Closing USAID

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Usps should have gone bankrupt 15 years ago.
It’s essentially a union pension retiree shop that delivers mail on the side.

1) it was established in the US Constitution
2) you clearly have no idea the services it provides in very rural areas
3) the concept of "bankruptcy" doesn't or shouldn't apply to a SERViCE provided by the Federal government.

Perhaps if the GOP tried to help make the USPS more efficient rather than gutting it over the past 40 years, it would be in a better place.

All irrelevant, focus on their gawd awful budgeting and managing versus whatever service they manage to do. (Deliver junk mail door to door).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much $$$$$$ did USAID “offer” each poor man in Mozambique to do risky surgery on his genitalia?

Why not respect their cultural values, and simply model proper hygiene for both men and women?

Some religions mandate circumcision on their baby boys, but certainly not all.

Again, cultural respect is essential.

... You're against reducing transmission of HIV.

You need to explain male gay anal sex to fully drive home the hiv and risks. People here aren’t getting it. And the number of partners risk also prevalent in certain communities here and abroad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
TEN MILLION DOLLARS for “volunteer male circumcision” in Mozambique.

That’s where our hard earned tax dollars had been funneled. Why???

Seriously? Take five seconds and think about this. Did you take any health or science classes at all? Its voluntary and its because it prevents the spread of STIs. Google HIV and follow how it was initially spread - then consider the number of Americans who died of HIV in the 80s and 90s and then noodle on why this is an important program and why USAID is important (hint: for the health of not only people in that country, but ours too).

To everyone pulling out random programs and pointing to them as government waste. Just do a little of your own research first.

Again you need to explain anal sex, fissure rips, bodily fluids bc apparently even DCUM doesn’t understand how high the risks are not WHY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It prevents AIDS.

I’d rather stop the young boy human sex trafficking going on unabatedly in the ivory coast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How sick and amoral is it that the world’s richest man is cutting food and medicine for the world’s poorest children, so that America’s wealthy can pay less taxes.

That is 100% what we are witnessing.

There is a waiver for food/medicine programs. Also, there is no direct correlation between government cuts and tax breaks, particularly for the wealthy. Your premise is flawed.

The checks and balances for USAID spending have clearly failed. It makes sense that all the agency IG’s were fired. They were clearly ok with the status quo. Politicians have forgotten that they are stewards of taxpayer dollars, not owners. The cuts are harsh, and should be more targeted, but are needed.

Agree.

Status quo and bloat have to go. Need a cleaner slate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much $$$$$$ did USAID “offer” each poor man in Mozambique to do risky surgery on his genitalia?

Why not respect their cultural values, and simply model proper hygiene for both men and women?

Some religions mandate circumcision on their baby boys, but certainly not all.

Again, cultural respect is essential.

... You're against reducing transmission of HIV.

You need to explain male gay anal sex to fully drive home the hiv and risks. People here aren’t getting it. And the number of partners risk also prevalent in certain communities here and abroad.

But that would be deemed homophobic by the left. How dare we single them out as the ones primarily driving the spread of HIV in the US. Facts notwithstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much $$$$$$ did USAID “offer” each poor man in Mozambique to do risky surgery on his genitalia?

Why not respect their cultural values, and simply model proper hygiene for both men and women?

Some religions mandate circumcision on their baby boys, but certainly not all.

Again, cultural respect is essential.

... You're against reducing transmission of HIV.

You need to explain male gay anal sex to fully drive home the hiv and risks. People here aren’t getting it. And the number of partners risk also prevalent in certain communities here and abroad.

But that would be deemed homophobic by the left. How dare we single them out as the ones primarily driving the spread of HIV in the US. Facts notwithstanding.

Instead taxpayers pay to circumcise them. With no literature about the public health dangers of an&l sex. Instead the United Sates has spent billions of dollars to treat HIV instead of address the main reason it exists and spreads. I guess it at least has lowered the number of baby r@p*s.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/29/southafrica.aids

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12627683/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much $$$$$$ did USAID “offer” each poor man in Mozambique to do risky surgery on his genitalia?

Why not respect their cultural values, and simply model proper hygiene for both men and women?

Some religions mandate circumcision on their baby boys, but certainly not all.

Again, cultural respect is essential.

... You're against reducing transmission of HIV.

You need to explain male gay anal sex to fully drive home the hiv and risks. People here aren’t getting it. And the number of partners risk also prevalent in certain communities here and abroad.

But that would be deemed homophobic by the left. How dare we single them out as the ones primarily driving the spread of HIV in the US. Facts notwithstanding.

