71–80 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait until you hear about NATO (and I say this as a Brit).
I see that as different, it is first and foremost an American project, born from a conflict between superpowers. I don't think the same is true about global charity.
That USAID was Trump and Musk's first target after taking office is peculiar. They made no mention of it during the campaign and most people were unaware of it's existence until a couple weeks ago. The only group with any strong negative opinion of USAID is foreign adversaries.
I know farmers hate it with all those billions of $ in extra cash from selling food that was going to waste anyway. I'm sure the rural communities will hate it too when all that money isn't going to the love communities either.
[1]https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/politics/government/2025...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Talk to any Canadian and tell me that trust in the US as an ally hasn't been irreparably damaged. Global geopolitics are complicated . It's true on some level that no one trusts anyone else, but relative levels of trust still matter. There aren't many superpowers out there, if the US is seen as unreliable, China and the EU can step in and replace US influence. This has been happening in Africa for a couple decades or…
Australia just gave America a down payment of $800 million to build submarines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait until you hear about NATO (and I say this as a Brit).
Estonia and Poland both spend more as % of GDP than the US. The US also spends less than the amount designated by the UN on foreign aid. America also spent less than Germany in % of GDP in the World Health Organization funding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the deadliest infectious disease known to man where did you get that? it seems like Ebola Zaire, Marburg, and sundry other diseases are saying "hold my beer".
TB is vastly underestimated here in the US where we have largely eliminated it, but it is indeed the deadliest infectious disease known to man. It killed 1.25 million people in 2023. https://www.pih.org/article/tb-deadliest-infectious-disease-... https://www.who.int/news/item/29-10-2024-tuberculosis-resurg...
Why is the US contribution so critical to anything outside the US when there so many other rich countries that could pick up the slack? Does this mean that besides US no one else cares? I can't believe that's true.
Because the US is the de-facto leader of the Free World, the wealthiest country in the Western hemisphere and the winner of the Cold War. Heavy Lies the Crown. Especially when it's about fighting the deadliest infectious disease known to man.
Just the interest on the US debt is almost a trillion dollars a year now which is 3% of GDP and the debt is ~35 trillion. Deficit spending is higher than federal taxes on the paycheck, which means you're basically paying double of what your paycheck shows.
Meanwhile Norway's sovereign wealth fund has $1.75 trillion dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Estonia and Poland both spend more as % of GDP than the US. The US also spends less than the amount designated by the UN on foreign aid. America also spent less than Germany in % of GDP in the World Health Organization funding.
As a percentage of GDP alright. Now how about absolute numbers, because pretending that doesn't matter isn't particularly helpful, and feels like playing with numbers rather than dealing with reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait until you hear about NATO (and I say this as a Brit).
I see that as different, it is first and foremost an American project, born from a conflict between superpowers. I don't think the same is true about global charity.
Why is the US contribution so critical to anything outside the US when there so many other rich countries that could pick up the slack? Does this mean that besides US no one else cares? I can't believe that's true.
Because we already volunteered to do this specific thing, so it's incredibly disruptive for us to back out at (or well after) the last minute. Other countries do other things, and it would be similarly disruptive if they pulled or froze funding and operational support with 0 notice. It'd be like if Microsoft donated free copies of Windows to a hospital and then one day was like "Actually we've been donating too much…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait until you hear about NATO (and I say this as a Brit).
I see that as different, it is first and foremost an American project, born from a conflict between superpowers. I don't think the same is true about global charity.
Western Europe had even more skin in the game than the US.