 |
 |
France pledges $136,000 in aid to Asia...
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
So far the United States has provided $35 million in aid, a number expected to rise, President Bush (search) said Wednesday from his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Japan has contributed $30 million, Australia $27 million. Other nations that have contributed relief are the United Kingdom with $29 million, Germany with $42.7 million, Saudi Arabia with $10 million, China with $2.6 million and France with $136,000
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142815,00.html
$136,000
and the U.S. is stingy?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
That's odd... very odd. Maybe it's a typo or maybe they are just being stingy bastards. Giving so little is almost worse than not giving any money at all. Hopefully they increase that amount by a lot soon.
|
"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Paris, NY, Rome, etc
Status:
Offline
|
|
France gives a lot more foreign aid per capita (over $100 per person I believe) where the US is much lower on the list. I know the US gives the most, and France will probably give more.
France is one of many countries. They'll give whatever they give and we'll all try to move on and remember that this is a horrible frigging tragedy and rather than pointing fingers we should be DOING something about it.
I gave, does everyone in here want to tell how much they donated?
Jeez.
|
Adopt-A-Yankee
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In bits and pieces on Cloud City
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by IceBreaker:
and the U.S. is stingy?
Yup, for one of the richest nations 35 mill isn't much at all.
|
|
"Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough!"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by paully dub:
France gives a lot more foreign aid per capita (over $100 per person I believe) where the US is much lower on the list. I know the US gives the most, and France will probably give more.
France is one of many countries. They'll give whatever they give and we'll all try to move on and remember that this is a horrible frigging tragedy and rather than pointing fingers we should be DOING something about it.
I gave, does everyone in here want to tell how much they donated?
Jeez.
I really hope Fraqnce is donatying more. If not, that says a great deal about their concern over this tragedy.
What did I donate? $12,000 so far. I sent $10K to the Red Cross special fund and $2K to the Christian Children's Fund.
So, I've currently donated 10% of the French effort.
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status:
Offline
|
|
MacNStein, you're the best.
Yup, for one of the richest nations 35 mill isn't much at all.
Yeah, I tried to say something similar in the (my) other thread, but they are all insisting that the U.S. is acting appropriately with the things we have done (or not done) thus far.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by paully dub:
[B]France gives a lot more foreign aid per capita (over $100 per person I believe) where the US is much lower on the list.
It�s been pointed out before, and I�ll point it out again. Judging donations based on GDP is a false yardstick, invented by people trying desperately to downplay the fact that the US gives more money than others in aid.
A wealthier entity will virtually always give less a percentage of their total (far greater) GDP, than will less-wealthier entities.
For example, when you buy lunch you spend more of your own personal GDP than Bill Gates does when he buys an entire HOUSE. You could donate $100 to charity, and him $10,000,000 and he�d be giving up less of his GDP than you did. But does that make your piddly $100 have a greater value than his $10,000.000? NO. Not in any way shape, matter, nor form.
10 mil is 10 mil and 100 bucks is 100 bucks- the only thing that matters when being charitable is the dollar amounts, not how much of a percentage of the giver�s total net worth the amounts are.
People use this phony yardstick because it�s a clever little shell game that fools the usual suspects who ALWAYS want to downplay whatever the US does.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status:
Offline
|
|
I totally disagree with what you're saying.
You're arguing apples and oranges.
You're arguing about the worth of a dollar relative to a person and not relative to the ABILITY to give.
The fact is that the U.S. can afford to give more, period. We can spend a billion dollars on a war in Iraq but not give $100 million to many countries and millions of people who need help?
Heh.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Paris, NY, Rome, etc
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
It�s been pointed out before, and I�ll point it out again. Judging donations based on GDP is a false yardstick, invented by people trying desperately to downplay the fact that the US gives more money than others in aid.
A wealthier entity will virtually always give less a percentage of their total (far greater) GDP, than will less-wealthier entities.
