U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
They stepped it up thank goodness. This will help so much more. 
U.S. now giving $350 mil instead of $35 mil
- Thread starter U2democrat
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Not only that but it will have a knock-on effect in encouraging other countries to give more.
trevster2k
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2001
- Messages
- 4,330
It sounds good but Bush has been famous for past announcements of aid and then turns around and quietly cuts the amount offered.
And just like our Canadian government, they were shamed into giving this amount.
This is the kind of pledge that the richest country in the world should be making to help during this unprecedented disaster. Way to go, US government. The US people are way cooler than your government so I already know you guys are giving tons to help. And it was the pressure of the people of the US which got this huge donation to be announced!
And just like our Canadian government, they were shamed into giving this amount.
This is the kind of pledge that the richest country in the world should be making to help during this unprecedented disaster. Way to go, US government. The US people are way cooler than your government so I already know you guys are giving tons to help. And it was the pressure of the people of the US which got this huge donation to be announced!
trevster2k
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2001
- Messages
- 4,330
I guess someone in Crawford read this article and decided to do something about it. Bravo!
Published on Friday, December 31, 2004 by the Boston Globe
Global Analysts Dispute Perceived US Generosity
by Charles M. Sennott
LONDON -- The US government is contributing $35 million of the half-billion dollars that the world's developed nations are donating to the tsunami relief effort, and many Americans believe -- as President Bush put it earlier this week -- that their country is being its typical ''generous, kindhearted" self.
On a per capita basis and as a percentage of the nation's wealth, America's emergency relief in Asia and development aid to poor countries actually ranks at the bottom of the list of developed nations...
But both on a per capita basis and as a percentage of the nation's wealth, America's emergency relief in Asia and development aid to poor countries actually ranks at the bottom of the list of developed nations, some of the world's top economists and analysts of international development aid said yesterday.
The world's Asian relief effort -- the largest in history -- and the enormity of the disaster have put into sharp focus an intensifying debate over what it means for a country to be generous: how much should wealthy nations pledge for relief from natural disasters, and how much should those governments donate for development in poorer nations?
As of yesterday, the amount the United States has pledged is eclipsed by the $96 million promised by Britain, a country with one-fifth the population, and by the $75 million vowed by Sweden, which amounts to $8.40 for each of its 9 million people. Denmark's pledge of $15.6 million amounts to roughly $2.90 per capita.
The US donation is 12 cents per capita.
Amid the building worldwide relief effort and mounting criticism of the US government's response, the White House issued a statement yesterday from Bush announcing that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and the president's brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, would travel to Asia on Sunday ''to meet with regional leaders and international organizations to assess what additional aid can be provided by the United States."
''I look forward to receiving the delegation's assessment of the relief efforts so that our government can best help those in need," he said.
The 60 countries that have provided aid, including the United States, have also pledged equipment, military support, and supplies from corporate donations and private charities in addition to the government's donations. As of yesterday, US corporate donations reached $60 million, CNN reported.
But even with these additional contributions taken into consideration, America's perception of itself as the most generous country in the world is contradicted by the reality, economists and specialists on international aid say.
Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at Columbia University and a specialist on aid to developing countries who has worked with the United Nations, said, ''There is a very big difference between American attitudes, which are generous; beliefs, which is that we do a lot; and the reality. . . . The reality is we actually do very little by comparative measures.
''I think the disaster in Asia is a stark example of this for a lot of Americans. It challenges their perceptions of their own country," Sachs said. ''There is going to be even more shock when the US government asks for an additional $80 billion in Iraq and the American public juxtaposes that with what was given in one of the worst natural disasters the world has ever seen.
''This discrepancy between what we think our country does and what it actually does is hurting America's image in the world, especially in the poorest corners of the world," added Sachs.
At a press conference in New York, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was asked yesterday if he thought the world's wealthiest countries were doing enough.
