Maybe they didn’t save any money but they did manage to exfiltrate huge amounts of info on citizens and residents that had been provided under the understanding that it would be held in confidence and that was siloed to event cross-correlation and privacy violations.
So at least they accomplished that even if they failed to accomplish the cover story.
But closing USAID did result in lots of deaths around the world as life saving aid was just cutoff with no warning. Was done with no regard to consequences or Congressional approval.
I do understand your point. But obviously us foreign aid doesn't (didn't) exist in a vacuum. The stuff you're talking about that would get these countries off the dole was in things like IMF contracts. And in trade deals. The state department actually had a plan. It gets me that somehow you don't know that, but feel entitled to complain about that plan.
So, the U.S. would've had to supply foreign aid for eternity, then? Instead of appreciating the vast sums given by the U.S. and her taxpayers, there's only vitriol for the stream of aid money having been cut off.
There's the soft power argument that it was actually in US's self-interest to help. And for what it's worth, a lot of the vitriol is from taxpayers who supported that aid.
Well we worked real hard on not changing a regime, not disarming a nuclear power, and not protecting a trade route. How's the investment working out? Maybe if we bomb some more schools they'll be too scared to mess with us.
Eliminate Iran and you'll eliminate Russia. They need to be stopped.
You do not realize how much of suffering they are causing. Every day I bring kids to playground there's 1 or 2 Ukrainian family. Mother + child + grandmother usually. And it's likely to be worst year yet for them.
You wanna send condoms to Africa while there is active genocide happening in Europe? Send your money, there are plenty of ways to donate.
We could have been more directly helping Ukraine already if that was the admin's priority, instead of expending $165B (so far) on a bumbling losing sidequest invading Iran. What an insane proposition.
This admin has also been very publicly friendly with Russia and hostile to Ukraine every single time Zelenskyy has met with them.
My heart breaks for my Ukrainian friends and colleagues. It is unimaginable suffering. Especially since the US has been more enemy than ally to them. Neutral war profiteer off their hellish struggle at best.
America’s reputation in the world is not great, and deteriorating. Pulling back for these well-perceived/helpful initiatives while building up (and deploying) military force is not helping. It’s really not a well considered strategy, and the decision makers in Washington could really benefit from a more worldly perspective, imo.
Why am I in charge of speaking on behalf of HN? I could certainly be in the minority on this. Must you ensure that every space you enter hold to your exact opinions?
Another way of looking at it, is that this relatively small amount of money the USA was spending on US AID did amazing things to stabilize the world, which also benefits Americans.
The steelman argument is that it was the sudden process that people object to. But the steelman against that is that slow processes are used adversarially to prevent action from being taken.
In the end, the only people who seem to get outcomes are the ones who rush things. Everyone talked about getting out of Afghanistan and only President Biden did it. The objections were predictably ones against haste. But we’d been in there for a decade past the time we wanted to get out.
In this event, considering that most of this aid has not been replaced since by other participants one can only conclude that it would have taken at least this long in a slow rollout. Even an emergency of unbelievable proportions did not incentivize other nations to act. It’s unlikely they would have acted when faced with what looks like yet another austerity project that is going to be inevitably rolled back.
In such a universe, if USAID was going, it was only going to go fast. If it wasn’t going to go fast, it was staying.
And it’s generally true that people subscribe to the famous Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics. Once we started providing AIDS treatment we were responsible, in their eyes, forever.
Given that, I think future charitable efforts should be evaluated in terms of such 50 year costs or so on. To save all the lives that US funding on PEPFAR saved we had to forgo an amount that would domestically have given us CA HSR. I think if you ask most Californians they’d rather have CA HSR than any charity program directed outside so in some respect we are just treating these people as our sin eaters.
It used to feel less bad when America caused an incident, because at least we helped people around the world in meaningful ways. Now there's really nothing. There's no underlying moral excuse to support the empire anymore.
If the US wants to be the most powerful country in the world, so that if benefits the most from a non-stop flux of wealth moving in from outside, that involves a cost, tiny as it might be.
The US decided that paying that cost of $0.10 in exchange for earning $10 was too much. So now it's saving those $0.10, and watching the $10 stop comming in.
This is an error all Empires commit a few years before falling from imperial status. As the British, themselves self-inflicted victims of the same mistake, say, penny wise, pound foolish.
I'm not rich, but I give a lot of money every year to charity, to try to help those who need help. The United States is the richest country in the world. It was also giving to charity to help those who badly needed help. It was a small amount compared to its budget, and we called it USAID. To protect the money from being scammed by those running the countries we were helping, the US itself administered those programs as much as possible. We know how much Trump donates to charity: bupkis (read about the Donald J. Trump Foundation) and I have a pretty good inkling that Musk donates even less.