For example, when you buy lunch you spend more of your own personal GDP than Bill Gates does when he buys an entire HOUSE. You could donate $100 to charity, and him $10,000,000 and he�d be giving up less of his GDP than you did. But does that make your piddly $100 have a greater value than his $10,000.000? NO. Not in any way shape, matter, nor form.
10 mil is 10 mil and 100 bucks is 100 bucks- the only thing that matters when being charitable is the dollar amounts, not how much of a percentage of the giver�s total net worth the amounts are.
People use this phony yardstick because it�s a clever little shell game that fools the usual suspects who ALWAYS want to downplay whatever the US does.
Of course i understand your argument. I never said the per capita statistic was THE statistic, nor am I criticising the US and how much aid it spends (though I might feel that the US spends too much on some things, not enough on others, but that's just my opinion). I do believe that there is some merit to the stastic, in that the French do give a lot of money. And that indeed lots of countries besides the US give a lot of money.
Nobody is downplaying the money the US sends, it's stupid to get into the game of how much money which country is giving who, since obviously there are lots of factors at play. And France has a proven track record of giving aid.
I probably shouldn't have thrown that figure out there, in retrospect as it would probably just fan certain flames.
Peace.
|
Adopt-A-Yankee
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The fact is that the U.S. can afford to give more, period. We can spend a billion dollars on a war in Iraq but not give $100 million to many countries and millions of people who need help?
Succinctly right.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -
Status:
Offline
|
|
good stuff, macNstein.
that sucks for the French people. But then again I don't trust fox news at all.
give me non-biased international sources,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
[B]I totally disagree with what you're saying.
You're arguing apples and oranges.
You're arguing about the worth of a dollar relative to a person and not relative to the ABILITY to give.
No, you're simply not understanding what I'm talking about.
Do YOU have the ability to give $10 million dollars away? I highly doubt it. Someone like Bill Gates does. Yet his $10mil giveaway is a smaller percentage of his total net worth than whatever amount you are able to give is of yours. Does that make his $10mil 'stingy'? No, only if you're playing a shell-game of pretending you're more generous than he is, simply because your smaller amounts of money represent greater percentages of your total net worth. But none of that is any true measure of charity, it's just a false yardstick dreamed up by people because simple math dictates that the wealthiest doners can NEVER win under such a phony measure.
The fact is that the U.S. can afford to give more, period. We can spend a billion dollars on a war in Iraq but not give $100 million to many countries and millions of people who need help?
You're perfectly free to donate money to charity yourself if you feel that the US doesn't give enough.
Originally posted by paully dub:
I do believe that there is some merit to the stastic, in that the French do give a lot of money. And that indeed lots of countries besides the US give a lot of money.
Well of course others give a lot of money, no one is arguing that. What's ridiculous is the idea that nations with far smaller GDPs can pat themselves on the back for being more generous than nations with larger GDPs that give more, by using such a simple false yardstick in order to do it. All that matters is the dollar amounts. These don�t change in value, nor use, based on ******** irrelevance of the total net worth of the donor.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status:
Offline
|
|
S'ok. I had some extra $ from the AAPL sale. Figured I'd put it too good use, otherwise I'd just waste it on a new car or something. 
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The fact is that the U.S. can afford to give more, period. We can spend a billion dollars on a war in Iraq but not give $100 million to many countries and millions of people who need help?
Heh.
For a self-proclaimed republican your posts have a leftward slant that make the Tower of Pisa look vertical.
In several threads you have been more than happy to point out Bush's pitfalls as you see them, and quantify your answer stating you are a republican. Maybe a liberal in republican clothing, but you don't represent yourself much as a republican.
When you state the 'ability' to give, are you then conceding that the economy is going along well? That all can give? There is no vacuum between the poor and the rich? If only a few are wealthy in the USA and the rest becoming poor and the middle class is disapearing, then what?
Take a wait and see attitude my friend. The 35 million was preliminary funds to help out, and by no means will be the end. I think you will see that the USA privately quite a bit, and as a country we will prove to give the most. We give Billions to Africa for AIDS, or did you forget that? The USA gives more as a country around the world than any other country.
