7 people are dying each and every minute because of Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps other countries or these liberal billionaires should put up the money to replace USAID. Failure to do so means they are complicit in the death of millions.
Pay $10000, or someone dies.

Just like Harvard "research" nobody in their right mind would spend money from their actual bank account for such a sloppy, slovenly and somewhat stinky endeavor.

IKR? I laughed my azz off when I saw they were trying to get money from private companies. These businesses are not going to sink billions into Harvard “overhead” with zero accountability and oversight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More than 10,000 people have died because of Trump since this thread was started.


Trump has literally murdered 10,000+ people since yesterday.

And none of you are doing anything.

OK, what do you propose we do?
Here's' what I do:
1) I call my US Senators and representative every week to complain. They reply. They wave their arms around and introduce amendments and bills that get shot down by the majority. But I keep complaining because if I stop, they will stop.
2) I go to protests when I can. It's not much, but it's what I can do.
3) I'm changing careers. I'm going to spend the rest of my life fighting fascism.
4) I tell every one I know about what's happening. Some are starting to listen. Revolution starts at a grass roots level.
I don't have time to do more, but when I figure out what else I can do, I will do it.
I am not going to lose my country without a fight, and more than half of the citizens of this country agree with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than 10,000 people have died because of Trump since this thread was started.


Trump has literally murdered 10,000+ people since yesterday.

And none of you are doing anything.

OK, what do you propose we do?
Here's' what I do:
1) I call my US Senators and representative every week to complain. They reply. They wave their arms around and introduce amendments and bills that get shot down by the majority. But I keep complaining because if I stop, they will stop.
2) I go to protests when I can. It's not much, but it's what I can do.
3) I'm changing careers. I'm going to spend the rest of my life fighting fascism.
4) I tell every one I know about what's happening. Some are starting to listen. Revolution starts at a grass roots level.
I don't have time to do more, but when I figure out what else I can do, I will do it.
I am not going to lose my country without a fight, and more than half of the citizens of this country agree with me.

You’re not fighting fascism

You’re fighting your neighbor, because they didn’t vote the way you wanted them to.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile China has been massively investing in Africa in order to get access to their resources. They build transportation so it benefits exports and imports for them. They are building multi-billion dollars presidential palaces and parliamentary buildings all over Africa.

Really OP, look at the extent of China’s influence in Africa. It’s mind boggling. We’ve been asleep at the wheel.

The largest recipient of USAID has been Ethiopia. We have been giving Ethiopian a billion dollars in aid a year. So we provide food aid so China can take advantage. Currently, there are about 400 Chinese construction and manufacturing projects in Ethiopia, valued at over $4 billion. Much of Ethiopia’s air, road and rail infrastructure is financed and built by the Chinese.

[Anonymous]

I'm with those who argue that foreign countries should take care of their own people without looking to the U.S. to do it for them. Countries which need aid typically have ineffective and inefficient economies, corrupt governments, and policies which fail to deter high birthrates which produce unsupportable populations. Not incidentally, those are often the countries which are the source of much illegal immigration into the U.S. and away from their countries of birth.

As noted earlier, generous temporary disaster assistance is one thing, perpetual financial support to bypass a country's incompetence and its own obligations to its own people is quite another. History shows that providing such external support never results in countries graduating to self-sufficiency, they just subsist indefinitely on charity provided by the U.S., paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Even non-countries like Gaza have followed the same course of sustained poverty for decades despite seemingly endless foreign financial aid. There is no foreseeable point in time where external aid won't be required because nothing is prompting the development of a functional civil society, same as has been the case in numerous sub-Saharan African and other nations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm with those who argue that foreign countries should take care of their own people without looking to the U.S. to do it for them. Countries which need aid typically have ineffective and inefficient economies, corrupt governments, and policies which fail to deter high birthrates which produce unsupportable populations. Not incidentally, those are often the countries which are the source of much illegal immigration into the U.S. and away from their countries of birth.

As noted earlier, generous temporary disaster assistance is one thing, perpetual financial support to bypass a country's incompetence and its own obligations to its own people is quite another. History shows that providing such external support never results in countries graduating to self-sufficiency, they just subsist indefinitely on charity provided by the U.S., paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Even non-countries like Gaza have followed the same course of sustained poverty for decades despite seemingly endless foreign financial aid. There is no foreseeable point in time where external aid won't be required because nothing is prompting the development of a functional civil society, same as has been the case in numerous sub-Saharan African and other nations.

You may be interested to know that the US is not even in the top 10 countries that give the most humanitarian aid to other countries as a percentage of their GNI.

