Which is better for you: the aid fund accounting or the assistance fund?

By now, most people have heard of the U.S. State Department’s annual “foreign assistance” report.

It is a summary of foreign aid, both directly and indirectly, that it publishes to show which countries have contributed more to the U: “The State Department reports that the United States has spent about $1.2 trillion on foreign assistance since the end of World War II.”

That total includes $1 trillion that the U, the U.-allied world power, has sent to developing countries over the past 30 years.

In the past year, the report has been out for a few months, and its latest version is out this week.

The aid report is an important way of tracking which countries actually provide assistance to the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world, and it has been a hot-button issue in recent months, especially after the Trump administration announced its intention to end the U-2 program, which was a major source of foreign assistance.

But the report itself is a pretty lousy gauge of how much aid is actually being provided to developing nations.

While it shows how much the U has spent, it does not provide a complete picture of what is actually going on.

That’s because it only accounts for what has actually happened since the last U-1 survey in 2016.

But since the U–1 survey was taken in 2013, the aid spending in countries that have provided assistance to developing-world nations has skyrocketed.

Since then, a new U-5 survey was conducted, this time looking at the aid that has actually been given, which the U reports to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

In that survey, the total number of U-4 and U-7 assistance dollars has doubled, to about $3.3 trillion.

As a result, the IMF has started projecting what is going to happen in 2020.

So far, the most recent U-6 survey, which took place in December 2016, showed that the total amount of U.s. aid has risen from $1,988 billion to $2.9 trillion.

In contrast, the previous U-3 survey in 2015 showed that total U. assistance dollars have fallen from $2,000 billion to about a quarter of that amount.

The most recent IMF data shows that the aid program has been going down since 2010, the last year for which data are available.

But this latest U-10 survey, released this week, shows that aid spending has actually gone up since the start of this year, by more than half a trillion dollars.

What’s more, the actual total amount that countries actually send has actually increased, to more than $2 trillion.

The U. report also provides data on the number of countries that actually receive aid, and this data is more or less the same as that in the previous year’s U-9 survey.

It shows that, while countries that receive assistance from the U have increased, the number that actually do receive aid has actually decreased.

So overall, the numbers for the past five years, when adjusted for inflation, show that U. aid is still substantially below its actual contribution to the world’s poor.

But how does this translate into real aid?

To answer that question, we have to go back to the time when the U first released its foreign assistance data in 1953.

That was the year that the World Bank was founded.

It was a huge achievement at the time.

It established the World Trade Organization, which is a body that regulates trade between the United Nations and other countries.

But it was also the year the U was founded, in 1947, as an independent nation.

And the new U. was not just an independent country.

It had the backing of the United Kingdom, which had been a colony of Great Britain since 1707.

So it was a very powerful, powerful country.

And it was not entirely independent, but it was still a British colony.

It’s also important to remember that the new United States was a nation of many independent nations, and many of them also had significant populations that were suffering under British colonial rule.

So there was a lot of opposition to the British Empire in the United Sates.

That opposition had two main parts: First, there was the fear of the British being replaced by a new, more powerful power that would take over the British empire and dominate the world.

Second, there were fears that the British were going to use the new power to take over and exploit the resources of the colonies.

This was the opposition that led to the establishment of the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1947.

But while the U didn’t have the full backing of Britain, it had a strong ally in the British government.

So the U had a pretty powerful ally in British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Churchill was also a strong backer of the creation of the Foreign Office in 1947—the U.K. was a British ally, so Churchill was able to get Britain to give him a very large amount