Musk on USAID: ‘Time for it to die’

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't think that anyone would disagree. But the point being made is that Joe Schmo will gladly complain about something without having any idea of that which he is complaining.

If you asked the guy on the street how much USAid costs, as has been pointed out, he's probably suggest something like 20% of GDP and sometimes north of that. And he'll whinge about it. So if you promised to change that amount to 1% he'd vote for you in a heartbeat. And hey, you just increased their budget by 400%.

These sort of arguments are rife in this forum. People show themselves to be absolutely clueless about subjects they think they should complain about. That's exactly what has happened in this thread. And when you point out that it's a drop in the government's vast bucket of money and that they are wrong when they think it's a huge financial drain they'll swivel and start talking about the individual cost of some obscure payment to a small group of doctors in some god forsaken corner of the planet that they heard about on Fox.

And do you know what I will absolutely guarantee? Point out that the doctors were approved the money by a Republican committee during the last Trump administration and they'll do a 180 so fast they'd probably black out.

I've seen a combination of both... I've the seen the types you describe (where they assume they must be just flushing trillions down the crapper every year), but then I've seen others who've acknowledged the tiny amounts of money for a few of the projects, but have simply stated "no, I don't want my money going toward that"

For instance, a few of the ones I've seen being discussed (source: FactCheck.org -- certainly not a right-wing source -- they delve into the various claims)

Serbian ‘DEI’ Project​

An LGBTQ advocacy organization in Serbia — a country that fares poorly compared with other European countries on measures of LGBTQ rights, according to data from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights — hosted a three-year program aimed at improving the inclusion of LGBTQ people in the workplace.

From February 2023 to October 2024, USAID committed to spending about $1.5 million — in three roughly $500,000 installments — to support the program.

At a program conference in September 2023, mission director for USAID in Serbia, Brooke Isham, said, “At USAID, we know that inclusive development is important for driving economic growth and also for creating a healthier democracy.”

Here's the official link to the project grant: USAspending.gov


People have acknowledged that the amount is relatively small, but they don't want their money being spent on that, even if it's only $5.


Or, these ones, which came from the state department (not USAID)

USAspending.gov

www.usaspending.gov

DELIVER A LIVE MUSICAL EVENT TO PROMOTE THE U.S. AND IRISH SHARED VALUES OF DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION

USAspending.gov

www.usaspending.gov

TO RAISE AWARENESS AND INCREASE THE TRANSGENDER REPRESENTATION THROUGH THE OPERA AS ONE, BY AMERICAN COMPOSER LAURA KAMINSKY.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In Ukraine, USAID, through its contractor Internews, supports a network of social media-focused news outlets, including New Voice of Ukraine, VoxUkraine, Detector Media, and the Institute of Mass Information. These news outlets have produced a series of videos and reports targeting economist Jeffrey Sachs, journalist Glenn Greenwald, and Professor John Mearsheimer as figures within a controlled “network of Russian propaganda.”

Oh, those russian agents/sycophants. I know about them.

USAID also funded a pesticide industry public relations effort known as v-Fluence, which focused on digging up dirt about American food journalists Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman.

Courtesy of Journalist Lee Fang



While they certainly also do legitimate humanitarian work, they also do their fair share of "narrative propagation", meddling, and CIA-style initiatives.

 

[stevil]

When Musk says "‘Time for it to die’"

What is meant by "it"?
is he talking about the program that gets food, water, and medical supplies to those in desperate need.
Or does he mean "those thousands, hundreds of thousand of people in desperate need"

Because both will die as a result of Musk's anti-initiative.
It seems Musk is tasked with "Do nothing", he is searching around for initiatives to stop. And he is focussed on stopping initiatives that help the poor and needy, I haven't seen him try and stop any initiatives that help the mega wealthy. In fact the money saved on stopping initiatives for the poor and needy, is then being passed onto the mega wealthy, in the reduction of taxes, of which the vast majority of that money is going into the pockets of the wealthy. Nice one.

 

[Bradskii]

I've seen a combination of both... I've the seen the types you describe (where they assume they must be just flushing trillions down the crapper every year), but then I've seen others who've acknowledged the tiny amounts of money for a few of the projects, but have simply stated "no, I don't want my money going toward that"

For instance...

