This is topic UN Asshat calls US "Stingy" for "Only" 15 Million in Aid. in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/5442.html

Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
From U.N.: Tsunami damage 'unprecedented'

quote:
In a news conference at U.N. headquarters in New York, [Jan] Egeland called for a major international response -- and went so far as to call the U.S. government and others "stingy" on foreign aid in general.

"If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous."

Hey Egeland, FU.

From America enjoys view from the top

quote:
The U.S. government ranked 22nd among the world's developed nations in 2003 in foreign aid on a per-capita basis, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, offering one-sixth the amount of aid per citizen offered by Norway.

But private philanthropy in America is one of the most powerful and effective aid programs on earth, concludes a new study by researchers at the Institute for Jewish and Community Research.

American private charities are set to spend more than $200 billion this year, and more than half of U.S. adults will work on volunteer projects, putting in an estimated 20 billion hours in donated time.

One study by the Washington-based Philanthropy Roundtable found that the average American household contributes seven times as much to charity as its German counterpart, and Americans are six times more likely than Germans to do volunteer work.

In other words, our government doesn't have to take coerced money -- i.e. raising taxes like Egeland calls for -- and give it to others in order to have asshats like Egeland call us "generous".

With that in mind, for those of us that are interested in personal, private charity of your own free will, these links will help...

American Red Cross Online Donation Form

How to Help The Victims Of Tsunami
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Now he's backtracking...

quote:
UN Official Backs Down: Rich Nations Not 'Stingy'

Dec 28, 2:05 PM (ET)

By Irwin Arieff

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The international response to a catastrophic tsunami in Asia has been quick and generous, a senior U.N. official said on Tuesday, playing down his earlier comments that wealthy nations were stingy.

U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland rowed back from statements he made on Monday after an annoyed Secretary of State Colin Powell said Washington was "the greatest contributor to international relief efforts in the world."

"The United States is not stingy," Powell told CNN's "American Morning" program.

Egeland, a Norwegian, pleaded at a Monday news conference for individuals and governments around the world to respond generously to the humanitarian disaster created by the tsunami that struck a broad swath of southern Asia on Sunday.

Asked about the response of rich nations to such crises, he said: "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really."

"If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous," he said.

The United Nations urged rich nations a quarter of a century ago to give away 0.7 percent of their gross domestic product every year in the form of development aid.

To date, however, just a handful of European nations, most of them in Scandinavia, actually meet that goal.

The United States, the world's largest economy, contributes about 0.13 a year of its GDP to development aid. But that figure excludes aid to Iraq and Afghanistan as well as food aid, where the United States is the world's largest donor.

"We are busting our butts to help and comments like that don't reflect what we are doing," said a State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Egeland told reporters on Tuesday: "I've been misinterpreted when I yesterday said that I believed that rich countries in general can be more generous."

"It has nothing to do with any particular country or the response to this emergency. We are in early days and the response has so far been overwhelmingly positive," he said.

"The international assistance that has come and been pledged from the United States, from Europe and from countries in the region has also been very generous," Egeland added.

Countries have contributed or pledged tens of millions of dollars in the first few days after the disaster.

The United States provided an initial $15 million mostly channeled through the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, plus logistical support for aid efforts. On Tuesday, the U.S. Agency for International Development added $20 million for the earthquake relief, a White House spokesman said.




 
Posted by carmachu (Member # 1691) on :
 
Gotta love idiots who wish to spend other people's money freely....


carmachu
 
Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
Notice we upped our initial donation to $35mm.
 
Posted by JLMyers (Member # 1983) on :
 
What is the cost of the military aid; ships, planes for recon and airlifting food, and supplies, and soldiers to assist in the rescue and rebuilding efforts? Does that get figured in with the 15 mil? I bet not. I bet that is on top of that figure. I have to agree with Darum; F him.

KE
 
Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
Like it or not, the US is a citizen of the world, and as long as we call for the participation of our colleagues in our affairs (for example, the coalition), they're proper to call for ours in theirs.
 
Posted by carmachu (Member # 1691) on :
 
And as a citzen, its volentary, not extortion/shakedown because of name calling or because someone decides whats "fair".


Besides, as the article pointed out, much of his bitching about our non-giving, doesnt include Afganastan and Iraq, nor the food given......Nor the private giving.

So Zyne, stick it in your hat.

[ December 28, 2004, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: carmachu ]
 
Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
Voluntary.

Counting aid "given" to a country you've screwed up is like saying you saved money by using a coupon.
 
Posted by JLMyers (Member # 1983) on :
 
Zyne,

What is your point? We are participating.

KE
 
Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
Comments reflecting an expected level of participation by the US are fair, and $15 million to help out and prevent more victims of perhaps the largest natural disaster in history is objectively chump change.

$15 million is about what it would have cost the US to delay the war on Iraq by a few hours. $35 million does not cover even one day of our occupation. We press other countries to commit to involvement in Iraq, or to extent their involvement, or to not pull out because they see the situation as hopeless or detrimental to their own domestic interests, whatever the costs. So why can't they ask us for a real committment here?
 
Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
In its entirety:

quote:
Mondo Washington
by James Ridgeway, with Nicole Duarte
A Tsunami of Greed
As the poor of Asia count their dead, Wall Street basks in riches

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Despite Secretary of State Colin Powell’s insistence that the U.S. is not a "stingy" nation—a charge leveled Monday by a frustrated U.N. relief coordinator, then taken back Tuesday—American contributions to the tsunami recovery effort seem modest by any standard. Relief workers need to get help to 10 nations, where more than a million people are believed to be homeless, where whole villages were swallowed by the earthquake-induced tidal wave last weekend, and where the death toll has crossed 50,000 and is still climbing.

So far, the U.S. is sending $4 million to the International Red Cross and perhaps $40 million in other aid funds, along with a handful of planes, some bearing supplies and some to be used for patrols. The Japanese are sending $30 million for starters, and the EU $40 million.

Miffed at the U.N. official’s comment, Trent Duffy, White House deputy press secretary, said, the U.S. is “the largest contributor to international relief and aid efforts, not only through the government but through charitable organizations.” He added, “The American people are very giving.”

The money being put up by the U.S. is nothing when compared to what’s going on in the corridors of Wall Street, where year-end bonuses for the securities industry are the big story in New York. Readers of The New York Times were greeted Tuesday morning with above-the-fold images of destruction in Asia and below-the-fold accountings of personal riches.

This year the New York state comptroller reports bonuses are estimated to total $15.9 billion. In a press release, the comptroller reports, “The $15.9 billion to be paid in 2004 divided among the approximately 158,000 securities industry employees in New York City works out to an average bonus of $100,400. This is slightly higher than last year's average of almost $99,700, and just short of the record of $101,000 paid in 2000 at the peak of the last Wall Street boom."

And what are the rich financiers going to do with their money? According to the report in Tuesday’s Times, one senior investment banker said, "I have a sailboat, a motor boat, an apartment, an S.U.V. What could I possibly need?" Then he thought of something: "Maybe a little Porsche for the Hamptons house, but probably not."

Another said he bought his wife a mink coat, but explained he wasn’t buying homes or boats. “We are more relaxed and generous on the small things,” he said.

For the plutocrats on Wall Street, who so often make millions shunting money in and out of cheap-labor Asia, the horrid catastrophe in the Indian Ocean must seem very far away. But one never knows—perhaps the disaster will turn into an enticing investment opportunity in the days ahead. And in any event, donations for the charity relief effort could spell a big tax break.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0452/mondo2.php
 
Posted by carmachu (Member # 1691) on :
 
Zyne

Lets put this bluntly: Its not the world's money, its ours.We choose to give what we wish, not some idiotic UN or foriegn offical, with an inflated artifical number or percentage.

But since, by your standards, we're citizen's of the world and by that we HAVE to give, I guess we should start really shaking down the rest of the world to pay for the war in Iraq.....
 
Posted by Heptarch (Member # 2204) on :
 
No car, you're ALL WRONG!

The war in Iraq was a catastrophe which we created. It doesn't matter how Saddam's regime was before we came.

(tongue in cheek)

Thing is... it is broken reasoning to compare the two and come out with the idea that the United States is stingy.

Natural disasters cost a lot. Wars can cost a lot too. Prolly a good reason to limit how much we go to war, definitely, but there are also good reasons to go to war.

FACT: The US is the greatest provider of foreign aid in the world.

These nations already get a pretty good amount of cash from us, either through private contributions or government-run programs.

So, to criticize the USA because "we're not giving enough"? Why don't you try that next Christmas, Zyne? Stand out in front of a supermarket with a Salvation Army bucket... y'know, the red ones? People stand next to them, ringing a bell? Try it. Volunteer next year. Start yelling at people that they're not giving enough. Some might be guilted into giving you more, temporarily, but I suspect you'll not do much good for the cause.

If you really want us to contribute more money, please let the rest of us know where you'd find the money in our budget. Even Bush has recognized that he's been spending too much, and is acting to tighten his belt. This is a good thing.

How about you view it as: We're doing good in Iraq. (Or are you in the camp which paradoxically feels we're victimizing them?) We're doing good in SE Asia. It's not an either-or situation. It's both. We're doing good. The alternative is to not do good.

