DOGE

[dogs4thewin]

People are talking about Dems being upset, but realistically, it is bipartisan cuts that are unfolding. Such as that of the bipartisan infrastructure law. Time will tell how many private sector contractors are put out of work because of this.

I'm all for cutting fraudulent grants and loans. But the process in which Trump is doing this, has the potential to impact many in negative ways. USAID for example, may publish transgender books for Peru (worth cutting), but it also rolls out vaccines and medicines that save millions of lives abroad, every year (worth saving). If president Trump cuts 100% of USAID, we might save a few dollars (a drop in the massive bucket of US spending), and in return, many will suffer and die as a result.

Cutting bipartisan infrastructure law funding for solar programs may be worth doing. Maybe. But we might also wonder what will happen to all of the contractors and private sector workers that have already been awarded these funds. Do they just lose their jobs because the funding has been frozen?

Sense when is it the US's government's job to provide vaccines to other nations?

 

[dogs4thewin]

This government cannot afford to keep people on the payroll just to insure the liberal slush fund stays intact. Good and beneficial programs will not be cut! It is sad anyone would lose their jobs but fiscal responsibility TRUMPS paying unneeded government employees.

and even programs that have much benefit can likely be streamlined.

 

[dogs4thewin]

All I'm saying is that, the lives of millions of Africans shouldn't be put into jeopardy because someone had beef with a transgender book in Peru.

I'm all for cutting corrupt programs. But when innocent people start dying from disease and starvation, who is going to look those people in the eye and say:

"I'm sorry that your infant child died of malaria, I was more concerned about this sesame Street episode being funding for poor kids in Iraq".

And the answer? Well, America will turn a blind eye and will act like nothing happened because "America first".

Meanwhile, the USAID agency federal budget is so miniscule in comparison to our annual deficit, that dismantling the entire agency won't even be noticeable to our debt to begin with. The funding for the entire agency combined accounts for something like 0.6 percent of the federal budget.

America is not the world's savior it is not our job to ensure that all 6-8billion people have everything they need.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sense when is it the US's government's job to provide vaccines to other nations?

There are several reasonable justifications for the U.S. government providing vaccines to other nations:

1. Global Health Security
Infectious diseases do not respect borders. Preventing outbreaks in other countries reduces the risk of them spreading to the U.S.
Containing pandemics early is far more cost-effective than dealing with them after they reach U.S. soil.

2. Humanitarian and Ethical Responsibility
As one of the world's wealthiest nations, the U.S. has the resources to help fight preventable diseases in poorer countries.
Preventing child deaths and suffering aligns with international human rights and ethical obligations.

3. Economic and Trade Benefits
Healthier populations lead to stronger economies, which benefit global trade, including U.S. exports.
A major disease outbreak can disrupt supply chains, affecting U.S. businesses and consumers.

4. Diplomatic and Strategic Interests
Providing vaccines strengthens diplomatic ties with other nations, improving U.S. influence and alliances.
It counters the influence of geopolitical rivals like China and Russia, which also provide vaccines as part of their foreign policy.

5. National Security
Disease outbreaks can lead to political instability, mass migrations, and humanitarian crises, which can indirectly impact U.S. national security.
Helping to stabilize regions through better healthcare reduces the risk of conflicts and extremist groups taking advantage of crises.

6. Moral Leadership and Soft Power
Demonstrating leadership in global health enhances the U.S.'s international reputation.
It reinforces the perception of the U.S. as a nation that values science, innovation, and humanitarian efforts.

These justifications make vaccine donations not only a humanitarian act but also a strategic investment in global stability and U.S. interests.

 

[dogs4thewin]

That's nonsense. Core components of this agency are just as productive as they once were, and those that aren't can simply be reverted back.

If innocent people die, Americans are going to I have to answer for their sins. This inability to imagine the option of cutting funding programs for transgender books in Peru while reserving programs for malaria in Angola is unforgivable.

