Merged USAID: is it really a bunch of crazy leftists? / Trump Was Absolutely Right to Shut Down USAID

[Donal]

You have to cut spending if you want to cut the debt.

You can increase revenues. Also, an arbitrary hack-n-slash by people who have no idea what they are doing is going to cost far more in the long run. They aren't cutting expenses. So far, they are just declaring they won't pay the bills we've already run up. Check with your credit card company how that strategy works.

You think that costs trillions? Yeah, no, it doesn't.

You think USAID costs trillions? You think Lord Hairplugs or the Orange Weakling will be able to slash a trillion dollars from government spending without cutting into Medicaid and Medicare payouts?

 

[Ziggurat]

You can increase revenues.

Not enough.

Also, an arbitrary hack-n-slash by people who have no idea what they are doing is going to cost far more in the long run.

Not only have you not demonstrated this will be the case here, it's also the standard refrain used to oppose any funding cuts. And so the Rubicon is never crossed, and funding never decreases.

If this is what it takes to start real cuts, then so be it. Democrats offered no alternative.

They aren't cutting expenses. So far, they are just declaring they won't pay the bills we've already run up.

Grants aren't bills.

You think USAID costs trillions?

No, I don't. I didn't say it does, I didn't suggest it does. But plague311 claimed that deporting illegal aliens costs trillions. Do you think he's correct?

You think Lord Hairplugs or the Orange Weakling will be able to slash a trillion dollars from government spending without cutting into Medicaid and Medicare payouts?

Probably not.

Do you think there's no fat to be trimmed, no fraud to be found, in either of those programs?

 

[Ziggurat]

You don't think it'll cost that much? How much do you think it'll cost? There's no housing for 11+ million people to be detained after being rounded up.

That's not how deportations are going to work. We aren't going to round them all up, house them all, and then slowly ship them out. You don't need to house 11 million people in order to deport 11 million people. It doesn't happen all at once.

Since you can't just ask people if they're here illegally and then kick them out,

If they are here illegally, you pretty much can.

 

[Darat]

There is no evidence that fat is being cut, that fruad is being found.

 

[Donal]

Calculations and estimates in this thread are all laffably low because they don't include graft, embezzlement, extortion, and theft, the true motivators of guys like Donnie Duce, Eloi Mush, and their numerous helots.


Remember: The Fuehrer is the law! So grab as far as your arms will reach, little fuehrers, and then use a rake.

The first thing they did was go after all the oversight and transparency

 

[The Great Zaganza]

the US DOES NOT have to reduce its debt. On the contrary, institutional investors would suffer from a restriction of the money supply.
If you want to reassure the markets, use the money for INVESTMENT in education and infrastructure, and not to pay billionaires more or wage forever wars or to stop the essential labor force from coming in.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no evidence that fat is being cut, that fruad is being found.

Sure, sure. LGBTQ+ comics in Peru aren't fat. They're absolutely critical to American national security.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

There is no evidence that fat is being cut, that fruad is being found.

They care nothing about evidence, they just say whatever their cult leaders tell them to.

 

[Donal]

Not enough.

Says you

Not only have you not demonstrated this will be the case here,

What is the methodology? Why isn't he bringing accountants? Why was all the oversight and transparency taken away? I don't have to prove musk and his high school computer club aren't qualified. They have to prove they are.

it's also the standard refrain used to oppose any funding cuts.

"You should know what you are doing" is a pretty good refrain.

And so the Rubicon is never crossed, and funding never decreases.

Funding does get cut.

If this is what it takes to start real cuts, then so be it.

No, it isn't. Why are cuts the be all end all? Trump had 2 years of Republican control in the House and Senate and couldn't get it done through legislation. He has the same support again for at least 2 years and doesn't even try it.

Democrats offered no alternative.

Other than actual oversight by people who know what they are talking about. But that is slow and doesn't make right-wingers feel like manly men.

Grants aren't bills.

They are when they have been committed. when the work they were set to pay for has already started.

No, I don't. I didn't say it does, I didn't suggest it does. But plague311 claimed that deporting illegal aliens costs trillions. Do you think he's correct?

Would the actions to deport them run up to $1 trillion? Probably not. But, what would the following economic impact be? Again, for right-wingers, everything happens in a vacuum. There are no long term consequences. No cascade effect. "Give me what I want, give it to me now, make a big spectacle of it."

Probably not.

Do you think there's no fat to be trimmed, no fraud to be found, in either of those programs?

Maybe. But not enough to justify this action.

 

[Donal]

Sure, sure. LGBTQ+ comics in Peru aren't fat. They're absolutely critical to American national security.

Do you accept the idea that something that you don't understand or makes you uncomfortable may still be valuable on a larger scale?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Sure, sure. LGBTQ+ comics in Peru aren't fat. They're absolutely critical to American national security.

they are, if you think about the next 50 years instead of just until the midterms.

 

[Ziggurat]

the US DOES NOT have to reduce its debt. On the contrary, institutional investors would suffer from a restriction of the money supply.

Wait... what? Why would a reduction in borrowing restrict the money supply? How exactly do you think that works?

 

[Donal]

How do you think it works?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Forbes reporter Conor Murray looked into claims about various forms of malfeasance made by or amplified by Mr. Musk and others on X, as well as a claim made by a member of the House of Representatives. According to him they are baseless or false. He wrote in part, "There’s no evidence to suggest USAID has engaged in money laundering." I wish that he had said a bit more about Samantha Power, but he did write, "Over four years, some of Power’s assets rose in value, but many of them were mutual funds that track broad stock market indexes—and there isn’t any evidence that growth had anything to do with her job at USAID."

Vilifying one's perceived enemies using deceptive arguments is not my idea of making government more efficient. YMMV.

 

[Ziggurat]

Other than actual oversight by people who know what they are talking about.

The Democrats didn't offer that. Not under Obama, and not under Biden. How do I know? Because they didn't do it.

Would the actions to deport them run up to $1 trillion? Probably not. But, what would the following economic impact be? Again, for right-wingers, everything happens in a vacuum. There are no long term consequences. No cascade effect. "Give me what I want, give it to me now, make a big spectacle of it."

And what of the cascade effects of illegal immigration? Funny how you don't seem to want to pay any attention to those. No, what Democrats do never has any unintended consequences.

Do not look at the man behind the curtain.

 

[Ziggurat]

How do you think it works?

I think national debt is a drag on the economy, and reducing that debt reduces that drag.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Wait... what? Why would a reduction in borrowing restrict the money supply? How exactly do you think that works?

money is government debt - by definition.
This is very, very basic.

 

[Ziggurat]

money is government debt - by definition.
This is very, very basic.

And very, very wrong.

When government borrows money, they pull that money out of the economy. Government borrowing doesn't create money. Governments in debt often also print a bunch of money to pay back their debt, and that printing can expand the money supply, but that also drives inflation (not desirable), and it's not the same thing as borrowing even if it often coincides. The idea that reducing our debt would restrict the money supply is just complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bonkers. No, it wouldn't.

 

[Donal]

The Democrats didn't offer that. Not under Obama, and not under Biden. How do I know? Because they didn't do it.

Because they saw it as investing? They realize a nation that prints the reserve currency of the world works differently than your home budget?

And what of the cascade effects of illegal immigration? Funny how you don't seem to want to pay any attention to those. No, what Democrats do never has any unintended consequences.

Do not look at the man behind the curtain.

You know this stuff is studied, right? I know the truck loads of studies and documentation have been presented to you, but you choose to ignore it all.

 

[Donal]

I think national debt is a drag on the economy, and reducing that debt reduces that drag.

that didn't answer the question.