• shoulderoforion@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    Tens of millions of real live human beings who depended on the $40 Billion in USAID, for safe food, clean water, and medications have already started dying, literally all around the world. The death toll is going to be astronomical.

    • tpihkal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      Sounds like the most extreme of the climate and animal rights activists are about to get a dream come true.

    • remer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      This is going to sound terribly cold but why is the US the only country capable of stepping up to help these failed states feed their own citizens? Isn’t any other country helping? And why is it falling solely on the US instead of an international consortium?

      • Taalen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        US gives significantly less per capita than almost all western European countries, and even less as percentage of GDP. This is not a case of the US being the only one who does something. It’s the US doing so much less than they could, and everyone else in a comparable position is. And now taking even that away.

      • Fermion@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        The United Nations collectively runs a lot of aid programs. The EU and China also independently run aid programs. The US is far from being the sole provider of aid.

        Multiple countries provide aid, but all these programs always operate on tighter budgets than they would like. So a big contributor suddenly pulling out is going to leave gaps that are hard for other groups to fill on short notice. Even if the US needs to reduce aid spending to balance the budget, it should be done gradually with coordination of other groups to best preserve coverage. Acting impulsively leads to suffering that could potentially be avoided with a more level-headed change.

        • crank0271@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          To be fair, the intention of this is not to balance the budget. I think you nailed the motivation: acting impulsively to lead to suffering that could be avoided.