Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

For one when Disney tries to change direction, innocent children don't die because they no longer have access to essential medicines and clean water and people don't step on landmines that were in the process of being removed. That's what will happen without USAID support. But I don't I don't know how to explain to someone why they should care about other people. That's a failure of your own values.

Anonymous wrote:In simplistic terms, yes the US should be spending that money at home rather than giving money away to poorer countries. But as others have mentioned above, it strengthens the country’s soft power, creates goodwill, or if you’re cynical, buys influence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

For one when Disney tries to change direction, innocent children don't die because they no longer have access to essential medicines and clean water and people don't step on landmines that were in the process of being removed. That's what will happen without USAID support. But I don't I don't know how to explain to someone why they should care about other people. That's a failure of your own values.

Why should the US bankroll other countries' water purification, landmine removal, medication production? They can do that themselves. We can't fund the whole world.

Learn how to read. The US is not bankrolling other country's medication production. It does bankroll lifesaving medication and vaccines for children, and you should want us to, even if you have no care for others, because contagious diseases don't recognize borders and can infect you too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

For one when Disney tries to change direction, innocent children don't die because they no longer have access to essential medicines and clean water and people don't step on landmines that were in the process of being removed. That's what will happen without USAID support. But I don't I don't know how to explain to someone why they should care about other people. That's a failure of your own values.

Why should the US bankroll other countries' water purification, landmine removal, medication production? They can do that themselves. We can't fund the whole world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

For one when Disney tries to change direction, innocent children don't die because they no longer have access to essential medicines and clean water and people don't step on landmines that were in the process of being removed. That's what will happen without USAID support. But I don't I don't know how to explain to someone why they should care about other people. That's a failure of your own values.

Why should the US bankroll other countries' water purification, landmine removal, medication production? They can do that themselves. We can't fund the whole world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

For one when Disney tries to change direction, innocent children don't die because they no longer have access to essential medicines and clean water and people don't step on landmines that were in the process of being removed. That's what will happen without USAID support. But I don't I don't know how to explain to someone why they should care about other people. That's a failure of your own values.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

Congress appropriated these funds - it’s not within the Executive’s power not to disburse them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

For one when Disney tries to change direction, innocent children don't die because they no longer have access to essential medicines and clean water and people don't step on landmines that were in the process of being removed. That's what will happen without USAID support. But I don't I don't know how to explain to someone why they should care about other people. That's a failure of your own values.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Department of State grant (2024)

Amount: $22,992

Recipient: Prague Pride Z.S.

Purpose: The purpose of this grant is to organize the Prague pride parade. This March is part of the Celebration and support of the LGBT+ community in Czechia.

Country: Czechia

How does this protect Americans?

Because societies that are more open and accepting of cultural minorities (of any variety) tend to be less hostile and less likely to go to war.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Department of State grant (2024)

Amount: $22,992

Recipient: Prague Pride Z.S.

Purpose: The purpose of this grant is to organize the Prague pride parade. This March is part of the Celebration and support of the LGBT+ community in Czechia.

Country: Czechia

How does this protect Americans?

Because societies that are more open and accepting of cultural minorities (of any variety) tend to be less hostile and less likely to go to war.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

To creat a more stable, safe world (terrorism doesn’t breed rampantly in open societies where people have food security, healthcare, education, and jobs). To create free markets for American goods. To help people suffering from natural disasters, war, disease, and famine. We are a very interconnected world. Some see usaid’s work as a moral imperative to help the less fortunate, but there are absolutely lots of concrete benefits for Americans that go beyond helping the less fortunate.

Usaid’s work, and the work of other agencies who do foreign assistance, has had consistent support by both democratic and republican administrations. There are different opinions on what should be prioritized, but that the work should be done has been a shared value. Pepfar (president’s emergency plains for AIDS relief) was created under George W. Bush.

It’s high time to pull all of this money out of foreign countries and invest it in our own.

It is an investment in our own country. The same way things like public education, emergency reaponders, and police in our communities benefit the entire community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.