[thordenmark]

I said it would be a good thing and still do. Dismantling USAID alone was worth it. It's easy to spend taxpayer money, it's harder to make cuts, no matter how you do it you'll be the bad guy. But government needs to live within its means.

[ink_13]

Dismantling USAID has condemned hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) to literal death through a loss of famine relief and life saving medications for diseases like HIV and tuberculosis. It has diminished the soft power of the United States, destroyed the credibility of the country for a generation or more, and didn't even save that much money. It has profited the average American not at all and likely made everyone less safe.

I have no idea what kind of person thinks that was a good idea.

[thordenmark]

Borrowing billions of dollars when you are $37 trillion in debt and giving that borrowed money to people who hate you is insane. And most of that money goes to warlords and dictators. USAID needed a complete overhaul. And do you accuse the countries who don't give aid of causing famine and death? Why just America? You are welcome to give out of your own pocket if it assuages your guilt.

[Braxton1980]

The $37t is debt owned by the public and government. The US government debt is $7t.

>money to people who hate you is insane

-Do all the people who receive the money hate us?

-Why does it matter if some people receiving help hate us? Why is this insane?

>And most of that money goes to warlords and dictators

How do you know?

[Braxton1980]

>Dismantling USAID alone was worth it. I

Why?

>But government needs to live within its means.

Which is what? No deficit? That's not possible so if you will allow some debt then why not USaid but other programs are left?

[thordenmark]

see my response above.

[Braxton1980]

I responded to your comment with some questions