Get Foreign Nations off Welfare

You also realize that many of those killed were not inhabitants but tourists.
You also realize that the news corps that ran with the original stingy story took the words out of context and that the person speaking did not specifically mention the US.
You do realize you are saying they hit the lottery when innocent children were killed.
YOu do realize that we spent more money in Iraq this week than what we are sending in aid to these countries.

'India and many other countries just hit the lottery.' - an interesting way of looking at the biggest natural disaster in a century, I'm not sure if the 70,000 dead or the orphaned would see it that way. Frankly this is a disgusting interpretation of what happened.

'In addition to being able to conveniently rid themselves of many of their homeless, they are getting a bonus check from the US government this year for the tsunami disaste' - Wow, this is an even more disgusting interpretation. Seeing your parents or loved ones getting washed out to sea, yeah that's a real convenient way to solve homelessness. Only the truly sickest mind would describe badly needed disaster funds as a 'bonus cheque'.

The UN did not criticize the contribution as stingy. Some guy who worked for the UN said this ABOUT FOREIGN AID IN GENERAL:

'"We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries," Mr Egeland said, at a press conference in New York. "It is beyond me why we are so stingy, really." His comments were in response to a question about aid donations generally, and he was not referring directly to the disaster in South Asia.

Loose cannons like you totally lied about what the guy actually said in order to make political hay out of it. For the record, foreign aid as a % of GDP has dropped among many first world countries, and America spends less per capita on foreign than any other OECD country, despite being the richest country in the world.

'Apparently, they won't be happy until the standard of the US poor is equal to or greater than that of poor countries such as India.' - Weak, untrue strawman argument that deserves to be ridiculed. Nobody other than you is saying this.

'And yet, our contribution is mocked as "stingy"' No, it is not. That is a large lie that you are helping to spread. I hope you will take greater care to check the facts before writing next time. I see a lot of nasty stuff on the net but to suggest that India and the rest just 'hit the lottery' and solved it's homelessness problem via mass death raises the bar of evil to a new level. I am disappointed and disgusted to see this.

D.

We also donate over half the worlds humanitarian food aid. (not calculated in, because it is not hard cash)

I also hear all the time how the US keeps sticking our nose into other countries with that aid and it does more harm then good.

That's My Two Cents

PS: As a side note, the UN required Iraq to purchase all of its food aid during sanctions. All of which was bought from non-US companies. Can anyone say $6.00 a litter French olive oil and $8.00 a lb. Rice from China. (I wonder why China didn’t send this to starving North Korea?)

Pipe down. Lee1776, you are politicizing and obfuscating a tragedy. Not the time to be whinging about how much the world hates America, it's not all about you. Pretty sick of you to deflect legitimate criticism of a very questionable article by twisting it into justification for the Iraq invasion and whatever the hell you are going on about. You can keep your two cents next time.

This thread starter is probably the most offensive post I have ever seen on this board, or maybe on any board.

Yeah, this has to be the stupidest, sickest, most horrific thing I have seen anyone say in a long time. 80,000+ and counting deaths and you say they hit the lottery? How would you like to be one of those "lucky winners"?

Giddy, this has got to be the most selfish and demoralizing post I've seen in a long time. Upwards of 100,000 or more are going to be dead from this tragedy. Millions are homeless. The devastation is apocalyptic. And, you're belly aching about sending tax revenues? You really are a sicko.

And, one more thing.....................

If this post is just about trolling, seeing how many people you can get a rise out of (including me), then you still qualify as a sicko. You need to get your head shrunk.

If you don't like how I pipe, then don't read. I have to repeatedly read dabe's, whoman69's, your and other's political rants that have nothing to do with the subject.

In case you hadn't noticed, the subject of this thread has to do with how lucky these countries are that they have taken part in one of the worst natural disasters of the last century. The one off topic is you. You want to defend how these countries "won the lottery" using the abhorrent term used by this thread's author, go ahead.

Reply #2 By: whoman69 - 12/29/2004 2:47:09 PM You also realize that many of those killed were not inhabitants but tourists.

BS!!!!

In Thailand, hundreds of tourists are now reported missing, and the beaches in the coastal resorts of Phuket and Krabi are evacuated. The images from the region show cars that have been tossed about by the waters and hundreds of destroyed homes

Notice it says "hundreds" NOT thousands!!! Link

Dr. Miller, countries other than Thailand were hit by the tsunami. Additionally, at no time did anyone other than you state that 'thousands' of tourists died, though it is likely - and not disproven by your article. In essence, you are arguing with yourself. To recap: you called BS that 'many' were tourists, made up some strawman shit about 'thousands', and posted an article that disproved nothing. Hundreds = many, OK? If anything is BS in this thread, it is Gideon's contention that the victims of the worst disaster in memory have 'won the jackpot'. Unfortunately, you don't get that. Out of respect for the dead I hope you and others will choose your comments more carefully.

