Can't we all just get along?

[Ashock]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-sent-221-m...itics.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Officials say the Obama administration in its waning hours defied Republican opposition and quietly released $221 million to the Palestinian Authority that GOP members of Congress had been blocking.

A State Department official and several congressional aides said the outgoing administration formally notified Congress it would spend the money Friday morning. The official said former Secretary of State John Kerry had informed some lawmakers of the move shortly before he left the State Department for the last time Thursday. The aides said written notification dated Jan. 20 was sent to Congress just hours before Donald Trump took the oath of office.

In addition to the $221 million for the Palestinians, the Obama administration also told Congress on Friday it was going ahead with the release of another $6 million in foreign affairs spending, including $4 million for climate change programs and $1.25 million for U.N. organizations, the congressional aides said. The aides and the State Department official weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter and demanded anonymity.

Congress had initially approved the Palestinian funding in budget years 2015 and 2016, but at least two GOP lawmakers — Ed Royce of California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Kay Granger of Texas, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee — had placed holds on it over moves the Palestinian Authority had taken to seek membership in international organizations. Congressional holds are generally respected by the executive branch but are not legally binding after funds have been allocated.

The Obama administration had for some time been pressing for the release of the money for the Palestinian Authority, which comes from the U.S. Agency for International Development and is to be used for humanitarian aid in the West Bank and Gaza, to support political and security reforms as well as help prepare for good governance and the rule of law in a future Palestinian state, according to the notification sent to Congress.

The $1.25 million for U.N. agencies is to be used as voluntary contributions to the U.N. Peacebuilding Fund; the U.N. Special Coordinator on improving the U.N. response to sexual exploitation and abuse; the Montreal Protocol Secretariat, which oversees the protection of the ozone layer; the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; and the U.N. System Staff College.

The $4 million for climate programs includes assistance for clean energy, sustainable landscapes, cutting greenhouse gas emissions and creating a climate technology center.

The last-minute allocation also contained $1.05 million in funding for the State Department's Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan office and the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs.

The Palestinian funding is likely to draw anger from some in Congress as well as the Trump White House. Trump has vowed to be a strong supporter of Israel and has invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to visit Washington next month.

He has also pledged to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, although White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Monday a final decision on that had yet to be made. Despite speculation in Israel that an announcement of the move is imminent, Spicer said the decision-making process is only in its very early stages.

"If it was already a decision, then we wouldn't be going through a process," Spicer told reporters.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Not like that we can't. Oh and btw, this was on Yahoo. Hardly a conservative website.

[kandrathe]

Not like that we can't. Oh and btw, this was on Yahoo. Hardly a conservative website.

We just need to reign in all executive power, then whomever is in the office won't be able to act in a manner contrary to the Congress (i.e. the representatives of the people).

Yahoo is the place you found it, and AP is the news organization who published it. Written by MATTHEW LEE and RICHARD LARDNER.

In this case, we could expect "consequences" in the form of "the well of free money is dry for you, sorry".

The people in "fly over country" seem to have gotten tired of the multitude of urban assholes screwing up the country: they want their turn to screw up the country. This time, some of the got off of their asses and voted.

Maybe my other point was lost; it is hard for Congress ( federal, state, or local) to determine what amount of spending is equitably fair. Say it is you, or your child facing a life threatening illness, what amount of health care spending is appropriate for you, or you child? So long as we are in debt at $20 trillion, whats a few million or so to save a life? I think it is very hard for politicians to not say yes eventually to every spending request, for every need. It seems to be the humane thing to do, which is why it was not much of a thing the federal government did back in the day when politicians were less corrupt. Slowly, I think by precedent, we've lost our way until now we're so dependent we no longer notice.

Not yours to give... a recount of Sen. Davy Crockett

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Davy Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

[Occhidiangela]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Officials say the Obama administration in its waning hours defied Republican opposition and quietly released $221 million to the Palestinian Authority that GOP members of Congress had been blocking.

I don't get why anyone thinks we need to spend American money on those folks. They've been the useful tools of various moneyed interests in the Middle East for about six decades. If they need aid, there are wealthy Arabs all over the middle east to whom 200 million is chump change, and they don't like the Israelis any more than the Palestinian groups do.

For that matter, why are we still bribing the Israelis and Egyptians each year not to have war with each other?

Stop paying that extortion money, now. (That's about 3 billion to Israel and 2-3 for Egypt, and goes back a piece agreement from the 70's. That's enough time for both of those countries to grow up.

[Ashock]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Officials say the Obama administration in its waning hours defied Republican opposition and quietly released $221 million to the Palestinian Authority that GOP members of Congress had been blocking.

