[kvm_mkdb]

Fighting AIDS was supposed to show George W. Bush's softer side. "Seldom has history offered a greater opportunity to do so much for so many," he said in his State of the Union address this past January. He has since reconsidered, deciding instead to offer a few more opportunities to the few. First he handed the top job of his Global AIDS Initiative to a Big Pharma boss, then he broke his $3 billion promise of AIDS relief and now there are concerns that he may sabotage a plan to send cheap drugs to countries ravaged by AIDS.

This past August, the World Trade Organization announced a new deal on drug patents that was supposed to give poor countries facing health problems the right to import generic drugs. But the deal seemed unworkable: The United States, at the behest of the pharmaceutical lobby, had successfully pushed for so many conditions that the agreement exploded from a straightforward forty-nine words to a sprawling 3,200-word maze.

The rest of the article can be found at:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mh...27&s=klein

The only decision taken by GWB I could agree with has been crippled by his corporate cronies. Oh well.

[Spliffdaddy]

From $3 billion down to $2 billion.

Reckon how much money the rest of the world's countries are giving?

Iceland, for example?

Is Africa our 51st state now?

If $2 billion is laughable - what is $zero billion?

Yet again, the world looks to the US to solve the problem - and bitches endlessly when it isn't enough.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
From $3 billion down to $2 billion.

Reckon how much money the rest of the world's countries are giving?

Iceland, for example?

Is Africa our 51st state now?

If $2 billion is laughable - what is $zero billion?

Yet again, the world looks to the US to solve the problem - and bitches endlessly when it isn't enough.

Have you ever looked PER CAPITA at what the US Spends on foreign aid? It's truly pathetic.

Or, looking at percentage of GNP, USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world.

So while $2 bil. may not be pathetic, it is truly pathetic from the USA. We are a wealthy nation and do VERY LITTLE in foreign aid in any real sense.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Yet again, the world looks to the US to solve the problem - and bitches endlessly when it isn't enough.

Sad but true.

[Spliffdaddy]

like I was asking before...

if $2 billion is pathetic - what is $zero billion called?

What is Iceland's 'per capita' contribution to help AIDS sufferers in Africa? better yet, What is Africa's ?

There are plenty of countries with a higher per-capita income than the US. What, may I ask, is their contribution?


edited to add:

Why aren't the bleeding hearts suggesting that Africa provide 'universal healthcare' for its citizens? I mean, it's free, right?

[macvillage.net]

Yep. Based on what the US has.

3rd World Countries give more than the US per capita. Yet the US demands to be credited for giving the most.

This has been debated for over 20 years.

Not to mention the US always gives the money over long periods of time. By the the end of the donation, the money is depreciated by inflation quite a bit. It's rare that's done quickly. 2 Billion may be given.. But what's the timeframe? That money may have an actual *worth* of 1.5 billion, as inflation towards the end of the deal will hit it.


The problem with the US is that it ALWAYS waits until a problem is out of control before it's tackled. Terrorism, poverty, disease, war. It all has to get out of control before it's worth dealing with.

Most experts believe HIV could have been drasically contained (some even say completely) and dealt with in the US (and possibly the world) if the CDC wasn't preasured by the Whitehouse to keep it under raps for several years because conservatives didn't like the idea of publicising that you don't have to be a homosexual to contract it. If the US acted when the professionals wanted to, the epidemic could have been severely contained in the US (saving thousands and thousands of US lives... not to mention the millions of dollars spent).... and would have recipricated exponentially across the globe.

The reason the problem is so big is because the US didn't aknowledge the disease existed publically for years. And didn't inform the world that you don't have to be a homosexual to contract it for a few more years. Meanwhile, people contracted, and died from the disease (not even knowing they had it).

I'm of the belief avoiding a problem is better than dealing with a full blown problem. If the basement floods, I'll deal with it the moment i see it, rather than wait until I've got 3ft of water in the basement, and the power shorts out. Why? Because it's less work and suffering.


Problems exist. That's just life. But when you deal with them is a choice. There is no reason (or benefit) for waiting until it's out of control. It's easier to take on quick, when it's small and treatable.

