The US is stingy? WTF???

[Ogre]

@Exgineer

So you’re just being a condescending asshole, then?

How about if we just help the people in need without trying to make some political capital out of the deal? Or is that a foreign concept to you?

What a stupid fucking idea. Of course we should try to make political capital out of it. If we save lives and homes and livelihoods, AND we get to be the good guys, so much the fucking better. There’s no need to even keep it secret. I say we send the relief workers in cowboy outfits with loud American-flag rodeo shirts, blaring Hendrix and loud rap music. You’re too goddamn right we should be taking advantage of it. Maybe if we invest in a little brash American-style aid, we won’t be spending another half-billion dollars kicking the shit out of some other Middle Eastern sandbox in a couple of years. It’s worth it in terms of money, goodwill, and LIVES. Think about it.

[Weirddave]

@Neurotik

Uh-huh. So, you came into a thread specifically regarding a UN Under-Secretary calling out the rest of the world as stingy, with an OP declaring this to be a slight against the US, and then declare that the “rest of the world” are a bunch of ingrates who aren’t appreciative of what aid the US DOES give…and Egeland’s statement wasn’t on your mind.

Right.

No, it wasn’t. I was responding to the subject of the thread in general, to wit, what and how much the U.S. should contribute, and the world’s reaction to the same. I notice that you completely ignored the part of my post where I demonstrate that you’re a hypocrite, why is that I wonder?

[Blalron]

According to this site, the ranks second in overall foreign aid with $6.9 billion. Japan comes in first at number one.

Looking at the per capita figures, however, we aren’t so generous.

For every $100 of GDP, the U.S only gives 6 cents making us only the 21st most generous country in the world. Compare that to Denmark, which gives $1.04 per $100.

In relative terms we are stingy.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Blalron

In relative terms we are stingy.

Speak for yourself. Lots of Americans are donating big bucks to the Red Cross and a host of other charities. Keep in mind that these charitable gifts also result in tax deductions from the American government treasury. Both private donations and the tax deductions are not factored into the “six cents”.

[Blalron]

@grienspace

Speak for yourself. Lots of Americans are donating big bucks to the Red Cross and a host of other charities. Keep in mind that these charitable gifts also result in tax deductions from the American government treasury. Both private donations and the tax deductions are not factored into the “six cents”.

Ok, if you find data showing that our overall aid on a per capita basis (public and private) puts us anywhere near the top, I’ll concede that we Americans (collectively) are not stingy.

Individuals are generous. I won’t argue with that. But is our country, as a collective, a generous country?

[InternetLegend]

@Exgineer

How about if we just help the people in need without trying to make some political capital out of the deal? Or is that a foreign concept to you?

See, this is the image I have of Americans and our country as a whole. I think of it as the kind of place and us as the kind of people who will help others because it’s the right thing to do. But wouldn’t it be nice, after what has happened to the international image of the US and its people in the past few decades, if we could let other countries know that this is indeed the kind of people we are? I don’t think it’s cynical to want to get the word out that we really are worthy successors to the people who helped liberate Europe two generations ago.

[Abbie_Carmichael]

We could single-handedly fund the entire tsunami shabang and it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference in world opinion. You’re kidding yourselves if you think the US can do anything to “redeem” herself in the eyes of people who are determined to hate America and everything we stand for (I’m not referring to the UN dork we’ve been discussing, just America haters in general). And Dubya winning the world’s heart by cancelling his inaugural ball? They’d bitch because he went to his inauguration rather than going over there to help sift through the mess.

That said, we can and should help, not because we give a shit what other countries think, but because it’s the right thing to do, and that’s what we’re all about. 35 million IS pocket change, but it’s only the beginning.

And I agree with whoever said that the UN is the LAST organization that needs to get its paws on relief money. May as well be cutting Kofi’s son a personal check.

[gobear]

If you want to see the stinginess of the US government, see how it treats its own citizens after an unprecedented disaster:

At the airport in Bangkok, other governments had set up booths to greet nationals who had been affected and to help repatriate them, she said.

That was not the case with the U.S. government, Wachs told her mother. It took the couple three hours, she said, to find the officials from the American consulate, who were in the VIP lounge.

Because they had lost all their possessions, including their documentation, they had to have new passports issued.

But the U.S. officials demanded payment to take the passport pictures, Helen Wachs said.

Good for Powell for upping the amount of our donations, but let’s not pretend that our country’s leadership didn’t have to be shamed into it. But let’s also point out that our government doesn’t represent the generosity of our people, who always kick in to help others in time of need. The bf and I are.

[jjimm]

@Abbie Carmichael

We could single-handedly fund the entire tsunami shabang and it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference in world opinion. You’re kidding yourselves if you think the US can do anything to “redeem” herself in the eyes of people who are determined to hate America and everything we stand for (I’m not referring to the UN dork we’ve been discussing, just America haters in general).
…
And I agree with whoever said that the UN is the LAST organization that needs to get its paws on relief money. May as well be cutting Kofi’s son a personal check.

This entire post is bollocks. I’m not an “America hater” but I’m pretty fucked off with your current government. The pledge of billions has certainly gone a long way to making me feel much more positive about it.

As for being against the UN (and against the Red Cross in the other thread), The US right has got its knickers in such a twist over Security Council matters that it wilfully ignores the immense humanitarian good that both organisations do perform all over the world. Don’t be such a dingbat.

