• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged USAID: is it really a bunch of crazy leftists? / Trump Was Absolutely Right to Shut Down USAID

Helen said:
"Look, a squirrel!" Of course they are in the WHO, most countrin the world are, and they do contribute as well. What on earth has that got to do with the US cutting off aid?
Click to expand...
You argued that the removal of our contribution to the WHO would allow China to increase its influence with the WHO. I'm saying they don't need to, they're already effectively in control of the WHO, and that happened before we stopped contributing.
 
Ziggurat said:
You argued that the removal of our contribution to the WHO would allow China to increase its influence with the WHO. I'm saying they don't need to, they're already effectively in control of the WHO, and that happened before we stopped contributing.
Click to expand...
Nobody is this confused. USAID. The withdrawal of USAID leaves the door open for China, especially in Africa. But you are right, the influence of China on the WHO will probably increase, now that our former ally has bowed out.
 
Helen said:
Nobody is this confused. USAID.
Click to expand...
Gee, I wonder where I got the idea that you were talking about the WHO.
Helen said:
Before the US left the WHO, EU institutions and countries contributed around 57% of the costs. So almost three times as much as the US, despite having less wealth (79 trillion vs185 trillion), and more citizens (452 million, 320 million in the USA). Poor countries aren't expected to contribute. Obvious, I would have thought.

And yes, it's not only about charity, but the people whose lives are save by aid really don't care.

Besides, you may regret the soft power you've lost, as China moves in and takes over.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, Emily's cat mentioned WHO, and the contributions from member countries, seemingly believing that the US was the biggest contributor. Which, of course, you weren't. The rest was about USAID. Which the thread is about. Any thoughts on that? No, wait, I think I can live without knowing what you think about it.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
At Science-based Medicine Steven Novella discussed the Ebola outbreak.
Click to expand...
He talked about it on this week's livestream too.

Ziggurat said:
They don't have to move it to the WHO. They are already in, and have been for years.
Click to expand...
That W is for World. Of course they were already in. We all were, until you pulled out.

Ziggurat said:
I'm saying they don't need to, they're already effectively in control of the WHO, and that happened before we stopped contributing.
Click to expand...
Conspiracy theory. My ex-coworker, who is Israeli, says that it's effectively controlled by the Arabs.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Given how the US lives on money borrowed from the rest of the world, why would it not pay some of it back to the poorest of the world?
Click to expand...
That really doesn't make any sense. After many decades and many hundreds of billions, or perhaps billions, paid by the American worker, at what point can we expect these "poorest of the world" to take responsibility for their own countries? If after all this time they can't get their act together, that shouldn't be the forever burden of the American taxpayer.
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
That really doesn't make any sense. After many decades and many hundreds of billions, or perhaps billions, paid by the American worker, at what point can we expect these "poorest of the world" to take responsibility for their own countries? If after all this time they can't get their act together, that shouldn't be the forever burden of the American taxpayer.
Click to expand...
Who decides when a country has passed that point?
 
Ziggurat said:
Anyone giving charitably can decide when their charity is no longer worthwhile. That applies on the individual level as well as the national level.
Click to expand...
Yes, but what criteria are you using to make that decision? Who decides what those criteria are?

In this case USAID was the body tasked with making those decisions, and the Trump administration gutted it.

Trausti said:
Oh, good grief. If you are a country receiving the US taxpayer largess, or an NGO paying its staff high salaries funded by the US taxpayer, the answer is never. LOL.
Click to expand...
Do you actually have an argument, or are you just about denigrating less-developed countries and NGOs?
 
USAID, along with the fraud and corruption attendant to any large government program, was just a slush fund for the politically connected.

Most of the money never left the DC area; it was there to pay high salaries so that otherwise useless people can pretend they're saving the world. It makes sense why the elite political class had such a conniption when USAID was axed; the gravy train was over, political donors no longer had the taxpayer funded cash to donate to corrupt politicians. Just don't have any sympathy for those who were fleecing the US taxpayer finally having their comeuppance.

In addition to the overhead, the NGOs have substantial headquarter staff who provide either technical or financial management support just for the specific project. They are also highly paid and take additional funds from the project budget. They supervise the extensive and stringent programmatic and financial reporting requirements from the donors. These staff consume another 15-30% of the total grant substantially allocated to be given to low and middle-income countries. So, overall, between 30-60% of the total budget of many global health aid projects never even leave the headquarters of the INGO.
Click to expand...

Phantom Aid: Money allocated to countries that ends up funding INGOs
 
arthwollipot said:
In this case USAID was the body tasked with making those decisions, and the Trump administration gutted it.
Click to expand...
You seem to be confused about how the executive branch functions. Decisions are often delegated, but authority for policy decisions always rests with the president.
 
I notice that there is a disclaimer at the top of the page:
1792109416435.png

And yes, it is expensive to run an international aid and development organisation. I know - I worked for a peak body administering such organisations for five years, as I have said in this thread before. Around 50% administrative costs is on the high side for such organisations, but it isn't unknown or unreasonable. The percentage given in your quoted extract is 30% to 60%, which is a very large variance with a median well below 50%, and you are totally ignoring the fact that for some organisations it can be as low as 30%. Again, this is not at all unreasonable given how much it costs to run an international aid and development organisation.

Also, I love the Joe Roganish way the term "NGO" has now become synonymous with corruption.

Ziggurat said:
You seem to be confused about how the executive branch functions. Decisions are often delegated, but authority for policy decisions always rests with the president.
Click to expand...
"Tasked with" is synonymous with "delegated".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom