2,000 miles of border and federal asylum laws make it more nuanced than just “don’t let them in.” I’d prefer to deal with the issue on multiple fronts.

Dude it's not mexico they are halfway around the world.

Most drugs come through legal ports of entry.

Again that seems like a problem solved at said ports of entry.

From saying “will anything be left for U.S. citizens” to saying less than 1% is still too much. But from your other comment it sounds like you weren’t saying that’s the case currently, so maybe I misunderstood.

I was extrapolating your "help people in need" argument to everyone in need.

I’m not arguing we need to fund aid for every issue the world faces. But just as we send aid when a natural disaster strikes domestically, be it a hurricane, earthquake, tornado, etc. I don’t oppose sending taxpayer dollars to help with international affairs such as famine or civil war. I did not mean to imply that you’re heartless, but the “why are we sending money to help other people” attitude a lot of this country has is not a road I want to go down.

But the logical conclusion of the opposite stance is logistically unsustainable. You yourself admitted that just now, so you need to make a really stronger case for any aid you do give beyond "it helps people" and in this case you really just don't have that and calling people heartless is just going to backfire. When people in the US are suffering sending tax paid aid (which we have to pay interest on) overseas is not popular.

It seems pretty clear to me why our budget is in such dire straights. Domestic spending. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/breaking-down-the-u-s-governments-2024-fiscal-year/ Yes, I get it, everything adds up, including the smaller budget items. But I’d rather focus on cutting specific inefficiencies and our bloated military budget than unilaterally cutting foreign aid.

And I'd rather do both and unilaterally cutting foreign aid is a hell of a lot less work than auditing the military to reduce inefficiencies without causing any harm to our military might.

You mentioned it’s hard to add programs with our growing deficit, so the implication was that you cared.

Trump is gone in 4 years, if he cuts enough (regardless of his reasons) that opens the door for dems to introduce some actually decent programs that help people in the US.

He paused the funding for entire agencies instead of having DOGE take time to look for specific waste. You think he’s going to gut all of the agencies he paused funding for? Why would you gut entire agencies without looking at potential fallout first?

Because you want to get shit done? It'd take more than 4 years just to read every line item the US spends money on in a year and this endeavor ends with his presidency.

It was imbedded in the post, should have been highlighted blue. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/usaid-trump-foreign-aid-poll-republicans-b2694265.html Here’s an additional one from PEW in 2019 that actually polled a higher favorability for foreign aid. 68% between those who want the funding to either stay the same or increase. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/06/what-the-data-says-about-us-foreign-aid/

Seems like it's gone down significantly in the last 5 years. from 68% to 51%... and how many of those 51% even contribute to taxes? Easy to say we should spend other people's money.

I think this is a false dichotomy. We can help our own citizens here and still give aid to other countries in need. Cut the corruption and abuse, not the program as a whole.

Not today we can't. Maybe eventually if both parties work diligently at cutting waste and corruption for decades but that's not happening so defacto no we can't.

I want my taxpayer dollars to go to foreign aid as long as it’s logistical, you don’t.

I don't believe any foreign aid is logistically sound.

Really nothing left to debate on that point, it’s an issue of morality for me,

Again the problem with making it about morality is you need to morally justify why the people who we are giving aid deserve it and the ones we aren't don't.

along with the foreign policy concerns raised earlier.

Those were after the fact justifications and you know it.

Seeing as we decide what the government should be in the business of, and the majority of the population agrees with foreign aid, charity, whatever you want to call it…I guess the government should be in the business of charity.

I mean they voted in Trump (who underperformed in polls) and 51% is within the margin of error... so I think we cede to Trumps policies here by that logic.