NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/01/05/australia-aid050105.html

(!)

((It's in canadian dollars and a canadian article but that doesn't matter))

Good for humanity. This makes me happy.

Crikey

How much did America give?

ok just saw, 429million. Now I see what the UN meant. If our tiny country gives more than America thats just sad.

How much did America give?
350 million.

well us australians are generous people.

Apparently, only the money that the American government gives counts. The private citizens of the U.S. are some of the most generous of all the world. In 2003, individuals donated $241 billion dollars. The donations made by private citizens will far exceed that of the U.S.
You want stingy countries? Look no farther than the Middle East. Currently, Kuwait is sitting on a $10 billion dollar budget surplus thanks to rising oil prices. Their contribution? $10 million dollars, not even a tenth of what the U.S. has given. Before you take down the U.S. simply because you hate us, take a look at some other countries.
Besides, the U.S. has sent an entire carrier battle group and an amphibious battle group to the region. Jan Egeland, of "stingy" fame, called this help "worth their weight in gold".

The supplies don't go anywhere if there aren't any helicopters and ships to carry them!

How much did America give?

ok just saw, 429million. Now I see what the UN meant. If our tiny country gives more than America thats just sad.

Comparing the amounts donated for the Tsunami relief is pointless. Reasoning here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=385660)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/01/05/australia-aid050105.html

(!)

((It's in canadian dollars and a canadian article but that doesn't matter))

Oh boy :rolleyes: Now Bush will have to give 1.2 bill.

How much did America give?

ok just saw, 429million. Now I see what the UN meant. If our tiny country gives more than America thats just sad.

Tiny?

You dont live in Brunei, last time I checked Austy was 1/3 the size of the US.

I love your location, Not America. Thats so original. I wish I could be as cool as you. Too bad I live in America, I cant write that. :rolleyes:

Comparing the amounts donated for the Tsunami relief is pointless. Reasoning here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=385660)
WHat so your saying because America spent a billions blowing the crap out of dirt to try and hit Osama that means there a giving humanitarian country.

"So America what do you do to show your giving side?"
"Oh we blow the crap out of places :)"

"Australia what do you do?"
"We give milions upon millions in support through food, water, red cross funds etc"

Ooh now who seems less evil?

Tiny?

You dont live in Brunei, last time I checked Austy was 1/3 the size of the US.

I love your location, Not America. Thats so original. I wish I could be as cool as you. Too bad I live in America, I cant write that. :rolleyes:

Shame eh, because I couldn't give a crap if you don't like my location. I'll just be a patriotic American and say "It's my god given right baby!" Suck it.

WHat so your saying because America spent a billions blowing the crap out of dirt to try and hit Osama that means there a giving humanitarian country.

"So America what do you do to show your giving side?"
"Oh we blow the crap out of places :)"

"Australia what do you do?"
"We give milions upon millions in support through food, water, red cross funds etc"

Ooh now who seems less evil?

Heh, well I meant more along the lines of liberating oppressed people, along with the other charity work they do.

And don't forget the second part there about how it's pointless to compare generosity.

Heh, well I meant more along the lines of liberating oppressed people, along with the other charity work they do.

And don't forget the second part there about how it's pointless to compare generosity.

Afgani people are still oppressed, Iraq don't look to happy. Oh well to each his own...I just wish America followed that policey every now and then.

Apparently, only the money that the American government gives counts. The private citizens of the U.S. are some of the most generous of all the world. In 2003, individuals donated $241 billion dollars. The donations made by private citizens will far exceed that of the U.S.
You want stingy countries? Look no farther than the Middle East. Currently, Kuwait is sitting on a $10 billion dollar budget surplus thanks to rising oil prices. Their contribution? $10 million dollars, not even a tenth of what the U.S. has given. Before you take down the U.S. simply because you hate us, take a look at some other countries.
Besides, the U.S. has sent an entire carrier battle group and an amphibious battle group to the region. Jan Egeland, of "stingy" fame, called this help "worth their weight in gold".

The supplies don't go anywhere if there aren't any helicopters and ships to carry them!

If only your government included one of thos individuals eh.

Way to go, Australia! Good job. :)

WHat so your saying because America spent a billions blowing the crap out of dirt to try and hit Osama that means there a giving humanitarian country.