Or to view it in the same way that many people on the Left do with things like the Space Program. There are OTHER uses which that money could be put to use for. Like helping people here in our borders who are hungry. Yeah. Why should we help people in Asia when there are people here who need that help?

It's all a matter of perspective. I think they (and we) should be happy that we're helping. Maybe we can increase the amount, and I don't doubt we will, but condemning us for it doesn't seem like the right take for me.
 
Posted by carmachu (Member # 1691) on :
 
Hep:

The problem I have with the UN offical is very simple(its the same with our own politicans): its not their money to decide what should be "given".

It may be alot. It may be very little. Hell itr MIGHT be nothing at all, or next time around we might foot most of the bill.

But in the end, name calling is one sure hell of a way to get the free money to stop flowing.

Or, to put more bluntly, let someone else foot the bill this time(I hear Germany isnt busy with much wolrd policy right now).


carmachu
 
Posted by ed (Member # 1673) on :
 
carmachu quoth: "and as a citzen, its volentary, not extortion/shakedown because of name calling or because someone decides whats "fair"."

are you forgetting that all it is is words, carmachu? most americans' view of the UN is generally poor. this fact is well-known by just about anybody w/ 2 brain cels to rub together.

this isn't a shakedown: it's just rude. but not as rude, IMHO, as being told, "you're either with us or against us." ;>

ed
 
Posted by carmachu (Member # 1691) on :
 
So ed, Since you make more than me, I should DEMAND that you give more away? THAT is rude.


carmachu
 
Posted by Mike_W (Member # 202) on :
 
No, and no one has DEMANDED anything. Ed should probably be unsurprised though that some might comment that his (and his neigbours)contributions are relatively lower than others.

Or, Ed could throw a tantrum.

The guy was doing his job. Perhaps poorly. But all the feigned moral indignation is a bit much.
 
Posted by FIJC (Member # 1092) on :
 
quote:
"$15 million is about what it would have cost the US to delay the war on Iraq by a few hours. $35 million does not cover even one day of our occupation. We press other countries to commit to involvement in Iraq, or to extent their involvement, or to not pull out because they see the situation as hopeless or detrimental to their own domestic interests, whatever the costs. So why can't they ask us for a real committment here?"
The $15 million amount was only a preliminary number for what would basically amount to an instant line of credit--it was never meant to be a final number.

What I do find incredibly sad about your post is that you are politicizing this tragedy.

[ December 29, 2004, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: FIJC ]
 
Posted by ed (Member # 1673) on :
 
carmachu, i wouldn't be quite so sure that i do. :>

and actually, your analogy isn't quite right. to do it properly:

person a: getting by, but barely
person b: middle class
person c: m$ millionaire

now, let's say person a has some kind of tragedy, maybe it's a medical emergency. persons b and c both say, "we're gonna give you some cash, cuz we know that can be expensive." then b says to c, "you can afford more than the lame $15 bucks you gave".

is it rude? heck yeah. but i don't see that as a shakedown, b/c it isn't person b who profits from it. maybe persons b and c don't like one another, but that's the extent of any benefit to b, the way i see it.

ed
 
Posted by aupton15 (Member # 1771) on :
 
I don't understand why the Iraq analogy doesn't work here. We asked for the cooperation of France, Germany and Russia in contributing to a military operation that we were choosing to start at a certain time. They didn't like our timing, and we have vilified them since. Now in this instance a completely natural disaster has occurred, and blame does not belong to any of the countries involved. An organization responsible for getting aid to these people has asked that ALL countries be generous in what they give. At this point, everything is reasonable and not rude at all. The only conceivable problem is that this guy went ahead and put numbers on what was generous and what wasn't...and those numbers don't include all the kinds of aid that some countries (including ours) give. So maybe public relations isn't his strong suit, but keep in mind that no matter what we may infer from his comments, he never singled out our country.

I'm glad we're sending more than the initial 15 million dollars, and I think our final contribution will probably be pretty generous by any standards. So hopefully this whole debate will die out soon anyway.
 
Posted by carmachu (Member # 1691) on :
 
But no matter how much or how little someone gives, inthe end, its THEIR money to decide what to do with, not Yours, Zynes, the UN or anyone else's.

So the person has a medical emergemcy, and the millionare gives $15. So what. What you dont know is that same said millionarie is also donatinng money to build a wing of a different hospital across town. or Building a battered women's shelter, or a HOST of other things.

Just because he's not giving a great amount for ONE event, no matter how tragic, doesnt erase all the other things he's involved with.

Is the crappy UN offical failing to include in said donation from the US the marine expedition force, the aircraft carrier and (I think its called) the air rescue respose thats also been disptached?

I think not.


carmachu
 
Posted by Koner (Member # 1390) on :
 
I would like to ask a question. How much foriegn aid did the US receive earlier this year when Florida was struck by three hurricanes in a month? How much foreign aid did San Francisco recieve for the earthquake back in the early 90's? How much foreign aid does the US recieve when the Mississippi river floods towns and farms in Missouri, Indiana and Arkansas? How much foreign aid do the residents of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas get when tornadoes destroy their towns? How much foreign aid did NYC and the families of the dead in the World Trade Centers recieve after it was hit by terrorists?

I don't know the answers to those questions, but I'm willing to bet that the grand total is close to ZERO. The point is that the US has to my knowledge never asked for outside help when our own citiizens are suffering from natural or man made disasters on our own soil. We take care of our own for the most part. But let something happen in ANY other country anywhere in the world and one of the first calls that is made is to Washington to request aid. The US gives BILLIONS of dollars every year in foreign aid in one form or another. For any US citizen or any foreign dignitary to question the generosity of the American people or their government is just plain idiodic.

Myself, I make less than $35,000.00 per year as an E-6 in the Navy. I pay my taxes just like the rest of you so I take home roughly $22,000.00 a year. I give $200.00 per month to the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association (I used to give to the American Red Cross until I realized that their true name should have been the Un-American Red Cross). I have no clue how much money I put in the red pots in front of Walmart for the bell ringers at Christmas time. Or the money I put in the jars you see on the counters of conveince stores and gas stations for local families whose homes have burned down or whose children are suffering from some disease or other.

If you feel that the US should do more then perhaps you are just feeling a bit guilty becuase YOU haven't given as much as you may feel you should.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ed:
carmachu, i wouldn't be quite so sure that i do. :>

and actually, your analogy isn't quite right. to do it properly:

person a: getting by, but barely
person b: middle class
person c: m$ millionaire

now, let's say person a has some kind of tragedy, maybe it's a medical emergency. persons b and c both say, "we're gonna give you some cash, cuz we know that can be expensive." then b says to c, "you can afford more than the lame $15 bucks you gave".

is it rude? heck yeah. but i don't see that as a shakedown, b/c it isn't person b who profits from it. maybe persons b and c don't like one another, but that's the extent of any benefit to b, the way i see it.

ed

To do it exactly right you have to remember that person B is running the operation that hands out the collected money and pays himself from what is collected.
 
Posted by aupton15 (Member # 1771) on :
 
"But no matter how much or how little someone gives, inthe end, its THEIR money to decide what to do with, not Yours, Zynes, the UN or anyone else's."

I agree. But it is that guys job to get money. So whether you LIKE somebody telling you to give more or not, it's his JOB to get it. I'm not telling anyone what to do with their money...I *believe* everyone should give some of what they have...but I know I can't make anyone do anything. But when you have the position of power that we do in the world, it should not come as a surpise that other nations have certain expectations of us. Perhaps we should scale back our aid work in light of our current economic situation, and encourage others to take up that fight a little more. But until something changes we can continue to expect UN representatives to ask for our help.
 
Posted by ed (Member # 1673) on :
 
carmachu: hey, i get that. but as i said, all he can do is be rude and ask for it. all you have to do is to say no. that isn't, IMV, a shakedown, b/c there's really no downside to c not giving the money.

ed
 
Posted by carmachu (Member # 1691) on :
 
quote:
But it is that guys job to get money.
So let me ask this: whats more likely to get the money your looking for?:

Look, Mr Bsuh, you got 50K dead millions homeless, looting and no food or shelter.We need more than X amount to cover the costs. please.

Or

Look you stingy bastards, your GNP is incrediblely large, you need to cough up more money. You're not being very generous.


carmachu

[ December 29, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: carmachu ]
 
Posted by aupton15 (Member # 1771) on :
 
So he's not doing his job well to get money from you. But some people (particularly in the State Department) are concerned with how we are viewed in the world's eyes. So bringing up these "shortcomings" might be effective in those situations. I agree that it's not the polite way to do things, but sometimes more gets done when you aren't polite. And again, he never issued this statement directly to the U.S. There were many countries, including European nations, that could also be implicated by his general statement.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
I thought those comments weren't very helpful. If you read them, by the way, you see that he's talking about all the rich west, not just the US, but by appearing to single out the US he just makes people like Daruma (how did I know it would be you [Smile] ) rear up and butt heads right back. Not very constructive.
 
Posted by Haggis (Member # 2114) on :
 
I just can't believe people are so sensitive about what a Norwegian U.N. official says about the U.S. government. Ooh, he called the U.S. "stingy".

