Governance Reforms

3. Re-evaluate where we send foreign aid. If the country doesn't like us or care for the US, cut off aid and support. They don't want us there, we won't lend a helping hand. These are dollars lost, with no return to the economy. And the political hay made in good will really doesn't seem to amount to all that much profit in the political arena.

Can you figure out why that statement is freaking hilarious?
Beyond the obvious that the amount of money saved would barely even be a drop in the ocean, that USA wouldn´t even notice.

You really need a realitycheck if you think #3 is even a relevant suggestion.

It´s like saying that because i have a submarine i want to have my monkey painted blue so they match colours. My reaction is simply *Syntax Error*.

Want a hint? The largest aid receivers, get military equipment at cut rates, that´s Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia by the way, is the biggest funder of extremeist islamic terrorism. It´s also vital to USAs economy as an oil supplier.

Then there´s of course the question about how do you figure out that a country like or care about USA?
How do you define that?[/quote]

Well, let's take this in order....

First, what's a porkchop program? Bridges to nowhere? Sure. Is DoD spending across the board? I doubt it. Some DoD spending, probably.

I'd love to see the bail outs stop, subsidies, etc. We live in a captilistic society. Those steels mills which made poor decisions, couldn't compete in the changing market place (for whatever reasons it was changing), or produced an inferior product that no one wanted to buy should face the results of their situations.

Companies which made smart decisions, managed the capitalistic system and made money, did great. Want to change how they did it, go into politics and get the laws changed. In the meantime, you can't complain about how they keep the wheels moving for their companies.

Second, if you're concerned about inefficent DoD spending, you might step back to look at Federal spending. Yes, the DoD has a large chunk of it. 19%, as a matter of fact. Social Security is 22%, 21% goes to medical programs (Medicaid/Medicare and supporting systems), national debt interest is 6%, Safety Net programs are 12% and 22% is every thing else. Address some of those systems as well. I promise you, they're not exactly 'efficent', themselves.

Third, how do you define a relevant amount of money? You say financial aid to other countries is a drop in the ocean. Alright, so ~50 billion dollars is a drop in the ocean, to you. Even if only 10% of that were saved, I can think of other places that $5 billion could be spent.

The largest aid reciever is actually Afghanistan, followed by Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt and Haiti. Just dropping the financial, not the military, aid recieved would total $5 billion, excluding contributions to Israel. With the military included, you're looking at nearly $15 billion. Maybe you think $15 billion is a drop in the ocean, but I can think of a lot of school districts which would like just 1% of that.

Saudi Arabia wasn't even in the top 25.

Lastly, I think that most people would define a country as friendly to the US as one that espouses, and supports, a good public view of the US. That acknowledges and appreciates the aid sent. One that does not denounce the US at every oppertunity.

The largest aid reciever is actually Afghanistan, followed by Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt and Haiti. Just dropping the financial, not the military, aid recieved would total $5 billion, excluding contributions to Israel. With the military included, you're looking at nearly $15 billion. Maybe you think $15 billion is a drop in the ocean, but I can think of a lot of school districts which would like just 1% of that.

Saudi Arabia wasn't even in the top 25.

Eh, no. If you think that is the truth, then you´re missing all the not so well hidden stuff that the politicos wants you to ignore.
Israel and the Saudis are among the biggest benefactors of this, in that part i was not referring to their placing on an overall list.
Saudi´s are getting military gear at cheaper prices than US military is, the missing part of that is paid for by taxpayer cash.
And Israel gets a lot of stuff subsidised far below even raw manufacturing cost.

This isn´t counted as aid at all.

First, what's a porkchop program?

When someone makes sure that R&D or manufacturing of something is given to a company for a bad reason, or is paid for beyond a reasonable pricetag.

Bridges to nowhere is just a waste of money, that´s not the same.

Companies which made smart decisions, managed the capitalistic system and made money, did great. Want to change how they did it, go into politics and get the laws changed. In the meantime, you can't complain about how they keep the wheels moving for their companies.

Actually i can complain. Because USA broke international treaties they had signed up on. There are allowances in those for subsidies and supporting business for one reason or another, the problem was that in the case i noted, USA went so far beyond that, that it became ridiculous.

And the support was splashed out in a manner that all by itself was enough for the rest of the world to legally declare a trade war, if it had so wished.

Second, if you're concerned about inefficent DoD spending, you might step back to look at Federal spending. Yes, the DoD has a large chunk of it. 19%, as a matter of fact. Social Security is 22%, 21% goes to medical programs (Medicaid/Medicare and supporting systems), national debt interest is 6%, Safety Net programs are 12% and 22% is every thing else. Address some of those systems as well. I promise you, they're not exactly 'efficent', themselves.

So what? DoD is the worst culprit by far. Excusing their exceptionally gross mishandling of money by pointing out that others are less bad at it, that´s just flawed to say it mildly.

Third, how do you define a relevant amount of money? You say financial aid to other countries is a drop in the ocean. Alright, so ~50 billion dollars is a drop in the ocean, to you. Even if only 10% of that were saved, I can think of other places that $5 billion could be spent.

I think you severely failed to understand what i wrote.
I said that it wasn´t a relevant SUGGESTIOn.
Because it almost certainly wouldn´t save you money at all.

Why? Because first of all, your definition on how to give it or withhold it isn´t going to work, end of story.
Secondly, applying a condition on foreign aid that equates to being bought, eh yeah right... All that would result in would be massive opposition to USA, which in turn would cause you to loose vastly more money in business deals than you saved from withholding aid.

You DO realise that aid is given because someone need it, not because you want to buy another cheerleader for yourself?

And i´m still barely scratching the surface on what is wrong with this.

Lastly, I think that most people would define a country as friendly to the US as one that espouses, and supports, a good public view of the US. That acknowledges and appreciates the aid sent. One that does not denounce the US at every oppertunity.

Lol... So you want special treatment...

Let´s just take an example then, in 2003, when the US military desperately wanted to hire some radar systems from the military here, we let them.
At the same time as the US was saying some less than nice things because we opposed USAs blatant lies about Iraqi WMDs and connections claimed to the 9/11 attacks.

Did we take our toys back? No, because that was ONE separate issue.

And then there´s the problem that you´re essentially demanding government control of the media in all nations given aid. Oh yay, what a great leap for freedom of speech!

Oh, and you do realise that USA is already the aid giver with the most strings attached to anything it "gives"?
This is why China is currently doing great with its relations to African nations, because they go there and invest, doing business, without/ or with far less strings attached.
It´s one of the reasons why USSR got a lot of influence in central and south America at some times, because aligning with them got support with much less conditions imposed.

And then of course, if the roles were reversed, would YOU go by your own conditions?

I think the combination of France being the biggest supporter and contributor to US independence and "freedom fries" gives the answer to that. Especially considering that the majority of things behind that was mudslinging and lies.

Still barely scratching the surface...