"So America what do you do to show your giving side?"
"Oh we blow the crap out of places :)"

"Australia what do you do?"
"We give milions upon millions in support through food, water, red cross funds etc"

Ooh now who seems less evil?
You know something? All you succeed in doing when you post crap like this is in showing how small-minded and weak-willed you and others like you are. I pity you.

:) yay! I'm hoping America steps up now. I think Australia is tiny, especially in terms of population and therefore 1 billion dollars is a huge amount to be granting overseas...however this sort of aid is not rare from Australia, so eh.
You are quite right that relief should not be compared, however when there is indeed such a difference between the amounts...well...you know...something's gotta be asked.
Australia has a vested interest in Indonesia etc as they are their closest neighbours and the money will go towards rebuilding their countries.
Australia has sent 5 medical teams, police, army and navy to help with identification of bodies, helping the ill and injured and getting purified water to the communities. As far as i know this is the most of all countries, and it seems only fair to ask what the other developed countries are doing that equals this in terms of goodwill.

You know something? All you succeed in doing when you post crap like this is in showing how small-minded and weak-willed you and others like you are. I pity you.

...um let me pull the other one that I see thrown around guns and stuff, what is it "freedom of speech!"

If only your government included one of thos individuals eh.
You really are a pitiful, weak lil thing, aren't you.

Over a billion!!!

Good on you mates!

Incidentally, while I'm generally against competition I think this is a healthy one.

Canada has only ponied up $80M even though the gov't just turned a $9.2B surplus. Furthermore, all budgets include a 'contingency fund' of several billion for unforseen emergencies hmm, I wonder if they have some more spare change in the couch cushions?

Paul Martins email is PM@PM.gc.ca the best thing is that he (or a lackey) MUST respond. Please be polite.

You really are a pitiful, weak lil thing, aren't you.
No no, i'm just getting the patriotic spirit in my darlin. Amen.

...um let me pull the other one that I see thrown around guns and stuff, what is it "freedom of speech!"
I knew some Aussies when I was in Vietnam. They were great guys, besides being able to drink most of the rest of us under the table. As best I can tell, you couldn't measure up to any of them. Perhaps there aren't any real men in Australia anymore, but there sure were ... once.

Go Austrailia!

I have to say I live in canada, and I'm disgusted by how little we're giving.

Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!

Oi! Oi! Oi!

I knew some Aussies when I was in Vietnam. They were great guys, besides being able to drink most of the rest of us under the table. As best I can tell, you couldn't measure up to any of them. Perhaps there aren't any real men in Australia anymore, but there sure were ... once.

Ooh low blow, I'm not a drunken war boy! Oh how I'm crying all over the place boohoo! Go kill something, that's what makes you a real man right? Drinking, killing stuff? Oh and i love the dramatic....once. Very nice *claps for your soapie script.

Ooh low blow, I'm not a drunken war boy! Oh how I'm crying all over the place boohoo! Go kill something, that's what makes you a real man right? Drinking, killing stuff? Oh and i love the dramatic....once. Very nice *claps for your soapie script.
Glad you liked it. :D

Go Austrailia!

I have to say I live in canada, and I'm disgusted by how little we're giving.

I agree. With the Aussies forking up this much I know we can give more.

Glad you liked it. :D

Though I do wonder if your definition of a real man was someone who agrees with your position. Thus not making you a real man to me.

Ooh low blow, I'm not a drunken war boy! Oh how I'm crying all over the place boohoo! Go kill something, that's what makes you a real man right? Drinking, killing stuff? Oh and i love the dramatic....once. Very nice *claps for your soapie script.

That's ok Pommy, glad to see you like his writting. We do like to entertain....

That's ok Pommy, glad to see you like his writting. We do like to entertain....
A Pommy is an english person. Dick.

I agree. With the Aussies forking up this much I know we can give more.

Agreed. I would appreciate it if the gov made a large donation and then increased income tax a bit for one year to regain the funds. It wouldn't take very much from each person to make a big difference.

Agreed. I would appreciate it if the gov made a large donation and then increased income tax a bit for one year to regain the funds. It wouldn't take very much from each person to make a big difference.


