U.S. Increases Tsunami Aid from $35 mil to $350 mil

[GrantDawg]

U.S. Increases Tsunami Aid from $35 mil to $350 mil (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/31/us.aid/index.html)

Wow. I never would've thought they'd up the aid by 10 times the original amount. Just guessing, but I don't think Jan Egeland will be calling this new amount "stingy".You're probably wrong. I don't think the US could give enough to curtail critics. Now, they are mad that the US has formed an organization to help deal out the money outside the UN. Remember, this isn't about helping people. It is about politics and power.

[stevew]

Are we gonna give this money to the corrupt un bastards, or use it ourselves as we see fit?

[Recoil]

U.S. Increases Tsunami Aid from $35 mil to $350 mil (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/31/us.aid/index.html)

Wow. I never would've thought they'd up the aid by 10 times the original amount. Just guessing, but I don't think Jan Egeland will be calling this new amount "stingy".

[ISiddiqui]

You gotta admit... that complaining worked.

[Ryan S]

The UN should fire the guy who complained about the stingy US donation. A man in that position should never come out with a comment like that, especially not when refering to a country which donates as much as the USA does.

[Cringer]

The UN should fire the guy who complained about the stingy US donation. A man in that position should never come out with a comment like that, especially not when refering to a country which donates as much as the USA does.

I have to agree some on this. Because you really should take into account the private donations that the people in this country will give/have given, and I bet that alone is more then most of the world governments combined. I am seeing donation things popping up everywhere. (Unfortunetly some are probably a scam, but the majority are not.)

[Anthony]

i hate being an American. we bend over the barrel for everyone. then when we ask for a little support when we try to oust corrupt regimes, where is everyone? i wish i were Canadian sometimes. no one expects anything out of that worthless country. this is gonna happen every time a crisis happens - we give out a fairly generous amount of aid, someone complains and call us out for being stingy and we increase that amount.

[MrBug708]

I wonder what the conservative a-hole roommate thinks now?

[Travis]

i wish i were Canadian sometimes. no one expects anything out of that worthless country.

Sorry dude, you wouldn't be welcome up here. We'll give our donations both as a country and as individuals and hopefully anybody with the same views as you about our country just stays out.

[Anthony]

look at the map. Canada is just as big as America, but no one complains about what Canadians give. i don't think there's ever been a country as big as Canada in the history of the world that has had such a profoundly small affect in world affairs. what do the pople up there do, exactly? i'm not gonna get into a "my country is better than yours" debate, cuz frankly i don't know you and don't care about your opinion. i threw Canada out there as an example of a large country but wth no resources to be a player in the global stage. no one complains about Canada.

i just wish the world couldn't have it both ways. they turn their backs on us as our young soldiers die so some fucking muslim piece of shit can have his freedom that they're too weak to take on their own, but when something bad happens everyone is first in line at Uncle America's doorstep with their hands out. i'd like to see one country that gave us even $35million for 9/11. i wish America would spend $350million on its own people. i'd rather Bush take that $350million and keep it in our Social Security or apply it towards alternate fuels research.

[ISiddiqui]

The UN should fire the guy who complained about the stingy US donation. A man in that position should never come out with a comment like that, especially not when refering to a country which donates as much as the USA does.

The government or the people? Because the government gives less than 1% of its GDP in foriegn aid, which is small.

[Anthony]

the percent of GDP thing is a product of UN/Europeans. a US official said we don't think in those terms. what does it matter if we give 1% of our GDP if we consistently give millions more than every country. what would you want me to give you - 50% of $1million or 10% of $100million?

we're not a world bank.

[ISiddiqui]

Um... because % of GDP indicates how much you are willing to give based on how you much you got.

If you have a guy who makes $10,000/year and gives $20 and there is a guy who makes $100,000/year and gives $21, wouldn't you say the later is being stingy? So what if he gives more, it's nothing to him!

[Dutch]

Has anybody seen any articles that predict what the private donations from each country has been to this tragedy? It's very relevant to the issue of "stingy" and very telling in the argument of private money vs. govt money.

[Dutch]

As for the original 35million. That was all their was in our foreign relief fun. It was always just an initial sum to produce for a crisis until the actual figures could be developed. You wouldn't know that by the news media that was slamming the US over and over again, though.

[Anthony]

the fact of the matter is you tell me which would you rather someone give you?

$100 from a poor person or $1,000 from a rich person?

nevermind the resources of the person giving you the money. if you say "i'd rather the $100 because the poor person is giving me a much more generous amount of money based on his resources", then this conversation is over. what does percentage matter when the rich give more overall? Bill Gates gives hundreds of millions - even billions by some estimates - and he's worth tens of billions of dollars...is he being stingy? the fact is no matter what percentage of his net worth he donates the actual dollar amount is still tons more than the next guy.

percentages mean nothing. actual dollars do.

[SunDancer]

look at the map. Canada is just as big as America, but no one complains about what Canadians give. i don't think there's ever been a country as big as Canada in the history of the world that has had such a profoundly small affect in world affairs. what do the pople up there do, exactly? i'm not gonna get into a "my country is better than yours" debate, cuz frankly i don't know you and don't care about your opinion. i threw Canada out there as an example of a large country but wth no resources to be a player in the global stage. no one complains about Canada.

i just wish the world couldn't have it both ways. they turn their backs on us as our young soldiers die so some fucking muslim piece of shit can have his freedom that they're too weak to take on their own, but when something bad happens everyone is first in line at Uncle America's doorstep with their hands out. i'd like to see one country that gave us even $35million for 9/11. i wish America would spend $350million on its own people. i'd rather Bush take that $350million and keep it in our Social Security or apply it towards alternate fuels research.

Ugh..Canada may be big in size, but the population is not that large.

[Anthony]

ISiddiqui strikes me as the type to accept a $1million gift from his wealthy billionaire uncle and complain afterwards that the guy is being a penny pincher.

[SunDancer]

But is the US obligated to give anything away in foreign aid?

Agreed. Also, how much do other nations give away in aid compared to other the US?

Also, lets look at it from a private sector in donation as well. Our country's individuals give away a hell alot of money. Look at Bill Gates. I believe his foundation along has an endownment of around $30 BILLLION alone.

[CraigSca]

FWIW, you can give to the Red Cross via amazon.com. As of this afternoon there were 100,000+ transactions for over $8 million.

[Ryan S]

The government or the people? Because the government gives less than 1% of its GDP in foriegn aid, which is small.
But is the US obligated to give anything away in foreign aid?

[clintl]

As for the original 35million. That was all their was in our foreign relief fun. It was always just an initial sum to produce for a crisis until the actual figures could be developed. You wouldn't know that by the news media that was slamming the US over and over again, though.

It was very widely reported that the $35 million depleted our foreign relief fund. That was stated in just about every article I read on the subject.

Really, I think the reason the whole "stingy" controversy came up in the first place is that Bush sat on his ass for three days before even having the decency to make a statement of condolences and a personal offer of relief aid. I don't think there was any malice in it, just a colossal etiquette blunder on his part. And the "stingy" remark did seem to accelerate the efforts of others in the government to pledge aid, so whether they were valid or not, they did have a useful effect in speeding up what was for a few days a very slow US response, much slower than the past US response to natural disasters (such as the earthquake in Iran a year or two ago) have been.

[Anthony]

That's because it was stingy, it amounted to a couple hours worth of the Iraq occupation that we lobbied for years for to protect the safety of the world. Now the world was REALLY in danger, in real life non-fantasy world, and we gave a pittance in comparison.

