Bush budget strong on Israel,but spurs worry for the elderly

[Herschel]

Spending on Israel remains strong in President Bush’s proposed budget but domestic programs are under the knife, including those that most affect Jewish lives.
Surveying the details in the budget Bush handed to Congress on Monday, Jewish organizational officials were especially worried about funding for the elderly.

In Israel aid, Bush is proposing $2.58 billion for fiscal year 2005, which formally starts on Oct. 1 this year.

cut

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=13735&intcategoryid=3

Wonderful news. No doubt this aid will recieve strong bipartisan support.

[JasonDeter]

1. Huh, so many cuts for domestic programs and yet

bush* is touting the great economy. It doesn't wash does it? I fully support all aid for Israel but wonder why the hell we give Jordon $456 million American dollars?

[Aidoneus]

8. for Israel

and because good lackeys are to be kept close, lest they start thinking for themselves..

[JasonDeter]

26. Too expensive.

Why we support these evil regimes whose people hate Israel is beyond me. It hasn't worked in the past. Thats the reagan/bush/bush* philosophy that has been continued to this very day. Look at Musharaf! The man is evil. These people need to be dealt with on a global scale and not proping up their regimes with American dollars.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

2. Yes, wonderful news!

"domestic programs are under the knife, including those that most affect Jewish lives."

wonderful indeed

more

"The vast majority of the increases in Bush’s $2.4 trillion budget are for defense and homeland security needs. Domestically, few programs outside the Education Department get perks, and a number of social service programs are targeted for elimination.

That’s bad news for Jewish social services, which rely on federal money for about 60 percent of their funding — about $6 billion out of $10 billion per year for spending on nursing homes, hospitals and services for the elderly, according to unofficial figures."

I can see why you are ecstatic

B

[Darranar]

3. This is horrible news.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[David__77]

5. No doubt it will indeed receive wide support.

That does not speak to its merit though. Israel deserves support, but it should be support to do certain things and not support to do others.

[Forkboy]

6. why,that would be downright evenhanded

and ask Dean where that get's you.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

11. How so?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blitz]

14. Probably for the best

eom.

[BrokenSegue]

7. Aid or afr-Aid

Why are we giving 2.58 billion to Israel while our school system, Agricultural system and EPA are being drained of funds.

I ask you, what will Israel use that money for? Ahh...Do they have a defecit...so sad. Is their deficit 251 billion dollars? I didn't think so. Why not let them fund there own programs.

Let me set the record straight I support Israel, I'm Jewish, but I don't think we ought to give them money right now.

Who really cares though 2.58 billion is chump change for the US.

As the venerable Bob Hope said
A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it.

We don't want to borrow money.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blitz]

13. Cutting aid to Egypt

Which receives some $2,000,000,000.00 annually and does not act like an ally at all, would be an excellent start. The reasons for propping up this anti-American, anti-semitic, mysoginistic, terror abetting dictatorship do not justify the massive annual expenditure.

[Darranar]

15. Anti-American?

Not really...

Egypt has arrested and brutalized demonstraters protesting against the US war in Iraq. They have much reason to do so, namely the billions they get from the US in aid.

We agree that US aid should be ceased, though.

[drewb]

17. Cut AID to everybody....

We need the money here, we have plenty of problems here.

Cut AID to everybody...

Build a wall around the US too if you want...

:loveya:

[Blitz]

27. Ah, a Buchanan Democrat

Sorry, I'll pass on the isolationist ideology. There's no future in it in today's world.

[drewb]

38. I, like Pat Buchanon himself, can be right twice a day...

Just like a stopped clock...

:loveya:

It's not isolationist really, no one said to cut ourselves off from the rest of the world, to cease trading with them, to stop sharing cultures...

Too simply dismiss it as "Isolationism" is simple minded. Any rational person can see that illegal immigration is a major problem.

Any rational person can see that we simply don't have the money to maintain bases in every far flung corner of the world.

Any rational person can see that we simply don't have the money to send billions and billions overseas to "allies" that are dubious at best...

At least until we get some adequate healthcare for our own citizens and a roof over their heads...

[Darranar]

39. Cut MILITARY aid to everyone...

humanitarian aid should not be cut, it should be increased.

[Blitz]

40. Military aid

Is a large part of what produces peace. Cut military aid across the board and there will be much more war in the world. And I'm not just talking about the Middle East. There has been peace on the Korean peninsula for some 50 years. How long would it last if we cut military aid and pulled our troops out? How many millions would perish?

