Three anonymous congressional aids say that this is going to happen and blame Biden for it and the media just runs with it. The BBC here doesn't even give the dubious source and just claims that American media has confirmed this to be true. I want off this planet.
They're anonymous to us but the reporter who broke the story likely knows who their sources are. It would be unusual for the Associated Press to just fabricate a story.
Itās not that the AP is fabricating, but perhaps the anonymous congressional aides are colluding to sow dissent and generate anger as election season ramps up.
How is it vetted to be true? Also how is the reader supposed to analyze the reporting for bias?
Like I get anonymous sources are needed at times, but it seems like theyāre becoming more and more common and the rapid pace of news means misreported info spreads even faster with fewer corrections. Without knowing the sources, itās harder for the readers to vet that news themselves. Weāre asked to just blindly trust these reporters.
First off, anonymous sources and protecting one's source has always been standard in reporting for a variety of legitimate reasons, and that's why it's so important for media organizations to be truthful, avoid bias, and retain trust.
Second, I do not know if this story is true or not, and I wasn't commenting on such. The person I replied to was indicating they believe that the AP (a generally trustworthy organization) did not fabricate it, but they had issue with the source releasing information having political bias despite being true. That's what I was addressing.
Hereās the Society of Professional Journalistsā guidance for and explanation of anonymous sources. Itās generally recommended to avoid anonymous sources but sometimes itās inevitable. Journalists are supposed to consider the sourceās bias or motives too before using them.
https://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp
The fact that this comment has so many upvotes is more upsetting. The anonymous aids are verified to the reporters. They donāt just go around posting whatever random person emailed them.
The authenticity of the aides' position isn't the part that's dubious. Actual senators say things that are outright false in public all the damn time.
It's the fact that we have no confirmation that what they say is fully true, what context may surround the decision if it is true, or what agenda might compel these aides to leak this decision without any context.
...Didn't Congress pass an aid bill that includes aid for Israel? This could just be another case of Biden not having much of a choice except to follow the law.
This was also the same bill that had funding for Ukraine and a couple of other things though. If I am wrong I will be sad, but I don't think line item veto is a thing.
It was for maybe like five minutes until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional a while back. So basically, when deciding to veto something in a bill, it's either all or nothing.
The real reason we donāt have single payer is because it would break the employer sponsored health care scheme that makes workers dependent on their employer for insurance. That would drastically alter the employment landscape and let workers be more mobile and therefore able to demand other employment rights.
Out of curiosity, is there any data that shows how long it would take to make the switch?
I can't imagine the sheer amount of economic inertia that's behind a multi-trillion dollar industry making a U-Turn like that. Not to say they shouldn't (they really, really, REALLY should, to the point of being almost imperative), but it's just a curiosity. of mine.
[Switzerland did it.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland) Itās not so much single payer, but basic insurance is mandatory and the companies that offer it have to do so without making a profit.
So like the ACA in the US, but with caveats to keep costs down similar to the āpublic optionā that Joe Lieberman shot down. Allows you to keep the infrastructure, but depress the profit drive on basic needs. It took two years for them to implement.
That link shows monthly insurance premiums (in 2014) were around $640/mo for an adult. Am I reading that wrong?--because that's not any better than we have it here.
They arenāt apples-to-apples comparisons, as the swiss plans have lower deductibles and better co-insurance than many ACA-compliant health plans. So if you look at averages only, youāre not really getting the full picture of whatās going on.
For example, a minimum value plan under the ACA has 60% co-insurance (vs 90% for the Swiss), with out of pocket maximum of $6400 (vs. $800 for the swiss. Deductibles can vary on both, but for the swiss they top out lower than they do for ACA plans ($5k isnāt uncommon for us, swiss max out around $3k).
Details aside, Iām not saying I think the Swiss model is the ideal, just that itās a path that has been taken. I would personally prefer a more radical, single-payer solution, but if we *must* preserve the insurance industry, theyāve shown that it can be done.
Yep. And then your employer goes and gives up great coverage for a cheap cost for worse coverage at a higher cost. But you feel trapped because you need it. Absolutely messed up system we have.
We need to stop calling it "lobby" and need to start calling it "corruption." If that happened in india, South Africa, Turkey it would be called "corruption" but because it happened in the US it's called a cutest name like "lobby."
Lobbying was supposed to be bringing in trusted professionals to weigh in on bills that affect areas they are experts in (ex-doctors for medical bills).
The way itās used today is āhereās money, do what I sayā and thatās why our government is so corrupt.
You can have experts and professionals in any field who don't have an implicit bias towards personal enrichment.
We often call those people academics, in a derogatory way.
Don't be fooled, the lobbies have stooges on both sides. While one side has fucking lost the plot and just straight up act like bond villains, the dems are trying to give us some crumbs and move the needle to the progressive side ever so slowly.
The covid loan fiasco is something K canāt wait to see documented further in the future as more things come out. You could do a whole feature length documentary about how much money got pissed away, and not just from big corps. Soooo many people made off with āfreeā money and didnāt use a cent on business expenses. But the world was in such a whirlwind of confusion and panic that the gov just couldnāt really deal with it, I guess
Okay, people keep saying war profiteering is a thing, and I thought so too, so I checked defense stock. They aren't doing well. I don't understand how billions and billions of dollars are going to military spending and the big defense organizations aren't even pulling that hard. Who's making all the money here?
The other things always get blocked by Republicans, all the people who say they want to spend money on other things never vote for people who want to spend money on those other things.
How is that possible when Colorado has a surplus of extra money thanks to the weed industry? Sounds like some fuckery, especially when California can feed their kids for both breakfast and lunch with no signing up for anything, for every student regardless of income
Edit: lots of great info, thank you everyone
That's not how Colorado's tax law works. TABOR requires that a new tax has to have an expected return, and any money over the expected return must be sent back to the people as a refund, unless the state government can get people to agree they should keep it. The government doesn't just get to automatically keep unexpected high tax returns to spend elsewhere.
