It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Starves - Obama Proposes $800m To Aid 'Arab Spring'

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 

Dear Indigo5,

Thank you for your thoughts. May I explain, at least in regard to Egypt, where some of my thoughts come from?

You may recall that 43 people, including 16 Americans, have been ordered held by Egyptian judges. They were in the country legally as part of Non-Governmental Organizations which have had their assets and funds seized.

Senior lawmakers, and Secretary of State Clinton have warned that the US might stop sending aid if this doesn't get resolved.

We are sending Egypt $1.3 Billion dollars annually now. Certainly, they don't need another $800 million, especially since Egypt is trying to get the money through threats:

Any U.S. aid cut to Egypt, top MB lawmaker Essam el-Erian told the pan-Arabic al-Hayat newspaper, would violate the U.S.-brokered 1979 peace agreement with Israel.

The Jerusalem Post quoted Erian as saying that if the U.S. cuts aid to Egypt, the MB would consider changing the terms of the peace treaty.

And the idea that giving more money to Egypt would get the US anything seems incredibly unlikely:

Fayza Abul-Naga. The military-appointed Prime Minister Kamal el-Ganzouri – who also served during the Mubarak era – told reporters last Wednesday that the authorities “won’t change course because of some aid.”
I also found this interesting:

Legislation signed into law last December ties the provision of $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt in fiscal year 2012 to certification that the government in Cairo “is supporting the transition to civilian government including holding free and fair elections; implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association, and religion, and due process of law.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s foreign operations subcommittee, inserted the language. He warned this month that the NGO clampdown would affect the certification requirements.

Yes, I understand that you might be talking about countries other than Egypt, please tell me which one, or ones, you have in mind. And no, I don't believe (and didn't say) that all Mid-East Muslims dislike America, but would you agree that the majority do?


and while giving them money will not ensure beyond any doubt that those that are fighting to toss off the oppressive regimes will like the USA
Is your suggestion that we give money to groups trying to overthrow oppressive Mid-East regimes? Which countries should we start helping to bring revolution to?

Perhaps I am being brainwashed, but I think there are still some unanswered questions.

With respect,
Charles1952

cnsnews.com...




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
One more obligation to add to the pot of stuff we can't afford. Obama ran on cutting the deficit....



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Okay, American infrastructure is not "crumbling." We have completely working roads and our state governments put a lot of work into local bridges and ports and the like. For example, in Seattle, we are currently redoing one of our major freeway bridges, which has up til now been very inefficient. We are in no way crumbling in terms of infrastructure because if we were, we would have no trade, no imports, no exports, no nothing.

Second, in terms of poverty, yeah, you are right. But first: what do you want Obama to do? Become a bigger "food stamp" president? Hand the extra money to private businesses? I can see your point but I feel like no matter what Obama does with tax money it is going to piss someone off.

In terms of the usefulness of providing money to help the Arab Spring: it makes perfect sense to me that Obama would be looking to invest in creating more peaceful political systems in the middle east. Peace there reflects here in terms of oil prices predominantly as well as higher consumer confidence - terrorism freaks people out, but if people are not afraid, then people will buy more and worry less about the end of the world. A move like this is not just because he "feels like" helping them and not us. This type of move is self-interested in that it will lower our gas prices and increase people's confidence, in turn creating a better economy in which more people can buy more food.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Paying to create an Islamic Uprising to facilitate short term goals, because by the time the long term consequences come to hatch the bureaucrats forcing us to pay for the Islamic Uprising will not have to deal with them or take the blame for them.

You been HAD. That's my unprofessional opinion.


edit on 2012/2/14 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by spinalremain

Originally posted by beezzer
He wants to raise taxes on Americans and pay the Islamic Brotherhood money so they can continue to burn down christian churches in Egypt and elsewhere.

Have I got this right?

Lovely.


No. He wants to extend tax breaks for 99 percent of Americans, not raise taxes. What he also would like to do is not raise taxes for top earners. He wants them to pay the same percentage that I, and almost all Americans do. Paying what you're supposed to is not a raise. It's justice served.