''In this particular instance, the response has been very good," he said. ''Governments have given and indicated that they would do more. . . . The only thing I want to stress is that we are in this for the long term."
On Monday, the United Nations relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, delved into this debate, stating that the world's wealthiest countries were ''stingy" about donating foreign aid.
Powell, in response, said on ABC's ''Good Morning America" on Tuesday that the United States ''has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world."
And Bush angrily replied to Egeland at a press conference from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on Wednesday, saying, ''Well, I felt like the person who made that statement was very misguided and ill-informed," said Bush.
''We're a very generous, kindhearted nation, and, you know, what you're beginning to see is a typical response from America," Bush added.
The perception that America is the most generous country in the world is one held by a majority of Americans, according to a 2001 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes based at the University of Maryland. The think tank, which studies public attitudes toward various international topics, found that the average American believes that the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on assistance to developing nations, more than 20 times the actual figure. Even when researchers told those being questioned that foreign aid does not include military assistance to other countries, the average response was that the United States spends 23 percent of its budget on foreign aid.
But the relatively low US per capita donation to the tsunami-ravaged region reflects a larger pattern of a decline in official US foreign assistance in recent decades.
In the aftermath of World War II, the US government gave as much as 2 percent of its total gross national product to help countries rebuild. That figure dropped to about 0.5 percent of GNP during most of the 1960s and 1970s, and it fell precipitously during the Reagan administration to its current level of about 0.15 percent of GNP, according to figures compiled by Sachs and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development based in Paris.
While the United States gives the most foreign development aid in terms of dollars, it ranks lowest among wealthy countries in terms of official development assistance as a percentage of gross national income.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States gave $16.2 billion in development aid in 2003, or an amount equal to 0.15 percent of the US gross national income. Norway, with official development assistance of $2 billion, ranked highest, giving 0.92 percent of its 2003 gross national income. France allotted 0.41 percent of its gross national income to development aid in 2003, according to the organization's figures.
At a global development conference in Monterrey, Mexico, in 2002, the world's 22 wealthiest countries, including the United States, were instructed by the General Assembly to provide 0.7 percent of GNP. But the target of the so-called Monterrey Protocol has been met by only five countries. They are Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands.
Nathaniel Raymond, communications adviser on humanitarian response for Oxfam America at its Boston headquarters, said that the aid organization's fund-raising drive in the last five days had raised $3 million for the relief effort in Asia.
In terms of private donations to charity, American citizens and corporations give generously -- more than $3 billion a year. But Sachs and other analysts say that amount only slightly changes -- from 0.15 percent to 0.18 percent of GNP -- the relatively low standing of the United States.
Sarah Kline, head of UK and European Union relations for Oxfam UK, said, ''If you want to compare records, overall the best way to do that is to look at what percentage a country spends as a percentage of its [gross domestic product], and in that sense America has always spent less than most of the other developed countries."
When asked about the ongoing crisis in Asia, she said, ''It is early days to assess individual donors' total contributions. . . . They will have a chance to give more. The key to this is in the long term, that is where the assistance will really matter."
Globe correspondent Sarah Liebowitz contributed to this story. Wire services also were used.
© Copyright 2004 Boston Globe
Published on Friday, December 31, 2004 by the Boston Globe
Global Analysts Dispute Perceived US Generosity
by Charles M. Sennott
LONDON -- The US government is contributing $35 million of the half-billion dollars that the world's developed nations are donating to the tsunami relief effort, and many Americans believe -- as President Bush put it earlier this week -- that their country is being its typical ''generous, kindhearted" self.
On a per capita basis and as a percentage of the nation's wealth, America's emergency relief in Asia and development aid to poor countries actually ranks at the bottom of the list of developed nations...
But both on a per capita basis and as a percentage of the nation's wealth, America's emergency relief in Asia and development aid to poor countries actually ranks at the bottom of the list of developed nations, some of the world's top economists and analysts of international development aid said yesterday.
