Tsunami Victim Support Funds

[CheeseManBlue]

the U.S. government has contributed 300 million dollars to the relief fund of tsunami victims in micronesia, sri lanka, and malaysia. meanwhile, over 300 BILLION dolars and rising is being spent occupying Iraq and killing civillians. my highschool is sending a large posterboard with a big smiley face and signatures on it, along with the phrase 'when you are feeling better, you will have one of these', pointing to the smiley face. it is a sad day in the U.S. when we place the terrorizing (yes, terrorizing) of an innocent country in higher importance than the well-being of already-poor nations, suffering of a rising death count and sweeping epidemic.

[Tombulgius]

The corrupton of the Liberation front in Iraq is the fault of each common soldier who feels he has the right to terrorizethose civilians. I wish the liberation was as selfless as it sounds, but we'll just have to go along with it. At least we are helping them.

As for donating, I think we've donated less than we should have. However, with public USA donations included, the country has donated more than one billion. Worldwide, it's over five billion, I think.

[CheeseManBlue]

As for donating, I think we've donated less than we should have. However, with public USA donations included, the country has donated more than one billion. Worldwide, it's over five billion, I think.

but that was the PUBLIC U.S.A., and the government, although it was obvious to them that the public would donate, should have given much more. the gov't definetely has more money than they know what to do with, why not help another country, eh?

[Tombulgius]

At 1/30/05 04:47 PM, CheeseManBlue wrote:

As for donating, I think we've donated less than we should have. However, with public USA donations included, the country has donated more than one billion. Worldwide, it's over five billion, I think.

but that was the PUBLIC U.S.A., and the government, although it was obvious to them that the public would donate, should have given much more. the gov't definetely has more money than they know what to do with, why not help another country, eh?

Yeah, they have too much for their own good......at the very least, they could've spared 5 billion or so. They should stop being introverted.

[Draconias]

Incorrect numbers. The official donation numbers for the US was a total of $1.1 billion. However, you must remember that a score of countries are all donating in the hundreds of millions. Would it suprise you to know that a global comment was made from the countries in that area suggesting that the US has now been giving too much aid?

The war in Iraq is completely different and not a good comparison. We are literally building a new country from a the ground up, one that is a foothold that will trigger a revolution in that area. Also, a large portion of the money that is being spent on Iraq comes back home afterwards (our equipment). The military is only 18% of our annual budget, though, so it is suprising how much concern it gets. Other sectors, such as Social Security (21% of the budget) should get a far larger amount of attention.

[Gunter45]

Wow, so when we're talking about helping people we have tons of money, but when we think of reasons to hound Bush all of that money seems to disappear.

To be sure, I think that it's a good gesture that so many people are helping out. Money alone isn't going to make it any easier, though, but it's nice to do something.

[GoTwinks]

They say they have more than enought for tsunami victims, there saying to donate to other countries than Thailand, etc.

[Jimsween]

Hey, lets just throw money on our problems, thats going to solve them.

Just because alot of people died, doesn't mean fixing it is more expensive. We probably passed the point of usefullness a while ago, and now were just competing to see who can give the most.

[jmaster306]

At 1/30/05 11:23 PM, Jimsween wrote: Hey, lets just throw money on our problems, thats going to solve them.

Just because alot of people died, doesn't mean fixing it is more expensive. We probably passed the point of usefullness a while ago, and now were just competing to see who can give the most.

Well yeah, NOW we have reached the point where they have enough money. You would think, however, that right after the tsunami our government wouldn't respond frugally.

[Jimsween]

At 1/30/05 11:29 PM, jmaster306 wrote: Well yeah, NOW we have reached the point where they have enough money. You would think, however, that right after the tsunami our government wouldn't respond frugally.

I'm not sure if they meant to donate so little. I think, but I could very well be wrong, that they just didn't know how much your supposed to give. When we have a natural disaster, 30 million is enough.

It's also possible that they didn't want to give money, and just figured it would be another thing nobody cares about, not that it makes it any better, but it's more understandable.

[BeFell]

You forgot to point out how much the government is spending on military aide in that region. You know boats and helicopters and what not.

[D2Kvirus]

Personally, I liked it that the original US pledge was £35m, before they were forced to add a zero to the end of it when other nations were pledging more. By the way, Japan is still the nation that has donated the most - stop living vicariously through donations, people!!!

Just remember, though, many of the pledges to the victims of the Bam earthquake in Iran never materialised - just because you pledge doesn't mean you have to pay. Especially if you have a dartboard over that section of the world...

