Arguably even that amount constitutes severely underpaid given the floor plan.

Figured out the 9-figure part:

>Per Bloomberg, Zuckerberg has been personally leading recruiting for the team of about 50 people — and has even rearranged Meta's offices so the new hires sit near him.

>Americans have their own children they need to take care of and do not need their money seized and sent overseas to take care of other people's children.

You talk as if it's a zero-sum game, as if the two choices are mutually exclusive.

>And yes, maybe it is a "rug pull" but it was always going to be.

No reason it had to be.

>At what speed should it be disassembled?

A responsible pace that doesn't result in abrupt mass deaths due to the lack of aid continuity.

>A. The US should give infinity money to everyone forever and never stop. If anyone ever dies, it's the US's fault for not supporting them enough.

Nobody said that, but with operating the world's largest aid agency for the better part of a century comes massive responsibility.

>B. If you are going to stop, do it on the schedule of the people who are getting free stuff, and only stop when they decide they don't want free stuff anymore (i.e. never).

You're right. Hopefully those impoverished kids (many of whom are dead now) take some personal responsibility for themselves in the afterlife. To think we'd even entertain pulling their food and medicine on their schedule and not our schedule.

I think KFC called that the Double Down, but to each their own.

What of the argument against USAID’s rapid disassembly then? Is such an outcome permissible or even desired on account of sparing these funds sooner, aid continuity be damned?