Trying to find balance

[gftChris]

I've seen a few articles on this subject, but they've all been left-leaning sties like huff post, and so, like I normally do, I've gone looking on Fox and Top Right News to find a counter argument, but it apparently hasn't been covered:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/senate-blocks-israel-aid-109617.html#ixzz3977V3nhg

 

I have no idea which way politico leans, it's the first time I've read an article from them. But the gist is, a bill was put before the house to send $2.7bn in aid to Israel, and it was blocked due to republicans worrying about raising the debt level. Now, I've heard over the past month or two no end of stuff about how Obama is abandoning Israel, and doing nothing. Yet, here's something that I assumed would be rubber stamped, and it's not gone through.

 

So, either the reps want to keep the debt ceiling lower (fair enough), in which case don't then complain when Obama isn't giving money to Israel (or border defence or anything like that). Or, reps want to help Israel, in which case don't block this kind of thing.

 

Does anyone have a right-sided article on this for balance?

[calfoxwc]

Oh, for goodness' sake.

 

Read the whole article. The reps WANT an Israeli funding bill. They WANTED Reid

to stop the dems adding other crap to it, like the immigration funding, etc. Reid REFUSED

to put up an Israeli funding bill WITHOUT their crap added to it.

 

And Reid tries to goad public opinion against reps, saying they won't support Israel? Seriously?

 

Reid and co. are playing roulette with Israel's existence, over getting more money for

their future dem voters. It's political extortion. And emotional, read-only-one paragraph folks

will just buy into it because they want to stay members of the free stuff party.

 

What a sick, corrupt way to run the Senate, or the House, by any party.

[gftChris]

So, why hasn't it been covered in the right-leaning sites?

 

Anyway, I must have been confused, I thought the borders and things were related to the Israeli-Gaza borders, not American borders. If that's the case, I'm not sure why it's the case that all these bills get packaged together when they're clearly so unrelated. Of course, you pass bills on raising funding for border control, and for raising the number of border guards etc in the same bill. But why have an unrelated bill such as the Israel stuff in there? It makes no sense. And I don't think that's a tactic used by just one party, I'm sure that's used by both at any opportunity, a kind of mutual back scratching, or political blackmailing like that.

[gftChris]

But regarding the extra crap, the border funding, the wildfire funding. hasn't the complaint all along been that Obama's doing nothing about the borders? And yet, the dems are looking for money to use on border strengthening, and it's being shot down?

 

I haven't really heard much about the wildfires - not much blame to be attached to any party on that, so that's probably why it's not come up in the news. But why veto that one?

[gftChris]

Correction: The money's to be used for the kids turning up, not for any border strengthening or anything like that. So that's a separate issue, and indeed was separated from the bill, so that it was just Wildfires and Israel.

[gftChris]

At this point, I'm not trying to take a shot at either side, I'm trying to take a shot at the process as a whole, just to be clear.

[calfoxwc]

Both parties, true, do some degree of padding important bills with frills they want.

 

But it's got to stop. It's one thing to add a bill to build a bridge in somebody's state,

and another to hold an ally's existence hostage over funding for other party political agendas.

 

And right now, obviously, the dems are the party of political agenda that deals with wanting

to change everything, turn it all upside down and inside out, in corrupt fashion, to enable

their power to ...keep power.

[gftChris]

"hold an ally's existence hostage"

 

Hyperbole much? You think Israel really doesn't have the military capability to deal with Hamas? Sure, they could use some replenishment. But it's not like they're just going to suddenly not be able to protect themselves. It's not like Hamas is going to invade, and become a dictatorship. The existence of Israel is not in question. The existence of Palestine is, but that's another matter.

[LogicIsForSquares]

We are broke but want to borrow more from the Chinese to send money to Israel.

[calfoxwc]

Not hyperbole. About 79 percent of Israelis believe that their

continued existence relies on help from the U.S. in one fashion, or

in one degree or another.

 

Does that sound like it's just me?

 

http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/politics/israeli-sosaciety/7542-israelis-our-existence-depends-on-the-u-s?change_direction=2

[gftChris]

Well what a shitty country that is then. You're worried about 8 million people you've never met, and yet you couldn't give a fuck about 100k kids coming to your own country. If there were a ton of Iraqi, Syrian and Iranian children turning up at the Israeli borders, I wonder how many Americans would be claiming there's a crisis and America needs to do something to help their allies?

[gftChris]

Also, public opinion polls still mean shit in terms of actual fact.

[Westside Steve]

Chris could you distill your point just a little bit?

Now that you've clarified what that money was for are you angry because we don't support Hamas or because we don't want to let everyone into the country? Seems like you've got two conversations going on.

WSS

[gftChris]

I misunderstood the bill at first and was angry at the perceived 'foul play' if you like in blocking bills that republicans then criticise Obama for not doing anything about the subject of the bills.

 

Once I understood, I'm criticising the process of putting subjects of completely unrelated items together on the same bill in a tit-for-tat kind of backhanded bargaining.

[Westside Steve]

I misunderstood the bill at first and was angry at the perceived 'foul play' if you like in blocking bills that republicans then criticise Obama for not doing anything about the subject of the bills.

 

Once I understood, I'm criticising the process of putting subjects of completely unrelated items together on the same bill in a tit-for-tat kind of backhanded bargaining.

Big crock of shite in my opinion. I'm with you on that one pal.

WSS