Is it untrue? You failed to address my point.

Children are being left to die. SOMETHING is more important than that to the proponents of these policies. What is it? If it's lower taxes... they aren't achieving that goal. Taxes are only decreasing for the top 0.1% of the population and tip earners.

If it's to lower the national debt that also isn't working. The national debt has increased at record rates.

Is there some other goal I'm not aware of? Why is it so important that these children not be fed?

▲

almosthere 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Don't let them die then. Go help save them. Give money to Mr Beast, he's done more for Children dying in Africa than all of USAID's $500B per year.

▲

CaptWillard 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The most important goal IMO is to expose and weaken the misguided use and expansion of "soft power" in my name, with my tax dollars and without my consent.

Ironically, one of the consistent outcomes is starving and dying children. They're just delivered asynchronously and from the "wrong" side of the ledger.

	▲	afavour 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		As I said in my original comment, even if you disagree with the concept of USAID and want to shut it down you ramp it down over time to allow for replacements. Doing it immediately has an absolutely negligible effect on your tax dollars (putting aside the fact it’s a rounding error at best anyway) and is a deliberate choice to inflict suffering on innocent people. The government decided to let food they’d already paid for rot while people starved. Twist yourself into a pretzel to defend that if you wish but I won’t be joining you.
	▲	hn_acc1 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Are you "consenting" to starving children, then?
	▲	mapontosevenths 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That is a very vague justification for the very real lack of food those children are dying of. Have you ever been without food? I have, and vague conspiracies and high ideals really didn't matter too much to me in those moments.