Hypothetical.
If the child of a former president was getting annual funding for USAID since the Obama administration for providing one meal per day to children in Africa, India, and Bangladesh, at a cost of $1,410 per meal, should that hypothetical funding be reallocated to another person/organization that could feed the same number of children for say $10/meal? Should the federal government audit this person/charity, or simply pull funding?
Would it make any difference if the person in question had a hypothetical net worth (with spouse) of almost $200,000,000?
Personally, if someone with a net worth of almost $200,000,000 was receiving millions yearly to do so little "charity", I'd cut the cord immediately. There's no way private donors would support something this inefficient, but the feds just keep handing out cash.
29 comments:
1. Almost certainly not a real world reality.
2. Almost certainly stupidly false gossip.
3. UNTIL you deal with the overt corruption/plank in the eye of the vulgarly corrupt head of the GOP, conservatives have no credibility to talk about corruption. None.
Dan
Of course, no children of former presidents (not even the corrupt family of the current corrupt billionaire president) are worth $200 million. Perhaps you're talking about the US Military, metaphorically? That is, of course, the single largest source of wasted gov't money/corruption/gov't inefficiencies/over-expenditures.
You tell me.
Would you call this "hypothetical" "fraud"? I'm told they haven't found any. I guess payments going to contracts which are long expired are hypotheticals, too, as are payments to people 150 years old.
"f the child of a former president was getting annual funding for USAID since the Obama administration for providing one meal per day to children in Africa, India, and Bangladesh, at a cost of $1,410 per meal, should that hypothetical funding be reallocated to another person/organization that could feed the same number of children for say $10/meal? Should the federal government audit this person/charity, or simply pull funding?"
Instead of nonsense hypothetical, why not deal with reality?
If the US had already promised money to programs aiding desperately poor and threatened people and there was food or medicine ready to be delivered, and a few billionaires randomly cut off/put on hold the funding for those supplies, should that food be left to rot offshore on a boat/should those medical supplies be withheld and endanger people's lives OR should those billionaires go to hell for an eternity?
I know what Jesus has already said but I'm curious about which side you'd choose? The billionaires or the dying and oppressed poor?
Dan
1. For someone who frequently hides behind the excuse of hypotheticals, you don't seem to understand the definition of the word.
2. This is quite the claim based on absolutely nothing.
3. What an absurd double standard. Y'all ignored corruption from both the Cilntons and the Bidens, yet somehow think you have any standing to complain about corruption.
But thanks for not answering the questions.
Since you won't answer the questions, or provide proof of your outlandish claims, I fail to see the point of your comments.
Hypothetically, let's say that this child of a former president had an individual net worth of $70,000,000 and their spouse had an individual net worth of $45,000,000, and their projected inheritance was north of $50,000,000? Because obviously we should be funding $1,400 meals for children with someone who's only (individually) worth $70,000,000, right?
I don't think so, without more information. I think it's more about USAID failing to vet the "charities" they shovel money to, or to audit the programs they fund.
Interesting, instead of simply answering one of the questions asked in the original post, Dan attacks the concept of using a hypothetical and asking questions about that hypothetical. He then attempts to change the subject. He them attempts to misuse the words of Jesus, all in order to avoid answering a few simple questions.
It's interesting that Dan's idea of charity is to give away food and medicine that is so close to it's expiration date that it will "rot" if left on "ships" for a short period of time. It's almost like he believes this to be happening, yet can't or won't prove his claims.
Answering questions must be very scary.
Ridiculous hypotheticals are ridiculous, in part, because the answers are obvious: IF a wealthy person is getting paid even MORE to provide meals that they receive $1400 each for, THAT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. Because of course, it should not happen. The question does not need to be answered because the answer is obvious.
Now, if there are some non-obvious details (like, for instance, the meals were being provided to people living on the moon, and that increases the cost exorbitantly), then that might be different. But the basic answer is obvious and no one would dispute that some agency should get paid $1400 a meal to provide meals to the poor. But that doesn't need to be answered because the answer is obvious.
