What if they're playing 2 card monte with the cold? Moving it form 1 place to the other for inspections? I mean, Superman and Clark Kent were never in the same place.  Musk live stream Knox, Trump live stream german german fort knox.

Leave it to you to defend fraud, waste and abuse in this massive government spending.

We don't use that money for our own people who need it.  Why would you think that money is making it to the foreign people and not into the pockets of their government leaders?

2nd post
The government is not intended to be a charity.  It never was and never will be.  Treating the treasury like a never ending stream of cash for anything and everything is what has brought us to this point.

The government should not be a charity.  I do not want my money wasted on a specific program that my representative votes for along Democrat party lines (the norm).  I don't care how many members of Congress vote to spend that money.

When you give your own money to help others, that's called charity. 
When you give other people's money to help others, that's called theft.

Elon posted about the choices we have as US citizens. 
Would you rather have the government send a check/bank deposit to every voter
    in the amount of $5,000, or
would you rather continue funding gender studies in Pakistan?

Nice red herring.
If you want to be an isolationist nation, never intervening for humanitarian causes just say so but don't go accusing me of excusing waste simply because I said most Americans aren't willing to sit by and watch a genocide.

The government doesn't have to be intended to be a charity but citizens can, through their vote, choose to have government engage in charity. Unanimity is not required, there are always some citizens who don't want their government to spend their money wasted on whatever they think is a waste. 

Also, some of that "waste" may have a charitable label to it but the true purpose is often buying strategic partnerships. Just something else to keep in mind.

Is this the bldg with no windows?

Show me how not throwing our wealth at charitable programs for other nations in any way equates to "isolationism."  Is it your belief that most of USAID funds go to charitable causes?  do you also believe most of that money goes to the cause it was supposed to and not in the pockets of the leaders managing the money?

Is it your belief that our representative government in any way was designed to spend our wealth on charitable causes?  I'd like to see that part of the Constitution.

Since Congress routinely votes along party lines, do you have any real evidence that our individual votes matter?   Congress critters use the treasury on special interest and feel-good programs in order to be reelected.  It has nothing to do with what the majority of constituents want.  In Hawaii, as long as there's a (D) by the candidate's name, they're already 90% sure nothing else matters.

Every charity has a percent of money it receives which is lost to administrative costs. I do not know the average efficiency rate of USAID's programs, do you?

Not taking part in charitable causes around the globe is a step towards isolationism because we are removing ourselves from influence and action in other countries.

It doesn't matter whether our government was designed to spend money on charitable causes if the voters decide to elect politicians who choose to spend money on charitable causes. The constitution doesn't have to specifically allow it in order for it to be constitutional. Your last paragraph has nothing to do with my point. We have a legal system in place and regardless of whether you feel it adequately represents your voice, that legal system has approved money for charitable causes. We may not like it but it is what our democracy has created/allowed.

Every charity has a percent of money it receives which is lost to administrative costs. I do not know the average efficiency rate of USAID's programs, do you?

Not taking part in charitable causes around the globe is a step towards isolationism because we are removing ourselves from influence and action in other countries.

It doesn't matter whether our government was designed to spend money on charitable causes if the voters decide to elect politicians who choose to spend money on charitable causes. The constitution doesn't have to specifically allow it in order for it to be constitutional. Your last paragraph has nothing to do with my point. We have a legal system in place and regardless of whether you feel it adequately represents your voice, that legal system has approved money for charitable causes. We may not like it but it is what our democracy has created/allowed.

Every charity has a percent of money it receives which is lost to administrative costs. I do not know the average efficiency rate of USAID's programs, do you?

Not taking part in charitable causes around the globe is a step towards isolationism because we are removing ourselves from influence and action in other countries.

It doesn't matter whether our government was designed to spend money on charitable causes if the voters decide to elect politicians who choose to spend money on charitable causes. The constitution doesn't have to specifically allow it in order for it to be constitutional. Your last paragraph has nothing to do with my point. We have a legal system in place and regardless of whether you feel it adequately represents your voice, that legal system has approved money for charitable causes. We may not like it but it is what our democracy has created/allowed.

So are you suggesting that we should use money to buy influence and actions of other countries?

supposed to be 10-20% admin costs max
estimates are running 40-60%
some countries are claiming less than 2% reaches them...

Since USAID is not an actual legally defined charity, Good luck finding out anything about how the money is spent. 

The entire argument in this instance is the total lack of transparency.  None of what they wasted our taxes on was publicly available until Trump was inaugurated and Musk started his dive into government spending.

i'm sure there are a few areas in which some small segment received needed assistance,  but without transparency there is no way to know who or how many.

Keep defending the deep state's USAID fund.  It just shows how contrary and argumentative you can be.  You're happy with government fraud, waste, abuse and non-transparency.  That's been established.  Anything more you have to say on this is redundant.

Thats pretty bad if true. I am sure that even if it isn't that bad there is definitely room for improvement though.

It is not so much a question of should rather whether it is advantageous.

If we don't buy friendships China will, and they are. Do we want to be involved at some expense or sit that one out?

I was using charity in the colloquial sense to describe some of what USAID does, I did not mean it in the sense that they were a designated charity organization.

And yet you are wanting to evaluate them based on the same overhead analysis that designated charities are judged by.  You want to compare USAID to other charities and then in the same breath argue they are different.  That makes no sense.


I am not objecting to a thorough inspection and cleaning of USAID. I am not for a complete elimination of the mission of USAID though.

Based on what?  Do you know of any USAID expenditures you'd keep?  If so, what is the benefit to the US, and how is that benefit worth what we are paying for?


How argumentative I can be? LOL, that's a good one coming from you. Again though I suggest avoiding strawman arguments unless of course you can quote me somewhere saying I fully supported all spending associated with USAID. I'll wait.

Funny how you post a straw argument to argue against my argument.  Show me were I said you FULLY support ALL spending associated with USAID.  I never said that, but you're pretending i did.  Since you asked for a quote, how about a true quote which I posted -- not what you say I posted:

"Keep defending the deep state's USAID fund.  It just shows how contrary and argumentative you can be.  You're happy with government fraud, waste, abuse and non-transparency.  That's been established.  Anything more you have to say on this is redundant."

I was using charity in the colloquial sense to describe some of what USAID does, I did not mean it in the sense that they were a designated charity organization.

I am not objecting to a thorough inspection and cleaning of USAID. I am not for a complete elimination of the mission of USAID though.

How argumentative I can be? LOL, that's a good one coming from you. Again though I suggest avoiding strawman arguments unless of course you can quote me somewhere saying I fully supported all spending associated with USAID. I'll wait.

you said "every charity" making it a noun
not an action...

I'm kinda drifting off the current subject but it pertains to DOGE.

What happened to Ramaswamy?

Last I read he was going to run for governor of Ohio?

But I don't hear of him working with DOGE lately.

I was using charity in the colloquial sense to describe some of what USAID does, I did not mean it in the sense that they were a designated charity organization.

I am not objecting to a thorough inspection and cleaning of USAID. I am not for a complete elimination of the mission of USAID though.

How argumentative I can be? LOL, that's a good one coming from you. Again though I suggest avoiding strawman arguments unless of course you can quote me somewhere saying I fully supported all spending associated with USAID. I'll wait.

You are more than welcome to send part of your income voluntarily. I for one at this point am good with cutting all foreign aid until our budget and debt is at a manageable level again. All other nations can kick rocks until then.