RubenRemus

Thailand's economy has grown and its governance system has evolved. Today there is a greater understanding of risk. I'm sure you wouldn't want a bunch of barely financially viable Thais showing up on your doorstep unannounced; why would anyone in Thailand want to have the same from you? As others have noted, you bring risk, potential costs, and other "externalities" with you that need to be funded somehow. When the country was poorer that was a risk Thais wanted to take for the sake of local development. Today they have other options.

Do you really believe no one has ever tried to cut federal spending before, or are you just trying to gaslight us? Not only did Clinton do it, he did it on a bigger scale. But wait, guess who suddenly decided at that time that cutting taxes and reducing the deficit was BAD??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget and corresponding tax legislation (the final, signed version was known as the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993) that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[5] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.[6] Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill.[7] After extensive lobbying by the Clinton Administration, the House narrowly voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 218 to 216.[8] The budget package expanded the earned income tax credit (EITC) as relief to low-income families. It reduced the amount they paid in federal income and Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA), providing $21 billion in savings for 15 million low-income families.

Remember when Trump was going to bring peace to the Middle East but the only thing that happened was more war and his son in law made billions?

Is this the same administration that said it would end the fighting in gaza and ukraine on Day 1? Wow, must be a sale today on suckers.

In many states its great. What do the states where it's crap have in common?

Unfortunately we cannot....the MAGA PR flak banned anyone not funded by right wing think tanks from the briefing room.

Consistency will not MAGA.

Are you serious? Obama got more elector votes both times: 365 in 2008 and 332 in 2012. Trump barely beat Biden's 2020 results. Sorry: he's hanging on by his fingernails, even if you want to pretend otherwise, and will get creamed in the midterms.

Likely has more to do with old sperm.

Charitable donation programmes and "charities" have little to do with most development aid, although it's true that humanitarian work is often funded through it. Rather, development agreements are usually done as partnership between governments, not NGOs. That's why it's done in conjuction with foreign missions and departments of state.

OK, watched it now. It's 10 minutes of the guy swearing he's neutral and then spitting out opinion after opinion on US politics with, frankly, very little evidence. Strange how a guy who makes his living helping people move their money and get second passports believes that the solution to today's political context is to, wait for it, move your money and get a second passport.

Russia is a pariah state because it is lawless and invades its neighbors. The United States is withdrawing a small part of the billions it spend every year to help other countries. How is that the same? Were Americans pariahs during the Vietnam war? What about the second Gulf War?

What a waste of taxpayer money. This isn't a public US official. Seriously, who cares. I'd much rather investigate all of the foreigners now revolving around Trump, like Musk. Once again, the Repubs expose their hypocrisy.

Foreign aid has always been a strategy to counter Cold War soft power from the Soviets and Chinese with Western soft power. The American aid mechanism is the best in the world, and anyone who supports completely dismantling US aid infrastructure better come with more of an argument than "saving money" and "inclusion is bad,"

Absolutely. Why should the EU view American passports, imports, or policies favorably while the MAGA hats wish them ill? Why should the Philippines not tilt to China if it becomes clear that the Americans are no better? All things change in time, and MAGA seems to be intent on rewrite all of the international norms at play -- of course there will be a reaction.