People are crying over "stingy"?

Let's remember we are all vertebrates. We should act like it every once in a while.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
BTW, you know who really IS stingy? The Vatican. They announced yesterday that they've collected 6 million bucks. WOW! Imagine that. Probably the richest organization in the world, one dedicated to kindness and generosity to others in need, and that's what it can manage. Not impressive.
 
Posted by FIJC (Member # 1092) on :
 
quote:
"BTW, you know who really IS stingy? The Vatican. They announced yesterday that they've collected 6 million bucks. WOW! Imagine that. Probably the richest organization in the world, one dedicated to kindness and generosity to others in need, and that's what it can manage. Not impressive."
$6 million for the Vatican is chump-change anyway. You know who I think is really stingy? France--they have only given $130,000 thus far.
 
Posted by ed (Member # 1673) on :
 
ricky: aren't they being bled from the various sex abuse-related lawsuits that hit before the recent re-organization?

ed
 
Posted by FIJC (Member # 1092) on :
 
quote:
"I thought those comments weren't very helpful. If you read them, by the way, you see that he's talking about all the rich west, not just the US, but by appearing to single out the US he just makes people like Daruma (how did I know it would be you ) rear up and butt heads right back. Not very constructive."
Not when you put his statement in context with the rest of the speech surrounding the comments. Have you seen the transcript from the Washington Times?
 
Posted by carmachu (Member # 1691) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aupton15:
[QB] So he's not doing his job well to get money from you. But some people (particularly in the State Department)

Gods help us, dont bring up the state department. State is almost as bad as the UN.

quote:
I agree that it's not the polite way to do things, but sometimes more gets done when you aren't polite.
Not unless your dealing with sociopaths. In general you get more flies with honey than you do with vinigar, as the old country sayings go.

carmachu
 
Posted by FIJC (Member # 1092) on :
 
quote:
"So he's not doing his job well to get money from you. But some people (particularly in the State Department)"
You mean State Department officials such as this?"We are busting our butts to help and comments like that don't reflect what we are doing," a State Department official told the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity." I think that you may be misguided in your conclusion if you think that comments such as this endear the UN to the State Department.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Oh, I don't need to seize on one or two comments from a single Norweigen idiot to "look" for the opportunity to villify or demonize the UN. Their record speaks quite clearly for itself.

If this moron is so concerned about raising money, maybe he could pass the hat in his own organization to Kojo and all the other top level diplomats that pocketed millions at the expense of starving Iraqis.

Funny Zyne, it appears you share this ignoramouses viewpoint.

You must have missed the part I posted about how America is the number one VOLUNTARY contributor to charities and disaster relief in the entire world?

Or does it not count because it was not forcibly confiscated by the Government first?
 
Posted by aupton15 (Member # 1771) on :
 
Sure, that's the official statement, which was given to show that we in fact ARE generous and that more is on the way. A response to this guy's comments. I'm sure they're pissed at him, but they also took him seriously enough to respond. Again, they don't have to like him for him to get his job done. They have to give more money. Maybe he had no impact on the amount of aid we're giving. I suspect that he didn't. But you're confusing his goals when you say he isn't endearing himself to the State Department. He wants our money, not our unconditional love for him.

"Not unless your dealing with sociopaths. In general you get more flies with honey than you do with vinigar, as the old country sayings go."

In general, maybe. But sociopaths are not the only people who respond to harsh criticism. There are lots of people who will respond to attacks on their character by trying to prove their worth. We have done that already, by pointing out all the aid we have given over the years, and also by upping the amount of support we have given and plan to give in this case. You'll notice that we haven't DECREASED anything because of his comments. So even if he's doing his job badly, he really isn't doing any harm to his cause. And if we cared at all what the rest of the world thinks, it's conceivable that we would even give more to prove that we are generous. I'm not saying it's going to work. I suspect it's fairly insignificant in our decision about how much to give. But it's not as though he has done any irreparable harm to his cause by stirring the pot a little.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
FIJC:
quote:
$6 million for the Vatican is chump-change anyway. You know who I think is really stingy? France--they have only given $130,000 thus far.
I'm hoping that most of France's aid is in the EU donations, but the $130,000 from them alone is still paltry.

Even the now $35 million we have pledged is less ,AFAIK, than the cost of the President's inauguration. If we can spend that much on a party...well, y'know.

If we'd been a little quicker on the draw on this one, we could have pointed out how stingy other nations have been about helping out Iraqis.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zyne:
In its entirety:

quote:
Mondo Washington
by James Ridgeway, with Nicole Duarte
A Tsunami of Greed
As the poor of Asia count their dead, Wall Street basks in riches

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Despite Secretary of State Colin Powell’s insistence that the U.S. is not a "stingy" nation—a charge leveled Monday by a frustrated U.N. relief coordinator, then taken back Tuesday—American contributions to the tsunami recovery effort seem modest by any standard. Relief workers need to get help to 10 nations, where more than a million people are believed to be homeless, where whole villages were swallowed by the earthquake-induced tidal wave last weekend, and where the death toll has crossed 50,000 and is still climbing.

So far, the U.S. is sending $4 million to the International Red Cross and perhaps $40 million in other aid funds, along with a handful of planes, some bearing supplies and some to be used for patrols. The Japanese are sending $30 million for starters, and the EU $40 million.

Miffed at the U.N. official’s comment, Trent Duffy, White House deputy press secretary, said, the U.S. is “the largest contributor to international relief and aid efforts, not only through the government but through charitable organizations.” He added, “The American people are very giving.”

The money being put up by the U.S. is nothing when compared to what’s going on in the corridors of Wall Street, where year-end bonuses for the securities industry are the big story in New York. Readers of The New York Times were greeted Tuesday morning with above-the-fold images of destruction in Asia and below-the-fold accountings of personal riches.

This year the New York state comptroller reports bonuses are estimated to total $15.9 billion. In a press release, the comptroller reports, “The $15.9 billion to be paid in 2004 divided among the approximately 158,000 securities industry employees in New York City works out to an average bonus of $100,400. This is slightly higher than last year's average of almost $99,700, and just short of the record of $101,000 paid in 2000 at the peak of the last Wall Street boom."

And what are the rich financiers going to do with their money? According to the report in Tuesday’s Times, one senior investment banker said, "I have a sailboat, a motor boat, an apartment, an S.U.V. What could I possibly need?" Then he thought of something: "Maybe a little Porsche for the Hamptons house, but probably not."

Another said he bought his wife a mink coat, but explained he wasn’t buying homes or boats. “We are more relaxed and generous on the small things,” he said.

For the plutocrats on Wall Street, who so often make millions shunting money in and out of cheap-labor Asia, the horrid catastrophe in the Indian Ocean must seem very far away. But one never knows—perhaps the disaster will turn into an enticing investment opportunity in the days ahead. And in any event, donations for the charity relief effort could spell a big tax break.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0452/mondo2.php
I've been thinking about this post over my lunch break.

Funny, but this article is simply CLUELESS.

Americans lead the entire world in private, charitable donations, with an ezstimated 200 Billion for the year 2004.

Without those "greedy" Wall Street investors and all of the other rich people "hoarding" the net results of success in our capitalist system, you would not have the conditions of a society willing and able to contribute 200 Billion dollars to charity.

What is the alternative? Socialist Democracies like Europe? Hah. They have much less to give, and what they do give is mostly tax revenue from their socialist stagnated economies that don't even account for a fraction of what we "greedy" capitalists VOLUNTARILY contribute....in addition to the aid our government contributes with our tax money.

Grumbling about the excess of wealthy capitalists than talk about the problems of third world disasters is class warfare rhetoric that ignores the very basic relationship between personal wealth and personal, voluntary charitable giving.

Sure there are some greedy people on Wall Street that live in excess and give back nothing.

But in the aggregate, the combined wealth of our society - including much of the wealthy Wall Street execs - enables our society to devote significant sums of income to charitable causes...including disaster relief.

Remember the depression? All those "greedy, wealthy" capitalists that lived excessive lifestyles just prior to the Wall Street collapse? Yeah, it sure was great for the economy as a whole when those "rich bastards" got their comeuppance..........
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Remember the depression? All those "greedy, wealthy" capitalists that lived excessive lifestyles just prior to the Wall Street collapse? Yeah, it sure was great for the economy as a whole when those "rich bastards" got their comeuppance..........
I would argue that such wealth concentration is bad, rather than wealth in general, but that's another thread. Tell me if you want to talk about.
 
Posted by Richard Dey (Member # 1727) on :
 
I think FL cost us >US$40M; but the point is that any amount of money we pledge at this point is, as Myers? noted, credit. When the tremors cease, the final cost to us will be in the hundreds of millions -- or whatever it will cost when everybody else has wandered off to worse and more-blathering matters. We always get hit with the final bill. We are always the bottom line. We're still paying for hurricanes in the Caribbean that happened in the 1960s!

And as far as this Norwegian twit is concerned, I repeat: this is as good a reason to get out of the UN as any. They are blackmailers, INGRATES, and hypocrites de luxe.