The world's Asian relief effort -- the largest in history -- and the enormity of the disaster have put into sharp focus an intensifying debate over what it means for a country to be generous: how much should wealthy nations pledge for relief from natural disasters, and how much should those governments donate for development in poorer nations?
As of yesterday, the amount the United States has pledged is eclipsed by the $96 million promised by Britain, a country with one-fifth the population, and by the $75 million vowed by Sweden, which amounts to $8.40 for each of its 9 million people. Denmark's pledge of $15.6 million amounts to roughly $2.90 per capita.
The US donation is 12 cents per capita.
Amid the building worldwide relief effort and mounting criticism of the US government's response, the White House issued a statement yesterday from Bush announcing that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and the president's brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, would travel to Asia on Sunday ''to meet with regional leaders and international organizations to assess what additional aid can be provided by the United States."
''I look forward to receiving the delegation's assessment of the relief efforts so that our government can best help those in need," he said.
The 60 countries that have provided aid, including the United States, have also pledged equipment, military support, and supplies from corporate donations and private charities in addition to the government's donations. As of yesterday, US corporate donations reached $60 million, CNN reported.
But even with these additional contributions taken into consideration, America's perception of itself as the most generous country in the world is contradicted by the reality, economists and specialists on international aid say.
Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at Columbia University and a specialist on aid to developing countries who has worked with the United Nations, said, ''There is a very big difference between American attitudes, which are generous; beliefs, which is that we do a lot; and the reality. . . . The reality is we actually do very little by comparative measures.
''I think the disaster in Asia is a stark example of this for a lot of Americans. It challenges their perceptions of their own country," Sachs said. ''There is going to be even more shock when the US government asks for an additional $80 billion in Iraq and the American public juxtaposes that with what was given in one of the worst natural disasters the world has ever seen.
''This discrepancy between what we think our country does and what it actually does is hurting America's image in the world, especially in the poorest corners of the world," added Sachs.
At a press conference in New York, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was asked yesterday if he thought the world's wealthiest countries were doing enough.
''In this particular instance, the response has been very good," he said. ''Governments have given and indicated that they would do more. . . . The only thing I want to stress is that we are in this for the long term."
On Monday, the United Nations relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, delved into this debate, stating that the world's wealthiest countries were ''stingy" about donating foreign aid.
Powell, in response, said on ABC's ''Good Morning America" on Tuesday that the United States ''has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world."
And Bush angrily replied to Egeland at a press conference from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on Wednesday, saying, ''Well, I felt like the person who made that statement was very misguided and ill-informed," said Bush.
''We're a very generous, kindhearted nation, and, you know, what you're beginning to see is a typical response from America," Bush added.
The perception that America is the most generous country in the world is one held by a majority of Americans, according to a 2001 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes based at the University of Maryland. The think tank, which studies public attitudes toward various international topics, found that the average American believes that the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on assistance to developing nations, more than 20 times the actual figure. Even when researchers told those being questioned that foreign aid does not include military assistance to other countries, the average response was that the United States spends 23 percent of its budget on foreign aid.
But the relatively low US per capita donation to the tsunami-ravaged region reflects a larger pattern of a decline in official US foreign assistance in recent decades.
In the aftermath of World War II, the US government gave as much as 2 percent of its total gross national product to help countries rebuild. That figure dropped to about 0.5 percent of GNP during most of the 1960s and 1970s, and it fell precipitously during the Reagan administration to its current level of about 0.15 percent of GNP, according to figures compiled by Sachs and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development based in Paris.
While the United States gives the most foreign development aid in terms of dollars, it ranks lowest among wealthy countries in terms of official development assistance as a percentage of gross national income.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States gave $16.2 billion in development aid in 2003, or an amount equal to 0.15 percent of the US gross national income. Norway, with official development assistance of $2 billion, ranked highest, giving 0.92 percent of its 2003 gross national income. France allotted 0.41 percent of its gross national income to development aid in 2003, according to the organization's figures.
