Did you know...

This is both true, and not entirely accurate.

Israel spends something like $24 on their defense. The $3B that the the US gives them (and it's $3B, not $4B, based on what I can find) is largely in the form of military materials: ammunition, bombs, air defense systems, etc. So what we give them is about 20% of their total defense spend, and yeah, that's a lot.

But the flip side of that is that American workers in American factories are the ones building the bombs, missiles defense systems, making the bullets, etc.; the money that the gov't gives Israel ends up creating a benefit for workers in the form of work that wouldn't otherwise exist. I'd have to see a real economic analysis, but this might be a case of each dollar that the gov't spends creating more than a dollar of effect. (And yeah, I know that a lot of that effect is going to e.g. Raytheon shareholders rather than line workers. But still.)

BUT

The fact that we see an economic benefit in terms of jobs and growth by giving Israel aid doesn't mean we should. Because we're directly funding the genocide of the Palestinians.

Israel spends something like $24 on their defense.
I assume there's supposed to be a B on the end of that figure. But it's funny picturing them spending just twenty-four bucks.
- Yes, $24B, sorry.
  If they spent $24.00 on their own defense, and the US gave them $3B, then, uh, they'd be 100% dependent on the US.
Imagine spending that 3 billions on American health care workers.. rather than Raytheon
- It wouldn't even be noticeable. We spend a total of about $4.5 trillion [EDIT: on healthcare]; $3B is 0.07% of that total.
  And, BTW, we have terrible outcomes for how much we spend.

Well... It has those things for the settler population

for all its citizens

[s] What are you talking about? Israel is probably one of the countries that gives it's citizens the most. The results really are admirable. Everyone should really look into how they did it (After miming looking at my phone for a single second) Oh... Oh no... Fuck. [/s].
Seriously though, the word "citizens" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

It's a doubled sided genocide. America send money over to Israel so they can kill they're own citizen and the US doesn't have the money to save its citizens lives.

It'd be so much easier if they both stopped trying to kill people

Godammit!

Well, tyranny forces us to excel, or something.

You mean decent, hardworking capitalist Americans are subsidising a socialist hellscape??? 😯

Its more fascist America funds national socialist Israel.
- Pffft, details shmetails. If it's got socialism in the name it's the devil. I don't wanna risk any of my tax dollars going to help me or - heaven forbid, my neighbor - when it could be used to push a hard working billionaire's pile that much closer to trickling down! I can almost feel that golden shower already!
- 51st state with plausible deniability

Yeah right ... their own tax base is enough to cover the cost of public services like that ...

... but a genocide? ... Palestine ain't gonna genocide itself ... that shit costs money

A lot of the money goes towards to illegal colonial settlements. These cost far more in security and infrastructure and the social services there are much more expensive to get more people to go there for "good roads and schools".
Even before the genocide Israel has been heavily subsidized by the US and other allies.
As UNRWA has been covering much of the humanitarian obligations Israel has as an occupying force over the past half century the global community has been subsidizing Israel with dozens of billions too.
Yeah Iran pays Hamas to do that.
- Of the ~90% of buildings destroyed, how many were destroyed by Israeli bombs VS Hamas bombs/rockets.
  The answer may shock you!

Countries with nukes should never receive any aid for anything, ever.

That should be the price of having nukes.

What’s the logic behind this statement? Is it just that nukes are bad?
- The logic is that if you put the world at risk, there should be consequences for that.
  If you want the world to come running when you fall on hard times (and this can hardly be considered that, yet aid comes all the same) then you should give up your weapons of mass destruction.
  If there's no consequence for having them, eventually everyone will have them. And then very rapidly nobody will. And that won't be a good day.
- Why do we care if they admit it or not
- Yet have them they do.
why wouldnt any country have them at this point, I feel like its just delusion assuming they dont
Do the same thing for guns and you've got yourself a deal

Whatever happened to the right wing talking point of “Take care of our country first”?

We are starting to see more and more of split on the right on this issue actually. You have critiques by tucker carlson and Candace owens for example.
How is this a right wing talking point? It's blatant corruption, there is no ideology in prioritizing you're own citizens. Wtf?
- Right now they’re all loving supporting destroying Gaza and occupying it. They also screamed about how being involved in Ukraine was bad. Right-wingers are just awful, broken people with no consistency beyond always doing exactly what their local conservative party tells them.
Remember when the right thought The Jewish bankers controlled the world. They made whole documentaries on it and everything. Crazy how fast the beliefs of all groups shift from year to year.
- They still do.
  This is what's crazy about it all.
- They still believe it, but at the same time they respect those Arab killing strong men.
  The right always prefer strong men above everything else. Even their own countries.
The right wing part focuses on the eschaton with Israel in their death cult.
- I love learning new words, what's this one mean!?
  Oh...oh dear.
It was always a lie

I wish Trump would chicken out on this.

How about those t-shirts IDF were wearing more than a decade ago?