And when it is that we bend over the barrel for anyone? We do things that are in our own best interests, always have, always will. I'm an objectivist, so I don't disagree with that philosophy, but see things for what they are. We are not the great savior, we are not the white devil, we are somewhere in between.


tell that to the world. the world is still holding true to the age old myth that our streets are lined in gold and there's milk and honey for all who step foot on our shores.

[ISiddiqui]

But is the US obligated to give anything away in foreign aid?

Morally? Perhaps.

Really, I think the reason the whole "stingy" controversy came up in the first place is that Bush sat on his ass for three days before even having the decency to make a statement of condolences and a personal offer of relief aid. I don't think there was any malice in it, just a colossal etiquette blunder on his part. And the "stingy" remark did seem to accelerate the efforts of others in the government to pledge aid, so whether they were valid or not, they did have a useful effect in speeding up what was for a few days a very slow US response, much slower than the past US response to natural disasters (such as the earthquake in Iran a year or two ago) have been.

I agree with this. We waited for a while and then gave little. The comments, at least, spurred the government to give me.

[MrBigglesworth]

i hate being an American. we bend over the barrel for everyone. then when we ask for a little support when we try to oust corrupt regimes, where is everyone? i wish i were Canadian sometimes. no one expects anything out of that worthless country. this is gonna happen every time a crisis happens - we give out a fairly generous amount of aid, someone complains and call us out for being stingy and we increase that amount.
That's because it was stingy, it amounted to a couple hours worth of the Iraq occupation that we lobbied for years for to protect the safety of the world. Now the world was REALLY in danger, in real life non-fantasy world, and we gave a pittance in comparison.

And when it is that we bend over the barrel for anyone? We do things that are in our own best interests, always have, always will. I'm an objectivist, so I don't disagree with that philosophy, but see things for what they are. We are not the great savior, we are not the white devil, we are somewhere in between.

[ISiddiqui]

And if the federal govt were to give more of our money back to us, then you would see more aid and donations of all kind given.

That's actually not true. There has not been shown a link between increase in aid given and tax cuts.

[Buccaneer]

Imran, my friend, how could have gone so far from your original ideals???

How the @^#$%! should anything be measured by the amount of govt aid? Why doesn't everyone realize the amount of charity and generosity of private donations - from charitable organizations, churches and ministries? If the federal govt were to give $0, the amount of that the US would be given just in private aid would still exceed those of all other federal govts. That is what we need to encourage more of. And if the federal govt were to give more of our money back to us, then you would see more aid and donations of all kind given.

[stevew]

That's actually not true. There has not been shown a link between increase in aid given and tax cuts.

Perhaps because people still pay far too much in taxes in the first place?

[Buccaneer]

That's actually not true. There has not been shown a link between increase in aid given and tax cuts.
But there is on the amount of disposable income and increase in charitable givings. Tax cuts by themselves won't do it because there are many things the govts do to affect our disposable incomes.

[Cringer]

Man, I am not going to debate too much what is stingy and what is not, but lines like this from the media got to add fuel to the fire thats for sure....

Charities are moved by a woman's gift of her last $10, and children offering their piggy bank.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Asia-tsunami/Public-donations-to-top-45m/2004/12/31/1104344988659.html?oneclick=true

[ISiddiqui]

But there is on the amount of disposable income and increase in charitable givings.

Here is link from the Charity Finance Directors Group of the UK:

http://www.cfdg.org.uk/cfdg/newsdetail.asp?newscode=News22062004h

It indicates that poorer people give more to charity than richer people as a percentage of their income. If more disposable income leads to more charity, then you'd see that richer people would give more as a percentage of their income than poor people.

[Solecismic]

I know it's wrong, but the NY Times editorial stopped me from donating.

I feel a whole lot better about myself when I think my contributions are appreciated. Now that I know it's expected, I start thinking about how Ayn Rand would satirize the Times. I start worrying about the money going to corrupt politicians instead of the relief effort. I start thinking about everything but the people the need.

Well, if the article shamed the government into a special $350 million donation, I guess we're already covered. But I think the NY Times should list their entire editorial deparment, and the exact amount each person has donated to every cause.

[John Galt]

Imran, my friend, how could have gone so far from your original ideals???

How the @^#$%! should anything be measured by the amount of govt aid? Why doesn't everyone realize the amount of charity and generosity of private donations - from charitable organizations, churches and ministries? If the federal govt were to give $0, the amount of that the US would be given just in private aid would still exceed those of all other federal govts. That is what we need to encourage more of. And if the federal govt were to give more of our money back to us, then you would see more aid and donations of all kind given.

This just isn't true. These are facts:

The U.S. contributes more military foreign aid than any country in the world.

The U.S. gives more in development aid than any country, but the lead is smaller than you think. For a period of years, Japan actually gave more money globally in development assistance than the U.S. This continued despite Japan entering a recession and having a much smaller economy.

The U.S. does have more private donations, but Japan's government donations outstrip U.S. private contributions.

Disaster relief is something the U.S. is "good" at in spurts. It often gives large chunks of aid to some disasters, but often ignores larger disasters entirely.

I'm largely indifferent to the foreign aid debate, and I don't think % of GDP is a particularly good way to measure contributions, but these America-rocks-and-everyone-else-should-be-grateful aren't based on facts.

[CAsterling]

The UN should fire the guy who complained about the stingy US donation. A man in that position should never come out with a comment like that, especially not when refering to a country which donates as much as the USA does.

My comment on the 'stingy guy' where was he and his organisation when Florida was hit my 3 hurricanes this summer - didn't see him attempting to get foreign aid to the US to help those people and calling those countries that didn't do squat stingy then did we.

I detest the UN and its self serving politicans.

[DanGarion]

It's funny I read today that the US donates more money as a whole then all the countries in the world combined. in the UN. But it's all our fault when we start with the initial $35 mil?

How much aid the US get from the UN for the World Trade Center? Or any natual disasters throughout the years... I'd really love to know.

[Dutch]

Really, I think the reason the whole "stingy" controversy came up in the first place is that Bush sat on his ass for three days before even having the decency to make a statement of condolences and a personal offer of relief aid.

So basically anything Bush does before you are ready, he acts too soon and everything he does after you are ready he acts too late. There's really a very small sweet spot for most opponents of President Bush, and nobody's giving up the secret of when that is.

As I always say, the President (Republican/Democrat/Other) can make any mulitude of decisions but ultimately he can only make one. And his opponents are never too eager to point out the other million choices he could have made.

Power politics. And over 100,000 dead. That's sad.

[JW]

we're not a world bank.

But that is how some people think of us. A few points.
1. The UN is pissed that we formed an ad hoc coalition to distribute aid because Kofi's cronies won't get their typical cut before the aid is distributed.
2. The compliant about our stinginess did not result in the increase in US aid. The $35 million was always just an initial amount. The $350 million is just an interim figure. The total will be much, much more. That will include aid specifically dedicated to victims and aid that was already in the pipeline to those and other areas that will be diverted.
2. No matter how much we give, it would not be enough. The real problem is jealousy because the US is rich and powerful. We do a lot of things wrong, and more things right, but much of the time the problem people have with us is pure envy.
3. One wonders when the conspiracy theorists in France will start claiming that the quake and tsunamis were somehow CAUSED by the US.

[Arles]

Everyone (with a brain, that is) knew the initial $35 million was just to start the process. Even the gov't said that once they investigate the needs of the situation, they would almost certainly invest significantly more money into helping with the trajedy.

The UN's comments were either simply based on ignorance (not understanding the US policy on providing relief) or a way for the UN to toot its own horn once the US did what they knew it would do.

[finkenst]

Um... because % of GDP indicates how much you are willing to give based on how you much you got.

