What about us?

Definitely . . . and especially if you are a middle class American. The government seems more interested in helping everyone else but you.

I'm not worried so much about the spending in Iraq and Afghanistan as I am the spending for domestic "entitlement" programs, as our social programs make up a much larger portion of our budget, and breeds generations of dependency.

Good point Quietmike! Even though I do believe we need some programs to help those who really are trying to make ends meet but still struggle(senior citizens, single parents with a job, laid off workers), too many times we help those who don't want to help themselves and we create generations of individuals who believe and live a life of entitlement.

It isn't just about Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans, and the middle class especially, are continuously playing second fiddle to foreign charities and entitlements. There is no reason to have our own citizens starving in the streets, all the while sending billions in aid to countries whose citizens will most likely never see any of it.

There is no reason that farmers are paid to not grow wheat because we have trade agreements with foreign countries. This ties in with the above sentiment. We are paying twice over. If our government is dead set on supplying aid to the world, while simultaneously honoring a trade agreement which puts our farmers under its thumb, why not send the tons of wheat and corn that could be grown on our own soil instead of currency that will fall into the hands of the corrupt leaders abroad?

Last year, both campaings ran on the statement that they would institute a "Buy American" ideology into their offices. Then, when foreign trade partners began complaining that such measures would devistate their own economies, both reneged on their statements. Our own countrymen are sold out on a daily basis so that we may play nice with the rest of the world.

Of course we are compromised. It is not a Republican or a Democrat compromise. It isn't about Bush taking to one country or the other. It is about our own leaders trying to appease everyone that has a hand out, unless it belongs to an American.

No, we do not have to pay farmers not to farm, or to have trade agreements that benefit no one except the massive merchants and the speculators, but it keeps the prices stable (high). We do not have to send "aid" to nations whose citizens do not benefit from it, but it keeps markets open and the tribute flowing in to those who extract it.

It is not the objective to "play nice". It is the objective to gain and retain advantage over the masses both here and abroad. I imagine that our leaders attempt to appease only those who matter, their true constituency, regardless of nationality.

Electing representatives who answer to their promoters seems to be giving us a government controlled by rich corporations with very little concern for anybody who won't help them make more money.