The top 20 countries providing the most humanitarian aid as a percentage of their Gross National Income (GNI), which is closely related to GDP, are primarily based on Official Development Assistance (ODA) data from the OECD for 2023. ODA includes humanitarian and development aid, and the percentage of GNI reflects a country’s aid generosity relative to its economic size. Below is the list, focusing on aid as a share of GNI, as this metric highlights proportional contributions rather than absolute amounts, which favor larger economies like the United States.

1. **Luxembourg**: 1.05% of GNI
2. **Norway**: 1.02% of GNI
3. **Sweden**: 0.99% of GNI
4. **Denmark**: 0.71% of GNI
5. **Germany**: 0.79% of GNI
6. **France**: 0.61% of GNI
7. **United Kingdom**: 0.50% of GNI
8. **Belgium**: 0.45% of GNI
9. **Japan**: 0.44% of GNI
10. **Netherlands**: 0.37% of GNI
11. **Finland**: 0.36% of GNI
12. **Switzerland**: 0.35% of GNI
13. **Italy**: 0.30% of GNI
14. **Iceland**: 0.30% of GNI
15. **Australia**: 0.29% of GNI
16. **Austria**: 0.25% of GNI
17. **United States**: 0.23% of GNI
18. **Canada**: 0.22% of GNI
19. **Ireland**: 0.20% of GNI
20. **New Zealand**: 0.18% of GNI

### Notes:
- **Data Sources**: The figures are derived from OECD data on ODA for 2023, as reported in sources like Wikipedia and Our World in Data. Some percentages are cross-referenced with posts on X for 2023, though exact figures may vary slightly due to differences in reporting or inflation adjustments.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_sovereign_state_donors)[](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/foreign-aid-given-per-capita)
- **Context**: Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark exceed the UN’s ODA target of 0.7% of GNI, reflecting strong commitment to global aid. The U.S., while the largest donor in absolute terms ($55.3 billion in 2022), ranks lower as a percentage of GNI due to its massive economy.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors)
- **Non-DAC Donors**: Countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey also contribute significant aid, but consistent GNI percentage data for non-OECD members is less..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm with those who argue that foreign countries should take care of their own people without looking to the U.S. to do it for them. Countries which need aid typically have ineffective and inefficient economies, corrupt governments, and policies which fail to deter high birthrates which produce unsupportable populations. Not incidentally, those are often the countries which are the source of much illegal immigration into the U.S. and away from their countries of birth.

As noted earlier, generous temporary disaster assistance is one thing, perpetual financial support to bypass a country's incompetence and its own obligations to its own people is quite another. History shows that providing such external support never results in countries graduating to self-sufficiency, they just subsist indefinitely on charity provided by the U.S., paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Even non-countries like Gaza have followed the same course of sustained poverty for decades despite seemingly endless foreign financial aid. There is no foreseeable point in time where external aid won't be required because nothing is prompting the development of a functional civil society, same as has been the case in numerous sub-Saharan African and other nations.

You may be interested to know that the US is not even in the top 10 countries that give the most humanitarian aid to other countries as a percentage of their GNI.

The top 20 countries providing the most humanitarian aid as a percentage of their Gross National Income (GNI), which is closely related to GDP, are primarily based on Official Development Assistance (ODA) data from the OECD for 2023. ODA includes humanitarian and development aid, and the percentage of GNI reflects a country’s aid generosity relative to its economic size. Below is the list, focusing on aid as a share of GNI, as this metric highlights proportional contributions rather than absolute amounts, which favor larger economies like the United States.

1. **Luxembourg**: 1.05% of GNI
2. **Norway**: 1.02% of GNI
3. **Sweden**: 0.99% of GNI
4. **Denmark**: 0.71% of GNI
5. **Germany**: 0.79% of GNI
6. **France**: 0.61% of GNI
7. **United Kingdom**: 0.50% of GNI
8. **Belgium**: 0.45% of GNI
9. **Japan**: 0.44% of GNI
10. **Netherlands**: 0.37% of GNI
11. **Finland**: 0.36% of GNI
12. **Switzerland**: 0.35% of GNI
13. **Italy**: 0.30% of GNI
14. **Iceland**: 0.30% of GNI
15. **Australia**: 0.29% of GNI
16. **Austria**: 0.25% of GNI
17. **United States**: 0.23% of GNI
18. **Canada**: 0.22% of GNI
19. **Ireland**: 0.20% of GNI
20. **New Zealand**: 0.18% of GNI

### Notes:
- **Data Sources**: The figures are derived from OECD data on ODA for 2023, as reported in sources like Wikipedia and Our World in Data. Some percentages are cross-referenced with posts on X for 2023, though exact figures may vary slightly due to differences in reporting or inflation adjustments.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_sovereign_state_donors)[](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/foreign-aid-given-per-capita)
- **Context**: Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark exceed the UN’s ODA target of 0.7% of GNI, reflecting strong commitment to global aid. The U.S., while the largest donor in absolute terms ($55.3 billion in 2022), ranks lower as a percentage of GNI due to its massive economy.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors)
- **Non-DAC Donors**: Countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey also contribute significant aid, but consistent GNI percentage data for non-OECD members is less..