Cancer is another great example... Why detect and treat cancer early? Is it easier?

Problem is, eventually the AIDS rates will come to light in the US. Sadly, most at risk, don't get tested. The results are much lower than the actual estimate of AIDS infections. And it's a growing percentage of our population. And will only get worse.

Eventually, it will come to light, that working to stop it globally (as the US is part of a global community, where people interact sexually with people of other nations). Until then. Millions will die. And a fair number of them will be Americans. Despite what many want to think.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
like I was asking before...

if $2 billion is pathetic - what is $zero billion called?

What is Iceland's 'per capita' contribution to help AIDS sufferers in Africa? better yet, What is Africa's ?

There are plenty of countries with a higher per-capita income than the US. What, may I ask, is their contribution?

Despite all your FUD, here's what the Council on Foreign Relations has to say:

How do U.S. aid levels compare with those of other countries?
The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks last among the world’s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world’s top donor of economic aid, although for more than a decade it was second to Japan, which is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 5.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001—almost a third of what America contributed.

And Spliffdaddy, they seem to directly address you... here:
Do Americans understand how much of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid?
No. A 2001 poll sponsored by the University of Maryland showed that most Americans think the United States spends about 24 percent of its annual budget on foreign aid—more than 24 times the actual figure.

So let me break that down for you. Japan (pop. 126 mil.) gives $1 bil. less than the U.S., despite having less than half the population. Germany gives half as much, despite having a population of 80 mil., or 1/3 as much. And the rest speaks for itself. Just because we believe we're doing a lot in foreign aid, 0.1% of GNP isn't all that much.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

Yet again, the world looks to the US to solve the problem - and bitches endlessly when it isn't enough.

What ignorance.

If a superpower is going to exploit the world and wants to sell its products on the world stage then naturally it has to look after the global market and the future consumers it wants to create and exploit. You can't sell MTV to dead people.

Also, if one nation is going to have strangle other nations for developing drugs to fight AIDS then it must help. Take Brazil for example, they got fed up of US pharmaceutical companies trying to charge billions for drugs simply because they had patents. So they stuck their middle finger up and said we'll develop the same drugs ourselves and you can take your patent and put it up your ....

Life is more important than patents and profits.

Now if only Pat Robertson, George Bush and the rest of those Christian Conservative businessmen who have oil rigs and gem mining operations in Africa would give something back to the Africans for the rape being committed. Look at the guns those child soldiers in Sierra Leone hold in their hands. Guess where them arms are manufactured? Why give arms to Africa when you can give medicine and help build their economies?

Tell you why. Because arms manufacturers want money for themselves and don't care about peaceful and prosperous market places even if it benefits the western economy too.

[Spliffdaddy]

oooh! it's the big bad companies that are responsible.
FYI, the remainder of your post is summarily dismissed as hogwash.


next up, macvillage:
3rd World Countries give more than the US per capita. Yet the US demands to be credited for giving the most.

Proof please. Until then, I'm calling BS on that statement.

The rest of your post sounds as if you weren't old enough to remember the 'birth' of AIDS. I remember. And it didn't go down like you're claiming it did.

In the US the so-called 'gay community' was the first to witness the effects of AIDS. And the first to respond to it. Perhaps you feel it was a rightwing conspiracy that kept the focus on homosexuals and AIDS. It was actually just the fact that compared to homosexual men, few heterosexual people contracted the disease. I've never been given the impression that straight people were immune to AIDS - only that it was unlikely, given the current statistics of infection. Herpes was what us straight people had to look out for. There were plenty of other non-fatal VDs to look out for, too.

While condoms may seem commonplace today - before 1980 they weren't widely available in the US, with the exception of drug stores. The condom renaissance arrived on the heels of HIV, AIDS, VD, cocaine, and big hair rock bands. It had been determined through experience that your chances of contracting a disease were increasing. Everybody knew somebody with AIDS.

The 'fix' for AIDS came early. Wear a condom. Otherwise maintain committed faithful relationships.