Where's Annan in all this anyway, packing his silks for an aerial tour of the devastation?
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A. Alzabo:
quote:
Remember the depression? All those "greedy, wealthy" capitalists that lived excessive lifestyles just prior to the Wall Street collapse? Yeah, it sure was great for the economy as a whole when those "rich bastards" got their comeuppance..........
I would argue that such wealth concentration is bad, rather than wealth in general, but that's another thread. Tell me if you want to talk about.
Mabye...but not in this thread.

I just find it absolutely disgusting that their are many people in this country, who live in the wealthiest, most advanced nation the Earth has ever seen fail to make the connection with WHY that is...free market capitalism, encouraging entrepreneurialism and individualism have proven to be vastly superior to collectivism whenever and wherever it's been tried.

That's how a small sliver of land with no natural resources like Hong Kong can build an economy larger and wealthier than a billion Chinese living in a vast land abundant with resources stagnating in a collectivist system.

Yet the self-loathing of so many that benefit from living in such a system is mind boggling.

Isn't it funny that no matter how much money the US has given to countries since WWII probably approaches a zillion dollars, yet it's never enough. We're never doing enough.

As long as their are some "priviledged" few that get to "hoard" wealth and live in luxury, we have a problem.

You know, in two days, Amazon raised 2 million dollars in private charitable donations - and they're fast approaching 3 million. That's just Amazon. One private corporation amongst MANY that are voluntarily trying to help out vicitims of a natural disaster half the world away.

People want to call our country greedy and often the basis of that argument is really just another quasi-socialist screed against captialism using strawmen arguments (like a Wall street exec buying his wife a mink coat)...rather than a factual based argument.

[ December 29, 2004, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
So even if he's doing his job badly, he really isn't doing any harm to his cause.
It might not harm his cause in this particular instance, but it might hurt on the next, smaller, lower profile problem.

This event was huge. It's big news. There's no way America would refuse to help a lot.

But if that guy paints himself as the guy who always asks for more, then the next time some country needs aid because of a drought the US may give less than what he suggests. "You need $100k? Yeah, yeah, we know how you are about how much money we should pay. 50k should probably suffice."

I don't think America would ever withhold help simply to spite this guy, but they may distrust him the next time he suggests what our fair share is.
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
All spin aside, here is the reality behind United States foreign aid:

1) Official United States government foreign aid is relatively small as a proportion of GDP as compared to other advanced industrialized countries like Japan.

2) Private individual United States foreign aid through charitable organizations is very generous as a proportion of GDP as compared to other advanced industrialized countries like Japan.

3) When you add up #1 and #2, you find that total United States foreign aid (public and private) is right in line with the aid given by other advanced industrialized countries like Japan.

Conclusion: The United States as a whole is no more and no less generous than other advanced industrialized countries regarding foreign aid.
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
BTW, that "Norwegian asshat" never actually mentioned the United States as stingy.

That's because Egeland actually only referred to "wealthy states" and "donor states," but at no time did he ever single out the United States of America. Ironically, when a reporter prompted him to name a list of the specific countries he believed to be "stingy," he pointedly declined to do so at all.

This is what he actually said (note the quotation of his actual words):

quote:
"It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really," the Norwegian-born U.N. official told reporters. "Christmastime should remind many Western countries at least, [of] how rich we have become."
He is condemning his own country of Norway in his "we" denunciation.

Watch the full 48-minute broadcast here and judge for yourself. At no point does he ever mention "United States" and "stingy" together.

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/pressconference/

Conclusion: This is a fabricated tempest in a teapot. The news media just spun the "Norwegian asshat calls US stingy" story out of whole cloth despite the fact that the "Norwegian asshat" in question never said any such thing. He said wealthy countries were stingy, and he never singled out the United States.

P.S. I am as fond of UN-bashing as the next guy, but this is just ridiculous.

[ December 29, 2004, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by Tezcatlipoca (Member # 1312) on :
 
This is a charged thread. Seems to be a touchy subject.

I personally do not think that the United States has any obligation as a citizen of this world or an obligation from a humanitarian point of view to give money for disaster relief for these countries. I see no gain or purpose for spending money which is already taxed out of me on people from a different country who will hate me anyway. I expect all money the government gets from my taxes to benefit me and the place where I live. That is the point of taxes. My taxes are meant for me, not for people in different countries. They have their own taxes, let them cover it.

If they want money, they can accept charity. As many people have pointed out, millions are already being raised by non-government organizations, some of which are more than all but one countries donations added together. Let them get disaster relief from them, not from my taxes. If I feel like giving to them, then I will through a charity, not through taxes which I am forced to pay. I fail to see what is so humanitarian about coercing people out of money to give it to other people. Under certain circumstances that is called robbery.

No country has to give these victims anything, only the government they live in has that requirement. It is their own natural disaster, I don't see them pooling together money when a hurricane hits Florida or an earthquake hits San Franciso. Where does this moral requirement come from simply because I happen to have more money than them?

Prove to me that there might actually be a gain from me donating money to these people, and I might consider it. How about God will reward me in Heaven? How about if I show these people goodwill they might possibly think of me in better term? Convince me, don't cry to me.

[ December 30, 2004, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: Tezcatlipoca ]
 
Posted by kelcimer (Member # 1221) on :
 
Tez

I don't think these countries are that high on the "hate america" list. They are Asian countries, not muslem.

And we should at least give some to India on account of a certain strategic partnership thingy we want to develope.
 
Posted by Tezcatlipoca (Member # 1312) on :
 
quote:
I don't think these countries are that high on the "hate america" list. They are Asian countries, not muslem.
They haven't done anything to show they are a friend to me, so why help them? Just because they aren't my enemy doesn't make them my friend. You still haven't convinced me that these countries are worth anything for me to spend my money on.

quote:
And we should at least give some to India on account of a certain strategic partnership thingy we want to develope.
Ah ha. A reason for helping India. You might be able to convince me, you are heading in the right direction but I need something more solid than something that might not even come to pass. Also, didn't India reject all aid?
 
Posted by FIJC (Member # 1092) on :
 
quote:
"They haven't done anything to show they are a friend to me, so why help them? Just because they aren't my enemy doesn't make them my friend. You still haven't convinced me that these countries are worth anything for me to spend my money on."
I have to admit that I really do not agree with your post on this topic. I have no problem with giving substantial foreign aid to those nations devasted by war, natural disasters, etc. The way I see it, when one gives a private donation, they are giving the donation on the behalf of themself or on the behalf of their family. I think of foreign aid as giving a monetary donation on the behalf of the nation, which I think, is important. Regardless of whether or not the United States has something to gain in the situation, we have the moral obligation to help those less fortunate than we. I can agree that some types of foreign aid should come with more strings attached or that we should consider giving out more loans or lessen the amount of aid in certain situations, but in this situation, I clearly think that we, as a nation, have the moral obligation to give what we can to those nations devasted by the tsunami.

[ December 30, 2004, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: FIJC ]
 
Posted by ATW (Member # 1690) on :
 
Any retribution from the stingy wealthy countries for the comment should be directed at the UN, which is responsible for what this guy says, rather than the disaster victims who are not.

Hypothetical: what world reaction would be if the US took the money it normally would give to the UN this year and instead spent it on this disaster relief effort.
 
Posted by Kit (Member # 1299) on :
 
waa, waa, waa, we want our money?
 
Posted by Kit (Member # 1299) on :
 
You do have a good point though ATW. Don't let our animosity from the guys comments keep us from doing the right thing.

And while he didn't specify the US, the US is most definatly in the category he did specify. "Rich nation" only giving "0.1 to 0.2 % of the GDP" may not be limited to the US, but it isn't that big a category. Basicaly the way I took his comments were, "My country is so generous, the rest of you guys are bad people because you are misers." That may not be how he meant it, but that's how it came out to me. So he's an idiot and a jerk. Oh well, forget him, we've got people to help, and he's a distraction.
 
Posted by FIJC (Member # 1092) on :
 
quote:
"And while he didn't specify the US, the US is most definatly in the category he did specify. "Rich nation" only giving "0.1 to 0.2 % of the GDP" may not be limited to the US, but it isn't that big a category. Basicaly the way I took his comments were, "My country is so generous, the rest of you guys are bad people because you are misers." That may not be how he meant it, but that's how it came out to me. So he's an idiot and a jerk. Oh well, forget him, we've got people to help, and he's a distraction."
And the stats that he was drawing this conclusion from did not take into account all of the private donations that US citizens give to various private relief charities, which actually amounts to the billions. Taking this into account, the US would most likely come in first for giving money to aid foreign nations.
 
Posted by ed (Member # 1673) on :
 
FIJC:

it's actually really hard to quantify those numbers, i think. precisely how would you compile those statistics, after all? all he can talk about is how much money the US government gives. that's hardly the same thing as how much the US people give.

what surprises me is how personally some seem to be taking this. people, words have only as much power over you as you give them.

ed

[ December 30, 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: ed ]
 
Posted by FIJC (Member # 1092) on :
 
quote:
"it's actually really hard to quantify those numbers, i think. precisely how would you compile those statistics, after all? all he can talk about is how much money the US government gives. that's hardly the same thing as how much the US people give."
I agree. The numbers I have seen are directly from USAid and the American Philanthropy Association. The only reason Americans are riled about this is because those statistics the UN compiled and use clearly do not give the full picture of American foreign aid.

