Please note my post above.
The Internet billionaires will be donating money as well. This is significant, since the economic clout of some corporations is larger than that of some countries.
I read this morning that the Salvation Army is moving aid to the region and is aggressively raising money to help.
Lots of American dollars will be going to the region. Does it really matter whether they’re public or private dollars?
I don’t know if this will help but…
Here in Britain (and in europe) there are PLENTY of people who actively despise the current US Govt (I’m not one of 'em), and I have yet to hear anyone describe the USA’s contribution as “stingy”, and there are a lot of people who woulld take any opportunity to have a go at the US.
We have started a massive aid operation (some of the countries affected are commonweath countries - and the UK’s main charities (OXFAM, Save the Children etc) are in all the others).
However if you looked at the amount of money spent so far - it’s not that much, as we simply can’t get half the stuff we want to where it’s needed. The real money will need to be spent once the disaster relief is over, on reconstruction etc.
I ignored that part of your post because it was a stupid and flawed comparison.
Let’s compare:
Egeland - made no reference to the United States, the comment did not come in reference to any specific United States contribution, and did not come in reply to any statement by a US official.
How, in any logical manner, can it be construed that Egeland’s comment was a shot directed at the United States or a sneer at the $15M the US contributed?
Weirddave - made no reference to Egeland, but the comment came in a thread about Egeland’s statement. It’s pretty reasonable to assume that Egeland is seen as a represenative of the “rest of the world” that is so anti-American and ungrateful.
So, you leapt to a conclusion, found out it was wrong, and instead of admitting it, now you try to weasel about. You are insisting that you know not only what Egeland thinks, but also what I am thinking, even when I tell you you’re wrong. Grow up, be a man and stop sniveling you pathetic little asswipe.
The UK has now upped its pledge to $15 million. Which is just a start, I hope.
:rolleyes:
OK, big guy. If you say that you weren’t referencing Egeland, then fine, you weren’t Egeland. Unfortunately for you, it’s not an illogical assumption to make.
As for me knowing what Egeland thinks, if you can find any evidence that Egeland hates the US, then please feel free to distribute it. Until then, I have never seen any instances of him specifically calling out the US as not giving enough, and in fact, have seen several instances of him specifically praising the US as the largest and most reliable contributer they have. Most recently in reference to the situation in Sudan. Once again, logic is on my side when coming to a conclusion.
Now, maybe, Egeland is a secret US hater who has nothing but contempt for the US. That point of view is going to have to be backed up with some specific examples, though.
But, it’s all moot, since you don’t actually think Egeland is a US hater. Of course.
Here’s a news flash. Other than “some UN bureaucrat”, I don’t know, and frankly don’t care, who Egeland is. My comments were directed at
You’ve been reading something into my post that was never there, and I’d like you to stop.
The link is bad, so I’ll reprint the post
We don’t give much aid to the rest of the world in ratio to our GNP–something less than 1%, I believe, so it doesn’t do to preen ourselves on our government’s generosity. Look how badly we’ve shortchanged the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and those are our showcase projects. The initial amount that we said we’d donate, $15 million, is half the cost of Bush’s inauguration! And as much as people like to deride Clinton’s facile emotionalism, people around the world do look to the US for leadership. Bush’s silence during the first impact of this disaster speaks louder than words ever could about his indifference to the suffering the people of Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Kenya, the Maldives, the Seychelles, and Somalia have endured
As for aiding the ungrateful, I believe all of the nations affected by the tsunami have friendly relations with the US, and I know Thailand has contributed troops to the war in Iraq.
Nope. I read every single post. Better luck next time.
“For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have for only four more years.”
Actually, it’s around one tenth of one percent of the US GDP. Eegland has been on a campaign to try to get countries to contribute 1% to development assistance. IIRC, Denmark is closest to meeting that goal, at 0.9 percent.
Why would we need to raise taxes anyway? George Bush has a magical money making machine that works by lowering taxes and then spending the proceeds. He isn’t going to get into a debate with himself about whether or not it makes any sense, but hey, it’s Congress’ problem to worry about the details, not his.
India refused aid until absolutely necessary so it’s not as though we’re exactly begging the US for its thin dimes quite yet.
Stingy Americans? U.N. official’s comment hits nerve
Personally, I’d rather donate my money where I see fit instead of paying additional taxes to a governmental agency that sends diminished returns for assistance. Apparently, we are dispised for sending little governmental assistance (which will be billions anyways), but with lower taxes, the American people have the resources to send larger amounts on a more personal level instead. I actually feel better doing it myself instead of paying additional taxes and wondering if the full amount is actually going to be spent there, or somewhere else.
Also, how our government goes about assisting. Actually, the CNN TV report on this article was much more informative when it came to the releasing of funds and the subsequent follow ups and assessments.
How To Donate. From another Pit Thread, I noticed that there are some religious charities listed here that don’t subscribe to the “They Deserved It.” christian philosophy that the OP blanket-stated.
Please read thread before posting.
My employer, GE just donated $1 million.
But I’m not sure the US government should be giving any money, it might just be another instance of us ‘nation building’. :rolleyes:
You know, the Bush admin cannot win here.
If they give something, it’s not enough. If they give more, it’s looked at with suspicion, “How will we pay for it? What are their motives?”
How much would satisfy you as to the purity of the admin’s motives to help out a stricken region of the world and what would be the “correct” amount?
They should do what’s right and give with both hands. I find any accusations that the world would react with cynicism to be both irrelevant and (so far) unfounded. It’s chickenshit weaseling. You do what’s right because it’s right, not because you expect to be loved for it.
Just out of curiosity, Dio, have you personally forked over some spending money to the cause? I’m not implying you haven’t, but I’m wondering. I have done so, knowing it’s a drop in the ocean and done more for my own conscience than anything.
Yes, and not just for this cause. I shell out constantly for all kinds of things. I don’t wait for crises. That does not relieve the US government from its own responsibility.