[I have to make this edit because I overestimated you tards. ENGLISH MOTHERLOVERS. Do you speak it? This post is not about foreign aid in general, whether USAID is corrupt (probably is 
), etc. It is about chuds' attitude to the specific institution USAID over time.]
Above is the google searches for "usaid" over the last 5 years, so it goes all the way back to Trump's first term.
Here's the last month. Notice it has nothing to do with Trump's inauguration. It just suddenly fires up one day when the NPCs got their firmware update.
I've seen chuds all over this place acting like they always knew USAID is corrupt and this has been common knowledge throughout society for a long time.
Here's a good example from @finbarfin: USAID, one of the more infamous money laundering arms of our sprawling government
Infamous? Like Charles Manson? Benedict Arnold? Idi Amin? That Borgia chick who poisoned people? I've never in my life heard someone describe a person as "infamous" because they just became hated by a fraction of the population in the last week.
But Redactor, we've always hated USAID! We've been railing against their corruption for so long.
This site's users are neurodivergent, highly political, mostly right-wing so surely it has come up. Well, let's look at the data. (I know that's what the DOGE boys would do.) It was mentioned in 58 posts, of which 7 are from more than a month ago. It was mentioned in 134 comments, 13 from more than a month ago. Most of these just mention it in passing. Quite a few are negative, but not in the way our current chud program says. Most of these are attacking the politicians who ordered USAID to do something, third world people for stealing, or pointing out the actually true fact that it's largely a corporate welfare program for farmers. I'm not finding anything about corruption in the agency itself.
Did anyone post any evidence that they actually gave a shit about the internal workings of USAID back then? There was one person. Just one person. Can you guess who it was? I'll give you some time to think this over.
It was me! Little old Redactor. Not only did I care, I cared enough to read the entire fricking section of Project 2025 about it.
And what was my opinion of it? It must be some woke soy libtard response. I probably cried on the shoulders of another guy in my polycule. You know me, the left-wing extremist.
I skimmed through Intelligence and USAID. It actually wasn't too scary. Most of it was just boilerplate "we should do things more efficiently" bullshit that could just as easily come from the Democrats. Their only new ideas were funneling aid money to missionaries in Africa and using aid to hurt Iran somehow.
Why did I choose those two sections? Why not health care, education, finance, other more important stuff? Because this was what I felt I was most qualified to evaluate.
I am the only one of you r-slurs who actually knew anything about your issue du jour before now. I even knew what was supposed to be Daddy's game plan for it. You can't deny it. I am the King of Chuds. It's time for you to crown me.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Red, it's not even chuds. Americans have continually overestimated how much money goes into USAID. I've read plenty of surveys where they think it's like 10% to 20% of the federal budget. It's <1%. Trump is targeting this because it's been a hot issue for many people for decades, and it makes it seem like he's doing a lot for America by tamping down on it,, but it's mostly for show because it's such a small portion of the budget.
!chuds !nonchuds,
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'd literally never heard of USAid before this whole debacle, and I think that applies to most people. Either way, 0.7% of the budget is still tens of billions of dollars a year being wasted on funding global gay gender communism.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's a CIA front to frick with our enemies
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
And it's literally just funneling money into Africa and other corrupt shitholes. The only people in the USA that should even know about this is tax payer.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Yes, it is.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
unironically true I've never really thought about USAID before, but at the same time I'm glad something so relatively insignificant and performative can make so many people who annoy me mad
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
In school they really should teach kids things like whether $40 billion is a huge share of the budget. You could do it in math class. For this many billions you can get an aircraft carrier...
If there's a 1% chance that it saves us from another Iraq or Vietnam it's well worth it just from a financial point of view.
Also it's a really great filter for tards. Finding who really believes in "facts over feelings". Chuds, your atavistic caveman r-slur rage because somebody from the other tribe got food is a "feeling". You're supposed to be beyond that.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Is there a 1% chance it would save us from another Iraq or Vietnam? Isn't that just an excuse you could use to justify any corruption so long as you "only" are blowing 100 billion dollars on your pet project of trans tiktok education for laotian basket weavers?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I don't think it really does anything great for the American people. If people want to donate to foreigners, then have at it or let them deduct some of that from their taxes owed. Government obviously wouldn't like that because then they lose the ability to wheel and deal with billions.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Sometimes the government has a good reason to wheel and deal. Some shithole country wants to stir up trouble, remind them where all their food comes from.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
When has that ever worked? It's not enough of their economy to really sway them too.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's worked in the past, although admittedly it would be way less effective today. For example, the US got some kind of concessions in exchange for selling grain to the Soviets around ~1980. There's a lot of crises that just didn't ever even start because the thirdies knew we could yank their food at any time.
That's much harder now because as you point out food isn't that big a part of the economy anymore. Also there's a lot of competition now. During the Cold War if you needed a lot of food you were probably gonna have to get some from the USA. But when communism and pinko "socialism" ended suddenly the farms in those countries were way more productive. Russia and India went from being top importers to top exporters.
But I think it still has some value. Even if there are alternatives, it's probably easier and cheaper to do what America wants than find a new source of grain.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Meanwhile, they kept running nuclear subs around the world while keeping control over the Bloc Countries.
Depends on how much we give them. Any examples of this happening?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I can only guess about what things didn't happen but I think there would have been more wars between third world countries and more turning to the Soviets. There was a perception that the third world was all commies because well... they all said they were commies. But if you actually look at doing anything concrete for the Soviets, like giving them bases, there's only a few that did. It had to have helped that we were providing aid while with the exception of a few countries for military reasons (Cuba, Vietnam, Ethiopia) they didn't.
For some examples of the US openly forcing a country to back down from something stupid, look at Indonesia after WW2. The Dutch insisted on reconquering it by force, and fought for years. Eventually the US lost patience and ordered them to give up or else we would cut off their Marshall Plan aid. The Suez Crisis in 1956 was similar. The British and French refused to end their r-slurred adventure. It got to the point where US troops were preparing to invade and wipe out both sides. But it never came to that because we threatened to do some financial thing that would instantly crash their economy, stop selling them oil, etc. So they immediately had to give up.
Obviously it was way easier to do this back then when the US was something like half of the economy of the entire planet. But it shows that in principle you can use economic aid as leverage when dealing with other nations. There's got to be a lot of less dramatic incidents going on all the time where the stakes are much lower so we never even hear about it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context