I can agree with that. Funding to get through a crisis makes sense, and funding to assist with a plan to transition from one situation to another, whether it be the economic drivers, food production, or whatever else, also generally makes sense. That second one requires a plan, which is often missing in some of these aid programs.

But one could also argue that those who are advantaged, which much of the developed world is, have a duty to help others. The aid program mentioned in the article cost $35 million over 5 years. That averages to about 8 cents per American, rounded up. Over 5 years. That program made an immediate, personal difference in the lives of 100,000 people, not even counting the broader impact of little things like not having mothers and children dying. For $350 per person helped, assuming that is the only people helped be that $35 million dollars, that is already good value, and cheaper and faster than building schools, programs etc., to get some home-grown solutions which would mostly leave anyway because of the overall poverty of the nation. All for a price that all but the most impoverished Americans wouldn't even notice and would harm none, promoted by the wealthiest in the nation for the sake of austerity or fiscal responsibility, and creating 'dependency'.

ClownStatue@piefed.social · 9 pts · 22d (2 replies)

This doesn’t even scratch the surface of the soft power gained with USAid.

Seriously, of all the genuinely boneheaded moves The Idiot has made in his second run at infamy, killing USAid will eventually be seen by historians as one of his dumbest. And that’s saying a lot.

Manjushri@piefed.social · 2 pts · 21d

And this is the real reason he's doing it. Maybe, just maybe, the orange turd isn't an enemy agent, but that doesn't matter. The simple fact is, there is almost nothing an enemy agent could do to hurt this country that our current president isn't already doing. Having an actual card-carrying Russian plant running the white house would not be measurably worse for the USA than having Trump in there.

GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 21d

There was an author whose work I enjoyed. She stayed neutral/left in her earlier writing, but now is rabidly right both in her books and blog. I don't read her any more, but she was very happy that the 'abuse' and 'corruption' of USAid was finally being addressed. She talked about how it was wonderful that guy got elected again, how things were going to get worse for a while and then would get a lot better, and how finally people would be kicked out of the country if they didn't get in 'the right way' (she was a legal immigrant, now citizen). I stopped reading her blog, which I did out of morbid fascination, before masked thugs were killing American citizens for not turning their cars around fast enough, but I'm sure she would have had some platitudes about how it was the wrong thing for the right reasons.

InvalidName2@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 21d

That part is a huge issue that I don't see many of us bringing up, so thank you.

If the cuts in funding had been tapered over a reasonable amount of time, federal contractors like my former employer would have at least had the chance of pursuing alternative funding that would have saved jobs (like mine) and lives (like these women and children).

Even if you take it at face value that abolishing USAID was the right thing to do and saved the US tax payers money, which you shouldn't but for the sake of argument let's go with that, it could have easily been done in a way that preserved lives and livelihoods.

And so as bad as it is that lives and jobs were lost the astoundingly evil and questionable legality of the way that it happened makes it even worse.