The Hannibal Directive

This claim about the t-shirts seems so outrageous that I had to look into it to see if there was more there. Looking into it further I found the article you screen shot from CBS news March 23, 2009, as well as an identical copy on NBC news for the same day. Neither article had a credited author, but the CBS article referenced a Haaretz Daily link (seen in your screen shot) and the NBC article referenced the Associate Press, neither website still hosts such an article.
So next I turned to the Wayback Machine where I was able to find the Haaretz article, but not the Associated Press article.
The Haaretz article amounts to some of the worst journalistic documentation I've ever seen. There's one picture of a shirt which the journalist claims was ordered by a soldier and the identities of everyone involved have been kept anonymous. From a young arab man who supervises the making of the shirts to a Givati soldier, the only source for all of this is Uri Blau who wrote the article.
Alongside this I found an Al Jazeera video where they followed up on the same story where they show a catalogue with the same image used in Uri Blau's article which claims that the shirts were ordered by soldiers. In the video they say they visited the shop but the owner refused to explain the shirts and were told to leave by police.
April 1, 2009, Uri Blau posted another article referencing himself and stating that the IDF now bans soldiers from wearing such shirts even on private time, but again provides no sources or pictures.
Honestly, this could all be true, but it's so fucking sloppy that for all we know Uri Blau made up all of this because there is no substantial proof. It's the journalistic professionalism of a tabloid.
What makes it worse is that because this slop has been out in the public long enough it's existence is actually referenced as proof. "Oh, there was an article written about this 10 years ago so this definitely happened," but the original article itself wasn't proof?
Here is an example on reddit where the OP shared the picture and story a few months ago. When asked for sources they shared a Huffpost and NBC article as separate sources which are both identical and reference the original Haaretz article.
- bruh the second article i found on duckduckgo is about the Israeli government punishing the soldiers who did it
  troll harder kiddo
  Israel’s military condemned its soldiers for wearing T-shirts of a pregnant woman in a rifle’s cross-hairs with the slogan “1 Shot 2 Kills,” and another of a gun-toting child with the words, “The smaller they are, the harder it is.”
  “i googled this and found several mainstream sources acknowledging the pretty well regarded accounts by the the fairly well reguarded Haretz but am going to just throw a bunch of vague ad home without linking or quoting the actual article, just impugning it’s validity without any real argument because i’m a lazy 5 day old troll account”
  The BBC
  Israeli officials have described as "tasteless" and "tasteless" and inconsistent with army values a popular military pastime of printing violent cartoons on T-shirts.
  An investigation in Haaretz daily says the customised shirts are often ordered when troops finish training courses.
  One example shows a pregnant Arab women in the cross-hairs of a sniper's sight with the legend "1 shot 2 kills".
  Another design shows a child being similarly targeted with the slogan "the smaller they are, the harder it is".
  In both images the people being targeted appear to be carrying weapons. A third T-shirt design shows a dead Palestinian baby and the words "Better use Durex" (condoms).
  An army statement said the customised clothing was produced outside military auspices, but it pledged to stamp out the use of such imagery by soldiers.
  "The examples presented by the Haaretz reporter are not in accordance with IDF values and are simply tasteless," the military statement said.
  "This type of humour is unbecoming and should be condemned."
  But it admitted that until now there were no military guidelines governing "acceptable civilian clothing" made by its soldiers.
  [Here’s how wiki characterizes Hareetz, btw (imma put as much effort into the format as you are into your trolling](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz:
  Haaretz (Hebrew: הָאָרֶץ, lit. 'The Land [of Israel]'; originally Ḥadshot Haaretz – Hebrew: חַדְשׁוֹת הָאָרֶץ, IPA: [χadˈʃot haˈʔaʁets], lit. 'News of the Land [of Israel]') is an Israeli newspaper. It was founded in 1918, making it the longest running newspaper currently in print in Israel. The paper is published in Hebrew and English in the Berliner format, and is also available online. In North America, it is published as a weekly newspaper, combining articles from the Friday edition with a roundup from the rest of the week. Haaretz is Israel's newspaper of record.[4][5] It is known for its left-wing and liberal stances on domestic and foreign issues.[6]

Isn't that all military equipment?

Which is worse. Like it's not that the US is subsidizing something good like higher education, but rather bombs and guns for faster genocide?

Money doesn’t have labels on it. If they don’t need to spend their own money on military they can spend it on other things. So you could argue the US is at least indirectly funding these things.
Which is worse. Like it’s not that the US is subsidizing something good like higher education, but rather bombs and guns for faster genocide?
Israel is more likely to, if American subsidies were cut, to strip their social benefits than reduce the operations of a core aspect of their state.
Opportunity cost, and all that jazz. Think of it this way - if you were hell-bent on spending 100$ on art supplies per month, and some fellow came up and said "I'll give you 50$ of art supplies per month", what that really does is effectively free up 50$ for whatever else you might desire to use it for.

Democrat/Republican is all a smoke show. They both agree that Israel deserves our money. You're not allowed to question it. You're not allowed to boycott them. Even bringing it up is anti-Semitic activity.

If you want to know who the real bosses are, look at who it's illegal to criticize.

In Texas, it's literally illegal for governments to buy products or award contracts to anyone who denounces the actions of Israel.
Like: when I was analyzing bids for janitorial services for City Hall, I was legally required to vett the bidders' stances on Israel.
- Well, at least no one would possibly have anything to say about Israel...
- That is some free speech right there!
Democrats, republicans, at the end of the day they are all americans.

The dumbass people in this country didn't get jealous of the universal health care they paid to institute in Iraq. There's no hope.

Foreign aid isn't given in the form of direct cash payments. Trump also seems to think foreign aid works that way.

If those numbers are to be believed... That's 1 dollar per person in Israel per day.

I was unfamiliar with the national dog of Argentina. I thought it was strange that it looks like a Staffordshire Terrier, so I looked it up and was delighted to learn that it's called the "Dogo Argentinio." Perfect fucking name, I love it.
- They look better without trimmed ears.

you mean 4 billion raytheon vouchers?

The best knife missiles out there.

This is true but its a sad state of affairs when the US would rather spend money bullying other countries to further corporate interests than giving their own citizens access to health care and education.
- Unfortunately been that way a looooong time

That's because it takes our tax dollars and turns it around and pays it to overpriced government contractors which is good for "the economy".

It is good for a certain economy for certain people, but it isn't good for us all.

You must be impoverished to enrich America's genocidal garrison state in the Middle East.

I'm not form the us and don't really care, but that seems off. Does anyone have a source?

No, it's a long-standing thing for various reasons but israel is too small to stand without any allies.
https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts