So would I, so would I, but it is certainly encouraging to know that the financial help to Pakistan has been dropping for several years in a row.



Would a Republican president drop it altogether considering the hawkish nature of their rhetoric and the absolute necessity to maintain a strong military presence in Pakistan if the Taliban are to be bombed, shot or otherwise made uncomfortable? Would it be prudent to cut ties with what has proved to be a sort-of-reliable ally in America's military ventures in the region?

I'm not saying the US should go one way or the other; just that neither Democrats nor Republicans are likely to sever ties with Pakistan anytime soon. Leaning on the country's government to get it to distance itself from the Taliban (no small order, because Pakistan's government must first see to the stability of its own land, not to the USA's interests) is probably the most hopeful strategy either party could adopt.

Regarding the increase in the national debt: yes, Obama's tenure saw a large increase in absolute terms, which is bad. In relative terms, though, he didn't do so bad, and certainly better than Ronald reagan, that sacred figure amongst Republicans. He also did barely worse than George W. Bush. In fact, Democrats seem to do better, on average, than Republicans:



(Image from the Washington Post).

Economically, the US are in a pretty good position right now. Unlike China, which faces a slowing economy, Russia, which faces a spectacular drop in the price of oil and natural gas, and Europe as a whole, facing something of a constitutional crises brought about by the large difference between the economy of countries like Germany and others like Greece, the US is a superpower where the effects of the recent recession are now mostly a thing of the past. Unemployment is way down, technological innovation is still booming, and the US is still pretty much calling the shot as far as international business is run.

Can things get better? Oh, sure, especially in social relations. But economically Ithink the country is in a much better position now than it was when Obama first got into the oval office, and I trust Clinton or Sanders far more than any of the Republican contenders to keep up the good work.

Manageable, yes. No big deal, no. Essentially, in a perfect world, we'd have lower debt. But the Republican fear-mongering on the issue is way off-base. The majority mainstream economic view is that spending was needed to stimulate the economy in a time of crisis. And the incredibly overwhelming economic view at the fiscal crisis was that raising the debt ceiling was the sane thing to do, and refusing to raise it was bat-poop insane. Financial markets were freaking out at the possibility of the debt ceiling not being raised. This wasn't a close case; it was broadly agreed that failure to raise it was nuts. That's why the semi-serious Republicans, who demonize everything Obama does (even if Obama adopts their policies, like Obamacare or cap & trade), came to an agreement with Obama.

When Ronald Reagan left the Presidency, the debt had more than doubled during his Presidency. In fact, it looks like it was about 2.7 times what he was when he took office. So relative to its prior level, debt rose under Reagan far more than after Obama. And of course, it's a Republican Congress for three-quarters of Obama's Presidency.

And it's so weird to me that you don't type the word "Obama"? It's always "44th President" or something like that.

Aid to Pakistan is yet another example of something being okay when other Presidents do it, but suddenly become nefarious under Obama. Of all the countries on the Earth, Pakistan was the 5th largest U.S. foreign aid recipient in 2008. Was it a pro-American paradise at the time? Of course not. The top foreign aid recipients are essentially the same under Bush and Obama, just shuffled around a bit. U.S. foreign aid tends to go to countries that are unstable and on the edge, rather than stable ones. That's kind of the point. We try to keep countries that are on the edge from turning hardcore against us.

Pinning aid to Pakistan is sort of like the "Obama-phone" thing. The program where recipients of food stamps (or similar programs) get a cell phone with limited minutes to be able to make the most urgent phone calls (e.g., job interviews, calling their kid's schools) didn't start with Obama. But conservatives blatantly, dishonestly portray it as a program started by Obama. And of course, they circulate the same video of the one woman talking about her "Obama-phone" to make a racist appeal. She's black, obese, loud, and obnoxious - and she's wrongly relates the phone as a giveaway to Obama to get people to vote. It's intended to stoke racism, by putting this one stereotypical woman in the forefront, even though her understanding of the program as originating with Obama is wrong.

Well since the thread seems to be a merry go-round with 'democrat-leaning' support only...I think it's time to get off...stick to safer territory like CGC comics...at least I have 2 other 'friends' there....lol

Ta ta.....

I don't understand those who aren't willing to listen to other viewpoints.

I have TONS of Republican friends, several of whom support Ted Cruz, or Trump.

Do I think that's stupid? Yep.

Am I willing to discuss with them WHY I think that's stupid, and then sit and listen to them as they explain why they think my take on it is the stupid one? Yep.

Is it going to change any opinions at all? Probably not.

Are they still my friends? Yep.

Do I take my ball and go home if they won't agree with me? No. . because THAT's Stupid.

I'll allow that this tendency has gotten worse since the 2000 debacle, but from what I've seen it's always been there. And dirty tricks in general are far from new. Ask Carter how he felt about the Iran hostages being released the day after Reagan was inaugurated.

His hair is kinda banana-coloured...

Too bad the sainted Ronnie never told that part of the story and implicitly took credit for the release.

BTW, I've neither read anywhere, nor heard Carter say, that Reagan made that offer. He made the announcement well after the inauguration (at about 2 PM, IIRC), and thus embedded in the collective consciousness that it was the Iranians' fear of his unwillngness to negotiate and of his all-around toughness that made them releas the hostages w/o any concessions whatsoever.  To the point that Marco Robot-io refers to this in his stump speeches as proof of his bona fides as a historian.

Next year in high school, maybe Marco will study the infamous, treasonous, impeachable arms-for-hostages deal arranged by... who was it again? Oh, that's right, St. Ronnie of the Holy Hair Polish.