stingy cheapskates

[dreampilot79]

I just read an article in the newspaper this morning that got my blood pumping.

In the wake of the tsunami tragedy, the UN has called the United States stingy. In the few days since the tragedy, we have apparently given over a billion dollars making us the largest contributor to the fund.. BUT since we are the mighty Americans they expect us to fund the whole damn thing.

I'm not sure if I'm upset at the UN's attitude or our own. Why do we think that we are the guys in the white hats? Why do we have to rush in to save the day? Fix all the owie's and punish all the bullies? Why can't we be more like our foreign friends and waffle between the attitudes of.."FUCK EM" and "LETS SEE WHAT THE US IS DOING BEFORE WE CONTRIBUTE"

I know.... this is a little harsher than reality, a LITTLE unfair, but from my perspective... NOT MUCH!

When hurricanes or tornadoes strike here.... our own help falls short, but there is all that money pouring in for relief efforts from our foreign friends!!!... why if we pool it all... we might buy a cup of coffee for one of the victims.

 

[Guest]

Well, a giant tsunami will definitly hit the East coast of US in near future, shouldn't US be spending to reduce the risk?

 

[Liar]

According to my local newsaper, the largest contributor of aid to the area is Japan. The US along with Pakistan seems to be doing their share too. The States with money (no billion dollars though), and Pakistan with major army resources. The rest seems mostly to be worried about getting their own citizens home.

Maybe there are different funds and channels for contributing. Where can I get more info on this one the UN is in charge of?

#L

 

[hunting_tiger]

I don't think this is the time where you should argue about who gives the most money and if you should count it in dollars, per capita or by gross national income.

I have seen long lists with countries that are trying to help but so much more is needed.

There seems to be more then 1000 persons on Phuket airport with open wounds that needs treatment so I am not surprised that the travel agenicies are crying out loud for help ... and Thailand is a rich country compared with the other countries that has been hit by the tsunami.

But I know .... what is that compared with the situation on Sumatra with somewhere between 40 and 80 000 dead already.

 

[dreampilot79]

I don't think this is the time where you should argue about who gives the most money and if you should count it in dollars, per capita or by gross national income.

I have seen long lists with countries that are trying to help but so much more is needed.

I was not trying to argue about who does the most. I did not mean to imply that anyone can ever do enough. How do you measure assistance anyway? The actual money given? The monitary value of supplies? The value of services volunteered?

My comments were not really even about the disaster. The scope and scale of THIS disaster exceeds comprehension and require as much help as possible and from as many places as possible.

My comments were really about the attitude of the other countries. When things go wrong they seem to be the first to call for our help.... and to attack us for not doing enough when we do more than anyone else (or nearly so). When something goes wrong in America... how long is the line of foreign help?

I just get a little tired of all the attacks which seem unjustified. For much of the time since WWII our name has been the ONLY one on the list of assistance for foreign countries and in very recent years has only been at the top of the list. We get attacked for not contributing as high a percentage of gross national income.

No one ever says France should do more, they're just happy to get any help from them... but we help and we get attacked for not doing enough.

This case may not apply, but who could blame us if we said.... "we'll treat you the same way you treat us?"

Oops that would basically mean we would be saying "Too Bad We feel for you... now go and fix it yourselves and leave us out of it!"

 

[scheherazade_79]

I'll take my hat off to the States. They've probably given as much as they can afford. Most of their money was used up on the cluster bombs and missiles that killed 100,000 civilians during the Iraq campaign.

Yes - 100,000.

Isn't it strange how that never really got publicised, though?

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I just read an article in the newspaper this morning that got my blood pumping.

In the wake of the tsunami tragedy, the UN has called the United States stingy. In the few days since the tragedy, we have apparently given over a billion dollars making us the largest contributor to the fund.. BUT since we are the mighty Americans they expect us to fund the whole damn thing. . .

Unless you have a problem with sluggish circulation, I should suggest checking the facts before changing your pulse rate.

The figure was not $1 billion, it is $35 million, and initially it was $30 millin.

Comment Hits Nerve of American Charity

By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday December 29, 2004


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is defending American generosity, even as it figures out how to pay for $35 million it has promised to tsunami victims in Asia.

Administration officials took umbrage at a U.N. official's suggestion the world's richest nations were ``stingy'' and said they expect to spend much more to help the victims.

But the journey from the $35 million promise to its payment is fraught with bureaucratic twists.