We don't need any 'for instances...' All you're doing is saying that there are some things that money is being spent on with which people don't agree. I'd be absolutely astonished if there wasn't. If there's something that you you don't like then call your Congressman or woman and complain about it. That's what should happen. What shouldn't happen and what is beyond idiotic is literally closing down all aid.

That's not rational by any standard. As a number of courts have decided.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We don't need any 'for instances...' All you're doing is saying that there are some things that money is being spent on with which people don't agree. I'd be absolutely astonished if there wasn't. If there's something that you you don't like then call your Congressman or woman and complain about it. That's what should happen. What shouldn't happen and what is beyond idiotic is literally closing down all aid.

That's not rational by any standard. As a number of courts have decided.

But the key difference is when that money is going for things that most would see as outside the legitimate purview of that agency/department.

For example, I know there are some who aren't crazy about how much we spend on military, and would like to cut the Department of Defense budget...however, military expenditures are at least part of the legitimate stated purpose of the department of defense. So people can disagree on amounts and minor specifics, but it's at least in the right sandbox.

USAID's supposed purpose is supposed to be for administering civilian foreign aid, international education efforts, and assistance in times of crisis.

I don't know how "commission a PsyOp fake social media platform in Cuba, draw in youth, and then mentally manipulate them into rebelling against their government" or "Give money to 3rd rate foreign journalism outlets to publish hit pieces on Glen Greenwald and Michael Pollan and share the links in American social media circles" qualifies as any of the things they're supposed to be doing.

That kind of stuff sounds more like it belongs in CIA territory.


Loosely defining any US-Democratic initiative as legitimate "humanitarian efforts" as a way to us USAID dollars as a "progressive slush fund" of sorts is where the conflict arises.

IE: "The things we think are important must actually be important, therefore, exporting those things to other countries is considered aid"


Imagine... pretend that the roles were reversed and 80% of the staff and project directors of USAID were staunch conservatives instead of progressives...

And because bibles and gun rights are extremely important to them and because they see those things as "solutions to problems" (when many others in the general population would obviously disagree), they used $30 million dollars to buy bibles and AR-15's, and distribute them to another country and branded it as "humanitarian aid", what would the reception to that be?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Oh, those russian agents/sycophants. I know about them.

There's no evidence that any of those 3 guys mentioned are part of a "controlled Russian network"

They may hold positions that run afoul of "Democratic Party Orthodoxy" on that particular issue, but that's not the same thing.

So, US tax dollars, in essence, went toward funding misinformation and defamation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There's no evidence that any of those 3 guys mentioned are part of a "controlled Russian network"

They may hold positions that run afoul of "Democratic Party Orthodoxy" on that particular issue, but that's not the same thing.

So, US tax dollars, in essence, went toward funding misinformation and defamation.

I don't care about the Democratic party or it's "orthodoxy", but I know the repeaters and propagators of russian narratives when I see them. They is them.

 

[Bradskii]

...what would the reception to that be?

People would ring their congressman or woman to complain. They wouldn't expect the whole of USAid to be closed down because they'd assume that the people they voted for would have some sort of well thought out plan to improve the working of government. As opposed to hacking away blindly at anything that moves. That would be the actions of an idiot.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

People would ring their congressman or woman to complain. They wouldn't expect the whole of USAid to be closed down because they'd assume that the people they voted for would have some sort of well thought out plan to improve the working of government. As opposed to hacking away blindly at anything that moves. That would be the actions of an idiot.

Are you suggesting that it would've been received any better by the progressive left had he went with:

"Okay, for those of you who were giving out bags of rice and blankets, you're good. For the one doing the PsyOp and woke stuff, you're canned, and the department budget is reduced by the exact amount of these particular expenditures we've identified as outside your scope"

I've heard others say things to the effect of "everyone agrees there's bloat that needs to be cut, had it gone with a scalpel instead of the hatchet, it wouldn't be an issue"... However, I suspect they're saying that because that's what the media narrative has been.