How about China? How many Billions live there, and all they have to do is give $1.00
Heh. What did Canada give again? France? Heh.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by ambush:
give me non-biased international sources,
Never found any, and I don't believe they exist. I simply found the ones who were capable of focusing the greatest amont of care in the shortest amount of time.
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
All that matters is the dollar amounts.
I gave $50 because I could afford $50. Are you saying my donation is worthless because someone else gave $10,000 or $1,000,000? Every donation is valuable to the millions displaced regardless of the dollar amount and regardless of the % of GDP or any other yardstick you compare it to. Sure France could probably give more, so could the US, so could 99% of the people/countries/organisations that have donated.
|
|
iMac, Intel Core-Duo 2GHz, 2GB, 250GB, OS X 10.4
PowerBook 12", 867MHz, 640MB, 60GB, OS X 10.4
iMac G3, 333MHz, 288MB, 6GB, OS X 10.3
iPods: 3G iPod, 1G mini, 1G shuffle, 2G nano
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by nbnz:
I gave $50 because I could afford $50. Are you saying my donation is worthless because someone else gave $10,000 or $1,000,000?
No. You gave what you could, and that's damned admirable. Don't let anyone make you feel like you're not doing an incredibly decent thing.
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
The per capita v. total donation issue was argued a month or two ago in another thread. To recap a couple important points:
1. The number used to generate "per capita" aid is derived from the dollar amount of specific foreign aid. That number doesn't reflect aid from other governmental sources, such as the use of military personnel and equipment. This puts the US at a distinct disadvantage because the US has a huge military infrastructure in place that's used to lend aid in a way that smaller European nations can't.
For example, the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and another five-ship fleet are en route to the disaster zone to provide aide. The cost of all that equipment and all those man hours won't be reflected in the monetary aid figures.
2. The US has very high rates of private donations. US citizens gave a total of around $275 billion last year in charitable donations. That works out to over $900 per capita. None of that is factored into the per capita aid numbers.
3. The US has lower taxes, in large part because Americans tend to believe they have more right to decide how to spend/donate/invest their money than the government. Now, go back and consider that private donations number again.
4. Despite the lower taxes, the focus on private donations, and the ignored military/other aid, the US still gives significantly more in total dollars than other nations.
|
|
Safe in the womb of an everlasting night
You find the darkness can give the brightest light.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus  Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Yup, for one of the richest nations 35 mill isn't much at all.
I'm sure that Canada could have mustered up more than the $4 million that they have contributed so far. Seriously dude, what ever this fixation is with bashing the US, you need to let it go. Do you really honestly believe that our contribution will be limited to that 35 million? I'd be pretty shocked if it isn't considerably more when all is said and done. Same goes for pretty much every country that's sending aid to the devastated areas.
|
|
Nemo me impune lacesset
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
France has supposedly given up $20.4 million so far by other sources. And I thought they were going to become fodder for yet more France-bashing. DARN!
|
|
Midshipman 3/C, USNR
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status:
Offline
|
|
I posted this in another thread, perhaps it relates more here...
Does anyone think it is obscene to celebrate and spend $40 million on January 6th (the bill thus far) on a presidential inauguration? By all means I think it should be a celebration and a good time, but $40 million?!? This is his second one you know...
Meanwhile we give $35 mil to the people effected by this great tragedy, we are talking 100,000 people here.
Meanwhile we spend $1,000,000,000 a week in Iraq.
Meanwhile FEMA is giving millions upon millions to miami/dade residents who had NO DAMAGE from the hurricanes that hit florida.
Meanwhile...
|
|
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by budster101:
Heh. What did Canada give again? France? Heh.
Canada has confirmed that they will provide $40 million dollars to date, plus personnel where needed.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I'm sure that Canada could have mustered up more than the $4 million that they have contributed so far. Seriously dude, what ever this fixation is with bashing the US, you need to let it go. Do you really honestly believe that our contribution will be limited to that 35 million? I'd be pretty shocked if it isn't considerably more when all is said and done. Same goes for pretty much every country that's sending aid to the devastated areas.
