Then you’ll be happy to know that much of the infrastructure we’re building wasn’t blown up in the war. It was never built by Saddam, who didn’t have much left in the bank after building his gold-plated palaces to build roads and schools. We’re also buying books and training teachers for the schools, which obviously weren’t blown up in the war. We’re training a police force, which wasn’t blown up in the war. And we’re doing any number of other things that aren’t just bringing Iraq back to the way it was before the war, but actually improving Iraqis’ lives.
I understand that the article says that the closing of family planning clinics leaves many Africans without healthcare. But that doesn’t mean that the family planning clinics were treating the flu or broken legs. It means that the only access to healthcare the Africans had was a clinic that was handing out condoms and peforming abortions. “Burst appendix? Here’s a condom. Gunshot wound? Here’s a diagphram.” The article doesn’t say that the family planning clinics were acting as general care practitioners.
My point was the (obviously missed) dichotomy between our standing at near-dead last in foreign aid and our (perceived)status as numero uno asshole of the world, defining us as Simon Legree chaining the door of every clinic in Africa.
You simply cannot argue two contradictory points simultaneously. If our money is the least allocated, it cannot contrarily be the most critical provided. Make up your friggin’ minds, please. If the U.S. chooses to limit the focus of our measly buck-fifty, then Holland can willingly re-allocate their funds to compensate. I simply am tired of the endless harping on America for defying the tender hearts of our betters by deigning to restrict those seeking our money from using it in any given manner we choose to specify. If our government decides that recipients have to pat their head, nod, and rub circles on the tummy at the same time, by golly, take the money with the restrictions, or seek your assistance elsewhere. We will never, ever, be able to financially solve the world problems entirely. Given the overwhelming need and limited funds available, something will be left out. Reality. Deal with it.
The US donation is only the least allocated in relation to the GNP and population.
America gives more in raw dollar amounts than any nation on earth. This makes their donation the most critical provided.
However, since America is such a rich nation their allocation is relatively speaking peanuts compared to the donations of other nations.
It’s like the Biblical episode when Jesus saw a great many people making charitable donations in the Temple but ignored the munificient donations of the wealthy tradesmen and praised the old widow who gave a pittance because that pittance was all she could afford.
That is how America’s foreign aid donation can simultaneously be the most critical and the least allocated.
Are only funds filtered through governments in those calculations, Ben? If they are, then I would suggest that it’s misleading. Americans give quite generously to charities that sort of bypass governments altogether–for example, a bunch of people from my church in Manhattan went to Nicaragua with the Mustard Seed program, to work on an orphanage for handicapped children. While I know that the cost of their labor would be impossible to calculate anyway, how about the cost of the medicines and money we gave them to bring? Where is that counted?
I know that tax breaks, etc. are accounted for for public and private charities, so are there any IRS stats that would give an indication of everything Americans give? Although since the question is about foreign aid only, it might be impossible to break it out of the general stats.
In point of fact, this is incorrect. Japan, according to numbers from the same site provided on page 2, is number one. The U.S. is number two, closely followed by France.
Granted. My point, exactly. Taking into consideration the two points, we cannot both be faulted for being the sole provider of services we choose to restrict, and being cheap bastards. Our funds are not the most provided in any capacity. Thus, our’s are not the determining factor in any single instance, unless and until you can demonstrate the inability or unwillingness of others, private, public or otherwise, to make up for the funds we restrict. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. We spend money, but the recipients want it without strings, and by the way, we’re selfish because we don’t do more, i.e., giving without terms.
Gotcha. Caught both bites in my hand the first time, thanks. As noted above, if we are not the most in sheer dollars, we cannot be the most critical. Hence, your criticism, that of this OP anyway, fails.
You might also remember Jesus saying “the poor you will always have with you”. Rag on us for lagging responsibility all you want; just don’t tell us how we can spend our money.
Why stop with the IRS? Simply adding US non-governmental contributions to the American aid total would not make the picture complete, because plenty of people and NGOs in other countries also do charity work. Adding American NGO aid without adding NGO aid from other countries would skew the results unfairly in America’s favour.
Well, obviously. But maybe the point is that Americans prefer to do their giving in different ways than people in other countries where the government has a higher proportion of the taxpayer’s money to begin with.
In the name of saving the unborn, Shrub has doomed untold numbers of young mothers and their infants to increased mortality rates.
“We had to kill the children in order to save them.”
Just one more reason that Shrub needs to be made into a one trick pony, just like his one term daddy. This scumbag maggot has wreaked more damage in a short few years than many could do in two full terms. Get him the fuck out of office, RIGHT NOW!
A) Many African countries were flooded with condoms and AIDS didn’t come down. the only program that worked was ABC. (Abstinence - Be faithful - Condoms if you won’t do either)
B) In many many cases AIDS had nothing to do with sex. “Bad blood” transfusions caused it and started a chain reaction.
c) No country is obligated to donate and there are always more “helpable” people than money. It is logical, albeit sad, but you can’t help everyone.
d) Coming from a poor country myself, i can tell you that lack of condoms or the pill don’t cause unwanted pregnancies. They are here and you can get them for free. Thinking that we poor guys need more condoms is not nowing how the world works. Just a hint: in my country literacy halves pregnancy rates.
e) Someone mentioned that Bush ran as pro-life and voters new what they were getting, no-one really answered that
What if Bush were the most atheist guy ever, so atheist even atheists thought he was too unbeleiving and still thought abortions were wrong? what would you argue?
If instead of abortions it were legalised wife-beating? or female circumcision? or slavery? AND what about if 90% of the people in those countries aproved it?
We always impose morality. Any rule imposes it on those who don’t like it.
At least Bush has the balls to stick to his guns and not be guided by polls.
Wife beating, female circumcision and slavery are not legal in to United States, thus it is reasonable that we’d use our leverage to prevent it in other places.
