We are so Fucked

[kalm]

I was just listening to Dylan Ratigan who was interviewing Tom Coburn about the economy. During the interview, Coburn stated that there are 20 countries holding at least $10 billion dollars of our debt that we are giving foreign aid to.

Discuss.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I was just listening to Dylan Ratigan who was interviewing Tom Coburn about the economy. During the interview, Coburn stated that there are 20 countries holding at least $10 billion dollars of our debt that we are giving foreign aid to.

Discuss.

It's really not that big of a deal... bear in mind that roughly 70% of our debt is held by OUR citizens...

[Appaholic]

I realize I'm a simpleton, but why would we provide foreign aid to any country that owns "shares" in our country?

[bluehenbillk]

How big a deal is the debt, really? It's not like the USA is in the situation a private citizen is in if they are forced to credit cards, mortgage, electric bill, etc.

Other than China, who do we really need to pay back on time??

[Cap'n Cat]

We are plain fvcked, no matter how you slice it, in so many ways. The United States is becoming a huge, festering boil on the ass of the planet.

[bluehenbillk]

Add one to the list why I'd never be elected President: I'd cut off ALL foreign aid immediately. If there were humanitarian needs - earthquake in Haiti, tsunami in SE Asia, sure I'm OK with that, but otherwise - we don't get aid & we survive - you're on your own people.

[Cap'n Cat]

Add one to the list why I'd never be elected President: I'd cut off ALL foreign aid immediately. If there were humanitarian needs - earthquake in Haiti, tsunami in SE Asia, sure I'm OK with that, but otherwise - we don't get aid & we survive - you're on your own people.

We get monumental aid when other entities support our huge debt, dontcha think?

[GannonFan]

We are plain fvcked, no matter how you slice it, in so many ways. The United States is becoming a huge, festering boil on the ass of the planet.

Nothing is indepedent of each other. China, for instance, is absolutely dependent on being able to buy our debt. They're probably even more worried about the US faltering than we are. It doesn't mean the situation we're in is good or anything, but we're not really alone in this.

[native]

I was just listening to Dylan Ratigan who was interviewing Tom Coburn about the economy. During the interview, Coburn stated that there are 20 countries holding at least $10 billion dollars of our debt that we are giving foreign aid to.

Discuss.

It's really not that big of a deal......

A paid Democrat operative and card-carrying member of the political class, dismissing the fundamental problem that governments to which we dispense aid hold our debt?!?!!!

This is why we have a problem in this country, proof that the government that governs least governs best, and why we need to replace Democrats with Libertarians in our national discourse.

[Ibanez]

It's really not that big of a deal......

A paid Democrat operative and card-carrying member of the political class dismissing the fundamental problem that government to which we dispense aid hold our debt? This is why we have a problem in this country, why the government that governs least governs best, and why we need to replace Democrats with Libertarians in our national discourse.

He isn't an operative any more.

[catamount man]

It's really not that big of a deal......

A paid Democrat operative and card-carrying member of the political class dismissing the fundamental problem that government to which we dispense aid hold our debt? This is why we have a problem in this country, why the government that governs least governs best, and why we need to replace Democrats AND REPUBLICANS with Libertarians in our national discourse.

FIFY!

[AZGrizFan]

Add one to the list why I'd never be elected President: I'd cut off ALL foreign aid immediately. If there were humanitarian needs - earthquake in Haiti, tsunami in SE Asia, sure I'm OK with that, but otherwise - we don't get aid & we survive - you're on your own people.

We get monumental aid when other entities support our huge debt, dontcha think?

$58 BILLION in foreign aid doled out annually. Think that could be put to better use here?

[catamount man]

YEP! As much aid that we have sent Africa over the decades, why they still suffer is beyond me? Wait, it's Bush's fault I know.

[native]

A paid Democrat operative and card-carrying member of the political class dismissing the fundamental problem that government to which we dispense aid hold our debt? This is why we have a problem in this country, why the government that governs least governs best, and why we need to replace Democrats AND REPUBLICANS with Libertarians in our national discourse.

FIFY!

Wrong. For one thing, I am not ready for the United States to take on an isolationist foreign policy.

[SDHornet]

FIFY!

Wrong. For one thing, I am not ready for the United States to take on an isolationist foreign policy.

Why not? Serious question. What exactly have we gotten in return from those countries that suck from out teet.

[native]

Wrong. For one thing, I am not ready for the United States to take on an isolationist foreign policy.

Why not? Serious question. What exactly have we gotten in return from those countries that suck from out teet.

What is your question, Hornet? Why do I want more Libertarian politicians but not want a Libertarian Congressional majority? Why am I anti-isolationist? I did NOT say that I am in favor of sustaining high levels of foreign aid. I said I did not want to follow an isolationist foreign policy, and that Libertarinas should replace Democrats in public office.