Instead taxpayers pay to circumcise them. With no literature about the public health dangers of an&l sex. Instead the United Sates has spent billions of dollars to treat HIV instead of address the main reason it exists and spreads. I guess it at least has lowered the number of baby r@p*s.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/29/southafrica.aids

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12627683/

I thought they pushed PrEP pills as preventive instead of less risky lifestyles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
TEN MILLION DOLLARS for “volunteer male circumcision” in Mozambique.

That’s where our hard earned tax dollars had been funneled. Why???

Seriously? Take five seconds and think about this. Did you take any health or science classes at all? Its voluntary and its because it prevents the spread of STIs. Google HIV and follow how it was initially spread - then consider the number of Americans who died of HIV in the 80s and 90s and then noodle on why this is an important program and why USAID is important (hint: for the health of not only people in that country, but ours too).

To everyone pulling out random programs and pointing to them as government waste. Just do a little of your own research first.

Again you need to explain anal sex, fissure rips, bodily fluids bc apparently even DCUM doesn’t understand how high the risks are not WHY.

Here we go…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much $$$$$$ did USAID “offer” each poor man in Mozambique to do risky surgery on his genitalia?

Why not respect their cultural values, and simply model proper hygiene for both men and women?

Some religions mandate circumcision on their baby boys, but certainly not all.

Again, cultural respect is essential.

... You're against reducing transmission of HIV.

You need to explain male gay anal sex to fully drive home the hiv and risks. People here aren’t getting it. And the number of partners risk also prevalent in certain communities here and abroad.

But that would be deemed homophobic by the left. How dare we single them out as the ones primarily driving the spread of HIV in the US. Facts notwithstanding.

Instead taxpayers pay to circumcise them. With no literature about the public health dangers of an&l sex. Instead the United Sates has spent billions of dollars to treat HIV instead of address the main reason it exists and spreads. I guess it at least has lowered the number of baby r@p*s.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/29/southafrica.aids

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12627683/

I thought they pushed PrEP pills as preventive instead of less risky lifestyles.

Yep and all paid for by the United States taxpayers. Not only those pills but all the research that led to the pills under some scare tactic that all our kids could be Ryan White. Because the truth of why HIV still exists and spreads would make people far less sympathetic and the money flow stop.

[Anonymous]

Democrats “redirecting” my tax dollars for their own benefit has become evident. Accountability is coming. Illegal actions of the elite establishment must be investigated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting how you degenerates are so desperately defending the gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars…..likely because you pay no taxes.

