This may be a good point to recap. It is not my intent to misstate your rationales here, so please tell me if I have mischaracterized your viewpoint. Nuance is tragically difficult to convey on HN.

--

Your initial argument, which I believe we're still discussing, was "Whatever good USAID may have done, could be far more effectively done by another organization without all of their baggage and corruption." The implicit assertion here is that USAID was rightfully defunded and that that was correct given the way it has conducted itself since 1961. You have submitted evidence regarding its creation and the underlying intent therein as well as documented instances of poor, ineffective behavior.

My argument is that the manner in which USAID was defunded is indefensible because it was done without consideration of existing obligations, thereby creating a vacuum of support.

To this point, I haven't seen any argument to my issue with the method of USAID's dismantling. We're talking about real harm to real people's lives and livelihoods and you've ignored that aspect entirely and countered with more information about the organization.

Let me say it plainly: I do not care about USAID the agency and its history. I care about the careless way in which its contracts and programs were ended. Saying and proving that USAID was bad doesn't justify canceling the good works for which it was responsible.

--

A second point of discussion was on the nature of effective charity. This is an altogether deeper topic, so bear with me on this:

You are advocating that charitable organizations should be working to solve root problems and not just providing material assistance. Additionally, you have stated that charitable contributions are not a sustainable means of helping people in the longer term.

My argument is that that you always need both.

As I've done more and more volunteer work and gotten out of my comfort zone of affluence, I've become much more dismissive of any proposed "perfect" or "optimal" solutions. There is a tendency, especially in America, to reject any solution that doesn't completely solve a problem. The alternative to the rejected solution typically being to continue doing whatever is currently being done.

Can you see how this appears to be what you're engaging in? Giving food to poor people is not an optimal solution. I agree that it would be better if the poor people got their own food, but that's not happening right now. Stopping the conversation at what "should" be happening might make us feel better about ourselves, but it does nothing to combat human misery.

This point is also a distraction from my fundamental question: Should USAID have been dismantled without a transition plan? I don't mind that we've veered off into the nature of effective charity since that is a topic in which I have an interest, but I believe that we're here because of a rationalization on your part to downplay the impact of USAID's work.

Since we're talkin about people and their actual lives, we have to be aware of outcomes. There is no shortage of talk about "how" to help people and a dearth of people actually doing something about it. USAID, in a very real way, was involved in doing some positive things both domestically and abroad. That is gone now and your argument seems to be that the outcomes could have been better if something that never happened was done instead.

--

Following that, there is a side discussion relating to what I'll refer to as "bothsidesism":

Your original assertion is that defunding USAID is not as severe as it may seem now because the other party will come back and rebuild that organization when they're back in power. You expand the argument to say both sides operate in largely the same manner.

My response, minus substantial snark, is that the is that there are exceedingly clear differences in conduct between the two political parties, particularly as it relates to abuse of power and procedural rules.

Thanks so much for reminding me about indefinite detention. I hope Dianne Feinstein rots for eternity for shoehorning that clause into a budget bill. It was disgusting then and they tried to backpedal into limiting it and just making it worse. I don't see how legally drafting, passing, and signing a terrible provision on a bill is on par with the abuses of procedure that I mentioned.

You are correct, though: this part of the discussion will not be particularly fruitful. I would ask that you reflect on the horror show that has been the last 2 months and ask yourself what the news would look like if Joe Biden did any of the same things.

--

Finally, jlcases reminds us that serious discussion on the internet is even more difficult in the age of AI. Thanks, jlcases!