[ December 30, 2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
Compared to Europe, don't we tax our people significantly less? Some of those governments take half their people's incomes, right? Of course they should be more "generous" as a country. [Big Grin]

Perhaps GDP isn't the best way to guage how much should be donated.
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
What makes it harder to guage is international organizations.

For instance, the LDS church is likely going to donate a lot (both in money and supplies) but how much came from Americans and how much from mormons outside the US?

Many American mormons report on tax forms how much they donated in general to the church but I know many don't. There isn't any breakdown from donations as to how much went to "foreign aid" of some sort.

I'm sure similar things could be said for many other churches and organizations. We donate a lot but it's hard to figure where all those donations actually go to. Not all donations go to a specialized pot.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Another aspect that gets completely ignored is tha plain and simple fact that much of foreign aid given by our governmnet to other countries is often subverted for the ruling classes to personally benefit while the people it was intended for continue to suffer from the problems the foreign aid is supposedly meant for.

That is why I too support Tez's view that we should not be giving foreign aid for our tax dollars simply in the name of 'humanitarian' causes. Strategic causes are quite different, but simply humanitarian causes? Since our private charity organizations are more effective, I'd prefer that be the focus, with the only role government plays in is oversight to prevent private charity corruption.

And David, you are partially correct. Apparently I fell for the spin from the CNN article I initially posted....but just because he said 'we' doesn't mean he didn't intend to include the US in it. Given the UN's track record, I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever he definitely meant to include the US in his indictment....afterall, the US is considered part of the "wealthy West."
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Aside from all this debate, I'd like to call on everyone to contribute to the victims of this tragedy in any way they can. One of our local shipping companies is collecting supplies like tarps, bottled water, canned food etc. to fill up containers to ship to Indonesia. I'm going to donate some supplies today.

Also, here's a useful site for anyone else interested in helping out: http://tsunamihelp.blogspot.com/

This blog has been set up to to consolidate as much information about the Tsunami and aid relief programs into one place in cyberspace to make it easier for the world to help out.

We don't need the government to use our tax dollars for aid to justify our sense of humanitarianism and good will. I think most people in this country can do quite well in that regards on their own, thank you very much.
 
Posted by carmachu (Member # 1691) on :
 
quote:
I agree. The numbers I have seen are directly from USAid and the American Philanthropy Association. The only reason Americans are riled about this is because those statistics the UN compiled and use clearly do not give the full picture of American foreign aid.
Lets show the lies of statistics shall we? On another board, someone through up the article(I'll have to drag it back here at a later date).

The mythical UN percentage numbers, Norway gives the recommended 0.7% GNP, which is in real numbers $2 billion. The 'stingy' US, not counting military aid, personel, private agencies and charities, gives "only" 0.15, but in real numbers is actually $15.8 billion dollars.

Now see why US folks are pissy.


carmachu
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Carmachu, it really boils down to the entitlement mentality that comes with dependance. It's not 'Thank you for your contributions' it's 'why aren't you giving even more.'

To all those people that grumble about the percentage of GDP that America gives to foreign aid and disaster releif, I call on you to put your money where your mouth is and donate to the American Red Cross or some other organization involved in helping the Tsunami victims. Even one dollar per person in the US would be an enormous sum.

If you won't or don't, please....just STFU and spare the rest of us your guilt trip. Just because you voted for a politician that you think would have advocated donating more tax dollars than currently pledged doesn't mean YOU are on some moral high ground to call the rest of our country "stingy" or "greedy."
 
Posted by KidA (Member # 1499) on :
 
I don't want to get in the middle of this rather harsh debate. I'd like to offer a few numbers though.

The most generous county thus far in aid to the Tsunami victims appears to be the UK, whose total government aid comes to 50 million pounds, or a little over $96 million. Add to this the 22million pounds ($42.2 million) raised by the public charity, that comes to $138.2 million.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tsunami/story/0,15671,1381100,00.html

I can't find info on American charities yet. I'm not accusing the U.S. citizens of lacking charity.

KidA gave $25 to the Red Cross yesterday, for which he got a tongue-lashing from Mrs. KidA, because KidA "still" has a substantial credit card debt, and KidA - working as he does for a non-profit theater - is not exactly pulling in mad money.

I think the U.S. does pretty well by other countries in general, though I think we could do more. More importantly, I think we could spend our money better. We pledge billions to stop AIDS worldwide, for instance, and then refuse to teach the use of condoms as part of the prevention program. Wasted money, I think.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Some thoughts on why the US might be criticized for its lack of generosity on this matter.

We are currently heavily involved in military action, and our administration is about to ask for another huge chunk of money for the war effort. This war effort is eating up billions of dollars of federal money. Most people in industrialized nations around the world, and approximately half of americans, believe this war is a bad thing.

On the other hand, there are very few people in the world who believe that helping out in the wake of a huge natural disaster is a bad thing.

There are literally millions of people who will need economic assistance in the upcoming months, as a direct result of this earthquake. The US government has just said "We can offer 35 million dollars to ease the suffering. Meanwhile, we are going to ask for 90 billion dollars to continue a war effort in Iraq that most of you don't believe is justified."

Whether or not 35 million dollars is a reasonable sum for the united states to supply, in contrast to our massive spending on an invasion and occupation, it appears, and is, paltry.

There is a sentiment, legitimate or not, that the US right now is more concerned with spreading its power then doing actual good. With that belief, looking at the numbers for foreign disaster relief, and spending for warfare, it can easily appear that the US is donating far less money then it could, and that the reason we don't send more AID is because we are more concerned about waging war then rebuilding homes.

Whether this is a legitimate belief or not, well, its not an argument for this thread. But I think thats WHY there might be criticism aimed at the US for only sending 35 million in aid.
 
Posted by KidA (Member # 1499) on :
 
Ditto what Ev said.

Another great example of this is our post-war aid to Afghanistan. The cumulative total for the past 3 years barely tops 3 billion - while the country countinues to struggle to fight the opium growers and warlords who render Karzai little more than the "Mayor of Kabul."
 
Posted by carmachu (Member # 1691) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidA:
I don't want to get in the middle of this rather harsh debate. I'd like to offer a few numbers though.

The most generous county thus far in aid to the Tsunami victims appears to be the UK, whose total government aid comes to 50 million pounds, or a little over $96 million. Add to this the 22million pounds ($42.2 million) raised by the public charity, that comes to $138.2 million.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tsunami/story/0,15671,1381100,00.html

I can't find info on American charities yet. I'm not accusing the U.S. citizens of lacking charity.

KidA gave $25 to the Red Cross yesterday, for which he got a tongue-lashing from Mrs. KidA, because KidA "still" has a substantial credit card debt, and KidA - working as he does for a non-profit theater - is not exactly pulling in mad money.

I think the U.S. does pretty well by other countries in general, though I think we could do more. More importantly, I think we could spend our money better. We pledge billions to stop AIDS worldwide, for instance, and then refuse to teach the use of condoms as part of the prevention program. Wasted money, I think.

quote:
Whether this is a legitimate belief or not, well, its not an argument for this thread. But I think thats WHY there might be criticism aimed at the US for only sending 35 million in aid.
Do more? *spits on the ground* Does that total moneis include the marine expedition force, the naval group with aircraft carrier and at least one coast guard boat, and some search and rescue plane units, and of course the personal of all the listed?

I think not.

*Shrug* More than likely, we'll top a billion at the end, as the needs and stuff continue. BUT just to be a REAL cynical bastard, I call on the UN itself to cough up a billion dollars, since hey, HOW much did you steal in the oil for food program?

carmachu

[ December 30, 2004, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: carmachu ]
 
Posted by KidA (Member # 1499) on :
 
Lovely.
 
Posted by JLMyers (Member # 1983) on :
 
quote:
Do more? *spits on the ground* Does that total moneis include the marine expedition force, the naval group with aircraft carrier and at least one coast guard boat, and some search and rescue plane units, and of course the personal of all the listed?
Does no one read my posts? I made this point on the fifth post of the thread.

quote:
What is the cost of the military aid; ships, planes for recon and airlifting food, and supplies, and soldiers to assist in the rescue and rebuilding efforts? Does that get figured in with the 15 mil? I bet not. I bet that is on top of that figure. I have to agree with Darum; F him.

KE

And I still think it is a good point. One which none of the US-bashers has addressed.

KE

[ December 30, 2004, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: JLMyers ]
 
Posted by KidA (Member # 1499) on :
 
"What is the cost of the military aid; ships, planes for recon and airlifting food, and supplies, and soldiers to assist in the rescue and rebuilding efforts? Does that get figured in with the 15 mil? I bet not."

Apparently, it does.

"Pledges of U.S. assistance remained at $35 million, but parallel Pentagon spending was spiraling upward and could not be calculated quickly. The relief included the arrival of four C-130 cargo planes in Thailand loaded with food, water and sheltering material, and a large supply of rice and other food and assistance was due to arrive in Indonesia by New Year's Eve, a senior U.S. official said."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041231/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/tsunami_us


The article also notes "Several European countries far outdistanced the United States in pledges. They include Britain, $95 million; Sweden, $75.5 million; Spain, $68 million and France, $57 million."


