This is a very bad and very dangerous policy, and not the duty, obligation, or in the best interest of American citizens, or the safety of the US, or the global community.
This is a very bad and very dangerous policy"
Am I getting you correctly?
Right now the US GDP is about a fourth that of the entire world's. In 1950, it was more like half. There are many who'd rather we turned back the clock to the days when Europe was rubble and Japan was radioactive, but I don't.
Relative parity ain't worth a bucket of spit. The whiners in the third world may gripe about how rich Americans are, but their doers join us so they can get rich too. The doers know that they're better off when their neighbors are rich. That's also why the American movers and shakers want the rest of the world better off, because generally, when the rest of the world is better off, we are too.
The big question is this: would you be willing to accept a doubling of your income even though your neighbor's income tripled? My preference is that I will work to better my loved ones' well being even if it (horrors) makes others better off too.
But there are many who suffer from covetousness so badly that they'd rather starve than see their neighbor benefit. That's not your position is it?