I agree with most of what jdwilson wrote.
jd, here I'm going to be guilty of interpreting some of the things you've said. Please correct me where I'm wrong.
I think the primary difference between jd and me is in this statement:
jdwilson44 said:
I say get them all out and have the US goverment go back to making decisions that actually benefit the citizens of this country - not Israel, not Palestine, not Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran or Mexico.
Back when more moderate leaders of both parties were leading our government, foreign aid was recognized as being of benefit to the citizens of this country. Also, GWB was elected on a promise not to "nation build", a promise long forgotten in their attempts to make history in Iraq.
Reasonable and moderate foreign aid, even to divergent nations like Israel and Iran, has done more good than harm, in my opinion. For better or worse, the United States is a member of the world community, and it's impossible to withdraw into isolationism, now. Consider trael and illness, just as an example. Unless we are willing to restrict all travel and importation of all goods, it will be possible for our imports and tourists to bring back diseases from other areas of the globe. Other than total isolation, the only way to combat these diseases is foreign aid directed at the source. This is clearly a benefit to the citizens of this country, and is only one of dozens, if not hundreds, of examples I could name.
Where I would draw the line, is military aid. Essentially, it became prominent during the Cold War. The USSR would arm faction A, so we had to arm faction B, or the USSR would predominate. Today, the opposing armorers are China and some 3rd World nations like North Korea. In some cases, the arms are coming from our allies, like Germany and France, because they see the production as good for their economy (there's a large part of our activities tied up in that, also). My efforts would be directed at reducing those arms races, while continuing compassionate aid to reduce disease and raise standards of living.
I think where jd and I totally agree is that we have to reexamaine our priorities. I have no problem with foreign aid at historically low percentages of our GNP; I have a real problem with spending more on Iraq, for example, than we spend on our own poor.
I'm convinced that the root cause of spending cuts like cutting back on college financing, for example, is because the so-called conservatives who are in power perceive it to be a weakness to help anyone who has not yet helped themselves. They have it fixed in their heads that the poor are all Cadillac welfare queens, and they are perfectly willing to cast them aside, while sending Billions to help the poorest Iraqi. They're wrong on both counts, of course, but they'll never see that because of their preconceived beliefs and their blinders.
With that thought in mind, I'd like to make the outrageous suggestion that it's better for the money to go to Iraq, because at least the poor somewhere are getting the benefit. If we keep the money at home, it will be horded by the rich because they will never agree to spend it on the American poor.
.