DescentBB

Your ignorance is shocking, Woodchip.

*sigh*... back to the typical flamewars with no demonstrations of fact involved...

It's funny how everyone wants to turn this into a statistical pissing contest... "this country gives more total than any other!" "well this country gives more per capita!" "well this other one gives more per GDP!" "well this other gives more per capita per GDP squared over minute-newton-monkey-joule!" "well you're ignorant and stupid and you're from the wrong political party!" "well, your mom!"

You can make the stats say whatever you want to say, if you try hard enough.

It's true that the original $15 million was far too small an offer -- but then, the original damage estimates were also far smaller than the current ones. It's also true that, in theory, more could be given by any country (via government or individuals) for any particular cause. In this case, there are a few countries that have really gone all-out in the relief effort in terms of their cash donations (Norway?) and some countries that are really slacking (Saudi Arabia), and then there are a bunch of countries that are just doing what needs done, pledging some cash and using whatever infrastructure they happen to have in place to get aid where it's going. The US seems to be one of those. You can throw around stats all you want; the only stat that really matters is that aid is getting to people because of a number of countries (including the US) and individuals that are stepping up to provide it and deliver it.

Foil: with respect to the point you keep making about the government vs. individuals -- a lot of us are glad that most aid comes from individuals. One major reason I voted the way I did in the last election is because I don't *want* the government to be in charge of aid (either locally or globally); I want aid to come from individuals giving out of the kindness of their hearts.

Fundamentally, the Democrat party position is that the government should have lots of money and take care of lots of problems. The Republican party position is that the government should have barely enough money to maintain infrastructure, and that problems should be taken care of by individuals and companies stepping up and fixing things. As a Republican, I'm glad that we've made it so that the government *can't* follow suit because they don't have the budget or the authority for it. (If they taxed us as much as most of Europe is taxed, then I'd be mad at the government for not outdoing individual donors -- but I consistantly vote such that they won't tax us that much.) That's one of my main principles of government -- its job is to provide infrastructure so that individuals and companies can successfully fund/supply relief efforts. Its job is *NOT* to actually fund/supply relief efforts, charity, etc. itself, but rather, to empower individuals to do so. Personally, I'd be mad if the US government *did* match individual contributions, because it would mean they were taxing us way too much.

Stryker wrote:*sigh*... back to the typical flamewars with no demonstrations of fact involved...

I'm sorry, but saying that the HIV epidemic in Africa is because of those "[A]fricans [that are] too stupid to understand two words...safe sex" is infuriating.

Lothar, I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I wonder how much have you given? I remember, in an earlier post before the election, how you said you found it absurd to fear the military because those that comprised it were simply members of our communities, people like me and you and everyone on this board. How is the government different in that regard?

I am of the opinion that, along with personal contributions, governments are ideal sources for aid in situations like this. One of the government's main functions resides in the extraction of resources. Why not use those resources to help people in need? What if personal contributions just won't cut it?

kufyit wrote:What if personal contributions just won't cut it?

Sucks to be in need, then. Donations are just that. Unfortunately, donations on a political and governmental level are somewhat obligatory; today's society has deemed it thus.

kufyit wrote: I'm sorry, but saying that the HIV epidemic in Africa is because of those "[A]fricans [that are] too stupid to understand two words...safe sex" is infuriating.

So elucidate me. What is infuriating are the men who know they have a.i.d.'s (that they got off the local hooker) then go back home and infect their wife and then the unborn children. These same euridite men then think that if they have sex with a 10 year old, they'll be be able to get rid of the bad ju ju. I know...it's a african cultural thing that the men can't keep it in their pants so we have to be understanding of local customs. So again I say...they are too stupid to understand "safe Sex". Stupidity as in knowing but not willing to practice.

So Kuffy, give me some clear idea why we shouldn't take some of the aid money back so we can have a real discussion in lieu of emotional discharge.

kufyit wrote:I wonder how much have you given?

Nothing, yet. I also haven't paid the bills from the last half of December. I haven't yet sorted out the finances. Once I do, I'll see what I can give and where the need is greatest -- it may be there, or it may still be in Iraq, or it may be something local. (If I'd been home when this went down, I would've likely given something right away -- but I was offline and disconnected from the news when it happened, and now that the first wave of donations has passed, I don't know how great the need still is.)

you said you found it absurd to fear the military because those that comprised it were simply members of our communities, people like me and you and everyone on this board. How is the government different in that regard?

The government is made up of ordinary people, that's true (at least, mostly) -- so, just like the military, I don't fear the government (again, mostly.)

The significant difference for this purpose is that when the government gives, it's giving other people's money. When an individual gives, they're giving their own money. I think the ideal situation is for individuals to respond by giving their own money. (Now, because governments have already taken so much money out of the hands of the people, I think it's right that they are giving -- but long-term, I want money to get out of government hands and into individual hands, and have the donations be made directly by individuals.)

governments are ideal sources for aid in situations like this.

They are -- because they take so much money from their citizens. Like I said, I think the ideal is that the government wouldn't *have* enough money to be able to give in response to something like this, because they would've left most of that money in the hands of individuals. Because they do take too much money through taxes, it's good that they use some of it for this type of purpose -- but I'd prefer if they didn't have the money in the first place.

What if personal contributions just won't cut it?

When it comes down to it, these are all personal contributions. The government is just taking some of them by force.

But, what happens if not enough people give out of the goodness of their own hearts? I don't know. I don't think the risk of that is any greater with or without government involvement, though. Representative governments tend to be a portrait of the people they represent, so I don't think the contributions would be significantly different either way. And if I'm wrong... well, then, I'm wrong, and the government would need to step in and provide help. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong about something :P

Wood, it's a cultural thing. There is a lot of AIDS awareness in america, but it is not the same in Africa. Despite all the money spent on AIDS, it's really a drop in the bucket.

