Watch this interview with a bedrock Republican Bush appointee who once ran USAID.

[Nostra]

Nothing trump/Musk are doing is exactly as it should be. Lest we forget, we've already learned about the real reason Musk attacked the USAID.

You did? What was that real reason?

 

[Nostra]

If you're making such a claim, that's on you. I'm not inclined to go on a wild goose chase.

.

“Just Google it” is the lefty mantra when caught in a blatant lie.

 

[OKTexas]

“Just Google it” is the lefty mantra when caught in a blatant lie.

I don't tend to take homework assignments from the ignorant that can't seem to remember what their own thread is about.

.

 

[Lesh]

I thought the article was going to be a list of inaccurate claims. But it went paragraph after paragraph of spin before it got to the first line item it had promised. It was this:

“$1.5 million to ‘advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities’”
This is mostly accurate. USAID provided $1.5 million to a group called Grupa Izadji, which focuses on creating opportunities for young LGBTQ people.

It is completely accurate, according to the line after "mostly accurate." Why a headline about "wildly inaccurate claims," and then the first claim is accurate?

Next:

“$70,000 for production of a ‘DEI musical’ in Ireland”
This is wrong. This was a State Department grant, not USAID.

It is NOT wrong. The taxpayers don't care which agency the money was laundered through. They don't want their money spend on DEI musicals in Alabama, much less Ireland, not by USAID, nor its parent agency, the State Department.

This is wrong. This was for more than electric vehicles. USAID launched a $2.5 million fund that provided awards up to $100,000 to organizations with promising new products, business models, or financing models in Danang or Ho Chi Minh cities. The fund was part of a larger effort to bring green energy to a country that is one of the world’s fastest-growing per capita greenhouse gas emitters.

So it is NOT wrong. The U.S. taxpayers don't want to pay for electric vehicles in Vietnam, when we're already paying too much for the useless toys here.

You just proved the exact point you were arguing against, which is that there is an incredible amount of money wasted on these vanity projects in other countries.

Use the money to help farmers buy laying hens, since the price of eggs is suddenly an issue for he left. AMERICAN farmers.

So you want to close down USAID because of something the STATE Department did?

And you don’t see a problem with that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Deadline: White House on MSNBC with Nicolle Wallace

Watch Deadline White House today at MSNBC. Nicole Wallace covers white house news, briefings and lockdowns. Hear the latest white house breaking news.

www.msnbc.com

I realize what the reflexive response will be considering the interview took place on MSNBC. If you can get past that you can judge for yourself whether Andrew Natsios, the USAID administrator under George Bush, has something of value to say. You can skip to roughly the 2 minute mark of the interview.

I think he offers some valuable insight in to the work of the agency you don't hear about over the din of vitriol about Musk, his lack of authority to do what he's doing, and his obvious conflicts of interest.

How much did MSNBC get from USAID?

 

[Seymour Flops]

So you want to close down USAID because of something the STATE Department did?

And you don’t see a problem with that?

No, I don't. If every outrage by USAID turned out to be the State Department and they were not connected to it, you would have a point. But that was ONE example.

ALL of this absurd spending needs to be stopped, and it appears that shutting down USAID is a shortcut way to get rid of a lot of it.

 

[Lesh]

No, I don't. If every outrage by USAID turned out to be the State Department and they were not connected to it, you would have a point. But that was ONE example.

ALL of this absurd spending needs to be stopped, and it appears that shutting down USAID is a shortcut way to get rid of a lot of it.

It points out the idiocy of your “position”

 

[Seymour Flops]

It points out the idiocy of your “position”

By showing that the State Department is also capable of incredible waste?

 

[lennypartiv]

Nothing trump/Musk are doing is exactly as it should be. Lest we forget, we've already learned about the real reason Musk attacked the USAID.

Why in the world are we supposed to be helping people in other countries?

 

[Lesh]

By showing that the State Department is also capable of incredible waste?

By showing that you don’t know what you’re talking about

 

[Seymour Flops]

By showing that you don’t know what you’re talking about

Do you know the definition of the word "woman?"

 

[Nostra]

Do you know the definition of the word "woman?"

Ask him how many genders there are.

 

[Leo123]

I thought the article was going to be a list of inaccurate claims. But it went paragraph after paragraph of spin before it got to the first line item it had promised. It was this:

“$1.5 million to ‘advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities’”
This is mostly accurate. USAID provided $1.5 million to a group called Grupa Izadji, which focuses on creating opportunities for young LGBTQ people.

It is completely accurate, according to the line after "mostly accurate." Why a headline about "wildly inaccurate claims," and then the first claim is accurate?

Next:

“$70,000 for production of a ‘DEI musical’ in Ireland”
This is wrong. This was a State Department grant, not USAID.

It is NOT wrong. The taxpayers don't care which agency the money was laundered through. They don't want their money spend on DEI musicals in Alabama, much less Ireland, not by USAID, nor its parent agency, the State Department.

This is wrong. This was for more than electric vehicles. USAID launched a $2.5 million fund that provided awards up to $100,000 to organizations with promising new products, business models, or financing models in Danang or Ho Chi Minh cities. The fund was part of a larger effort to bring green energy to a country that is one of the world’s fastest-growing per capita greenhouse gas emitters.

So it is NOT wrong. The U.S. taxpayers don't want to pay for electric vehicles in Vietnam, when we're already paying too much for the useless toys here.

You just proved the exact point you were arguing against, which is that there is an incredible amount of money wasted on these vanity projects in other countries.

Use the money to help farmers buy laying hens, since the price of eggs is suddenly an issue for he left. AMERICAN farmers.

They think the dying WAPO is credible. Poor little loser TDSers.

 

[hadit]

The least surprising aspect of the purge is the rubes falling for the "we are doing this to reduce spending" canard. The shiny objects the WH has pointed to in order to animate the minions..........many of which are lies.............

The White House’s wildly inaccurate claims about USAID spending​

Eleven out of 12 claims about the agency’s work are misleading, wrong or lack context.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/07/usaid-trump-fact-checker/

..........are so insignificant as to be an unserious effort at meaningful cost cutting. The dual goals actually being the expansion of executive authority and the elimination of people or programs the team of extremist bureaucrats Dotard has assembled, or Dotard himself, doesn't like.

They are doing a smart thing by revealing the ridiculous spending that no one can defend, leaving those reflexively opposed griping about peripheral issues while the real work gets done. Have you a memory? Rudy had a policy called the "Broken Window Policy", in which NY police were tasked with investigating broken windows in the city. The usual suspects (those reflexively opposed to anything and everything Republicans do) thought it was ridiculous, that they were wasting time on inconsequential things. What was the result? NY City started getting cleaned up, got safer to visit and live in.

When you tackle even the little things, the effect spreads to bigger things. The bad actors start thinking, "Oops, they're paying attention to the details and we're not going to be able to get away with as many bigger things as we're used to". I'm surprised you haven't thought of any of this and are still reflexively opposing anything and everything TRUMP!, whether it makes sense or not.