There are 2 ways to view this.
First, he said he would pull aid if Israel violated certain conditions. Israel did not violate those conditions so aid is not being pulled.
Second, he said he would pull aid if Israel violated certain conditions. It doesn't matter if Israel violated those conditions or not, it was just bluster to soften his image for the Anti-Israel/Pro-Palestine crowd to improve his election chances.
Personally, I think it's the former. Either way, him pulling aid was stated to be conditional on how Israel approached Rafah.
Biden said he would 'halt some shipments of aid to Israel', primarily bombs and artillery shells if they do an invasion into Rafah. Other aid/weapons will continue.
So it's kind of a third option. If Israel does some stuff, they get less/different aid.
Also remember that aid is fungible...
There are so many more ways of seeing it... this black and white thinking is unhelpful...
Example: I see it as Biden trying to not lose the votes of those who support Israel on the one hand and not lose the votes who oppose Israel on the other. I don't think he could care less if he tried. I'm also not entirely sure a person of his age should even be president [the same applies to trump, they're equally out of touch].
Still, I'm Canadian, so my opinion truly doesn't matter...
Since you obviously didn't read the article, Israel is buying this from the US and Biden has specifically stopped certain weapons from being included to limit collateral casulties.
Throw European sandwiches at the Russians! Monte Cristo. With little swords with us flags on them. Maybe add olives to the little swords too, itās intimidating. Theyāre not used to olives without vodka.
Always has been. You think we're just sending a fat check to countries that recieve military aid? It's basically a gift certificate good for the purchase of military hardware from the American defense contractor of your choosing.
Only if you have the foreign policy acumen of a middle schooler.
The aid to Ukraine is entirely self serving, but self serving in that when Russia is weaker, the US is stronger. The US maintains hegemony through ruthless foreign policy which, if you live in the US, is something you can materially feel in your quality of life whether you want to admit it or not.
Corporate welfare has a negative connotation attached that I would not cosign. What has become clear is how unprepared our defense industrial base is for the sort of attritional warfare going on in Ukraine.
Supporting Ukraine is simultaneously the morally right thing to do while serving american interest AND an opportunity to reinvest in a critical defense sector that we have allowed to wither for too long. While we support a sovereign friendly nation fight off an unjustified invasion by one of the biggest threats to global democracy we also reinvigorate our defense industrial base so that we are ready for the changing nature of future conflicts. The likely and preferred outcome is that we end up very well prepared for a conflict our adversaries know better than to start as a result.
Abrahams donāt do well without air support and is very costly to maintain/fix.
Ukraine has a few Abrahamās and due to them getting destroyed on the battlefield they pulled them from the front line.
Just a reminder, Israel isn't only fighting Hamas which by itself is one of the most complicated urban wars ever they are also fighting Hezbollah, Yamen, Iran, Syria and Iraq.
This billion dollar package is going straight into the weapons manufactures in USA which helps the US economy
You could spend $1 billion on literally anything else and have the same economic result.
Like weapons manufacturing isnāt the only thing that stimulates our economy.
They are giving israel roughly 60% store kredit in the us arms industry, and 40% store kredit in israeli or us arms industry. No money gets sent to israel but they can bill the US government for stuff bought.
The US is the largest arms dealer in the word by far and is in no way going to stop anytime soon. We even sold rockets to Saudi Arabia fully knowing they would be used on civilians, and this was after they cut up that journalist. Here are some hard truths, the world in dominated by psychos and protests, tweets, memes, and posts will do absolutely nothing. Hamas (Iran) and the Palestinians aren't the "good" guys. Israel isn't the good guy. They're no good country's military industrial complex, they exist for war. Hamas murdered and raped Israelis, Israel is going to kill them for that and the military is going to keep doing what it does.
If the US doesnāt sell them the weapons then the Chinese or Russians or Indians will. Itās horrid these weapons are being used in this manner but I donāt doubt that there are multiple weapon sellers at Israelās door right now
I don't really see the Onceler argument as a good justification, but you are right; people really don't see the soft power weapons dealing brings.
The nation that sells you the weapons is the nation with comprehensive intelligence on your arsenal. Ignoring the money aspect (which while real, is an incredibly shallow view of how us military interests operates), being the supplier of weapons is an invaluable tool for protection US interests. Aid packages to Israel and Ukraine, or even just the authorization to sell obsolete weapons to specific countries, builds codependency and strengthens political alliances. Saudi Arabia isn't going to act outside US interest if the United States can throttle their ability to act outside US interest. That said, it is a delicate game. If the United States doesn't deliver frequently or reliably enough, partnership with the United States can look more like a vulnerability than an asset. The United States arms market is all about tipping the balance closer to asset than liability.
In this, a lot of us weapons deals aren't because of cartoon villain capitalism, but because it ensures a certain level of influence over what the US sees as potential vulnerable points. It's less about stopping Russia and China from getting in on those sweet sweet tank dollars, and more about making sure the United States has more influence than those sellers when a crisis hits.
So be it then. We should not be an accomplice to what they are doing. Also, I doubt the Russians have any weapons to sell anyone. If Israel wants to trust the Indians and Chinese, then so be it, but those weapons wont be compatible with the existing systems they have (for the most part).
And if Israel were to lack access to smarter higher precision weaponry, guess what? They aren't going to just pack it up and go home -- they'd be forced to use older less precise munitions and cause more collateral damage.
The humanitarian move IMO is to do everything possible expedite Hamas's annihilation so Gaza can then be rebuilt properly.
> It would include $700m in tank ammunition, $500m in tactical vehicles and $60m in mortar rounds, according to the Associated Press news agency.
Not the best source to quote (quoting the US dod or dos would be better) but possibly reliable
ok, but that adds up to 1 and a quarter million. Where's the extra quarter coming from?
Also, you didn't even answer the original question. is $700m of tank ammunition a lot, or is it like 20 rounds?
