Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
I don't feel like this should be needed in this case but just in case anyone thinks this is an unbiased article...
Bias Summary: The article exhibits a strong bias against USAID, framing its actions predominantly as corrupt and ineffective, while dismissing counterarguments. Fallacies Summary: Utilizes selective outrage and anecdotal evidence to reinforce its narrative against USAID.
I don’t feel like this should be needed in this case but just in case anyone thinks this is an unbiased comment…
Bias Summary: Everything in this article has been published in non-biased Western sources. Just because you don’t like the information doesn’t mean it’s not true. Maybe let readers research the information instead of deciding for them.
I didn't decide anything for anyone; I provided a link to an analysis. Just because you don't like the conclusion, doesn't mean it's not true. 🤷
Exactly. It's not true, whether you like the conclusion or don't.
SpinScore gave this Guardian article an F. It gave Truthout a D minus. Don’t depend on AI to due your critical thinking for you.
So, which points from its analysis do you disagree with specifically?
All news is biased. Multiple seemingly contradictory things can be true. Trump can be targeting USAID to cut government spending while enriching himself and oligarchs. USAID did provide humanitarian relief to people around the world who will be affected by its absence. And USAID has been a front for subversive foreign policy since it’s inception:
From 2010 to 2012, the agency operated ZunZuneo, a social media site similar to Twitter in an attempt to instigate uprisings against the Cuban government. Its involvement was concealed in order to ensure mission success.
I'd originally replied to your other comment with this, but I'm moving it here because it fits better.
I think it’s clear between the multiple comment chains we’re arguing in here that I disagree with your take, and I don’t think either of us are going to convince the other so I’m not going to try, but that said, I’m not disagreeing with you that there’s some accountability problems in USAID nor that there’s some corruption in the system. What I disagree with is your implied conclusion that the bad outweighs the good. I firmly believe that the same could be said about just about any government program, but we aren’t cancelling Medicare just because some people are getting payments who shouldn’t be, and we aren’t cancelling FEMA just because some funds might be going to people who don’t really need them.
Personally, I’d much rather my tax dollars go to a program which provides actual aid to people, even if some percentage of it is being siphoned off to other things, than going to fund bombs being dropped on brown people, or funding more subsidies for billionaires. USAID is under attack right now because Musk and Trump and co. go don’t like it. If these concerns were brought up under a different administration that wasn’t sewing propaganda supporting their government-dismantling, treasury-siphoning actions everywhere they could, I’d be a lot more receptive to actually considering their validity.
From Wkipedia:
USAID has faced criticism including its use of non-career contracts, instead of government employees, financial conflicts of interest, allegations of covert political operations, undue influence on UN Security Council votes through aid, requirements for NGO partners to oppose prostitution, and claims of involvement in forced sterilizations in the 1990s.
This administration doesn't give a shit about accountability.
This is true.
ha, yes lets get all upset about spending pennies that actually help people and ignore the hundreds of billions in corporate welfare and the trillion dollar 'defense' that spreads human killing devices across the earth
Waste and fraud exist pretty much everywhere in the public and private sector. The solution is never to "shut down" the department or company and move along. There needs to be hearings and investigations and new rules and regulations to curtail abuses. I have no problem with those things, but all of that is too slow and too "public" for this Administration. The budget may be upwards of $60 billion but that doesn't get spent in a month. There's plenty of time to let the obviously legitimate programs for food and medicine continue while we scrutinize the esoteric and obscure ones.
Sorry can’t get myself in a tizzy over the tiny amount of money we spend helping people over the gazillions we spend killing them.
Stupid article.
$60 billion is quite a lot for a country with no nationalized healthcare.
It's less than 1% of the military budget alone. It's less than 0.0001% of the US's annual expenditures.
Yeah, obviously we should have nationalized healthcare, but USAID is not what's keeping that from being a reality. It's insurance company lobbying, and propaganda against it, among other things.
Tin foil hat e-commerce sites aren't valid sources. The about page: "Whether you’re prepping for the next crisis or just surviving the current one, we're your one-stop shop for wearing the demise of civilization with style."
For decades, the suffering of poor countries has been a boon for U.S. corporations.
Bullshit article.
Bullshit author.
Bullshit site.
Everything that pierces my cognitive dissonant bubble is bullshit.
Not everything, only the bullshit.
