The down-votes may be in response to the style of your prose and that your comment is directed to people that (most likely) do not read this forum. If you want to engage with the other forum readers, perhaps you should have said something along the lines of: "I worry that this funding promise will be broken if the donors lose some of their wealth. If that occurs, the children's lives may be worse than if the promise were never made in the first place."
I happen to disagree with that sentiment. I understand that giving and then taking away can be worse than no action, but I doubt that the donors' wealth is so volatile that the funds would run out before a large cohort graduates college.
Forgive me; but, you say you disagree with the sentiment, but you disagree with it on the bounds that the thing you're disagreeing with is unlikely to happen. That doesn't change the damage that could/would happen if the unfortunate thing DID happen; and that shouldn't cause you to disagree with the sentiment, from my understanding. Perhaps I'm understanding you incorrectly?
I read what you said as:
* Taking A away after giving A is worse than never giving A in the first place.
* People giving A are probably not in a position to lose A.
* Therefore, I disagree that losing A would be a bad thing.
I happen to disagree with that sentiment. I understand that giving and then taking away can be worse than no action, but I doubt that the donors' wealth is so volatile that the funds would run out before a large cohort graduates college.