Dude!! We just turned a $9 billion surplus!! Every one of our last 6 federal budgets had a contingency fund of over $2 billion. Just raid next years contingency fund.

Email Paul Martin:

pm@pm.gc.ca

we don't need to raise taxes to give to the tsunami relief, just to fix all the other junk that's going on here.

Agreed. I would appreciate it if the gov made a large donation and then increased income tax a bit for one year to regain the funds. It wouldn't take very much from each person to make a big difference.

:rolleyes: Why does everyone care how much the government gives? WHO CARES!? If you wish to donate, DONATE YOURSELF! Why trust the government to raise taxes and only send that new tax money as charity!

WHY! WHY!

When all will be said and done, America will end up donating more than a billion US dollars, none of this pansy canadian dollars, and of those billion+ most of it will be from the private citizins of America willingly giving their own money and not from the government taking money and giving it away.

:rolleyes: Why does everyone care how much the government gives? WHO CARES!? If you wish to donate, DONATE YOURSELF! Why trust the government to raise taxes and only send that new tax money as charity!

WHY! WHY!

When all will be said and done, America will end up donating more than a billion US dollars, none of this pansy canadian dollars, and of those billion+ most of it will be from the private citizins of America willingly giving their own money and not from the government taking money and giving it away.

Well put! If only most shared this sensible view. The donations of the US as a country will be eclipsed by the donations of the American public.

A Pommy is an english person. Dick.

Oh I know.

I also know that I would have to duck if I called one of you that! ;)

But hey you limmies are ok! :p

One of my great-uncles was a flyer during the war. Owes his life to a coastal watcher! Had nothing but praise.....

Dude!! We just turned a $9 billion surplus!! Every one of our last 6 federal budgets had a contingency fund of over $2 billion. Just raid next years contingency fund.

Email Paul Martin:

pm@pm.gc.ca

we don't need to raise taxes to give to the tsunami relief, just to fix all the other junk that's going on here.

True, but a momentary tax hike for a specific reason would be much easier to take than another one of the government's "We decided to take more money, we'll tell you why later. Maybe."

:rolleyes: Why does everyone care how much the government gives? WHO CARES!? If you wish to donate, DONATE YOURSELF! Why trust the government to raise taxes and only send that new tax money as charity!

WHY! WHY!

When all will be said and done, America will end up donating more than a billion US dollars, none of this pansy canadian dollars, and of those billion+ most of it will be from the private citizins of America willingly giving their own money and not from the government taking money and giving it away.

Because many people aren't donating on their own. Hey, call me a jerk but I'd like to make them donate.

The amount I can give isn't anywhere near what the whole country can.

Well, I do not think the donations should be done by the governments, because then you are forceing people to donate that wouldn't normaly. You should not force anything like that on people. Its alright if the government sets up orginizations that deal with indivitual donations, which are almost completly ignored when looking this issue most of the time. Do not think I am sticking up for the United States, because I do not really like the it. I am just saying that if the government makes the choice to send some money, it does not mean that the people of the nation the government represents agree. They could want to send more or less, and it should be up to the individual to make their own donations.

True, but a momentary tax hike for a specific reason would be much easier to take than another one of the government's "We decided to take more money, we'll tell you why later. Maybe."

I think we're in agreement, if they raid the contingency fund they should tell us why, document it and make the documents available to the public. And that's what Parliament is supposed to anyways.

I get exceptionally leery whenever I hear of 'temporary' tax increases. That's what income tax was supposed to be... during WWI (or was is during WWII?)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of progressive taxation, having grown up dirt poor (by white Canadian standards) and now working as an engineer, it's just 'temporary' has a way of becoming permanent with the original rational conveniently forgotten. We're loaded right now and I don't think it's possible to say it's not for a good cause.

The australian public has raised about 60 million so far.

by population AUs has a population of around 20 million, the US around 300 million.

The US spends about our entire GDP on Defence and security alone (about 800 billion AUD or 600 billion USD)

As for Vietnam, the US was still winning until we pulled out :D, we went, you got your buts kicked.

