• 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

Do you actually have an argument, or are you just about denigrating less-developed countries and NGOs?
South Korea and Singapore used to be very poor countries; both razed to the ground by war. Within a generation they weren't poor anymore. But it really doesn't explain why the US taxpayer must be burdened in perpetuity.
 
I notice that there is a disclaimer at the top of the page:
View attachment 76942

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.

Er, okay. Then those organizations should be able to do this with without burdening the US taxpayer. But we both know that's not going to happen.
 
South Korea and Singapore used to be very poor countries; both razed to the ground by war. Within a generation they weren't poor anymore. But it really doesn't explain why the US taxpayer must be burdened in perpetuity.
It's not. Allocations are reviewed on a regular basis. Ethiopia in the 70s was one of the poorest countries in the world. It is now an economic powerhouse. How much aid does it get now?

What you are doing in perpetuity, well, you were before the Trump administration gutted USAID, was allocating a very small part of your national budget to provide various kinds of assistance to developing countries around the world. The kinds of assistance, and the countries that receive that assistance, are not set in stone. They change. You may not be providing aid to places like Ethiopia any more, you are instead providing it to other places that need it more.

Er, okay. Then those organizations should be able to do this with without burdening the US taxpayer. But we both know that's not going to happen.
How do you propose they pay for these programmes then? It can't all be paid for by charitable donations.
 
It's not. Allocations are reviewed on a regular basis. Ethiopia in the 70s was one of the poorest countries in the world. It is now an economic powerhouse. How much aid does it get now?

What you are doing in perpetuity, well, you were before the Trump administration gutted USAID, was allocating a very small part of your national budget to provide various kinds of assistance to developing countries around the world. The kinds of assistance, and the countries that receive that assistance, are not set in stone. They change. You may not be providing aid to places like Ethiopia any more, you are instead providing it to other places that need it more.

Why should that be the forever burden of the US taxpayer? When do we get to say were done? We've already paid out billions, and billions, and billions. Why is there this assumption that the American worker is obligated to pay for the world?

How do you propose they pay for these programmes then? It can't all be paid for by charitable donations.
Oh, noes! Won't someone think of the NGO's lavish salaries! If we can't force the taxpayer to fund them, then who?
 
The USAID debacle mirrors the homeless industrial complex. Some supposed poor/underprivileged person or entity is used to garner sympathy. We must help that person or entity! That help is invariably some politically connected group getting a taxpayer funded contract to help that poor/underprivileged person or entity. But the poor/underprivileged person or entity never gets better. Never. Because if the supposed problem were actually solved the excuse for the taxpayer funded contract goes away. And that would be tragic.
 
Why should that be the forever burden of the US taxpayer? When do we get to say were done? We've already paid out billions, and billions, and billions. Why is there this assumption that the American worker is obligated to pay for the world?
Is that how much you think you've paid? Prior to the current administration, how much of the national budget was allocated to USAID?

Once you've answered that question, you might want to look up what soft power means. The Trump administration appears to have decided that soft power is a waste of money and energy. I assure you that China has not made that decision.

Lastly, you might want to do a little research on human compassion and empathy, and why some of us believe that helping out people who are suffering is a good thing.

The USAID debacle mirrors the homeless industrial complex. Some supposed poor/underprivileged person or entity is used to garner sympathy. We must help that person or entity! That help is invariably some politically connected group getting a taxpayer funded contract to help that poor/underprivileged person or entity. But the poor/underprivileged person or entity never gets better. Never. Because if the supposed problem were actually solved the excuse for the taxpayer funded contract goes away. And that would be tragic.
That is exactly the argument that Joe Rogan makes. And we know exactly where he got the idea from, too. Can anyone guess? Yes, that's right, it was Elon Musk, the driving force behind DOGE and the total evisceration of USAID.

Musk actually takes the crazy conspiracy theory further by postulating that NGOs in California run "drug zombie farms" that they harvest for cash.
 
I know that. The point is policy decisions don't have to be delegated. They can be made by the president directly.
Or not, which is why they usually are delegated.

A country in which the President literally makes all of the decisions is an autocracy. Democracy is a system whereby many of the decisions are delegated. Because how does one person have the time to make informed decisions on everything that happens in a country, especially one as large as the USA?
 
Of course. You were never actually interested in a discussion. That's only a pretense. Your only interest is in a lecture.
I am in fact interested in discussion, but if people do not know how foreign aid works, or the part the US has played in it, and the supposed burden it puts on US taxpayers, then of course I try to inform them of the facts. In this case, someone seemed to have a wildly exaggerated view of the US munificence, as opposed to other countries, and a not very clear understanding of how aid, and soft power, works.