Supposedly the White House via President Elon Musk is spreading information on "bad projects" funded by USAID. here's a list they gave and MY response on each project. Clearly, they want to use divisive language to freak out the Republican base....
— $7.9 million to teach Sri Lankan journalists how to avoid “binary-gendered language”
- this is probably a journalism project and the avoiding the binary language was probably ONE exercise in ONE workshop.
— $20 million for a new Sesame Street show in Iraq
yep. This is probably true. And would you NOT want kids to have a good show that teaches you to be kind, neighborly and socially conscious??
— $4.5+ million to “combat disinformation” in Kazakhstan
Yep - and since Republicans LOVE disinformation, I can see why they’d hate this.
— $1.5 million for “art for inclusion of people with disabilities”
Yep. Because people with disabilities matter and SHOULD be included.
— $2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala
- Nope. USAID does not pay for surgery or sex changes. That’s not an allowable cost. They MIGHT have paid for activism for people to understand and accept trans people - again, something Republicans seem obsessed with… for some reason.
— $6 million to “transform digital spaces to reflect feminist democratic principles”
- Yep. Because inclusion of women in the democratic process is a Democratic ideal. Understand that Republicans don’t want women in politics from this comment.
— $2.1 million to help the BBC “value the diversity of Libyan society”
- Sure - perhaps this was ONE activity. Diversity means a lot of things - I am guessing this means understanding the differences between tribes, the difference between Libyan Christians and Muslims, and have content to support them. Given Libya is coming out from under a brutal dictator, you can see why helping a society be coherent and work together would be good to keep from radicalizing individuals….
— $10 million worth of USAID-funded meals, which went to an al Qaeda-linked terrorgroup
- I doubt that. EVERY project, participant and partner is checked against several databases - OFAC and the UN lists to ensure NO money (if possible) goes to those linked to terrorism. I am guessing that this was a $10m food aid project, designed to help fight extremism by giving people food so they don’t starve AND to keep them from going to radical madrasas to get fed,,,, and radicalized.
— $25 million for Deloitte to promote “green transportation” in the country of Georgia
- Yep. Probably a big project on reducing carbon emissions. Republicans seem to hate the idea of a cleaner environment and a cleaner planet for some reason. Maybe OIL MONEY that pays them?
— $2.5 million to promote “inclusion” in Vietnam
- Yep. From this I understand the word that freaks out Republicans is ‘inclusion’ because they would like to divide and exclude people - especially women, people with disabilities and minorities.
— $16.8 million for a SEPARATE “inclusion” group in Vietnam
Yep - Same as the prior response.
— ~$5 million to EcoHealth Alliance, one of the key NGOs funding bat virus research at the Wuhan lab
Probably. But given that Trump shut down this type of funding and oversight in China when he took office the LAST TIME, would you NOT want to fund groups that know what they are doing to keep something like Covid from happening again?
— $20 million for a group related to a key player in the Russiagate impeachment hoax
- Again - this is political and revenge commentary. They don’t mention the group or the activity just that it was a group Trump didn’t like.
— $1.1 million to an Armenian “LGBT group”
- Yep. Probably to help with advocacy. Republicans hate gay people, so this makes sense they’d not want this tiny amount to go for that.
— $1.2 million to help the African Methodist Episcopal Church Service and Development Agency in Washington, D.C., build “a state-of-the-art 440 seat auditorium”
- I am 100% sure this was not to pay for this in DC. USAID funds don’t pay for US-based construction. Also, I take away from this the Republicans are unhappy that this funded a Black Church for something because they don’t like minorities.
— $1.5 million to promote “LGBT advocacy” in Jamaica
- Yep. Same comment as above on the other projects they don’t like. Republicans hate gay people.
— $2 million to promote “LGBT equality through entrepreneurship” in Latin America
- same as above. If you don’t want to promote livelihoods in Central America to stem the flow of migrants by creating a better life, then understand from this that Republicans in particular hate gay people.
— $500K to solve sectarian violence in Israel (just ten days before the Hamas October 7 attack)
- No one can predict when an attack will come from anyone. This is a VERY complicated situation in the Middle East… what part of trying to stop violence is bad for Republicans?
— $2.3 million for “artisanal and small scale gold mining” in the Amazon
- Yep. Why is this bad? Do Republicans hate entrepreneurship that much?
— $3.9 million for “LGBT causes” in the western Balkans
- Yep. Republicans hate gay people.
— $5.5 million for LGBT activism in Uganda
- given Christians have gone to Uganda for years to create a VERY unsafe environment and even laws against being gay, I can see why a “Christian Nationalist” government/Republicans would not want that to stop.
— $6 million for advancing LGBT issues in “priority countries around the world”
- Yep. Republicans hate gay people.
— $6.3 million for men who have s*x with men in South Africa
- This would be a PEPFAR project designed to help those men, who exist, to access HIV drugs. Or to help them understand better sexual options to keep from spreading HIV. Again, Republicans hate gay people.
— $8.3 million for “USAID Education: Equity and Inclusion”

Yep. Because Republicans hate minorities and women.

I reject your ridiculous “responses,” as well as your false and ridiculous conclusion.

On their face, these programs are wasteful, unnecessary, and hurtful to taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
TEN MILLION DOLLARS for “volunteer male circumcision” in Mozambique.

That’s where our hard earned tax dollars had been funneled. Why???

Because it helps prevent the spread of HIV

Want to know what prevents the spread of HIV almost 100% - not having male on make sex. We aren’t allowed to say this out loud, but it is true.

You are "not allowed to say this out loud," because it is stupid and factually untrue. You are embarrassing yourself. Please educate yourself on HIV.
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/about-hiv-and-aids/how-is-hiv-transmitted

I cannot even believe there are Americans this ignorant about HIV/AIDS in this day and age. HIV spreads by blood, semen, rectal or vaginal fluids and breast milk. 52% of all HIV cases globally are women - 18.2 million women. So, stopping male on male sex will not 100% stop the AIDS epidemic.

In the US, 22% of all new HIV infections are among people who report heterosexual contact (15% women, 7% men). 7% of new infections are among people who inject drugs.

Circumcision of men decreases HIV transmission rates by about 50%, because the foreskin has cells that are more vulnerable to HIV infection

Read more here https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127372/

Helping slow the spread of HIV outside the US is important for many reasons, but generally the biggest one is that HIV infection leads to increased treatment costs (drugs that reduce HIV viral load as well as treatment of AIDS related illnesses) and decreases the productive value of humans (productive value means they work less, earn less and pay fewer taxes). USAID and the USG broadly both at home and abroad sees how it is less costly to prevent or reduce disease than to suffer the consequences of increased spread.

DOGE is focused on line item reductions and doesn't take the time (or have the sense, frankly) to investigate why these investments are made.

It is not some woke group of USAID staffers that came up with a crazy corrupt way to use USG funds. HIV/AIDS prevention is a global effort coordinate among many countries via national governments, international organizations and NGOs, backed by a lot of scientific trials.