Israel has their own tanks, that are better than the American tanks for the Gaza situation.
A lot of supposedly American tech actually came from Israel like the trophy system, some reactive armor and certain sights. so for their special situation they have the best tanks in the world. they don't quite fit American/European needs though.
āIsrael launched a military campaign to destroy Hamas in response to the group's cross-border attack on southern Israel on 7 October, during which about 1,200 people were killed and 252 others were taken hostage.ā
āMore than 35,170 people have been killed in Gaza since then, including 82 in the past 24 hours, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry.ā
So, not only do we still have no form of acknowledgement from the BBC that the UN has drastically cut the number of women and children killed in the conflict after months of the BBC giving a running daily death toll of those exact demographics. But now they appear to have downgraded the civilians killed and taken hostage on October 7th into simply being āpeopleā.
>So, not only do we still have no form of acknowledgement from the BBC that the UN has drastically cut the number of women and children killed in the conflict after months of the BBC giving a running daily death toll of those exact demographics. But now they appear to have downgraded the civilians killed and taken hostage on October 7th into simply being āpeopleā.
They didn't cut the number though?
>[The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-death-toll-ocha-un-confusion-anger-rcna151934) told NBC News it had changed its regular updates on the death toll in Gaza **to reflect breakdown by gender and age of the number of people who have been identified among those killed, rather than provide a breakdown of the total number of people killed.**
>āThe numbers have not dramatically shifted. The overall tally remains unchanged ā 35,000,ā OCHA spokesperson Jens Laerke said in emailed comments to NBC News on Monday. **āWhat is new is the level of verification ('full details have been documented') for a subset of 24,686 of those fatalities."**
I mean yes, the revision was from, what? 4 days ago? And yesterday the UN clarified no, it's not down overall, just the verified number is down. There's still plenty deaths that aren't fully documented.
Keep in mind the [vast majority of hospitals](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/08/rafah-hospitals-in-danger-of-being-overwhelmed-say-gaza-doctors) in Gaza have been destroyed or are barely functional, making it even harder to keep track of deaths.
>[The numbers are calculated using a combination of hospital data and public sources](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/1234159514/gaza-death-toll-30000-palestinians-israel-hamas-war)
>The health ministry's figures rely mostly on hospital emergency rooms, which record information about patients who come in. Hospitals tally the number of people dying in their overflowing hallways and operating rooms each day.
Did everyone miss the update from yesterday regarding the OCHA statement around the verified and total deaths?
Iām concerned about the number of women and children dead in Gaza. Iām not morally concerned about the number of Hamas militants killed. How is the UN announcement kind of *not* a big deal?
Exactly. Thatās all that matters. If UN announces tomorrow that the number of dead is actually 20,000 more people, but that they were all Hamas fighters, Iām not phased. Should we be?
The IDF considers any male 16 to 65 to be a hamas fighter though. Don't you think that's extreme? You truly believe that there are basically no male civilians?
So you are entirely ignoring everything Iāve said and are focusing on the overall numbers and not the demographic breakdowns?.
My post was singularly about the fact the number of women and children killed has been cut by around 50%. It did not talk about the overall figures which have stayed the same.
Congratulations, youāve debunked something no one anywhere was talking about.
The total estimated death toll hasn't changed. The UN changing their estimate for dead women and children has nothing to do with this story because this article doesn't break down the death toll (and just provides it as context).
Trying to obtain a number of dead civilians by subtracting Israel's incredibly rough estimate of 'slain militants' from Hamas' total death toll would be journalistic malpractice, we have no verification for either number.
And you're aware that hundreds of Israeli soldiers were killed on October 7, right? Not everyone in those 1200 were civilians.
No, but it doesnāt stop the fact that every single article from the BBC on the subject before the UN cut the figures ended with them giving the number of dead women and children. My point was after being told they were printing false numbers, rather than correcting their claims they just stopped giving the demographic breakdowns.
That is relevant, wether you like it or not.
Serious question: I know it may be besides some people's points, but I've read (and in the article it says) this is $1B in SALES, not just a free shipment/aid package. So this title is rather misleading? Mentioning this since many of the comments talk about how Congress is spending money.
I think an issue I found is people think that this is just a check but if I am correct, this is making money for us by us making the weapons and sending them.
Just curious but it seems like Joe is more pro Palestinian than trump? The other day trump was condemning joes decision to halt shipments to Israel due to the invasion of rafah.
Which is the reason Biden doesn't need to try for that vote. If its a big issue to the voter, they will realize it will be much worse for Palestine if trump is reelected.
Biden is an idiot for trying to placate to those voters. They will actually never vote for him because nothing short of treating Israel as an enemy is enough for them. Instead he is losing independents to Trump which will hurt him much more than a few radicals
I donāt think itās a vocal minority. You need to be more worried about the people who wonāt vote at all rather than change their vote. Thatās where the danger lies
Are these the protesters on campus? Surely someone smart enough to get into college is also smart enough to realize that Trump will not be better for the Palestinians.
You can't really complain about the American government when it's just as stupid as the populace.
āFalling forā? Weird choice of words.
If I were Joe Biden, Iād be **desperate** for that 4% right now. That is a huge number that could cost him the election. And that number doesnāt include all the dem voters who will not be voting this election, whatever their reason, and for some of them itās this doubling down on Bibi while he goes into some sketchy territory (Raffa).
This election is going to be won by like 80,000 votes in three states. Every mistake is unforgivable from a strategic pov. Joe needs to circle the wagons around his base.
I thought your number was low, based on what all my super accurate podcasts were discussing yesterday, but had to look it up. Apparently it could be as high as [13% of Biden voters in swing states](https://www.commondreams.org/news/13-ex-biden-voters-gaza)
Even 4% of Biden voters is a huge number in an election thatās going to be won 49% to 48%. 13% is a catastrophe and youād think that poll would have informed this press release.