As it stands now, most Americans pay 35% federal, so that the wealthy can create jobs.......................................................IN CHINA.


edit on 14-2-2012 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)

He also wants to end Bush's tax cuts.

If he's elected again, all our taxes go up.


He wants to end the Bush cuts for those making over 250K. Not all Americans. Capital gains breaks out the window. I don't think most Americans need to worry about their capital gains being taxed more.
edit on 14-2-2012 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
What he also would like to do is not raise taxes for top earners. He wants them to pay the same percentage that I, and almost all Americans do.

That's incorrect. It's far left spin and, unfortunately, many people are buying into it.

The top earners already pay almost all the taxes in this country. The bottom half of earners pay nothing. So if Obama was to make the top earners pay 'the same' as everyone else .. they'd be paying MUCH LESS than they are. The fact is that the upper brackets already pay a higher percentage on their earned income.

Forbees - Federal Income Tax Brackets


Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
15% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket Over $388,350 Over $388,350


If you are thinking of their investment income, that's another story. It's taxed at something like 15%. The reason that investment income is taxed at a much lower rate is because it is important to get the high wage earners to invest their money into business to keep the economy growing. Lower taxes on investment are an incentive and reward for them for helping the economy grow and helping to create jobs by their investments.


Paying what you're supposed to is not a raise. It's justice served.

Paying what you're supposed to ... okay ... the only 'fair' wage income tax would be one that is the same across the board. So no matter how little or how big your wage income numbers are, it should be one FLAT TAX across the board. So someone making a wage income of $30,000 a year should start paying the same percent as those higher wage earners do ... like make them pay 35%. Yeah ... that'd be fair.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilder
Like in Australia ,American infrastructure is crumbling and people living under the poverty line is growing rapidly how can these people spend our money like this

Reuters) - The White House announced plans on Monday to help "Arab Spring" countries swept by revolutions with more than $800 million in economic aid, while maintaining U.S. military aid to Egypt.

This is crazy its borrowed money to begin with and they are just handing it out and dropping the tab on the tax payer
www.reuters.com...
Why havnt we reached the tipping point yet?


look who gets put in office, people that are for more of the same as the guy before them.
If people really were fed up they wouldn't put people in office that screw them over time and again.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacekc929
Okay, American infrastructure is not "crumbling." We have completely working roads and our state governments put a lot of work into local bridges and ports and the like. For example, in Seattle, we are currently redoing one of our major freeway bridges, which has up til now been very inefficient. We are in no way crumbling in terms of infrastructure because if we were, we would have no trade, no imports, no exports, no nothing.

Second, in terms of poverty, yeah, you are right. But first: what do you want Obama to do? Become a bigger "food stamp" president? Hand the extra money to private businesses? I can see your point but I feel like no matter what Obama does with tax money it is going to piss someone off.

In terms of the usefulness of providing money to help the Arab Spring: it makes perfect sense to me that Obama would be looking to invest in creating more peaceful political systems in the middle east. Peace there reflects here in terms of oil prices predominantly as well as higher consumer confidence - terrorism freaks people out, but if people are not afraid, then people will buy more and worry less about the end of the world. A move like this is not just because he "feels like" helping them and not us. This type of move is self-interested in that it will lower our gas prices and increase people's confidence, in turn creating a better economy in which more people can buy more food.



take a look at detroit

ill remember this thread the next time some idiot slams on his brakes in front of me to dodge the same pothole that has been sitting there for months on end.... and getting BIGGER.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Ahh, more funds for the C I Arab. Umm, apparently the Obamas are sick of politics and want out. Seems to me the chosen one is doing everything possible to not win another term. Maybe TPTB decided the Mormon is the right one to usher in the apocalypse. It's still a white man's world, I'm surprised he made it this long.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Reply to post by spacekc929
 


Was it not but a few weeks ago, maybe a few months, that the government said our infrastructure is hurting? It's good that roads and bridges are being repaired in your neck of the woods, but that is not the case in all States. There are tons of bridges and tressels and roads that do NOT meet up-to-date standards. That was even brought up by the O-man in one of his elegant speeches, he said tons of jobs would be available to help restructure the infrastructure, which according to him, badly needed attention, IE bridges and roads.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952

Dear Indigo5,

Thank you for your thoughts. May I explain, at least in regard to Egypt, where some of my thoughts come from?