At a global development conference in Monterrey, Mexico, in 2002, the world's 22 wealthiest countries, including the United States, were instructed by the General Assembly to provide 0.7 percent of GNP. But the target of the so-called Monterrey Protocol has been met by only five countries. They are Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands.
Nathaniel Raymond, communications adviser on humanitarian response for Oxfam America at its Boston headquarters, said that the aid organization's fund-raising drive in the last five days had raised $3 million for the relief effort in Asia.
In terms of private donations to charity, American citizens and corporations give generously -- more than $3 billion a year. But Sachs and other analysts say that amount only slightly changes -- from 0.15 percent to 0.18 percent of GNP -- the relatively low standing of the United States.
Sarah Kline, head of UK and European Union relations for Oxfam UK, said, ''If you want to compare records, overall the best way to do that is to look at what percentage a country spends as a percentage of its [gross domestic product], and in that sense America has always spent less than most of the other developed countries."
When asked about the ongoing crisis in Asia, she said, ''It is early days to assess individual donors' total contributions. . . . They will have a chance to give more. The key to this is in the long term, that is where the assistance will really matter."
Globe correspondent Sarah Liebowitz contributed to this story. Wire services also were used.
© Copyright 2004 Boston Globe
Scarletwine
New Yorker
I just saw the announcement. This should help substantially. Hopefully this will segway(?) into increased help for the global aids fund.
u2granny
Blue Crack Addict
Scarletwine said:
Not a chance in hell with the current administration.
THE political and ideological exploitation of perhaps the worst natural disaster in all our lifetimes is almost beyond belief — were it not for the fact that nothing these days is beyond belief.
Even as tears spring into the most hard-hearted person's eyes at both the unimaginable scope of the tragedy and at the wrenching individual stories of loss, opinion leaders just can't help themselves.
They are using this cataclysm as little more than cheap debate fodder about the nature and character of the United States, its president and its citizens.
Don't misunderstand.
It is fine and proper to have a debate and discussion about the degree of generosity the United States could, should and must show in the wake of this literally earth-shaking event.
But at this moment, the United States is not the issue.
The foreign-aid budget of the United States is not the issue.
Our government should not be the focal point of the discussion right now.
Don't we owe the dead, dying and injured the minimal grace not to convert their suffering into a chat-show segment — the latest left-right clash over the Bush presidency?
And couldn't the editorialists at The New York Times have forborne — even just for a week — making use of the tsunami to complain about U.S. government spending on "development aid"?
Development aid is the blanket term for American grant money handed out to other countries, supposedly to help their economies grow. Development aid has nothing — nothing — to do with what has happened.
The aid at issue now is disaster relief.
Secretary of State Colin Powell found himself in the position of having to remind the world that over the past four years the United States has provided more such aid than all other nations on the planet combined.
It is appalling that he had to mention this, and that President Bush was compelled to cite the same information on Wednesday, because you're not supposed to brag about how charitable you are. But once a United Nations official decried the American aid pledge as "stingy," the administration had little choice.
Any rational person would have understood without having to be told what the president told the world on Wednesday morning, which is that the $35 million pledge "is only the beginning of our help."
But maybe people are looking for a sideshow to distract them from the sickening pictures and the keening cries of the untold numbers of mothers whose babies were swept away
Even as tears spring into the most hard-hearted person's eyes at both the unimaginable scope of the tragedy and at the wrenching individual stories of loss, opinion leaders just can't help themselves.
They are using this cataclysm as little more than cheap debate fodder about the nature and character of the United States, its president and its citizens.
Don't misunderstand.
It is fine and proper to have a debate and discussion about the degree of generosity the United States could, should and must show in the wake of this literally earth-shaking event.
But at this moment, the United States is not the issue.
The foreign-aid budget of the United States is not the issue.
Our government should not be the focal point of the discussion right now.