Had he used the scalpel instead of the hatchet, the media narratives would've been adjusted to something else, and then people would've just fixated on a different thing to be outraged about. It was never really about the "scalpel vs. hatchet", it was about the guy holding the instrument.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't care about the Democratic party or it's "orthodoxy", but I know the repeaters and propagators of russian narratives when I see them. They is them.

Care to elaborate on which narratives those are?

Because you'll have to back that up with something if you're going to suggest that
- A Pulitzer prize winning journalist (known for meticulous attention to detail)
- A senior professor for Columbia University and the head of the department on their foreign policy studies (and arguably one of the most cited international relations professors in the last 2 decades)
- An economist, who the NY Times once referred to as "the most important economist of our generation" and a Centennial medal winner recipient from Harvard

(all of whom are fairly liberal btw, and were critical of republican administrations)

...were all just duped by the poorly worded postings of a Russian bot farm on Facebook, then as the saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"


Because to me, it seems like "There's some smart guys, who looked at all the information, and came up with a different opinion than some of the other smart guys" is being conflated for "They must be Russian Agents".



But just out of curiosity, is there any position (no matter well-educated) that concludes "we shouldn't just endless send money and arms to Ukraine" that wouldn't get branded as "Russian propagandist" by the modern-day standards?

 

[Bradskii]

It was never really about the "scalpel vs. hatchet", it was about the guy holding the instrument.

Nonsense. The details of various expenses aren't even secondary. It's the manner in which this whole enterprise is being conducted is the problem. It shows every indication that zero thought has gone into it.

There are literally thousands of individual payments being made all over the world. There are obviously decisions being made that people will complain about. It would be crazy to think that wouldn't be the case. But this is what we've been treated to by Trump supporters. They are doing their very best to ignore the farcical manner in which Trump is hacking away apparently at random and simply pointing out that hey, there's some transgender facility in some obscure town in the deeper recesses of an African country that no-one could point out on a map that was given some money. Oh, the horror. Conveniently averting their gaze from all the medical supplies and food and expert aid that people are now not receiving.

Who in their right mind runs a government like this? Trump isn't being blamed simply because he's Trump. He's being blamed for what he is doing.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Are you suggesting that it would've been received any better by the progressive left had he went with:

"Okay, for those of you who were giving out bags of rice and blankets, you're good. For the one doing the PsyOp and woke stuff, you're canned, and the department budget is reduced by the exact amount of these particular expenditures we've identified as outside your scope"

I've heard others say things to the effect of "everyone agrees there's bloat that needs to be cut, had it gone with a scalpel instead of the hatchet, it wouldn't be an issue"... However, I suspect they're saying that because that's what the media narrative has been.

Had he used the scalpel instead of the hatchet, the media narratives would've been adjusted to something else, and then people would've just fixated on a different thing to be outraged about. It was never really about the "scalpel vs. hatchet", it was about the guy holding the instrument.

No, it's about the incompetence and mismanagement of the people in charge.

Governments change programs all the time. If Trump had said - we've found a program funding - I don't know - drag queens in Rwanda, and they had decided that was waste and should be cut - I'd be fine with it.

What Trump has done is trash yet another government entity. The best part is, in his stupidity, he's ended up cutting subsidies to US farmers who are about to be impacted even more by Trumps tariff war. As someone who supports Australian farmers, this is excellent news.

Unfortunately, Trump also doesn't understand the concept of soft power - something that other nations like China do, and frequently use to influence other nations to cooperate with them. Trump is throwing away decades of US influence in order to score some points with people who think any government "handout" is bad (unless it's for them of course). America will now have to spend billions and decades in the future cleaning up his mess.

 

[Bradskii]

Unfortunately, Trump also doesn't understand the concept of soft power - something that other nations like China do, and frequently use to influence other nations to cooperate with them. Trump is throwing away decades of US influence in order to score some points with people who think any government "handout" is bad (unless it's for them of course). America will now have to spend billions and decades in the future cleaning up his mess.