You may recall that 43 people, including 16 Americans, have been ordered held by Egyptian judges. They were in the country legally as part of Non-Governmental Organizations which have had their assets and funds seized.

Senior lawmakers, and Secretary of State Clinton have warned that the US might stop sending aid if this doesn't get resolved.

We are sending Egypt $1.3 Billion dollars annually now. Certainly, they don't need another $800 million, especially since Egypt is trying to get the money through threats:

Any U.S. aid cut to Egypt, top MB lawmaker Essam el-Erian told the pan-Arabic al-Hayat newspaper, would violate the U.S.-brokered 1979 peace agreement with Israel.




Slow down there on Egypt...The issue there is not the Muslim Brotherhood...it is the Military.

Egypts military has always been a force apart from the government. It's generals own large swaths of land, tourist resorts, factories etc.

When the revolt began, the military saw the changing tides and supported the people...AND kept power...even grabbed a little more under the heading of democracy. There is now a second power struggle with the people that led the revolution saying WTF to the military. The Military owns the government now, but promises a free democracy is on the way...while at the same time arresting Non-Governmental Orgs from the US and other countries that are there to help them build a framework of democracy.

We have threatened to cut aid unless they straighten out and both Dems, plus Republicans...left and right in DC are on the same page.

As far as I am aware ...none of this 800 Million will reach Egypt unless the Military who is trying to scale back their promises of democracy starts to deliver on it's promises.

The President and Congress, both sides of the aisle are in agreement about Egypt. They continue on the course toward democracy and release the NGO staff they arrested or the money will dry up.
edit on 15-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


And the Muslim Brotherhood informed them that the under current treaties, the money cannot dry up or the peace process with Israel is done.

Because, they like their military more than they like Jews.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952

Yes, I understand that you might be talking about countries other than Egypt, please tell me which one, or ones, you have in mind.


Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, Syria...

All with the qualifiers ...

(a) There must be an organized revolt of the majority of citizens

(b) That revolt must clearly have a democratic agenda

(c) We don't intervene with boots on the ground or occupy, but only intercede in a limited fashion if genocide or mass human rights violations occur.

(d) Any funds are strictly conditioned on a continued move toward a free democracy and aiding that goal.

We need to support the Arab Spring wherever it occurs. This is the way democracy was meant to occur in the middle-east, not by US Military dictate or failed ethno-centric nation building, but by grass-roots natural evolution, the people themselves taking action..for themselves. If it reaches critical mass in any of these nations, we need to pick sides or suffer the consequences. We are either for democracy or we aren't. Just my opinion.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Indigo5
 


And the Muslim Brotherhood informed them that the under current treaties, the money cannot dry up or the peace process with Israel is done.

Because, they like their military more than they like Jews.



That member of the parliment who happens to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, simply likes money...like all politicians of any color or religion.

His very "politician" statement had nothing to do with his religion, or even Israel...it had to do with money....and that is a quality that many of politicans here in the US share.

The current Egyptian rulers are not just POing the USA with the arrest of the NGOs, they are POin the people that afforded them the power...the risk a second revolution. The US will not continue to fund them ...and thier people will not tolerate it. They will relent. If they don't...no more US Aid in there "Democratic Transition" and the revolutionaries will get tired of waiting for the "New Boss" to deliver on what they promised.

Either way...none of it is driven by the Islamic religion. It is driven by power and money. Do you know strange it would be if we quoted our politicians as "Catholic Congressman" X or Evangalist Senator Y whilst discussing budget issues?




edit on 15-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Right. Cultures and governments where the entire structure is defined and limited by religion, but religion has nothing to do with anything...except when it is something that might play well in the media.

I think the Quran gave some wrong dictates: for example, it should really have suggested that one need not use any hand to wipe your butt when you can get a naive Left-Winger to do it for you.
edit on 2012/2/15 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Right. Cultures and governments where the entire structure is defined and limited by religion, but religion has nothing to do with anything...except when it is something that might play well in the media.