[Jimsween]

Also, I think another thing that could have happened is...

Japan and Australia donated so much immedeatly because they are closest rade partners with that area, and will certainly get a return in the near future from trade alone.

It would be like if Canada had a horrible disaster, of course we would donate massively more than anyone else, we trade far more with them than anyone else, Canada hurting is just like us hurting.

The world community, however, took this as a sign that 500 million was average, and the modest sum of 30 million looked pathetic.

This also ties in with the needlessless thing, the 700 million from Australia may have been more than enough to fix the problem, and any leftovers overfix it, like refurbish infastructure barely effected, and stuff like that. This still goes to help Australia in the end.

To tie it in with a real life situtation, a man donates a fairly large sum of money to charity, so he can be classified as a lower income tax bracket, and in the end save money. Another man donates a signifigantly smaller sum of money, but is expecting no return on that money.

Thats alot like what happened here.

[Deepeyes]

There is no such thing as giving too much. As some may know i live in Phuket. The money that people donate will not bring back the dead but the dead are not the main consern at the moment, the living are of consern. Whole towns/cities where flattended. The money is needed to rebuild, homes, companies, inferstructure (water, electricity), transportaion, comunication and so on and so on. There is alot that needs to be built. Feeding the homeless and getting people what they need to work so they can get back on their feet so they can earn their own way again. But also consider that the money would also be going to things like building and funding an orphnage(s) as in thailand alond thousands upond thousands of children have lost their entire family. Donate if you can, I have seen where the money is going and it is making a difference. Every little bit helps.

[Jimsween]

At 1/31/05 07:23 PM, Deepeyes wrote: There is no such thing as giving too much.

Yes there is.

[NinoBeats]

There is a such thing as giving too much.

[D2Kvirus]

At 1/31/05 06:18 PM, Jimsween wrote: Also, I think another thing that could have happened is...

Japan and Australia donated so much immedeatly because they are closest rade partners with that area, and will certainly get a return in the near future from trade alone.

Not that, hey, Japan has a lot of experience with tsunami (there's a clue in the use of a Japanese word to describe such an event) and know the devastation that it can cause in both the long and short term.

However, this doesn't explain why Germany has donated more money than the US. What trade, or strong diplomatic ties, to they have with Indonesia? And, yes, I am aware that the British public donated more money than our Government. Not surprised, of course...

It would be like if Canada had a horrible disaster, of course we would donate massively more than anyone else, we trade far more with them than anyone else, Canada hurting is just like us hurting.

Depends how close it is to any major US border, really.

The world community, however, took this as a sign that 500 million was average, and the modest sum of 30 million looked pathetic.

Nope - the donations from Mozambique amounted to (drum roll please) £40. Was this deemed "pathetic" by the world community to the extent that they prop up the table of donations to the extent a charity drive at a High School can outstrip that in an hour? Or is it because that's how much a whole fishing community, that chippe din together, earn in three months?

The US has a history of low donations to charities that don't benefit the US - Band Aid is a good example, where Australia donated far more with 10% of the population. And both countries (as well as the UK) had concerts to raise money.

Which also reminds me - people, have you all given up donating to Sudan because the TV pictures aren't as cool, and you aren't likely to holiday there in the near future?

This also ties in with the needlessless thing, the 700 million from Australia may have been more than enough to fix the problem, and any leftovers overfix it, like refurbish infastructure barely effected, and stuff like that. This still goes to help Australia in the end.

If you look at it that way, you may as well not donate to any charities at all. After all, if a charity single for Africa can't raise enough money to wipe out the monthly debt of a nation, why not find a cheaper charity?

To tie it in with a real life situtation, a man donates a fairly large sum of money to charity, so he can be classified as a lower income tax bracket, and in the end save money. Another man donates a signifigantly smaller sum of money, but is expecting no return on that money.

Or, in the case of Simon Cowell, slaps on a sticker saying that proceeds from a single will go to tsunami relief. Of course, the week before it wasn't, but at that time the single didn't top the charts. Surprise, surprise - it did with a sticker on it.

And still that tops Sainsburys supermarkets donation of £100k (or 0.005% of their annual profits) while selling charity singles online with no VAT paid as the store was based in Jersey. VAT also happened to be where the charity donations are gleaned from...

It's good to see cynicism in action, isn't it?

[Jimsween]

At 2/1/05 07:34 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Not that, hey, Japan has a lot of experience with tsunami (there's a clue in the use of a Japanese word to describe such an event) and know the devastation that it can cause in both the long and short term.

Yeah, but does that mean they aren't a trade partner?

