<p>
</p>
<p>This is a sideshow. It’s like I lose my job and I don’t have enough money to pay my mortgage and my insurance, and you tell me I shouldn’t buy my weekly Snickers bar. If you want to cut the budget, don’t talk about Snickers bars if you can’t afford your mortgage. </p>
<p>If Congress doesn’t raise the debt limit, few people are going to be worried about foreign aid. Well, maybe Israelis, but everyone else is going to be focused on the Social Security checks not going out.</p>
<p>I don’t know about y’all, but those speeches made me feel worse, not better.</p>
<p>cardinal agree with you…but its got to start somewhere…add up those small 1%'s… get 10 of them…you have 10% etc. not one of the politicians wants to cut anything that can affect them or their districts, or their special interests…you arent going to get them to agree on any big things right now…and i agree debt ceiling will have to be raised.</p>
<p>I disagree. I think if we want to balance the budget, we should look at the big programs: Social Security, Medicare, the military. And we should look at tax loopholes and tax cheats.</p>
<p>The number one recipient of the US foreign aid is Israel. Egypt is pretty high up on the list, and so is Russia. Money for HIV, food aid, etc. is a relatively small portion of the total. </p>
<p>Interestingly, according to some polls, on average the Americans think that a quarter of the budget is allocated for foreign aid, when in fact the number is significantly less than one percent. It easy to rally people against something “foreign”, diverting the attntion from the real issues and “pork”.</p>
<p>Even if all we can chop off today is 1% that’s still HUGE! The people who think that 1% isn’t enough to worry about really need to get a grip with reality. I’m not saying 1% is going to solve all of our problems, but it will make a difference.</p>
<p>again agree cardinal BUt do you think they will do that by tuesday… i’m thinking start the ball rolling with small first</p>
<p>Hmm, regardless of who is causing the traffic, I can’t get to my House member’s web site. Message saying “Server is too busy”. So people are weighing in! D1 works in a Dem. Senator’s office this summer, I am sure the phones will be humming in EVERY House and Senate member’s office tomorrow.</p>
<p>Ds2 is interning in our congressman’s office. He better eat his Wheaties in the morning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just tried my House member’s site, and it’s down too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My cousin is an intern in the Speaker of the House’s office. I’m sure he’ll be busy tomorrow ;)</p>
<p>alabama senators down too!!</p>
<p>those ‘drops in the bucket’ expenditures are where Americans get the most bang for our buck, in both domestic and foreign programmes. Those drops in the bucket are integral parts of our nation’s social safety net, our investment in the future, and in keeping America secure and the place that poor people around the world view as a place of giving and sustainance.</p>
<p>I have a hard time fathoming why this country should be cutting these golden drops in the bucket, like college financial aid, job training programmes, food and utilities subsidies to the poor, and a firm commitment to allies and partners around the world, while at the same time (by the insistence of Sen. Jon Kyl), we must spend $84 billion over the coming years to make our strategic nuclear arsenal (which will never be used) even more powerful and ready to launch. I’m saying this as an opponent of nuclear abolition</p>
<p>^^^
My dad talks about here in Illinois there was a massive construction project a couple of years ago. The signs for ONE construction area that was like 2-3 miles long cost $20,000 but it was “okay” because it was “a drop in the bucket” to the budget. </p>
<p>Those drops add up. And there are plenty of places we could cut. Foreign aid can be cut. If it’s so important, then we can let other countries step up with the money. Apparently China has money; they can open their checkbooks for a change and give some away. </p>
<p>Who cares if some poor person in nowhere Africa “views America as a place of giving?” </p>
<p>It’s time American politics start thinking about Americans first.</p>
<p>“Its kind of like, when your college kid is spending money at starbucks everyday and complains he doesnt have enough money to make ends meet at school and wants an increase in the money you give him… it may only be $3.00… but it is those small things that add up, and if you dont have money for the things you need, you must cut back on things you want.”</p>
<p>Or you could tell the kid to earn more money.</p>
<p>This is not a country of meagre means. This is a global economic, industrial, and military superpower. We will never spend like a lesser country so long as we are such a global force, which we will be for a long time to come. It’s simply unrealistic to think that we can maintain the country we expect (or anything resembling it) if the only deficit reduction measures we use are spending cuts.</p>
<p>hops, maybe I’ll call and talk to your cousin!</p>
<p>hops_scout, we spend those aid dollars because people who receive the benefits of American friendship are far more likely to be American friends, or at least not become America’s enemies. Moreover, aid monies to struggling regions around the world help contain the potential for geopolitically destabilising events which threaten America’s strategic interests.</p>
<p>When American aid dollars help children go to school in Pakistan, it means that those children’s families do not have to turn to a fundamentalist madrassa. When a farmer in Central America has access to a more stable income thanks to assistance programmes from the United States, he is much less likely to rely on growing cacao for cocaine which will reach the United States. </p>
<p>I’m all for Americans first. But the wise prosecution of enlightened American self-interest requires, at a minimum, the relatively miniscule investments which the US offers today. Why leave such a great void to be filled and exploited by nations whose strategic interests differ from ours?</p>
<p>"My dad talks about here in Illinois there was a massive construction project a couple of years ago. The signs for ONE construction area that was like 2-3 miles long cost $20,000 but it was “okay” because it was “a drop in the bucket” to the budget. "</p>
<p>Then the problem is the cost of the construction sign, is it not? Is it not wiser to reduce the amount one would spend on the sign than to abandon the construction project?</p>
<p>does anyone know how a default would affect the distribution of financial aid checks and work study grants? are those checks already out the door? how about for next semester?</p>
<p>Can’t get through to IL 14th either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the politician wasn’t receiving his pocket money then the sign wouldn’t cost so much, would it? And if the sole purpose of the project is to “create jobs” at that insane price then maybe that money should be spent elsewhere.</p>