Published: December 30, 2004
President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunamis in Asia. He also hurried to put as much distance as possible between himself and America's initial measly aid offer of $15 million, and he took issue with an earlier statement by the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, who had called the overall aid efforts by rich Western nations "stingy." "The person who made that statement was very misguided and ill informed," the president said.
We beg to differ. Mr. Egeland was right on target. We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world's poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world's richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That's less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.
The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.
Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.
Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.
Mr. Bush said yesterday that the $35 million we've now pledged "is only the beginning" of the United States' recovery effort. Let's hope that is true, and that this time, our actions will match our promises.
Originally posted by: ntdz
ignorance is bliss I guess. Sure our government gives less per GDP than other countries, but our private donations far outweigh any other country. We give more foreign aid than the rest of the world's countries combined, and WE'RE STINGY!? F*CK OFF. If you're worried so much about foreign aid, give some $ to a charity, it's not that difficult and people do it every day. The governemnt doesn't have to do everything for you people, it doesn't have to run your life like you want it to.
Originally posted by: loki8481
Published: December 30, 2004
President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunamis in Asia. He also hurried to put as much distance as possible between himself and America's initial measly aid offer of $15 million, and he took issue with an earlier statement by the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, who had called the overall aid efforts by rich Western nations "stingy." "The person who made that statement was very misguided and ill informed," the president said.
We beg to differ. Mr. Egeland was right on target. We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world's poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world's richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That's less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.
The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.
Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.
Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.
Mr. Bush said yesterday that the $35 million we've now pledged "is only the beginning" of the United States' recovery effort. Let's hope that is true, and that this time, our actions will match our promises.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/opinion/30thu2.html
I suppose everyone on the right will immediately dismiss this as liberal trash from the NYT, but it's more of a numbers piece.
IMO, people underestimate how much foreign aid helps our national security. by making promises and not delivering, and allowing poor people in 3rd world countries to live in squalor, we're missing out on opportunities to build good-will towards our country.
Originally posted by: ntdz
If you're worried so much about foreign aid, give some $ to a charity, it's not that difficult and people do it every day. The governemnt doesn't have to do everything for you people, it doesn't have to run your life like you want it to.
Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: ntdz
If you're worried so much about foreign aid, give some $ to a charity, it's not that difficult and people do it every day. The governemnt doesn't have to do everything for you people, it doesn't have to run your life like you want it to.
I'd direct you to my post over here: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...2&threadid=1478426
the fact is, though, the government can give a lot more than I personally can, and it would generate more good-will than the NGO's that I'm donating money to.
furthermore...
Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.
how do you explain that?
Originally posted by: loki8481
Published: December 30, 2004
Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/opinion/30thu2.html
I find this pretty disturbing and heartless. The Millennium Challenge was quite a while ago-was it nothing more than a PR stunt for Bush?
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
When the US "donates" money, that's actually our tax dollars. How dare the United Nations or another nation for that matter call for an increase in my taxes to help other people. It's my money, not some bureaucrat's money.
Individuals can donate all they want, but to force everyone to "donate" via taxation is absolutely horrible, worse than this natural disaster.
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
When the US "donates" money, that's actually our tax dollars. How dare the United Nations or another nation for that matter call for an increase in my taxes to help other people. It's my money, not some bureaucrat's money.
Individuals can donate all they want, but to force everyone to "donate" via taxation is absolutely horrible, worse than this natural disaster.
I don't want to donate to the Iraq fiasco anymore. Where are the forms to opt out?
It is in our Constitution for Congress to provide funding for a military. It is most definately not in our Constitution for direct taxation of citizens to fund some "feel-good" missions of mercy for other nations.Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
When the US "donates" money, that's actually our tax dollars. How dare the United Nations or another nation for that matter call for an increase in my taxes to help other people. It's my money, not some bureaucrat's money.
Individuals can donate all they want, but to force everyone to "donate" via taxation is absolutely horrible, worse than this natural disaster.
I don't want to donate to the Iraq fiasco anymore. Where are the forms to opt out?
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
When the US "donates" money, that's actually our tax dollars. How dare the United Nations or another nation for that matter call for an increase in my taxes to help other people. It's my money, not some bureaucrat's money.
Individuals can donate all they want, but to force everyone to "donate" via taxation is absolutely horrible, worse than this natural disaster.
I don't want to donate to the Iraq fiasco anymore. Where are the forms to opt out?
Same place as the other forms to opt out of something the goverment does that you do agree with.....
It is in our Constitution for Congress to provide funding for a military. It is most definately not in our Constitution for direct taxation of citizens to fund some "feel-good" missions of mercy for other nations.
Like I said, everyone is free to choose whether to donate or not. There is no need for the government to get involved.
And how do you know it was unnecessary? Do you have top-secret clearance at the Pentagon? Tell all of the Iraqis who are going to vote this January that we wasted money. Sending money to 3rd world nations is a waste. Stabilizing an entire region of the world is not.Originally posted by: Engineer
It is in our Constitution for Congress to provide funding for a military. It is most definately not in our Constitution for direct taxation of citizens to fund some "feel-good" missions of mercy for other nations.