I think we told everybody. Maybe Africa wasn't informed of the condom thing. That was back in 1980, yo. Heck. Africa might have told us about the condom. At any rate, everybody knew by 1981.

No, it isn't a rightwing conspiracy and it isn't God getting even for the 'sinning' homosexuals. It's plain ol' statistics. Homosexual men ARE at an increased risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Simply put. It was RIGHT to primarily target the gay community during references to AIDS. That's, after all, where the first problems were seen. Again, nobody ever said straight men and women couldn't contract AIDS. Nobody. I was there, homie. They DID say it would become an epidemic in Africa in a decade or two (and it did).

The whole world was aware of the problem and the whole world was aware of the solution to its spread.

Inaction of the US has failed to solve a problem in Africa that was rooted in the inaction of the nation of Africa??

Glory be.


The stats for foreign aid:

Wow, $2 billion is like 20% of our budget. Hell no we shouldn't blow 20% of our foreign aid budget on ONE item. Can we claim the $87 billion we're gonna blow on Iraq as foreign aid? That would be cool. We're spending more than we have right now, so take a number and wait your turn for a ride on the gravy train.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Despite all your FUD, here's what the Council on Foreign Relations has to say:

How do U.S. aid levels compare with those of other countries?
The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks last among the world’s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world’s top donor of economic aid, although for more than a decade it was second to Japan, which is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 5.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001—almost a third of what America contributed.

And Spliffdaddy, they seem to directly address you... here:
Do Americans understand how much of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid?
No. A 2001 poll sponsored by the University of Maryland showed that most Americans think the United States spends about 24 percent of its annual budget on foreign aid—more than 24 times the actual figure.

So let me break that down for you. Japan (pop. 126 mil.) gives $1 bil. less than the U.S., despite having less than half the population. Germany gives half as much, despite having a population of 80 mil., or 1/3 as much. And the rest speaks for itself. Just because we believe we're doing a lot in foreign aid, 0.1% of GNP isn't all that much.

I have a feeling your numbers are based on a fairly narrow definition of "foreign aid." Is this just the USAID budget, or what?

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

Glory be.

Glory be, indeed. Do you just change the subject when multiple people point out how wrong you are?

Do you really think that keeps you ahead of the game?

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Joshua:
I have a feeling your numbers are based on a fairly narrow definition of "foreign aid." Is this just the USAID budget, or what?

A good question. I do, however, believe it is total foreign aid budget compared to other total foreign aid budgets.

How much aid does the United States give?
Less than 1 percent of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid. President Bush’s 2003 budget proposes about $11.4 billion in economic assistance and about $4.3 billion for peacekeeping operations and to finance, train, and educate foreign armed forces.

So it's not just USAID.

[Spliffdaddy]

Still waiting for stats on those 3rd world countries...unless France and UK have joined the ranks and nobody told me.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Glory be, indeed. Do you just change the subject when multiple people point out how wrong you are?

Do you really think that keeps you ahead of the game?

heh. you must be new here.

I admit when I'm wrong.

Most folks never live long enough to see it happen, though.

[DBursey]

A more insensitive person might mention that for the cost of one cruise missle, more might be accomplished in slowing the spread of AIDS in Africa than that which can be done by means of the entire American foreign aid budget.

Said missle's final stop would of course be the Vatican.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by petehammer:
A good question. I do, however, believe it is total foreign aid budget compared to other total foreign aid budgets.

How much aid does the United States give?
Less than 1 percent of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid. President Bush’s 2003 budget proposes about $11.4 billion in economic assistance and about $4.3 billion for peacekeeping operations and to finance, train, and educate foreign armed forces.

So it's not just USAID.

The problem is that "foreign aid budget" doesn't really mean anything, and I'm not sure where it's being drawn from. The total budget allocation in 2003 for International Affairs was $26 billion. $9.1 went to humanitarian aid, $8.2 to security assistance. $7 to the conduct of foreign affairs, and the remainder to information & exchange and to financial programs. So where did $11.1 billion figure come from?