Don't we owe the dead, dying and injured the minimal grace not to convert their suffering into a chat-show segment — the latest left-right clash over the Bush presidency?
And couldn't the editorialists at The New York Times have forborne — even just for a week — making use of the tsunami to complain about U.S. government spending on "development aid"?
Development aid is the blanket term for American grant money handed out to other countries, supposedly to help their economies grow. Development aid has nothing — nothing — to do with what has happened.
The aid at issue now is disaster relief.
Secretary of State Colin Powell found himself in the position of having to remind the world that over the past four years the United States has provided more such aid than all other nations on the planet combined.
It is appalling that he had to mention this, and that President Bush was compelled to cite the same information on Wednesday, because you're not supposed to brag about how charitable you are. But once a United Nations official decried the American aid pledge as "stingy," the administration had little choice.
Any rational person would have understood without having to be told what the president told the world on Wednesday morning, which is that the $35 million pledge "is only the beginning of our help."
But maybe people are looking for a sideshow to distract them from the sickening pictures and the keening cries of the untold numbers of mothers whose babies were swept away
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
This is good news.
trevster2k
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2001
- Messages
- 4,330
In this thread the United States was the issue. The relief amount of the US was the issue. Comments by your own president and Secretary of State made this an issue.
"We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries," Egeland said. "And it is beyond me, why are we so stingy, really.... Even Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least how rich we have become."
This the quote from Jan Egeland,UN emergency relief coordinator and former head of Norwegian Red Cross. He does not decrie the American aid pledge as stingy. The US administration inferred that he was talking about them.
People in many countries are dissatisfied with the response from their own nations. Initially, Canada offered only $1million, then $4 million and right now $40 million. These amounts were raised as day after day people called talk radio, wrote Members of Parliament, called local officials, etc. The government has said they were assessing the need, yeah, political bullshit for we're stingy. The Canadian government has joined other governments in placing a moratorium on debt repayment from the affected countries for the foreseeable future. But we have military group called DART ( Disaster Assistance Response Team), it has the ability to provide water filtration capabilities of 50000 L per day and a field hospital. We have not sent it to help any of the 10 plus countries affected by the tsunami. Most Canadians are pissed off and want to see it used but the government says this is not the proper situation for it to be used and they are assessing the situation on the ground. Canadians are angry about this and many think it is because the government are too damn worried that it might cost 15-20 million to dispatch the DART to Asia. We say who cares? This is not an example of politicizing the tsunami, we want actions not words. I'm Canadian and I'm glad that we have contributed to this relief but I am not satisfied with it because we are rich. I earn decent coin but I am not rich in my society but in the world picture I have more money than at least 75% of everyone else on the planet.
Don't be so sensitive when someone discusses your government's aid relief. As I said before no one is happy with the relief amounts and frankly we shouldn't be happy with relief amounts until no child dies of starvation or malnutrition but that ain't gonna happen very soon, is it? If countries react to criticism by giving more money to help poor nations, then let's criticize away.
Peace out.
"We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries," Egeland said. "And it is beyond me, why are we so stingy, really.... Even Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least how rich we have become."
This the quote from Jan Egeland,UN emergency relief coordinator and former head of Norwegian Red Cross. He does not decrie the American aid pledge as stingy. The US administration inferred that he was talking about them.
People in many countries are dissatisfied with the response from their own nations. Initially, Canada offered only $1million, then $4 million and right now $40 million. These amounts were raised as day after day people called talk radio, wrote Members of Parliament, called local officials, etc. The government has said they were assessing the need, yeah, political bullshit for we're stingy. The Canadian government has joined other governments in placing a moratorium on debt repayment from the affected countries for the foreseeable future. But we have military group called DART ( Disaster Assistance Response Team), it has the ability to provide water filtration capabilities of 50000 L per day and a field hospital. We have not sent it to help any of the 10 plus countries affected by the tsunami. Most Canadians are pissed off and want to see it used but the government says this is not the proper situation for it to be used and they are assessing the situation on the ground. Canadians are angry about this and many think it is because the government are too damn worried that it might cost 15-20 million to dispatch the DART to Asia. We say who cares? This is not an example of politicizing the tsunami, we want actions not words. I'm Canadian and I'm glad that we have contributed to this relief but I am not satisfied with it because we are rich. I earn decent coin but I am not rich in my society but in the world picture I have more money than at least 75% of everyone else on the planet.
