Stingy? Stingy?!

[Proteas]

--------------------
Tuesday, December 28, 2004 Posted: 9:38 PM EST (0238 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A suggestion by a U.N. official that the world's richest nations were "stingy" irritated the Bush administration, especially when U.S. aid for Asia's earthquake is expected to eventually rise from the millions to more than $1 billion.

The comment reopened the question of how to measure American generosity. The answer ultimately depends on the measuring stick.

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.

The chief of U.S. Agency for International Development, which distributes foreign aid, 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.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said assistance for this week's earthquake and tsunamis alone will eventually exceed $1 billion.

"The notion that the United States is not generous is simply not true, factually," USAID chief Andrew Natsios told The Associated Press in an interview. "We've had one of the largest increases of any country in the world."

But even Natsios acknowledged Tuesday that the initial $35 million aid package the administration has crafted for earthquake and tsunami victims has completely drained his agency's emergency relief fund, which already provides assistance from Darfur to Iraq.

That means his agency will need to ask Congress or the White House for more money.

"We just spent it," Natsios said. "We'll be talking to the (White House) budget office ... 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 pre-stocked supplies of 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.

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.

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.

But Powell clearly took umbrage 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 assistance that could stretch 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 said the Paris organization's figures overlook a key factor -- the billions more Americans give each year in private donations.

Americans last year gave an estimated $241 billion to charitable causes -- domestic and foreign -- according to a study by Giving USA Foundation. That's up from $234 billion in 2002. The foundation did not break down how much was for domestic causes and how much for foreign.

"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."

"The reason is that our gross national product is so enormous. And our growth rates are so much higher than the other wealthy nations."

Source: CNN

--------------------

I hate to say this... but, "Jan England, you are a fucking moron."

[Ravens-Grin]

The 243 billion dollar number straight from the horse's mouth.

Just something to think about That was for the year 2003

Now for the year 2002 and the contributions from it...
2002, it's a powerpoint so you'll have to look through it

So, once again, religion increased the most with a 2.11 billion dollar difference. The closest one related to this was with health, which I believe would be the American Red Cross. Not that it's a problem or anything that religion is getting more donations then anybody else, they do put it to good use occasionally.

[TimScheff]

I think Stingy is a fair tag... we're willing ot help out for a big public disaster but the Bush administration cut at least $100 million in food aid to those mired in poverty. And in any event we aren't giving in percentage to our weath, that is the best measure of stingy.

[MoralLibertarian]

Uckch. Liberals think that all the aid we give is a reflection of the government's spending. IT's a perfect example of the left's lunacy. "Just raise taxes, people love paying taxes!"

Let's not forget about the contributions that the US makes without the government. Corporations give billions to charity each year and individuals do as well. Check out the donations on Amazon.com from primarily Americans.

Stingy is France or other European nations minus Scandinavians. They don't give shit and yet they aren't criticized because they aren't as rich as us.

We don't have to give the world anything. "How do we get donations? How about insulting the folks who give us the most, that will work great!" The UN is horrible. Let's take our money out of it and stop paying that asshole's salary.

[IllustriousPotentate]

It's the dollar amount, not the percentage of GNP, that pays for recovery. 1 billion dollars from the US goes a whole lot further than 1 million from elsewhere, even if that 1 million is a larger percentage of their GNP.

[Schicksalsschlag]

Please also consider that the US have 50% of the world's wealth...

And another interesting fact:
What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world, according to the UN?
10% -- that's about $40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested for our retaliatory attack on Afghanistan...
source

[Nylo]

Stingy? Hell I'm not even a liberal and the meager amount of money put into a disaster of that level just blows my mind. Well whatever, as long as our fat asses have the Egg McMuffin ready for us in the morning.

[Nylo]

At 12/29/04 05:14 PM, Rooster349 wrote: Stingy is France or other European nations minus Scandinavians. They don't give shit and yet they aren't criticized because they aren't as rich as us.

I was under the impression that Spain was currently dishing out more than the U.S. /Considering Spain sucks and they aren't anywhere near as rich as the U.S, I'd say that does look pretty shitty on us.

[bambi-206]

At 12/29/04 05:19 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: It's the dollar amount, not the percentage of GNP, that pays for recovery. 1 billion dollars from the US goes a whole lot further than 1 million from elsewhere, even if that 1 million is a larger percentage of their GNP.

I don't believe that excuses the US from having the most obligation to help out those who have suffered the worst disaster ever! If the US does have 50% of the world's wealth, doesn't that just mean they have a lot more to donate than any other country? And why couldn't they have given money to these governments in the first place, to set up some sort of warning system?

[bcdemon]

Damn right they're stingy. You yanks always brag about being the richest, most caring folk(ala Bushs speach) out there, yet when tragedy strikes, where's your riches and care?

Sorry but $35 million from USA is nothing, considering even Canada is offering $40 million.