More importantly, though, I don't think you can fairly judge a nation's foreign aid by looking at the amounts earmarked for "international security" or "economic support." What about the revenue generated by US forces stationed abroad? What about the research spending (ie, $21 billion medical research in 2003) which can have dramatic impact abroad?

Simply comparing per capita aid spending ignores the big picture.

[thunderous_funker]

Bush should just write the Pharm Industry a check and spare the Africans the false hope and the rest of us the hollow sanctimony.

[adamk]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Still waiting for stats on those 3rd world countries...unless France and UK have joined the ranks and nobody told me.

what would comparing the amount spent on foreign aid by the US with a third-world country prove? isn't it generally third-world countries who receive aid from first-world countries? BOT...

Global HIV/AIDS Policy Fact Sheet [PDF - 116 kb] from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

specifically w.r.t. AIDS, the US gives the most amount (and signifacantly so). But, non-G8 countries give more total than the G-8 countries. it mentions the US's $15B over 5 years at the end, but not much about it, the published date being may.

there seems to be A LOT of information on that site. wish i could look into it more right now.

adam

[adamk]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Bush should just write the Pharm Industry a check and spare the Africans the false hope and the rest of us the hollow sanctimony.

the above link i posted did mention that the $15B wasn't solely dedicated to prevention, care and treatment efforts, but also to international research, which i take it to mean, phaamaceutical research. wonder what the breakdown will be...

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
[B
next up, macvillage:
3rd World Countries give more than the US per capita. Yet the US demands to be credited for giving the most.

Proof please. Until then, I'm calling BS on that statement.[/b]

http://www.un.org

The rest of your post sounds as if you weren't old enough to remember the 'birth' of AIDS. I remember. And it didn't go down like you're claiming it did.

In the US the so-called 'gay community' was the first to witness the effects of AIDS. And the first to respond to it. Perhaps you feel it was a rightwing conspiracy that kept the focus on homosexuals and AIDS. It was actually just the fact that compared to homosexual men, few heterosexual people contracted the disease. I've never been given the impression that straight people were immune to AIDS - only that it was unlikely, given the current statistics of infection. Herpes was what us straight people had to look out for. There were plenty of other non-fatal VDs to look out for, too.

Actually the Gay community was the focus when it was DIAGNOSED. Looking back, medical historians have found years worth of mystery deaths with the exact same symptoms. All can be traced as well.

That's some skewed history.

AIDS according to most can be traced back into the late 70's, or that's what the AIDS information packets today say. It just wasn't given a name, or researched back then.

But to deny existance because you don't care about the group is pretty ignorant.

While condoms may seem commonplace today - before 1980 they weren't widely available in the US, with the exception of drug stores. The condom renaissance arrived on the heels of HIV, AIDS, VD, cocaine, and big hair rock bands. It had been determined through experience that your chances of contracting a disease were increasing. Everybody knew somebody with AIDS.

The 'fix' for AIDS came early. Wear a condom. Otherwise maintain committed faithful relationships.

Rubber condoms (modern condoms) go back to the 1800's. The fact you didn't want one doesn't mean they weren't available.

[b]I think we told everybody. Maybe Africa wasn't informed of the condom thing. That was back in 1980, yo. Heck. Africa might have told us about the condom. At any rate, everybody knew by 1981.[b]

Condoms were originally an Egyptian invention. They have been in the region's history since. That's over hundreds of years.

Only modern condoms have been lacking in African society. Modern Latex condoms are the best protection for the HIV virus. That is what they are lacking.


Condoms have also been readally accessible for our soldiers for years. Not to mention in Asia and Europe were tought for years.


Just because you closed your eyes. Doesn't mean a problem didn't exist.

No, it isn't a rightwing conspiracy and it isn't God getting even for the 'sinning' homosexuals. It's plain ol' statistics. Homosexual men ARE at an increased risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Simply put. It was RIGHT to primarily target the gay community during references to AIDS. That's, after all, where the first problems were seen. Again, nobody ever said straight men and women couldn't contract AIDS. Nobody. I was there, homie. They DID say it would become an epidemic in Africa in a decade or two (and it did).