I'm going to assume certain numbers of your hypothetical are true. The number most concerning is the cost of a single meal. Regardless of how many of them are funded, it does seem beyond any doubt the number is stupidly high. We're often hearing appeal that only, say, $19 donated will feed a kid for a week, or something to that effect. It's so common, it's hard to consider $1410 is not a scam of some kind. Why is so much more to feed a single person through USAID than it is through any of the several charities who appeal through TV ads? Could it be a typo? If it's real, it's either fraud or rank incompetence, either of which argues for dissolution of the agency or a total replacement of all who are running it.
As to Dan, his question about which you would choose is typical in it's insincerity. He's "curious"? Bull. The mere posing of the question is insulting and an intentional grace embracing accusation that you've a disregard for the needy. But then, disparaging us is more important to him than addressing the point of a post.
Excellent excuse for not answering the questions. Well done. The problem is that it (hypothetically) is happening.
For example why would Bill Gates be getting funding from USAID? Does Gates not have enough money to fund whatever initiatives he wants to? Is he not already spending billions to impose his priorities on Africans?
Again, your excuses for mot answering questions are brazen and fascinating. Unfortunately not particularly creative, but now I have material to use when you bitch about my not answering your questions. I'll just quote you, it's brilliant.
I believe that they are accurate enough to make the point. For example is the combined net worth of the couple is question is $190,000,000 instead of $200,000,000, I don't believe that it diminishes the point being made. Likewise is the price per meal is really $1,000 instead of $1,400, I don't believe that makes a difference.
Given the fact that there are multiple organizations (ONG's) providing food, clean water, and other things in the same areas for less than $20 per day per person. Feed My Starving Children (a local organization) provides millions of meals per year (over 4 billion total) and much less than $.30 per meal (along with transportation costs and can feed one child for $106 per year. IDK, but that seems like a much better ROI than $1,400 for one meal per day. For that $1,400 you could feed 13 children for a YEAR. Yet USAID is funding this scam "charity" run by a nepo baby.
The actual point of this hypothetical is that we should absolutely be paying attention to what the US government does with taxpayer dollars.
If, the hypothetical is even close to accurate, then it seems obvious (and Dan seems to agree) that the money spigot should be cut off immediately. That's it, that's the point.
That private organizations can accomplish the same things more efficiently and with a better ROI is almost a given.
I've seen the meme that Dan seems to be referencing about a shipload of medicine that's about to expire (could be food too). The problem is that Dan, and others, seem to think that sending food and medicine that is so close to expiring that sitting on a ship for a few days/weeks will put it over the line isn't a problem.
If, the hypothetical is even close to accurate, then it seems obvious (and Dan seems to agree) that the money spigot should be cut off immediately.
IF IF IF there is misspending (actual misspending/waste/fraud), THEN it should be responsibly stopped. Understand this: NO ONE is wanting to see wasteful spending or fraud.
And IF these dogeboys were actually interested in waste, they'd start with the largest department where there is tons of known waste and fraud ($1000 hammers, anyone?) - the Defense Department.
But here's the thing: So far as has been shown so far: NOT ONE DOLLAR of actual waste/fraud have been exposed. That is, these dogeboys cutting willy nilly across the federal budget have not been in the least bit transparent in any of this. Making stupid, unsupported claims is just making stupid, unsupported claims.
When the Clinton administration actually reduced waste and overspending in the US budget way back when, they actually spent time investigating expenses and spending and methodically verified where waste was happening and THEN, after months and years of investigation, systematically reduced spending in an appropriate way. We ALL support the rational adult data-driven approach of reducing waste that the Clinton administration did.
But these non-experts have been slashing funding and jobs with almost certainly NO systematic investigation. No consideration to "What happens on the ground if we just cut this funding off today, carte blanche?" It's a scorched earth approach to trying to drown the gov't in a bathtub that conservative zealots have long fantasized about. In the process, they are putting out of work tens of thousands of hard working citizens ("make america great??") AND slandering their good names by these ridiculous made-up charges (They're all charlatans stealing money from us!).
Reduce waste? Yes. But do it responsibly.
Cut off funding at SPECIFIC places where we can be more efficient? Yes. But do it responsibly.
EVEN IF you want to try to convert vital, life-saving work from federal workers to private workers, you HAVE to do it in a responsible way. Just ending funding overnight is dangerous and deadly in some cases.
IF you think those good ol churches can actually do the work of USAID (and do it better and cheaper??) then DO IT. But have that in place BEFORE you cut off vital funding.