Pointing out that China is a member of WHO is still a non sequitur.
 
I notice that there is a disclaimer at the top of the page:
View attachment 76942

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.


"Tasked with" is synonymous with "delegated".
And some NGOs are purely administrative organisations, in the UK we have DEC that when there is a major emergency coordinates the fund raising and dispersal of funds for 15 of our largest charities, that has very high admin costs, because that is all it does and is meant to do.
 
I am in fact interested in discussion, but if people do not know how foreign aid works, or the part the US has played in it, and the supposed burden it puts on US taxpayers, then of course I try to inform them of the facts. In this case, someone seemed to have a wildly exaggerated view of the US munificence, as opposed to other countries, and a not very clear understanding of how aid, and soft power, works.
As US taxpayer, USAID was not a true burden. Not any more than the US government providing subsidies to billion dollar industries such as our auto manufacturers, and Tesla, and aa long list of industrial giants. Did USAID waste money on foolish things here and there? Yes. But USAID paid for itself in Soft Power.

See, US taxpayers pay the same rate each year no matter what USAID spent, or what the Pentagon spent, or what the Department of the Interior spent, or what the Department of Energy spent, or what any of the US government agencies or bureaus spent. When USAID showed up people got fed, people vaccines, medicine, agricultural assistance, maybe a school, or a well. USAID gave us access to the third world in a way that the CIA could never do on its best day. We made friends we've never met. Compare that with our current adventure in Iran. What is that costing the average American? My gasoline bill for 2026 will be more than triple my IRS bill. And thanks to our current POTUS, and the gutting of USAID, amongst a long list if asshattery, the world is not rushing to help us out this time.

Somewhere in the late 1980s public schools stopped teaching civics classes, which were once a prerequisite for high school graduation, and the result is a voting population that has little-to-no knowledge of how the US government is supposed to work. Worse still, we now have congressional representatives, senators, and an entire White House that is clueless of the contents of the US Constitution beyond the Bill of Rights (and even there they lack). The President cannot rule by decree. Period. Congress, when it does its job, is supposed to keep the POTUS in check, and the SCOTUS is supposed to keep both parties in check. Unfortunately congress and the senate are filled with some of the biggest morons in US history since before the Civil War. And in world history they compare to Stalin's Politburo in levels of incompetence, cowardice, ineptitude, and general buffoonery.

In short: We get what we voted for.

And that's the problem. We're told we're powerless in a country where we could, if we got our crap together, vote out all the idiots, and vote in some people with brains and direction in life. Obama didn't storm D.C., he was elected in spite of the DNC's master plan. The Tea Party didn't shoot their way into power, they ran better campaigns, and were elected into congress, and state houses across the country. There are endless examples of momentum shifts that generated excitement at the polls, yet Americans currently believe they are somehow powerless, and their votes do not count, etc. If USAID was out of control, and let's face it, it kind of was, then where was Congress? More to the point, where was the pressure on Congress by the US Taxpayer? Short answer there is the average American didn't know USAID existed...because they are lazy, and or stupid.

So if gutting USAID is victory for the US Taxpayer it should be a lot easier to pat ourselves on the back, what with our wallets being so very much lighter these days.
 
Cato estimated that $180 billion is spent per year on corporate welfare. Based on the information from people like Steve Novella and others cited in this thread, it could be argued that the taxpayers would be better off if we cut corporate welfare and funded USAID instead.
 
Last edited:
Who decides when a country has passed that point?
Who decides that the rest of the world is obligated to help them for decades? Charity is fine for a while, but if a country is dependent on others for its continuing function for a long time, it makes more sense for them to become a vassal state, subject to the same laws and oversight as whichever country takes responsibility.
 
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. Especially now, when you are turning your back on your old allies, and are looking for new ones in all the wrong places. USAID has also been instrumental in keeping Americans healthy - even if you don't care about anyone else, it has been important for keeping track of potential pandemics, and the spreading of other diseases. The CDC have also relied on it for information.

USAID has helped keep the world stable, using their soft power. The EU has done even more, of course, and will eventually be able to pick up some of the slack. But not all of it. And all the USAID research is lost, as are the workers, as well as the lives of people who relied on it. A slow withdrawal, and information of it beforehand, might have saved both research and lives,

So how much have the poor, poor US taxpayers gained?
Ah, facts. Something the Usual Suspects don't want to hear......
 

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