2 ms·
If the crux of the argument is it "would be a shame for America to miss out on giving money to Israel to give back to America" you can kind of short-circuit tha
by arcticbull 5y ago
If the crux of the argument is it "would be a shame for America to miss out on giving money to Israel to give back to America" you can kind of short-circuit that and just have America give the money to America, maybe in some sort of big infrastructure bill with a fancy name like Build Back Bigly, or something like that, idk.
- netizen-936824 5y agoYea but then we miss out on a step. Less steps = less middlemen = less people leeching to become rich Won't you think of the MBAs!
- cies 5y agoThis misses some detailing: > America to miss out on giving money to Israel to give back to America America[n tax payers] to miss out on giving money [as charitable aid] to [the apartheid regime controlling] Israel to [spend it at] America[n weapons manufacturers]. And in that case it becomes clear why directly from taxpayers to weapons manufacturers is not going to fly: it's too obvious and does not put the weapons where they can be (ab)used!
- arcticbull 5y agoAre you familiar with the defense budget? ;)
- throwaway19937 5y agoGiving foreign aid instead of spending the money directly allows circumventing WTO rules about subsidizing your products. The book The Dictator's Handbook discusses this in detail.
- raxxorrax 5y agoIt is a simple way to subsidize US military industry but hiding it as foreign aid. Israel has a lot of critics that are plainly against its existence, but that does not justify banning any dissent.