TZUTC: -0500   
   MSGID: 18686.fido_politics@1:135/115 2cfc4425   
   REPLY: 36652.politics@1:218/700 2cf7ef54   
   PID: Synchronet 3.21a-Linux master/8c7887462 Jul 18 2025 GCC 14.2.0   
   TID: SBBSecho 3.29-Linux master/8c7887462 Jul 18 2025 GCC 14.2.0   
   BBSID: PALANTIR   
   CHRS: CP437 2   
   FORMAT: flowed   
   -=> Kurt Weiske wrote to Dan Clough <=-   
      
    DC> Yeah... great talking points there, likely harvested right off the DNC   
    DC> manifesto, right?   
      
    KW>  "Manifesto?"   
      
   Probably not the right choice of word.  How about from the party's platform   
   planks?  Maybe the TV ads?  The mainstream media's index-card list of random   
   anti-GOP subjects?   
      
    DC> Here's a valid question (which I admit to not knowing the answer to):   
    DC> You cited a few percentages above there.  What percentage of their   
    DC> funding went to "overhead"...?  Yeah, that vague category that actually   
    DC> means "lines the pockets of corrupt politicians" and "other   
    DC> personnel"...?  Do you know?   
      
    KW>  6.6% administrative overhead for USAID. Any NGO is going to have   
    KW> some level of overhead, it's the cost of providing services.   
      
   Sure, a little overhead is expected.  I highly doubt that figure is accurate,   
   and don't have the time needed to check it.  VERY unlikely that it's that low,   
   when you get down into the multilevel count of "middlemen" who all need their   
   cut.  I'd bet it's closer to 50% when the trickle-down is finished.   
      
    DC> The truth is that it was a money-laundering operation, almost entirely   
    DC> to the benefit of Democrats and the Leftist agenda.  AKA Waste, Fraud,   
    DC> and Abuse.  The Libs are the only ones upset because they were the only   
    DC> ones "reaping the rewards".   
      
    KW>  The people that, you know, didn't starve or die of communicable   
    KW>  diseases because of the efforts of USAID certainly benefitted.   
      
   Probably.  Were these beneficiaries Americans?  If not, why would we spend    
   US taxpayer money on them before we took care of those starving or dying of   
   communicable diseases right here in our own country?  Or those Americans who   
   are homeless, or veterans killing themselves because of PTSD related issues?   
      
   My whole point here is that our tax dollars should be spent on AMERICANS.   
      
    KW>  As for the libs being upset because they were the only ones   
    KW> "reaping the rewards", that's painting with an awfully wide brush. I'm   
    KW> upset because USAID is a great way to help people in need while   
      
   I've got nothing against helping people in need.  But those people should be   
   AMERICANS.  When all of them are taken care of, if there's any money left   
   over, then help others.  OUR PEOPLE FIRST.   
      
    KW> extending influence into developing nations. China is quickly taking up   
    KW> the slack. Is that in the US' best interests?   
      
   That's happening regardless of what USAID may have done.  Zero effect on that   
   by closing down USAID.   
      
   To summarize all of this above stuff into one question:   
      
   Can you tell my EVEN ONE reason that we should spend American money on other   
   countries, when there are MILLIONS of AMERICANS who need assistance first?   
      
   It's really that simple in my opinion.   
      
      
      
   ... Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.   
   === MultiMail/Linux v0.52   
   --- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux   
    * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/120 18/0 103/705 104/119 105/81 106/201 114/10 116/116   
   SEEN-BY: 120/616 123/0 25 180 525 755 3001 3002 4040 124/5016 128/187   
   SEEN-BY: 129/14 305 135/0 115 205 220 250 363 385 388 390 391 153/757   
   SEEN-BY: 153/7715 154/10 30 50 110 700 203/0 218/700 220/20 30 90   
   SEEN-BY: 221/0 6 222/2 226/18 30 44 50 227/114 229/110 206 300 307   
   SEEN-BY: 229/310 317 400 426 428 700 705 240/1120 5832 250/1 263/1   
   SEEN-BY: 266/512 275/1000 280/464 5003 5006 291/111 292/854 8125 301/1   
   SEEN-BY: 310/31 320/219 322/757 341/66 234 342/200 396/45 423/120   
   SEEN-BY: 460/58 256 1124 467/888 633/280 712/848 1321 770/1 902/26   
   SEEN-BY: 2320/105 3634/0 12 24 27 56 57 58 60 5020/400 5054/30 5075/35   
   PATH: 135/115 3634/12 154/10 280/464 460/58 229/426