Meanwhile, as we've pointed out before, American taxpayers SUBSIDIZE the SOCIALIZED, GOVERNMENT-FUNDED "improvements" for Jewish religiously insane "settlements" in the West Bank and other occupied Palestinian territory.
Here we have a clear and present case, of the treasonous Washington Post editors, trying their damndest, to treat AMERICANS with the same scorn, murderous contempt, and thieving larceny that Netanyahu's murderous Likud party and military goons treats Arabs & Palestinians....
The Washington Post Wants Your Social Security to Pay for the War
By: Robert Naiman, FireDogLake.com,
Thursday September 30, 2010 7:37 am
For the Washington Post, there’s no such thing as a war that America can’t afford.
In an editorial Wednesday, the Washington Post takes President Obama to task for being concerned about the cost of the war in Afghanistan and the fact that it conflicts with domestic priorities. That the Washington Post, a knee-jerk supporter of war for empire, would slam President Obama for this is the opposite of surprising. Nonetheless, what the Washington Post actually said in its editorial is still breathtaking:
We have been led to believe that official Washington is seized with urgency about long-term projections of U.S. budget deficits. Yet here is the Washington Post, downplaying the cost of the war in Afghanistan on the grounds that it is "well below 1 percent" of U.S. GDP.Mr. Obama repeatedly cites the cost of the war and the need to shift resources to domestic priorities — though spending on Afghanistan is well below 1 percent of U.S. gross domestic product.
Logically, there are two possibilities.
One possibility is that the Washington Post is saying that in the future, we can ignore any government expenditure or savings that amounts to less than 1% of U.S. GDP as being too small to bother about.
The other possibility is that according to the Washington Post there are two standards for judging costs. One standard is for war, in which an expenditure of less than 1% of GDP is too small to bother about. The other standard is for domestic spending that benefits the majority of Americans, in which a reduction of government expenditure of less than 1% of GDP is something that should be seriously considered (cont'd)