I think the Quran gave some wrong dictates: for example, it should really have suggested that one need not use any hand to wipe your butt when you can get a naive Left-Winger to do it for you.
edit on 2012/2/15 by Aeons because: (no reason given)


Lord help me...the blindness..

Do you know how America might appear to the Middle-East? How many times is Christianity, Christian values and God mentioned in the average GOP debate?

Anyone abroad watching Rick Santorum surging in the polls whilst he rants about Contraception being outlawed or Romney talking about his faith in God every third sentence migth think we were a Christian State Republic.

But since it is our backyard...we can tell the difference between politicians pandering and true-believer, bible thumping zealots.

Here...maybe this will help...from a former Muslim Brother Blogger in Egypt



CAIRO: Egyptian activists have a shorthand way to help Americans understand party politics here:

“Just think of the Salafi [ultra-conservative Islamists] as your Tea Party—they’re not so interested in government as a way to solve Egypt’s problems as a tool to enforce their morality”—and then they’re absolutists to the point of being fascists, says political activist Abdel Rahman Ayyash.

“The Muslim Brotherhood, though, are more like your Republicans—also interested in pushing their social views, just not as crazy,” adds the computer engineer, and as a former young Muslim Brother, creator of the blog: IkhwanoPhobia.com.

“And our liberals are like your liberals—focused on freedoms, human rights and government as fixer of problems.

There are other political forces of course here in Egypt at the moment—women, Coptic Christians, Tahrir Square protestors and most prominently the army—but the only ones who really matter are the Muslim Brotherhood who, with 46 percent of the seats in the new Parliament, are so close to an outright majority, they won’t need much muscle to what they want.

It will be their agenda that will drive Egypt’s future. The only brake on their power may come from the street, from the voices of these other interest groups, from reaction in the press, from the international community and, of course in a different way, from the military.

As Tahrir Square activists claim, the democratic goals of the revolution have yet to be met. The revolution overthrew one dictator only to face the dictatorship of the old regime’s military. And now the diversity of Egypt faces the disciplined vision of one group of Islamists.


The whole article is good for perspective...
www.egyptunplugged.com...


edit on 15-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


No honey. I'm a card carrying Liberal with pagan leanings. The Christians who push the same agenda can kiss my lily white behind.

When these people - from any political party - get in they have to conform to basic standards of law. This limits some of their rhetoric.

But because of that, I feel TOTALLY free to point out that the Islamists are lying, and apologists in the West are covering up for them while covering themselves in the glory of being tolerant.

Peace, Freedom, Tolerance, Justice, Equality, Rights, etc all sound just LOVELY to your ears....and when they come out of the Islamist mouth they mean something completely different than what is in my dictionary.

When I point it out, all followers of Islam never actually contradict me. They'll try to pull me offside, or attack me, or hide behind your petticoats, but they do not disagree with what I've said. They can’t; all those definitions are different.

Further you are essentially painting the GOP as the "Christian" party. Which I'm sure fits your views, but doesn't stand up to facts.

That you have a religion and are in politics is not an issue. That you might use your views to guide your politics is also not a problem. When your religious views cross over into being illegal, or unconstitutional (or non-Charter where I am) then we have all these lovely documents that supersede your personal Holy Book. Unlike in the Muslim controlled countries, where the government is slaved to the Holy Book and the little coterie who happen to be "interpreting" for the country at the moment.


While all that idea that Salafists are like the Tea Party stuff looks great, when you elect a member of the Tea Party their council isn't passed through a board of Protestants who compare their bills to the Bible and then reject them as not being upto Biblical standards.

Drawing comparisons - sometimes it backfires. Remaining foreign and mysterious is way better for selling propaganda.
edit on 2012/2/15 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Would you like to debate the Egyptian model.

www.sis.gov.eg...

I find this interesting. Notice who they tell you that Egypt is a signatory to many Human Rights documents.

They fail to list the UN Declaration of Human Rights on it, to which Egypt is a signatory but they don't want to be because Islamic Imams have made it very clear that International Human Rights are contrary to their interpretation of the Quran so the Islamic nations have overwhelming pulled away from it.

