4 ms·

>Whatever good USAID may have done, could be far more effectively done by another organization without all of their baggage and corruption. So what exactly is

by Smeevy 2y ago

>Whatever good USAID may have done, could be far more effectively done by another organization without all of their baggage and corruption. So what exactly is being proposed to fill in the gaps created by getting rid of it? Where is this perfect organization that will step in (with appropriate funding) to continue all of the good works and none of the bad? If we're to assume that the goal in destroying USAID was to end corruption, then it stands to reason that a thoughtful and effective replacement would have been considered prior to its dismantling. The absence of such a replacement and the lack of any discussion pertaining to it renders your argument disingenuous.

somenameforme 2y ago
The nature of our political system is such that in the future, whether in 4 years or 12, the 'other side' will be in control and generally work to undo what the previous administration did, even if only out of spite. So most of the stuff being cancelled in contemporary times should be viewed more as being rebooted, with a bit of a delay. But personally I would question whether just giving things to people is truly helping them. For instance take the earlier NYTimes post talking about USAID providing AIDS medicine. If we truly care about Africa's AIDS issue, then why are we just providing medicine instead of helping them to building out manufacturing/labs in Africa, independently manned, and capable of independently producing generic medicine without foreign assistance? USAID was funded with tens of billions of dollars. How much does one lab/plant cost? In any case, shouldn't the goal of truly benevolent aid to create a scenario where you will realistically no longer need to provide aid in the future? Of course if you teach a man to fish, that man's no longer dependent upon you. But if you just give a man a fish each day, he'll do whatever you demand to keep getting that fish.
- Smeevy 2y ago
  Even more disingenuity. You are simultaneously defending cynical abuse of government systems and high-minded altruism. >The nature of our political system is such that in the future, whether in 4 years or 12, the 'other side' will be in control and generally work to undo what the previous administration did. So most of the stuff being cancelled will, in some form or another, be rebooted in the future, even if only out of spite. "Everybody is awful. Especially the people with whom I disagree." >But personally I would question whether just giving things to people is truly helping them. For instance take the earlier NYTimes post talking about USAID providing AIDS medicine. If we truly care about Africa's AIDS issue, then why are we just providing medicine instead of helping them to building out manufacturing/labs in Africa, independently manned, and capable of independently producing generic medicine without foreign assistance? Your argument is that we should industrialize Africa countries to make their own medicine rather than giving it to people who are literally dying? I suppose that orphans and grieving parents should take solace that there's a long term plan being discussed by people who have no intention of following through on it. >Shouldn't the goal of truly benevolent aid to create a scenario where you will realistically no longer need to provide aid in the future? Of course if you teach a man to fish, that man's no longer dependent upon you. But if you just give a man a fish each day, he'll do whatever you demand to keep getting that fish, let alone when his life depends upon it. That man should, of course, starve to death so your taxes are reduced by a fraction of a penny. We all know that Rwanda is just a week away from being a global manufacturing powerhouse anyway.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    This is not an either/or scenario. If one wanted to maintain the handouts while simultaneously working to ensure they won't be necessary in the future, we absolutely could. And it doesn't take years to spin up plant and lab, months at most. But we do nothing of the sort, and there's no logical reason for this, unless the entire point is to create dependencies. And when I speak of the US political system I'm obviously not speaking of this side or that. Both sides operate the same way in regards to each other, with all the sophistication of two children in a playground spat. --- Actually there's even a simple litmus test here to evaluate your own belief in "high-minded altruism." Imagine Russia or China decided to start pumping billions into projects in rural America: food banks/free healthcare/etc - lots of free stuff, but with no effort to create sustainability. Beyond this there would be no strings attached and no further aims than improving the life of rural Americans. Would you again support such "high-minded altruism"?
    - Smeevy 2y ago
      We're well past hypotheticals here and it is pointless to talk about what we "could" do. The decision has been made to let food and medicine expire in warehouses and to withhold funds to aid organizations both domestically and abroad. There's no second part to this plan. Promises have been broken and will not be renewed. Also, local NGOs absolutely care about sustainable solutions to problems. Aid workers are not some mustache-twirling, dependency-creating villains. The argument against "giving a man a fish" is very convenient for people that don't want to do anything to help. Starving people need food. They don't love starving. They're not starving out of spite or to make us feel guilty. Even if it's their own fault they're starving, basic morality mandates that we try to help. I'm not religious, but less misery in the world, by any means necessary, seems a worthy goal. As for Russia and China helping out rural America, I wish they would. At least someone would be helping then. I would, in fact, welcome their assistance in urban areas as well. I do regular volunteer work with a little free pantry nearby and it is cleaned out every single day. That is a societal failure and the US government just made it worse on purpose. I'm responding out of order to your statements, but the "both sides" argument you have here is a false equivalence. I don't love the Democratic party, but there is a wide gap in cynical manipulation of the law and procedure between them and the Republicans. Are you intimating that Democrat legislators sat on Supreme Court nominees while waiting out a Republican presidency? That a Democrat-controlled congress abdicated their budgetary and oversight responsibilities to a Democrat president? There is a clear difference in respect for institutions between our two political options and saying "they're both bad" seeks to minimize the misconduct of American far-right conservatives and overstate the failings of our wembling, capitulating, center-left Democratic party. I understand that you are most likely tired of reading this from me and I appreciate the time you have taken to do so.

