Toronto Escorts

Those fitlthy rich Republicans..!!

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,033
5,995
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Since we're on the Welfare Topic

Charley Reese nails it again in an article on another form of Govt Welfare 'W' is willing to shell out........
What I find interesting is that Israel has been around how long ?...and still gets this amount of aid!
'W' says we are in Iraq for the duration.
Does this mean Iraq may be joining Irael as far as long term aid goes?


A Quarter of a Million Dollars Per Settler

by Charley Reese

The state of Israel – which, the last time I checked, was both a foreign and a sovereign nation – wants the American taxpayers to cough up $2.2 billion in addition to our regular $3 billion-or-so annual subsidy to pay for the withdrawal from Gaza.

Unless the American people raise hell about this, it's a done deal. In Washington, whatever Israel wants, Israel gets. Nevertheless, there are several reasons why the American people should rebel at the latest brazen attack on our treasury by Israel and its American supporters.

First, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided unilaterally to withdraw from Gaza. This was in lieu of following the president's peace plan, which Sharon has ignored from the very beginning. Where is it written, on stone or parchment or paper, that the head of a foreign government can decide to do something unilaterally and automatically send the bill to the American taxpayers? We will derive no benefits at all from the withdrawal.

Furthermore, Sharon's adviser spilled the beans in an Israeli newspaper interview. The withdrawal from Gaza is not part of any peace plan. It was just an excuse to put off serious peace negotiations. Sharon will remove about 8,000 settlers from Gaza who are a pain in the government's rear end anyway, shut down four tiny settlements on the West Bank, and that's it. As Sharon's adviser admitted, there won't be any serious negotiations with the Palestinians until they "turn into Finns."

A normal president would view Sharon's actions as unacceptable and his casual expectation that we would pay for it as a personal insult. President George Bush, however, when it comes to Israel, is just like Congress – a candy-bottom. That's why, despite all of our problems, all of our deficits, all of our debts, the U.S. government has gifted Israel with more than $90 billion in recent decades. If Washington gives in, we taxpayers will be spending about $227,000 per Jewish settler. That's a sporty moving expense.

We paid for the Camp David peace treaty in the 1970s – some $4 billion to Israel to get out of Egyptian territory it had no business occupying in the first place. And as part of that deal, apparently we've been paying Egypt an annual bribe of $2 billion or so a year for having signed the peace treaty.

The proper American attitude should be: "We think, Israel, it is in your interests to make peace with your Arab neighbors. That's your decision, however; if you would prefer to remain at war, that's OK with us, because either way – peace or war – we aren't going to pay for it."

As for those Christian cultists who take one verse out of a very large Jewish Bible and claim that it binds us to help Israel, I would just say that if you believe God wishes modern Zionists to occupy modern Palestine, let Him pay for it. When did we get appointed fiscal agent for Almighty God? And when did God ever need anybody's help to do whatever he wanted to do? And where is it written in the Constitution that Congress can tax the American people and hand the money out as a gift to foreign countries?

It's been said of the suicide bombers that they hate us more than they love life. Well, the American people are going to have to teach their congressional representatives and senators to fear them more than they fear the Israeli lobby, or the American people will continue to be not only taxed unjustly, but dragged into Israel's quarrels in the Middle East.

I always add (not that it does any good as far as hostile reactions from the Israel First crowd are concerned) that the Israeli lobby has every right to ask for anything it wants. The fault is not with the lobby; it's with the congressional representatives and senators who betray their oath of office and betray you in order to placate a lobby that has shown itself to be not only effective but vindictive.

But, hey, it's your country. If you wish to allow some weak-willed politicians to lay it to waste and destroy the future for your children and grandchildren, that's your decision. But I'm a strong believer that even people who wish to commit suicide should know what they are doing.

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=6683
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
WoodPeckr said:
So you got conned into being a commie.
To quote the immortal Allen Ginsberg, "I was a Communist when I was a kid I'm not ashamed". I didn't get conned into it by anybody. I was a drug-crazed heavy-metal headbanger who got radicalized as a result of listening to too many of the hardcore punk bands that were fashionable at the time, subsequently came into possession of a copy of Do It! by Jerry Rubin, and figured that the idea of revolution sounded pretty cool. Following Jerry's advice, and long before the global justice movement made it fashionable again, some like-minded friends and I took to carrying out some guerilla-theatre stunts, most notably burning money in shopping malls (everyone should try this- the vivid demonstration of Karl Marx's theses concerning money fetishism are more than worth the cost; people absolutely go to pieces when they see it). A few months later, by the time I got through the copy of Mao's Little Red book I had shoplifted, I realized what Communism was really all about and came to think as I do now. Nonetheless, I maintained an interest in the strictly theoretical side of Marxism for years to come, and what I learned still colours the way I think about things today.
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
Let's face it, we all did dumb things in our youth. I think back to my ideas 10-15 years ago and man was I naive and dumb back then. Then as I got more education and experience, I clued into how things work. Youth are idealistic and inexperienced. Easily lead and influenced and willing to accept radical thought. No surprise that cults and radical organizations target youth who are easily manipulated.
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
WoodPeckr said:
Charley Reese nails it again in an article on another form of Govt Welfare 'W' is willing to shell out........
What I find interesting is that Israel has been around how long ?...and still gets this amount of aid!
'W' says we are in Iraq for the duration.
Does this mean Iraq may be joining Irael as far as long term aid goes?