[Gutmunchr]

At 12/29/04 10:57 PM, Schicksalsschlag wrote: Please also consider that the US have 50% of the world's wealth...

World nation product (according to the CIA factbook, ie miles out of date due to the fall of the dollar): $51.48 trillion, US' share $10.99 trillion, thats a strange looking half to me. Now the exchange rate for the CIA factbook is for each pound you get $1.63 dollars, nowadays that figure is $1.94 (and still rising, or falling for you). Lets just say the dollar has fallen against all currencies by an equal amount, the worlds gdp would be $61.27 trillion, you got 4% growrth this year, I think the world average was about that, so a fairer comment is that America has 18% (but did have 21% - but then as the dollar falls so does the share, and its still going) of the worlds wealth, quite a way off 50% if I do say so myself.

[Gutmunchr]

At 12/29/04 05:14 PM, Rooster349 wrote: Stingy is France or other European nations minus Scandinavians. They don't give shit and yet they aren't criticized because they aren't as rich as us.

The EU minimum donation is 0.7%, it comes in next year, France have already topped it, when they are giving over 0.7% of their budget already and you are giving just 0.14% how can you call them stingy?

[TimScheff]

At 12/29/04 05:14 PM, Rooster349 wrote: Uckch. Liberals think that all the aid we give is a reflection of the government's spending. IT's a perfect example of the left's lunacy. "Just raise taxes, people love paying taxes!"

No, that's not the midset of the left. The midset of the left is that government only functions if it has the operating expenses to do so. This means the government must choose how to collect those funds: taxes, fees, fines, and tarrifs are all options. Fees only get paid if there's a direct coresponding benefit, fines are just but aren't common enough to fund things, and tarrifs are excpetionally destructive to trade. That leaves taxes (pick your fomat) as the way to pay for things.
I hate taxes, but I love my country more so I'm willing to pay.

Let's not forget about the contributions that the US makes without the government. Corporations give billions to charity each year and individuals do as well.

But individual contributions tend to go to sexier or more extreme needs, like the current tsumani crisis. There are still millions of people suffering from hunger and disease where the donations are not enough to meet those needs.

We don't have to give the world anything. "How do we get donations? How about insulting the folks who give us the most, that will work great!" The UN is horrible. Let's take our money out of it and stop paying that asshole's salary.

We already don't pay our agreed upon share to the UN, Japan and others without a Security Council Veto tend to pay for a large portion of our share. Stingy wasn't an uncalled for insult, it directly commented on our government's unwillingness to use our wealth and infulence to assure the people of the entire world have their minimum needs fulfilled. That would be a huge solution to many of the worlds problems. Assuring minimum needs would help open more markets for trade, and if the US name is attached spread badly needed good will. Its hard to call a nation a "great satan" when its been saving you from disease and hunger. Food will always be a better tool for peace than bombs.

[Schicksalsschlag]

At 12/30/04 10:35 AM, Gutmunchr wrote:

:[...] so a fairer comment is that America has 18% (but did have 21% - but then as the dollar falls so does the share, and its still going) of the worlds wealth, quite a way off 50% if I do say so myself.

No, these numbers say that America produces 18% of the World nation product. This is not the same as the world's wealth.

[Gutmunchr]

At 12/30/04 01:09 PM, Schicksalsschlag wrote: No, these numbers say that America produces 18% of the World nation product. This is not the same as the world's wealth.

Fair comment perhaps, ok then, what is wealth? land possessions, resources? There are more resources in Russia than any other nation (unmined it may be), what about all the beautiful buildings around Europe, how much are these buildings worth? Either way to hoard your wealth you need to be making money, and the US is not the only nation making money.

Hmm, I found some stuff on the internet about wealthy people, not the same but apparently america has 60 of the 225 richest people, not bad I guess. Shame it wasnt a full list but just an article, Germany had 21 people though. Ah who knows, it doesnt matter what you search you cannot find an up to date figure of wealth (probably because it is so hard to measure), either way we can safely say that there is a link between wealth and income and that the falling dollar will devalue American wealth. 50% it is fair to say is not Americas cut of the worlds wealth pie.

Off topic but an interesting article I found as I looked for wealth figures, though this European dream is something i've never heard of, sounds more like a slogan than an actual European thought.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-08.htm

[RedSkunk]

A single UN official. So what?

[bcdemon]

Maybe I shouldn't have said the US was stingy earlier, they're just down on thier luck right now. Picked a fight they're having a hell of a time winning. A guy in the white house that can't speak more than 3 lines off the cuff without messing up, or getting confused, or plain just not knowing. Countries in turmoil.

Rooster349 wrote: "Stingy is France or other European nations minus Scandinavians. They don't give shit and yet they aren't criticized because they aren't as rich as us."

As of now France has offered 41.3 million euros (56.17 million dollars). And their president wants to double the funding already allocated. And create a debt moratrium with the countries involved.

But hey, you still gave more than Saudi Arabia.