Reply #10 By: GrooveDygger - 12/29/2004 11:55:59 PM Dr. Miller, countries other than Thailand were hit by the tsunami. Additionally, at no time did anyone other than you state that 'thousands' of tourists died, though it is likely - and not disproven by your article

Your math is flawed.

*whoman69* said, and I quote.

You also realize that many of those killed were not inhabitants but tourists.

That to me says he means more tourists than inhabitants! And just for the record..... I never once said nor advocated that Gideon's respose was appropriate! Get real!

Pipe down. Lee1776,

You can keep your two cents next time

If you don't like how I pipe, then don't read. I have to repeatedly read dabe's, whoman69's, your and other's political rants that have nothing to do with the subject.

Not the time to be whinging about how much the world hates America, it's not all about you.

I'm responding to the original post here, by saying that the UN employee stated that the richest nations are being "stingy". This places the US in his crosshair for two reasons:

1) We are the richest nation.
2) Our Government pays less then .8% of the GDP in cash to relief agencies.

That make it about me and how much GDP I'm willing to push my politicians to give from my taxes. If that make me selfish for not wanting to hand out to every country that the UN wants on a regular schedule, then yes I'm being stingy. But that does not mean that I will not (though I personally already have) give money to help disasters like this one.

We also donate over half the worlds humanitarian food aid. (not calculated in, because it is not hard cash)

This comment was made in response to D's comment about the % of GDP, by informing him and other readers, that not all forms of aid comes in Cash and the UN Employee was not calculating this into his statement.

As for my statement about other countries criticizing the US about what we do give, it just shows that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't give aid (usually by the same people).

As for the China and France "Side Note" comment, I simply pointing out that while we have donated the vast majority of the Food Aid to North Korea (China's Allie), these countries are so willing to sell at an inflated price to Iraq (in the name of Charity). When we offer, through the UN food aid program, to donate and lower priced contracts (rejected for French and Chinese contracts).

justification for the Iraq invasion and whatever the hell you are going on about.

When was I justifying invasion of Iraq?

I have also noted that lately many radicals are screaming shut up and don't say anything. This is usually a good sign that the radicals are starting to try and squash any other voice then theirs own (and they always preach about objectivity). Too bad, just suck it up, that rest of us have to listen to your obnoxious rants all the time. Now listen to the rest of us for once.

Gideon MacLeish, don't worry about these guys. I know your only debating about your tax dollars being donated by the Government verses personal donations and not trying to belittle the disaster. Though I don't agree with you on every point that you made.

That's an extra two cents for you groovedygger

And mine too! For what it's worth.

This thread starter is probably the most offensive post I have ever seen on this board, or maybe on any board.

I second this. There are many countries that are victimized, not just India. The blog is insensitive to the enormity of this tragedy.

In case you hadn't noticed, the subject of this thread has to do with how lucky these countries are that they have taken part in one of the worst natural disasters of the last century. The one off topic is you. You want to defend how these countries "won the lottery" using the abhorrent term used by this thread's author, go ahead.

Since you only like to read first lines, believe what you want. As I read GM's post I've noticed it reads much like a news paper i.e. grab their attention with the head line then open up with the meat of the issue.

OK, folks, it seems to have trouble sinking in: GOVERNMENT MONEY means YOUR TAX DOLLARS AND MINE get to be spent taking care of India's problems, as usual.

This is the really the start of GM's article. The first two lines was only to get your attention. I have been on this forum for some months now and have read enough of GM's articles to know that this is his style. Seldom have I seen him blatantly used so much shock value (maybe he is just having a bad day) in his articles, but I have noticed that he has used the tactic before. I will view his article in this light until GM says otherwise.

That's My Two Cents

I don't see any problem with the U.S. helping out these countries, and I'm a die-hard fiscal conservative. You don't seem to realize that well over 75,000 people have died, and some experts are expecting that number to practically double, what with rampant starvation and disease. Most of the dead are innocent children, who weren't strong/fast enough to get to safety. That $35 mil. is like a single raindrop in the OCEAN when it comes to how much relief will be needed. I realize that the governments of the world can't do everything-- and I expect most of the relief to come from the private sector. But these countries NEED help, and they need it NOW. You thought 9/11 was bad? It was nothing. Literally NOTHING compared to this. Just because these people live far away, and just because their government isn't quite like ours, doesn't mean they don't need help. This was the greatest and most expensive natural disaster of ALL TIME, and you complain that our government is giving away $35 mil!!? 35 MILLION IS NOTHING! It ain't gonna hurt our economy one bit. I'm not saying the government is required to spend more-- I'm glad we gave anything at all. But to whine about it is absurd.