Exactly. Since 2001, the amount of money we’ve spent on foreign aid is a DROP in the bucket between 0.7% and 1.4% of the federal budget; not much for us - but had an outsized impact on people in the greatest need.
It’s helped alleviate poverty, supported disaster relief, and even from a purely US centric motive helped to advanced our own interests by strengthening U.S. soft power abroad.
You're spending your own money. I'm pretty sure that if there was one member of your family that didn't have money for food or medicine, you'd spend it there instead of donating it, wouldn't you?
If you've absorbed the American teaching that "if you just work hard you'll be successful", then you'd have to believe the opposite: "if you're not successful that means you're lazy".
What’s notable about this article is not its literal conclusion, which is obvious to any casual observer, it’s the publisher - I haven’t been following it lately, but for decades National Review was the preeminent Limbaugh-school right-wing magazine in America, so for its editors to be taking this position so clearly feels significant. These days the Trump Right has rags like The Epoch Times, so maybe they don’t need Buckley’s soapbox anymore?
It was never about saving money. It was about sabotaging programs they were ideologically opposed to, stealing data, and possibly messing with internal investigations into Musks "unsavory" business practices.
There already is a "DOGE", it's called the GAO.
And lastly, if anybody is actually concerned about government efficiency, they should be prepared to have it audit favored programs as well. Let's not forget that the Pentagon has never truly been audited.
By GAO, lol. The only reason they'd do the reports is because DOGE isn't there to respond. Because it was in DOGE's design to not become just an instrument of furthering the problem it was designed to combat, unlike GAO!
The spirit of DOGE lives on though. The basics of just having to at least have a reason what an expense is for did wonders, and DOGE did save a ton, even if it'd benefited from more freedom. Another time.
Wasn't GAO the leading us org in that big simplification/trim of the Clinton admin? I know for budget hawks of my country (my uncles and whoever informed them for full transparency) it was the only good thing Clinton did and we should have done the same (the US budget was balanced for the first time since Reagan or something, without reducing social aid).
I think that's the best way to find out btw. Did the US budget increase in the last two years. If yes, Doge failed.
Your logic is flawed. If a fire department extinguishes ten fires fire after a fire bombing attack that burnt down half the town, they did not "fail". And further, talking down those that help where you did nothing of the sort yourself is contemptible.
About your example. That is Trumpian logic. Ask for the whole of Greenland and set the goalposts. Then let them "negotiate down" to just some bases. God knows the "trim" was still unbelievably bloated from a non-relative standpoint.
Although it seems to have been a flop in practice, I do appreciate the spirit of making good use of tax dollars. I only wish the program was more carefully guided, since the motive behind it did seem genuine.
If GAO was half serious, it'd have set an expiry date on itself. We know exactly what happens with these things, they eventually just make problems to try to assert a reason for their own existence, and never materially move towards fixing them.
> If GAO was half serious, it'd have set an expiry date on itself.
While I get where you are coming from, but the government isn't just a static thing that once you've done something it will stay like that. New procedures and jobs come and go all the time and will always need some form of optimisation.
It doesn't matter to keep something if you know for a fact it will go bad from the simple act of it staying around for too long, and/or having an incentive to keep itself relevant, by complicating/fueling the problem it was made to solve.
You probably want to have milk one year from now. That doesn't mean you keep a jug/carton of milk for a year. That way, you'd really only reduce the chance, taking space from something valid.
> You probably want to have milk one year from now. That doesn't mean you keep a jug/carton of milk for a year. That way, you'd really only reduce the chance, taking space from something valid.
I always crave milk. That is why I always have milk on hand and if I for some reason need more milk one day I get more milk than usual, but I will still always have at least a little bit of milk on hand.
That's one of Congress' responsibilities: the GAO is in the legislative branch, it's Congress' job to exercise oversight. (And it's all US citizens' job to elect people who they trust to exercise that oversight. If the GAO isn't closed down when it should be, that's a failure of Congress, no more, no less, and nothing else. But they seem to be doing their job just fine, unless you have some indications otherwise?)
(I don't think the GAO could set an expiry date on itself even if they wanted to, they exist by power of Congress, so only Congress could put an expiry date on them.)
DOGE was putting the fox in charge of hen welfare. The “spirit” was just a bare minimum facade so they could redirect funds towards billionaires bank accounts.
Sure there were some people involved in DOGE that had good motives, but overall they assumed that history began yesterday and that they were the only people that had thought about reducing the size of government. This was a recipe for disaster.
So at least they accomplished that even if they failed to accomplish the cover story.
reply