One of the first diagnosed cases of AIDS was a young boy who recieved it through a blood transfusion.

Another large series of issues were men who were gay "in the closet".

The disease spread because the public didn't want to hear they were able to contract it. All the evidence was there. Doctors knew. Doctors attempted to speak out.

It's well documented in hundreds of films on the topic. The White House didn't like the idea of turning what the media branded as "Gay Cancer" into a disease anyone could get. So they decided to name it "HIV" and "AIDS" respectively.

The time wasted because people were afraid of knowledge killed many.

The whole world was aware of the problem and the whole world was aware of the solution to its spread.

Inaction of the US has failed to solve a problem in Africa that was rooted in the inaction of the nation of Africa??

The US CDC was very involved in investigating this disease. The CDC's geniouses were bright enough to trace it with the help of Europian health officals to Africa rather quickly.

The big conflict between the US and Europe was what to do with the information. The US wanted it quiet. It wasn't what people wanted to hear. Others felt the idea of a "cancer out of Africa" was a bad thing too.

All the knowledge was there. They knew the risks, and kept it quiet and out of the public eye.

Glory be.


The stats for foreign aid:

Wow, $2 billion is like 20% of our budget. Hell no we shouldn't blow 20% of our foreign aid budget on ONE item. Can we claim the $87 billion we're gonna blow on Iraq as foreign aid? That would be cool. We're spending more than we have right now, so take a number and wait your turn for a ride on the gravy train.

The US gives Israel, a rather wealthy nation (per Capita) $3 Billion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2867619.stm

No issues there.

[adamk]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
http://www.un.org

i looked on the UN website, but couldn't find any figures. can you link the full address please?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
From $3 billion down to $2 billion.

Reckon how much money the rest of the world's countries are giving?

Yeah, it might sound like a lot......but then you have to remember that the US recently coughed up several tens of billions of dollars for a sustained bombing campaign followed by invasion that cost the lives of several thousand innocents.

Funny how so much spare change can be found under the couch when you really want it, eh? - and for such a worthy cause too.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by eklipse:
cost the lives of several thousand innocents.

and it bought the freedom of tens of millions.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Have you ever looked PER CAPITA at what the US Spends on foreign aid? It's truly pathetic.

Or, looking at percentage of GNP, USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world.

So while $2 bil. may not be pathetic, it is truly pathetic from the USA. We are a wealthy nation and do VERY LITTLE in foreign aid in any real sense.

h o g w a s h

why on earth does the USA have to pay for everyone elses problems?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
From $3 billion down to $2 billion.

Reckon how much money the rest of the world's countries are giving?

Iceland, for example?

Is Africa our 51st state now?

If $2 billion is laughable - what is $zero billion?

Yet again, the world looks to the US to solve the problem - and bitches endlessly when it isn't enough.

Iraq is your 51st state ... Africa may be your 52nd.

This is not a issue of everyone expecting the US to solve the world's problems (though that does admittedly happen quite frequently). What bothers me is $3B was promised quite boldly and then was scaled back quite quietly. $2B is nothing to sneeze at; it's the backing down on a promise that bothers people.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
and it bought the freedom of tens of millions.

That meets the standards.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
and it bought the freedom of tens of millions.

in theory

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Iraq is your 51st state ... Africa may be your 52nd.

This is not a issue of everyone expecting the US to solve the world's problems (though that does admittedly happen quite frequently). What bothers me is $3B was promised quite boldly and then was scaled back quite quietly. $2B is nothing to sneeze at; it's the backing down on a promise that bothers people.

I'll go on record as agreeing with that sentiment.

There's nothing worse than breaking a promise. Aside from the fact that it was a promise of a favor. Words should mean as much as actions.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
h o g w a s h

why on earth does the USA have to pay for everyone elses problems?

hm...aren't right wingers the ones who felt we had an obligation to regime change two countries? Its okay with them to drop hundreds of thousands of bombs at a million apiece, racking up 87 billion dollars, for starters to "liberate" a country so they can reshape it in the democratic image?

