Department of Government Efficiency - DOGE

#1,303
#1,303
Big Orange#1 said:
Click to expand...

Watching USAID get gutted is heartwarming.

I had a lunch after a USAID conference with the head of a company (and her right hand girl) whose entire contract portfolio consisted of relocating Haitians to the US to work in factories. Tell me that's a wise use of US taxpayer money.

On top of that it's the most disgusting, incestuous example of contractor to govvy to contractor and back cycle I've ever seen in my life. They're all buddies passing each other cash with no oversight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#1,304
#1,304
LouderVol said:
Military cuts would be the bigger $$$, but we get NO ROI on the foreign aid.

I don't mind starting there.
Click to expand...

Military cuts are going to be more politically difficult, but yeah. If we cut all military aid, that's almost $1T, which was the revised but still ambitious goal for DOGE.
 
#1,305
#1,305
BeardedVol said:
That's a pretty myopic foreign policy view.
Click to expand...
it is in the sense of what we currently have. but I am not convinced that we SHOULD be in bed with these countries.

the foreign aid has made us a target necessitating more of that military spending. cutting it would go a long way to keeping us out of the next Afghanistan.
 
#1,308
#1,308
n_huffhines said:
Military cuts are going to be more politically difficult, but yeah. If we cut all military aid, that's almost $1T, which was the revised but still ambitious goal for DOGE.
Click to expand...
as I mentioned in my post above, all of that aid gets us entangled in other's affairs too. which ends up justifying further increases in military spending. its a vicious cycle that doesn't work out for the US.

and just because aid is a tool we use now in foreign policy doesn't mean its the only tool out there, or that it is one we SHOULD be using as we are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#1,312
#1,312
n_huffhines said:
That wouldn't be as inflammatory.
Click to expand...
Right. They're quickly realizing they are out of their depth and trying to make it seem like they're fighting "woke" by "saving" all this "waste" while also spending way more than we were on commercial deportation flights to look cool in Air Force planes. How much did we waste in security for Noem to go LARP as Dog (killer) the Bounty Hunter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and NashVol11
#1,313
#1,313
jwells said:
Right. They're quickly realizing they are out of their depth and trying to make it seem like they're fighting "woke" by "saving" all this "waste" while also spending way more than we were on commercial deportation flights to look cool in Air Force planes. How much did we waste in security for Noem to go LARP as Dog (killer) the Bounty Hunter?
Click to expand...
Why should we pay for anyone to go to college? If the gov. is going to take my money and pay for someone else to go to college, shouldn't it be poor Americans?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, Orange Maniac, CABVOL and 5 others
#1,315
#1,315
jwells said:
From Burma? You can argue about whether it's our problem, but "HURR HURR WE FOUND THA DEI" is just...not it.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion Alice. I know you will probably discount this quote because it is from one of the wisest men ever and also a founder of this country, therefore an anathema to you but:

"Watch the pennies and the dollars take care of themselves" - Benjamin Franklin

Oh, and more to the point, but why should I give a **** about Burmese people going to college? When did that become my responsibility?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol and ButchPlz
#1,318
#1,318
LouderVol said:
it is in the sense of what we currently have. but I am not convinced that we SHOULD be in bed with these countries.

the foreign aid has made us a target necessitating more of that military spending. cutting it would go a long way to keeping us out of the next Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
Be that as it may, we still have to deal with nations that we don't like; China is a prime example.

Foreign aid is a valuable tool, and cutting it all carte blanche without evaluation not only weakens America's position, but it also provides an inroad for the likes of China and Russia to work against American interests abroad.

Besides, 'foreign aid' had nothing to do with how we ended up in Afghanistan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#1,319
#1,319
BeardedVol said:
Be that as it may, we still have to deal with nations that we don't like; China is a prime example.

Foreign aid is a valuable tool, and cutting it all carte blanche without evaluation not only weakens America's position, but it also provides an inroad for the likes of China and Russia to work against American interests abroad.

Besides, 'foreign aid' had nothing to do with how we ended up in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
really? I am pretty sure we funded and armed Al Qaeda for a good long while.

They hated us because of our support, including aid, to Israel. didn't like us playing king maker all over the region. all of that had "aid" attached to it.
 
#1,320
#1,320
BeardedVol said:
Be that as it may, we still have to deal with nations that we don't like; China is a prime example.

Foreign aid is a valuable tool, and cutting it all carte blanche without evaluation not only weakens America's position, but it also provides an inroad for the likes of China and Russia to work against American interests abroad.

Besides, 'foreign aid' had nothing to do with how we ended up in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
This is drastically oversimplistic. Not shocked, coming from you. Source: it's my job.

---
Chinese "aid" comes with so many strings countries are now very aware of it and turning away from the handouts. The best thing the US can do is not hand out foreign aid, but rebuild government and procurement cultures in countries that encourages them to become self-sufficient (and usually when this happens, they begin to buy American since American lifetime value and quality are drastically superior to what China provides, and American contract terms are usually not abusive like Chinese contract terms). American programs that do this (i.e., literally nothing found in USAID) are wildly successful and turn back an insane amount of money compared to the initial program "investment".

On an even simpler hand, a country like Burma is of next to no value to the US, and any money the US puts into it is likely to not stop that country from turning for other handouts from "hostile" countries anyway. Why should the average taxpayer care if Burmese kids go to school when we're crushed under the resource strains of illegal immigrants, drug abuse problems, homelessness, and rising daily costs? We can't even keep our own house intact. Why should we put money into countries and programs with no provable short OR long term benefit? It's just silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#1,322
#1,322
SpaceCoastVol said:
We need fewer people going to college, not more.
Click to expand...
That is why I said in the first statement ( Why should we pay for anyone to go to college?).

It seems beyond silly to me that beyond any scholarship my daughter may earn that I will be likely picking up a side gig to pay for her schooling while Uncle Sam steals a portion to pay for someone else's schooling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, CABVOL, ButchPlz and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top