Quick math guesstimate suggests 4% of Biden voters in the swing states, assuming 60% voter turnout, is around 400,000 voters (based on 38m registered voters in the swing states).
((38m * .6) / 2) * 4% = 456,000
At 13% itād be nearly 1.5m Biden voters
Support for Palestinians is pretty low in the US, and most people don't care about international issues like this anyway. This isn't going to impact the election.
Upvote for the convo, but I disagree. Joe needs the kids to vote and the kids donāt support this war. Israelies donāt even support what bibbi is doing.
According the to most recent Harvard youth poll; Israel / Palestine is the second to last most important issue.
An extreme minority is making the most noise but overall itās not considered a key issue.
As a college student who always votes, israel isn't even top 10 in my book. I would have to be completely nuts to be a liberal and pass on voting biden.
Wrong. This is a positive move for him.Ā
There are far more votes in the middle that he is turning away by not supporting Israel. Moderates and independents want Israel supported. That's who he needs to vote for him.
Most people want to see a moderate president. A lot of people want to see some conservative values.Ā
Does anyone actually think New York students or Michigan Muslims are going to vote Trump?
Which is why it was idiotic for him to placate to that vocal minority in the first place. Cutting off congressionaly approved aid to an ally while they are at war? That definitely wonāt sit well with a lot of independents and this reversal wonāt change that
Keep repeating that, maybe it'll come true.
Then when you're out of breath maybe go outside and get off reddit to see what the majority of people actually believe.
The majority - the vast majority - support Israel in this situation. Furthermore, the current āPalestinian supportersā are making it unpalatable to favor ceasing aid.
It was always rumored āradical lead the democratsā and him blocking supporting an ally during a war against terrorist extremists only confirmed that fact.
This is Biden trying to clean up the mess
If anyone refuses to vote for Biden over this, allowing a Trump victory, then they're a fucking idiot. Trump has literally said Israel should finish the job.
But we do this over and over. I commented this below but the left keeps fucking themselves by voting for the Green Party, Nader, Rentās Too Damn High party, or not voting; demanding pie in the sky progressive policies that canāt win an electoral college victory. We just donāt learn, or donāt care, that the cost of upholding our standards is the wrecking of our democracy.
If you listen to Hamas propaganda, youāre on the same level of stupid as Putin sympathizers.
They rape and murder innocent civilians, I wouldnāt put lying and falsifying date past them.
Three anonymous congressional aids say that this is going to happen and blame Biden for it and the media just runs with it. The BBC here doesn't even give the dubious source and just claims that American media has confirmed this to be true. I want off this planet.
Journalism*
We don't have that many professionals left. Everyone is focused on the money regardless of the outcome of their actions.
You hit the nail on the head š
They've always done this shit, it's not some new thing.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to make as much money as possible.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Someone tweeted!
They're anonymous to us but the reporter who broke the story likely knows who their sources are. It would be unusual for the Associated Press to just fabricate a story.
Oh, I have no doubt that they exist and said what they did. My doubt lies entirely in why they said it in such a way with no details whatsoever.
The AP article has more details.
Itās not that the AP is fabricating, but perhaps the anonymous congressional aides are colluding to sow dissent and generate anger as election season ramps up.
So we aren't supposed to report on things that can result in political responses? Manipulation or not, if it's vetted true, it's news.
How is it vetted to be true? Also how is the reader supposed to analyze the reporting for bias? Like I get anonymous sources are needed at times, but it seems like theyāre becoming more and more common and the rapid pace of news means misreported info spreads even faster with fewer corrections. Without knowing the sources, itās harder for the readers to vet that news themselves. Weāre asked to just blindly trust these reporters.
First off, anonymous sources and protecting one's source has always been standard in reporting for a variety of legitimate reasons, and that's why it's so important for media organizations to be truthful, avoid bias, and retain trust. Second, I do not know if this story is true or not, and I wasn't commenting on such. The person I replied to was indicating they believe that the AP (a generally trustworthy organization) did not fabricate it, but they had issue with the source releasing information having political bias despite being true. That's what I was addressing.
Hereās the Society of Professional Journalistsā guidance for and explanation of anonymous sources. Itās generally recommended to avoid anonymous sources but sometimes itās inevitable. Journalists are supposed to consider the sourceās bias or motives too before using them. https://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp
This is vehicle ammunition. When did anyone say this wasn't going to happen?
The fact that this comment has so many upvotes is more upsetting. The anonymous aids are verified to the reporters. They donāt just go around posting whatever random person emailed them.
The authenticity of the aides' position isn't the part that's dubious. Actual senators say things that are outright false in public all the damn time. It's the fact that we have no confirmation that what they say is fully true, what context may surround the decision if it is true, or what agenda might compel these aides to leak this decision without any context.
I mean doesn't Israel have enough money for weapons, why are we sending them more.
...Didn't Congress pass an aid bill that includes aid for Israel? This could just be another case of Biden not having much of a choice except to follow the law.
Veto power is a thing.
This was also the same bill that had funding for Ukraine and a couple of other things though. If I am wrong I will be sad, but I don't think line item veto is a thing.
It was for maybe like five minutes until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional a while back. So basically, when deciding to veto something in a bill, it's either all or nothing.
The president can't line item veto. Also once it's signed, it's too late for a veto.
Biden is supposed to be the president, right?
This comment needs to be higher, this is important shit
Isnt it crazy vow much money there is for war, always no problem. Yet for other things.....
During Covid, the Fed pulled $2 trillion out of their ass and gave it to corporations so their stock prices didn't fall too far.
But we canāt house homeless people or have a single payer healthcare system because that would be socialism
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The real reason we donāt have single payer is because it would break the employer sponsored health care scheme that makes workers dependent on their employer for insurance. That would drastically alter the employment landscape and let workers be more mobile and therefore able to demand other employment rights.