Anyway, why wouldn't that figure include those things? It's not like we're writing them a check. The aid figure is the total cost of our aid operations.

I'm sure that the U.S pledge is just an initial amount, and that plenty more will follow - if that makes you feel any better.
 
Posted by KidA (Member # 1499) on :
 
Ah, I'm a little slow to put 2 + 2 together tonight. The "parallel Pentagon spending" may include some of what you're referring to.

But then, the same may be true of all the other countries....
 
Posted by Tezcatlipoca (Member # 1312) on :
 
quote:
The way I see it, when one gives a private donation, they are giving the donation on the behalf of themself or on the behalf of their family. I think of foreign aid as giving a monetary donation on the behalf of the nation, which I think, is important. Regardless of whether or not the United States has something to gain in the situation, we have the moral obligation to help those less fortunate than we. I can agree that some types of foreign aid should come with more strings attached or that we should consider giving out more loans or lessen the amount of aid in certain situations, but in this situation, I clearly think that we, as a nation, have the moral obligation to give what we can to those nations devasted by the tsunami.

Moral obligation? And what code of morals are you talking about? Is there some law in our government that says I must help my fellow man if I don't want to?

All this talk of moral obligation is starting to sound like it is from some religious organization. If you are talking as if you are from a religious organization, why don't you give your money through a religous organization. As far as I can see it you are basically forcing your idea of morals into my pocket, and taking my money without my approval. Would you like it if I wrote a check for you to the Satanic Club, because I felt you had a moral obligation to, even though you aren't a member?

Taxes are not meant to be used for humanitarian aid, charity is. But your religous morals where it belongs, with religous organizations. The government is not a religous organization, that that is not it's purpose. I don't care how morally justified you feel with taking my money and giving it to other people so they will feel better, it is still stealing. If you believe that it is the right thing to do then you are simply a moral relativist.

And you still haven't given me a solid reason for helping these countries. Why don't you appeal to my brain instead of my heart. I might be a cold-hearted calculating bastard, but you can still get money out of me if you make it seem worth my while.

quote:
We are currently heavily involved in military action, and our administration is about to ask for another huge chunk of money for the war effort. This war effort is eating up billions of dollars of federal money. Most people in industrialized nations around the world, and approximately half of americans, believe this war is a bad thing.

On the other hand, there are very few people in the world who believe that helping out in the wake of a huge natural disaster is a bad thing.

So? I believe that spending all that money on the war is worth it, because I see benefits to that investment. I don't see a benefit to the investment of helping a group of people survive simply so they can drain more money from me later. I choose not to be responsible for those people, they need to be responsible for themselves. That is, unless you can convince me that spending billions on them would be to my advantage.

I don't care what you think about the war effort, that is not the issue in this thread. The issue is why bother helping these people when they can offer nothing back? Can you convince me that they actually do have something worthwhile to give me?
 
Posted by Richard Dey (Member # 1727) on :
 
Kelcimer doesn't "think these countries are that high on the "hate america" list. They are Asian countries, not muslem." More than half the victims will be Muslims.

Anti-American, Anti-Christian, Secessionist, Homophobic, and rabidly Islamic: that describes Aceh. That's what prompted my snide comment about Allah's Will Be Done. Malaya is not poor. And Ceylon is a pile of gems promoted on three channels of television.

I'm hardly cheap, but the real losers here are the Nicobars (which we should not resettle with one penny of American funds); they are flat, they should never have been settled, and India just HAD to have them because they expanded India's maximum easterly and southerly statistics. It was hubris, and it has proved deadly.

Can we now buy into this sorrow? Can we 'take advantage' of a tragic situation? Can we win the hearts and minds of Muslims of the Indian Ocean? A few billion later we may have an answer: no.

We can't buy friends. I held my nose and wrote a cheque to a bank in Thailand that I know can use it well.

We are not stingey. We use private funds for charity -- and that's the sensible way for charity to be used. I don't trust these huge relief organizations that ignored Uganda, have ignored the Sudan, and squabble it all (squander it all?) in fancy NY restaurants.

Little stories add up. My father crawled naked across New Guinea in 1945 only to be denied a cup of coffee by the Red Cross because he'd lost his dog tag in an air crash. Sorry. I'd give to the pink swastika before I gave to the red cross.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Just please note Richard that there is a world of difference between the American Red Cross and the almost viruently anti-American International Red Cross (but I didn't know they were that way even in 1945?!?!?)
 
Posted by Jon Camp (Member # 192) on :
 
As noted here some of the USA's private donation pledges are already over $127 million -- on top of the $35 million pledged by the government. Additionally, as has been noted, we've already got supplies headed that direction by sea nad by air which is in addition to the cash assistance, and there are also 7 water purification ships on the way.

Add all that up and I think we're probably already over a billion with more continuing to be given and pledged over time.

But our government didn't pledge it as straight cash assistance, so I guess it doesn't count. [Roll Eyes]

Some other links:

Bellicose Woman
Daniel Drezner
Glenn Reynolds
CNN Money Report

Edit: From the CNN page alone there is nearly $70 million in cash pledged, plus additional offers of medicines and other assistance of goods that haven't been quantified in hard numbers as to cash value yet. When it all shakes out, I wouldn't be surprised if the US provides somewhere in the neighborhood of 35% of ALL contributions, just like we normally do, all by ourselves.

[ December 31, 2004, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Jon Camp ]
 
Posted by Jon Camp (Member # 192) on :
 
Was going to edit in an update, but it tells me I can't, so:

UPDATE: Reuters

US Govt now pledges $350 million in cash assistance.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
Most countries are willing to be more than generous once the extent of the need is known. Canada's intial pledge was 5 million which has now grown to 40 million. I wouldn't be surprised if that amount is more than doubled in coming weeks as the real severity of the damage becomes more apparent.

Just like the US and UK, we also have enormous sums being donated by corporations and citizenry.

It's too bad that some representatives can't keep their mouths shut. It reminds me of a story a girlfriend told me.

Her mother saw a homeless man sitting outside a gas station, so when she went in to pay for her gas, she also bought a sandwhich for him. She came out and gave it to him. He opened the packaging, turned the sandwich around in his hands and handed it back.

"I don't eat ham."

My point is, be grateful for what you are offered. There's nothing more distasteful than looking a gift horse in the mouth, or complaining when you get one.

Just for some balance, I'll add this:

Maybe giving with a poor and stingy spirit is almost as bad as not being grateful. The truth is, none of know when we might need a little help ourselves. A miserly resentment to giving of ourselves is pretty low.

[ December 31, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: canadian ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Aw, canadian, you just beat me to this thread...

Since its inception, I've been chuckling at this thread as another example of US navel-gazing. I think every western country saw itself reflected in Mr. Egeland's statement; Canadian's went into hand-wringing mode ("Why are we so stingy, boo hoo") and US'ers (at least as far as Ornerites are concerned) seemed to fall back into a jingoistic "attack the messenger" pose. But only the US, it seems, has the hubris to believe that "we", spoken by a Norwegian, means the US specifically.

At any rate, I think the guy did a great job - with one turn of phrase, yes, he pissed off a lot of people, but he also put the funding issue front and centre on all the major media, in such a way that people just couldn't ignore it.

His gaffe may lead to increased donations and commitments, but it's almost certain that he got the ball rolling earlier than otherwise would have been the case.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Donald D, your hypothesis is ridiculous.

If this guy never said a word, I state emphatically that not one iota of donations and aid offered by the US or any other Western country would be a penny less than what is already been promised and/or delivered.

I certainly didn't make my own donations with regards to ANY kind of guilt trip or statement by a UN asshat, and I doubt anyone else did either.

And if anyone tries to posit the notion that Bush has been "shamed" into upping the ante, they are just using this disaster to take another partisan potshot.

Fact is, as Canadian alluded to, when a disaster first occurs, an immediate amount of money is promised at the outset (like the US's initial 15 million pledge), with increases invariably forthcoming as the extent of the damage and casualty count is accurately assesed. And that can be demonstrated by simply looking at our countries track record of disaster aid throughout recent history, regardless of which party occupies the White House.

Anyone who thinks this UN Asshat should be commended for providing motivation is simply projecting their own ideas that the US and other Western countries are not humanitarian oriented and will only do so if shamed into it. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
Oh my God...

And the winner is...

That's *really* tasteless.
 
Posted by JLMyers (Member # 1983) on :
 
quote:
And if anyone tries to posit the notion that Bush has been "shamed" into upping the ante, they are just using this disaster to take another partisan potshot.
Daruma,

Nice preemptive strike. [Wink]

KE
 
Posted by carmachu (Member # 1691) on :
 
quote:


His gaffe may lead to increased donations and commitments, but it's almost certain that he got the ball rolling earlier than otherwise would have been the case. [/QB]

Bull****.


Folks and countries arent going to fork out huge sums on no data: Powell And Jeb Bush(whose experience in florida is a help) also went over to assess.

No sense giving money to the UN whose habit of stealing is well known.