A Quarter of a Million Dollars Per Settler

by Charley Reese

The state of Israel – which, the last time I checked, was both a foreign and a sovereign nation – wants the American taxpayers to cough up $2.2 billion in addition to our regular $3 billion-or-so annual subsidy to pay for the withdrawal from Gaza.

...............

But, hey, it's your country. If you wish to allow some weak-willed politicians to lay it to waste and destroy the future for your children and grandchildren, that's your decision. But I'm a strong believer that even people who wish to commit suicide should know what they are doing.

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=6683
I always thought the US gave aid to Israel because of (outdated) military srategy. Back in the Cold War days they were the only democracy in the region and the only US ally in a region (and thus a US foothold and sphere of influence in the region). Even though the Cold War is over, again they are the only US ally in the region.

I doubt the Jewish lobby is that powerful. If the US felt that there is no strategic benefit of ensuring Israel's survival, the aid would stop. They aren't giving all that aid out of the goodness of their heart,
 

happygrump

Once more into the breach
May 21, 2004
820
0
0
Waterloo Region
Funny how things change.

As a youth (late teens to mid-20's) I was a dyed-in-the-wool true-blue Tory. I attended party conferences, chatted with Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney a few times, was involved at the local and national level.

My personal heroes included one M. Thatcher, one R. Reagan, Mulroney and a handful of others.

Then I took a trip around the world, and began to understand how things work, in both the developed and undeveloped world. And I saw that all those things that I had so fervently believed in were, essentially, baseless.

I came back a changed man. Now I like to think of myself as a centrist, though some would disagree.
 
Last edited:

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
happygrump said:
Funny how things change.

As a youth (late teens to mid-20's) I was a dyed-in-the-wool true-blue Tory. I attended party conferences, chatted with Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney a few times, was involved at the local and national level.

My personal heroes included one M. Thatcher, one R. Reagan, Mulroney and a handful of others.

Then I took a trip around the world, and began to understand how things work, in both the developed and undeveloped world. And I saw that all those things that I had so fervently believed in were, essentially, baseless.

I came back a changed man. Now I like to think of myself as a centrist, though some would disagree.
I think that by today's standard's Mulroney was a centralist. You have to remember how left wing the liberal party was at the time. Mulroney's major policy initiatives (free trade, the GST, getting rid of the foreign investment review agency, etc.) were things that no mainstream politician today would oppose. In large part, the rise of the politicians you mentioned (at least Thatcher and Mulruney)were due to the fact that the left wing economic policies of previous governments had failed so badly. In the case of Thatcher the correction went too far but a correction was necessary.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Don said:
Partially true. The GOP actually support more spending of welfare than the Dems, believe it or not. There is a reason why rural America likes the GOP and it isn't only because they are more conservative. The US gov't spends something like 3 billion a year on farm subsidies, mainly backed by the GOP. It's basically welfare for farmers. However I should mention that while back in the day it benefitted poor farmers greatly, the days of the individual farm owner is shrinking (they are bought out by these big agricultural firms) so more and more subsidies are not going to the intended target. I think that is the overall problem with welfare - it has a useful purpose initially but gets broken along the way as the system gets bigger and becomes ineffective when you look at money going in to money helping the people who really need it.

Any I look at it as:
DEMS offer welfare to the poor urban centers
GOP offer welfare to the rural areas

It helps expain (along with other factors) why the GOP owns the rural areas and the DEMS own the cities

I think you would find as many Ds supporting the farm program (well almost, there are not as many Ds and Rs in either house) as Rs. Their both wrong on the farm program - it is ridiculous. I read in the Economist (too lazy to look up the quote) that 50% of net farm income in the US is the farm program. There is a great article in the most recent National Review about the absurdity of the sugar program.

OTB
 
Toronto Escorts