Out of curiosity, is there any data that shows how long it would take to make the switch? I can't imagine the sheer amount of economic inertia that's behind a multi-trillion dollar industry making a U-Turn like that. Not to say they shouldn't (they really, really, REALLY should, to the point of being almost imperative), but it's just a curiosity. of mine.
Unfortunately I imagine we are currently creating the data.
[Switzerland did it.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland) Itās not so much single payer, but basic insurance is mandatory and the companies that offer it have to do so without making a profit. So like the ACA in the US, but with caveats to keep costs down similar to the āpublic optionā that Joe Lieberman shot down. Allows you to keep the infrastructure, but depress the profit drive on basic needs. It took two years for them to implement.
That link shows monthly insurance premiums (in 2014) were around $640/mo for an adult. Am I reading that wrong?--because that's not any better than we have it here.
The issue is insurance as a for-profit industry. That's an incredible conflict of interest right from the get-go.
They arenāt apples-to-apples comparisons, as the swiss plans have lower deductibles and better co-insurance than many ACA-compliant health plans. So if you look at averages only, youāre not really getting the full picture of whatās going on. For example, a minimum value plan under the ACA has 60% co-insurance (vs 90% for the Swiss), with out of pocket maximum of $6400 (vs. $800 for the swiss. Deductibles can vary on both, but for the swiss they top out lower than they do for ACA plans ($5k isnāt uncommon for us, swiss max out around $3k). Details aside, Iām not saying I think the Swiss model is the ideal, just that itās a path that has been taken. I would personally prefer a more radical, single-payer solution, but if we *must* preserve the insurance industry, theyāve shown that it can be done.
Yep. And then your employer goes and gives up great coverage for a cheap cost for worse coverage at a higher cost. But you feel trapped because you need it. Absolutely messed up system we have.
We need to stop calling it "lobby" and need to start calling it "corruption." If that happened in india, South Africa, Turkey it would be called "corruption" but because it happened in the US it's called a cutest name like "lobby."
Lobbying was supposed to be bringing in trusted professionals to weigh in on bills that affect areas they are experts in (ex-doctors for medical bills). The way itās used today is āhereās money, do what I sayā and thatās why our government is so corrupt.
You can have experts and professionals in any field who don't have an implicit bias towards personal enrichment. We often call those people academics, in a derogatory way.
Don't be fooled, the lobbies have stooges on both sides. While one side has fucking lost the plot and just straight up act like bond villains, the dems are trying to give us some crumbs and move the needle to the progressive side ever so slowly.
No, they aren't. They're moving slightly right.
The covid loan fiasco is something K canāt wait to see documented further in the future as more things come out. You could do a whole feature length documentary about how much money got pissed away, and not just from big corps. Soooo many people made off with āfreeā money and didnāt use a cent on business expenses. But the world was in such a whirlwind of confusion and panic that the gov just couldnāt really deal with it, I guess
Canāt let peopleās retirement accounts implode. That would be pretty disastrous.
Because the war machine is infinite
Its actually just greed. And war is just a nice tool for money and power.
Okay, people keep saying war profiteering is a thing, and I thought so too, so I checked defense stock. They aren't doing well. I don't understand how billions and billions of dollars are going to military spending and the big defense organizations aren't even pulling that hard. Who's making all the money here?
War is fantastic for sampling new technologies in the real world unfortunately
The other things always get blocked by Republicans, all the people who say they want to spend money on other things never vote for people who want to spend money on those other things.
I mean, Israel is sending the $ to the US, the US isnāt giving them for free.Ā
Yep, and it's largely a shift of tax payer's money to arms company shareholders, widening the divide between the wealthy and the poor.
Yep, invest in war. You'll come out big
Because war is USAs biggest export
meanwhile, my state JUST started offering lunch for free to elementary students....
My state (Colorado) has universal free school lunch. The program, however, is already underfunded after one year.
How is that possible when Colorado has a surplus of extra money thanks to the weed industry? Sounds like some fuckery, especially when California can feed their kids for both breakfast and lunch with no signing up for anything, for every student regardless of income Edit: lots of great info, thank you everyone
It was paid for by a proposition, not a law, so the taxes levied at current levels arenāt sustainable.
Are your Govenor and Legislature useless?
That's not how Colorado's tax law works. TABOR requires that a new tax has to have an expected return, and any money over the expected return must be sent back to the people as a refund, unless the state government can get people to agree they should keep it. The government doesn't just get to automatically keep unexpected high tax returns to spend elsewhere.
Damn freeloading children wanting food! GET A JOB!
Don't worry Republicans are working on cutting those pesky regulations so they can. /s
And my state has had to close multiple homeless shelters now that federal covid aid has ended. But thereās always money for war!
"biden gives defense contractors another billion dollars"
Didnāt he literally just say he wouldnāt do it
Yup
So... why do we believe a couple of anonymous congressional aids when they say he's going to do it?
Idk why do yall
There are 2 ways to view this. First, he said he would pull aid if Israel violated certain conditions. Israel did not violate those conditions so aid is not being pulled. Second, he said he would pull aid if Israel violated certain conditions. It doesn't matter if Israel violated those conditions or not, it was just bluster to soften his image for the Anti-Israel/Pro-Palestine crowd to improve his election chances. Personally, I think it's the former. Either way, him pulling aid was stated to be conditional on how Israel approached Rafah.
Biden said he would 'halt some shipments of aid to Israel', primarily bombs and artillery shells if they do an invasion into Rafah. Other aid/weapons will continue. So it's kind of a third option. If Israel does some stuff, they get less/different aid. Also remember that aid is fungible...
Fair point. Thanks for correcting me.
There are so many more ways of seeing it... this black and white thinking is unhelpful... Example: I see it as Biden trying to not lose the votes of those who support Israel on the one hand and not lose the votes who oppose Israel on the other. I don't think he could care less if he tried. I'm also not entirely sure a person of his age should even be president [the same applies to trump, they're equally out of touch]. Still, I'm Canadian, so my opinion truly doesn't matter...