Well said. Canada's contribution is now at $40 million, ten times the $4 million you mention above. I am sure as things unroll and people see where relief is needed the US contribution will grow also.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Joshua:
The per capita v. total donation issue was argued a month or two ago in another thread. To recap a couple important points:
1. The number used to generate "per capita" aid is derived from the dollar amount of specific foreign aid. That number doesn't reflect aid from other governmental sources, such as the use of military personnel and equipment. This puts the US at a distinct disadvantage because the US has a huge military infrastructure in place that's used to lend aid in a way that smaller European nations can't.
For example, the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and another five-ship fleet are en route to the disaster zone to provide aide. The cost of all that equipment and all those man hours won't be reflected in the monetary aid figures.
2. The US has very high rates of private donations. US citizens gave a total of around $275 billion last year in charitable donations. That works out to over $900 per capita. None of that is factored into the per capita aid numbers.
3. The US has lower taxes, in large part because Americans tend to believe they have more right to decide how to spend/donate/invest their money than the government. Now, go back and consider that private donations number again.
4. Despite the lower taxes, the focus on private donations, and the ignored military/other aid, the US still gives significantly more in total dollars than other nations.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by mikellanes:
I posted this in another thread, perhaps it relates more here...
Does anyone think it is obscene to celebrate and spend $40 million on January 6th (the bill thus far) on a presidential inauguration? By all means I think it should be a celebration and a good time, but $40 million?!? This is his second one you know...
Meanwhile...
William Jefferson Clinton 41.7 million dollars.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by budster101:
William Jefferson Clinton 41.7 million dollars.
Did you have a point or is everything a partisan issue for you?
$40 or $41.7 million is a waste for that kind of thing, IMO, no matter who it is.
Bush's first inauguration cost about $40 million. President Bill Clinton's second inauguration cost $29.6 million.
No need to spend MORE on your second one becuause you think you have some kind of mandate 
|
|
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by mikellanes:
Did you have a point or is everything a partisan issue for you?
$40 or $41.7 million is a waste for that kind of thing, IMO, no matter who it is.
Bush's first inauguration cost about $40 million. President Bill Clinton's second inauguration cost $29.6 million.
No need to spend MORE on your second one becuause you think you have some kind of mandate
You are the one who brought up Bush's inauguration figures, and I just put up a fact that negates it. Everyone is doing it. I never politicized anything here, only acted as a protagonist. If you have a problem with that, then that is your problem.
You do realize that inaugurations pull in money to pay for them right? The point is alltogether moot.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by budster101:
You do realize that inaugurations pull in money to pay for them right?
Just a few short years ago we did it for $11 million less, 11 million might not seem like a lot to you but it is.
With all the problems, the $200bil war, the FEMA funding, cutting education, etc. I would cut anywhere that was frivolous. Especially if it was my second.
|
|
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status:
Offline
|
|
the US isnt stingy but could do more, Canada's Fed gov has pledged 40 Million, 5 million more then the US, the Province of BC has pledged 8 Million and I have no idea how much other provinces are pledging. Canadians have already raised another 10 Million between all the aid places and thats going up. Small country of 30 million people and its close to 50 million in aid.
What I dont understand is why our DART team isnt there yet, and why we arnt sending troops and ships over right away.
(
Last edited by Athens; Dec 30, 2004 at 10:21 PM.
)
|
|
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Athens:
why we arnt sending troops and ships over right away.
I believe a ship is on the way, what troops do you suggest?
|
|
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by mikellanes:
I believe a ship is on the way, what troops do you suggest?
General troops to help in body recovery, opening roads, building transportation.
|
|
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by nbnz:
[B]I gave $50 because I could afford $50. Are you saying my donation is worthless because someone else gave $10,000 or $1,000,000?