As for real men, why not do some research on what the Aussies in your little oil war, the SAS carted Saddam's boys, our SAS also train pomme SAS too.

also Our fighters managed not to bomb any civilian targets although they flew a number of sorties against Iraqi military positions.

our defence budget is around 15 billion AUD or about 12 billion USD, we also went head to head with the TNI and TNI trained stooges in east timor WITHOUT US or Pommes guns.

I might not like Aus following the US into oil wars, but its a pretty gutless person who insults the Australians for courage.

The australian public has raised about 60 million so far.

by population AUs has a population of around 20 million, the US around 300 million.

The US spends about our entire GDP on Defence and security alone (about 800 billion AUD or 600 billion USD)

As for Vietnam, the US was still winning until we pulled out :D, we went, you got your buts kicked.

As for real men, why not do some research on what the Aussies in your little oil war, the SAS carted Saddam's boys, our SAS also train pomme SAS too.

also Our fighters managed not to bomb any civilian targets although they flew a number of sorties against Iraqi military positions.

our defence budget is around 15 billion AUD or about 12 billion USD, we also went head to head with the TNI and TNI trained stooges in east timor WITHOUT US or Pommes guns.

I might not like Aus following the US into oil wars, but its a pretty gutless person who insults the Australians for courage.

'ere 'ere!

...
I might not like Aus following the US into oil wars, but its a pretty gutless person who insults the Australians for courage.ignore them...they are just jealous

Australia's billion dollars includes short term grants and long term LOANS. Australia has ambitions as a regional power and its generosity partly serves political and economic ends--prestige, influence, business--although it is among the more generous donor nations as well.

Several countries have offered a moratorium on debt repayments (this would cost Canada $1 BILLION Canadian) but India, Indonesia, and I think, Thailand, have refused because this would affect their credit ratings. (Like credit cards, unpaid interest counts against you as a liability.)

The $80 million Canadian donation is open-ended matching funds--if Canadians donate $200 million, the Government has promised to match it and so forth.

In any case, the total foreign aid given by private and public donors per capita, per day is

19 cents U.S. funds (Canada);
18 cents U.S. funds (U.S.);
16 cents U.S. funds (Australia).
$1.26 U.S. funds (Norway)--number one.

These figures are compiled by the Centre for Global Development in its Commitment to Development Index 2004. Foreign Policy magazine started publishing an annual issue on this subject a couple years ago.

You can find the data here:
http://www.cgdev.org/ http://www.cgdev.org/rankingtherich/home.html
http://www.cgdev.org/Publications/index.cfm?PubID=187

And a lovely graphic of the spare change that us generous first worlders give as a pdf file here:

http://www.cgdev.org/docs/U.S.%20aid,%20global%20povery,%20earthquake.pdf

U.S. Foreign Aid generosity--that's one Starbucks coffee per month per capita--individuals, charities, governments, everything. :headbang:

*Military aid not included. Most of that goes to Israel any way, which is not a third world nation but would be without the U.S., assuming it survived the week.

Ask an American what the U.S. gives, and they will guesstimate 10% of GDP, and say that 5% would be plenty. Most of us would probably say the same, whatever rich country we live in.

It is actually closer to one tenth of one percent (off the top of my head, 0.19 percent). Canada is at 0.28 percent of GDP (2003 or so). The Rome Club goal for rich nations is 0.7 percent (7/10ths of one percent), but only a couple of small rich European nations meet or exceed that goal.

The U.S. is a real trooper on two measures of commitment to development, however: immigration and trade. It is relatively open to both, although post 9/11 security has hurt both. Still, all of those Indians not getting into the U.S. are still better off because of the U.S.--they exported 900,000 jobs to India through outsourcing.

Hurrah! Now would-be telemarketeers don't even have to leave home in Uttar Pradesh!

Norway is very protectionist of its agriculture, although in all fairness, it hasn't got much of a growing season!

Want to double your foreign aid? $100 will do it. Give 'til it hurts.

Or don't. You might be able to do as much good by buying fair trade coffee and tea. Poverty, not earthquakes, is the real problem, and it is a long, long term problem.

Still, kudos to everybody who is turning this in a charity bidding war! Beats the Hades out of an old war, not even a cold war.

Give yourself a pat on the back for even caring. Quite a few people don't.

Because many people aren't donating on their own. Hey, call me a jerk but I'd like to make them donate.