This is not rational and it is almost certainly not legal (in some cases) and it's certainly stupid in most cases and, in some cases, probably deadly. Time will tell.
Tell me though, fellas: IF it turns out that this cold turkey funding cut results in hundreds (thousands?) of deaths and a great deal of harm, will you admit it was poorly handled, at least? IF our unemployment skyrockets with all these undeserved firings, will you admit it was poorly handled? IF this results in the US having to pay out (tens? Hundreds?) of millions for defamation and wrongful unemployment lawsuits, will you admit it was poorly handled?
IF more planes crash and bridges collapse because inspectors and flight managers have been removed, will you admit it was wrong?
At what point will magop own the harm caused by this and when you do, will YOU all personally step up to pay for all the harm caused, thus actually saving taxpayer money?
Of course, we know the answer to all of this.
“Hundreds of thousands if not millions of children will die as a result of cutting this aid, a move that is not only immoral, but illegal,” said First Focus on Children Vice President of Advocacy and Mobilization Leila Nimatallah. “U.S. poverty-focused development and humanitarian assistance costs less than 1% of the federal budget but has an out-sized impact for good in the world. It provides poor children and children with disabilities with clean water, nutrition, vaccines against common childhood killers, protection from sex trafficking and other lifesaving interventions.
https://firstfocus.org/news/usaid-cuts-could-cost-children-more-than-4-billion/
But, at least the billionaires will get a tax cut, so, yay.
Caritas on Monday warned that millions of people could die as a result of the “ruthless” U.S. decision to “recklessly” stop USAID funding, and hundreds of millions more will be condemned to “dehumanizing poverty.”
https://apnews.com/article/vatican-us-usaid-pope-migration-6bf064630ff58022ab133f5375f5b5ef
But at least some billionaire playboys who get millions (billions) from gov't contracts will have access to our social security and tax information, so, yay.
That private organizations can accomplish the same things more efficiently and with a better ROI is almost a given.
You know what? The reality is that this is a free world. Private organizations and non-profits and churches could, at ANY MOMENT, step up and end the crushing poverty and disease and put USAID out of business. But they aren't doing that, are they?
That's what's really so pathetic about all this... y'all have a fetish of at least some nonprofits and private enterprise theoretically being able to do this better and more cheaply, and yet, they don't.
I personally would love it if the southern baptists or the catholic church or this or that non-profit or private enterprise stepped up and solved these problems that are being dealt with by groups like USAID. Do it. Solve these problems. Make things better. Put USAID and others you are finding fault with OUT of business.
But until that happens, you all really need to step out of the way and let the adults do the work that needs to be done.
That's what I meant by the number being the great concern in the hypothetical. I'm assuming it's an actual number and how can it cost so much without some untoward aspect to the aid package. As you say, so many do better for far less, so I'm suggesting out and out fraud.
I've seen other memes suggesting tons of food left to rot because Trump cut off aid. Well, even if it was stopped in transit, to suggest it must or is likely to just sit there to spoil is not likely or the result of hold overs from the previous administration poorly administering. Of course, the lefties posting such memes never include context or a link to review it, so it's only posted to provide negative spin.
Are you fellas okay with the klepto, pervant, felon and ally of tyrants blaming Ukraine for being invaded? That magop is siding with communist dictators against our allies in Europe?
Dan
From what I can see the cost per meal seems to be accurate. Although I'd argue that even if it was $700 per meal, that it would still suggest either fraud or incompetence or massive inefficiency.
The great thing about food, especially when it's on ships, is that it can literally go anywhere. It's not like the ship owners are going to let ships full of cargo sit endlessly.
Great example. Dan could have simply acknowledged that there is no circumstance under which this hypothetical should be allowed to continue, instead he spreads bullshit.
From everything I've heard the DOD is not going to be exempt. Nor should it be. Even this is an excellent job of obfuscation. Waste is waste, fraud is fraud, who cares where they start as long as the don't exempt any department.
Well, the perfect way to bitch about unsupported claims is by making unsupported claims.
Given that the last two DFL administrations did zero to reduce waste, while Dan wholeheartedly supported them, it seems strange to bitch about an administration that is doing something. Even if Dan doesn't like how they're doing it.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Just a bunch of excuses for NOT ending funding for wasteful programs.