First, the U.S. Agency for International Development, which distributes foreign aid, will have to ask for more money, since the initial $35 million aid package drained its emergency relief fund, said Andrew Natsios, the agency's administrator.

``We just spent it,'' Natsios said in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press. ``We'll be talking to the (White House) budget office ... (about) what to do at this point.''

Natsios said the Pentagon also is spending tens of millions to mobilize an additional relief operation, with C-130 transport planes winging their way from Dubai to Indonesia with tents, blankets, food and water bags.

As of early Tuesday, dozens of countries and relief groups had pledged $81 million in help for South and East Asia, said the Geneva-based U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Natsios said, ``The notion that the United States is not generous is simply not true, factually.''

But measuring the generosity of the United States depends on the yardstick.

The U.S. government is always near the top in total humanitarian aid dollars - even before private donations are counted - but it finishes near the bottom of the list of rich countries when that money is compared to gross national product.

Such figures were what prompted Jan Egeland - the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator and former head of the Norwegian Red Cross - to challenge the giving of rich nations.

``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.''

Egeland told reporters Tuesday his complaint wasn't directed at any nation in particular.

Secretary of State Colin Powell clearly was annoyed while making the rounds of the morning television news shows. He said he wished Egeland hadn't made the comment and reaffirmed that the Bush administration will follow up with additional assistance.

Powell said it remains to be determined what the eventual U.S. contribution will be, but that he agrees with estimates that the total international aid effort ``will run into the billions of dollars.''

The White House also defended the U.S. record of giving.

``We outmatch the contributions of other nations combined; we'll continue to do so,'' Bush spokesman Trent Duffy told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where the president is spending a post-Christmas vacation at his ranch.

Natsios was quick to point out Tuesday that foreign assistance for development and emergency relief rose from $10 billion in President Clinton's last year to $24 billion under President Bush in 2003. Powell said assistance for this week's earthquake and tsunamis alone will eventually exceed $1 billion.

The United States uses the most common measure of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 30 rich nations that counts development aid.

By that measure, the United States spent almost $15.8 billion for ``official development assistance'' to developing countries in 2003. Next closest was Japan, at $8.9 billion.

That doesn't include billions more the United States spends in other areas, such as AIDS and HIV programs and other U.N. assistance.

Measured another way, as a percentage of gross national product, the OECD's figures on development aid show that as of April, none of the world's richest countries donated even 1 percent of its gross national product. Norway was highest, at 0.92 percent; the United States was last, at 0.14 percent.

Natsios said the Paris organization's figures overlook a key factor - the billions more Americans give each year in private donations.

``That's a European standard, this percentage that's used,'' Natsios said. ``The United States, for 40 years, has never accepted these standards that it should be based on the gross national product. We base it on the actual dollars that we spent.''

 

[oggbashan]

Statistics can be made to mean what you want them to mean.

On another thread I responded about the contributions being made by European countries to this disaster. The countries in the region are responding as well. The European Community has allotted funds from the Community budget. Individual governments throughout Europe are providing money and other help as required. Individuals are also responding with donations.

There are differences in culture that make the statistics meaningless. In the UK 79% of all citizens (figures published this week) gave to charity last year. In France 49% but those figures do not show the wide difference in definitions of 'charity'. Many 'charities' in the UK could not be classed as 'charities' in France. Is the difference 30%? Could be greater than that.

What is true is that many people and organisations throughout the world are responding. Will it be enough? Will the help get through to those who really need it? In India and Sri Lanka I am hopeful that the authorities will manage to help the needy and I think that the 'opposition' (Tamil Tigers) in Sri Lanka will cooperate across the ceasefire line. In Indonesia the worst affected area was beyond their government's control. How the Indonesian government handles the relief effort might help to end the dispute.

The argument about 'who pays the most' is unnecessary and divisive. Figures of each government's spending depend on how you count the spending. Does sending a warship count as aid or defense expenditure? Are army tents relief supplies or defense surplus?

I am sure that those who need help will be grateful - to whoever - for what they get without distinguishing the flags and slogans attached to the aid.

Og

 

[Couture]

A lot of this is just politics. They throw these millions and billion dollar figures around like they mean something. They say the US is the richest country in the world. Well, we are also the most in debt country in the world too.