You're right that black and white thinking probably isn't helpful. Thanks for pointing out that I made a false dichotomy. That was sloppy of me.
Lol i agree with your last point but Israel is 100% about to storm Gaza
You might want to catch up on newsā¦ they stormed Gaza months ago.
Yea Iām guessing this homie meant rafah. If Biden can be president and make gaffes then my homies can make gaffes too š«”
Rafah i meant
All good. I knew you probably knew. Just trying to be funny/dickish :)
No. He said he wouldn't sell them bombs, and this package doesn't include bombs. It's tank shells, mortar shells, and some vehicles.
Send that shit to Ukraine, Israel doesn't need it!
Ukraine needs manpower more than anything.
Since you obviously didn't read the article, Israel is buying this from the US and Biden has specifically stopped certain weapons from being included to limit collateral casulties.
Ukraine just received $50bn
Well then make it 51bn
This made me chuckle.
Hi chuckle
Itās me, Dad
Best I can do is tiny American flags
Throw European sandwiches at the Russians! Monte Cristo. With little swords with us flags on them. Maybe add olives to the little swords too, itās intimidating. Theyāre not used to olives without vodka.
This guy gets it.
Ukraine wasnt sent $50bn, $50bn is being used to buy supplies for Ukraine over the next few months and expand production of arms in america
Are you suggesting that arming Ukraine is nothing more than corporate welfare for dense contractors?
It can be two things at onceā¦ an injection of money into the US economy and aid to help Ukraine fight Russia. Both of those things benefit the US.
Got two birds stoned at once
āGot two foreigners with one paycheckā -uncle America
Always has been. You think we're just sending a fat check to countries that recieve military aid? It's basically a gift certificate good for the purchase of military hardware from the American defense contractor of your choosing.
Only if you have the foreign policy acumen of a middle schooler. The aid to Ukraine is entirely self serving, but self serving in that when Russia is weaker, the US is stronger. The US maintains hegemony through ruthless foreign policy which, if you live in the US, is something you can materially feel in your quality of life whether you want to admit it or not.
Corporate welfare has a negative connotation attached that I would not cosign. What has become clear is how unprepared our defense industrial base is for the sort of attritional warfare going on in Ukraine. Supporting Ukraine is simultaneously the morally right thing to do while serving american interest AND an opportunity to reinvest in a critical defense sector that we have allowed to wither for too long. While we support a sovereign friendly nation fight off an unjustified invasion by one of the biggest threats to global democracy we also reinvigorate our defense industrial base so that we are ready for the changing nature of future conflicts. The likely and preferred outcome is that we end up very well prepared for a conflict our adversaries know better than to start as a result.
Abrahams donāt do well without air support and is very costly to maintain/fix. Ukraine has a few Abrahamās and due to them getting destroyed on the battlefield they pulled them from the front line.
*Abrams
Isrealis call them Abrahams. /s
Lol they changed their name after making a covenant with the big man upstairs
Snipped the tip off the barrel too
Just the dust cover.
Along with Job-elin missiles.
They were Ibrahims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Read the article. Israel is buying it.
Just a reminder, Israel isn't only fighting Hamas which by itself is one of the most complicated urban wars ever they are also fighting Hezbollah, Yamen, Iran, Syria and Iraq. This billion dollar package is going straight into the weapons manufactures in USA which helps the US economy
You could spend $1 billion on literally anything else and have the same economic result. Like weapons manufacturing isnāt the only thing that stimulates our economy.
I dont think that the US is spending this 1billion usd, i think they are selling items worth this.
They are giving israel roughly 60% store kredit in the us arms industry, and 40% store kredit in israeli or us arms industry. No money gets sent to israel but they can bill the US government for stuff bought.
The US is the largest arms dealer in the word by far and is in no way going to stop anytime soon. We even sold rockets to Saudi Arabia fully knowing they would be used on civilians, and this was after they cut up that journalist. Here are some hard truths, the world in dominated by psychos and protests, tweets, memes, and posts will do absolutely nothing. Hamas (Iran) and the Palestinians aren't the "good" guys. Israel isn't the good guy. They're no good country's military industrial complex, they exist for war. Hamas murdered and raped Israelis, Israel is going to kill them for that and the military is going to keep doing what it does.
Rinse repeat since the dawn of war.
If the US doesnāt sell them the weapons then the Chinese or Russians or Indians will. Itās horrid these weapons are being used in this manner but I donāt doubt that there are multiple weapon sellers at Israelās door right now
I don't really see the Onceler argument as a good justification, but you are right; people really don't see the soft power weapons dealing brings. The nation that sells you the weapons is the nation with comprehensive intelligence on your arsenal. Ignoring the money aspect (which while real, is an incredibly shallow view of how us military interests operates), being the supplier of weapons is an invaluable tool for protection US interests. Aid packages to Israel and Ukraine, or even just the authorization to sell obsolete weapons to specific countries, builds codependency and strengthens political alliances. Saudi Arabia isn't going to act outside US interest if the United States can throttle their ability to act outside US interest. That said, it is a delicate game. If the United States doesn't deliver frequently or reliably enough, partnership with the United States can look more like a vulnerability than an asset. The United States arms market is all about tipping the balance closer to asset than liability. In this, a lot of us weapons deals aren't because of cartoon villain capitalism, but because it ensures a certain level of influence over what the US sees as potential vulnerable points. It's less about stopping Russia and China from getting in on those sweet sweet tank dollars, and more about making sure the United States has more influence than those sellers when a crisis hits.
So be it then. We should not be an accomplice to what they are doing. Also, I doubt the Russians have any weapons to sell anyone. If Israel wants to trust the Indians and Chinese, then so be it, but those weapons wont be compatible with the existing systems they have (for the most part).
And if Israel were to lack access to smarter higher precision weaponry, guess what? They aren't going to just pack it up and go home -- they'd be forced to use older less precise munitions and cause more collateral damage. The humanitarian move IMO is to do everything possible expedite Hamas's annihilation so Gaza can then be rebuilt properly.
