You make solid points. My only point of contention: "I can donate to a food bank and help prevent starvation. But if I choose not to donate, no one is going t

You make solid points. My only point of contention: "I can donate to a food bank and help prevent starvation. But if I choose not to donate, no one is going to blame me for people being starved. " In the case of a federal program, funded by congressional legislation.. It's a bit different? It's more like if you ran a food bank, then decided to stop serving food altogether because other non-charity programs you run were potentially having time, money, and resources taken up by the charity efforts.. in the name of efficiency.. and people starved as a result. You can claim you have no moral obligation to them, sure. And, those three questions you bring up DO need answered. But that is what USAID did - they decided what was needed, and where. The executive branch shouldn't (can't?) unilaterally claw back funding earmarked by congress. Congress controls the purse. I know the original conversation was about whether X resulted in deaths, and what our obligation there is.. But our frustration, on a political basis, is definitely more than that. I don't argue with conservatives anymore anyways. Even if you laid out all of your points, and mine, they wouldn't budge.