No, that�s not in any way what I�m saying. Giving $50 is admirable. Giving $1,000 is admirable. Giving $1,000,000 is admirable. What's silly is, if you were to say you are MORE generous giving your $50 because it represents, say 5% of your net worth, and then attempt to cast the person giving $10, 000 or $1,000,000 as �greedy�, because their donations only add up to say, 1% of their net worth. The simple truth is, the lower the net worth to begin with, the higher the percentage of that net worth virtually any amount becomes.
People (purposely) play a shell game with this fact, when they trot out the bullcrap comparison of the US (with a TEN TRILLION DOLLAR GDP) by % of GDP against nations with FAR smaller GDPs. It's simply no big feat for other nations with piddly (by comparison) GDPs to give higher percentages of it compared with our monstrous total GDP. It's preposterous that we're obligated by some phony yardstick to give anybody outrageously disproportionate percentages of ten trillion friggen dollars.
Every donation is valuable to the millions displaced regardless of the dollar amount and regardless of the % of GDP or any other yardstick you compare it to.
Which is EXACTLY my point about the actual dollar amounts being all that really matters, not playing shell games with meaningless percentages.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In bits and pieces on Cloud City
Status:
Offline
|
|
Canada has donated 40 million to the tsunami disaster (Canada has a population of 30 million. The US pledged $30 million is one of the richest countries in the world and a population of 300 million.
Sick.
|
|
"Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough!"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Canada has donated 40 million to the tsunami disaster (Canada has a population of 30 million. The US pledged $30 million is one of the richest countries in the world and a population of 300 million.
Sick.
First off, the US pledge of $35 mil (not $30) doesn't include manpower, equipment, military aid, and rebuilding assistance. Canada's pledge in US $ is $33 mil US, and indeed generous, so stop being so petty about it.
The US leads the world in what seems to be far more effecient, private donations, and when all is said and done, I've little doubt that we'll lead again. But by all means, if anyone would like to compete with and 'out-do' our private contributions, knock yourselves out. I'm sure the effected nations won't mind.
By the way, I'm not sure exactly where the inital $136,000 French figure came from, but France has actually pledged over $20mil.
Where does this dippy idea come from that these donation amounts need to be based on the population of a nation either? If that's the case, let the Chinese fund the entire effort. Problem solved.
Some people are so petty over these things they simply can't seem to fathom the fact that this is CHARITY, not a chance for their nations they are so insecure about to be in a pissing match. The amounts donated by most nations are so far in general very genourous, and once again, are amounts that aren't dicated by ******** false yardsticks- they are perfectly reasonable amounts that stand on their own. Get over it.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In bits and pieces on Cloud City
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
First off, the US pledge of $35 mil (not $30) doesn't include manpower, equipment, military aid, and rebuilding assistance. Canada's pledge in US $ is $33 mil US, and indeed generous, so stop being so petty about it.\
Canada's 33 million US also does not include private donations OR all the manpower, equipment, military aid, and rebuilding assistance.
|
|
"Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough!"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
How about instead of bashing one country or another for not giving enough, we accept that many wealthy countries contributed generously to help, and also that these countries are probably not done making their contributions? Seriously.
Oh and SWG, China has way more people than the US, shouldn't they be sending way more? Shame on China! Really, although I often disagree with Bush's foreign policy, these arguments are getting ridiculous and I feel it's necessary to stand up and defend the US's actions.
|
"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
[B]How about instead of bashing one country or another for not giving enough, we accept that many wealthy countries contributed generously to help, and also that these countries are probably not done making their contributions? Seriously.
Reason prevails.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: mannheim [germany]
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
How about instead of bashing one country or another for not giving enough, we accept that many wealthy countries contributed generously to help, and also that these countries are probably not done making their contributions? Seriously.
|
life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators - r. dawkins
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
I find the way the terrible plight of the people in the affected region is being instrumentalized here for some sort of donate-a-thon penis contest (and that includeds the "I-donated-such-and-such" posts) rather disgusting.