You could figure any of this out if you googled and read a range of reliable sources. 15 minutes is all it would take.

Sorry it is 82% of cases. Women get HIV because - you guessed it - the men they have sex with had male on male sexual contact.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7138a1.htm#:~:text=The%20most%20common%20transmission%20category,MMSC%20and%20injection%20drug%20use.

It is absolutely a male on male sexual contact disease that would be almost eradicated if there was no male on male sexual contact. So no, I do not want to pay for Mozambique men to circumcise themselves to avoid transmission of HIV because they choose to have unprotected male on male sexual contact.

Let me guess....you have a "final solution" on how to eradicate male-on-male sex?

Wimp.

Yes. Consequences. And it costs us nothing.

[Anonymous]

I understand that USPS has entered the chat? I just want to say that I as a small scale business person rely heavily on the comprehensive services of the USPS as do many others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
TEN MILLION DOLLARS for “volunteer male circumcision” in Mozambique.

That’s where our hard earned tax dollars had been funneled. Why???

Because it helps prevent the spread of HIV

Want to know what prevents the spread of HIV almost 100% - not having male on make sex. We aren’t allowed to say this out loud, but it is true.

You are "not allowed to say this out loud," because it is stupid and factually untrue. You are embarrassing yourself. Please educate yourself on HIV.
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/about-hiv-and-aids/how-is-hiv-transmitted

I cannot even believe there are Americans this ignorant about HIV/AIDS in this day and age. HIV spreads by blood, semen, rectal or vaginal fluids and breast milk. 52% of all HIV cases globally are women - 18.2 million women. So, stopping male on male sex will not 100% stop the AIDS epidemic.

In the US, 22% of all new HIV infections are among people who report heterosexual contact (15% women, 7% men). 7% of new infections are among people who inject drugs.

Circumcision of men decreases HIV transmission rates by about 50%, because the foreskin has cells that are more vulnerable to HIV infection

Read more here https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127372/

Helping slow the spread of HIV outside the US is important for many reasons, but generally the biggest one is that HIV infection leads to increased treatment costs (drugs that reduce HIV viral load as well as treatment of AIDS related illnesses) and decreases the productive value of humans (productive value means they work less, earn less and pay fewer taxes). USAID and the USG broadly both at home and abroad sees how it is less costly to prevent or reduce disease than to suffer the consequences of increased spread.

DOGE is focused on line item reductions and doesn't take the time (or have the sense, frankly) to investigate why these investments are made.

It is not some woke group of USAID staffers that came up with a crazy corrupt way to use USG funds. HIV/AIDS prevention is a global effort coordinate among many countries via national governments, international organizations and NGOs, backed by a lot of scientific trials.

You could figure any of this out if you googled and read a range of reliable sources. 15 minutes is all it would take.

Sorry it is 82% of cases. Women get HIV because - you guessed it - the men they have sex with had male on male sexual contact.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7138a1.htm#:~:text=The%20most%20common%20transmission%20category,MMSC%20and%20injection%20drug%20use.

It is absolutely a male on male sexual contact disease that would be almost eradicated if there was no male on male sexual contact. So no, I do not want to pay for Mozambique men to circumcise themselves to avoid transmission of HIV because they choose to have unprotected male on male sexual contact.

You are misquoting your source which is about large urban clusters. You quote a sub-conclusion based on those select groups, and you conflate IV drug use transmission with MSM transmission. The article opens with this quote -- "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 68% of new HIV diagnoses in the United States in 2020"

Yes, that is more than half of transmission but it is not all. Women do get HIV from men but those men do not always get it from gay men, and women also get HIV from IV drug use.

You say this disease "would be almost eradicated if there was no male on male sexual contact". This isn't correct. Even if you could magically stop all male/male sexual contact, you would still have male/female transmission and IV drug use transmission. In many cases, in less developed countries, in addition to those methods of transmission, there has been medical needle use transmission because medical professionals in poor/less developed countries sometimes have to reuse needles.

Additionally, how would you even propose stopping "male on male sexual contact". Are you going to arrest millions of people? Are you going to break into bedrooms? Are you just going to shame all gay men? Are you going to let them die and hope that "suffering the consequences" of their behavior will get them to stop? What is your idea -- that if gay men all die, HIV will end?

Every good health official knows that it is not possible to end male on male sexual contact. Policies like those I suggested in the previous paragraph just drive this behavior underground, making it harder to educate people about AIDS transmission, harder to get them into treatment (which can greatly decrease transmission) and harder to get them to voluntarily engage in safe sex practices like condoms and circumcision. And, it costs the government & health systems (and therefore taxpayers) far more to address late stage treatment and disease burden on the GDP. That is why health programs do not stigmatize MSM sex. It's not actually productive to reducing HIV transmission.