[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Are you under the impression that foreign aid is the cause of hundreds of millions being lifted out of poverty world wide?

No, it is the result of an integrated global economy, driven by the United States. Foreign aid doesn't create sustainable gains against poverty, economic opportunities do.

Well, Trump is combining his proposed tax cuts with a protectionist withdrawal from the global economy.

Anyway, your blanket claim that foreign aid does not create growth or gains against poverty is highly suspect. For instance:

There would appear to be one inescapable conclusion from the preceding data. Given
that the vast majority of the literature finds that aid is effective in promoting growth, and
by implication in reducing poverty, that this result holds on average for all countries
poverty is undoubtedly higher in sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific as a result of the
declines in aid to these regions during the 1990s.

SOURCE: https://www.oecd.org/dev/34353462.pdf

In the 1960s and 1970s, Korea and Taiwan (China)
received substantial aid flows, which were used
productively in accelerating growth and reducing
poverty. In the 1980s, Bangladesh and Indonesia
benefited from and made good use of large aid flows.
Several more recent country cases show the essential
role played by foreign assistance in helping countries
move out of very difficult situations (including postconflict
environments as with Uganda, Mozambique and
Vietnam) and promote growth and poverty reduction.
Less extraordinary but still high and sustained levels
of growth, accompanied by high level of aid, have been
witnessed in a group of eleven Sub-Saharan non-oil
countries. This group has experienced GDP per capita
growth rates of about 2.5 percent—enough to reach
the poverty MDG by 2015—while receiving aid above
10 percent of GDP over the period 1994 to 2003 (Table
1).4

SOURCE: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/D...-Aid-18Apr.pdf

There are plenty of studies that conclude that in some circumstances aid has not been effective in reducing poverty. Its a complex issue.

Originally Posted by geotag277

Trump's domestic tax cuts are partially an embodiment of that philosophy on the domestic front.

Sorry but I don't really understand this comparison.

Originally Posted by geotag277

Again, focusing on what works and fixing what doesn't. The article itself creates %2+ reductions in poverty as being driven by the economy, and the rest social safety nets including the Child Tax Credit, which has just been expanded and increased by Trump's tax plan.

Well, the article suggests explicitly that it it is the social safety net that worked, not economic stimulation (the benefits of which went almost entirely to the wealthy). So, by your own argument, we should focus on strengthening the social safety net, not cutting taxes to stimulate the economy (the benefits of which will likely go almost exclusively to the wealthy.)

In fact, in the current deficit climate, Trump's tax cuts will almost certainly result in dramatic cuts to the social safety net. Indeed, Paul Ryan just this afternoon announced that such drastic cuts are now required and will be the GOP priority in 2018.