Personally as the situation continues to be asssessed, I fully expect even more money to go out.


carmachu
 
Posted by Zacharias Sigismund (Member # 2080) on :
 
THE thing is that America IS very stingy when it comes to aid in general. the international and historical agreement for al rich nations is to give away around 1 percent of BNP or GNP to poor nations. the us has consistently failed to do so. Actually the number even dropped, through negotiotians to 0.7 percent. But even that was too much for the US, not even less than 1 cent on the dollar, they could spare. Now, if that;s not stingy, i dunno whAT IS. yes, yes other countries are refusing to give too, but in view of the much larger number the us could give ... Besides, the US is always telling countries what to do, so ... What the UN guy was doing, was not just 'his job' as some of you with prolly less values have stated, he was trying to shame you into giving more on a structural basis.
Of course this nice guy from a friendly country like Norway doesn't truly realize that the US mostly consist of people like carmachu who simply have no shame, but only eyes for their ability to eat more pizza and clogging up the health system with their obscene obesity.
the way the us give aid might be through private funding but it goes more or less like this:
"hey we can give you money but not for an abortion or if you associate with abortion organisations you also don't get any money. We don;t care if you already have 12 children, because you were raped or something and you didn't have pills or condoms (we also frown on those) NO ABORTION related issues!!!"
Maybe the reason the us is 'donating' tru these private organisation, is that so they won't be held responsible for this, who knows.

you guys have and attitude like this and you still wonder why you get bombed? unreal.

And to even suggest that military expedition into iraq is aid, is a chutspah of the most devilish and evil kind.

compared to the japanese, 120 million people, 500 million dollar, you ARE stingy, 280 million people, 350 million dollars. And they have a lower BNP ...

I´d love to hear you whine on an on: "but it's our money, our money"

If thats the way you feel retract from the world bring all your troops home and de-invest al US business.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
QUOTE: Zacharias Sigismund said
quote:
the international and historical agreement for al rich nations is to give away around 1 percent of BNP or GNP to poor nations.
Name it. What is the name of this international and historical agreement? When did it take place? Where did it take place? Who participated? Who ratified it?

I do not see any information supporting this statement of yours in your post. I do recall reading an article comparing the annual aid donations of various countries as a percentage of their GNP, but there was no mention in the article I read about any international or historical agreement on what is considered an acceptable level of aid donations. Though there was plenty said about what a particular interviewee thought was appropriate.
 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
Zacharias -
quote:
Of course this nice guy from a friendly country like Norway doesn't truly realize that the US mostly consist of people like carmachu who simply have no shame
Welcome to the Ornery American forums, Zach.
Unsupported blanket generalizations like the quote above don't get you anywhere. You got evidence that most Americans are shameless? Or are you just letting your biases roam free and giving us insight into just how far you're willing to go without providing a shred of proof supporting your description?

Perhaps our unwillingness to spend a certain amonut of money on the UN is how poorly they implement their programs. When UN officials cruise through Kabul in top-of-the-line brand new Toyota Land Cruisers at our expense, we start asking questions. When current and former UN employees release a book that talks about big UN parties involving loads of drugs and sex, and misappropriation of money in "peacekeeping" operations, we start getting digusted. When the UN puts the worst human rights abusers in the world on the Humans Rights Committee but kicks out the US for a year from said committee, we start spitting at their hat-in-hand illegitimacy.

The amount of money we give to the UN is not indicative of how stingy or generous we are. We simply don't have confidence in the UN to handle much of anything outside of health.

But when we see a good cause halfway around the world, the US government puts up $350 million in short order and private Americans and American corporations give over $262 million (as of January 3).
We sent warships into the area that are producing huge amounts of fresh water and we've started using helicopters in relief aid.

What's that UN guy got to say about the UN's role?
quote:
"We are doing very little at the moment," U.N. emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland acknowledged in New York.
What does he have to say about the US military's role?
quote:
The Abraham Lincoln arrived off the coast Saturday and immediately began launching the Seahawks inland to deliver the goods.

"Those helicopters are worth their weight in gold now," said UN emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland.
[...]
The Seahawks were only part of a massive U.S. mobilization to help survivors in the region.

From a Thai air base the U.S. once used to bring about death and destruction in Vietnam, American planes now are bringing hope to millions.

About 400 U.S. troops already have arrived at Utapao Air Base two hours east of Bangkok and more are on the way.

A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in the Thai capital said the total number of American military participating in the relief effort would likely be in the "tens of thousands."

Almost immediately after they touched down in Utapao, American C-130 aircraft began running supplies down to the stricken areas of Thailand's Andaman Sea coast. The planes disgorged badly needed food and clean water, blankets, temporary housing shelters and dry ice to keep thousands of badly decomposed bodies from wasting away any further.

The American relief operation will be "enormous and continuous," the embassy spokesman said.

And you just HAD to compare our government to that of the Japanese, the people who obviously would have the most sympathy for tsunami victims. How about comparing us with the rest of the world as of today, now that we've gone so far as to *illegally* promise an amount of money that Congress hasn't approved? How about comparing American corporations with others? Phizer's giving $35 million alone, Coca-Cola is giving $10 million, Amazon.com set up a link that's already gotten more than $13.3 million from visitors to the site, Exxon Mobil is giving $5 million, Bristoll-Myers Squibb is giving $5 million. Check out all American contributors as of last night.
How about American charities? Catholic Relief Services ("The official international relief and development agency of the U.S. Catholic community") is offering $25 million.
Then there's the American Red Cross with over $44 million. Mercy Corps is giving $4.5 million. Save the Children is giving $5 million. World Vision is giving $8 million. All American.

How about this? Americans don't need our government to give away our cash for us to be the most generous people in the world. Our citizens alone are generous enough to outclass everyone else by orders of magnitude in private donations and philanthropy. Consider the military aid (something we as citizens can't readily do) and $350 million from our government a perk.
American private parties, humph. Not like we've fed literally billions of people in the Third World when our greedy billionaires bankrolled the Green Revolution. Not like our money has been directly responsible for wiping many of the most terrible diseases from the planet. Not like American intervention has done more for the spread of human rights and democracy than any other country on earth. Much better to focus on the kill counts in our wars, focus on us "telling other countries what to do." Top notch, Zach.

And finally, wake up and smell the coffee. You can bitch and moan about how evil and stingy and whiny Americans are all you want, but without us you've got nothing. Remember that. Americans certainly remember the rest of the world, whether it be in charity donations (every day for the last six months at least, there has been one kind of charity promotion or another at my supermarket) when the world turns upside down. Our greedy, capitalist corporations and God-fearing church-goers are giving more than many Western *countries*. In case you hadn't noticed, we always give a lot of money. Not a month goes by without appeals for a specific charity at my church. Some nun who's been working in Central and South America for the last forty years comes in, talks about how terrible it is for some people, describes how far $40 can go there, and asks us to whip out our wallets and do it with a smile. And we do.

Insensitive, blind wrist-slappers and anti-American ivory tower residents need this kind of treatment.

quote:
you guys have and attitude like this and you still wonder why you get bombed? unreal.
And the award for the most shockingly insensitive, ignorant sarcastic remark goes to... Mr. Sigismund!
I mean, wow, consider the attitude of Saddam Hussein for decades. His idea of charity was $25,000 checks to families of suicide bombers who killed civilians at pizza parlors and on buses.
But you're right, it's much worse to send billions of dollars' worth of aid to a laundry list of countries. We're such ingrates. Bomb away!

[ January 04, 2005, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]
 
Posted by ed (Member # 1673) on :
 
carmachu, an award appears to be in order... :>

ed
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
How about a reality check, Zacharias....pay attention to the bolded parts:

quote:


American stinginess is saving lives
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 04/01/2005)

A week ago, people kept asking me for my opinion of the tsunami, and, to be honest, I didn't have one. It didn't seem the kind of thing to have an "opinion" on, even for an opinion columnist - not like who should win the election or whether we should have toppled Saddam. It was obviously a catastrophe, and it was certain the death toll would keep rising, and other than that there didn't seem a lot to opine about.

I've never subscribed to Macmillan's tediously over-venerated bit of political wisdom about "events, dear boy, events". Most "events" - even acts of God - come, to one degree or another, politically predetermined: almost exactly a year before the tsunamis, there were two earthquakes - one measuring 6.5 in California, one of 6.3 in Iran. The Californian quake killed two people and did little physical damage. The Iranian one killed 40,000 and reduced an entire city to rubble - not just the glories of ancient Persia, but all the schools and hospitals from the 1970s and 1980s. The event in itself wasn't devastating; the conditions on the ground made it so.

That said, a sudden unprecedented surge by the Indian Ocean is as near to a pure "event" as one can get, and it seemed churlish to huff afterwards about why the governments of Somalia or the Maldives hadn't made a tsunami warning system one of their budgetary priorities.

But the waters recede and the familiar contours of the political landscape re-emerge - in this case, the need to fit everything to the Great Universal Theory of the age, that whatever happens, the real issue is the rottenness of America. Jan Egeland, the Norwegian bureaucrat who's the big humanitarian honcho at the UN, got the ball rolling with some remarks about the "stinginess" of certain wealthy nations. And Clare Short piled in, and then Polly Toynbee threw in her three-ha'porth, reminding us that " 'Charity begins at home' is the mean-minded dictum of the Right". But even Telegraph readers subscribe to the Great Universal Theory. On our Letters Page, Robert Eddison dismissed the "paltry $15 million from Washington" as "worse than stingy. The offer - since shamefacedly upped to $35 million - equates to what? Three oil tycoons' combined annual salary?"