1. Libertarians: All the great ideas in the public square come from Independents, Libertarians and Republicans, but I do not think any one of these groups has all the answers by itself. I am for a divided government among these three groups to foster vigorous and productive public debates. On the other hand, modern Democrats are intellectually and morally bankrupt. Aged hippes, union bosses and communists are worthless anachronisms. Virtually everything they do destroys America, impedes "progress," and ultimately hurts the people they purport to help. I favor Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Jeff Flake, and other Republican members of the Liberty Caucus. Carl DeMaio is an excellent local example in your neck of the woods. I wish there were more such politicians involved in the public discourse. Perhaps there are also some worthy Democrat or independent libertarian politicians, but I am not aware of any. Social libertarians who do not understand and love the original Constitution and/or who waste so much energy attacking social conservatives are libertines, not Libertarians. I do not want social conservatives to be in charge of everything, but they deserve seats at the table and are not the dangerous, evil monsters portrayed by Dems, and some Indies, Libertarians and east coast Repubs. As much as I love the liberty caucus politicians mentioned, I cannot support ALL of their policies, and my personal interaction with Paulistas, such as Mike Benoit in San Diego, and the rabble rousers recruited for Libertarian events, have been uniformly negative. Libertarians need Republicans and Indies to check their perhaps understandable but often counterproductive policies and roughshod, over-the-top tactical tendencies.

2. Isolationism: Isolationism is a failed policy that left us militarily weak and diplomatically naive prior to World War II. It is the primary reason we performed so poorly and lost so many lives in the beginning of the war. We have reduced military spending enough already, but I would spend the budget in different ways. I would like to see a serious reduction (not elimination) of our military footprint overseas, an increase in naval power and a much more muscular and ruthless policy of protecting American commerce, assets and lives abroad. For example, we should not allow China to intimidate the Phillipines or Vietnam in the South China Sea. We need the peripherals for our economy. I think American presidents should stay out of sustained foreign land wars wherever possible but should immediately and brutally punish those who trespass against us. Only afterwards can we forgive them, or whack-a-mole if they are stupid enough to stick their heads up again. For example, I would have destroyed a city block in Mogadishu in retalitaion for "Black Hawk Down," instead of leaving with our tail between our legs as did Clinton. (But I would not have denied our military commander the appropriate resources in the first place, as did Clinton/Les Aspin.). I would ruthlessly destroy pirates everywhere, but I would not allow other countries to exploit political chaos in Somalia and deny the Somalis the ability to feed themselves by overfishing Somali waters. I am in favor of reducing foreign aid and reducing our contribution to the joke of an organization called the U.N., but I would not withdraw. Rather, I would set up a commonwealth of nations willing to play by our rules and aggressively seek free and fair two-way trade with them.

[kalm]

Why not? Serious question. What exactly have we gotten in return from those countries that suck from out teet.

What is your question, Hornet? Why do I want more Libertarian politicians but not want a Libertarian Congressional majority? Why am I anti-isolationist? I did NOT say that I am in favor of sustaining high levels of foreign aid. I said I did not want to follow an isolationist foreign policy, and that Libertarinas should replace Democrats in public office.

1. Libertarians: All the great ideas in the public square come from Independents, Libertarians and Republicans, but I do not think any one of these groups has all the answers by itself. I am for a divided government among these three groups to foster vigorous and productive public debates. On the other hand, modern Democrats are intellectually and morally bankrupt. Aged hippes, union bosses and communists are worthless anachronisms. Virtually everything they do destroys America, impedes "progress," and ultimately hurts the people they purport to help. I favor Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Jeff Flake, and other Republican members of the Liberty Caucus. Carl DeMaio is an excellent local example in your neck of the woods. I wish there were more such politicians involved in the public discourse. Perhaps there are also some worthy Democrat or independent libertarian politicians, but I am not aware of any. Social libertarians who do not understand and love the original Constitution and/or who waste so much energy attacking social conservatives are libertines, not Libertarians. I do not want social conservatives to be in charge of everything, but they deserve seats at the table and are not the dangerous, evil monsters portrayed by Dems, and some Indies, Libertarians and east coast Repubs. As much as I love the liberty caucus politicians mentioned, I cannot support ALL of their policies, and my personal interaction with Paulistas, such as Mike Benoit in San Diego, and the rabble rousers recruited for Libertarian events, have been uniformly negative. Libertarians need Republicans and Indies to check their perhaps understandable but often counterproductive policies and roughshod, over-the-top tactical tendencies.

