Good points ! I thought Hildebeast had a very appropriate slogan- "Stronger Together". This captured the desire the leftists have to be taken care of, and it enabled her to show off her power and ability to evade getting "caught" as a positive, not a negative. This is why her whole email scandal was brushed off by the left. Even the hollywood people and media wanted to hide under her umbrella. We have an opportunity during the next 4 years to discredit this approach and encourage a return to constitutional government. i am reading "People's Republic" by kurt schlichter, which is EXCELLENT (novel) showing where statism leads to when it is compared side by side with the alternative. The USA splits into two- red vs blue states. It should be a TV series- well written and very instructive.

I agree with you that we have not done a good job of maintaining our Constitutional Republic. We do need to start teaching the Constitution much earlier in schools and our public officials need to be dedicated to it. It is very difficult to teach one thing to others while you are doing something different!

One question I have is simply this: has it been harder for us to maintain our Republic because our erstwhile allies (especially in Europe) have one-by-one descended into socialism? Not that I blame them for our lack of good choices, but simply an observation that even Canada and Australia have abandoned key principles of freedom (Australia's gun buy-back, Canada's hate speech laws). I think it's difficult to be different.

I think that it is also ultimately a battle of good and evil and more people are deluding themselves into citing with evil. The leaders want power and the people want to be taken care of. Which is all the more reason to me that we should be aggressively teaching capitalistic values to both our own people and to the peoples of the world. That way when their socialist dystopias and military dictatorships fall apart they can say "Let's try something else."

DO IT!!! Also give the dirtbag a parachute and throw him out of an airplane near the furthest border to America in his HOME COUNTRY, ONE WAY TICKET!!! If the dirtbag does it again throw him out of the airplane without a parachute. Remember the woman who was murdered in SF by a criminal illegal AFTER HE HAD BEEN DEPORTED 5/7? TIMES!! If you are a snowflake and want the dirtbag just leave your home address.

If the liberals have a Fit they must Xit...the same way we get rid of the illegals!

I guess I have to look at the attempts to keep this country as a constitutional republic that have failed over the years, and it seems a waste of time to try to change totally different cultures when we cant even keep ours alive. We need more attention paid to OUR country and not spend our resources and hard work on other countries

"What I am not convinced of, however, is the idea of ramming our culture on other people for the benefit of american companies."

War would be ramming our culture on other people. We're not forcing them to take our money. This is a willing exchange on both sides. Do American companies benefit? Assuredly. But so do our trading partners. This is not a zero-sum game where one party gains only at the loss of another. Both parties benefit.

"I dont think it works for one, and what if I dont want to support trying to get muslims to change their culture by spending the money I make."

All cultural clashes are ultimately ideological in nature. What you are saying is that you consider a business venture into trying to encourage certain nations to change of so little chance of success we shouldn't even try. Everyone has their own opinion about the future success of any venture. The question is really what do we have to lose which we can not in pursuit of such a venture. That is the real question at hand here. And its corollary should also be considered: what will we lose if we do nothing.

You cite Islam as a cultural force against which capitalism competes. I completely agree. The choice is whether we press for capitalism or give up and surrender to Islam. That really is the choice. Do we take the ideological fight to their own people or hold back and be content to fight a rearguard action on our own soil?

One can certainly argue that our involvement in Iraq has not had the outcome we might have desired. My argument (supported by first-hand reports of military commanders in the area) is that had the US been willing to stay the course for 20+ years, it could very well have been successful. Any chance at success was fundamentally undermined by the new leadership who did everything possible to scuttle those chances. Failure can very squarely be laid upon our outgoing President. And because of the way we left (which got many pro-Americans executed), I think we have squandered any opportunity we may have had there.

As to Afghanistan, again, from first-hand reports from military commanders, they have no interest in a capitalist society. Their biggest obstacles to developing any such are the terrain and lack of infrastructure. Want to know why opium is the #1 export of Afghanistan? Because it is easy to grow there and can be transported by goats. I'm not kidding in the slightest.

Cuba? Not sure why you would bring them into the picture. Our sanctions on them had been working to press for change, but just when there could have been a new type of government at Castro's death, Obama propped up the Communist government there, again squandering the opportunity we had been waiting for for 50 years.

Venezuela descended into totalitarianism. One can argue foreign policy failure or one can argue that they were the victim of their own poor choices. But to argue that we were responsible for their choices and demise? No.

(West) Germany was a wholly different circumstance. Why? Because they already had a comparable culture and their people longed for freedom. They also had a daily reminder just across the Wall of what Communism held for them and they were rebuilding from the ashes that Fascism had left them in. Yes, I think it's incredibly sad that they have turned to Socialism and an open-borders policy that will lead to their undoing as a nation. But that Marshall Plan's success was completed as early as the 70's. To try to tie any such to public policy failures half a century later really doesn't fly.

