There are some who believe that not even a single dollar should flow out to foreign aid so long as there is, for example, an American child experiencing hunger (and there are millions of them at this very moment).

That's a bit short sighted, though. Foreign aid is an investment, and a tool to solidify your soft power.It is worth it even without considering any humanitarian aspect (which you should, but not everybody does).

Running a slightly less ridiculous military-industrial complex would free plenty of funds to fix just about any issue there might be in the US (except of course the big one, climate change). Second is having a slightly less ridiculous tax system.

> some who believe that not even a single dollar should flow out to foreign aid so long as there is, for example, an American child experiencing hunger

Thankfully, not enough to be politically relevant. Because the alternative is letting the world degrade to the point that we’re shipping that child out to a war.

> Thankfully, not enough to be politically relevant. Because the alternative is letting the world degrade to the point that we’re shipping that child out to a war.

I think this is exactly what politicians would like you to believe. You should take a look at how the foreign aid budget gets spent in reality.

>Its not so absurd to imagine getting a court order to seize a property and prosecute individuals that are using military grade munitions. Right now it might seem to be, but it isn't.

Ah hem. The Second Amendment would like a word...

There is nothing in theory keeping anyone in the United States from owning or even using military grade munitions. Just paperwork. And all too much at that. If you're going to be seizing property, due process. Your due process you seem to be espousing reads "have use military grade munitions -> seize and prosecute".

Those of us that like to safely own and have things that go boom or have military applications would appreciate it if you'd describe due process as it should be, "prosecute, secure beyond reasonable doubt conviction -> seize property", though even that is open to question as the property to be seized should reflect the crime committed. If felony theft is committed, property should transfer to next of kin, or liquidated with proceeds going to next-of-kin.

Order matters.

Besides which, what is the big deal with Israel anyway? Besides people who read way too much Revelations, and think entirely too much of the United States as a lynchpin in that, I've seen very little to recommend keeping up a military industrial pipeline coffer lining exercise in that part of the world. The U.S. is quite literally being the mother of all enablers in that regard.

Owning and using arms are very different. The ownership typically has an avenue available in all parts of the US. If the avenue isn't broad enough or too restrictive then the courts re-broaden it on 2nd amendment grounds. Using is much more tightly restricted and illegal in most areas of the US, there is no area of the US where you can shoot mortars off of somebody else's building, at someone else's property, without consequence from the state itself.

But the primary difference between areas within the US borders and areas within Israel's borders is how the consequence materializes.

In the US the expected response would be an investigation, finding the munitions, taking the munition as evidence, finding the owner or user, interviewing people, indicting and convicting the owner, seizing the owners assets or finding the building somehow culpable too, only for the purpose of temporary ownership by the state, not destruction. If something occurred during the investigation or the presence of a law enforcement, the law enforcement may shoot back on the spot.

In Israel, right now the expected response is lobbing a missile at the building and gaslighting everyone that questions that particular approach.

> But as this is a constant across all US administrations' heads of state, as well as super majority of representatives in Congress it is currently useless to debate that

Just wait 10 years until most new cars are electric, and we’ll see whether or not that still holds.

> Useless to debate

It seems like you just outlined why it is necessary to debate. Think of how many positions used to have overwhelming majority in Congress, only to be overturned after citizens pushed the issue, by publicly debating it when it was unpopular.

I would argue that it's supported across all governments in the US because there isn't must debate or awareness surrounding it.

I have my doubts about that one, but that could be because my own filter bubble includes general awareness of it.

I usually skip the stages of grief and go straight to acceptance, and looking at how to make it more tenable.