• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

International USAID Cuts - Tracking the Impact These Cuts are Having Across the Globe Nearly 300,000 Deaths So Far

Fox by the Sea said:
wrong. only you pretend like you "know".

Nobody believes you have the IQ to understand that type of formula. you just parrot it because it looks like authority and you're a natural bootlicker.

Horseshit.
Until proven otherwise, the formula I posted coming from my dreams is the most accurate on the internet.
Click to expand...


You Trumptards will literally cling to anything to avoid facing reality.
 
HomeCheese said:
Certainly you can acknowledge that the USAID programs had some affect and saved lives. Cutting these programs with a chainsaw will surely cause death and suffering.

So the question is how many lives.

As far as I know I posted the best and most accurate death tracker on the internet. If you can find a better one please post it as I am interested.

Until this let's both agree this is the most accurate death tracker on the internet.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, this is the only death tracker. I’m not going to look for others, because I think this serves very little purpose and I don’t believe it’s remotely possible to track the impacts of reduced aid in an accurate manner.

I agree with your point that children dying due to preventable diseases is sad. I think I view this through a more pragmatic lens than you though: it’s not possible for the US to satisfy unlimited wants with its limited resources, and staying their previous course would ultimately leave the US in a position where they are able to give nothing.

I believe a strong US is a net positive for the world. For the US to strengthen its position they need to be judicious in where and how they spend their money. I believe your heart is very much in the right place, but what you’re advocating for isn’t sustainable as a going concern.
 
Reminds me of the thread about Covid lockdowns causing food insecurity/starvation for 130 million people globally.
Philo-Publius

Thread 'World Food Program Says 130 million people at risk of starvation from COVID-19 impact'

The World Food Program (of the United Nations) says that 130 million people worldwide are at risk of starvation. The virus itself has only killed a quarter million people (reportedly) worldwide, so some very simple mathematics tells us that the quarantining is doing more damage than the virus itself.

It's time to be selfless, and open the economy back up to save lives.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/coron...X6iw0dmtnujQ6Akj_y0agJ4AZCyuogHZlMk-E1y8fAk2A

The coronavirus pandemic could soon double...
Click to expand...

But the idea of lockdowns was popular with the left/not popular with the right so the opinions were inverse to this thread. It's almost like no one actually cares about kids in Africa and are just using it as points against their political opponent.

Kingz said:
The entitlement is astonishing.

To say their deteriorating health is our responsibility basically is saying they were always our responsibility. For what reason? Simply because it’s the nice thing to do? Maybe. But objectively, why are they the responsibility of the United States taxpayer?

That’s the problem with aid and just about any form of welfare. It only creates dependence and It never ends and what started out as charity soon becomes “blood on the hands” when it’s no longer delivered. So the taxpayer because indebted to Global Shitholia with no say in the matter.
Click to expand...

I haven't looked into the details about the USAID cuts, so I can't say if I agree 100% in this scenario. But philosophically I agree with this. The goal of these programs should be to build self-sufficiency and have some EOL to the programs. If it is just perpetuity then the program is a bust.
 
Codpiece said:
As far as I know, this is the only death tracker. I’m not going to look for others, because I think this serves very little purpose and I don’t believe it’s remotely possible to track the impacts of reduced aid in an accurate manner.

I agree with your point that children dying due to preventable diseases is sad. I think I view this through a more pragmatic lens than you though: it’s not possible for the US to satisfy unlimited wants with its limited resources, and staying their previous course would ultimately leave the US in a position where they are able to give nothing.

I believe a strong US is a net positive for the world. For the US to strengthen its position they need to be judicious in where and how they spend their money. I believe your heart is very much in the right place, but what you’re advocating for isn’t sustainable as a going concern.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that the US economy was breaking and cutting USAID is the way to fix it? Seems like we didn't really give all that much in the greater scheme of things. Further, there are a ton of other programs in the US budget I would cut before I would cut life saving aid to children.

I certainly would never cut life saving aid to children in order to off set tax cuts for the rich. That's just totally toxic.

Much of the USAID spending went through US companies and farmers with them benefitting financially.
 
Codpiece said:
As far as I know, this is the only death tracker. I’m not going to look for others, because I think this serves very little purpose and I don’t believe it’s remotely possible to track the impacts of reduced aid in an accurate manner.

I agree with your point that children dying due to preventable diseases is sad. I think I view this through a more pragmatic lens than you though: it’s not possible for the US to satisfy unlimited wants with its limited resources, and staying their previous course would ultimately leave the US in a position where they are able to give nothing.

I believe a strong US is a net positive for the world. For the US to strengthen its position they need to be judicious in where and how they spend their money. I believe your heart is very much in the right place, but what you’re advocating for isn’t sustainable as a going concern.
Click to expand...
I've mentioned it above, but USAID accounted for 0.5% of the budget. To do the work they were doing, saving lives, cultivating good will (soft power), it was more than worth it. The U.S. wasn't dumping a shitload of money into this. USAID was dismantled because they were investigating Space-X.
 
A country is based on a social contract between the government and the citizens. The government has no right to give the citizen's money to foreign organisations if there is even one citizen left that requires help in satisfying their basic needs.

No one is stopping the cosmopolitan, insanely altruistic people from paying their own money into those organisations. Hey, thread started, feel free to donate until you land on the streets. Hell, it would even more accurate to suggest that you should take out a loan and donate all of that.

That's western countries at the moment. Freefalling birthrates, skyrocketing homelessness and poverty, altogether lack of healthcare or dramatically inefficient public healthcare. Dropping standard of living across every meaningful field, with the education system becoming a genuine factory of retards with diplomas.

