Can and should we afford it?

[S.A. Boggs]

With the financial problems that the U.S. currently has, would it not be prudent for US to pull funding from NATO and the UN to the same level as other's? Couldn't this money be better spent in the US helping our citizens instead of protecting other's. Shouldn't Europe learn to live with the Russian Bear and return the American Eagle to here? Why should we continue to care about Europe when we have problems with our southern border that need fixing. Can't Japan and South Korea now take care of their own defense without US standing there? We have subs that can park off of a coast and do what needs to be done if need be, which I hope never will. Aircraft that are hard to track with RADAR and so on.
Sam

[JB White]

Keep in mind our Government isn't really "spending" money. Its job is to circulate our currency. Circulation increases demand which in turn makes our dollar stronger. There is a fine line determining our overall gains on overseas "spending" vs taxation and domestic pork programs. Neither side of the aisle will ever agree on the best bang for our buck.
Doesn't do any good to cut funding from something which actually helps in the long run. A sense of Isolationism has backfired on us in the past.

[S.A. Boggs]

Why shouldn't our funding decrease to match their level of participation. Should we continue to have bases on foreign soil, why US? Germany, France and England have a strong economy shouldn't they be paying the lion's share for their freedom? I am not saying totally withdraw, just quit carry their load. It is one thing to do military exercises, it is another to keep troops/equipment stationed there and pay for the experience.
Sam

[Allen]

With the financial problems that the U.S. currently has, would it not be prudent for US to pull funding from NATO and the UN to the same level as other's?

Until we do so the UN council will continue to operate as if it owns the U.S. I suppose this mentality has been set from the liberal atmosphere of past administrations that we will just dump all the money they want into the pool, no one else will have to pull their weight and will have equal voting rights. The U.S. is one of the youngest nations in the world yet we give foreign aid and support to countries that date back to Biblical times. If they haven't found a way to support themselves by now they need to be assumed by someone stronger and I don't mean the U.S. Guidelines need to be set. If you don't pay you don't play.

[RED]

Why shouldn't our funding decrease to match their level of participation. Should we continue to have bases on foreign soil, why US? Germany, France and England have a strong economy shouldn't they be paying the lion's share for their freedom? I am not saying totally withdraw, just quit carry their load. It is one thing to do military exercises, it is another to keep troops/equipment stationed there and pay for the experience.
Sam

The act of retreating always emboldens your enemies. Our presence in the Black Sea, the USMC in Norway, our presence in the Pacific, our troops in Japan, So. Korea, and etc. are keeping our enemies at bay. When Truman took our troops out of So. Korea, it emboldened the enemy to attack.

[dogtag]

Cut funds to the UN, but not NATO.
Expel Turkey from NATO.

[togor]

The act of retreating always emboldens your enemies. Our presence in the Black Sea, the USMC in Norway, our presence in the Pacific, our troops in Japan, So. Korea, and etc. are keeping our enemies at bay. When Truman took our troops out of So. Korea, it emboldened the enemy to attack.

I agree with Red's post.

[clintonhater]

Cut funds to the UN, but not NATO.
Expel Turkey from NATO.

Though the UN is merely a left-wing debating society, worthless at solving international problems such as Syria or Somalia, at least it doesn't all by itself create huge international problems, such as turning Libya into the Grand Central Station of illegal immigration into Europe by NATO's unprovoked attack on that country, or establishing new terrorist breeding grounds in Bosnia by another unprovoked attack on Serbia. If the European NATO countries choose to indulge in this kind of aggression, why should this country pay for it?

[dave]

Our foreign aid, separate from UN, should be stopped to all countries that are not friendly to us. Also to countries that have strong economies! It started with our desire to get countries back on there feet, after WW11. Time it is stopped!

[m1ashooter]

Cut all funding to the UN. Cut our Nato funding to the same percent that the smallest member is paying.

[dave]

They just announced a 285 mil. cut to the UN, another Trump promise kept, altho it could be more!

[Allen]

They just announced a 285 mil. cut to the UN, another Trump promise kept, altho it could be more!

I saw that Dave. In reading the articles I see where the U.S pays 22% of the UN's 3.3 Billion budget so doing the math that means we pay 726 million, take away the 285M, that still leaves $441M. This does not include the defense budget which is separate. This is the first step in the right direction ever taken and it had to be done by a non-politician. My 2 cents worth says that because of the money America has already dumped into the UN our future contributions should be zero. We already supply the headquarters building free of charge along with all the cost of keeping it going so this really wouldn't be zero and still a lot more than some countries pay.

Crappy displayed articles--you have to scroll down. Both are short.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/12/25/haley-announces-285m-cut-in-2018-19-un-operating-budget.html

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/21/trump-puts-his-un-money-where-his-mouth-is.html

[leftyo]

its a start!