by Smeevy 2y ago

somenameforme 2y ago

The nature of our political system is such that in the future, whether in 4 years or 12, the 'other side' will be in control and generally work to undo what the previous administration did, even if only out of spite. So most of the stuff being cancelled in contemporary times should be viewed more as being rebooted, with a bit of a delay. But personally I would question whether just giving things to people is truly helping them. For instance take the earlier NYTimes post talking about USAID providing AIDS medicine. If we truly care about Africa's AIDS issue, then why are we just providing medicine instead of helping them to building out manufacturing/labs in Africa, independently manned, and capable of independently producing generic medicine without foreign assistance? USAID was funded with tens of billions of dollars. How much does one lab/plant cost? In any case, shouldn't the goal of truly benevolent aid to create a scenario where you will realistically no longer need to provide aid in the future? Of course if you teach a man to fish, that man's no longer dependent upon you. But if you just give a man a fish each day, he'll do whatever you demand to keep getting that fish.

Smeevy 2y ago
Even more disingenuity. You are simultaneously defending cynical abuse of government systems and high-minded altruism. >The nature of our political system is such that in the future, whether in 4 years or 12, the 'other side' will be in control and generally work to undo what the previous administration did. So most of the stuff being cancelled will, in some form or another, be rebooted in the future, even if only out of spite. "Everybody is awful. Especially the people with whom I disagree." >But personally I would question whether just giving things to people is truly helping them. For instance take the earlier NYTimes post talking about USAID providing AIDS medicine. If we truly care about Africa's AIDS issue, then why are we just providing medicine instead of helping them to building out manufacturing/labs in Africa, independently manned, and capable of independently producing generic medicine without foreign assistance? Your argument is that we should industrialize Africa countries to make their own medicine rather than giving it to people who are literally dying? I suppose that orphans and grieving parents should take solace that there's a long term plan being discussed by people who have no intention of following through on it. >Shouldn't the goal of truly benevolent aid to create a scenario where you will realistically no longer need to provide aid in the future? Of course if you teach a man to fish, that man's no longer dependent upon you. But if you just give a man a fish each day, he'll do whatever you demand to keep getting that fish, let alone when his life depends upon it. That man should, of course, starve to death so your taxes are reduced by a fraction of a penny. We all know that Rwanda is just a week away from being a global manufacturing powerhouse anyway.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  This is not an either/or scenario. If one wanted to maintain the handouts while simultaneously working to ensure they won't be necessary in the future, we absolutely could. And it doesn't take years to spin up plant and lab, months at most. But we do nothing of the sort, and there's no logical reason for this, unless the entire point is to create dependencies. And when I speak of the US political system I'm obviously not speaking of this side or that. Both sides operate the same way in regards to each other, with all the sophistication of two children in a playground spat. --- Actually there's even a simple litmus test here to evaluate your own belief in "high-minded altruism." Imagine Russia or China decided to start pumping billions into projects in rural America: food banks/free healthcare/etc - lots of free stuff, but with no effort to create sustainability. Beyond this there would be no strings attached and no further aims than improving the life of rural Americans. Would you again support such "high-minded altruism"?
  - Smeevy 2y ago
    We're well past hypotheticals here and it is pointless to talk about what we "could" do. The decision has been made to let food and medicine expire in warehouses and to withhold funds to aid organizations both domestically and abroad. There's no second part to this plan. Promises have been broken and will not be renewed. Also, local NGOs absolutely care about sustainable solutions to problems. Aid workers are not some mustache-twirling, dependency-creating villains. The argument against "giving a man a fish" is very convenient for people that don't want to do anything to help. Starving people need food. They don't love starving. They're not starving out of spite or to make us feel guilty. Even if it's their own fault they're starving, basic morality mandates that we try to help. I'm not religious, but less misery in the world, by any means necessary, seems a worthy goal. As for Russia and China helping out rural America, I wish they would. At least someone would be helping then. I would, in fact, welcome their assistance in urban areas as well. I do regular volunteer work with a little free pantry nearby and it is cleaned out every single day. That is a societal failure and the US government just made it worse on purpose. I'm responding out of order to your statements, but the "both sides" argument you have here is a false equivalence. I don't love the Democratic party, but there is a wide gap in cynical manipulation of the law and procedure between them and the Republicans. Are you intimating that Democrat legislators sat on Supreme Court nominees while waiting out a Republican presidency? That a Democrat-controlled congress abdicated their budgetary and oversight responsibilities to a Democrat president? There is a clear difference in respect for institutions between our two political options and saying "they're both bad" seeks to minimize the misconduct of American far-right conservatives and overstate the failings of our wembling, capitulating, center-left Democratic party. I understand that you are most likely tired of reading this from me and I appreciate the time you have taken to do so.