Is it just a selective compassion, conservatives?

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Is it just a selective compassion, conservatives?

no, it's realpolitik. Regimes were changed to secure the security and foreign policy goals of the United States. While freedom for Afghanis and Iraqis is a bonus for them and for Muslims and Arabs who are oppressed by their own leaders, the security concerns of the US were the main driving force behind regime changes.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
no, it's realpolitik. Regimes were changed to secure the security and foreign policy goals of the United States. While freedom for Afghanis and Iraqis is a bonus for them and for Muslims and Arabs who are oppressed by their own leaders, the security concerns of the US were the main driving force behind regime changes.

And profit for lobbying or supportive corporations.

How is wiring money to the head of Pakistan's intel who then wires the money to Muhammed Atta security for the US, especially when said head of intel is in Washington on 9-11-01?

[moki]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
There are plenty of countries with a higher per-capita income than the US. What, may I ask, is their contribution?

Actually, in terms of GDP per-capita, the US is second only to Luxembourg, based on 2002 data.

Regardless, it is true that the US gives less in aid than some nations, and more in aid than others. While the % of GNP that the US gives is smaller than many industrialized nations, it is the largest in terms of strict dollar terms.

Interestingly, the second largest donor in strict monetary terms is Japan, which also happens to donate a fairly pathetic % of GNP, not much higher than the US's.

On other factor to keep in mind is that these figures count only official government aid given. The US leads the world in GDP per-capita *personal* donations.

So in summary, the USA government gives less as a % of GNP than many industrialized nations, but the most money overall. The people in the USA give the most personally as a % of GDP per capita.

Some more stats: out of the 22 nations that signed on to the U.N. ODA agreement in 1992, only 5 out of the 22 are giving the target goal of .7% of GNP. The USA is 22nd out of 22, giving .12%. So yes, the amount the US government gives is fairly pathetic in that light.

However the US government also takes away less from its citizens than the other countries on the list in terms of various taxes, so it isn't exactly a fair comparison.

Perhaps this would explain why the people in the USA personally contribute so much to foreign aid? It amounts to the same thing, just done individually, rather than via taxes funneled through the federal government.

As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities. Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show U.S. aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the people of America is far more impressive than their government. As discussed further below, the government spending has tied agendas that has often been detrimental to the recipient. Private aid/donation in contrast has been through charity on individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas -- more than three times U.S. official foreign aid of $10 billion:

--International giving by U.S. foundations totals $1.5 billion per year

--Charitable giving by U.S. businesses now comes to at least $2.8 billion annually

--American NGOs gave over $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.

--Religious overseas ministries contribute $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.

--$1.3 billion by U.S. colleges are given in scholarships to foreign students

--Personal remittances from the U.S. to developing countries came to $18 billion in 2000

So the money is getting there, it just isn't getting funneled through the US government first. I see nothing wrong with this situation at all.

[moki]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The US gives Israel, a rather wealthy nation (per Capita) $3 Billion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2867619.stm

No issues there.

Actually, there are issues. The bulk of what the USA gives to Israel is in loan guarantees, not outright cash, if I recall correctly.

[moki]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
and it bought the freedom of tens of millions.

Actually, I have a question about that... I'm honestly not sure of the answer, so anyone who knows, please chime in.

Who exactly paid for the US's defense of Europe after during and after World War II, through the cold war? Do NATO countries help fund the US's presence there?

Ditto with Korea, et al. I can't imagine we're doing it pro bono entirely, but I'm not sure how we've been paid over the decades to defend these various countries via deterrence.

As a side note, I'm glad to see that Europe is considering their own coordinated defense forces. Having Americans scattered throughout Europe seems antiquated, a relic of the cold war. This is another area I disagree with the administration on: it seems to me NATO should be dissolved, the US should pull out of Europe entirely, and the EU should handle their own security/military matters.

Ditto with anywhere else that US troops are stationed where there is no longer an imminent threat/need.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
and it bought the freedom of tens of millions.

You have a very strange perception of freedom.