2. Isolationism: Isolationism is a failed policy that left us militarily weak and diplomatically naive prior to World War II. It is the primary reason we performed so poorly and lost so many lives in the beginning of the war. We have reduced military spending enough already, but I would spend the budget in different ways. I would like to see a serious reduction (not elimination) of our military footprint overseas, an increase in naval power and a much more muscular and ruthless policy of protecting American commerce, assets and lives abroad. For example, we should not allow China to intimidate the Phillipines or Vietnam in the South China Sea. We need the peripherals for our economy. I think American presidents should stay out of sustained foreign land wars wherever possible but should immediately and brutally punish those who trespass against us. Only afterwards can we forgive them, or whack-a-mole if they are stupid enough to stick their heads up again. For example, I would have destroyed a city block in Mogadishu in retalitaion for "Black Hawk Down," instead of leaving with our tail between our legs as did Clinton. (But I would not have denied our military commander the appropriate resources in the first place, as did Clinton/Les Aspin.). I would ruthlessly destroy pirates everywhere, but I would not allow other countries to exploit political chaos in Somalia and deny the Somalis the ability to feed themselves by overfishing Somali waters. I am in favor of reducing foreign aid and reducing our contribution to the joke of an organization called the U.N., but I would not withdraw. Rather, I would set up a commonwealth of nations willing to play by our rules and aggressively seek free and fair two-way trade with them.

Libertarians are Republicans who like to smoke pot and get laid.

[Appaholic]

What is your question, Hornet? Why do I want more Libertarian politicians but not want a Libertarian Congressional majority? Why am I anti-isolationist? I did NOT say that I am in favor of sustaining high levels of foreign aid. I said I did not want to follow an isolationist foreign policy, and that Libertarinas should replace Democrats in public office.

1. Libertarians: All the great ideas in the public square come from Independents, Libertarians and Republicans, but I do not think any one of these groups has all the answers by itself. I am for a divided government among these three groups to foster vigorous and productive public debates. On the other hand, modern Democrats are intellectually and morally bankrupt. Aged hippes, union bosses and communists are worthless anachronisms. Virtually everything they do destroys America, impedes "progress," and ultimately hurts the people they purport to help. I favor Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Jeff Flake, and other Republican members of the Liberty Caucus. Carl DeMaio is an excellent local example in your neck of the woods. I wish there were more such politicians involved in the public discourse. Perhaps there are also some worthy Democrat or independent libertarian politicians, but I am not aware of any. Social libertarians who do not understand and love the original Constitution and/or who waste so much energy attacking social conservatives are libertines, not Libertarians. I do not want social conservatives to be in charge of everything, but they deserve seats at the table and are not the dangerous, evil monsters portrayed by Dems, and some Indies, Libertarians and east coast Repubs. As much as I love the liberty caucus politicians mentioned, I cannot support ALL of their policies, and my personal interaction with Paulistas, such as Mike Benoit in San Diego, and the rabble rousers recruited for Libertarian events, have been uniformly negative. Libertarians need Republicans and Indies to check their perhaps understandable but often counterproductive policies and roughshod, over-the-top tactical tendencies.

2. Isolationism: Isolationism is a failed policy that left us militarily weak and diplomatically naive prior to World War II. It is the primary reason we performed so poorly and lost so many lives in the beginning of the war. We have reduced military spending enough already, but I would spend the budget in different ways. I would like to see a serious reduction (not elimination) of our military footprint overseas, an increase in naval power and a much more muscular and ruthless policy of protecting American commerce, assets and lives abroad. For example, we should not allow China to intimidate the Phillipines or Vietnam in the South China Sea. We need the peripherals for our economy. I think American presidents should stay out of sustained foreign land wars wherever possible but should immediately and brutally punish those who trespass against us. Only afterwards can we forgive them, or whack-a-mole if they are stupid enough to stick their heads up again. For example, I would have destroyed a city block in Mogadishu in retalitaion for "Black Hawk Down," instead of leaving with our tail between our legs as did Clinton. (But I would not have denied our military commander the appropriate resources in the first place, as did Clinton/Les Aspin.). I would ruthlessly destroy pirates everywhere, but I would not allow other countries to exploit political chaos in Somalia and deny the Somalis the ability to feed themselves by overfishing Somali waters. I am in favor of reducing foreign aid and reducing our contribution to the joke of an organization called the U.N., but I would not withdraw. Rather, I would set up a commonwealth of nations willing to play by our rules and aggressively seek free and fair two-way trade with them.

Libertarians are Republicans who like to smoke pot and get laid.

+1

[native]

What is your question, Hornet? Why do I want more Libertarian politicians but not want a Libertarian Congressional majority? Why am I anti-isolationist? I did NOT say that I am in favor of sustaining high levels of foreign aid. I said I did not want to follow an isolationist foreign policy, and that Libertarinas should replace Democrats in public office.