First of all the average American has nothing to do with the program anyway how the money is spent. As to answeering for "our" sins it's really a matter of how many die vs how much is saved. People die everyday that may or may not could have been saved with more money, We ar not the world's savior and provide for everyone even if it saves lives.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I believe that is the goal here. No one is wanting to starve or kill babies.

At the same time it is not our job to save everyone either.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why is rooting out corruption in government spending a bad thing

That wouldn't be a bad thing.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Postvieww]

That wouldn't be a bad thing.

-CryptoLutheran

Then why are so many liberals trying to stop just that? Please don’t use the dying babies defense.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Then why are so many liberals trying to stop just that?

They aren't.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lifepsyop]

Then why are so many liberals trying to stop just that? Please don’t use the dying babies defense.

Libs don't care about starving babies in Africa any more than they care about the millions of babies they promote being carved up in the womb. It's all a performance.

 

[Postvieww]

They aren't.

-CryptoLutheran

Oh yes they are. You may not want to see it . They are trying to vale it in self righteousness claiming to fight the “evil” Trump but they most definitely are fighting the will of the American people. If you are disconnected from the recent news I can provide numerous examples.

 

[Postvieww]

Libs don't care about starving babies in Africa any more than they care about the millions of babies they promote being carved up in the womb. It's all a performance.

I was going to bring that up but you got there first . Great point!

 

[Postvieww]

Money taken from Social Security to pay for illegal immigrants. What else will DOGE find? And liberals claimed Trump would take our Social Security.

 

[Job 33:6]

As to answeering for "our" sins it's really a matter of how many die vs how much is saved. People die everyday that may or may not could have been saved with more money, We ar not the world's savior and provide for everyone even if it saves lives.

If you're providing services, such as clean water, food, and vaccines, that helps people survive, and then out of the blue you pull the rug out and leave those people to die, then you need a pretty good reason to do so (assuming such a reason could even exist).

And, given the microscopic sliver of our national budget that such programs makeup, it's not clear to me why such a move would be justified.

And even if one felt that we shouldn't be providing clean water to impoverished people to begin with, there are still responsible ways of ending this program aside from abruptly shutting the whole agency down and laying off 15,000 people overnight.

 

[Postvieww]

EX-USAID CHIEF SAMANTHA POWER’S NET WORTH SKYROCKETS—FROM $6.7M TO $30M ON A $180K SALARY

 

[Postvieww]

Democrats will fight to save the slush fund.

 

[lifepsyop]

If you're providing services, such as clean water, food, and vaccines, that helps people survive, and then out of the blue you pull the rug out and leave those people to die, then you need a pretty good reason to do so (assuming such a reason could even exist).

All of your ire should be appropriately directed towards the bureaucracy that severely abused these programs, since they are the reason these programs are being shut down.

Also, it is arguable that we can find much more efficient ways of providing aid to people who really need it after all of the waste and fraud is cleansed.

And, given the microscopic sliver of our national budget that such programs makeup, it's not clear to me why such a move would be justified.

Don't worry, it's just the beginning. They plan to cut much more.

Also, I think Marco Rubio mentioned that they started with USAID because that agency in particular was the one resisting them the most on requests to inspect or audit their programs.

Pretty strange behavior for an agency that was supposedly just helping poor impoverished people, no?

And even if one felt that we shouldn't be providing clean water to impoverished people to begin with, there are still responsible ways of ending this program aside from abruptly shutting the whole agency down and laying off 15,000 people overnight.

No, there is not another way. This kind of self-interested entrenched bureaucracy has to be torn out swiftly by the roots, or it will simply spread itself around more.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Oh yes they are.

Okay.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Libs don't care about starving babies in Africa

What is it like living in the land of make-believe?

Here's the difference between the Left and the Right in America. I heard this recently and I'm going to use it from now on.

The Left wants to feed 100 people for fear that 1 person might go hungry.
The Right doesn't want to feed 100 people for fear that 1 person might not deserve to eat.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Postvieww]

The Right doesn't want to feed 100 people for fear that 1 person might not deserve to eat.

Ridiculous!