DescentBB

Pat Buchanan has a great op-ed column in today's World Net Daily regarding Ian Egeland, the U.N.'s international relief bureaucrat, and his comments about us "stingy" Americans.

[W]hat Egeland does for a living is to preside over the distribution of aid and money conscripted from Americans, while denouncing them as "stingy" and preening as a great humanitarian. He is a dispensable parasite who insults the nation responsible for his exalted lifestyle...For the present, President Bush might solve Ian Egeland's moral problem by being more generous with the suffering people of South Asia, and taking the money, dollar for dollar, out of this year's contribution to the United Nations.

'Stingy' Americans & the charity racket

Well, the first pledge of 15 million was "stingy," as it was less than half the money being spent on Bush's corona.... inauguration.

Patrick Buchanan wrote:"'Stingy' Americans & the charity racket"

Whoa. First of all, I need to take exception to this wording. The practice of charity ("1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving. 2. Something given to help the needy; alms. 3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy. 4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.") is not, and has never been, a racket ("2. A dishonest business or practice, especially one that obtains money through fraud or extortion.").

Now, as to the article: Buchanan's intent is to denounce Ian Egeland and the type of foreign aid that helps beauracracy more than the needy, but portions of the article start to sound very much like an argument for not increasing our aid to places around the world where it is needed. He spends four full paragraphs about how much the United States and its people give, seemingly to say, "We give more than anyone, so we shouldn't be asked to give any more."

Although I see where he is coming from, I disagree with the sentiment. Why should the United States' giving be affected by what "everyone else" gives? We're the wealthiest country in the world, and per Buchanan's article, "the most generous people on earth". Even if other wealthy countries don't give proportionally as much (in fact, some give more, percentagewise), why should it matter?

The principle of giving of one's own resources is something close to my heart. I grew up in a family where our household income was below the "poverty line", but my parents always found a way to give of their money and time in many different ways. As a Christian, I believe the highest example of this is reflected in Christ, who lived and spoke in ways that left no doubt about the importance of a life lived for others.

Take a look at some of the statistics in Buchanan's article. I'm no economist, but I know that compared to the $2.4 billion ($2400 million) the U.S. spent worldwide on emergency relief last year, $35 million seems too little for a disaster of this magnitude.

Neil Boortz had some good things to say about this issue today.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Can we do anything right! We dont blow up countries right, we dont invade countries right and now we cant we give money away right. BAH I say BAH!

I don't think the 35 mil. includes the cost of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincon and it's 12 Seahawk helcopters delivering aid or the cost of 1500 troops moving from Japan into the affected area to help.
Canada, a country one tenth the size of the U.S. has pledged 80 million dollars plus our specailized disaster response team to provide clean water and medical aid which seems like we are out giving the U.S. but I don't think that is the true picture.
Unfortunately the U.S. does not like the UN organized charity groups and so it's reluctance to simply download cash into their hands comes across as ungenerous but if you look at what the U.S. is actually doing in the area they are of course in the lead in providing aid. Too bad the bad blood between the UN and the U.S. has to come to play at a time like this.

Apparently the Aussies are doing a tremendous job. Hope they get due credit.

I couldn't take much NPR this morning due to the constant yammering of interviewers who complained of America's "stinginess." For cripes sake, be thankful you get what you get. Such ungratefulness.

Last I read we were #1 on the list donating $350 mil. It is supposed to double too ... Sheesh I hate being so fu_king stingy. That cost me like $1.40.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6767190/

http://www.radicalcongruency.com/wp-con ... of-gdp.php

Iceman wrote:Last I read we were #1 on the list donating $350 mil. It is supposed to double too ... Sheesh I hate being so fu_king stingy. That cost me like $1.40.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6767190/

http://www.radicalcongruency.com/wp-con ... of-gdp.php

Japan is ahead of the US we did 350 mil they did 500 mil...

Good for them.

Kinda sad when charity becomes a pissing contest, but if it helps the victims... *shrug*

finally!!!!

Vander wrote:Well, the first pledge of 15 million was "stingy," as it was less than half the money being spent on Bush's corona.... inauguration.

Sorry Vander I can't let you get away with this one. First off giving aid is done from the goodness of one's heart, not because you are required to do so.
Secondly 75% of Bush's inaugration fund is also donated money most of which I suspect is already spent or allocated to to contracts. Take the money back perhaps? Then Clinton should sell that white elephant of a library also. How about if Ted Kennedy stopped boozing around for a year? Might be some money there.
So you see, slash and burn can work two ways.

