We disagree with how we want our taxes spent. As long as the government is paying into it, I'm not convinced you would feel any differently if it was a charity or not.
> It uses a threat of violence to siphon whatever money Congress deems appropriate away from Americans, and redirects it to whatever the executive dictates. That is not a charity.
There is no violence. Congress put aside money for USAID and organizations and other groups write grants for ways to distribute that money. Someone has to read and vet these proposals and unfortunately they are paid.
Hey, it would be great for charity to be administered for free, but personally I'm not convinced that there are enough people with free time to donate to make that work. We don't expect social workers, doctors in clinics, counselors, or numerous other aid recipients to work for free so why expect the same from the administrators?
> It uses a threat of violence to siphon whatever money Congress deems appropriate away from Americans, and redirects it to whatever the executive dictates. That is not a charity.
There is no violence. Congress put aside money for USAID and organizations and other groups write grants for ways to distribute that money. Someone has to read and vet these proposals and unfortunately they are paid.
Hey, it would be great for charity to be administered for free, but personally I'm not convinced that there are enough people with free time to donate to make that work. We don't expect social workers, doctors in clinics, counselors, or numerous other aid recipients to work for free so why expect the same from the administrators?