If you have a guy who makes $10,000/year and gives $20 and there is a guy who makes $100,000/year and gives $21, wouldn't you say the later is being stingy? So what if he gives more, it's nothing to him!
"And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the multitude were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. And calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, 'Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.'" (Mark 12:41-44)

[revrew]

% of GNP is faulty for another reason. How much (of a percentage) of the GNP does the U.S. Government control compared to that of other countries? It is my impression that given how low our taxes are, especially in comparison to European and/or socialist nations, U.S. private citizens control a much larger share of the GNP (as opposed to government control) than do other nations.

For example, a small socialist nation could give 30% of the GNP away and still have money left in its coffers. The U.S. government doesn't even have access to 30% of the GNP, because it's owned by private citizens.

Only by comparing the giving of private citizens AND the goverment, in total, can % of GNP have any relevance.

[clintl]

So basically anything Bush does before you are ready, he acts too soon and everything he does after you are ready he acts too late. There's really a very small sweet spot for most opponents of President Bush, and nobody's giving up the secret of when that is.

As I always say, the President (Republican/Democrat/Other) can make any mulitude of decisions but ultimately he can only make one. And his opponents are never too eager to point out the other million choices he could have made.

Power politics. And over 100,000 dead. That's sad.

This isn't even a close call. I wasn't expecting Bush to pinpoint an aid amount or figure out exactly how the US was going to help right away, but it's a piss poor example of world leadership to be silent about the crisis for three days, and even more so for members of his administration to express petty disdain for Bill Clinton giving the kind of statement to the BBC that Bush should have given to the world within hours after hearing about the disaster. I can't think of another US president in my lifetime, Republican or Democrat, who would have waited as long as Bush did to respond. It was extremely bad judgement.

[stevew]

This isn't even a close call. I wasn't expecting Bush to pinpoint an aid amount or figure out exactly how the US was going to help right away, but it's a piss poor example of world leadership to be silent about the crisis for three days, and even more so for members of his administration to express petty disdain for Bill Clinton giving the kind of statement to the BBC that Bush should have given to the world within hours after hearing about the disaster. I can't think of another US president in my lifetime, Republican or Democrat, who would have waited as long as Bush did to respond. It was extremely bad judgement.
:rolleyes:

People die, and yet some still feel the need to attack the president. Nicely played.

[clintl]

He deserves it. It wouldn't surprise me if he has heard the same criticisms himself privately and discreetly from some members of his own party (and maybe his own staff and cabinet).

[Cringer]

:rolleyes:

yes, the people hurt by this are worse off now because Bush was not on the airwaves within hours.

man, i don't like Bush and I see no reason to rip him for this. lighten up a little.

[Buccaneer]

JG,Imran: I was thinking more specifically about this event/aid instead of overall. Plus overall, one just cannot use pct of income or GDP because that doesn't matter - raw materials, people and actual monies do on the receiving end.

Jim: There are many non-profit organizations (such as various ministries) where the aid does not go through govt channels as much but directly to the people. Same thing with some corporations. I personally wouldn't trust govt or UN monies to help much but they are good at logistics (like getting ships and planes to there).

[GrantDawg]

Another example of someone depending upon the govt to DO something. Why do you look there first? Did you know that within hours when news struck of the magnitude that there were ministries, churches, charitable org and a few corporations already ramping up to get aid to the afflicted countries?

Or did you sit on your ass waiting for the federal govt to respond for you?
Excellent post. I think there is a role of goverment to help in these cases, but should not be the only (or even the main) source of help.

[SunDancer]

Mark Cuban's take on the situation-www.blogmaverick.com.

[Buccaneer]

This isn't even a close call. I wasn't expecting Bush to pinpoint an aid amount or figure out exactly how the US was going to help right away, but it's a piss poor example of world leadership to be silent about the crisis for three days, and even more so for members of his administration to express petty disdain for Bill Clinton giving the kind of statement to the BBC that Bush should have given to the world within hours after hearing about the disaster. I can't think of another US president in my lifetime, Republican or Democrat, who would have waited as long as Bush did to respond. It was extremely bad judgement.
Another example of someone depending upon the govt to DO something. Why do you look there first? Did you know that within hours when news struck of the magnitude that there were ministries, churches, charitable org and a few corporations already ramping up to get aid to the afflicted countries?

Or did you sit on your ass waiting for the federal govt to respond for you?

[clintl]

Another example of someone depending upon the govt to DO something. Why do you look there first? Did you know that within hours when news struck of the magnitude that there were ministries, churches, charitable org and a few corporations already ramping up to get aid to the afflicted countries?

Or did you sit on your ass waiting for the federal govt to respond for you?

The president's job is to lead, and to speak for the nation to the rest of the world in times like this. He didn't do that part of his job in a timely manner.

Look, I'm not saying that in the big scheme of things, the people in those areas are going to be worse off because of Bush's inaction. What I'm saying (if you'll go back and read my first post on the matter) is that his inaction contributed to some of the petty distractions that occurred in the days following the tsunami, such as the "stingy" comment controversy. It gave the rest of the world a wrong impression of US compassion and willingness to help.

As far as the private charities are concerned, I'm well aware that they are doing and were doing an excellent job from the start.

Whether you like it or not, government has a necessary and critical role to play in this, just as the private charities and other private organizations do. Each has capabilities the other doesn't.

[Buccaneer]

The president's job is to lead, and to speak for the nation to the rest of the world in times like this. He didn't do that part of his job in a timely manner.

I probably don't disagree with that but truthfully, I didn't even notice. I prefer to have our ministries (like World Vision and Compassion), our churches and our donations to Red Cross and UNICEF to speak for our country.

[Dutch]

Look, I'm not saying that in the big scheme of things, the people in those areas are going to be worse off because of Bush's inaction. What I'm saying (if you'll go back and read my first post on the matter) is that his inaction contributed to some of the petty distractions that occurred in the days following the tsunami, such as the "stingy" comment controversy. It gave the rest of the world a wrong impression of US compassion and willingness to help.

And what we have been saying (from the beginning) is those "petty distractions" were knee-jerk attacks against President Bush that were uncalled for. It was an attempt to put a negative light on the USA and if nothing else, negate any charitable efforts the US government puts forth. Which we will, of course, regardless of world opinion of us. Because it's in our nature to help other people.

As far as the private charities are concerned, I'm well aware that they are doing and were doing an excellent job from the start.

To me, I am not so much concerned about the rather well-informed members of the FOFC, but of those who only see how "stingy" the US through the eyes of Yahoo! News Ticker or the CNN news ticker while they are in Circuit City. Those are the people who will hate Bush because he "only" gave a "stingy" $35 million to the Tsunami Releif Fund. Or, at best they will say, "Thanks to the anti-Bush crowd for stirring Bush's compassion..."

Whether you like it or not, government has a necessary and critical role to play in this, just as the private charities and other private organizations do. Each has capabilities the other doesn't.

But their overall donation is the key to the question of how "stingy" Americans are. As far as the UN and France are concerned, it's the Govt contribution that matters and the private donations should be ignored. But to me, the end sum is what shows how kind we are as a people.

Anyway, it's all bullshit politics. The bottom line is all we can do way over here on this side of the planet is just donate a little bit of money, either individually or say yours taxes went to the gov'ts contribution and hopefully it gets into the proper hands and helps out one person or one family get back on their feet as soon as possible.

[SunDancer]

The president's job is to lead, and to speak for the nation to the rest of the world in times like this. He didn't do that part of his job in a timely manner.