Another way to look at this is to see what percentage of the US’s GDP or GNI goes towards humanitarian aid in other countries.

In 2023, about 0.23% of U.S. GNI (roughly equivalent to GDP) went to Official Development Assistance, with humanitarian aid estimated at 0.05% to 0.07% of GNI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm with those who argue that foreign countries should take care of their own people without looking to the U.S. to do it for them. Countries which need aid typically have ineffective and inefficient economies, corrupt governments, and policies which fail to deter high birthrates which produce unsupportable populations. Not incidentally, those are often the countries which are the source of much illegal immigration into the U.S. and away from their countries of birth.

As noted earlier, generous temporary disaster assistance is one thing, perpetual financial support to bypass a country's incompetence and its own obligations to its own people is quite another. History shows that providing such external support never results in countries graduating to self-sufficiency, they just subsist indefinitely on charity provided by the U.S., paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Even non-countries like Gaza have followed the same course of sustained poverty for decades despite seemingly endless foreign financial aid. There is no foreseeable point in time where external aid won't be required because nothing is prompting the development of a functional civil society, same as has been the case in numerous sub-Saharan African and other nations.

You may be interested to know that the US is not even in the top 10 countries that give the most humanitarian aid to other countries as a percentage of their GNI.

The top 20 countries providing the most humanitarian aid as a percentage of their Gross National Income (GNI), which is closely related to GDP, are primarily based on Official Development Assistance (ODA) data from the OECD for 2023. ODA includes humanitarian and development aid, and the percentage of GNI reflects a country’s aid generosity relative to its economic size. Below is the list, focusing on aid as a share of GNI, as this metric highlights proportional contributions rather than absolute amounts, which favor larger economies like the United States.

1. **Luxembourg**: 1.05% of GNI
2. **Norway**: 1.02% of GNI
3. **Sweden**: 0.99% of GNI
4. **Denmark**: 0.71% of GNI
5. **Germany**: 0.79% of GNI
6. **France**: 0.61% of GNI
7. **United Kingdom**: 0.50% of GNI
8. **Belgium**: 0.45% of GNI
9. **Japan**: 0.44% of GNI
10. **Netherlands**: 0.37% of GNI
11. **Finland**: 0.36% of GNI
12. **Switzerland**: 0.35% of GNI
13. **Italy**: 0.30% of GNI
14. **Iceland**: 0.30% of GNI
15. **Australia**: 0.29% of GNI
16. **Austria**: 0.25% of GNI
17. **United States**: 0.23% of GNI
18. **Canada**: 0.22% of GNI
19. **Ireland**: 0.20% of GNI
20. **New Zealand**: 0.18% of GNI

### Notes:
- **Data Sources**: The figures are derived from OECD data on ODA for 2023, as reported in sources like Wikipedia and Our World in Data. Some percentages are cross-referenced with posts on X for 2023, though exact figures may vary slightly due to differences in reporting or inflation adjustments.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_sovereign_state_donors)[](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/foreign-aid-given-per-capita)
- **Context**: Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark exceed the UN’s ODA target of 0.7% of GNI, reflecting strong commitment to global aid. The U.S., while the largest donor in absolute terms ($55.3 billion in 2022), ranks lower as a percentage of GNI due to its massive economy.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors)
- **Non-DAC Donors**: Countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey also contribute significant aid, but consistent GNI percentage data for non-OECD members is less..

Another way to look at this is to see what percentage of the US’s GDP or GNI goes towards humanitarian aid in other countries.

In 2023, about 0.23% of U.S. GNI (roughly equivalent to GDP) went to Official Development Assistance, with humanitarian aid estimated at 0.05% to 0.07% of GNI.

What I hear you saying is that the U.S. really doesn’t give that much. So it won’t be missed and all the other nations in your list will fill our tiny void.

[Anonymous]

I was told that America was losing to China because she would pick up the slack and replace the USAID assistance.

So how are people dying?

[Anonymous]

Why haven't folks acknowledged a significant contribution to the problems in African countries where USAID operated? CORRUPTION.


https://www.transparency.org/en/gcb/africa/africa-9th-edition