Closing USAID

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just crazy. Why is congress even bothering with appropriations when Trump can just decide later on what gets paid for.

USAID is under the executive branch. President hs right to review spending and control departments and agencies. That's just the way it is. Some Article 3 judge isn't going to get in the way of a Unitary Executive. Get used to that fact.

Unitary Executive basically means that congress and the courts are useless. Why would you support this idea? Checks and balances prevent abuses of power regardless of the political leanings of a president. Do you really want someone like AOC to become president with Unitary Executive branch power? If you don't then the current president should not have this power either. This crackpot legal theory is incredibly dangerous and no one should have absolute control over the government.

The idea of a Unitary Executive is fundamentally un-American and goes against everything our Founding Fathers put into place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just crazy. Why is congress even bothering with appropriations when Trump can just decide later on what gets paid for.

USAID is under the executive branch. President hs right to review spending and control departments and agencies. That's just the way it is. Some Article 3 judge isn't going to get in the way of a Unitary Executive. Get used to that fact.

Unitary Executive basically means that congress and the courts are useless. Why would you support this idea? Checks and balances prevent abuses of power regardless of the political leanings of a president. Do you really want someone like AOC to become president with Unitary Executive branch power? If you don't then the current president should not have this power either. This crackpot legal theory is incredibly dangerous and no one should have absolute control over the government.

Unitary executive means the opposite. It means that the branches are coequal because they are vested with their respective powers.

But in the world we live in today where legislative and judicial powers exists within the executive branch, well, yeah, why can’t POTUS exercise those legislative and judicial powers via the Department of Government Efficiency?

I get it. I really do. In an ideal world Congress makes the laws, the executive executes the laws and the judicial branch does the judging. But starting with FDR we have chosen to allow the executive branch to wield quasi legislative and judicial powers.

That’s all DOGE is doing. This is a continuation of New Deal era inventions in our government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On Fox News, they said the U.S. doesn't have anything like China's Belt and Road Initiative, which is hilarious.

Uh, yes, we did.

It was called USAID.

Everyone should spend time googling China funds and then the name of another country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just crazy. Why is congress even bothering with appropriations when Trump can just decide later on what gets paid for.

USAID is under the executive branch. President hs right to review spending and control departments and agencies. That's just the way it is. Some Article 3 judge isn't going to get in the way of a Unitary Executive. Get used to that fact.

Unitary Executive basically means that congress and the courts are useless. Why would you support this idea? Checks and balances prevent abuses of power regardless of the political leanings of a president. Do you really want someone like AOC to become president with Unitary Executive branch power? If you don't then the current president should not have this power either. This crackpot legal theory is incredibly dangerous and no one should have absolute control over the government.

Unitary executive means the opposite. It means that the branches are coequal because they are vested with their respective powers.

But in the world we live in today where legislative and judicial powers exists within the executive branch, well, yeah, why can’t POTUS exercise those legislative and judicial powers via the Department of Government Efficiency?

I get it. I really do. In an ideal world Congress makes the laws, the executive executes the laws and the judicial branch does the judging. But starting with FDR we have chosen to allow the executive branch to wield quasi legislative and judicial powers.

That’s all DOGE is doing. This is a continuation of New Deal era inventions in our government.

Not sure if serious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just crazy. Why is congress even bothering with appropriations when Trump can just decide later on what gets paid for.

USAID is under the executive branch. President hs right to review spending and control departments and agencies. That's just the way it is. Some Article 3 judge isn't going to get in the way of a Unitary Executive. Get used to that fact.

Unitary Executive basically means that congress and the courts are useless. Why would you support this idea? Checks and balances prevent abuses of power regardless of the political leanings of a president. Do you really want someone like AOC to become president with Unitary Executive branch power? If you don't then the current president should not have this power either. This crackpot legal theory is incredibly dangerous and no one should have absolute control over the government.

Unitary executive means the opposite. It means that the branches are coequal because they are vested with their respective powers.

But in the world we live in today where legislative and judicial powers exists within the executive branch, well, yeah, why can’t POTUS exercise those legislative and judicial powers via the Department of Government Efficiency?

I get it. I really do. In an ideal world Congress makes the laws, the executive executes the laws and the judicial branch does the judging. But starting with FDR we have chosen to allow the executive branch to wield quasi legislative and judicial powers.

That’s all DOGE is doing. This is a continuation of New Deal era inventions in our government.

Not sure if serious?

Dead serious. If we can have legislative and judicial powers residing in the executive branch (via the regulatory agencies, for example) then DOGE can also exercise legislative and judicial powers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just crazy. Why is congress even bothering with appropriations when Trump can just decide later on what gets paid for.

USAID is under the executive branch. President hs right to review spending and control departments and agencies. That's just the way it is. Some Article 3 judge isn't going to get in the way of a Unitary Executive. Get used to that fact.

Unitary Executive basically means that congress and the courts are useless. Why would you support this idea? Checks and balances prevent abuses of power regardless of the political leanings of a president. Do you really want someone like AOC to become president with Unitary Executive branch power? If you don't then the current president should not have this power either. This crackpot legal theory is incredibly dangerous and no one should have absolute control over the government.

Unitary executive means the opposite. It means that the branches are coequal because they are vested with their respective powers.

But in the world we live in today where legislative and judicial powers exists within the executive branch, well, yeah, why can’t POTUS exercise those legislative and judicial powers via the Department of Government Efficiency?

I get it. I really do. In an ideal world Congress makes the laws, the executive executes the laws and the judicial branch does the judging. But starting with FDR we have chosen to allow the executive branch to wield quasi legislative and judicial powers.