Look, I'm not saying that in the big scheme of things, the people in those areas are going to be worse off because of Bush's inaction. What I'm saying (if you'll go back and read my first post on the matter) is that his inaction contributed to some of the petty distractions that occurred in the days following the tsunami, such as the "stingy" comment controversy. It gave the rest of the world a wrong impression of US compassion and willingness to help.

As far as the private charities are concerned, I'm well aware that they are doing and were doing an excellent job from the start.

Whether you like it or not, government has a necessary and critical role to play in this, just as the private charities and other private organizations do. Each has capabilities the other doesn't.

And if the rest of the world listen, the $35 million was said by Powell and the White House that it was only the beginning.

[cougarfreak]

I don't agree with us upping the amount of aid after people bitched it wasn't enough.

[Glengoyne]

I don't agree with us upping the amount of aid after people bitched it wasn't enough.
The deal is. That wasn't what happened. As Dutch, a couple of others, and even Colin Powell two days ago said that the $15 then $35 million was an initial allocation. He said that the dollar amount would increase as needs were identified. He also said that US aid for this disaster would eventually be counted in Billions.

As for the stingy comment. Egeland says now he certainly wasn't naming the U.S. specifically, but in any case I'd say he made his job MUCH easier by priming the donation pump of pretty much every western power.

Regarding Bush not making a statement or contacting other the affected nation's leaders for three days. This, to me, is much ado about nothing. Just one more thing for the nearly 50% of the ppoulation who didn't want him to win reelection to complain about.

[cougarfreak]

The deal is. That wasn't what happened. As Dutch, a couple of others, and even Colin Powell two days ago said that the $15 then $35 million was an initial allocation. He said that the dollar amount would increase as needs were identified. He also said that US aid for this disaster would eventually be counted in Billions.

As for the stingy comment. Egeland says now he certainly wasn't naming the U.S. specifically, but in any case I'd say he made his job MUCH easier by priming the donation pump of pretty much every western power.

Regarding Bush not making a statement or contacting other the affected nation's leaders for three days. This, to me, is much ado about nothing. Just one more thing for the nearly 50% of the ppoulation who didn't want him to win reelection to complain about.

Sorry.......but we did up the aid after they bitched about it. I don't care what was said. It makes us look weak, and makes us look like we give a shit what the UN thinks.

[clintl]

And what we have been saying (from the beginning) is those "petty distractions" were knee-jerk attacks against President Bush that were uncalled for. It was an attempt to put a negative light on the USA and if nothing else, negate any charitable efforts the US government puts forth. Which we will, of course, regardless of world opinion of us. Because it's in our nature to help other people.


And I'm saying they weren't uncalled for because Bush was doing such a crappy job communicating US intentions. What was the world supposed to think, given what the administration wasn't saying? He brought this on almost entirely on himself, and I think from the way the administration has scrambled since Wednesday to show how much it's doing, he knows he screwed up. I don't think that it affected the amount of aid, but I think it may have accelerated the timetable of the announced increases, and it sure as hell influenced the effort the administration is making to publicize them.

For those that think I'm just attacking Bush to attack him, I think that he and the administration has been doing a good job with the crisis since Wednesday. I just think that if he had done on Sunday or Monday what he did on Wednesday, little if any of the criticism would have happened.

[Galaril]

tell that to the world. the world is still holding true to the age old myth that our streets are lined in gold and there's milk and honey for all who step foot on our shores.

I hate to agree with Hell Atlantic But I have lived overseas (Japan/Korea) for 11 years and this is a perception most do have.My wife is Korea and eg. she was rather surprised to find out we don't have free medical care system(national).

[Buccaneer]

How much can a President pledge knowing he would have to get Congressional approval, esp. when it is not in session?

[SunDancer]

And why is the US getting so much crap when you see a story like this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/266958p-228627c.html


Ghouls rush in

On Phuket, disaster's just an inconvenience to rich who gripe about views, bubbly

BY RAFAEL D. FRANKEL
SPECIAL TO THE NEWS


Family sunbathes on Kata beach in Phuket.


At same beach yesterday, resort patrons turned backs on others’ misery. Foreign couple, she topless, feel they have it made in the shade.

PHUKET, Thailand - While volunteers struggled to collect bodies washing up on the once-pristine beaches of this upscale resort isle, ghoulish tourists rolled out their towels yesterday, doffed their bikini tops and vacationed like nothing had happened.
On Patong Beach and Kata Beach - where hundreds died or disappeared four days ago - the smell of suntan lotion wafted from the shore as a new influx of tourists determinedly ignored the carnage around them, frolicking in the surf or reading under umbrellas.

An indignant Russian who arrived at the Novotel Phuket Resort on the day after the tsunami loudly complained that there was no champagne reception.

Other guests have pestered the hotel's grieving staff with complaints that their rooms lack good views.

Belgian tourist Desmet Romain, 42, questioned whether he should have stayed on despite all the death and misery.

But the prospect of missing the New Year's beach holiday he had been looking forward to all year was too much to bear.

"I didn't want to go back to Belgium where it is so cold," Romain said. "And in this hotel, it's like everything is totally normal."

Some Thais are amazed that the foreigners can be so insensitive to be sipping cocktails poolside while surrounded by death and grief.

"I think the people are good, but I don't know why they stay here now when we are so sad," a waiter at the Novotel said, asking that his name not be reported out of fear of losing his job.

The beaches of Patong and Kata were filling up with tourists and Thais when the tsunami hit Sunday. Nearly 300 are confirmed dead, including more than 100 tourists.

Another 1,600 people are still missing from Phuket beaches, and there is an army of grieving family members searching for them.

As bodies continue to wash up on Phuket's shores and are stacked in makeshift morgues, the Sheraton Grande Laguna Phuket is erecting big tents, installing cotton candy machines and bringing in caged animals in preparation for the gala New Year's Eve circus party it promised.

"We do want to keep it a happy theme," Sheraton marketing communications manager Zahid Ali said. "Our guests came here during the holidays and they do want to enjoy it."

But in a nod to the tragedy surrounding them, the Sheraton canceled its $2,500 fireworks display and will observe a moment of silence, Ali said.

The hotel is also donating all the proceeds from its circus party to the disaster relief fund it set up for staff members who lost family and homes to the tidal wave.

The Thai survivors on Phuket are preparing to mark the new year in a much more somber manner.

"I will go to the temple to make merit for all the dead people," said Supone Sengsahus, 43, who drives a converted pickup truck as a taxi.

His friend, Moone Penmit, 35, who owns a restaurant, also was not in the mood for a party after a friend of his was killed in the disaster.

"Many people are not enjoying New Year's this time," he said.

[sabotai]

Wow.....

You know that face that Stan and/or Kyle make on South Park when the adults do something completely stupid or insane? That's the face I made when reading that.

Just.....wow.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

First, let me say that I am overwhelmed with the horror of what has happened...

Next, I am disgusted by the reaction not only by the world toward the U.S., but with the U.S. itself.

What exactly is $350 million going to do? Line pockets. How much will actually go to help the people who really need it? In this country we feel that cash will solve any problem. We throw so much at the other nations that they cry and bitch when they feel we don't give them enough like spoiled rich kids who only got a BMW 3-series for their birthday...

What would have happened if this earthquake had been in the Atlantic and have wiped out a good part of the U.S. Atlantic coast? We would have had to fend for ourselves, that's what.

Instead of writing a check that will never be enough in the eyes of some, we should be putting together a massive relief effort. The President should be calling on Americans to step forward and help. Doctors, construction workers... anyone who can help. We could guarantee that those who would volunteer would receive full pay and still have their jobs when returning. We could provide transportation, housing & supplies for those volunteering. Instead of giving yet another reason for countries to cry for money, we might even be looked at as a nation of caring people who are willing to help.