[Marley23]

@Hustle

I don’t know what kind of newspaper the Washington Times is, but I’d guess it’s less than reputable.

You’d guess correctly.

::sniff:: This is the first time I’ve ragged on The Washington Times without SnakeSpirit around. Say, anybody else notice that you could abbreviate The Washington Times as TWaT?

[SCSimmons]

@Hustle

I don’t know what kind of newspaper the Washington Times is, but I’d guess it’s less than reputable.

Some have gone so far as to call it the propaganda arm of Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church …

[Guinastasia]

@Hustle

I don’t know what kind of newspaper the Washington Times is, but I’d guess it’s less than reputable.

It’s owned by Rev. Sun Yung Moon. Of the “Moonies”. What does that tell you?
DAMN, gobear, that’s just fucking cold. And I thought Rick Santorum’s comments after the Pennsylvania floods were nasty.

[Mr.Moto]

@Blalron

Ok, if you find data showing that our overall aid on a per capita basis (public and private) puts us anywhere near the top, I’ll concede that we Americans (collectively) are not stingy.

Individuals are generous. I won’t argue with that. But is our country, as a collective, a generous country?

I’ve been looking, Blalron, and found an interesting article by Carol C. Adelman in the November/December 2003 edition of Foreign Affairs.

Gauging national generosity solely by government giving ignores new economic realities. Until a decade ago, most international resources flowing into developing countries came from governments. But in 1992, foreign direct investment and financial markets took off in emerging economies. For the first time, developing countries were attracting the kind of private capital that creates and sustains development. As financial flows went private, so did foreign assistance. While ODA stagnated, private giving skyrocketed.

Europeans and the Japanese continue to give primarily through their governments, but the OECD’s outdated measure fails to take into account how Americans now give abroad. In 2000, the last year for which comparative figures are available, U.S. ODA totaled $9.9 billion. This figure includes the budgets of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Peace Corps, contributions to the World Bank, and some State and Defense Department humanitarian assistance. Together, these programs account for just over one-sixth of total U.S. assistance – public and private – to developing countries. Private giving makes up more than 60 percent. The remainder – $12.7 billion in 2000 – is government aid that, although not within ODA guidelines, is still foreign assistance. This includes aid to Israel, Russia, the Central Asian Republics, and central and eastern European nations and support for the National Endowment for Democracy and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund.

Private foreign assistance still includes the proverbial food relief shipments and missionary health clinics in rural villages, but its scope has grown considerably in the last decade. Its components now range from $100 million vaccination campaigns to support for small indigenous foundations wherein community members allot grant money to local causes. Immigrants in Maryland can use the Internet to send groceries and medicines to needy relatives in El Salvador or Vietnam. Although the total value of these types of private aid is much bigger than ODA, data on such giving are much weaker. The international development community knows little about where these private funds are spent or how well they work. But in order to grasp the new environment for assistance abroad, and in order to adapt U.S. government assistance in the crucial third wave of foreign aid, it is critical first and foremost to understand this private dimension.

Source.

[The_Long_Road]

@gobear

If you want to see the stinginess of the US government, see how it treats its own citizens after an unprecedented disaster:
Good for Powell for upping the amount of our donations, but let’s not pretend that our country’s leadership didn’t have to be shamed into it. But let’s also point out that our government doesn’t represent the generosity of our people, who always kick in to help others in time of need. The bf and I are.

So some US officials at one airport are fuck-ups and that means the entire government is cheap concerning its citizens?

[gobear]

@The Long Road

So some US officials at one airport are fuck-ups and that means the entire government is cheap concerning its citizens?

They are representatives of the government, so yes-- plus the initial penny-ante donation from the US.

[gobear]

Let me be clear—you don’t get to play the “but you can’t generalize” game here–if one government official fucks up, that’s an indictment of the ENTIRE government. Our officials represent the US to the world (and if you’ve ever needed help from a US embassy you’d know this is not an isolated incident).

[Patty_O_Furniture]

@Calliope

Think of how compassionate GW Bush would be to scale down the inauguration to a simple ceremony and give the money to aid these victims instead.

I’ve never understood the fascination behind inauguration parades & ceremonies. Even when my guy won, I had no desire to stand along Constitution Avenue and watch him ride by and wave in my general direction. Bush is perhaps one of my least favorite people in the world right next to the Grinch and C. Montgomery Burns but my personal approval rating of him would rise by a good 50 points if he cancelled all inauguration activities and directed all the funds to go to international relief.

Opportunity is knocking, Mr. Bush. Anmswer the damned door.

[Frostillicus]

A $15 million donation is a very generous offer if coming from an internet billionaire. Coming from the United States government, is come off as… stingy!!!

[Frostillicus]

A $15 million donation is a very generous offer if coming from an internet billionaire. Coming from the United States government, is come off as… stingy!!!

PS I agree completely with Elucidator’s take on the potential for increasing our currently miserable standing in the eyes of the world by going balls-out on this relief effort. I want to see American flags everywhere that genuine relief efforts are going on.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

@Frostillicus

A $15 million donation is a very generous offer if coming from an internet billionaire. Coming from the United States government, is come off as… stingy!!!

I’m just guessing here but you read the thread title and nothing else, right?