I am not advocating isolationism. I think trade amongst countries is a good thing and we should seek to enhance profitable trade where possible. What I am not convinced of, however, is the idea of ramming our culture on other people for the benefit of american companies. I dont think it works for one, and what if I dont want to support trying to get muslims to change their culture by spending the money I make. I tend to think that this is essentially a statist argument that probably doesnt work anyway. Did we help Iraq people? I say NO. How about Afghanistan? NO. Cuba? Venezuela? hardly. Our interventions there just spawned revolution. Helping Germany revive after WW2 with the Marshall plan did bring Germany back up, but only to spend their wealth on over a million syrian refugees who are ravaging their country. The German people supported Hitler and should pay the consequences of that support.

We can differ and that's okay.

"its not our job to go into debt to encourage other countries to adopt OUR values. "

There are actually two parts to this statement. The first is a question of whether or not it is in our best interest to have other nations adopt free-market principles. I think that one is an unqualified YES, ABSOLUTELY, no doubt about it! As such, to promote these principles is absolutely what our diplomatic efforts should include. Now we can be prudent in how much we choose to invest and in what trading partners, absolutely, but you are arguing for isolationism. I'm really not down with that kind of policy in a global business environment.

The second part is that we shouldn't go into debt to perform X. While I agree that in general debt should be avoided, again - the dollar amounts we're talking about are mere rounding errors compared to the grander spending in Medicare, ACA, Social Security and National Defense. Your argument isn't without merit, but reducing foreign aid isn't going to bring down the national debt by any substantial degree. It isn't the 800-lb gorilla in the room - not even close. (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...

Should other nations be given every opportunity to reap the rewards of their own choices?

Culturally, many countries have never had free markets because they have never had the freedom of thought and expression that must fundamentally underpin all such. We must be willing to recognize that not only are we trying to change economics, we are trying to influence core values as well. It's all nice to say "leave them to their own devices" and then say "I told you so" when they fail, but it is ultimately an arrogant and self-important but not self-interested stand. Our companies don't profit and benefit from the failures of other nations. No jobs are created, no products and services delivered, no profits made. We increase our successes when they also succeed. So as a matter of self-interest, we should be very interested in their success - not apathetic.

Do we have plenty of challenges here in the US? Absolutely. And if this article (http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/...) has any truth we may see a proposed budget that takes real steps to cut spending.

I think we disagree perhaps on the long term effects of giving money away to other countries in attempts to change their governmental actions from what they would have done on their own. Bribes , as I understand them, are enticements that party A gives to party B to encourage party B to do what supporters ofparty A want. admittedly without firm backing, I suspect that most of the foreign aid is really based in cronyism.

Secondly, its not our job to go into debt to encourage other countries to adopt OUR values. They are entitled to THEIR values, along with the rewards/costs attendant to them.

Do we wait until we are bankrupt to make changes in spending? I think we dont have time to wait for that to happen. Trump should tell other countries that at the end of 2017 all foreign aid will stop unless specifically continued. We have enough problems to work on right here in the USA.

We shouldn't be giving foreign aid to any country so don't use that as a threat, simply take them to the border and push them over, or land the plane and put them out. By the time they figure out they don't want their citizen either the plane will be gone.

"Perhaps sunsetting all foreign aid and then looking at each country's allocation with the idea of exactly what WE get from it would be a good place to start."

I agree that we should certainly revisit our allocations on a regular basis - like every year. But again, you're looking at this strictly from a short-term perspective rather than a long-term diplomatic effort. Remember, the best business deals aren't about short-term gain, but long-term customer relationships. It costs 10x the marketing funds to get one new customer than it does to retain an existing customer. Think of these nations as new customers and you may begin to see why it is an expensive proposition in the first place.

"Bribing other countries to adopt "our" values has been shown to have very limited, if any, success."

Your use of the word bribe again is an indicator of only a short-term and rather short-sighted view. Bribery is a derogatory term that has two parties colluding to defraud or coerce a third. Would not every nation and its people be objectively better off by adopting free-market policies? Absolutely. Therefore, without a third party to defraud, no bribery is taking place. Could it be called a mal-investment? If what we put our money into doesn't pan out the way we desire, I can definitely see that. Bribery? No.

I would also point out that change takes time - sometimes several generations. We have to be patient. The only other avenue of change is war. People have to want to change. They have to see that there is a better alternative. And it happens one by one - person by person.

If you want a counter-example of what happens when we try to push for too much change too quickly, I would point at Iraq. There were many people who proudly exhibited purple thumbs indicating that they had voted in free elections. But we tried to completely change an entire culture almost overnight to match ours, forgetting that they started with very different values and weren't pushing for governmental change like our own Founding Fathers. And now, instead of a friendly nation, they are wracked with war due to their own internal strife and division, the help of some interested third parties, and our own cultural pressure to abandon their path of change because of impatience.