[cougarfreak]

First, let me say that I am overwhelmed with the horror of what has happened...

Next, I am disgusted by the reaction not only by the world toward the U.S., but with the U.S. itself.

What exactly is $350 million going to do? Line pockets. How much will actually go to help the people who really need it? In this country we feel that cash will solve any problem. We throw so much at the other nations that they cry and bitch when they feel we don't give them enough like spoiled rich kids who only got a BMW 3-series for their birthday...

What would have happened if this earthquake had been in the Atlantic and have wiped out a good part of the U.S. Atlantic coast? We would have had to fend for ourselves, that's what.

Instead of writing a check that will never be enough in the eyes of some, we should be putting together a massive relief effort. The President should be calling on Americans to step forward and help. Doctors, construction workers... anyone who can help. We could guarantee that those who would volunteer would receive full pay and still have their jobs when returning. We could provide transportation, housing & supplies for those volunteering. Instead of giving yet another reason for countries to cry for money, we might even be looked at as a nation of caring people who are willing to help.


I'd go for that.......take the $350 million and pay volunteers from the U.S.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I keep seeing this "three days" crap in this thread ... and yet all anybody who actually gives a damn about the truth has to do is the tiniest bit of research to find this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/12/20041227.html

Dated 12/27/04

Q The President was said to have written a number of letters to chiefs of state of nations. Do you have a list of those nations that he has written?

MR. DUFFY: Yes. The President sent letters of condolence to leaders of the seven countries that were affected. I don't have that list handy, but we can get that for you. But the list of the seven countries that were affected mainly by the earthquake and the tsunamis.*

Q Trent, is there any estimate of how much money we're going to be putting up to --

MR. DUFFY: I think the State Department addressed some of that this afternoon. I mean, obviously, the first thing that needs to be done is there needs to be an assessment of what can be done. There are some initial United States funds that are already flowing through the embassies. I think the dollar amounts are $400,000 at the early outgoing, and then $4 million in the next few days. But I would refer you to the State Department for more on the actual dollars.

The important work was being done, it was stated from the outset that this was only the inital amount. But why let that get in the way of a good Bush-bash, right?

[sabotai]

What exactly is $350 million going to do? Line pockets. How much will actually go to help the people who really need it? In this country we feel that cash will solve any problem. We throw so much at the other nations that they cry and bitch when they feel we don't give them enough like spoiled rich kids who only got a BMW 3-series for their birthday...

You're right. I guess it doesn't take money to buy food, buy clean water, build homes, repair and replace infrastructure, hire workers to help and organize it and do all of this in many nations all at once. All it takes is love....

What would have happened if this earthquake had been in the Atlantic and have wiped out a good part of the U.S. Atlantic coast? We would have had to fend for ourselves, that's what.

Pure nonsense.

Instead of writing a check

I stopped right here because this is not what the US government did.

[SunDancer]

First, let me say that I am overwhelmed with the horror of what has happened...

Next, I am disgusted by the reaction not only by the world toward the U.S., but with the U.S. itself.

What exactly is $350 million going to do? Line pockets. How much will actually go to help the people who really need it? In this country we feel that cash will solve any problem. We throw so much at the other nations that they cry and bitch when they feel we don't give them enough like spoiled rich kids who only got a BMW 3-series for their birthday...

What would have happened if this earthquake had been in the Atlantic and have wiped out a good part of the U.S. Atlantic coast? We would have had to fend for ourselves, that's what.

Instead of writing a check that will never be enough in the eyes of some, we should be putting together a massive relief effort. The President should be calling on Americans to step forward and help. Doctors, construction workers... anyone who can help. We could guarantee that those who would volunteer would receive full pay and still have their jobs when returning. We could provide transportation, housing & supplies for those volunteering. Instead of giving yet another reason for countries to cry for money, we might even be looked at as a nation of caring people who are willing to help.

Which is why the US is not going through the UN, but through a coalitation with other nations. The UN is not happy about this. I applaud the US about trying to make sure those truly are getting it.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Which is why the US is not going through the UN, but through a coalitation with other nations. The UN is not happy about this. I applaud the US about trying to make sure those truly are getting it.

It is good that we aren't going thru the corrupt-ass UN, but I still think that more should be done than pledging a ton of money. If I could go and help, I would. But if I did I wouldn't have a job when I got back. I also wouldn't have an apartment because rent must be paid and I also have child support, etc... If the govt would put the money into some sort of plan to get people over there helping I think it would do more than just spreading money around to pay for supplies.

Remember, we have a govt that pays $10,000 for a toilet seat. Hmmm... I wonder why I don't trust where $350 million is going... (Not that we can't afford it, since we already have a multi-trillion dollar deficit...)

[SunDancer]

It is good that we aren't going thru the corrupt-ass UN, but I still think that more should be done than pledging a ton of money. If I could go and help, I would. But if I did I wouldn't have a job when I got back. I also wouldn't have an apartment because rent must be paid and I also have child support, etc... If the govt would put the money into some sort of plan to get people over there helping I think it would do more than just spreading money around to pay for supplies.

Remember, we have a govt that pays $10,000 for a toilet seat. Hmmm... I wonder why I don't trust where $350 million is going... (Not that we can't afford it, since we already have a multi-trillion dollar deficit...)

I agree. But you can never trust the government. But many volunteers are being sent, and I believe that soldiers stationed in the Asian region are flying in food, clean water, ect.

[Glengoyne]

The day of the Tsunami, there were American planes surveying the areas. Ships were being rerouted to the area within hours of the news. US Millitary planes were among the first to ferry in supplies. To say that we are throwing money at this problem is a bit outlandish.

The same thing with the 15, 35, 350 million. That is simply the way disaster aid is handled. I'm sure if you look at previous natural disasters, like the earthquake in Iran, the outlays were similar. 15 is a relatively piddly amount, and it should be obvious to anyone who actually thinks about the situation that it NEVER was intended to be entire budget for aid to these countries.

[Esquared1]

I wonder what the conservative a-hole roommate thinks now?

DISCLAIMER:

But just to confirm, I will again characterize him as an a-hole who uses conservative propaganda to justify his point of view. Also, please be aware that I am only willing to call him an a-hole, and this is view is not implied on anybody here. I usually avoid political threads, so I would also rather people keep this civil.

RANT:

For Christ Sakes! A message board can be the greatest tool to share and discuss views with a wide variety of people, rather , we use this as some cathartic crap fest. CUT IT OUT!!!!!

End Rant:


I'm not sure, I just got home from New Year's festivities at the future wife's house.

Safe to say, I will get one of two answers:

1) See what I said, do you know what the biggest welfare state is in the world? Don't know? You are living in it, and this proves my point.

or

2) If they are going to spend that kind of money, it could be used here. I know one thing, it's not going to any crack addicted welfare moms with 8 kids, that sell their food stamps to buy Cadilacs. Don't believe me? I know of somebody that did that.

(Both arguments have been made before.)

[Esquared1]

Personally, I dislike Bush, most of his Admin. and almost everything they stand for. . .

I have no problems with what they did and how they handled it (so far). Christ, if you give money, I think you should have the ability specify how it should be used. Sure, it would be a nice jesture to go through an internation body, yet, I believe "it's the thought that counts" People died, the US gave. Some things (like invading a country) should absolutely go through international organizations, but this one is simply not required, IMHO.

[John Galt]

And despite what people have said in this thread, Japan is again giving more aid than the U.S. But don't let the facts get in the way of the complaining. People are dying and aid will help - that is all that matters.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/01/01/asia.quake/index.html

This just isn't true. These are facts:

The U.S. contributes more military foreign aid than any country in the world.