And it's not like the relief fairy is going to fly there and sprinkle one dollar bills around the Indian ocean until everything is alright. Right now, they need existing supplies and existing equipment and trained manpower moved over there to help these people out. And equally as important, they need leaders, (too bad we don't have one in the US right now) to tell them the world realizes they are hurting and be patient until help arrives. And help will arrive.

Instead, little Prince George is vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, riding his bike and clearing brush. (Sorry world, 49% of us did what we could.) You think this may have something do do with why people are pissed off?

Give George a little credit -- at least this time he isn't hiding and reading childrens books.

 

[Couture]

In the wake of the tsunami tragedy, the UN has called the United States stingy. In the few days since the tragedy, we have apparently given over a billion dollars making us the largest contributor to the fund.. BUT since we are the mighty Americans they expect us to fund the whole damn thing.

PS, I didn't read anything where the US was called stingy. Could you please provide a reference?

Also, stop being a whiner. It isn't all about you or Americans. 72,000 people are dead from this tragedy. Many more are homeless, hungry, and struggling to find the necessities of life. If anyone should be whining, it's the people who this has happened to.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . Could you please provide a reference?. . .

Yes.

UN big calls U.S. miserly, & recants

. . . The U.S. had initially said it would give $15 million to help the victims of the Asian catastrophe. . .

. . . Jan Egeland, the UN's chief of emergency relief, had said Monday that rich nations like the U.S. are "stingy" for contributing only about 0.1% of their gross domestic product.. . .

. . . Powell said yesterday another $20 million was on the way - part of a global outpouring that totals more than $100 million.. . .

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think it's pertinent to note this opinion was expressed by one man. It wasn't a person in dire need in the stricken area. It wasn't the interior minister or priminister or any functionary of a country in need. It was a UN hack. Personally, I expect such crap from the UN.

The people who need aide are grateful for the most minor things, fresh water, shelter, bread. The countries are grateful for everything from manpower, experts, heavy equiptment to money. This is just one man's opinion, an opinion he should have kept to himself. It isn't in any way represenative of the people who are being helped and being angry at them is a mistake.

I'm all for dragging this ass out and flaying him alive, but I wouldn't let my anger at him stop me from giving all I can. Hopefully everyone realizes where it came from and the smallness of this one man's opinion in the face of such need.

-Colly

 

[oggbashan]

My newspaper (UK) says that the remark was about all the 'rich' nations not just the US.

I sounds like an irritated response to some reporter trying to wind the spokesman up to make an unguarded remark.

What is worrying is that the world will forget this tragedy long before the people needing help have recovered. That has happened in Bangladesh, in many parts of Africa and South America. Yesterday's tragedy is soon history.

Og

 

[Lauren Hynde]

This thread sounds like a pretty good response to the Why Do People Hate America thread...

 

[Liar]

Like Og said, the UN remark was about rich countries like the US. Probably referring to most of western Europe, US, Canada, parts of s.e Asia...

Personally, I think every rich country is a cheapskate here.

Is the 10 mil that my government has promised a lot? Is 100 million dollars a lot? Bull. Shit.

The interrest rates on my own country's state debt are so big that if the rate fluctuates just a little out of order, we are talking billions in or out of the state fund.

In Stockholm. We will spend approx 1.2 billion dollars mext year making a certain stretch of highway a little straighter, because that would reduce traffic jams during rush hour. This will marginally reduce pollution, but the real goal is to increase traffic safety. They say that the new road will save twenty lives/year.

If we spend even haf of that money in aiding the victims of this disaster, we will save thousands upon thousands of lives.

#L

 

[Couture]

Not really the quote I was looking for. The quote in the article was around the word "stingy". They didn't quote anything else he said.

I listened to the offending statement from the poor "misguided" and "ill-informed" bastard on NPR this morning. He said, "It is beyond me why we are so stingy."

So, I can't help wondering why this big deal is being made of this.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Not really the quote I was looking for. The quote in the article was around the word "stingy". They didn't quote anything else he said.

I listened to the offending statement from the poor "misguided" and "ill-informed" bastard on NPR this morning. He said, "It is beyond me why we are so stingy."

So, I can't help wondering why this big deal is being made of this.

The big deal, I believe is accusing folks of being stingy while everyone I know is shorting themselves to send their few after christmas dollars to try and help. When people on a personal level are being so selfless, it's a slap in the face to accuse them of being stingy. It was also stupid, as the response of the thread opener, Fuck em, is not an unwarranted one and it dosen't hurt the fucktard who said it one bit, but there is no telling how many people heard his comments and just tuned out. Hopefully, everyone who is giving or more importantly was planning on giving, realizes this ass is expressing his personal opinion.