Divide money spent on USAID across every veteran, then across every hungry US citizen, then across every homeless citizen.


Edit: man I need a snickers bar stat

<{natewhut}>
 
WuDi said:
A country is based on a social contract between the government and the citizens. The government has no right to give the citizen's money to foreign organisations if there is even one citizen left that requires help in satisfying their basic needs.

No one is stopping the cosmopolitan, insanely altruistic people from paying their own money into those organisations. Hey, thread started, feel free to donate until you land on the streets. Hell, it would even more accurate to suggest that you should take out a loan and donate all of that.

That's western countries at the moment. Freefalling birthrates, skyrocketing homelessness and poverty, altogether lack of healthcare or dramatically inefficient public healthcare. Dropping standard of living across every meaningful field, with the education system becoming a genuine factory of retards with diplomas.

Divide money spent on USAID across every veteran, then across every hungry US citizen, then across every homeless citizen.


Edit: man I need a snickers bar stat

<{natewhut}>
Click to expand...
LOL! I guess you would rather cut aid to starving children so that rich people can get more and greater tax breaks.

Yeah man, hold your head up high, raise your hands and cheer for the USAID cuts. Nothing for foreign charity, let them starve. Our rich need more tax breaks!

Your attitude is further proof that the maga movement is the most toxic American political movement since the confederacy.
 
WuDi said:
A country is based on a social contract between the government and the citizens. The government has no right to give the citizen's money to foreign organisations if there is even one citizen left that requires help in satisfying their basic needs.

No one is stopping the cosmopolitan, insanely altruistic people from paying their own money into those organisations. Hey, thread started, feel free to donate until you land on the streets. Hell, it would even more accurate to suggest that you should take out a loan and donate all of that.

That's western countries at the moment. Freefalling birthrates, skyrocketing homelessness and poverty, altogether lack of healthcare or dramatically inefficient public healthcare. Dropping standard of living across every meaningful field, with the education system becoming a genuine factory of retards with diplomas.

Divide money spent on USAID across every veteran, then across every hungry US citizen, then across every homeless citizen.


Edit: man I need a snickers bar stat

<{natewhut}>
Click to expand...
Let's instead cut healthcare and food assistance for our citizens and give massive tax break to the ultra-wealthy while gutting regulations so our air and water are poisoned, because those massive corporations aren't making enough money.

Is that the "social contract" with the citizens you are talking about?

<3>
 
HomeCheese said:
LOL! I guess you would rather cut aid to starving children so that rich people can get more and greater tax breaks.

Yeah man, hold your head up high, raise your hands and cheer for the USAID cuts. Nothing for foreign charity, let them starve. Our rich need more tax breaks!

Your attitude is further proof that the maga movement is the most toxic American political movement since the confederacy.
Click to expand...
Crazy Source said:
Let's instead cut healthcare and food assistance for our citizens and give massive tax break to the ultra-wealthy while gutting regulations so our air and water are poisoned, because those massive corporations aren't making enough money.

Is that the "social contract" with the citizens you are talking about?

<3>
Click to expand...
I thought that hunger made me unreasonable, but god damn you boys are on a whole other level. Did you even read what I wrote?

In 2021, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that approximately 11 million children were living in poverty, which is roughly 1 in 7 children. Of those children in poverty, nearly 47% lived in severe or extreme poverty, a number that rose from 4.5 million to 5.5 million between pre-pandemic levels and 2021.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

  • Overall child poverty: Around 11 million children lived in poverty in 2021.
  • Extreme poverty: Almost half of the children living in poverty (approximately 5.5 million) were in severe or extreme poverty.
  • Children under 5: One in six children under 5 (3 million) were living in poverty.
Click to expand...

What about American children? Not as important? Again, no one is stopping you from paying into those foreign organisations.
 
WuDi said:
I thought that hunger made me unreasonable, but god damn you boys are on a whole other level. Did you even read what I wrote?



What about American children? Not as important? Again, no one is stopping you from paying into those foreign organisations.
Click to expand...
If the the money from the USAID cuts all went to US children then maybe we could have this conversation but that's not what the cuts did. Maga is all about cutting services to US kids also. Have you heard about "the big beautiful bill"?

Don't get all high horse when these cuts are going straight towards more tax breaks fr the rich.
 
My issue is not so much the withdrawal of USAID and shifting the responsibility to the global community, rather it's the lack of a rollout. You dont suddenly pull it before other countries and orgs can fill the void.

Even when it's something small, a little rule change, you want a 6 to 12 month rollout buffer period. With something of this scale, should have been a staged 5 to 10 year transition period of withdrawal. This stuff takes time to set up.

That's what kills people
 
Last edited:
WuDi said:
What about American children? Not as important? Again, no one is stopping you from paying into those foreign organisations.
Click to expand...

The fact he has no money is stopping him. He wants 'the rich' to be forced to pay for it.
 
HomeCheese said:
If the the money from the USAID cuts all went to US children then maybe we could have this conversation but that's not what the cuts did. Maga is all about cutting services to US kids also. Have you heard about "the big beautiful bill"?

Don't get all high horse when these cuts are going straight towards more tax breaks fr the rich.
Click to expand...
That's the fucking rub. They bitch about helping people abroad and say, "why isn't that money being spent on helping our own?????". Then they support cutting social programs that subsidize healthcare and food for those citizens that the care so much about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,271,388
Messages
57,713,773
Members
175,814
Latest member
Geovane santos

Share this page

Back
Top