Political Matrix Question #4

[white trash heroes]

Strongly Disagree. It frequently has the effect of actually destabilizing local markets (e.g. cheaper food displacing farmers goods) or indebting foreigners to us. And the US has enough budget woes as it is. Let private charities handle it.

[Californian Tony]

Strongly agree.

[Redalgo]

Strongly agree.

[For Oklahoma]

Strongly Disagree. The probability that the money actually goes to helping those who need it is minuscule, as the Governments of the most depraved countries in the world are corrupt.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Only aid to NGO's who work within those countries, not to corrupt governments. So, Neutral.

[Reginald]

Neutral ("situational" is probably the better word, yeah). I strongly agree with the idea of foreign aid in an altruistic sense, but its implementation and its exact recipients are sometimes worrisome, so the question of increasing it–for that is what's being asked here–is largely context-dependent.

[Governor Scott]

Neutral/situational.  I'm not necessarily opposed to foreign aid on principle, but there should at least be some oversight so that the money is actually going to helping people instead of their tyrants.

[greenforest32]

Strongly agree.

I favor a global stimulus package of spending and reforms (infrastructure, education, healthcare, removing profit from public services, etc) to help these countries and support smaller bilateral versions in the absence of international action.

[perdedor]

Only aid to NGO's who work within those countries, not to corrupt governments. So, Neutral.

^^^^

Sending aid directly to the corrupt governments of the third world is a naive practice.

[dialectical fetishist]

"agree"

[MilesC56]

Disagree. We need to address poverty in our own country first.

[TJ in Wisco]

I think I ususually put "Neutral" on this one because I dislike the word "raising" but would strongly agree with having foreign aid at all. We can't afford to raise spending on much of anything at the moment.

[© Tweed the Younger]

would have to be a cruel person to say no.  would also have to be a cruel person to attach conditions like 'privatize your water system so 25% of the population dies of thirst' to aid.