 

[Songcatcher]

The people who need aide are grateful for the most minor things, fresh water, shelter, bread.

YES! They need those NOW.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Colly, no one said a word about private citizens...

 

[SensualCealy]

I was watching a CNN type news show yesterday and was stunned at the first thing thing people in the Tsunami ravished areas need is - Body bags!!

In Canada we have given a monetary donation as well, all our emergency holdings for relief aid is headed their way. Now what I got out of this was that what ever Canada has stock piled for relief efforts for domestic emergencies is headed out. If something was to happen in Canada, we would have no problem securing aid through companies unharmed in such emergencies.

It isnt only the money these areas need, its the people that have medical back grounds as well as relief experience that is needed to help the survivors as well as tend to the dead.

The major emergency from what I see is the contamination from the decaying bodies, water and sewage contamination.

As I recall, the US had numerous support offered to it in 911 without the pissy attitude of - is that all you can afford to do?

If you support someone with the idea they will help you in your time of need , that is all you can as, dont expect anything for a good deed and you wont be disappointed.
My two cents worth,
C

 

[thebullet]

Here is an article from the Washington Post that may clarify things. If you remember, after 9/11, the world outpouring of support was immediate and strong.

In this disaster, many times the number of people died than died in the 9/11 tragedy. The German Chancellor came home early from his vacation as a show of concern and immediately made a statement of condolence.

President Bush has said nothing. He remains on his ranch and has not interrupted his vacation. It appears he will now reluctantly make some sort of statement tomorrow.

But administration officals did take the time to criticize President Clinton for expressing sorrow and support for the disaster victims.

The lack of concern showed by the American government (not the American people who have been as usual generous and caring) is shocking. These people are mean-spirited bastards!
__________________________________________________

WASHINGTON POST STORY:
As the death toll surpassed 50,000 with no sign of abating, the U.S. Agency for International Development added $20 million to an earlier pledge of $15 million to provide relief, and the Pentagon (news - web sites) dispatched an aircraft carrier and other military assets to the region. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in morning television appearances, chafed at a top U.N. aid official's comment on Monday that wealthy countries were being stingy with aid. "The United States is not stingy," Powell said on CNN.


Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland yesterday withdrew his earlier comment, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise. Skeptics said the initial aid sums -- as well as Bush's decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy -- showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia.


After a day of repeated inquiries from reporters about his public absence, Bush late yesterday afternoon announced plans to hold a National Security Council meeting by teleconference to discuss several issues, including the tsunami, followed by a short public
statement.


Bush's deepened public involvement puts him more in line with other world figures. In Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder cut short his vacation and returned to work in Berlin because of the Indian Ocean crisis, which began with a gigantic underwater earthquake. In Britain, the predominant U.S. voice speaking about the disaster was not Bush but former president Bill
Clinton (news - web sites), who in an interview with the BBC said the suffering was like something in a "horror movie," and urged a coordinated international response.


Earlier yesterday, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the president was confident he could monitor events effectively without returning to Washington or making public statements in Crawford, where he spent part of the day clearing brush and bicycling. Explaining the about-face, a White House official
said: "The president wanted to be fully briefed on our efforts. He didn't want to make a symbolic statement about 'We feel your pain.' "

Many Bush aides believe Clinton was too quick to head for the cameras to hold forth on tragedies with his trademark empathy. "Actions speak louder than words," a top Bush aide said, describing the president's view of his appropriate role.


Some foreign policy specialists said Bush's actions and words both communicated a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do in the United States. "When that many human beings die -- at the hands of terrorists or nature --
you've got to show that this matters to you, that you care," said Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

There was an international outpouring of support after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and even some administration officials familiar with relief efforts said they were surprised that Bush had not appeared personally to comment on the tsunami tragedy. "It's kind of freaky," a senior
career official said.

The president of Bread for the World, a leading
advocacy group lobbying for more U.S. assistance to
suffering people abroad, did not criticize the Bush administration, but did urge the United States to play a central role in the relief effort. "This is a disaster of biblical proportions and one that calls for a global response, with the United States playing a key role," David Beckmann said.


