Why is the US contribution so critical to anything outside the US when there so many other rich countries that could pick up the slack? Does this mean that besides US no one else cares? I can't believe that's true.
Because we already volunteered to do this specific thing, so it's incredibly disruptive for us to back out at (or well after) the last minute. Other countries do other things, and it would be similarly disruptive if they pulled or froze funding and operational support with 0 notice.
It'd be like if Microsoft donated free copies of Windows to a hospital and then one day was like "Actually we've been donating too much stuff, your licenses are invalid as of today, your computers will now not work." It would be similarly strange to ask why Microsoft's contribution is so critical to anything outside their own company, when it's because they made it that way on purpose, partially for PR purposes, partially from genuine altruism, and partially to tie Microsoft's well-being to the hospital's.
That's now how it works in the US. Every 2 years we have an opportunity to vote for our representatives. They set the budget, and if we don't like it we can elect new representatives who will set a budget closer to our liking.
This isn't a matter of taxes being spent on things we didn't agree to, because spending this money is a priority for many Americans. For other's it's not, but that doesn't mean the money is being coerced. That's the deal with living in a pluralistic society; your personal priorities aren't the only ones. Sometimes public money is spent on things you don't like, and that's okay because other people don't like their money being spent on the things you do like. Everyone is happy yet unhappy - compromise.
Not really. Forceful taxation (by jail) to redistribute the money to states or national security is a boring topic, but redistribution of wealth to ‘for n in NATIONS’ is worth an intellectual challenge.
And even if you don’t care about taxation, why is the US running this entity and not supprting an international donation match to the UN? The US is running a deficit if you haven’t noticed, not a surplus.
There's also an underlying validity to the "property is theft" argument. They both have a correct underlying principle. And both are wrong in the totality.
> a deficit
A deficit in little pieces of paper they print themselves, and most of that debt is to themselves.
It's always a shame when people get used to free things because they lose the ability to provide for themselves.
I say we stop so other countries can spin up their own programs and pay for it. I have zero interest in using TAX dollars to fund medical programs outside the US.
For people down-voting, it's no different than being told "Don't feed the bears" and Yellowstone Park. It's worse off for the animals because they become dependent.
Many other rich countries give more on a per capita basis.[1]
Indeed the U.S. has been kinda cheap, on a percent of gross national income basis.[2]
It could be countered, of course, that the U.S. has paid substantially more for defense, and for the defense of many donor countries.
This data only includes government spending, which leaves out private and NGO spending. Many Americans prefer that their charity funds be spent outside of the control of the government.
Because the US is the de-facto leader of the Free World, the wealthiest country in the Western hemisphere and the winner of the Cold War. Heavy Lies the Crown. Especially when it's about fighting the deadliest infectious disease known to man.
Just the interest on the US debt is almost a trillion dollars a year now which is 3% of GDP and the debt is ~35 trillion. Deficit spending is higher than federal taxes on the paycheck, which means you're basically paying double of what your paycheck shows.
Meanwhile Norway's sovereign wealth fund has $1.75 trillion dollars.
Norway and Singapore are petro-states. Alaska and Texas (to a much smaller degree) have wealth funds off of resources. Whether they're fiscally responsible with that is up to the state.
Labelling Singapore as a petro-state is a stretch. Collecting taxes from refining is a very different thing than reaping the benefits of royalties from oil production.
TB is vastly underestimated here in the US where we have largely eliminated it, but it is indeed the deadliest infectious disease known to man. It killed 1.25 million people in 2023.
This is nitpicking, but I guess which disease bears the title depends on how you define it. I remember seeing some estimate that malaria has killed ~40% of all humans that have ever lived.
The goodwill the US gets from soft and hard power projection is precisely what allows us to have the world reserve currency. This allows the government to print large amounts of new money with much smaller consequences. The US is basically the center of an economic empire, which the neofascists are intent on destroying - either out of mistaken adherence to the political tropes of analyzing a country like a household (eg the harping on "government debt"), or it's likely they are just overtly selling us out to the rising empire of China.
Because we get a lot of travelers through our country who may otherwise spread TB here if we made no effort to control it outside of the country, and it would be a huge public health problem for us despite the fact that treatment for it is readily available in our country.
If we're going to do this we should probably institute some kind of health screening during the immigration process at entry points.
> Because we get a lot of travelers through our country who may otherwise spread TB here if we made no effort to control it outside of the country
A dozen of vaccines and a proof (from the doctors certified by the US officials) that you have no contagious diseases (including TB) is a prerequisite to get any US visa. The only way to bring TB to the US, I presume, is to jump over the fence at the border.
It's the same rationale we used for the Iraq War - fight the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here. People understand that intuitively. But when it's framed as helping people, there's a big question mark as to the utility.
The USA is the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. Why would ceding this soft power to other countries benefit the USA? These cuts will be meaningless in cutting the deficit while harming the USA's global influence.
It's been interesting seeing Western European NGO's struggle to find funding without USAID as well. I don't like Trump, I don't like much of what he's doing, but this at least has been a bit of a wake-up call for me. While the US is rich and should provide what it can, the degree to which the rest of the world (and the rest of the West) has clearly just shrugged and let us carry them is... interesting.
while it makes perfect sense in a democracy to argue about funding levels or even if the program should exist and make your voice hear through your representatives.
Turning it off without any planning like its the back up server for a social media company is irresponsible and will cause people to die.
Of course, what we're seeing is careless and foolish, I'm not endorsing any of it. I am however somewhat enlightened by the consequences of that foolish endeavor.
As a percentage of GDP alright. Now how about absolute numbers, because pretending that doesn't matter isn't particularly helpful, and feels like playing with numbers rather than dealing with reality.
Although I am not a Christian, the parable of the poor widows offering always resonated with me.
"Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
I see that as different, it is first and foremost an American project, born from a conflict between superpowers. I don't think the same is true about global charity.
It was a conflict between Communism/Socialism and Capitalism on the world stage and the proxy wars were fought over those ideologies. Now that communism is mostly recognized as a dead end, I wonder if the world order will slowly re-align. Socialism is taking off with Gen Z(see Reddit) so maybe the next administration will be socialist with AOC, Warren and Bernie.