The U.S. gives more in development aid than any country, but the lead is smaller than you think. For a period of years, Japan actually gave more money globally in development assistance than the U.S. This continued despite Japan entering a recession and having a much smaller economy.

The U.S. does have more private donations, but Japan's government donations outstrip U.S. private contributions.

Disaster relief is something the U.S. is "good" at in spurts. It often gives large chunks of aid to some disasters, but often ignores larger disasters entirely.

I'm largely indifferent to the foreign aid debate, and I don't think % of GDP is a particularly good way to measure contributions, but these America-rocks-and-everyone-else-should-be-grateful aren't based on facts.

[Riggins44]

I have to agree some on this. Because you really should take into account the private donations that the people in this country will give/have given, and I bet that alone is more then most of the world governments combined. I am seeing donation things popping up everywhere. (Unfortunetly some are probably a scam, but the majority are not.)

Our government donation is our "private" donation. That's our money they're giving away. However, I see your point. I'm sure the U.S. has a sizeable donation from individuals as well.

[Plundun]

It's funny I read today that the US donates more money as a whole then all the countries in the world combined. in the UN. But it's all our fault when we start with the initial $35 mil?

How much aid the US get from the UN for the World Trade Center? Or any natual disasters throughout the years... I'd really love to know.

Where did you read the first part?

As for the second point, I'm sure the level of donations are influenced by the fact that we are talking about impoverished areas where there is no help unless someone provides it. The US is better able to provide aid to their own citizens in time of need, just like Russia or Spain are better able to care of their citizens when they have been the target of terrorist actions.

[Chief Rum]

And despite what people have said in this thread, Japan is again giving more aid than the U.S. But don't let the facts get in the way of the complaining. People are dying and aid will help - that is all that matters.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/01/01/asia.quake/index.html

Curious, John, but what extra help is Japan sending? Aid workers and medical personnel? Military planes to survey the area. Drinking water from their military ships rerouted to the area? Helicopters to airlift survivors? Food and drugs and other needed goods, or just money?

Last I checked, Japan doesn't have much of an armed forces, because frankly we won't let them based on their history. We are more or less responsible for protecting them.

It's awful easy to be the biggest humanitarian when you don't have to spend a significant portion of your budget on defense, don't you think?

CR

[John Galt]

Curious, John, but what extra help is Japan sending? Aid workers and medical personnel? Military planes to survey the area. Drinking water from their military ships rerouted to the area? Helicopters to airlift survivors? Food and drugs and other needed goods, or just money?

Last I checked, Japan doesn't have much of an armed forces, because frankly we won't let them based on their history. We are more or less responsible for protecting them.

It's awful easy to be the biggest humanitarian when you don't have to spend a significant portion of your budget on defense, don't you think?

CR

Japan's GNP is approximately 40% of the US. Military spending is just a drop in the bucket based on that basic difference. And it is the U.S. that insists Japan doesn't rearm, not Japan.

The U.S. gives a lot (a fact I've never denied). Pretending that we give "more than every other country combined" or other complete nonsense that has been spouted in this thread, is just based on fiction. The U.S. gives money, but isn't even the world leader many years.

[Chief Rum]

Japan's GNP is approximately 40% of the US. Military spending is just a drop in the bucket based on that basic difference. And it is the U.S. that insists Japan doesn't rearm, not Japan.

The U.S. gives a lot (a fact I've never denied). Pretending that we give "more than every other country combined" or other complete nonsense that has been spouted in this thread, is just based on fiction. The U.S. gives money, but isn't even the world leader many years.

I wasn't one that was making the U.S. sends more than all countries combined argument, so I will let those folks take up that one, if they want.

But the point on GNC was made before. That is a measure of an entire country's economy. If you want to use that as the basis for equivalent comparison of two disparate economies, then you must include ALL donations from those countries--both private and government-iniated.

So either find a different government-only standard or drum up some private donation stats from Japan. ;)

CR

[John Galt]

I wasn't one that was making the U.S. sends more than all countries combined argument, so I will let those folks take up that one, if they want.

But the point on GNC was made before. That is a measure of an entire country's economy. If you want to use that as the basis for equivalent comparison of two disparate economies, then you must include ALL donations from those countries--both private and government-iniated.

So either find a different government-only standard or drum up some private donation stats from Japan. ;)

CR

I posted that GNP/GDP aren't good measures, but I thought your excuse of military spending was a little too simple given the enormous differences in economy size. Military spending tradesoff with government, not private donations, so that is all I was comparing. I've repeatedly heard the U.S. gives way more in private donations, but I can't seem to find any thorough tabulations to know what the difference is.

[Chief Rum]

I posted that GNP/GDP aren't good measures, but I thought your excuse of military spending was a little too simple given the enormous differences in economy size. Military spending tradesoff with government, not private donations, so that is all I was comparing. I've repeatedly heard the U.S. gives way more in private donations, but I can't seem to find any thorough tabulations to know what the difference is.

How ironic that it was you that posted earlier that GNP/GDP weren't good fits for this sort of thing, as that is the exact argument you fell back on. ;)

And what we're talking about here are two different things. Your 40% less economy size (which we have already determeined to be a bit of a red herring anyway, sicne we don't have private donation numbers) is basing the numbers on comparative stats. Japan's percentage of what it can give is higher (or one would conclude from what you have posted, assuming it is true).

But what you posted about was not what Japan gave as a percentage, but in strict figures, was it not? Your post wasn't about percentages but about $500 M to $350 M, the absolute numbers, was it not?

I am not arguing the percentages. I'm arguing the strict numbers. And on strict numbers, the U.S. might (don't know for sure, but it's a distinct possibility) have less moveable cash in its budget than Japan does, considering how bloated our budget is. This is exacerbated by the fact we spend, what, 20% or something like that on defense, while Japan spends less than 1, I would guess.

I would be interested in figures of government giving against the disposable cash that we can give out of our budgets. I would also note that our government makes charitable donations tax-deductible. This money is essentially coming from the government--it just isn't listed in a budget somewhere. And I would bet those figures are huge.

CR

[Arles]

I would also note that our government makes charitable donations tax-deductible. This money is essentially coming from the government--it just isn't listed in a budget somewhere. And I would bet those figures are huge.

CR
Excellent point and I was wondering when someone would make it. The US government is setup to make private donations very attractive and pays a great deal of money via the tax code to encourage people to donate to these type of disaster relief funds. So, even if you are not going to count the private US donations as part of US aid, you must count the writeoff portion as it essentially helps subsidize these donations and comes straight from the government's coffers.

[John Galt]

Again, I'm not arguing or defending the GNP/GDP as a complete measure. However, your argument that Japan doesn't have to spend on the military is a poor one because of the difference in economy size. That doesn't mean I think % of GDP is a good measure, but it does mean that military spending differences is a red herring.

Your argument that Japan has more money to play with isn't justified because their budget is much smaller (because of the GNP size differential). On "pure numbers" Japan has less money available to spend on foreign aid, yet they have often spent more than the U.S.

As for tax deductibility, I believe other countries have deductions as well, but I don't have specifics. It isn't quite the same as money coming from the government because tax policy isn't fixed. That is, where the government creates a deduction, it raises taxes in another in order to maintain a desired amount of revenue. Under recent administrations the gap between revenue and expenses has grown, but I think it is a mistake to just see any given deduction as taking money away from the government.