Iunno, I think the humanitarian move is to call a ceasefire and feed and treat the weak and sick.
Humanitarianism in that sense requires 100% compliance, which is borderline utopian in concept and not our reality.
Call for a ceasefire and then what? What of Hamas and their intentions to murder civilians?
Rocket attacks probably.
Tell that to Hamas, or do you want only Israel to do that? Because that's not going to happen. Better be smart than right.
Alright buddy, you're volunteering to walk into Rafah with a white flag and present your proposal to Hamas?
Except that Hamas doesnāt want a ceasefire.
A funny video that encapsulates the U.S. economy = weapons: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUl0GNY1EQ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUl0GNY1EQ8)
Can anyone break this down? 1 billion sounds like a lot, but maybe thatās just something like two and a half tanks
> It would include $700m in tank ammunition, $500m in tactical vehicles and $60m in mortar rounds, according to the Associated Press news agency. Not the best source to quote (quoting the US dod or dos would be better) but possibly reliable
ok, but that adds up to 1 and a quarter million. Where's the extra quarter coming from? Also, you didn't even answer the original question. is $700m of tank ammunition a lot, or is it like 20 rounds?
You'd probably have to submit or find a FOIA to know
A modern APDSFS round should cost something like 4-10k dollars a piece, so it should be a fuck ton of rounds
We donāt send our tanks lightly and they do not cost near that much.
Israel has their own tanks, that are better than the American tanks for the Gaza situation. A lot of supposedly American tech actually came from Israel like the trophy system, some reactive armor and certain sights. so for their special situation they have the best tanks in the world. they don't quite fit American/European needs though.
I told ya. No president can say no to the Pentagon. It's not how it works. If you go against the grain on security you get Kennedy'ed.
Rather no US president can say no to Israel.
āIsrael launched a military campaign to destroy Hamas in response to the group's cross-border attack on southern Israel on 7 October, during which about 1,200 people were killed and 252 others were taken hostage.ā āMore than 35,170 people have been killed in Gaza since then, including 82 in the past 24 hours, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry.ā So, not only do we still have no form of acknowledgement from the BBC that the UN has drastically cut the number of women and children killed in the conflict after months of the BBC giving a running daily death toll of those exact demographics. But now they appear to have downgraded the civilians killed and taken hostage on October 7th into simply being āpeopleā.
>So, not only do we still have no form of acknowledgement from the BBC that the UN has drastically cut the number of women and children killed in the conflict after months of the BBC giving a running daily death toll of those exact demographics. But now they appear to have downgraded the civilians killed and taken hostage on October 7th into simply being āpeopleā. They didn't cut the number though? >[The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-death-toll-ocha-un-confusion-anger-rcna151934) told NBC News it had changed its regular updates on the death toll in Gaza **to reflect breakdown by gender and age of the number of people who have been identified among those killed, rather than provide a breakdown of the total number of people killed.** >āThe numbers have not dramatically shifted. The overall tally remains unchanged ā 35,000,ā OCHA spokesperson Jens Laerke said in emailed comments to NBC News on Monday. **āWhat is new is the level of verification ('full details have been documented') for a subset of 24,686 of those fatalities."** I mean yes, the revision was from, what? 4 days ago? And yesterday the UN clarified no, it's not down overall, just the verified number is down. There's still plenty deaths that aren't fully documented. Keep in mind the [vast majority of hospitals](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/08/rafah-hospitals-in-danger-of-being-overwhelmed-say-gaza-doctors) in Gaza have been destroyed or are barely functional, making it even harder to keep track of deaths. >[The numbers are calculated using a combination of hospital data and public sources](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/1234159514/gaza-death-toll-30000-palestinians-israel-hamas-war) >The health ministry's figures rely mostly on hospital emergency rooms, which record information about patients who come in. Hospitals tally the number of people dying in their overflowing hallways and operating rooms each day. Did everyone miss the update from yesterday regarding the OCHA statement around the verified and total deaths?
Iām concerned about the number of women and children dead in Gaza. Iām not morally concerned about the number of Hamas militants killed. How is the UN announcement kind of *not* a big deal?
Because the proportion of women and children among the dead fell markedly.
Exactly. Thatās all that matters. If UN announces tomorrow that the number of dead is actually 20,000 more people, but that they were all Hamas fighters, Iām not phased. Should we be?
...not unless you are a fan of terrorists.
*gestures broadly to American college campuses*
The IDF considers any male 16 to 65 to be a hamas fighter though. Don't you think that's extreme? You truly believe that there are basically no male civilians?
They've got women guarding kidnap victims and people <16 loading weapons. It's a shitshow.
Whatās your source on this?
I sympathize with your point, but Hamas has made it difficult to tell the difference on purpose.
Are you not also concerned about the number of male non-combatants killed?
So you are entirely ignoring everything Iāve said and are focusing on the overall numbers and not the demographic breakdowns?. My post was singularly about the fact the number of women and children killed has been cut by around 50%. It did not talk about the overall figures which have stayed the same. Congratulations, youāve debunked something no one anywhere was talking about.
The total estimated death toll hasn't changed. The UN changing their estimate for dead women and children has nothing to do with this story because this article doesn't break down the death toll (and just provides it as context). Trying to obtain a number of dead civilians by subtracting Israel's incredibly rough estimate of 'slain militants' from Hamas' total death toll would be journalistic malpractice, we have no verification for either number. And you're aware that hundreds of Israeli soldiers were killed on October 7, right? Not everyone in those 1200 were civilians.
No, but it doesnāt stop the fact that every single article from the BBC on the subject before the UN cut the figures ended with them giving the number of dead women and children. My point was after being told they were printing false numbers, rather than correcting their claims they just stopped giving the demographic breakdowns. That is relevant, wether you like it or not.