**** you all, ego-bastards.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I find the way the terrible plight of the people in the affected region is being instrumentalized here for some sort of donate-a-thon penis contest (and that includeds the "I-donated-such-and-such" posts) rather disgusting.
**** you all, ego-bastards.
I just gave 1/2,000,000 of a Billion Dollars, and I don't even know what that is exactly. Is it alot? Should I feel good about myself?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dar al-Harb
Status:
Offline
|
|
From the article:
So far the United States has provided $35 million in aid, a number expected to rise, President Bush (search) said Wednesday from his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Japan has contributed $30 million, Australia $27 million. Other nations that have contributed relief are the United Kingdom with $29 million, Germany with $27 million, France with $20 million, Saudi Arabia with $10 million and China with $2.6 million.
But it's Foxnews so who cares anyway?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
I understand your concern Cody Dawg, but keep a couple of things in mind;
The $35 million, is a first installment. Bush made this clear. This also does not account for what we're using to help; i.e. air transport, shipping, and other numerous resources. Why is one so quick to criticize the American government? Did you know that private contributions to this cause will dwarf what the actual government donates taking the total to well over 150 million dollars before this is said and done. Don't believe me? Watch and see. It is always the case. Why? A tax structure that places great incentives on charitible giving. Cody, if you watch the numbers closely, you will find America assuming it's place as the top donor to this cause. This has been true historically, and it will be even more so in this tragedy. I'm giving $100.00. It's a start.
|
|
ebuddy
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Sweden, population less than 10 million, gives $75 million.
United States, population 300 million, gives $35 million. To match Sweden proportionately, the US would have to give $2500 million, or 70 times what they're giving now.
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/9...d?OpenDocument
(
Last edited by Lysistrata; Dec 30, 2004 at 01:14 PM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I find the way the terrible plight of the people in the affected region is being instrumentalized here for some sort of donate-a-thon penis contest (and that includeds the "I-donated-such-and-such" posts) rather disgusting.
**** you all, ego-bastards.
It's not being used as a "donate-a-thon penis contest," it's being used as mostly anti-American, but also anti-French propaganda, as per Macnn usual behavior.
Notice in particular that posts like the one immediately above are after several posts made the following valid points:
* That scoring nationalistic points in this situation is tacky.
* That the contributions of most countries will increase, announced figures are only preliminary.
* That the US government has explicitly stated that the figure of $35 million is only preliminary, the final amount will be higher.
* That non-governmental aid will probably dwarf government aid.
* That population is not the right measure, at least, not unless people are willing to be consistent and condemn China for giving far less than any western country.
* That military aid in the form of troops, helicopters, and ships (in the US' case, including an aircraft carrier) is not included in any of the announced figures.
However, despite this, the usual suspects breeze past those posts and over and over again post the same propagandistic hateful nonsense, using a tragedy to score nationalistic points. This should be something we can unite behind, but nooooo, some people can't leave their bigotry behind. And yes, I include the France bashing that started this thread. But nothing seems to expose bile around here like the chance to get in a cheap shot at the US.
It really is quite disheartening.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
By setting up a coalition which appears to be doing the job better and more quickly, thus far? And what is this "only the UN has the moral authority" crap?
(
Last edited by Millennium; Dec 30, 2004 at 05:55 PM.
)
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status:
Offline
|
|
The UN is itself unable to coordinate as they have *their* own problems I think. Congo, and the Oil for Food Scandal to name two of the known issues.
�Only really the UN can do that job,� she told BBC Radio Four�s PM programme.
�It is the only body that has the moral authority. But it can only do it well if it is backed up by the authority of the great powers.�
'Moral Authority'? Indeed.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
"AFTER BEING prodded, George Bush has said that the United States will commit $35 million to the tsunami relief effort -- in the aftermath of the most devastating natural disaster in modern times (" `Stingy' remark hits US, which adds $20 million to aid," Page A16, Dec. 29). That amount is roughly what the United States is spending every five hours in Iraq."
Is it possible to get more stingy?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...re_to_give_if/
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top