1. Libertarians: All the great ideas in the public square come from Independents, Libertarians and Republicans, but I do not think any one of these groups has all the answers by itself. I am for a divided government among these three groups to foster vigorous and productive public debates. On the other hand, modern Democrats are intellectually and morally bankrupt. Aged hippes, union bosses and communists are worthless anachronisms. Virtually everything they do destroys America, impedes "progress," and ultimately hurts the people they purport to help. I favor Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Jeff Flake, and other Republican members of the Liberty Caucus. Carl DeMaio is an excellent local example in your neck of the woods. I wish there were more such politicians involved in the public discourse. Perhaps there are also some worthy Democrat or independent libertarian politicians, but I am not aware of any. Social libertarians who do not understand and love the original Constitution and/or who waste so much energy attacking social conservatives are libertines, not Libertarians. I do not want social conservatives to be in charge of everything, but they deserve seats at the table and are not the dangerous, evil monsters portrayed by Dems, and some Indies, Libertarians and east coast Repubs. As much as I love the liberty caucus politicians mentioned, I cannot support ALL of their policies, and my personal interaction with Paulistas, such as Mike Benoit in San Diego, and the rabble rousers recruited for Libertarian events, have been uniformly negative. Libertarians need Republicans and Indies to check their perhaps understandable but often counterproductive policies and roughshod, over-the-top tactical tendencies.

2. Isolationism: Isolationism is a failed policy that left us militarily weak and diplomatically naive prior to World War II. It is the primary reason we performed so poorly and lost so many lives in the beginning of the war. We have reduced military spending enough already, but I would spend the budget in different ways. I would like to see a serious reduction (not elimination) of our military footprint overseas, an increase in naval power and a much more muscular and ruthless policy of protecting American commerce, assets and lives abroad. For example, we should not allow China to intimidate the Phillipines or Vietnam in the South China Sea. We need the peripherals for our economy. I think American presidents should stay out of sustained foreign land wars wherever possible but should immediately and brutally punish those who trespass against us. Only afterwards can we forgive them, or whack-a-mole if they are stupid enough to stick their heads up again. For example, I would have destroyed a city block in Mogadishu in retalitaion for "Black Hawk Down," instead of leaving with our tail between our legs as did Clinton. (But I would not have denied our military commander the appropriate resources in the first place, as did Clinton/Les Aspin.). I would ruthlessly destroy pirates everywhere, but I would not allow other countries to exploit political chaos in Somalia and deny the Somalis the ability to feed themselves by overfishing Somali waters. I am in favor of reducing foreign aid and reducing our contribution to the joke of an organization called the U.N., but I would not withdraw. Rather, I would set up a commonwealth of nations willing to play by our rules and aggressively seek free and fair two-way trade with them.

Libertarians are Republicans who like to smoke pot and get laid.

That must explain why I was a Libertarian in college and switched to Republican a few years after getting married.

[Cap'n Cat]

Libertarians are Republicans who like to smoke pot and get laid.

+1

[SDHornet]

Why not? Serious question. What exactly have we gotten in return from those countries that suck from out teet.

What is your question, Hornet? Why do I want more Libertarian politicians but not want a Libertarian Congressional majority? Why am I anti-isolationist? I did NOT say that I am in favor of sustaining high levels of foreign aid. I said I did not want to follow an isolationist foreign policy, and that Libertarinas should replace Democrats in public office.

The question was why not take a much more reduced role in other countries issues. But regardless I get your stand point from your essay you posted. I agree with pretty much all of what you stated. And I plan on voting for DeMaio this upcoming mayoral election. He was the first person to propose some actual solutions to the financial problems the city got itself into and is far from (or at least appears to be) the typical status quo bull shit this city has seen in leadership positions. I hope he pulls it out.

[native]

What is your question, Hornet? Why do I want more Libertarian politicians but not want a Libertarian Congressional majority? Why am I anti-isolationist? I did NOT say that I am in favor of sustaining high levels of foreign aid. I said I did not want to follow an isolationist foreign policy, and that Libertarinas should replace Democrats in public office.

The question was why not take a much more reduced role in other countries issues. But regardless I get your stand point from your essay you posted. I agree with pretty much all of what you stated. And I plan on voting for DeMaio this upcoming mayoral election. He was the first person to propose some actual solutions to the financial problems the city got itself into and is far from (or at least appears to be) the typical status quo bull **** this city has seen in leadership positions. I hope he pulls it out.

Well, then, Hornet, we are in complete agreement, since I DO favor taking a much more reduced role in other countries' issues (and a much smaller overseas military base footprint).

Thank you for taking the time to respond to an essay.