I've tried conceptually (before seeing this) and their response is "why don't these countries take responsibility for their citizens and health". The "poverty is a consequence of poor decision making" mindset and lack of acknowledgment that US wealth was substantially built on our continents natural resources/lack of nearby conflict (and not just exceptionalism) makes it hard to make any productive progress in these discussions. Whatever. What bothers me the most is when the people arguing those points are christian, which is a faith system that's supposed to advocate for people with less resources.
It brings me some consolation that many of these diseases will be roaring back here again one day soon, and people will have to eat the consequences of cutting off these programs with 0 notice (which could have allowed UN/EU to step it up)
Seeing how many only go to the Properity Churches and shun all that sin, help the poor, sometimes life is just hard for no reason type of beliefs as it doesn't fit their hyper-capitalistic world-view
There's also a lot of smugly intentional misunderstanding of what usaid actually did. But plenty of clear-eyed cold blooded gloating about the money saved by these deaths.
America must voluntarily replace anti-intellectualism, kratocratism, and illiberal attitudes with respecting competency, civility, and integrity because the alternatives are too bleak and painful to entertain.
I'm in favor of funding USAID, and definitely don't like what Trump is doing to the federal government.
Having said that, seeing the comments in this submission, your comment and those below yours not only will not convince a conservative, they don't even convince me who is in favor of funding USAID.
Here's what a normal person (not even conservative) will say and want to know:
1. Cuts in funding don't kill people. Malaria kills people. USAID was saving lives that it did not have a moral obligation to save. 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. (I mean, I'm sure someone will try...). Blaming the US for their deaths is like blaming Chile for these deaths, assuming Chile was not putting in much effort to decrease malarial deaths in Africa.
2. Providing aid/charity is good. However, there's always a valid question on how much aid is appropriate. I don't donate all my salary to charity. But I do donate. Every year I do have to ask myself if I think I'm donating enough or too much.
3. How much aid should the US provide vs other developed countries? Which metric would you pick to decide this? Was the US underfunding in the past or overfunding?
I ignore any journalistic piece that doesn't address these 3. This is basic Reasoning 101. Back in my college days, I'd have gotten a poor grade if I didn't address these.
It's easy to focus on the crappy method Trump/Musk did things and ignore the real underlying questions. A typical conservative can easily agree that how Trump is doing things is wrong, but that doesn't negate the need to answer these questions.
Of course, one can bring in imperialism and exploitation by the US (and other countries), but you still need to answer the above.
"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.
That can be blamed on someone else. Why do you think they spent so many billions of dollars building an entire separate media ecosystem over the last three decades?