If Dan doesn't like it it must be "illegal, irrational, stupid, and deadly".
For someone who's been bitching about "IF IF IF", to switch to doing exactly what he's been bitching about is impressive.
Well, since neither of the two recent plane crashes (one in Canada, where Trump has no control) have been shown to have been affected by any of the actions of DOGE, the DC crash will almost certainly be pilot error on the part of the helicopter pilot, and the Canada crash looks like it was a landing that was hard enough to break the landing gear (and in Canada) I guess you're just going to blame everything bad that happens for the next 4 years on Trump regardless of reality.
We've already been paying for the waste, fraud, and abuse for decades.
Dan, "How dare you offer hypothetical examples of waste and fraud." "IF IF IF"
Also Dan, Here are some random people who probably stand to lose funding (thus have a vested interest) making hysterical, hypothetical, IF IF IF claims with absolutely zero support for them.
The double standard is strong today.
Well done. You've engaged in a straw man argument so obvious and blatant that it's impressive even for you.
Yeah, because I haven't spent multiple decades of my life "doing the work" you fraud. You sit in an office with heat and A/C, behind a desk, and help a few people. From those of us that are actually out in the field building houses, building clinics, treating the sick and blind, risking disease, I say shut up and get off your ass.
It's things like this that convince me that Dan doesn't actually read things or pay attention to reality. It also convinces me that Dan is so arrogant as to think that he should have the power to dictate what is on topic at my blog.
While I despise the Biden administration sending unaccounted for billions of dollars to Ukraine for who knows what, and I despise the EU for failing to take care of this problem in their own backyard, while expecting the US to do so, I also acknowledge the reality that Trump said one more stupid thing.
I agree that the US should get out of Ukraine, that Zelenski's demands for US front line troops should be ignored, yet spewing bullshit about how Ukraine started this doesn't help.
Dan's ignoring the fact that I've regularly posted, commented, and argued about Trump doing stupid things, just makes him look idiotic. Which is pretty common for him.
So... YES, you ARE okay with a wannabe tyrant felon siding with communist tyrants and blaming the nation that was criminally invaded with thousands of murders while siding with the communist tyrants.
Actual conservatives who have passed are spinning in their graves.
Dan
Why do the lefties assume anyone will die because we suspended the money flow to end the flow of money to stupid destinations? This is the typical BS lefties pull whenever needed action is enacted, because needed action always obstructs their proliferation of perversions and chicanery.
The following suggests Trump's comment wasn't "bullshit" even if one considers it ill-advised:
https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/31364
It's not the first account I've seen which indicates the war needn't have happened, though it was to some extent inevitable due to both sides believing they could win it. Also, they were fighting already before the invasion took place, as the article also indicates. The notion that the negotiations had always be a bullshit kabuki theater exercise doesn't ring especially false. Thus, to a real extent, both sides could each be rightly charged with having started this conflict and neither would be wrong...which is why our involvement was abjectly stupid.
Dan once again shows his opinions are perversity induced. "Ally of tyrants"? Is that supposed to be Trump? Dan, the ally of death merchants and sexual deviants dares once again to disparage a better man? What a shocker!
Well, given the reality that no one has actually said anything of the sort and that you've simply made this bullshit up out of thin air, I'm more likely to believe that people who appreciated honesty are spinning in their graves. That you are so one dimensional as to be unable to comprehend that there might be multiple factors involved in the war between Russia and Ukraine, says so much about your vaunted ability to Reason. That you approved of, supported, and voted for an administration that was prepared to continue to send hundreds of billions of unaccounted for dollars and increasing numbers of weapons to continue a war, belies your pacifist bullshit.
Where is your call for Ukraine to engage in non violent resistance?
It is possible that people will die after the beginning of this pause in aid. Now, there's no way to determine if the deaths are 100% caused by the pause, but that's immaterial. If the Dan's of the world can gin up any unsupported, nonsensical, attacks on Trump they'll throw shit up against the wall to see what sticks.
That the war needn't have happened goes without saying, that the Biden/Harris administration could have played a role in stopping the war also goes without saying.
Dan needs things to bitch about so as to validate his, self appointed, role as some sort of doomsday prophet or some such bullshit. That he's not concerned about things like Truth and accuracy isn't going to stop him.
Post a Comment