09/07/01: Child Aid Efforts = Bad
- Freakapotimus
-
Freakapotimus
- Member since: Jun. 22, 2000
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 19
- Blank Slate
Friday September 7 10:16 AM ET
Americans Dissatisfied with Child Aid Efforts
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most Americans believe U.S. efforts to fight threats to child survival internationally are mediocre or worse and should be an important part of President Bush's compassionate conservative agenda, according to a survey released on Friday.
The poll, sponsored by the U.S. Coalition for Child Survival, found strong public support for U.S. international child survival efforts.
More than 10 million children under the age of 5 die each year in the world's developing countries.
The coalition believes the majority of those deaths are preventable.
The coalition, which groups organizations and individuals dedicated to improving the survival and healthy development of the world's children, is seeking additional U.S. funding for immunization and other health care programs ahead of the U.N. Special Session on Children set for New York from Sept. 19 to 21.
As part of that campaign, the coalition commissioned a survey of 1,010 Americans.
Sixty-two percent of the respondents gave U.S. child survival efforts a grade of C or below, the poll found.
Fifty-seven percent said the United States gave too little of its share of the federal budget to international child survival efforts.
In addition, 58 percent felt child survival should be a very important international aid priority, and 75 percent said child survival should be part of Bush's ``compassionate conservative'' agenda.
Quote of the day: @Nysssa "What is the word I want to use here?" @freakapotimus "Taint".
- Done1done1done
-
Done1done1done
- Member since: Sep. 19, 2000
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 16
- Blank Slate
At 9/7/01 11:03 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: Friday September 7 10:16 AM ET
Americans Dissatisfied with Child Aid Efforts
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most Americans believe U.S. efforts to fight threats to child survival internationally are mediocre or worse and should be an important part of President Bush's compassionate conservative agenda, according to a survey released on Friday.
The poll, sponsored by the U.S. Coalition for Child Survival, found strong public support for U.S. international child survival efforts.
More than 10 million children under the age of 5 die each year in the world's developing countries.
The coalition believes the majority of those deaths are preventable.
The coalition, which groups organizations and individuals dedicated to improving the survival and healthy development of the world's children, is seeking additional U.S. funding for immunization and other health care programs ahead of the U.N. Special Session on Children set for New York from Sept. 19 to 21.
As part of that campaign, the coalition commissioned a survey of 1,010 Americans.
Sixty-two percent of the respondents gave U.S. child survival efforts a grade of C or below, the poll found.
Fifty-seven percent said the United States gave too little of its share of the federal budget to international child survival efforts.
In addition, 58 percent felt child survival should be a very important international aid priority, and 75 percent said child survival should be part of Bush's ``compassionate conservative'' agenda.
Children are important, they need to be helped, just like Sally Struthers always says. But Reuters seems to be slanting towards Bush. They use the words "compassionate conservative" to describe his agenda, whereas a "nonpartisan" group like CNN (they don't want to be Fox News, but they may have to be eventually if they want people to watch) would just say agenda.
- shorbe
-
shorbe
- Member since: May. 5, 2000
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 02
- Blank Slate
I think it's bollocks.
Sure, people say more should be done, but...
That would mean a) no child labour overseas, b) decent pay/working conditions overseas. Which would be fine with all those people surveyed, until...
Oh, they wouldn't get cheap goods anymore and might have to lose a buck. Then it would be back to business as usual.
People are full of shit.
shorbe
- shorbe
-
shorbe
- Member since: May. 5, 2000
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 02
- Blank Slate
People would be all for it until they realised that would involve no child labour and decent pay and living conditions. that would affect the price of their consumer goods in turn, and then any idealism would go out the window in favour of a buck.
People are so full of shit. Either that, or they are incredibly naive as to how the world works.
shorbe
- shorbe
-
shorbe
- Member since: May. 5, 2000
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 02
- Blank Slate
God damn this fucking computer!
First it tells me there's an error, then it posts it anyway!
shorbe