Exactly right. From here: USAID funds freeze impact: China, Japan to ramp up support, cast wider influence in Asia-Pacific

'With funding for the United States Agency of International Development (USAID) frozen by US President Donald J. Trump for three months, China and Japan are expected to step up as development partners for Asia-Pacific countries' development partners and expand their influence in the region, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

"Although the USAID freeze will be hugely disruptive to individual development programs, we do not believe that—even if indefinite—it will pose a serious threat to macroeconomic, political or social stability in the affected countries. That is partly because other nations are likely to step up and fill the gaps. Multilateral institutions will also probably take on more projects," Alex Holmes, EIU's regional director for Asia, said in a Feb. 12 report.

Citing EIU estimates, Holmes noted that "the most exposed to USAID cuts are generally small countries, where the inflows are significant relative to the size of their economies," such as Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, small Pacific island-nations, and Timor-Leste.'

I was in Laos last year. The Chinese have built them a railway from China to the Laotian capital that would rival the Japanese fast trains. Who do Laos look to for help? China. Who does Vietnam look for help? China. The US spent billions of dollars and wasted tens of thousands of US lives, not to mention millions of Asian lives in trying to stop communism spreading through the regions. Now it's not bombs and bullets that are spreading Chinese influence. It's roads and rails.

I went to the US embassy web site for Laos to check what USAid was doing for the country. You can find the link here: Technical Difficulties

What do you get when you click the link? The tile of it should give you a clue. A completely blank page. Maybe a glitch? Then try the embassy page for Vietnam here: Technical Difficulties

Same thing. Even the web pages have been closed. What a complete and utter farce.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Unfortunately, Trump also doesn't understand the concept of soft power - something that other nations like China do, and frequently use to influence other nations to cooperate with them. Trump is throwing away decades of US influence in order to score some points with people who think any government "handout" is bad (unless it's for them of course). America will now have to spend billions and decades in the future cleaning up his mess.

I don't know that I buy the "soft power abroad" notion.

That's what I've heard many say to defend some of the expenditures of USAID, but I don't know that it holds water.

Even the proposition that it's "soft power" indicates:

A) It's not sincere aid. If the reasons we're giving out bags of rice and helping build infrastructure is so nations will be beholden to us later, or "so China doesn't get to them first", then that's just manipulation.

Reminds me of the "George Costanza" line about wanting to be a philanthropist "I could give people money, and then they'd owe me big time!"

B) What does paying foreign 3rd rate journalism outlets to bash American journalists criticizing Ukraine funding, or food journalists criticizing a pesticide brand or fomenting a Cuban coup have to do with projecting "soft power" abroad?

 

[Bradskii]

A) It's not sincere aid. If the reasons we're giving out bags of rice and helping build infrastructure is so nations will be beholden to us later, or "so China doesn't get to them first", then that's just manipulation.

That's such a naive comment. You build bridges (literally in some cases) so that you can develop mutually beneficial relationships. It leads to trade contracts. It reduces poverty. It increases education. It increases the health of the nation. It leads to mutual support at the UN. It prevents the influence of third parties that would do you harm. It promotes democracy. It promotes human rights.

But hey, if you want to call all that 'manipulation' then you be you.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I was in Laos last year. The Chinese have built them a railway from China to the Laotian capital that would rival the Japanese fast trains. Who do Laos look to for help? China. Who does Vietnam look for help? China. The US spent billions of dollars and wasted tens of thousands of US lives, not to mention millions of Asian lives in trying to stop communism spreading through the regions. Now it's not bombs and bullets that are spreading Chinese influence. It's roads and rails.

To put it bluntly...I don't care.

Let Laos and Vietnam be communist... they'll learn (just like all the soviet bloc and eastern bloc countries learned). Us swooping in and building them a few hundred miles of railroad or a bunch of schools and hospitals isn't going to change anything.

Nations like Poland, the Czech Republic, Germany, Romania all learned how crappy communism is, and it wasn't because we built roads for them at the expense of our own citizens.

Have we learned nothing from when we tried to meddle in the middle east?

This idea that we have to keep spending our money (let it be amply known it's a one-way street, when was the last time any country gave the US a handout?) to persuade other countries not to pick the worst form of economy in modern history, is rooted in a couple of misconceptions.