Like I said, everyone is free to choose whether to donate or not. There is no need for the government to get involved.
It's not in our Constitutation to invade countries unnecessarily and then waste money on them.
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
And how do you know it was unnecessary? Do you have top-secret clearance at the Pentagon? Tell all of the Iraqis who are going to vote this January that we wasted money. Sending money to 3rd world nations is a waste. Stabilizing an entire region of the world is not.Originally posted by: Engineer
It is in our Constitution for Congress to provide funding for a military. It is most definately not in our Constitution for direct taxation of citizens to fund some "feel-good" missions of mercy for other nations.
Like I said, everyone is free to choose whether to donate or not. There is no need for the government to get involved.
It's not in our Constitutation to invade countries unnecessarily and then waste money on them.
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
And how do you know it was unnecessary? Do you have top-secret clearance at the Pentagon? Tell all of the Iraqis who are going to vote this January that we wasted money. Sending money to 3rd world nations is a waste. Stabilizing an entire region of the world is not.Originally posted by: Engineer
It is in our Constitution for Congress to provide funding for a military. It is most definately not in our Constitution for direct taxation of citizens to fund some "feel-good" missions of mercy for other nations.
Like I said, everyone is free to choose whether to donate or not. There is no need for the government to get involved.
It's not in our Constitutation to invade countries unnecessarily and then waste money on them.
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
When the US "donates" money, that's actually our tax dollars. How dare the United Nations or another nation for that matter call for an increase in my taxes to help other people. It's my money, not some bureaucrat's money.
Individuals can donate all they want, but to force everyone to "donate" via taxation is absolutely horrible, worse than this natural disaster.
I don't want to donate to the Iraq fiasco anymore. Where are the forms to opt out?
Same place as the other forms to opt out of something the goverment does that you do agree with.....
It is in our Constitution for Congress to provide funding for a military. It is most definately not in our Constitution for direct taxation of citizens to fund some "feel-good" missions of mercy for other nations.
Like I said, everyone is free to choose whether to donate or not. There is no need for the government to get involved.
It's not in our Constitutation to invade countries unnecessarily and then waste money on them.
So in order them them to like us we need to give them money? That sounds liked extortion to me.Originally posted by: loki8481
poverty + dislike of America = breeding ground for terrorists.
Originally posted by: loki8481
how do you not get that foreign aid helps the US in the long run? it's much the same as the educational system helps us out in the long run. I don't think the constitution mandated that we provide 12 years of free education either, but we do it because an educated society produces a more competative economy.
Originally posted by: Excelsior
I wonder why you are so pissed off about money being wasted there..when it is wasted every year, and has been for a long time, on things other than "bullsh!t" wars.
Originally posted by: Engineer
We didn't go there to give the mother fvckers the right to vote. We went there on a bullshit story of WMD's. You can spew your bullshit until your fvcking warmongering head falls off (which would be a good thing), but you're not changing my mind on the subject. It was a bullshit war. I didn't approve then...I don't know (Neither do 56% of the people in the US - but who cares, right?). Stabilizing the world? LOL....you keep telling yourself that. I don't want to hear the sh!t. Pull our troops out and stop spending MY money (as you say) on that dumb sh!t! :|
(And yes, I'm Goddamned mad about it}
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: Engineer
We didn't go there to give the mother fvckers the right to vote. We went there on a bullshit story of WMD's. You can spew your bullshit until your fvcking warmongering head falls off (which would be a good thing), but you're not changing my mind on the subject. It was a bullshit war. I didn't approve then...I don't know (Neither do 56% of the people in the US - but who cares, right?). Stabilizing the world? LOL....you keep telling yourself that. I don't want to hear the sh!t. Pull our troops out and stop spending MY money (as you say) on that dumb sh!t! :|
(And yes, I'm Goddamned mad about it}
Read Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution. I really do not mind paying my taxes to fund our military as it is defined in our Constitution. But nowhere in A1, S8 does it say Congress is send money to foreign people.
Originally posted by: spidey07
heh, whiny babies they all are.
Look - after all is said and done the US will have contributed more aid for this disater than all of western europe combined in all likelyhood.
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
So in order them them to like us we need to give them money? That sounds liked extortion to me.Originally posted by: loki8481
poverty + dislike of America = breeding ground for terrorists.
Originally posted by: loki8481
how do you not get that foreign aid helps the US in the long run? it's much the same as the educational system helps us out in the long run. I don't think the constitution mandated that we provide 12 years of free education either, but we do it because an educated society produces a more competative economy.
Actually, I would very much like to see the Department of Education abolished and all public schools shut down. I went to private, prepratory schools my whole life and the money my parents spent on my education was less than what was spent in public schools, yet the quality of my education was much better.
The point is that whenever government gets involved in anything there will be waste. With all of the money comes the fight for power. Throw in the nearly unlimited power than our government has, and you can see the corruption.
I hope the US government sends NOTHING. Let the citizens of the US send as much as they like, but leave government of out it.