What would happen to Taiwan if we cut off military aid?

What would happen to Colombia (and the United States, in short order) if we suddenly cut off military aid?

What would happen to the fledgling government and the people of Afghanistan if they received no military aid?

What would happen between India and Pakistan if either one were to suddenly have a clear military advantage over the other?

Those are but a few obvious examples in a complex world.

[Darranar]

41. Really?

What would happen to Taiwan if we cut off military aid?

Nothing. If China was willing to invade Taiwan they would have done so years ago.

What would happen to Colombia (and the United States, in short order) if we suddenly cut off military aid?

Colombia is in chaos already, I don't see how much worse it can get. Anyway, supporting brutal regimes with any sort of aid is not worthwhile.

What would happen to the fledgling government and the people of Afghanistan if they received no military aid?

Afghanistan is an exception. The way Bush carried out the war was ridiculously foolish, as was his change of focus to Iraq, but the Government of Afghanistan needs something to keep the (few) areas under their control stable.

What would happen between India and Pakistan if either one were to suddenly have a clear military advantage over the other?

Since they both have nukes, likely nothing.

[Blitz]

42. Many people believe

That one of the reasons that China has not invaded Taiwan is precisely because Taiwan has a modern and potent military - thanks largely to U.S. military aid. There can be little question that North Korea will invade South Korea at the slightest hint of weakness. Colombia can get MUCH worse and we'd know it when the massive influx of cocaine reached our shores. The danger with India and Pakistan is that they would use their nukes. If one or the other got the upper hand militarily. They could even launch a preemptive nuclear strike if a conventional defeat appeared like a realistic possibility.

In short, one could have a legitimate discussion about how much and where military aid should go but simply cutting off such aid worldwide would be foolish and disasterous.

[David__77]

25. Cut aid to Egypt--Egypt becomes like Syria.

The only thing preventing a rise of a new Nasserism and Arab nationalism in Egypt is that money. I believe in this case, the money does have some pull.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

18. So Israel is to get money at the expense of needy Americans?

Isn't that precious?

I'll make sure that all my political contacts are made aware of this travesty.

[Herschel]

19. Very well

Please make everyone aware. They will be glad of our support for Israel, unless they are extreme leftists.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Your support of Israel should not come at the expense of needy Americans

That's what is at issue here!

[Herschel]

21. Begging your pardon

Which countries do you feel should be supported at the expense of needy Americans, as you say.

[IndianaGreen]

22. None!

We should stop all foreign military aid and sales. The US should pull out of the Middle East.

[Herschel]

24. Very well

Your ill-advised opposition to military foreign aid is not limited to little Israel.

[GabysPoppy]

23. That's not what is at issue here

An honest harangue at the US government's budget at the expense of needy Americans would start with:

1) Tax cuts for the wealthy

2) Increases in military spending

3) Corporate welfare

4) non bid contracts to political cronies

And the list could go on indefinitely.

Not 2.5 billion to Israel or 2 billion to Egypt. In the scope of the entire budget, those amounts are not noteworthy.

What is noteworthy is the need to allude to Israel as the reason the United States have people in need.

[Lurking Dem]

31. That's a whole $800,000

more than Bush has budgeted for encouraging marriage.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

28. why would 'extreme' leftists be opposed to foreign aid?

Israel or any other nation?

what is the basis for this comment?

[GabysPoppy]

29. Ask the person who made the comment

you probably should have questioned poster # 18.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

33. No you are mistaken, but that's OK

"They will be glad of our support for Israel, unless they are extreme leftists."

that is what I am responding to.

B

[Herschel]

30. Extreme leftists

ignore the morality of Israel and oppose aid to provide for her defense.

[IndianaGreen]

32. There is no morality to the Occupation

Israel's occupation of Palestine is no more moral than the US occupation of Iraq, perhaps less so since Israel was clearly the aggressor in 1967.

[GabysPoppy]

34. We must disagree again

"clearly the aggressor in 1967" is IMO open for debate. I am not in favor of such declarative statements of that era in history.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

35. Is this your only measure of whom is on the 'extreme' left?

based upon their position regarding aid to Israel?

trying to define your terms as they are quite ambiguous.

[Blitz]

36. It seems to me

that Herschel was identifying one typical charecteristic of extreme leftists (which they share with extreme rightists, btw). He was not suggesting that this is the only charecteristic of that unfortunate bunch.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

37. well, lets find out from Herschel

?