You make it seem like they are making informed intentionally destructive decisions, but I think you are oversimplifying.

I think the US gives plenty. We could always certainly give more (and I think we should) but it is not on an infuriating level.

Representative governments tend to be a portrait of the people they represent, so I don't think the contributions would be significantly different either way.

The richest 5% pay about 40% of the nations taxes. I doubt they feel that that is representative. To be blunt: that is what we want them to pay, and since we are the majority, they have to pay it. So in a time of crises this small group of riches would have to shell out a hell of a lot of the percentage in order to keep things at the standard that we are use to. (Or we lower our standards for times of crises)

Imagine a tsunami of similar size hit the east coast. Since you have still allowed the U.S. government to tax us in order to maintain the info structure: all we do now is wait for the money to pour in. As is evident from this thread, a pissing match will ensue. Bill Gates feels that donating $10 million is enough, but my Grandma still doesnâ??t have her house rebuilt, while he is in his house that has heated tiles. I get pissed, several others get pissed. I think you know where I am leading with this.

If a large group of angry despite people are upset that the government isnâ??t giving enough, well then thatâ??s fine, controllable, and debatable. If a large group of angry despite people are upset at one person: then we have trouble. Having Americans mad at the government, and depend on the government in need, is far less dangerous then having them mad at certain individuals, and depend on those individuals in need.

As a voter: I want America to not have to depend on anyone in the moment to help us if mother nature takes out a few of our states.

Another way of looking at this is, where was the out pouring of aid to the Floridians when all those hurricane blew through? While I wouldn't expect a poor country to do much, where was France or Jan's Sweden when that occured. Anyone in the world think maybe we might be a little cashed strapped at the moment?

Wow. Okay, by topic:

Will Robinson wrote: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.

Then for the sake of the victims, I'm glad it's not up to you.

Lothar wrote:It's funny how everyone wants to turn this into a statistical pissing contest... "this country gives more total than any other!" "well this country gives more per capita!" "well this other one gives more per GDP!" "well this other gives more per capita per GDP squared over minute-newton-monkey-joule!"...
You can make the stats say whatever you want to say, if you try hard enough.

Absolutely true. The merits of each statistical measure are debatable, and there are many other factors to take into consideration, including the financial/budgetary ability of each government.
For an intriguing read, A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper is one of my favorite books on how statistics get twisted and misunderstood.

Stryker wrote:*sigh*... back to the typical flamewars with no demonstrations of fact involved...

Point taken; I'll try to back up my opinions more often.
What bothered me in this case is actually more principle-oriented; I could be wrong, but I got the impression that there was some hesitation on the part of the U.S. in sending significant aid, at least at first, even considering the incomplete reports about the devastation. To their credit, since my first post in this thread, they've stepped up their efforts by a considerable margin; I'm really glad to see that happening.

Lothar wrote:...I don't *want* the government to be in charge of aid...

kufyit wrote:...governments are ideal sources for aid in situations like this...

Sounds like a classic partisan "Democrat philosophy vs. Republican philosophy" debate to me. Maybe a new topic/thread on this one would be best?

And Woodchip (I'm not going to even quote that comment you made), I understand the frustration when people who should know better do horrible things. But many of the same things happen here, and "taking the money back" is no solution at all.
For your reference, D.A.T.A. (data.org) has a good page regarding some of the major issues in Africa. The problems there seem overwhelming, but we can't just stand back and watch.

Goob, we obviously differ in what we think of human nature. I don't think they'll get upset at individuals, because individuals will (as a whole) put out enough resources to take care of whatever needs there are, and there won't be any reason for anyone to be angry.

I suppose it's appropriate that I, as a Republican, think people will step up and give while you, as a Democrat, don't. We tend to think the whole world is full of people like those we align ourselves with. [/cheapshot]

Foil wrote:Sounds like a classic partisan "Democrat philosophy vs. Republican philosophy" debate to me.

Exactly. That's why I brought it up in response to your criticisms of government response -- to highlight why some of us see individuals outgiving the government and think "heck YEAH!" and others think "stingy government!"

Thanks for the link to the book. Looks like it would make a good addition to the library if I could find the shelf space...

Foil wrote:. The problems there seem overwhelming, but we can't just stand back and watch.

Why not? We and the world did when the Rwanda massacres were happening. Not even alturistic Sweden lifted a finger to help. No, I take that back. A finger was lifted...a certain middle finger we all know and love.
Care to guess who was in charge of the U.N. mission for that part of the world and who pulled the UN troops out?

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiap ... index.html

(I shed a tear when reading this, soppy flabby huh!!!)

Hopefully, past cockups make us learn. I'd like to think there won't be another Rwanda. I'd like to think this responce for aid as in "aiding" those less fortunate, will lead us into a bit of a social revolution regarding how we treat one another. Hey i know it's wishful thinking, but what's wrong with that. The human race have been provided a chance here to go and make a name for itself for a change instead of mucking things up. Like i said, past cockups make us learn, looks like this aint going to be one.

No worries Flabby, I cried too. My daughter is the same age as the kids in the story. Like the reporter, my first reaction was a strong need to see and hold my child. Good find.

It's odd that when you truly imagine losing your children you can almost feel them in your arms. Kinda like the vestigial limb thing. I think there must be some sort of instinctive psychosomatic response happening with that...

The only time I ever feel mortal or weak is when I think of losing my kids.