1) not every other country/culture values materialism to the same degree westernized countries do
2) we've had recent enough conflicts with most of those countries, that giving them "stuff" isn't going to be enough to heal old wounds. Sure, they'll take the "stuff", but it doesn't change their perceptions.

We've been providing Vietnam with hundreds of millions in aid for the past few decades.

It's almost like they'd prefer to business and emulate and do business with a society that's culturally more similar to theirs vs. "the western imperialist power that shot my grandpa and two of my uncles"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's such a naive comment. You build bridges (literally in some cases) so that you can develop mutually beneficial relationships. It leads to trade contracts. It reduces poverty. It increases education. It increases the health of the nation. It leads to mutual support at the UN. It prevents the influence of third parties that would do you harm. It promotes democracy. It promotes human rights.

But hey, if you want to call all that 'manipulation' then you be you.

We've tried that a bunch of times, and it failed.

What's naive is thinking we can build a hospital for a country and send them a couple billion dollars, and that'll magically wash away any cultural conflict.


Case in point:

If Elon Musk showed up at your house tomorrow and said "I'm going to pay off your house for you, build a new school in your neighborhood, and give you a brand-new Model 3.... so you'll go along with me on whatever I want to do now moving forward, right?"

What would your response be?

Would it be "thanks Elon!, you're the best, you can count on me to go along with your agenda!"

Or would you be more likely just to pretend to go along with it to get the money, and then still continue disliking him and everything he stands for?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

To put it bluntly...I don't care.

Let Laos and Vietnam be communist... they'll learn (just like all the soviet bloc and eastern bloc countries learned). Us swooping in and building them a few hundred miles of railroad or a bunch of schools and hospitals isn't going to change anything.

We've tried that a bunch of times, and it failed.

You might want to read up on the Marshall Plan - a textbook example of US soft power done right. Not only did it sway several countries such as Italy and Greece from becoming communist, it was so successful (because ANY country could apply for it) that the USSR was forced to set up its own program (Comecon) to compete with it and stop US aid influencing countries away from the Soviet sphere.

I still maintain that, given the monetary cost of the Vietnam war (over 1 trillion dollars in today's money) , it would have been far cheaper for the US to enact exactly the same kind of Marshall plan philosophy there as it did in Europe. Rich, well-fed people don't become communists.

And if we are given to speculate, it could have seen a modern day pro-US Vietnam providing a much digger military buffer to Chinese intentions in the South China sea. Soft power would have come through again big time.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You might want to read up on the Marshall Plan - a textbook example of US soft power done right.

That was a plan done with Western Europe after the war was already done and settled.

It would've been a different story with Vietnam. Unlike post-WW2 Europe:

A) Vietnam was still in a state of conflict, and one of the entities in that Conflict was still considered an "enemy" of the US

B) We shared far more commonalities with peoples from Europe than we did either faction of the Vietnam conflict.


"Enticement of foreign aid" is a much bigger uphill battle when there's a foreign conflict in which two opposing factions share more with each other than they do with the country offering the aid.

The "Westernized"/"Non-westernized" is a big dividing line.

It's why our intervention attempts in various conflicts in Africa and the Middle East (to get one of the factions "on our side") they have failed miserably.

When we try to intervene in conflicts that are based on "Shia vs. Sunni", it blows up in our face (figuratively and literally).

Or when we tried to intervene in the Soviet-Afghan war using "soft power approaches"... we ended up giving money and arms to people who were more than happy to get the resources but weren't "buying what we were selling" either...and we know how that turned out.


To put it more directly, if there was some conflict between Canada and Russia, it'd be fairly easy to get Canada to be a loyal ally via helping them with aid. If it's a conflict between Cuba and Venezuela, it wouldn't matter how much money we threw at either faction, they'd be happy to take the money, and then after they handled their beef, go right back to hating us.

 

[FireDragon76]

No. This is what 49% voted for. There are still the rest.

Trump won because democrat and independent voters stayed home. Biden got millions of more votes than Harris. The best theory I have heard is that millions of people were just complacent. Things were going reasonably OK, so why bother...

I think civics education has failed in our country, people don't understand that just because things are going OK, our democracy's legitimacy still depends on their active participation. Otherwise, you're ceding power to people who will decide for you, and without your interests at heart