I agree fully with your title, but I can't say I agree with the basic premise of your argument. Of course it's up to the US government as the political embodiment of its citizenry how much it gives (if any) but giving aid for natural disasters isn't really such a bad thing. Certainly baseless grants of money have beggared much of the third world through pointless projects and corruption, but giving funding to rebuild after a tsunami is more a charitable and humanitarian act than an attempt to make someone's life better for ever. After all, it's not like a country can get a contract with Lloyd's of London to insure against killer tidal waves.

It's more like a friendly community effort in this case than the "throwing money at people" kind of deal that usually passes for aid. It shouldn't be called stingy regardless of how much is given (after all, the US has recently suffered considerable natural disaster damage itself for which it received rather more words than dollars) but the provision of aid in this case isn't a bad move.

You do realize you are saying they hit the lottery when innocent children were killed.

You don't recognize sarcasm when you see it. I have written enough on a wide variety of topics that my general philosophical outlook should be readily apparent to anyone who takes the time to dissect it. Why is it bad when innocent women and children die of NATURAL disasters in India, but somehow good when we "terminate" innocent children and call it a medical procedure? (blog to follow).

The biggest problems with foreign aid in my opinion occur because it is provided with PUBLIC dollars, in essence the equivalent of the Salvation Army guy mugging passersby for contributions, as well as the fact that FAR too much money goes to "administrative costs" (read: middle men who profiteer off of the misfortunes).

Giddy, this has got to be the most selfish and demoralizing post I've seen in a long time. Upwards of 100,000 or more are going to be dead from this tragedy. Millions are homeless. The devastation is apocalyptic. And, you're belly aching about sending tax revenues? You really are a sicko.

dabe,

Thank you for your opinion. It's the last I have to tolerate on my blog. I should not have to spend article after article defending my positions when they can be CLEARLY determined through my blog archives before you take an article out of context. Buh Bye.

Wow. You all also realize we're the most wealthy country in the world right now? So, it's not like we don't have the money to do it. Hell, 1 billion dollars is 1/1,000th of the unit of money that the US debt is measured in, trillions of dollars. So, the argument that it's going to put in more debt is sorta like arguing a dollar is going to hurt after you've charged $1,000 on your credit card.
And before you make the argument that that's a flawed argument, it's not flawed, it's simple math.

There's the appeal to one's sense of morality argument: we've got so much, why not give some away to those who need it? I doubt these people had a warning system for crying out loud. If it was the US, we'd know and evacuate whatever was under threat within minutes. The death toll would of been much lower. And I don't doubt the world would of been calling our president within minutes of it happening. I'm reminded eerily of 9/11 when I say that.

Fact is, and something people tend to miss, as a member of the international community, we've got an obligation to help those in natural disasters. The people of Asia didn't ask to be hit by this tsunami. They were, and as a member of the international community, the US gave. If that means an extra dollar for every 1,000 dollars you have to pay in taxes, then first of all, I envy you have a job that makes that a sizable dent in your total finances. I'd estimate in order for you to cough up even a hundred bucks, you'd be making 100,000 a year under this model. That's if we're donating even one billion dollars to the effort.

Last thing: charitable contributions rarely work. That sounds horrible, but let me explain. People being the fickle things they are, they often forget. Or ask, 'why me? I'm sure someone else will make up the shortfall." Or something tragic happens in their life that makes them unable to do so. There's a million excuses why, but if we were to wait for aid to come from private contributors, we'd be in for a long one.

Keep blowing your trumpet, Gideon. I highly suspect you'll need it.

The biggest problems with foreign aid in my opinion occur because it is provided with PUBLIC dollars, in essence the equivalent of the Salvation Army guy mugging passersby for contributions, as well as the fact that FAR too much money goes to "administrative costs" (read: middle men who profiteer off of the misfortunes).

That's not true. The US is a democracy. Whether or not you agree with your countrymen and women, it is the official will of the American people that they have the Bush government. Therefore until such time as the government is overthrown, every action of your government has been sanctioned and has gained the approval of a majority of the populace. So it's hardly mugging. Your fellow citizens chose a party who would donate $35 million in the event of a massive disaster, so when the government does this, noone should be that surprised. After all, it's part of why they got elected in the first place.

Reply #22 By: cactoblasta - 1/3/2005 6:59:00 PM The biggest problems with foreign aid in my opinion occur because it is provided with PUBLIC dollars, in essence the equivalent of the Salvation Army guy mugging passersby for contributions, as well as the fact that FAR too much money goes to "administrative costs" (read: middle men who profiteer off of the misfortunes). That's not true. The US is a democracy.

NO it's NOT!!! It's a republic! Even though we have a "democratic" form of government.

Apparently Bush got Cacto's blast and upped the donation tenfold!

NO it's NOT!!! It's a republic! Even though we have a "democratic" form of government.

In this case it's the same thing. You elect a government, especially an incumbent one or one who has ruled in the past, and you know full well how it's going to react in certain circumstances. If you have a serious problem with giving aid, then you elect a different government. Otherwise you accept that a capacity for generosity is the price you pay for a certain candidate and you move on with your life.