Before 1948 the Palestinians were peasants living under foreign rule. But at least they were alive. When Zionist interests moved in, backed by English and American militancy to enforce land purchase contracts, the Palestinians were not a centrally organized collective. You cannot “offer” to people who are not organized, and that’s what Israel has exploited. Jews went on a 2,000 year holiday in Europe, then came back and expected they could relive the glory days of a kingdom from over 2,000 years ago. The issue has been the presumption that you can “offer” to people who have occupied the land consistently for thousands of years. Their lack of central government as peasants does not negate their humanity. Except in the Israeli government’s expansionist eyes.
Let us also consider just how badly this continues to paint tech and tech workers to the general public. To distrust technology such as all the AI hate we see online.
One of them transcribed an ancient Greek text from Vesuvius. So idiots buy into the idea this qualifies them to become unelected arbiters of THEIR OWN opinion of justice and decide who the Treasury pays or does not.
Considering the projects that USAID pays for, what they are doing is just and correct. The US executive bureaucracy is bloated beyond belief and needs to have major cuts. We are spending almost 2 trillion dollars more than we are bringing into the government. So many things need to stop being paid for.
It’s certainly not correct: the FY24 deficit is $1.9T, and the remainder of the ~$6T budget that isn’t DoD, Medicare/Medicaid, SSA, or interest payments is around ~$2.3T. To make a meaningful dent in that deficit, the cuts would have to be of the size that a modicum of checks, balances, and oversight is needed.
Or, instead, we could stop tinkering around the edges as a nation and think about the structural reasons why current spending on pensions and the healthcare safety net in the US isn’t sustainable, despite providing less to citizens than other comparable countries.
this "small" agency woefully mis spent its $47B budget. it should be completely razed and nothing put forth to replace it. It's employee's owe their full and total political allegiance to the democratic party, as shown by 97% of their political donations going there. It harms the world by existing and it is fully democrat. It needs to go. Its funding of the democratic party needs to end.
Your other suggestions are good! we should raze those things to the ground as well. They are bankrupting this country, and the second order fiscal and demographic effects far outweigh their first order beneficial effects. We, as a country, need to realize the limitations of government, and our current policies place us well beyond what we should be doing. We need to harden our hearts to the demands of those who chose not to build a life for themselves and live on the public purse instead. We need Seniors to voluntarily decrease the amount of money they receive so that young people can afford to buy houses and start families. Cutting social security etc would also increase pressure to sell housing to cover the costs of being elderly, which directly benefits the housing market, lowering costs. But it will anger the voting population.
I know you want to believe this is principled, but...
- the Social Security Administration, in the first MONTH of 2025, has outlaid $395 billion of spending.
- the Department of Defense, in the first MONTH of 2025, has outlaid $250 billion of spending.
- USAID's annual budget is $38 billion annually, so we could realistically estimate that, if they've outlaid $3 billion this year thus far, they've spent 0.4% of what those other two departments have.
Let's call this like it is: USAID is a bogeyman to Trump and Musk and is a threat to the administration's efforts toward becoming a "hard power" country. If they really cared about spending, they would have gone elsewhere first.
Thankfully it took less than a month to save its 38 or 47 billion dollar budget, whichever is the case. I am 100% certain that more extreme measures will be taken after this small, quick victory to address the deficit.
Their priority is well placed: This org sent a lot of money to shell corps, chosen political operators, and other intelligence operations that was a clear and net negative to the tax payers. It establishes bona fides that DOGE is serious and capable. It gives them experience cutting through the bureaucratic morass on a small target. It's supporters are outed as being in on the take. You are correct that they should move to bigger targets at some point, but those outlays you mentioned are far more favored in the public eye and should be approached much more cautiously and with planning. In the meantime, the intelligence operatus of the American Empire has been off its leash for some time, so cutting its funding will hamper its ability to harm the American people further.
"This org sent a lot of money to shell corps, chosen political operators, and other intelligence operations that was a clear and net negative to the tax payers."
As someone whose organization has benefitted from USAID grant funding, I should make it explicit that not everything is as you see or hear through Elon's Twitter feed.
It is deeply unwise to eliminate an organization entirely without exploring its net effects.
Oh? Was your org in charge of overthrowing small governments or was it charged with spreading feminism, atheism, or other American propaganda to people who do not want it? USAID was as close to objectively evil as it is possible to be. Show me otherwise if you'd like but there doesn't seem to be much to hold up as positive from that org.
This notion alone does not grant you the powers of the Congress which apportioned the money to the groups. Moreover you and I do not possess the national intelligence to make the assessment of “corruption.” If you have a complain there are mechanisms for Congressional investigations. What you are conspiring to is the overthrow of the democratic processes that ensure that no one group claims to act in the public good, while acting on their selfish behalf behind the scenes.
You have to realize that’s not how it works right? First of all “idiots” aka voters don’t need to be convinced because these people are hired not elected. You mention them being “unelected arbiters” already. However while unelected they are not arbiters. They report to the president who is the arbiter and was elected. Lastly, the president can decide how to implement lanes until his control. If the govt was buying a hammer for $100,000 instead of Home Depot for $10 then yes it can buy the hammer at Home Depot instead.
No you’re supporting treasonous actions and you must be taught and discouraged from such actions that violate the will of the people in favor of expeditiousness. Your views are a danger to a stably growing society.
What kind of role did you occupy that you saw "manager leave headcount unfulfilled because the qualified candidates they found were non diverse"? Have you considered it may all just be the appearance you are interpreting in your head, but it doesn't map out to reality?
Nothing about this was ambiguous. The company instituted "outcome based goals" specifying 33% women in engineering. We had hires that passed with flying colors, but were told that proceeding with an offer would put out org below 33%. We'd have to wait until we hired a woman, or just not give an offer.
The incredulousness is valid, but the way you’ve posed this question is so inherently biased it reads as tone deaf, as if the parent couldn’t possibly have witnessed this.
Reality is a lot stranger than you might expect, if you can believe people can hold out for a junior engineer with 5+ years experience and a $50k salary: you can believe this.
Other countries would bid for the same veto, and go to great lengths if necessary to obtain “equality” in this respect to UK. Countries would then all veto security improvements they could exploit on one-another. If country A knows country B would benefit from a patch going out, country A could veto, leading to an overall worse experience and destruction of quality, trust, and value in Apple in the long run. The pedophile argument is so worn when UK is toothless in holding its own Prince Andrew’s behavior to account.
Overall, Home Office is gaming to destroy value in Apple. The legislation is an existential threat to the company’s long term health. If there were technical people at Home Office who knew better on security than the engineers at Apple, they would already be working at Apple since Apple pays better. Even a person most “duty bound to service” has to pay rent or a mortgage, so the most highly-skilled people in security are already working at firms like Apple, and not for Home Office where they presume to veto privacy for the world.
