politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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'.
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.
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.
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.