Wood, I never said money should be spent on tsunami relief rather than a presidential celebration. I was giving a bit of perspective on how big our initial offer was.

"So you see, slash and burn can work two ways."

Remember this the next time you start a thread.

Well my kid came home with four big bags of pasta from the supermarket today as a part of a big school drive throughout the country to send to the kids over there. I thought it was pretty cool.

Unfortunately it's hard to cook pasta with no running water and/or heat. Canned foods probably would have worked best.

One of the main things thats going on over there is setting up purification plants. The Aussies are all over it.

Vander wrote:
"So you see, slash and burn can work two ways."

Remember this the next time you start a thread.

I'll try to remember to put both my hands behind me to cover my you know what when I do.

Canada's sending Sri Lanka four Reverse Osmosis Water Purifcation Units with crews with a capacity of 50,000 liters per day each.
Just a drop in an ocean of need though.

Hey, no ocean metaphors!

Talk is cheap. See who actually ponies up the moolah.

Good point. Ian Egeland claims that many pledges to help the earthquake victims in Bam last year are still unpaid.
According to this chart: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/dis ... un_ple_cap
The Saudis are the real skinflints. In fairness they may be making contributions to non govenmental organizations that don't show on the chart but as a wealthy nation you would expect more than a few cents per capita for relief of a fellow muslim country.

I don't like that graph; it makes the U.S. look bad. Let's see one for total dollars pledged per country instead.

I say Nuke (not nuclear) the UN, the world would be a better place

Genghis wrote:I don't like that graph; it makes the U.S. look bad. Let's see one for total dollars pledged per country instead.

Per capita is a much better way of giving statistics - for example, a large country such as the USA can give more because of its larger population and high GNP. Norway only has a population of 4 million, but it is giving $39.81 per person against the USA's relatively tiny $1.20. Actually, the per $ GNP statistics are even more relevant, as it shows the countries that are actually giving the most compared to their means - in this chart, the USA doesn't even figure. Norway is again the highest. The USA isn't being as generous as they would like people to think.

For example, you would expect a rich person to pay more taxes than a middle-class or poor person. By GNP, Qatar is giving twice as much as the US is.

EDIT: I still believe that countries should give money to the cause - how much is not really the issue, it is that they are giving aid in the first place. However, the US is not giving as much aid as it might (the Vertigo 1 attitude: "What's in it for me?"). I shouldn't really complain since New Zealand, my home country and reasonably close to the affected area does not appear on any of the charts...

BUBBALOU wrote:I say Nuke (not nuclear) the UN, the world would be a better place

Ha Ha! Thanks for putting Pat Buchanan into perspective!

As for bitching about the aid the US gives. Screw that!*

*edit and that goes for bitching about the bitching too. It's all about me even if it's 120 thousand people dead...

I'll play devils advocate here.
No matter how much anyone gives it's not going to resurect the dead. 10 dead, or 10 million, the aid isn't going to them.
The aid is going to correct the damage, fight off disease, help people get their businesses and homes back etc.

So show me a chart that compares how much per capita americans give when others are in need and how much americans recieve when they are in need. Hurricane Andrew and hurricane Charley together did over 40 billion in damage in Florida.

Show me the chart that shows how america who makes up only 12 percent of the global population, provides over 60 percent of the food-aid, world wide...ALL THE TIME...not just temporarily in the wake of some disaster that pulls at the heartstrings for a few weeks and then those whining biotches go back to their regular lives....meanwhile america is still churning out the food 24 hours a day, 7 days a week..... Go ahead and complain, we'll still keep feeding your peasants and cast offs from your failed imperial conquests 24/7/365....
And yea, on top of that we'll kick in a couple billion at least by the time the dust settles on the sunami struck region.

Fackin' whining little biotches!

All statistics I've seen are on how much money the government gives. Nothing on the individual people. Foreigners don't tend to realize this; but the government plays a VERY SMALL part in our national charity. Private non-profit institutions and companies are what really give, by donations direct from the American people. $1.20 per American? If you're only counting by what the government's giving, sure. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see the average result of donations reach $100 per person. Our government can tax well over 50% of our income and waste it, and not give it to other countries (mostly, anyways)--but that does NOT mean we as a people aren't giving. Ever heard of Heart to Heart? Salvation Army? Children's Orchard? The list goes on.

