USAID: should the United States be responsible for the whole world?

Anyone who's been on X in the last five months has probably, at some point, without consent, gotten fed lots and lots of USAID related stories with hundreds of tweets.

I've personally had to browse through all the chaos and I can definitely say that most people are using all these events to show their hypocrisy and bigotry.

That, is a word I never thought I'll have to use. But for the sake of clarity, the Democrats are mostly hypocrites and the Republicans, bigots.

Keyword: “mostly” — not all of them.

To explore how I've come to this conclusion, there's lots of fraud when it comes to USAID but also a good reason why it should exist, as it did, in the first place.

Everything boils down to who leads the world. Yes, this is not going to be one of those coverages that fixate on data from this and that, it's more of a common-sense leaning piece.

Before one should say that the United States doesn't owe the world anything, it should take a good look at where in stands in the ranks of countries of the world.

When you're the world power, and one that very much loves to flex that this is who you are, you are essentially obliged to take care of the world.

If the United States is allowed to fight terrorism on land that isn't the United States, impose sanctions and engage in all sorts of operations that influences the direction of the rest of the world, it, for the same reason, is expected to give aid to the rest of the world.

The United States is a leader, unless it doesn't want that role, so it very much is responsible for the whole world. This includes fighting for world peace, human rights, ensuring the security of the vast population and very much their ability to survive, through food and medical aids.

Certainly, aids are not the best options for solving hunger or ensuring good health in the long term, but it's usually always going to be the first step.

Sure, we can talk about how the United States directly benefits from the rest of the world through trade deals, the respect the United States dollar has been given, and the direct USD reserve numerous countries hold, the US. Debt, all of which translates to economic stability for the US.

When people say things like “The United States shouldn't be responsible for people in Africa or Asia” it just shows a lack of understanding of what affords the United States the power and recognition it holds.

We can approach this through trade data, but if this piece isn't enough to convince you, it's unlikely that citing trade benefits would.

If the whole world turned against the United States, it would fall within no more than three decades. You simply can't make an argument against that statement, it's a fact. When an economy emerges as a leading force and influence on the rest of the world, it essentially steps into a position where it has to make strategic contributions to improve the world it leads.

That said, as previously stated, there's great amount of fraud in USAID, so the democrats are hypocrites when they post pictures of children in Africa dying because of USAID crackdown.

Children were still dying when the fraud machine was running.

The Republicans on the other hand are just going anti-aid and blatantly being insulting, there's a reason they are mostly considered racist and there has got to be some truth even in a lie right?

In my opinion, a crackdown is necessary if any system is considered to be facilitating fraud, but an alternative should be running while the other is investigated to ensure that what the previous system was set up for doesn't suffer.

At the end of the day, politics is politics. You and I will set here and debate these things and the people in power will do whatever fills their pockets. Democrats or Republicans, it doesn't matter, they are all playing the same game, they just take different approaches.

Posted Using INLEO