Don't be so sensitive when someone discusses your government's aid relief. As I said before no one is happy with the relief amounts and frankly we shouldn't be happy with relief amounts until no child dies of starvation or malnutrition but that ain't gonna happen very soon, is it? If countries react to criticism by giving more money to help poor nations, then let's criticize away.
Peace out.
Last edited:
deep
Blue Crack Addict
trevster2k
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2001
- Messages
- 4,330
Can I prove it ? No? I don't have time to find reports regarding how AID relief money gets shifted from one fund to another and only given out to countries which agree to fund a certain percentage of faith-based servides which preach abstinance instead of contraception. No, I can't get information detailing cuts in military family expenditures or cancelling miltary aid to countries which will not honour the US exemption from the ICC. All I was saying there was that I hope all the money gets spent where it is supposed to be spent, same for our government.
And were they shamed? I think both Canadian and American people were unimpressed with both initial responses to the tragedy. The responses by both governments were similar, slow acknowledgement, no initial response by leaders, ( jeez, both our leaders were on vacation, at least yours was in the country and had a press conference), and then a rising pledge amount days after other nations had pledged relatively larger amounts. Pressure was put on all governments from society, political foes and the media to give more. Maybe the use of shame was extreme but I don't care how they come agree to give vast sums of monetary assistance to the Southeast countries. If it becomes a bidding war to outgive the next guy based on per capita, wonderful.
Rank Country 2003 GDP (nominal)
millions of USD
— World 36,356,240
1 United States 10,881,609
2 Japan 4,326,444
3 Germany 2,400,655
4 United Kingdom 1,794,858
5 France 1,747,973a
6 Italy 1,465,895
7 China 1,409,852
8 Spain 836,100
9 Canada 834,390
10 Mexico 626,080
11 South Korea 605,331
12 India 598,966
13 Australia 518,382
14 Netherlands 511,556
15 Brazil 492,338
If you feel that the US is being criticized because people are anti-american, it is being criticized because of the above numbers, the US is the richest most powerful nation ever on the planet. People have big expectations from the US because it has only 5% of the world's population but accounts for 28% of the world's GDP. I'm sure after today's announcement you will see praise for the adminstration and congress for doing the right thing.
And were they shamed? I think both Canadian and American people were unimpressed with both initial responses to the tragedy. The responses by both governments were similar, slow acknowledgement, no initial response by leaders, ( jeez, both our leaders were on vacation, at least yours was in the country and had a press conference), and then a rising pledge amount days after other nations had pledged relatively larger amounts. Pressure was put on all governments from society, political foes and the media to give more. Maybe the use of shame was extreme but I don't care how they come agree to give vast sums of monetary assistance to the Southeast countries. If it becomes a bidding war to outgive the next guy based on per capita, wonderful.
Rank Country 2003 GDP (nominal)
millions of USD
— World 36,356,240
1 United States 10,881,609
2 Japan 4,326,444
3 Germany 2,400,655
4 United Kingdom 1,794,858
5 France 1,747,973a
6 Italy 1,465,895
7 China 1,409,852
8 Spain 836,100
9 Canada 834,390
10 Mexico 626,080
11 South Korea 605,331
12 India 598,966
13 Australia 518,382
14 Netherlands 511,556
15 Brazil 492,338
If you feel that the US is being criticized because people are anti-american, it is being criticized because of the above numbers, the US is the richest most powerful nation ever on the planet. People have big expectations from the US because it has only 5% of the world's population but accounts for 28% of the world's GDP. I'm sure after today's announcement you will see praise for the adminstration and congress for doing the right thing.