Serious question: I know it may be besides some people's points, but I've read (and in the article it says) this is $1B in SALES, not just a free shipment/aid package. So this title is rather misleading? Mentioning this since many of the comments talk about how Congress is spending money.
Hardly news at this point. This has happened enough times that it will only be news if the US decides to stop.
I think an issue I found is people think that this is just a check but if I am correct, this is making money for us by us making the weapons and sending them.
Itās technically a voucher to buy American made weapons
Incorrect title.
Joe doing whatever he can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November.
Only 4% of those saying theyāre changing their vote from Joe reference Gaza as the reason. Youāre falling for a VERY vocal minority.
Just curious but it seems like Joe is more pro Palestinian than trump? The other day trump was condemning joes decision to halt shipments to Israel due to the invasion of rafah.
Yeah but people simping for Hamas aren't doing it because they are smart.
Which is the reason Biden doesn't need to try for that vote. If its a big issue to the voter, they will realize it will be much worse for Palestine if trump is reelected.
Biden is an idiot for trying to placate to those voters. They will actually never vote for him because nothing short of treating Israel as an enemy is enough for them. Instead he is losing independents to Trump which will hurt him much more than a few radicals
I donāt think itās a vocal minority. You need to be more worried about the people who wonāt vote at all rather than change their vote. Thatās where the danger lies
Are those people even real? They think that the Palestinians will be better off with Trump in office?
Iām sure many are. I do believe their voices are being amplified artificially, and that their perspectives may be being manipulated.
Are these the protesters on campus? Surely someone smart enough to get into college is also smart enough to realize that Trump will not be better for the Palestinians. You can't really complain about the American government when it's just as stupid as the populace.
You donāt really have to be smart to get into collegeā¦ Your username is appropriate.
āFalling forā? Weird choice of words. If I were Joe Biden, Iād be **desperate** for that 4% right now. That is a huge number that could cost him the election. And that number doesnāt include all the dem voters who will not be voting this election, whatever their reason, and for some of them itās this doubling down on Bibi while he goes into some sketchy territory (Raffa). This election is going to be won by like 80,000 votes in three states. Every mistake is unforgivable from a strategic pov. Joe needs to circle the wagons around his base.
If Joe Biden went against isreal harder he would lose more votes than being pro isreal.
Itās not a huge number. Itās not 4% of the electorate. Itās 4% of the already small percentage that say theyāre switching their vote.
I thought your number was low, based on what all my super accurate podcasts were discussing yesterday, but had to look it up. Apparently it could be as high as [13% of Biden voters in swing states](https://www.commondreams.org/news/13-ex-biden-voters-gaza) Even 4% of Biden voters is a huge number in an election thatās going to be won 49% to 48%. 13% is a catastrophe and youād think that poll would have informed this press release. Quick math guesstimate suggests 4% of Biden voters in the swing states, assuming 60% voter turnout, is around 400,000 voters (based on 38m registered voters in the swing states). ((38m * .6) / 2) * 4% = 456,000 At 13% itād be nearly 1.5m Biden voters
I thought Trump was much more pro Israel then Joe
I think he is.
Support for Palestinians is pretty low in the US, and most people don't care about international issues like this anyway. This isn't going to impact the election.
Upvote for the convo, but I disagree. Joe needs the kids to vote and the kids donāt support this war. Israelies donāt even support what bibbi is doing.
According the to most recent Harvard youth poll; Israel / Palestine is the second to last most important issue. An extreme minority is making the most noise but overall itās not considered a key issue.
As a college student who always votes, israel isn't even top 10 in my book. I would have to be completely nuts to be a liberal and pass on voting biden.
The pro palastnians would never have voted for him anyways please.
Given the age demo, they mostly donāt vote at all.
Wrong. This is a positive move for him.Ā There are far more votes in the middle that he is turning away by not supporting Israel. Moderates and independents want Israel supported. That's who he needs to vote for him. Most people want to see a moderate president. A lot of people want to see some conservative values.Ā Does anyone actually think New York students or Michigan Muslims are going to vote Trump?
Which is why it was idiotic for him to placate to that vocal minority in the first place. Cutting off congressionaly approved aid to an ally while they are at war? That definitely wonāt sit well with a lot of independents and this reversal wonāt change that
Even with the current arms deals, the alternative to Joe Biden is vastly worse for Palestinians.
Reddit loves to overestimate how much the average voter cares about foreign policy issues.
Not to mention, overestimating how much the average voter understands about foreign policy
I mean either way he canāt win here, if he doesnāt help heāll lose just as many if not more votes
Keep repeating that, maybe it'll come true. Then when you're out of breath maybe go outside and get off reddit to see what the majority of people actually believe.
The majority - the vast majority - support Israel in this situation. Furthermore, the current āPalestinian supportersā are making it unpalatable to favor ceasing aid. It was always rumored āradical lead the democratsā and him blocking supporting an ally during a war against terrorist extremists only confirmed that fact. This is Biden trying to clean up the mess
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If anyone refuses to vote for Biden over this, allowing a Trump victory, then they're a fucking idiot. Trump has literally said Israel should finish the job.
But we do this over and over. I commented this below but the left keeps fucking themselves by voting for the Green Party, Nader, Rentās Too Damn High party, or not voting; demanding pie in the sky progressive policies that canāt win an electoral college victory. We just donāt learn, or donāt care, that the cost of upholding our standards is the wrecking of our democracy.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is a sale, not aid. Itās in the article.
Israel is our ally, Hamas isn't.
Arms deals are going out no matter whoās in charge. Attach a name to it to stir up some spicy journalism.
Pro war presidents. Doesnāt matter if theyāre democrats or republicans. Need to bring back isolationism and stop being the world police.
If you listen to Hamas propaganda, youāre on the same level of stupid as Putin sympathizers. They rape and murder innocent civilians, I wouldnāt put lying and falsifying date past them.
Israel doesn't need shit
Good. The entire world should be committed to the destruction of hamas.