I don't get why anyone thinks we need to spend American money on those folks. They've been the useful tools of various moneyed interests in the Middle East for about six decades. If they need aid, there are wealthy Arabs all over the middle east to whom 200 million is chump change, and they don't like the Israelis any more than the Palestinian groups do.

For that matter, why are we still bribing the Israelis and Egyptians each year not to have war with each other?

Stop paying that extortion money, now. (That's about 3 billion to Israel and 2-3 for Egypt, and goes back a piece agreement from the 70's. That's enough time for both of those countries to grow up.

Yeah. Other arabs not helping Palestinians is not a new thing though. After all, every arab nation refused to take the Palestinians in, years ago. I don't really blame them, but then again Jordanians and Palestinians are the same people, so hmm...

As far as spending money in the middle east, I agree. We need to stop giving everyone money. Just keep in mind that Israel is the only country in the middle east that does not want to kill us. Well, for about 45 years that is. I think you know what I mean by that. However, even that can't be compared to today's situation with the muslim countries and the west.

[eppie]

Stop paying that extortion money, now. (That's about 3 billion to Israel and 2-3 for Egypt, and goes back a piece agreement from the 70's. That's enough time for both of those countries to grow up.

You make much more money in weapons sales when things stay as they are in teh middle east.
Maybe you should go to your bomb producers and ask them to chip in....would be fair.

[kandrathe]

You make much more money in weapons sales when things stay as they are in the middle east.
Maybe you should go to your bomb producers and ask them to chip in....would be fair.

It is a fair question. How should we react to extortion? Could they afford to fight if we didn't send them money to buy weapons and train terrorists? It is clear the aid sent to the Palestinian leadership by the US, Europe, and other 'friends' didn't go into building homes for returning refugees in the west Bank, or Gaza. There is an ideology that believes in handouts, whether it be for guns, or the more humanitarian butter. I think the reality is that the butter money is used to also buy guns.

[Occhidiangela]

[quote='Occhidiangela' pid='213161' dateline='1485732438']

Stop paying that extortion money, now. (That's about 3 billion to Israel and 2-3 for Egypt, and goes back a piece agreement from the 70's. That's enough time for both of those countries to grow up.

You do realize that Israel and Egypt are not at war, right? That bribery, that I described in dollars, is often spent on mil equipment, though not only that. It's still bribery, and there is no "end date" for the payment in this extortion racket. At least with a mortgate, you eventually pay off the house.

By the way, eppie, you betray ignorance on military sales. It isn't the bombs, it's the weapons systems (planes/tanks/ships) and the follow on support contracts, where the MONEY is. If you are going to chime in, try to know what you're talking about.

[eppie]

By the way, eppie, you betray ignorance on military sales. It isn't the bombs, it's the weapons systems (planes/tanks/ships) and the follow on support contracts, where the MONEY is. If you are going to chime in, try to know what you're talking about.

You say this because it was important for the discussion or because you like to show you know about defence spendings.
Anyway, my apologies. But to be fair, if I was a defence industry I would try and make my money on the consumables as many other companies do.

It is by the way a good point: I think your government ships a lot of tax payers money to the weapons industry (and some other rich people), by starting a war such as in Iraq. I don't think it is a complot theory to think these interest play a big role in making such decissions.

[kandrathe]

It is by the way a good point: I think your government ships a lot of tax payers money to the weapons industry (and some other rich people), by starting a war such as in Iraq. I don't think it is a complete theory to think these interest play a big role in making such decisions.

I believe some of this is maybe true. There is certainly "pressure" applied by special interests in the form of political funding, getting there political pick elected, etc. But, I also think you might see it too simplistically, not giving analysts and government policy makers credit for seeing all the chess pieces on the board, or in playing the long game.

There are in fact many moving power interests in play in the middle east, and also vacuums of power that beg to be filled. The long play to get what we want involves movements, or lack of movement (by US, and "them") in myriads of factions in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, and etc. etc. parts of Africa, and not to mention the interplay with European interests.

The former President Obama/Kerry plan seemed to be more in containment and allowing for the Balkinization of Iraq and Syria, or allowing them to reform as a puzzle of temporarily non-violent states. With Trump, I think that strategy is moot. I don't think he will be timid in deploying the big stick, to send in the full might of the US military, break it bad, then pull out with no remorse in not hanging around to "nation build".

But, by whatever tactical means, our common (UN) interest is to see the people in the middle east living in peaceful democracies. The cold truth is that, either slowly ( the Obama method) via civil war and displaced refugees, or quickly via unilateral US boots on the ground, those who don't want peace will find death. It's really then a measure of cost, and your gut weakness in watching the collateral damage. I'm maybe in the minority in finding the Obama, "sit back and watch them suffer approach", a bit unsettling.