Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am a USAID contractor. Huge project shipping aid to Africa. I think one huge flaw with the program is that 99.5% of what we buy, billions in tax dollar payments go to foreign owned companies and factories. Give the *literally* billions in purchases to companies manufacturing in the US and keep sending foreign aid. Win/win for workers here and people there.

Cite your source...oh no, you can't because you're making up garbage.

I can't cite my source because speaking from experience of what I see every single day at my job. But let's take this "$50 million in condoms for Gaza" line that's going around now. Who are the companies that taxpayers buy these condoms from? You really think even 5% are based in the US? I would bet there are 100% coming from Asia, as are many/most common pharmaceuticals that global health programs run on.

Perfect example considering that line about condoms was entirely made up 😂

It sounds like you have a line you're pushing and you really couldn't care less if it's true or not. USAID programs that buy condoms are real. They do spend more than $50 million though maybe not in Gaza. And the corporations and factories of these products are in fact all foreign. As is the case for many other drugs, especially generics. It's okay if you don't believe me.

I know there are USAID programs that buy condoms but you specifically cited the idea that we were spending $50 million on condoms in Gaza when there is zero truth to that so I am not really going to take you seriously.

Most condoms are made in Asia because that’s where the raw material comes from and it’s cheaper. If I was going to take you seriously we could discuss whether Buy America requirements make sense for foreign aid or just waste money but I’m not.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WTH! If someone can justify this stupid funding then we should be just funding the whole world because everything is somehow connected to US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am a USAID contractor. Huge project shipping aid to Africa. I think one huge flaw with the program is that 99.5% of what we buy, billions in tax dollar payments go to foreign owned companies and factories. Give the *literally* billions in purchases to companies manufacturing in the US and keep sending foreign aid. Win/win for workers here and people there.

Cite your source...oh no, you can't because you're making up garbage.

I can't cite my source because speaking from experience of what I see every single day at my job. But let's take this "$50 million in condoms for Gaza" line that's going around now. Who are the companies that taxpayers buy these condoms from? You really think even 5% are based in the US? I would bet there are 100% coming from Asia, as are many/most common pharmaceuticals that global health programs run on.

Perfect example considering that line about condoms was entirely made up 😂

It sounds like you have a line you're pushing and you really couldn't care less if it's true or not. USAID programs that buy condoms are real. They do spend more than $50 million though maybe not in Gaza. And the corporations and factories of these products are in fact all foreign. As is the case for many other drugs, especially generics. It's okay if you don't believe me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These layoffs were unfortunate of course but there is so much redundancy and bloat at the agency. It needed to be trimmed. Next up, they need to trim back all the term limited positions, including the Foreign Service limited. It's a detriment to the real Foreign Service and to the Civil Service. Over the last 4 years they have brought in hundreds of people under this mechanism, many of whom are not technical specialists in their areas.

Wake up. Term limited positions is literally what they want. That's who they'll keep, while targeting career FS and CS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am a USAID contractor. Huge project shipping aid to Africa. I think one huge flaw with the program is that 99.5% of what we buy, billions in tax dollar payments go to foreign owned companies and factories. Give the *literally* billions in purchases to companies manufacturing in the US and keep sending foreign aid. Win/win for workers here and people there.

Cite your source...oh no, you can't because you're making up garbage.

I can't cite my source because speaking from experience of what I see every single day at my job. But let's take this "$50 million in condoms for Gaza" line that's going around now. Who are the companies that taxpayers buy these condoms from? You really think even 5% are based in the US? I would bet there are 100% coming from Asia, as are many/most common pharmaceuticals that global health programs run on.

Perfect example considering that line about condoms was entirely made up 😂

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am a USAID contractor. Huge project shipping aid to Africa. I think one huge flaw with the program is that 99.5% of what we buy, billions in tax dollar payments go to foreign owned companies and factories. Give the *literally* billions in purchases to companies manufacturing in the US and keep sending foreign aid. Win/win for workers here and people there.

Cite your source...oh no, you can't because you're making up garbage.

I can't cite my source because speaking from experience of what I see every single day at my job. But let's take this "$50 million in condoms for Gaza" line that's going around now. Who are the companies that taxpayers buy these condoms from? You really think even 5% are based in the US? I would bet there are 100% coming from Asia, as are many/most common pharmaceuticals that global health programs run on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am a USAID contractor. Huge project shipping aid to Africa. I think one huge flaw with the program is that 99.5% of what we buy, billions in tax dollar payments go to foreign owned companies and factories. Give the *literally* billions in purchases to companies manufacturing in the US and keep sending foreign aid. Win/win for workers here and people there.

Cite your source...oh no, you can't because you're making up garbage.

The PBS News Hour piece above says the opposite of the bold -- it's been a major problem for years that much of the "aid" flows to US based companies for projects run by American companies and moving American goods. It would be better if more of these AIDs funds flowed to local actors and used local goods and services. But, despite vowing to get to 25% of funds going to local organizations, Samantha Power's USAID was barely able to get above 10%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am a USAID contractor. Huge project shipping aid to Africa. I think one huge flaw with the program is that 99.5% of what we buy, billions in tax dollar payments go to foreign owned companies and factories. Give the *literally* billions in purchases to companies manufacturing in the US and keep sending foreign aid. Win/win for workers here and people there.

Cite your source...oh no, you can't because you're making up garbage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am a USAID contractor. Huge project shipping aid to Africa. I think one huge flaw with the program is that 99.5% of what we buy, billions in tax dollar payments go to foreign owned companies and factories. Give the *literally* billions in purchases to companies manufacturing in the US and keep sending foreign aid. Win/win for workers here and people there.

Cite your source...oh no, you can't because you're making up garbage.

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.

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.

Why is it our problem to continue to support Africa when their own leaders are corrupt and continue to be like that? Aids are for short term, till you stand up on your own feet and not an endless source of money, year after year.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am a USAID contractor. Huge project shipping aid to Africa. I think one huge flaw with the program is that 99.5% of what we buy, billions in tax dollar payments go to foreign owned companies and factories. Give the *literally* billions in purchases to companies manufacturing in the US and keep sending foreign aid. Win/win for workers here and people there.

Anonymous wrote:These layoffs were unfortunate of course but there is so much redundancy and bloat at the agency. It needed to be trimmed. Next up, they need to trim back all the term limited positions, including the Foreign Service limited. It's a detriment to the real Foreign Service and to the Civil Service. Over the last 4 years they have brought in hundreds of people under this mechanism, many of whom are not technical specialists in their areas.