I would suggest that our economic buying power isnt affected by our foreign AID, except if that foreign aid was used to buy from US companies (and then I would say its cronyism and just adds to the national debt with no net gain). One could argue that investing in specific businesses in other countries could build up those countries, but this should be done privately so that the money actually performs some function other than political.

Perhaps sunsetting all foreign aid and then looking at each country's allocation with the idea of exactly what WE get from it would be a good place to start.

Bribing other countries to adopt "our" values has been shown to have very limited, if any, success. I say leave them to willingly on their own adopt our values if they want them.

Your arguments are noted and valid to a degree. What I point out is that they are simply of lesser importance and so get overruled in the larger scheme of things.

As a tool of global policy, the US wields the biggest stick in the world: our economic buying power and the power of the US dollar. There is simply no bigger factor in international politics. The US is the 800-lb gorilla and everyone knows it. On the international front, we wield tremendous power by virtue of our business engine and consumer demand. And Presidents and Ambassadors since WW I have recognized our growing importance on the world stage. It can be argued that economics and warfare are the two single greatest impetuses for wholesale national change. But while warfare is largely destructive of people, infrastructure and resources, economics seek efficiency in allocation of resources. Both sides benefit.

With regard to your first argument, whether or not a foreign nation acts "responsibly" with the money we give them is in large part a subjective determination. We hope that they will use it in a manner that will bring them closer to our values, but there are no guarantees - even when we attach strings to those moneys. Ultimately, foreign aid is an encouragement and enticement for these nations to try a better path. But we can't control them! That would be enslaving them. There is a fine line there.
I also caution against aid for natural disasters coming with terms. That's nothing more than exploitation and we would be roundly criticized for such - and IMHO justifiably so.

With regard to your second argument, I've seen at least one research paper that indicates that US currency manipulation actually transfers wealth from those other nations to the US. When you look at the matter objectively, debasing one's currency hurts everyone - including the US! I agree with you that is is anything but a solid financial policy, but it is hardly a factor in international aid. If anything we would be giving them some of their own money (courtesy of currency devaluation) back.

I would argue on two fronts: 1) that giving "foreign aid" encourages irresponsibility on the part of the receiving country. In the case of natural disasters I could see loaning them money to be paid back, or in exchange for some ownership interest in something there. ,

and 2) its costs a lot of money that we are just printing and debasing our currency- for , mostly in order to control these other countries to help OUR businesses.

the liberals would have a FIT. But if we want to have a real country, we need to set some limits. I dont want to live around syrian terrorists for example and have to worry about their next act for the benefit of allah at my expense.

You have to take things case by case - country by country. In many cases, we pay countries like Pakistan ( "frenemy") to cooperate in anti-terrorism initiatives, which can include funding staging areas, etc. While I appreciate your zeal, I strongly recommend getting the full details on what all you are proposing eliminating before issues blanket statements. Again, I think that we do waste a significant portion of foreign aid money, but I also recognize that this is my personal judgment and I don't have all the facts.

Now if you wanted to argue that because of our debt situation that we need to cut off all foreign aid until we get our debt under control, I think there may be some more weight to that kind of argument.

Hello term2,
Once in a while... I imagine some may object, but I do find it a pleasing muse. :)
Regards,
O.A.

Isnt foreign aid just bribery to get them to do what WE want? If all countries had to float on their own, wouldnt it encourage them to be more responsible? Anyway, how is in our interest to pay Pakistan $18B per year to be our "friends". I dont pay people to be MY friend, and you probably dont either.

Foreign aid is a big carrot for policy decisions. It can be a valuable tool. I think that the problem is that it has been abused, turning into more welfare and wealth transfer to other nations. Our outgoing President was a classic example of this mentality as he openly and repeatedly criticized America for being great.

I fully support using judicious amounts of foreign aid to encourage the adoption of republican democracy such as with Turkey or supporting regional allies such as Israel with military aid. What I don't support is aid to terrorist groups such as Hamas (the Palestinians) or military juntas such as most of Africa. Nor do I support humanitarian aid for nations such as North Korea.

How about stopping foreign aid. Its a stupid idea. Let other countries float free on their own decisions and reap the consequences

THATS A GOOD IDEA.

They would rather we deal with and pay for incarceration of their criminals. If they have committed a violent crime, I suggest, as needed load a plane with their citizen criminals and fly over their nation of origin and push them out with a parachute. "don't forget to pull the ripcord." It has to be cheaper than incarceration and would not violate the supreme court prohibition of indefinite incarceration. Just a devilish daydream?

Absolutely. +1

Works for me as long as coming here illegally (crossing a national border without permission) is part of that list of crimes. I also say bill the nations for the cost of their transport (take it from their foreign aid if need be).

More information on the Supreme Court case this bill is aimed at reversing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/29/us/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadvyda...