Way too much sense of entitlement in this country. The party is over. Not enough kids from real working people were or are being born to support the collective nonsense. It's a simple math thing.

Then you and I are in agreement here. If we weren't paying for our empire, this country (and of course the people) would be much better off.

I said in another thread, pull us out of everywhere. We should be more like the Swiss. That's what George Washington and the other Founding Fathers wanted to begin with - isolated, with citizens armed to the teeth.

We fuck with nobody. And nobody fucks with us. That's how it should be.

Yes. There are poor people who suck. I get that. I'm not going to deny it. But in the grand scheme of things, it's like complaining about a spider in your bedroom when your whole freaking house is on fire.

---

Would we really be better off? I have gone back and forth on the issue over the past 50 years. I don't think isolationism worked in the 30's and in this global economy I don't see how it would work today. Especially with the Chinese holding so much of our debt.
Granted the US has done ans is doing a very piss poor job of aiding the weak around the world. But I can't help but feel if we cut off every bit of aid that it would lead to most of the nations of the world forming some type of fundamental military dictatorship in order to try and alleviate the suffering of the people.
They would be looking to do 2 things. They would want to take on their neighboring states with whom they have had a blood feud with for hundreds of years. (Just like India and Pakistan.) Second they would look at our prosperity and claim all their woes were our fault. (Just like the lower class blame the wealthy in this county for all their woes.)

ending aid is not the solution either at home or abroad. Doing a better job of spending is. But that ain't going to happen.

---

I'm not an isolationist. I believe that economies thrive on trade, and the more people in the trading system the better.

What I'm opposed to is this notion that somehow we should be, or can afford the cost of being, the policeman for democracy, human rights, etc., etc., for the world.

Actual "foreign aid" is a trivial part of America's GDP. The real expenditure -- and the real cost of any empire -- is projection of power outward. Presidential summits, congressional junkets, multi-ocean navies, military bases everywhere, trade missions, peacekeeping forces -- those are the real costs we ought to be radically limiting.

I understand that we need to have a military presence world-wide for defense purposes, that we've had that need ever since ICBM tech was invented. And I understand that there are some resources to which continued access must be protected for the strategic and economic health of the nation. (Though oil really isn't one of them. Strategic minerals like chromium, vanadium, etc., however, are.)

But how much of a presence? How much protection?

Far, far less, than we currently buy with our tax dollars.

I don't worry about the Chinese holding our debt, though I do worry about their willingness to take more of it. They aren't going to try to repossess Virginia. (Though if they offer to forgive our debt in exchange for Washington, D.C. and New York City and Hollywood, I think we should take the offer. [grin1] )

---