They also fail to mention that Egypt is a signatory to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights - which they probably do agree with but has become somewhat problematic since those challenging Shariah based initiatives have taken note of it.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
When your religious views cross over into being illegal, or unconstitutional (or non-Charter where I am) then we have all these lovely documents that supersede your personal Holy Book. Unlike in the Muslim controlled countries, where the government is slaved to the Holy Book and the little coterie who happen to be "interpreting" for the country at the moment.

While all that idea that Salafists are like the Tea Party stuff looks great, when you elect a member of the Tea Party their council isn't passed through a board of Protestants who compare their bills to the Bible and then reject them as not being upto Biblical standards.


First off...WTF??? When did I defend Islamic Regimes? Do you consider Egypt to currently be an Islamic Regime? Cuz the Muslim Brotherhood does not have a majority...nor do they have the Military which is independant...etc. etc.

You seem to be looking at any country where Muslims represent a portion of politicians, minority or majority and instantly assuming that means they are an Islamic Regime with Sharia law and a religious council to approve their policy....THAT is IRAN and such...WTF? That was a confusing bit of twist there in your last post.

The Arab Spring, while containing Muslims, has not put ANY Islamic Regimes into power....unless you simply count the fact that some of those folks are Muslim.

Egypt is hammering out a SECULAR and DEMOCRATIC constitution. There is push-back by both the Salafists and the Military and more conservative leaning Muslims who are hoping to sieze more power in the comming elections. That is what the Military and the more extreme wing of Muslims are pushing for and that is why the stomped on the NGOs...

and know what? The Egyption people are pissed about it and foriegn aid is at risk...they are setting themselves up for a second revolt..rinse and repeat...Arab Spring at work...we are not going to fund a new government unless it is Secular and Democratic...and the majority of the Egyption people...WHO ARE MUSLIM...have no interest in a Sharia state!! Just as many Christians here have no interest in the Catholic Church running our government..

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO CONFUSE THE ARAB SPRING OR ANYONE"S SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST AS SUPPORTING SHARIA LAW...IT verges on dishonest.

I have never excused or apologized for Islamic Republics, the revolts in the middle east are not aimed at instituting Islamic Republics and where Islamist-extremists have tried to opportunistically seize some power (like Egypt)...there has been push back from the US, the world and most importantly those nations own Muslims!!!

You seem to have a very sour view of the worlds people, specifically people of faith. Most people enjoy thier faith without wanting a government to dictate it to them. They can want both freedom and faith simutaneously. You give the human race too little credit. The Arab Spring will not stop until democracies are installed...it will be bloody...it will be messy...but that is the nature of Democracy and it has taken root there. Egypt will figure this out and it's military and muslim conservatives will relent or face a second round of the Arab Spring...It's the "people" that drive it.

Again...conflating extremists with an entire religion...It's like confusing the predominently Christian congress as subserviant to an extremist version of the vatican.
edit on 15-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
If the Christian politicians you are foaming about were not allowed to pass laws that didn't go through the Pope or some Protestant cabal, then what you are saying might possibly have some validity.



You are completely and utterly mistaken about Islamic governance in these "democratic" and "revolutionary" nations. The "democracy" of the Islamic nations is not in any way the same as the democracy you live under and are familar with. Other than people picking names off a list and putting them into a container, it has no similarity whatsoever.

Every political group elected is to varying degrees Islamist. The "moderates" you are defending have some absolutely lovely views. For example, in Tunisia the Islamist Moderates have members who came home from Western nations to take to their parliaments with expressed views of hanging women's rights activists from light poles.

You are defending what you WISH these countries were. Not what they actually are.

In case you missed it, Islam is the official religion of the state. While political parties are not to be religion based, nor may they have views which are contrary to the harmony and social order of the State. You may look up what that means in Islam - it means that you may not contradict Islam, because Islam is the ultimate expression of social order as given by Allah to Mohammed. Inked right in, just in case you weren't clear on the facts.
edit on 2012/2/15 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join