That’s all DOGE is doing. This is a continuation of New Deal era inventions in our government.

Not sure if serious?

Dead serious. If we can have legislative and judicial powers residing in the executive branch (via the regulatory agencies, for example) then DOGE can also exercise legislative and judicial powers.

Yeah, there are some very serious conservatives that I follow online who also authoritatively state nonsense like this. They ignore legislative history in favor of their own ideas and call themselves rational rather than partisan.

Once upon a time, conservative did not mean "making stuff up". That time is no more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just crazy. Why is congress even bothering with appropriations when Trump can just decide later on what gets paid for.

USAID is under the executive branch. President hs right to review spending and control departments and agencies. That's just the way it is. Some Article 3 judge isn't going to get in the way of a Unitary Executive. Get used to that fact.

Unitary Executive basically means that congress and the courts are useless. Why would you support this idea? Checks and balances prevent abuses of power regardless of the political leanings of a president. Do you really want someone like AOC to become president with Unitary Executive branch power? If you don't then the current president should not have this power either. This crackpot legal theory is incredibly dangerous and no one should have absolute control over the government.

Unitary executive means the opposite. It means that the branches are coequal because they are vested with their respective powers.

But in the world we live in today where legislative and judicial powers exists within the executive branch, well, yeah, why can’t POTUS exercise those legislative and judicial powers via the Department of Government Efficiency?

I get it. I really do. In an ideal world Congress makes the laws, the executive executes the laws and the judicial branch does the judging. But starting with FDR we have chosen to allow the executive branch to wield quasi legislative and judicial powers.

That’s all DOGE is doing. This is a continuation of New Deal era inventions in our government.

Thanks for the 6th grade level explanation and justification of what is happening and why. sadly, it is woefully misguided and lacking detailed facts and history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just crazy. Why is congress even bothering with appropriations when Trump can just decide later on what gets paid for.

USAID is under the executive branch. President hs right to review spending and control departments and agencies. That's just the way it is. Some Article 3 judge isn't going to get in the way of a Unitary Executive. Get used to that fact.

Unitary Executive basically means that congress and the courts are useless. Why would you support this idea? Checks and balances prevent abuses of power regardless of the political leanings of a president. Do you really want someone like AOC to become president with Unitary Executive branch power? If you don't then the current president should not have this power either. This crackpot legal theory is incredibly dangerous and no one should have absolute control over the government.

Unitary executive means the opposite. It means that the branches are coequal because they are vested with their respective powers.

But in the world we live in today where legislative and judicial powers exists within the executive branch, well, yeah, why can’t POTUS exercise those legislative and judicial powers via the Department of Government Efficiency?

I get it. I really do. In an ideal world Congress makes the laws, the executive executes the laws and the judicial branch does the judging. But starting with FDR we have chosen to allow the executive branch to wield quasi legislative and judicial powers.

That’s all DOGE is doing. This is a continuation of New Deal era inventions in our government.

Not sure if serious?

Dead serious. If we can have legislative and judicial powers residing in the executive branch (via the regulatory agencies, for example) then DOGE can also exercise legislative and judicial powers.

Yeah, there are some very serious conservatives that I follow online who also authoritatively state nonsense like this. They ignore legislative history in favor of their own ideas and call themselves rational rather than partisan.

Once upon a time, conservative did not mean "making stuff up". That time is no more.

I dunno. Liberals have gotten to “make up stuff” for the past 100 years. Now it is our turn. It is kind of fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saw this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/27/health/usaid-contract-terminations.html

Do we expect other countries to pick up the programs we're dropping for TB clinics and polio? I can't imagine other wealthy countries are not going to step in to take these over knowing that these diseases can impact everyone worldwide. It's terrible to imagine these protective measures could be completely abandoned.

You should start a GoFundMe!

[Anonymous]

The POTUS is already in charge of what happens abroad in diplomacy through the U.S. Ambassadors. They know what is going on in each country. They are in charge of US territory abroad and ALL US GOVERNMENT workers OVERSEAS. This is always the case and is already happening.

The command is president, Secretary of State Ambassador in each county, the all the worker bees. Fire the Ambassadors and question them too. Military is separate and their chain of command is separate. That goes President, Head of DOD, then the down to the various branches of the armed forces (Coast Guard is also considered an army force but they are like the USAID of the military community).

[Anonymous]

*armed* force/ branch of the military

(typo on device)

[Anonymous]

The military is already well established in each region across the globe.

The little American (largely religious) aid workers would get out into the rural and poor areas of each country that would have them. This is helpful to have US presence and eyes in these rural or hard-to-get-to areas. The aid is partially for judeo-christian purposes (at least once it was) but it is also just darn helpful to be there.

If you haven’t noticed, Americans look different in many developing countries. We stick out … The govt used to think for several decades more is better. For safety

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The POTUS is already in charge of what happens abroad in diplomacy through the U.S. Ambassadors. They know what is going on in each country. They are in charge of US territory abroad and ALL US GOVERNMENT workers OVERSEAS. This is always the case and is already happening.

The command is president, Secretary of State Ambassador in each county, the all the worker bees. Fire the Ambassadors and question them too. Military is separate and their chain of command is separate. That goes President, Head of DOD, then the down to the various branches of the armed forces (Coast Guard is also considered an army force but they are like the USAID of the military community).

Why, exactly, are you suggesting the firing of all US Ambassadors? I'm not following your logic.

[Anonymous]

huh? That was what they told you
but it is not independent at all.

[Anonymous]

Obviously any good organization keeps people in the dark for plausible deniability