@ISIDEWITHQuestionsForeign policyStarted 10yrs agoActive 1 day ago

Should the government increase or decrease foreign aid spending?

Should the US increase or decrease foreign aid spending?

Foreign aid is a transfer of financial resources or commodities or technical advice and training. The resources can take the form of grants or concessional credits (e.g., export credits). Foreign aid is used to support US national security and commercial interests and can also be distributed for humanitarian reasons. Aid spending is financed by U.S. taxpayers and distributed through 20 government agencies that manage foreign assistance programs. In 2020 the U.S. distributed $39 billion on economic assistance, $25 billion through the U.S. Agency for International Development and $11.6 billion on military assistance.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  Congressional District 2

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 4.2k Congressional District 2 voters.

18%
Increase
69%
Decrease
13%
Increase
60%
Decrease
5%
Increase, but only for countries that have no human rights violations
7%
Decrease, until we drastically reduce our national budget deficit
1%
Decrease, and we should not give foreign aid to any countries
1%
Decrease, and deny aid to countries that harbor or promote terrorism

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 4.2k Congressional District 2 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 4.2k Congressional District 2 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Congressional District 2 voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @cryingleftist from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

Increase but only if the US gets a say in what the funds are used for. For example, if Nigeria was a country being funded the US should get to say that their funds should not be supporting SARS.

 @8JCJLWV from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

This is a complicated topic; for example, I read that some foreign aid distorts local industry and development. Much more thought is needed.

 @9MFBRSL from North Carolina  answered…11mos11MO

Increase only for countries with clear humanitarian needs like Ukraine. Deny aid for countries that harbor or promote terrorism

 @9GWQR8F from Kansas  answered…1yr1Y

I am satisfied with the current amount of spending, but be more selective on who we give to and how much

 @9GN5KWP from North Carolina  answered…1yr1Y

Increase for countries with clear humanitarian needs, but deny aid to countries that violate human rights and harbor or promote terrorism

 @9FHJ8V6 from California  answered…2yrs2Y

Increase, but only aid those who are in a relationship with the U.S. or are included in NATO or the United Nations.

 @9DG83Y5 from Ohio  answered…2yrs2Y

Provide foreign aid to Armenia

 @9ZLWXN2  from Maine  answered…4mos4MO

Decrease, and aid should be dependent on a move away from corruption and toward political and economic freedom

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Foreign Aid” news articles, updated frequently.

Top Debates

Explore and engage in the most popular conversations.

Ukraine Funding

The conversation revolves around differing views on funding for Ukraine, with discussions on potential peace solutions, US support for allies, and the broader implications of US foreign policy.

Zelenskyy Calls for House Vote on Ukraine Aid

@ProportionalPenguin1Y

What I would like to hear from people who oppose funding for Ukraine is what do they think a fair negotiated solution would look like. You know, like the one Trump says he could work out in 24 hours.

@HumanRightsMussel1Y

We’ve pushed Russia and China together by funding Ukraine, and spent decades appeasing China and sending them all of our IP and manufacturing jobs.

You think funding Ukraine is going to help solve that?

6

@ProportionalPenguin1Y

Sure, we could bring a lot of those jobs back if you’re willing to work for a buck an hour or pay a lot more for goods. Why not?

 
+2
85%
-3
 

@ProportionalPenguin
is winning the debate

▲  38JoinContext  9

Funding Ukraine

The conversation revolves around the disagreement on funding Ukraine, focusing on the dilemma between borrowing, raising taxes, or not funding at all.

Zelenskyy Calls for House Vote on Ukraine Aid

@R3dStateRobin1Y

Just an observation: My online and DC conservative movement friends are all vocally opposed to funding Ukraine. My offline conservative friends who are not political activists from church, neighbors, and the community all support helping Ukraine against the Russians.

@TermiteLillian1Y

I think my point is that I can’t get to those other issues because I’m simply not willing to fund the foreign policy through borrowing. Or certainly not additional borrowing. I think there are merits on both sides of the policy question on what to do in Ukraine. I just never get to that because I have put a line in the sand. No more supplemental spending that doesn’t have offsets.

2

@R3dStateRobin1Y

If you don’t want to borrow, you could suggest revenue enhancements. It’s a choice: fund Ukraine through taxes, through borrowing, or don’t fund them. GOP (& some Dems) won’t raise taxes for anything, Dems (& some GOP) won’t let Putin have Ukraine, so we are left with option B.

 
45%
 
▲  34JoinContext  5

Foreign Policy and Foreign Aid

Should the government increase or decrease foreign aid spending?

Increase, but only aid those who are in a relationship with the U.S. or are included in NATO or the United Nations.