How ironic that it was you that posted earlier that GNP/GDP weren't good fits for this sort of thing, as that is the exact argument you fell back on. ;)

And what we're talking about here are two different things. Your 40% less economy size (which we have already determeined to be a bit of a red herring anyway, sicne we don't have private donation numbers) is basing the numbers on comparative stats. Japan's percentage of what it can give is higher (or one would conclude from what you have posted, assuming it is true).

But what you posted about was not what Japan gave as a percentage, but in strict figures, was it not? Your post wasn't about percentages but about $500 M to $350 M, the absolute numbers, was it not?

I am not arguing the percentages. I'm arguing the strict numbers. And on strict numbers, the U.S. might (don't know for sure, but it's a distinct possibility) have less moveable cash in its budget than Japan does, considering how bloated our budget is. This is exacerbated by the fact we spend, what, 20% or something like that on defense, while Japan spends less than 1, I would guess.

I would be interested in figures of government giving against the disposable cash that we can give out of our budgets. I would also note that our government makes charitable donations tax-deductible. This money is essentially coming from the government--it just isn't listed in a budget somewhere. And I would bet those figures are huge.

CR

[Chief Rum]

Again, I'm not arguing or defending the GNP/GDP as a complete measure. However, your argument that Japan doesn't have to spend on the military is a poor one because of the difference in economy size. That doesn't mean I think % of GDP is a good measure, but it does mean that military spending differences is a red herring.

Your argument that Japan has more money to play with isn't justified because their budget is much smaller (because of the GNP size differential). On "pure numbers" Japan has less money available to spend on foreign aid, yet they have often spent more than the U.S.

As for tax deductibility, I believe other countries have deductions as well, but I don't have specifics. It isn't quite the same as money coming from the government because tax policy isn't fixed. That is, where the government creates a deduction, it raises taxes in another in order to maintain a desired amount of revenue. Under recent administrations the gap between revenue and expenses has grown, but I think it is a mistake to just see any given deduction as taking money away from the government.

It's not a poor one if you're talking about disposable cash. There are just some things you can't take money away from once it is budgeted. Health care. Government pay. The money to efficiently run a huge bureaucracy (which, I would guess would be higher by at least the same percentage for the U.S. as Japan, assuming a larger economy would necessitate a larger government to regulate it). And, of course, defense, whichtakes up a huge percentage of our budget.

Is Japan's $500 M so great against its disposable cash within its budget. If the U.S. has a $500 B budget (let's say), but it only has $1 B in truly disposable cash, while Japan has a $200 B budget, but $2 B in disposable cash, doesn't the U.S.'s $350 M of $1 B (35%) count a bit more than Japan's $500 M of $2 B (25%)?

I'm not saying this argument will prove true once the facts are tossed out. I don't have the foggiest what the budgets of Japan and the U.S. are, or what a good definition of "disposable cash" is and how it might be applied to each budget, but isn't it rushing to judge to criticize the U.S. without getting more facts? The very fact you jumped to a faulty measure (the GNP) to defend your argument says that you (and I) don't have all teh facts yet that we need to make either of our arguments (at least ratiionally and logically).

All I know is that it is reasonable to guess that the U.S.'s need to devote a large percentage of its budget to defense could in fact have a severe impact on that disposable cash, a huge cost Japan does not at the moment have.

Is it true that Japan has less money to spend on foreign aid? Are you sure? If you take out necessary government costs, how much less does Japan have than the U.S.?

As for tax deductions, isn't that just a potato-potAto? Aren't you just redefining it to negate the argument? It's still money that is credited as potential government revenue, but is not in fact collected. And while it isn't guaranteed to go to tsunami victims, it is guaranteed to go to charity. That's the point of tax deductions for charitable deductions--they go to charities. You don't think there was a massive rush by people who had yet to maximize their charitable deductions in the last calendar year to give to charities helping out tsunami victims?

I mean, if I had a $50K deduction waiting for me to take advantage of it, but I couldn't decide on who to give it to, and it was just going to go to the government otherwise anyway, wouldn't I be practically cheering at the availability of a ton of charities for tsunami victims? Sure, it would be tempered by the tragedy, but that would be countered that that money would be going to help people instead of lining government pockets.

Since when does charity require a specific tax plan? Does the U.S. really need to specifically delineate where every charitable donation goes to to get credit for the donation from you? Do you really think that an insignificant percentage of charitable donation tax deductions this coming tax season won't have gone to tsunami victims? Will you really rely on semantics to make the argument that your government is evil (or less good), just to win points in an Internet debate?

CR

[John Galt]

You seem to have invented a concept of "disposable cash" which is inconsistent with how the government works. Governments have an infinite supply of cash, it is just a question of how big of a deficit they want to run. Disaster relief assistance just goes to next year's budget (although there are allocations in each year's budget, but they are regularly exceeded because the limits serve no function).

As for how much the U.S. spends on defense, it is a lower percentage than you seem to believe. Either way, it is not NEARLY significant enough to account for the massive differences in the sizes of the U.S. and Japan's budgets and economies.

As for tax policy, my point is just that a single deduction can't just be viewed as money out of the government's pocket, because next year's budget is designed with that deduction in mind. The system isn't static like you assume.

And I have no points in this debate about the U.S. being evil. In fact, I have NEVER argued that the U.S. has given too little. All I'm trying to do is add facts to a discussion which is woefully lacking them.

It's not a poor one if you're talking about disposable cash. There are just some things you can't take money away from once it is budgeted. Health care. Government pay. The money to efficiently run a huge bureaucracy (which, I would guess would be higher by at least the same percentage for the U.S. as Japan, assuming a larger economy would necessitate a larger government to regulate it). And, of course, defense, whichtakes up a huge percentage of our budget.

Is Japan's $500 M so great against its disposable cash within its budget. If the U.S. has a $500 B budget (let's say), but it only has $1 B in truly disposable cash, while Japan has a $200 B budget, but $2 B in disposable cash, doesn't the U.S.'s $350 M of $1 B (35%) count a bit more than Japan's $500 M of $2 B (25%)?

I'm not saying this argument will prove true once the facts are tossed out. I don't have the foggiest what the budgets of Japan and the U.S. are, or what a good definition of "disposable cash" is and how it might be applied to each budget, but isn't it rushing to judge to criticize the U.S. without getting more facts? The very fact you jumped to a faulty measure (the GNP) to defend your argument says that you (and I) don't have all teh facts yet that we need to make either of our arguments (at least ratiionally and logically).

All I know is that it is reasonable to guess that the U.S.'s need to devote a large percentage of its budget to defense could in fact have a severe impact on that disposable cash, a huge cost Japan does not at the moment have.

Is it true that Japan has less money to spend on foreign aid? Are you sure? If you take out necessary government costs, how much less does Japan have than the U.S.?

As for tax deductions, isn't that just a potato-potAto? Aren't you just redefining it to negate the argument? It's still money that is credited as potential government revenue, but is not in fact collected. And while it isn't guaranteed to go to tsunami victims, it is guaranteed to go to charity. That's the point of tax deductions for charitable deductions--they go to charities. You don't think there was a massive rush by people who had yet to maximize their charitable deductions in the last calendar year to give to charities helping out tsunami victims?

I mean, if I had a $50K deduction waiting for me to take advantage of it, but I couldn't decide on who to give it to, and it was just going to go to the government otherwise anyway, wouldn't I be practically cheering at the availability of a ton of charities for tsunami victims? Sure, it would be tempered by the tragedy, but that would be countered that that money would be going to help people instead of lining government pockets.