Some of those lost in the carnage were Americans. The State Department, which is in the early stages of estimating both relief needs and the U.S. death toll, has received more than 4,000 inquiries about relatives not yet accounted for, although many may be calls searching for the same people, U.S. officials said.

U.S. officials denied that the overnight aid increase was a response to the U.N. complaint Monday that some countries were "stingy" with aid. Usually only about 10 percent of the final aid tally is given in the initial response to a natural disaster, with the bulk of aid provided after an assessment of long-term
needs, according to the State Department.

"We know the needs will be greater. This was a disaster of almost unimaginable dimension, and it's going to require massive support for some time," State Department spokesman J. Adam Ereli said.

Gelb said what appears to be a grudging increase in effort sends the wrong message, at a time when dollar totals matter less than a clear statement about U.S. intentions. Noting that the disaster occurred at a time when large numbers of people in many nations -- especially Muslim ones such as Indonesia -- object to U.S. policies in Iraq, he said Bush was missing an opportunity to demonstrate American benevolence.

"People do watch and see what we do," he said. "Here's an opportunity to remind people of the good we do, and he [Bush] can do it without changing his policy on Iraq or terrorism."

"My initial reaction is that it does not seem to be very aggressive," said Morton Abramowitz, a former ambassador to Thailand who has been active in humanitarian relief efforts, of the administration's response to the tsunami.

Besides USAID assistance, the Pentagon dispatched the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln from Hong Kong to the region, and three Navy P-3 Orion surveillance planes and six Air Force C-130 cargo planes with humanitarian goods are being sent to Thailand.

A regional support center will be established at a military base in Utapao, Thailand, as a staging area for relief flights and for emergency and medical personnel providing assistance throughout the region, the Pentagon announced yesterday. The U.S. Pacific Command will deploy personnel mainly from the III
Marine Expeditionary Force to set up the command, control and communication structure.

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who as the military's top European commander helped supervise NATO's efforts to respond to a 1999 earthquake in Turkey, said the United States has unique military capabilities in reconnaissance and logistics management that can be useful in the current crisis. He urged Bush to take a higher profile. "Natural disasters happen," Clark said. "One of the things people look for is a strong response that illustrates America's humanitarian values."

Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who is frequently outspoken in favor of U.S. humanitarian ventures, said he believes the initial U.S. response has been appropriate, even without a public role for Bush. "I think the world knows we're a very generous people,"
he said.

Still, the United Nations' Egeland complained on Monday that each of the richest nations gives less than 1 percent of its gross national product for foreign assistance, and many give 0.1 percent. "It is beyond me why we are so stingy, really," he told
reporters. Among the world's two dozen wealthiest countries, the
United States often is among the lowest in donors per capita for official development assistance worldwide, even though the totals are larger. According to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development of 30 wealthy nations, the United States gives the least -- at 0.14 percent of its gross national product, compared with Norway, which gives the most at 0.92 percent.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Jan Egeland, the UN's chief of emergency relief, had said Monday that rich nations like the U.S. are "stingy" for contributing only about 0.1% of their gross domestic product. (Actually, I think the term he used was “miserly” and Tsunami Relief was not the first time he mentioned it – he also recently used that term regarding African HIV-AIDS efforts, for example.)

Egeland did not - so far as I can find - specifically mention the United States, it was Bush, in his first speech from Holiday Ranch in Crawford, Texas, who accepted the general statement as a specific criticism of American Relief.

Up to then, Bush had pledged $15 million, since then it has consistently been raised to where it now reaches $35 million in immediate aid as Secretary of State Powell made the rounds of television programs protesting this comment.

"The United States is not stingy. We are the greatest contributor to international relief efforts in the world," bristled Secretary of State Powell on CNN.


To me this appears to be more a part of the Neocon’s US out of the UN; UN out of the US campaign, than anything else.

 

[thebullet]

"The United States is not stingy. We are the greatest contributor to international relief efforts in the world," bristled Secretary of State Powell on CNN.

According to the article I posted above, this is untrue, at least on a per capita basis. In fact, of the 30 wealthiest nations, the USA gives the least per capita.

One might construe that to be stingy. Of course the neocons and everyone else in this country like to tell themselves how generous they are as they tighten the screws.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

According to the article I posted above, this is untrue. . .

Secretary of State Colin Powell lied to CNN!

 

[thebullet]

Secretary of State Colin Powell lied to CNN!

I personally am shocked and stunned.