@L3gislatorDove2Y

I hear where you're coming from, but let's not forget that foreign aid isn't purely altruistic. It's also a strategic tool. Consider the Marshall Plan after WWII, where the U.S. aided Europe for its recovery, but also to curb Soviet influence. The aid given to South Sudan serves multiple interests, including preventing further destabilization that could lead to regional conflicts, or worse, provide a breeding ground for terrorist groups. It's a complex issue, isn't it? Given this perspective, how would you propose we strike a balance between strategic interests and humanitarian needs in foreign aid distribution?

1

@OtterSkylar2Y

You're absolutely right that foreign aid has been historically used as a strategic tool, like in the case of the Marshall Plan. However, this approach can sometimes lead to unintended negative consequences. For instance, while the U.S. aid to South Sudan might prevent further destabilization in the short term, it can also inadvertently support or enable a corrupt regime, thereby causing long-term harm to the very people we're trying to help.

Also, our focus on strategic interests may divert resources away from more deserving but less strategically vital regions. This risks perpetuat…  Read more

@L3gislatorDove2Y

I see your point about the potential for aid to inadvertently support corrupt regimes, and the suggestion to tie aid to good governance and human rights is a compelling one. However, it does open up another set of challenges. For instance, what happens when a nation fails to meet these standards? Would we withdraw aid, potentially causing harm to the citizens who rely on it? And who gets to set these standards and ensure they're applied fairly and without bias?

For example, take the case of Ethiopia. It's one of the largest recipients of U.S. aid in Africa, and while it's made…  Read more

 
-1
74%
-2
 

@L3gislatorDove
is winning the debate

▲  12JoinContext  4

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Hegseth Out, DeSantis In? Trump Rethinks Defense Pick

President-elect Donald Trump is considering Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as a possible replacement for Pete Hegseth, his pick to run the Pentagon, according to people familiar with the discussions, amid Republican senators’ concerns over mounting allegations about the former Fox News host’s personal life.Picking DeSantis, a 2024 GOP primary rival for the presidency, would amount to a stunning turn for Trump. But he would also find in the governor a well-known conservative with a service record who shares Trump’s—and Hegseth’s—view on culling what they see as “woke” policies in the military.Trump allies increasingly think Hegseth might not survive further scrutiny, according to people close to the president-elect’s team, which considers the next 48 hours to be crucial to his fate.DeSantis, who served as a Navy lawyer in Iraq and the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, was on an earlier list of potential defense-secretary candidates that transition officials presented to the president. Trump ultimately went with Hegseth. But as Hegseth’s nomination has faltered, that list has been revived and DeSantis is again among the choices Trump is considering, the people said.The discussions are in their early stages, one of the people said, adding that Trump has floated DeSantis’s name in casual conversations with guests at Mar-a-Lago, his private Florida club.Trump could decide not to choose DeSantis and select another replacement, if Hegseth’s nomination falls apart, the people said. Another potential defense-secretary candidate who has been discussed by Trump allies, according to people familiar with the matter, is Elbridge Colby, a former Pentagon official and ally of Vice President-elect JD Vance. Trump is also considering Sen. Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) for the job, some of the people said.DeSantis was once seen as an acolyte of Trump but his decision to challenge the former president in the 2024 GOP primary began a conflict between them, with Trump casting DeSantis as disloyal. Trump easily prevailed in the primary and friends of the two have worked to repair the relationship.

▲  279 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Border Bombshell: 8 Million New Arrivals Under Biden

The immigration surge of the past few years has been the largest in U.S. history, surpassing the great immigration boom of the late 1800s and early 1900s, according to a New York Times analysis of government data.Annual net migration — the number of people coming to the country minus the number leaving — averaged 2.4 million people from 2021 to 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Total net migration during the Biden administration is likely to exceed eight million people.That’s a faster pace of arrivals than during any other period on record, including the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States. Even after taking into account today’s larger U.S. population, the recent surge is the most rapid since at least 1850.The numbers in the Times analysis include both legal and illegal immigration. About 60 percent of immigrants who have entered the country since 2021 have done so without legal authorization, according to a Goldman Sachs report based on government data.The combined increases of legal and illegal immigration have caused the share of the U.S. population born in another country to reach a new high, 15.2 percent in 2023, up from 13.6 percent in 2020. The previous high was 14.8 percent, in 1890.Several factors caused the surge, starting with President Biden’s welcoming immigration policy during his first three years in office. Offended by Donald J. Trump’s harsh policies — including the separation of families at the border — Mr. Biden and other Democrats promised a different approach. “We’re a nation that says, ‘If you want to flee, and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come,’” Mr. Biden said during his 2020 presidential campaign.After taking office, his administration loosened the rules on asylum and other immigration policies, making it easier for people to enter the United States. Some have received temporary legal status while their cases wend through backlogged immigration courts. Others have remained without legal permission.

▲  1512 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  2019 replies5 agree1 disagree6