However, this doesn't explain why Germany has donated more money than the US. What trade, or strong diplomatic ties, to they have with Indonesia? And, yes, I am aware that the British public donated more money than our Government. Not surprised, of course...

They are giving as much money as the US for the same reason the US is giving so much money. It's expected. If Australia comes out and gives 700 million, it's going to be immedeatly expected of everyone else to give as much or near as much, this doesn't mean that much is needed, though.

Depends how close it is to any major US border, really.

No, thats not my point at all. What I'm saying is, since Canada is a close trade partner, if we don't help them to recover, we will feel the effects in our economy. The same can be said for Australia and Japan with teh countries effected by the Tsunami.

Nope - the donations from Mozambique amounted to (drum roll please) £40. Was this deemed "pathetic" by the world community to the extent that they prop up the table of donations to the extent a charity drive at a High School can outstrip that in an hour? Or is it because that's how much a whole fishing community, that chippe din together, earn in three months?

I dont see why that amounts to a nope, if anything it would amount to a yep. You just agreed that the world community immedeatly took the first donation as the standard.

The US has a history of low donations to charities that don't benefit the US - Band Aid is a good example, where Australia donated far more with 10% of the population. And both countries (as well as the UK) had concerts to raise money.

OoooOOOOOoooooooo, concerts. The US gives plenty of money, about as much as Australia does in ratio to GDP if I remember correctly. The real givers are Japan and Sweden/Norway (cant remember which). Nevertheless, it's completely irrellevent, your point whether it's true or not does not adress the validity of my theory at all.

Which also reminds me - people, have you all given up donating to Sudan because the TV pictures aren't as cool, and you aren't likely to holiday there in the near future?

Again, who says Sudan needs more money? Who can gaurantee it's not going to end up in the hands of the bad guys?

If you look at it that way, you may as well not donate to any charities at all. After all, if a charity single for Africa can't raise enough money to wipe out the monthly debt of a nation, why not find a cheaper charity?

What? First of all... what way was I looking at it? I'm pretty sure all I said is that Australia stood little to lose by over-donating. Second, what?

Or, in the case of Simon Cowell, slaps on a sticker saying that proceeds from a single will go to tsunami relief. Of course, the week before it wasn't, but at that time the single didn't top the charts. Surprise, surprise - it did with a sticker on it.

And still that tops Sainsburys supermarkets donation of £100k (or 0.005% of their annual profits) while selling charity singles online with no VAT paid as the store was based in Jersey. VAT also happened to be where the charity donations are gleaned from...

It's good to see cynicism in action, isn't it?

I think your seeing the opposite of cynicism, the British public is being overly taken in by the gravity of the Tsunami, and are going stupid trying to think of how to donate. I'm glad I live in America where people don't care what you do as long as your not gay.

[Deepeyes]

Ok for those who said "you can give too much" don't relize how the money is being used. The vast majority of the money does not go to the countries goverment directly. The money is given to the veriouse aid organisations. So if by any chance there is more money than required (which i'm confident there won't be), they can keep this excess as a buffer for the next disaster. I presume when you say you can give too much, you feel the effected countires are going to keep the excess. This is not the case, the aid organisations keep this excess.

[Jimsween]

No, they can't keep it for the next disaster. There was a scandal about that a while ago. Any money left is given back, and if they give money back then people will think they don't need alot of money, so they spend it all.

[Deepeyes]

So if it gets given back whats the problem?

[iscrulz]

I say screw the tsunami victims and just bulldoze all the debris in a pile and burn it. oh wait where am I?

I like sand!!

[SkyCube]

At 2/3/05 03:52 PM, Iscrulz wrote: I say screw the tsunami victims and just bulldoze all the debris in a pile and burn it. oh wait where am I?

I like sand!!

I'm sorry, I think you must be lost. The General forums is
over here.

[sitruc2002]

At 1/31/05 07:23 PM, Deepeyes wrote: There is no such thing as giving too much.

Yeah, there is, especially when the people affected hate us...

[Sixo]

Quoted for great justice.

[Jimsween]

At 2/3/05 06:30 AM, Deepeyes wrote: So if it gets given back whats the problem?

Wow.... uhh... maybe you could read the next sentence? I said that because it must be given back if it's not spent, they will piss it away so people don't think they get too much money.

[D2Kvirus]

At 2/1/05 04:48 PM, Jimsween wrote:
Yeah, but does that mean they aren't a trade partner?

So compassion never plays any part in such a thing, because money is all and everything?