Last edited:
Boston01
The Fly
Everyone slammed Bush, yet he spoke publicly one day prior to Koffi!
dazzledbylight
Blue Crack Supplier
I haven't yet heard this today......the other fact remains that "mr compassionate conservative" took 4 days to say something publically [as opposed to him alledgedly calling the various Heads of State, the next morning] to open his lazy, uncaring, arrogant, smirky mouth.
For Life's sake, even just a few words as President representing [hah] us the very next day [since i think it happened early, early morning on our time zones, it's offically next day, though the actual announcement would have been within the say first 8 hrs after] to say something like this.....' we are horrified , we send our prayers, and good thoughts to all affected and suffering. We are curently setting up an immediate aid pakage, which will be announced shortly...'
that would of been better than NOTHING....the 'next' day.
Seriously, what sickens me, is the number of people in here who are using the deaths of hundreds of thousands to bash America. I am not saying we are perfect. I am not saying we are the greatest. We have our flaws, but we also have our good qualities. This whole thing that happened just makes my heart wrench, and I thought I could come in here with the people I have shared three years of time with, to find the climate after the election restored with this total bullshit.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Americans are human. We screw up, we fall on our face sometimes, but sometimes we do good things. We're really no different from people in other countries, we're all people. Let's work together to ease the pain and suffering of the earthquake victims' families and friends.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I agree verte
Ft. Worth Frog
Acrobat
Well, it is not as if Pres. Bush can just come out and say "Hey, I am going to give 500 mil." A plan does have to be put together in order to ensure that money is spent wisely and in the right way. Everyone knows (at least those with common sense) that regardless of whatever party is in power, the US will always give the most in natural disasters like this. The Bush admin. was not cowing before world opinion when it upped its amount. I mean, it is not like the US is not already the top giver in the world. What also must be taken into account are private donors. By the time all this has ended, I am sure that private donors will have given millions upon millions.
It must also be remembered that the Bush admin. is not taking into account its logistical support. No other country has the ability to airlift massive amounts of supplies. Thanks to the US Air Force and Navy, help can get to places that might otherwise be SOL. So please, everyone sit back, take a deep breath, and wait to pass judgment until the mess has cleared up. Shame on those who have exploited this disaster for political cheapshots.
It must also be remembered that the Bush admin. is not taking into account its logistical support. No other country has the ability to airlift massive amounts of supplies. Thanks to the US Air Force and Navy, help can get to places that might otherwise be SOL. So please, everyone sit back, take a deep breath, and wait to pass judgment until the mess has cleared up. Shame on those who have exploited this disaster for political cheapshots.
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I'm personally proud that we are pushing the funding. It's not in a way to say "our country is better than yours, reenie reenie," but to influence other countries, as well as individuals, to help out. I applaud those who oppose Bush's policies but are being reasonable enough on here to appreciate the funding. I will not applaud those who say America is some kind of cheap-ass country as long as we have Bush, and that we won't keep our promises. This is really starting to piss me off. This ISSUE should be NON-PARTISAN!! I would think that this should be a safe issue, even if you don't like those who are HELPING OTHERS. Give the pessimistic attitude a break, unless of course YOU can donate more than $350 million.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I agree, this should be non-partisan. I don't think parties and political persuasions should be an issue when you're talking about a disaster like this.
Since most of the affected countries are Islamic , doesn't it seem strange that it's the Christian countries that are giving and doing more than the oil rich Islamic nations? Why bash USA about what their giving, Saudi Arabia is only donating about $10 million, they'd probably make that much money in an hour of oil sales.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
And please remember that this is only the government aid. Disaster specific donations to US based charities have gone through the roof.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
which is wonderful.verte76
Blue Crack Addict
nbcrusader said:
That's fantastic.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
Hello everyone I'm years late but at least I've found you now!!
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
-