Edit: from the same site as before: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/dis ... go_and_pub

On the other hand, I didn't see France contributing any ca$h to the hurricane victims, as Will said.

Will Robinson wrote:meanwhile america is still churning out the food 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.....

And burns half of it to keep the farmers happy.

Note on that graph that most of the other countries on there have populations significantly less than the US, so they are giving more per capita.

RedBaron wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:meanwhile america is still churning out the food 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.....

And burns half of it to keep the farmers happy.

That has what to do with the fact that we, 12% of the planet, provide over 60% of the food aid year after year after year in addition to all the other aid we give and not just once in a while 24/7/365!!

/me thinks your logic is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face

Stryker, you're absolutely right, at least in regards to private donations and charitable organizations (I have a friend who works for Heart to Heart who is on her way over there now to assist with the distribution efforts). People here in the U.S. always seem to surprise me; in general, we usually tend to show the most selfish and money-centered traits, but in this case people have really opened their hearts.

Stryker wrote:However, I wouldn't be surprised to see the average result of donations reach $100 per person.

I hope you're just exaggerating to make a point. At that amount per person, it would total well over $25 billion dollars. The U.S. has one of the wealthiest populations in the world, and ideally we should be able to give that much (with the heaviest part of the burden on those who can afford it), but I don't think it's going to be near that amount.

But back to the topic at hand, I think most people here are referring to the government's generosity or lack thereof, not the contributions by the general population.

Will Robinson wrote:Show me the chart that shows how america who makes up only 12 percent of the global population, provides over 60 percent of the food-aid, world wide...ALL THE TIME...

I wonder, how much of that is through private organizations, and how much is sent by the U.S. government?

(I know, to the beneficiaries of the aid, it doesn't matter where it's coming from, but I think it's pertinent in the context of this thread.)

Will Robinson wrote:That has what to do with the fact that we, 12% of the planet, provide over 60% of the food aid year after year after year in addition to all the other aid we give and not just once in a while 24/7/365!!

The food that is being burned could be being provided as aid. I am not complaining about the aid per se, but the USA is one of the richest and one of the most populous nations in the world, and they could give more than they are at the moment - Norway is giving significantly more per capita and in relation to its GNP, and is very close to the USA in terms of total aid by NGOs. When you take into account that Norway has only 4 million people, while the USA has around 295 million, the USA's contributions don't seem so great.

Again, the figures being shown are governmental spending. No one seems to credit the "minor peons"...

RedBaron, please link us to the 50% crop burn information. Thanks.

Also I don't believe any of those figures include military resources. As I write this, Isn't the usa the only one doing helicopter drops to areas that no one else can get to? I mean $ aid is nice and all, but if you make people wait several weeks before recieving it: it's pretty much useless. By then the weak have probably died or adapted.

We have some 50 helicopters, and they expect that to double soon. How many soldiers do we have there?

Stryker wrote:Again, the figures being shown are governmental spending. No one seems to credit the "minor peons"...

As I stated above, I think the "minor" individuals and private organizations are doing a "major" job in the relief efforts. My beef is with the U.S. government not following suit.

RedBaron wrote:The food that is being burned could be being provided as aid. I am not complaining about the aid per se, but the USA is one of the richest and one of the most populous nations in the world, and they could give more than they are at the moment...

Dumping all that food in the market, which is where a lot of it would end up, would defeat the purpose of subsidizing the farmers in the first place! See the oil for food program for examples of good will programs being exploited or many other examples of warlords and dictators taking the aid supplies for their private armies. Over producing would drive prices down and would put our farmers out of business and into poverty and then they themselves would have to depend on aid, so why shoot ourselves in the foot and starve the planet in the process! We don't burn the excess for the sheer fun of it. There is a purpose to it.

The bigger point however is using a snapshot of one type of aid is no way to measure the magnitude of U.S. aid and doing so is a political game. Put it another way...if the U.S. cut off all forms of aid right now would they only be missing out on the 10 million or even 350 million ?!?

If it was up to me I'd be tempted to show them what it's really like if we were as bad as they say we are.

Maybe we should take some of that Billion dollars sent to buy a.i.d.s. medicine for africans too stupid to understand two words...safe sex and send the money to where a real natural disaster occured.