What is the Future of Democracy? Is it a Realistic Option?

I think the future of our democracy is going to be positive if we all as Americans take a stand again for what we believe in.  Where we all have a common goal like the "Founding Father's" did.  They had a passion that I think we are lacking now.  It is sad to see what has happening to our nation, we have a deficit that is almost unpayable and have our priorities mixed up.  We value money more than anything and have become incredibly materialistic and selfish.  We need to get back to our core values and I think we will be fine.  I think that if enough people believe that, we are gong to be just fine.  We just need to make some drastic changes.  We can do it!  I believe in all of us!

What is the Process to Develop an Economic Policy that Provides Services and Sustainability?

This is a tough question and I think that opinion varies quite a bit on this topic. The process to develop an economic policy that provides services and sustainability I think is one that has more of the people's influence rather than the government controlling everything. The government should have some control I think because they should make sure that the policy is being followed, but its tough to say how it should be done.  
This is what I used to think, however, after reading the chapter in The Politics of Power by Katznelson, Kesselman and Draper entitled Economic Policy, I feel differently.  I think that the government should control more of our economy than I once thought and I found that our economy is not really controlled very much by our government, it is one of the most loosely controlled as a matter of fact.  In this chapter, the authors state, "...[F]requent complaints about "big government",the size of the public sector in the United States is actually quite small when viewed comparatively...For example the tax burden on American citizens is actually quite light compared to other advanced industrial countries.  No advanced industrialized country collects a lower proportion of its GDP in the form of taxes than the United States"(Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 298).  I always felt like our government was so over involved in everything and that is just not the case.  Really, the government should be more involved in some aspects and even though we as an American society are used to the way things have been, we should be taxed more and have more regulation.  It's hard to say.  After reading this chapter, I also realized what went into making an economic policy.  Taxes are considered, fiscal policy is considered, many things...also, the budget is something that is hard to figure out.  For example right now, our government was about to shut down because they could not agree on the budget and how money should be spent.  It is tough to decide on an economic policy let alone develop one that provides services and sustainability.  In the conclusion of this chapter, the authors state, "Economic policy sets the balance between markets and government.  What is so remarkable about this in the United States is the degree to which markets are granted wide latitude at the expense of government to determine who gets what and how much"(Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 317).  So I am not sure how to answer the question.  I think that the government just needs to have more involvement and that the government needs regulate our economy in a better way  We need to cut spending on welfare I think and help more at home than abroad, probably tax us more, even though we don't want that...it is hard to please us all. 

How Does a Government Facilitate Comprehensive Care for its Constituents Without Sacraficing Equity?

I think this question can be debatable.  Everyone has an opinion about welfare and how we should help and what role the government should have.  I think that the government is on track.  We already tax every one in America, no matter your economic status.  Anyone who makes money is taxed on that money, or should be anyway, and the government uses tax money to pay for the programs.  That is the most fair way to do it.  At one point Clinton wanted to do away with welfare because it cost so much money, but that obviously did not happen.  Instead he signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.  This legislation created a new welfare program.  Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, to help impoverished children and their families.  TANF replaced the old welfare program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and marked a radical shift in welfare policy....The new law set a limit of two years on welfare, after which recipients must work, and set a lifetime limit of five years during which recipients may receive welfare" (Katznelson, Kellelman, Draper, 267-268).  I think that this is very fair.  What I also like about this law is that the government gives each state a lump sum of money to use and when it is gone, it is gone.  Therefore, we are not overspending on welfare.  The only thing I don't agree with is that sometimes it seems that we spend more money on other countries, helping their sick, poor, homeless, etc citizens, and not as much on our own.  I think that for the most part though, the way that our government has things set now, are fair and don't need a lot of re-working.

How Should a Nation-State Develop its Foreign Policy in Accordance to its Values and in Connection to the Development of its Domestic Policy?

Wow!  What a question!  For me I had to first say, "OK, what is a nation-state, what is a foreign policy and what is a domestic policy"?  A nation-state is just a country, USA, Canada, England, etc., a foreign policy is how you engage with other nation-states and a domestic policy is how you engage in your own nation-state.  With that being said, it is clear to me that a foreign policy and domestic policy are very interconnected.  They both effect the other a great deal.  When engaging in a foreign policy, the values, goals, benefits, must be in accordance with the values, etc. as yours.  A nation-state would want to know, is this good for us economically, politically, military wise; how is this going to effect us.  "Ever since the establishment of the United States in the 18th century, American political leaders have consciously crafted domestic and foreign policies to achieve and maintain a favorable position in the global political economy.  In other words, American economic, military, and political dominance has not just happened; it has been made to happen" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 241).  Foreign policy and domestic policy is not set in concrete, they can change the policy if a circumstance arises and "after World War II, the United States adopted a far more activist foreign policy, a response to the decline of the major European powers, the challenge to the United States posed by the Soviet Union-a political and ideological rival-and the fear of American officials that global instability might produce a resumption of the destructive 1930s economic depression" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 243).  As America became a more powerful nation, and we started to expand, we had to take into consideration more about how our policies and how we and others would be affected.  According to the authors of The Politics of Power, "American expansion abroad has taken two major forms: economic penetration by multinational corporations into Europe and the developing world, and political and military influence exercised by the American government.  The two are distinct, yet intertwined, and each has contributed to advancing the other" (Katznelson, Kesselman, Draper, 246).  This again is just a reference to how intertwined they are.
In all, foreign policy and domestic policy are very interconnected and a nation-states values depend heavily on one another.