Mr Eddison concluded with a stirring plea to the wicked Americans to mend their ways: "If Washington is to lay any claim to the moral, as distinct from the military, high ground, let it emulate Ireland and Norway's prompt and proportionate attempts to plug South-East Asia's gaping gap of need and help avert a further 80,000 deaths from infection and untreated wounds."

If America were to emulate Ireland and Norway, there'd be a lot more dead Indonesians and Sri Lankans. Mr Eddison may not have noticed, but the actual relief effort going on right now is being done by the Yanks: it's the USAF and a couple of diverted naval groups shuttling in food and medicine, with solid help from the Aussies, Singapore and a couple of others. The Irish can't fly in relief supplies, because they don't have any C-130s. All they can do is wait for the UN to swing by and pick up their cheque.

The Americans send the UN the occasional postal order, too. In fact, 40 per cent of Egeland's budget comes from Washington, which suggests the Europeans aren't being quite as "proportionate" as Mr Eddison thinks. But, when disaster strikes, what matters is not whether your cheque is "prompt", but whether you are. For all the money lavished on them, the UN is hard to rouse to action. Egeland's full-time round-the-clock 24/7 Big Humanitarians are conspicuous by their all but total absence on the ground. In fact, they're doing exactly what our reader accused Washington of doing - Colin Powell, wrote Mr Eddison, "is like a surgeon saying he must do a bandage count before he will be in a position to staunch the blood flow of a haemorrhaging patient". That's the sclerotic UN bureaucracy. They've flown in (or nearby, or overhead) a couple of experts to assess the situation and they've issued press releases boasting about the assessments. In Sri Lanka, Egeland's staff informs us, "UNFPA is carrying out reproductive health assessments".

Which, translated out of UN-speak, means the Sri Lankans can go screw themselves.

One of the heartening aspects of the situation is how easy it is to make a difference. By the weekend, the Australians had managed not just to restore the water supply in Aceh, but to improve it. Even before the tsunami, most residents of the city boiled their water. But 10 army engineers from Darwin have managed to crack open the main lines and hook them up to a mobile filtration unit. This is nothing to do with Egeland and his office or how big a cheque the Norwegians sent.

Indeed, the effectiveness of these efforts seems to be what Miss Short finds so objectionable. Washington's announcement that it would be co-ordinating its disaster relief with Australia, India and Japan smacked too much of another "coalition of the willing". "I think this initiative from America to set up four countries claiming to co-ordinate sounds like yet another attempt to undermine the UN," she told the BBC. "Only really the UN can do that job. It is the only body that has the moral authority."

I didn't catch the interview, but I'm assuming that the Oil-for-Fraud programme and the Child-Sex-for-Food programme notwithstanding, Miss Short managed to utter that last sentence with a straight face. But, if you're a homeless Sri Lankan, what matters is not who has the moral authority, but who has the water tankers and medical helicopters. President Bush didn't even bother mentioning the UN in his statement. Kofi Annan, by contrast, has decided that the Aussie-American "coalition of the willing" is, in fact, a UN operation. "The core group will support the UN effort," he said. "That group will be in support of the efforts that the UN is leading."

So American personnel in American planes and American ships will deliver American food and American medicine and implement an American relief plan, but it's still a "UN-led effort". That seems to be enough for Kofi. His "moral authority" is intact, and Guardian columnists and Telegraph readers can still bash the Yanks for their stinginess. Everybody's happy.


 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
If at the end this is still called a "UN-led effort" I'm going to write letters to all my representatives telling them to pull out of the UN and only send our checks to the WHO and their agricultural development program. The rest of the UN is rapidly proving how worthless they really are.
 
Posted by carmachu (Member # 1691) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ed:
carmachu, an award appears to be in order... :>

ed

Sorry ed, thats a forum special. Their not ready for that here.......

Thanks warrsawpact, you pretty much hit everything I would have.

carmachu
 
Posted by carmachu (Member # 1691) on :
 
Oh and just for Zach S. A VERY good reason not to give money to the UN:


More on "The UNcredibles": WFP (World Food Program) has "arrived" in the capital with an "assessment and coordination team." The following is no joke; no Diplomad attempt to be funny or clever: The team has spent the day and will likely spend a few more setting up their "coordination and opcenter" at a local five-star hotel. And their number one concern, even before phones, fax and copy machines? Arranging for the hotel to provide 24hr catering service. USAID folks already are cracking jokes about "The UN Sheraton." Meanwhile, our military and civilians, working with the super Aussies, continue to keep the C-130 air bridge of supplies flowing and the choppers flying, and keep on saving lives -- and without 24hr catering services from any five-star hotel . . . . The contrast grows more stark every minute.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
From NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF in today's NYTimes:
quote:
In 2003, the latest year for which figures are available, we increased such assistance by one-fifth, for President Bush has actually been much better about helping poor countries than President Clinton was. But as a share of our economy, our contribution still left us ranked dead last among 22 top donor countries.
He isn't biased or anything. DEAD LAST when you stop the list after us.
 
Posted by carmachu (Member # 1691) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
From NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF in today's NYTimes:
quote:
In 2003, the latest year for which figures are available, we increased such assistance by one-fifth, for President Bush has actually been much better about helping poor countries than President Clinton was. But as a share of our economy, our contribution still left us ranked dead last among 22 top donor countries.
He isn't biased or anything. DEAD LAST when you stop the list after us.
Well as someone once said, some countries may contribute the 1-2% but thats only $2 million, we may only give whatever percentage it is, but that is something in the area of $16 million....

But our real generosity comes privately, AS IT SHOULD BE, and that goes to show a Countries heart and giving, not how much a coutries government gives away at gunpoint from its citizens.....

carmachu
 
Posted by Kit (Member # 1299) on :
 
If there is a major drop after the top 22, then that may be a valid point. I mean, if #23 is only a tenth as much as the #22, then that is definately a different category.

I doubt that's the case though. [Roll Eyes]

The worst thing is how easily that kind of statement slips past the bs filters.
 
Posted by Mariner (Member # 1618) on :
 
It most likely is not an arbitrary cutoff point. There are 22 countries that are in the Development Assistance Committee, and are the ones generally counted when one considers foreign aid (US, Canada, Australia, NZealand, Japan, and pretty much all of Western Europe). Of course, the fact that all of this is related to GDP is bound to hurt the US, since our GDP is so ridiculously high. If you compare aid per capita, for instance, we're about average IIRC.

There's an article over at Foreign Policy in which they created an a commitment to development index for 21 countries (all of those mentioned above except Luxembourg). Basically, they compared the policies on a wide variety of topics related to improving developing nations, weighting various details and so forth. Thus, rather than simply looking at one number for aid, they factor in private giving, how efficiently it's used, and so forth. And then there's trade policies, migration, investments, security, and so forth. Using this index, the US (despite our score in aid and environment) ended up 7th out of 21 nations. So based on this index, we're in the top third, far better than the self-centered, stingy, greedy appearance other's think of us as.

Of course, one could say the index is biased (doubtful) or doesn't accurately take everything into account (more likely), but whatever. Just focusing on one number doesn't take everything into account either, but people love to jump on that as proof that the US is the great Satan. It's the same thing with this disasster- that initial $15 million may look bad at first, but our military's presence and work in setting up relief has proven to be completely invaluable. Whether or not we are dead last on one scale doesn't change the fact that the US has done a heck of a lot of good for the rest of the world.
 
Posted by JLMyers (Member # 1983) on :
 
Fox News reported that the US is spending 6 million dollars a day in military assets. And that is above and beyond the 350 million.

Mr. Sigismund,

You think we deserve to be bombed because we reserve the right to donate to charities and countries with values we believe in? Well, like you said; It's our money. Asnd anybody that excuses those cowardly murdering terrorists in any way is a dispicable person.

KE

[ January 07, 2005, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: JLMyers ]
 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
And as I mentioned, private Americans have already eclipsed our government's offer of $350 million. Private Americans have already given over $400 million, with huge chunks of that coming from pharmaceutical companies and the big charities like Catholic Relief Services and the American Red Cross.
 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
Oh wow. Check this out:

quote:
"The United Nations and international donors on Thursday faced an unusual problem as they sought to rally help for victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami: not a shortage of money, but a surfeit - or at least far more promised cash than they can use in the coming months.

"An outpouring of public donations and government pledges from around the world has created an embarrassment of riches. The $5bn (€3.8bn, £2.65bn) promised amounts to about $1,000 for each of the estimated 5m people affected, much more than the typical annual income of a Sri Lankan fisherman or an Indian villager, let alone an African peasant. [emphasis added]

"UN officials do not want to stop the money flowing, but they admit that it poses some unexpected challenges, not least because the pledges are already five times greater than the $977m appeal launched on Thursday by Kofi Annan, UN secretary general, for emergency tsunami relief efforts over the next six months."

Check out that and more here:
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/01/friday-tsunami-update.html
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1