They are giving as much money as the US for the same reason the US is giving so much money. It's expected. If Australia comes out and gives 700 million, it's going to be immedeatly expected of everyone else to give as much or near as much, this doesn't mean that much is needed, though.

More than the US, actually. And it isn't "expected" to donate large sums of money - if the US get shown up with an offensivly meagre donation, it's cynical in the extreme because it's trying not to be shown up.

And are the British public trade partners, as they have raised £200m on their own? Again, compassion may well play a part - read the Mozambique part again. It isn't about trying to one-up nations and get higher up a league table (or, at least, shouldn't be).

No, thats not my point at all. What I'm saying is, since Canada is a close trade partner, if we don't help them to recover, we will feel the effects in our economy. The same can be said for Australia and Japan with teh countries effected by the Tsunami.

Not that Indonesia is a tourist resort that needs to be repaired in time for this summer's season...

Besides, the US may well donate to Canada if the disaster is in a populated area, but what if it were part of a dense forest or glacier, with a population of about 12? The charity would dry up immediatly, and the coverage wouldn't be the same.

I dont see why that amounts to a nope, if anything it would amount to a yep. You just agreed that the world community immedeatly took the first donation as the standard.

Yup, that argument is sound, as is the logic...

OoooOOOOOoooooooo, concerts. The US gives plenty of money, about as much as Australia does in ratio to GDP if I remember correctly. The real givers are Japan and Sweden/Norway (cant remember which). Nevertheless, it's completely irrellevent, your point whether it's true or not does not adress the validity of my theory at all.

And that's the attitude I expected: "I bought the single, couldn't get a ticket to the concert...what do you mean I could've donated to a fund as well?!?"

But wait a minute, the US comes up with We Are The World about 14 minutes after Band Aid to get/raise money. Would that be because Americans only donate to charities with an American face on them? It would also explain why the Band Aid 20 single wasn't released over there, and WATW 20 is in production.

Again, who says Sudan needs more money? Who can gaurantee it's not going to end up in the hands of the bad guys?

So are you saying it's best not to donate to charities set up to help African nations, just in case the money is hoovered up by those seen as "undesirables"? Better sell out the whole continent, then.

However, I have yet to see a single fraud charity set up for Sudan, the same as Rwanda, Ethopia et al, yet there have been several for Tsunami Relief and 9/11. That's donating to the bad guys, so is it better not to donate to them just to be sure?

What? First of all... what way was I looking at it? I'm pretty sure all I said is that Australia stood little to lose by over-donating. Second, what?

Read again, think it over, respond. Not the other way 'round.

I think your seeing the opposite of cynicism, the British public is being overly taken in by the gravity of the Tsunami, and are going stupid trying to think of how to donate. I'm glad I live in America where people don't care what you do as long as your not gay.

Taken in by the profit margins and glory that can be gleaned by a little clever marketing you mean? That's not "going stupid", that's exceedingly clever for capitalist society, even if all it does is bend the Third World over a desk and bugger it senseless.

Then again, the 21st Century has brought the worst out of a lot of charities - the bullying tactics of Band Aid 20 spring to mind...

[Deepeyes]

At 2/3/05 06:50 PM, sitruc2002 wrote:

At 1/31/05 07:23 PM, Deepeyes wrote: There is no such thing as giving too much.

Yeah, there is, especially when the people affected hate us...

Who the hell hates you here????? Thais are not anti-american, nor are the Indians, nor the Indonesians. Just becuse there are a small hand full of radicals you genralize the whole of asia??? Are you not aware that the US soildiers do joint military exercises with most of these countries on a regular bases? There are thousands of americans living in Phuket alone, I know alot of americans here, no one gives them any trouble. You should open your eyes to the world, you give an abstracted uncultured remarch verging on the lines of descrimination if not passing that line. If you want to see a person that hates without understand take a look in the mirror you pretentious ignoramus.

[Jimsween]

At 2/5/05 10:22 AM, D2KVirus wrote: So compassion never plays any part in such a thing, because money is all and everything?

Where did I say that? I never said that. I said being a trade partner obviosuly would affect thier deciscion more.

More than the US, actually. And it isn't "expected" to donate large sums of money - if the US get shown up with an offensivly meagre donation, it's cynical in the extreme because it's trying not to be shown up.

What? 700 million is small donation? You're not even making any sense. And furthermore, have you even been reading what I wrote? You know, that long paragraph about how 700 million could have easily been more than enough to fix Tsunami damage? And how everything I'm saying is theoretical, seeing as how we wont know how much the Tsunami actually needed until sometime in the future?