Since when does charity require a specific tax plan? Does the U.S. really need to specifically delineate where every charitable donation goes to to get credit for the donation from you? Do you really think that an insignificant percentage of charitable donation tax deductions this coming tax season won't have gone to tsunami victims? Will you really rely on semantics to make the argument that your government is evil (or less good), just to win points in an Internet debate?

CR

[Buccaneer]

from humaneventsonline


U.S. Falsely Charged with Being 'Stingy' on Foreign Aid
by Bruce Bartlett

Posted Dec 30, 2004

The other day, a United Nations official accused the United States of being "stingy" in terms of aid to tsunami victims in South Asia. After criticism from the State Department, the official clarified his position. Americans are not being stingy in helping tsunami victims, only stingy in terms of overall foreign aid as compared to other countries.

This is a familiar attack, which comes up annually when the foreign aid appropriations bill is before Congress. But let's look at the facts. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, in 2003, the world's major countries gave $108.5 billion in combined foreign aid. Of this, the U.S. contributed $37.8 billion or 35 percent of the total. The next largest foreign aid contributor was The Netherlands, which gave $12.2 billion, following two years in which it was actually a net recipient of foreign aid.

The claim of stinginess, however, comes from a different calculation--foreign aid as a share of national income. In 2003, U.S. foreign aid came to just 0.34 percent, well below the world-leading Dutch at 2.44 percent. Other big contributors are Ireland (1.83 percent), Norway (1.49 percent), and Switzerland (1.09 percent). The U.S. would have to triple foreign aid just to reach the lowest of these contributors.

The first thing one notices when looking at the big foreign aid contributors is that they all spend very little on national defense. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2002, The Netherlands spent just 1.6 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. Norway spent 2.1 percent, Switzerland spent 1.1 percent, and Ireland spent a piddling 0.7 percent. By contrast, the U.S. spent 3.4 percent--and this was before the Iraq war. It's easy to be generous with foreign aid when another country is essentially providing your defense for free.

Another thing one notices is that the foreign aid data are only for "official" (i.e., government) aid. The data are sketchy, but by all accounts Americans are far more generous in terms of charitable contributions than the citizens of any other country. A 1991 study found the United Kingdom to have the second largest percentage of private charitable giving. But in 2003, charitable giving amounted to 8.6 billion pounds or 0.8 percent of GDP in the U.K., according to the Charities Aid Foundation, compared to $241 billion or 2.2 percent of GDP in the U.S., according to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel.

But even this estimate of charitable giving by Americans is low because it counts only cash contributions and omits volunteer work. According to Independent Sector, in 2003, they contributed an additional $266 billion worth of their time to charitable enterprises. This is based on a value of $17.12 per hour of time. But even if one assigns a value equal to the minimum wage, this non-cash contribution still comes to about $100 billion.

In the area of international aid, the official data also exclude private transfers such as remittances by foreign workers in the U.S. According to the Inter-American Development Bank, remittances to Latin America alone amounted to $38 billion in 2003--more than all official assistance combined. And $31 billion of that came from the U.S. In some countries, foreign remittances came to more than 10 percent of GDP, thus having a significant impact on economic growth and poverty alleviation.

Former U.S. Agency for International Development official Carol Adelman attempted to calculate a total of all private foreign aid in 2000 in a 2003 Foreign Affairs magazine article. She found that private foreign aid greatly exceeded that provided by the U.S. government. Official aid came to $22.6 billion that year, but private aid came to $35.1 billion, including $18 billion in remittances, $6.6 billion from private voluntary organizations, $3.4 billion in aid from churches, $3 billion from foundations, $2.8 from corporations, and $1.3 billion from universities.

But even this understates the extent to which Americans help developing countries, because it excludes private investment and trade. According to the Institute of International Finance, in 2003, Americans invested $124 billion in emerging market economies, three-fourths in direct investment such as plant and equipment and the rest in stocks and bonds.

Americans also buy a considerable amount of goods from developing countries. This year, about a third of all our imports will come from developing countries, providing jobs and incomes for millions of poor people. This is probably less than most protectionists think. The bulk of our imports still come from industrialized countries such as Canada, Japan and Germany.

In short, the charge of stinginess is unfounded. The U.S. carries much of the world on its back, providing other nations with security, aid and much of their investment and income. It also pays for a fourth of all the salaries of U.N. bureaucrats.

Mr. Bartlett is a nationally syndicated columnist and a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

[John Galt]

Bartlett's article is pretty bad journalism, IMO. He groups all foreign aid without discounting the enormous amounts of military aid the U.S. gives (which almost no other country does and serves a VERY different function). Then, he groups private aid without separately investment numbers and tries to treat different categories and compare apples and oranges. And to suggest U.S. purchases of foreign goods actually figures into this discussion is just ridiculous.

I'm still looking for real numbers, but it is apparent to me that Bartlett had no interest in presenting them.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Where are the Arab/Muslim countries in this. By all accounts they haven't really contributed as much as the western nations have.

[ISiddiqui]

I hate to agree with Hell Atlantic But I have lived overseas (Japan/Korea) for 11 years and this is a perception most do have.My wife is Korea and eg. she was rather surprised to find out we don't have free medical care system(national).

Actually that is probably because every Western country and the richer Asian countries DO have free national health care. It isn't a belief that the US's streets are paved with gold, but surprised that the US doesn't have what its contempories have.

[SunDancer]

Wow.....

You know that face that Stan and/or Kyle make on South Park when the adults do something completely stupid or insane? That's the face I made when reading that.

Just.....wow.

Are you referring to the article I posted?

[Cringer]

Just heard on CNN that Australia just gave over $700 million, the largest amount by one country.

Wonder if we get shit again until we give more? (Even though I have heard that work is being done on the U.S. giving more)

[Super Ugly]

It's stupid that every country seems to be watching their neighbour closely, scrutinising how much money they're sending. The BBC had a section where you could read a breakdown of what was coming from where.

Like anyone ought to give a shit. Send some money now, hope that it helps, fucking whine about "Europe/the UN" (I love that!) later.

[Glengoyne]

Just heard on CNN that Australia just gave over $700 million, the largest amount by one country.

Wonder if we get shit again until we give more? (Even though I have heard that work is being done on the U.S. giving more)
It will be more. There is little doubt of that. As has been pointed out earlier Powell said the U.S. aid for this disaster's victims will eventually be counted in Billions. I'm assuming that is when the cost of the millitary units allocated to the area is included, but really no one should give a shit about who is ponying up what amounts.

Also the $700 mil from Austrailia and the $350 mil from the US are just pledges. The amount any country has actually released is much much less. A lot of countries have historically pledged dollars to disaster victims, but never released the total amount. So the final tally won't be known for some time.

[tanglewood]

Australia
Government: $765m over 5 years & 350 military personel
Private Donations: $58m

Germany
Govt: $674m & military personel
Private: $200m

Japan
Govt: $500m
Private: Not Listed

USA
Govt: $350m & 12,600 military personnel
Private: $120m

Britain
Govt: $94m + promises to match private donations
Private: $146m

Italy
Govt: $95m
Private: $20m

Sweden
Govt: $80m
Private: $60m

Denmark
Govt: $75m
Private: Not Listed

Spain
Govt: $68m
Private: Not Listed

France
Govt: $66m
Private: $49m

China
Govt: $60m
Private: $1.2m

South Korea
Govt: $50m
Private: $13m

Taiwan
Govt: $50m
Private: Not Listed

Netherlands
Govt: $34m
Private: $35m

Saudi Arabia
Govt: $30m
Private: Not Listed

Qatar
Govt: $25m
Private: Not Listed


Just to get a comparison that some people have been asking for.

[Buccaneer]

That's comparing apples and oranges in some respect. Aren't some of those aid "loans"?