding the wars.
Chicken_Crotch_Pie@reddit
Technically it is the US Congress that funds it. The president is the one in charge of what happens with the military though.
It's also the US Congress that has the power to declare wars, nowadays most wars aren't formally declared but are "military actions" or something that isn't technically defined as a war. This lets presidents do what they want without having to go through Congress, and Congress to not have to make unpopular decisions involving wars.
reddit_is_geh@reddit
The technical side of things is the president can do military actions for up to 30 days without congress' approval. It's frame as necessary to make swift decisions in times of crisis, so he's given that window. But obviously the president extends it and since congress doesn't care, they do nothing about it.
IntnsRed@reddit (OP)
But in the case of Syria, the US has been occupying 1/3 of that country for about a decade without Congress doing a damned thing about it. When asked, the administration croaks "because ISIS" when it's the US that's funding, protecting and training ISIS and trying to use them against the Syrian gov't.
reddit_is_geh@reddit
The president can garrison his military wherever he pleases, and take any action required to defend them.... So it's just more loopholes and an obvious setup to just give congress the power on a technical level, so they can stop it if they please, but for the most part, don't interfere.
mikemaca@reddit
We've given Israel $50 trillion all together over the years.
That is $25 million dollars per Gazan resident. Most people have 6-10 kids there, so family size of about 10, $250 million per family. For the $250 million it is costing us to brutally murder each of them one by one I bet that we could have instead given them $250 million each and will that sort of wealth they could have arranged to move to the country of their choice, start businesses and prosper. And without the $50 trillion from US taxpayers Israel would be mired in poverty and backwardsness.
reddit_is_geh@reddit
50 trillion? Dude... No we haven't. I think they normally get 2b in weapons a year.
IntnsRed@reddit (OP)
For the past few years it's been $3B/year. Egypt gets about the same amount. This year for Israel it's way past that ($18B was one number I recall).
Batbuckleyourpants@reddit
Where on earth did that number come from? That is how much the entire planet spends on military in over a decade.
IntnsRed@reddit (OP)
How many Israelis will it provide national health care for? While the US funds Israel (over $18 billion this year), Israelis enjoy national health care, in part, "subsidized" by the taxpayers of the US. But here in the US, we don't have national hearth care.
Despite a large majority of Democrats wanting "MediCare for All" (M4A) and a small majority of Republicans wanting M4A, in our "democracy" both of our ruling parties refuse to enact what the people want. So instead, we "enjoy" the world's most expensive medical care.
Ok-Imagination-2308@reddit
we need new party
IntnsRed@reddit (OP)
This!! ^^ ^^
If we look at US history (sorry, former professor and US history teacher here) the only times "we the people" have made significant social gains is when people vote for so-called "third parties." That forces our 2 ruling parties to "close ranks" and to "negate the threat." The 2 ruling parties temporarily change their positions to represent people and thus eliminate the threat.
But that's how we got the 40 hour workweek, unemployment insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, social security and all the other programs we hold dearly to -- we got them by voting for various "third parties."
The third parties don't have to win -- they only have to get a few percent and 10% or 15% is huge.
In the 1990s billionaire Ross Perot ran as a "Reform Party" candidate basically on fiscal conservative issues. But he got 19% of the Electoral College vote!
Immediately the "deficits don't matter" Republicans started backing tax increases and the semi-liberal Clinton started becoming an austerity hawk. In the only time in my lifetime the US ran a budget surplus for a couple of years -- all because of Ross Perot!
Once Perot's "Reform Party" had evaporated, Republicans and Democrats went back to running massive deficits.
MassivePsychology862@reddit
Or parties. The GPs and the DemSocs would be a good start.
oblivic90@reddit
All that money is vouchers for USA manufactured weapons, the money never leaves the US. USA also gets tech developed in Israel. This is a mutual interest of the US and Israel. Not to say I’m not grateful as an Israeli for the US support.
ihatepitbullsalot@reddit
Infuriating. USA prioritizes bombing and murdering civilians abroad instead of building and investing in its own American citizens.
IntnsRed@reddit (OP)
They see it as a corollary of James Carville's old adage: "It's the economy, stupid!"
"It's imperialism and taking care of the MIC and trans-national corporations, stupid!"
Commander_Trashbag@reddit
Tell me when you can buy elementary school teachers with missiles.
Again, the US tends not to send money, but material that's already in storage.
I am not saying that you can't criticise the US for sending that aid, but that should not be your point of criticism.
Ok-Sell4786@reddit
If israel doesnt get this material for free they will have to buy it with money..which is then used to buy elementary schools..
Thats common sense btw.
Commander_Trashbag@reddit
As far as I know, Israel does get this aid for free. So no, they don't have to spend 3.8 billion on it, which means that they can't use those 3.8 billion for something else.
Ok-Sell4786@reddit
Who gives a fuck wt israel does or use money for.. if they dont get arms for free they will have to buy then.. if they buy them then the usa gets money.. and when the usa gets money the usa can buy school or build schools..
ur acting dumb on purpose arent u?
Commander_Trashbag@reddit
Sorry, I misunderstood your statement, but even in this case, this wouldn't be as simple. First of all, there is no guarantee that Israel would actually buy these weapons at all, or from the US, so there is no guarantee that the US will make money from that. Secondly, Israel wouldn't buy these things from the US government. It would buy them from the industries. So the US would only get a fraction of that money. And as a last point, even if they were getting this money.
Again, my point isn't that you can't criticise the deliveries, but that the financial aspects in this post are very misleading to say the least.
Ok-Sell4786@reddit
And if that happens then the usa can sell the arms to someone else.. and with the money the usa can build schools.
The value of the arms is 3.8 bil.. that means if its sold it will make 3.8 bil.. thats it.. ur overthinking basic common sense.
Commander_Trashbag@reddit
Well yes, the value of these weapons is 3.8 billion, but no one would buy these from the US government.
They'd buy it from the industries. So no, the US wouldn't get those 3.8 billion.
I am trying to say that this isn't as simple as you try to make it seem.
Ok-Sell4786@reddit
So the us gov bought it from insdustries .. then gave it for israel for free..
thats the same damn thing..
Commander_Trashbag@reddit
No it's not the same thing. The difference is that the US government didn't specifically buy it for another country. They bought it for themselves. So they can use it if they need to.
But if these weapons weren't needed but they are still in stock, then the US tends to send those weapons as aid before they expire. So the difference is that the US would theoretically get their money's worth.
plastic_fortress@reddit
This is one of the most wilfully stupid Reddit comments I have ever read.
Commander_Trashbag@reddit
Then tell me specifically what is wrong with my comment.
Ok-Sell4786@reddit
Those kids in gaza wont bomb themselves..
The usa cant let such an oppurtunity for glory slip.
MassivePsychology862@reddit
Glory and gory are very similar words. This means absolutely nothing but I couldn’t help but swap the two when I read your comment initially.