And are the British public trade partners, as they have raised £200m on their own? Again, compassion may well play a part - read the Mozambique part again. It isn't about trying to one-up nations and get higher up a league table (or, at least, shouldn't be).

If Australia and Japan had not given as much as they did, you would have 20 million instead. It's not about trying to one-up, it's abotu what is expected. If your first donations are 700+ million, your not going to give only a dollar.

Not that Indonesia is a tourist resort that needs to be repaired in time for this summer's season...

What? What the fuck are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything I wrote?

Besides, the US may well donate to Canada if the disaster is in a populated area, but what if it were part of a dense forest or glacier, with a population of about 12? The charity would dry up immediatly, and the coverage wouldn't be the same.

Okay... uhh... so what? If there was damage to the economy, we would donate. It's that simple.

Yup, that argument is sound, as is the logic...

What are you trying to say? Are you being sarcastic and contradicting yourself?

And that's the attitude I expected: "I bought the single, couldn't get a ticket to the concert...what do you mean I could've donated to a fund as well?!?"

But wait a minute, the US comes up with We Are The World about 14 minutes after Band Aid to get/raise money. Would that be because Americans only donate to charities with an American face on them? It would also explain why the Band Aid 20 single wasn't released over there, and WATW 20 is in production.

????????????

What did that have to do with my post at all???

Get some fucking aderol seriously.

So are you saying it's best not to donate to charities set up to help African nations, just in case the money is hoovered up by those seen as "undesirables"? Better sell out the whole continent, then.

No.... are you even reading things I write? I'm saying when you give money, you can't gaurantee it will be spent on what you give it for, American or African, it doesn't matter. Do you get off on completely misinterpreting things?

However, I have yet to see a single fraud charity set up for Sudan, the same as Rwanda, Ethopia et al, yet there have been several for Tsunami Relief and 9/11. That's donating to the bad guys, so is it better not to donate to them just to be sure?

It doesn't need to be a fraud charity to spend money incorrectly. Again, thats not what I said at all.

Read again, think it over, respond. Not the other way 'round.

Same answer, I suggest you take your own advice.

Taken in by the profit margins and glory that can be gleaned by a little clever marketing you mean? That's not "going stupid", that's exceedingly clever for capitalist society, even if all it does is bend the Third World over a desk and bugger it senseless.

Your talking about the corporations, I'm talking about the people. Big difference.

[D2Kvirus]

At 2/5/05 07:17 PM, Jimsween wrote:

Not that Indonesia is a tourist resort that needs to be repaired in time for this summer's season...

What? What the fuck are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything I wrote?

Sorry, I keep expecting you to think laterally. I really should've learned by now, but you know...

What are you trying to say? Are you being sarcastic and contradicting yourself?

So, does that amount to a nope, a yup, or an uhhh?

And that's the attitude I expected: "I bought the single, couldn't get a ticket to the concert...what do you mean I could've donated to a fund as well?!?"

But wait a minute, the US comes up with We Are The World about 14 minutes after Band Aid to get/raise money. Would that be because Americans only donate to charities with an American face on them? It would also explain why the Band Aid 20 single wasn't released over there, and WATW 20 is in production.

????????????

I was expecting that. Strange, I say something about Americans not exactly being the most charitable of people unless:
A.) The charity benefits the US.
B.) The charity has an American face on it, because they won't donate to anything that doesn't.

And you ignore it completely with some dumbass bit of typing. Again, it should be expected, but hey, forgive and forget never failed on anyone else...

What did that have to do with my post at all???

Get some fucking aderol seriously.

As above.

No.... are you even reading things I write? I'm saying when you give money, you can't gaurantee it will be spent on what you give it for, American or African, it doesn't matter. Do you get off on completely misinterpreting things?

Yes I am reading it, I am taking it to the logical extreme. But, hey, don't let it remove you from the moral highground or anything...

It doesn't need to be a fraud charity to spend money incorrectly. Again, thats not what I said at all.

As above. Sorry, what are you saying exactly? Isn't it "I'm right, so there"?

Read again, think it over, respond. Not the other way 'round.

Same answer, I suggest you take your own advice.

You would.

Taken in by the profit margins and glory that can be gleaned by a little clever marketing you mean? That's not "going stupid", that's exceedingly clever for capitalist society, even if all it does is bend the Third World over a desk and bugger it senseless.

Your talking about the corporations, I'm talking about the people. Big difference.

I'm talking about botyh, actually - are you reading what I'm typing, or do you get off missing the subtle inferrances?