You want to be a theif, not a jerk.

The amount I can give isn't anywhere near what the whole country can.

Whats the point of that statement? Go out and convince others to give their money, don't force them to do it with taxes.

You want to be a theif, not a jerk.

For a cause like this, I can live with that. Robin Hood was pretty cool.

Whats the point of that statement? Go out and convince others to give their money, don't force them to do it with taxes.

No matter how hard I try, I wouldn't be able to reach the entire population. Even if I could, I couldn't convince them all to donate.

For a cause like this, I can live with that. Robin Hood was pretty cool.

Robin Hood stole from theives and gave money back to the people who had their money taken away. You want to be the Sherrif, not Robin Hood. You are proposing to take peoples money, not given them their money back.

No matter how hard I try, I wouldn't be able to reach the entire population. Even if I could, I couldn't convince them all to donate.

So? That makes it right for you take their money and spend it in a way they don't want to? Sorry, no.

Robin Hood stole from theives and gave money back to the people who had their money taken away. You want to be the Sherrif, not Robin Hood. You are proposing to take peoples money, not given them their money back.

Well, I was referring to the taking from the rich and giving to the poor. If you really want to argue semantics, the Sheriff didn't exactly take the money for the purpose of helping the needy.

So? That makes it right for you take their money and spend it in a way they don't want to? Sorry, no.

Would anyone really have a problem with giving $20 to the people who lost their homes and livelihoods? I think the reason not everyone's given is because nobody's asked them. Is there anyone that would truly not want to help these people?

Because many people aren't donating on their own. Hey, call me a jerk but I'd like to make them donate.

I voted,
I pay taxes,
My government has donated,
hence I have donated.

Does anyone know of a site or forum (or something!) that is keeping track of the tsunami aid fund?

I would really like to see the amount put forward by governments and citizens more or less done in real time.

Amounts given to individual aid groups would be great too.

I voted,
I pay taxes,
My government has donated,
hence I have donated.

This is true. Scandinavian countries have high taxes but a lot of those taxes are put into foreign aid.

Well, I was referring to the taking from the rich and giving to the poor. If you really want to argue semantics, the Sheriff didn't exactly take the money for the purpose of helping the needy.

He is the character you would most resemble in the story you decided to bring up.

Would anyone really have a problem with giving $20 to the people who lost their homes and livelihoods? I think the reason not everyone's given is because nobody's asked them. Is there anyone that would truly not want to help these people?

Yes there are people who would have a problem, and you do not have the right to assume they wouldn't have a problem with it. Besides what about the people who have given of their own free-will. Going to raise their taxes and force them to give more?

Yes there are people who would have a problem, and you do not have the right to assume they wouldn't have a problem with it. Besides what about the people who have given of their own free-will. Going to raise their taxes and force them to give more?

Ok, why would those people have a problem? Can't they afford a few dollars to help those who have lost everything? Are they morally opposed to it? The money the government is giving already came from taxes. Do they have a problem with what we're already giving as well?

The people who have already given are apparently in support of donating to the aid. Is it going to ruin them to give a few more dollars?

Look, I think you're overreacting a little about this all. I'm not suggesting we all give a month's salary to the aid. If every citizen paid just a $3 tax one time we could more than double Canada's contribution. What's that, the price of a coffee and a donut? If we each gave $20 we'd be adding around $600 million more to our contribution.

Ok, why would those people have a problem? Can't they afford a few dollars to help those who have lost everything? Are they morally opposed to it? The money the government is giving already came from taxes. Do they have a problem with what we're already giving as well?

The people who have already given are apparently in support of donating to the aid. Is it going to ruin them to give a few more dollars?

Look, I think you're overreacting a little about this all. I'm not suggesting we all give a month's salary to the aid. If every citizen paid just a $3 tax one time we could more than double Canada's contribution. What's that, the price of a coffee and a donut? If we each gave $20 we'd be adding around $600 million more to our contribution.

Well hey, if its allright to do it this once, why not make it permeanent every year and give that much money every year? Why not extend it to multiple practices? Why not make it a percentage of everyone's salary instead of a set number? Why not force every person to give 1% of their salary as taxes to the third world? Nevermind that a lot of that money when given to teh government will file through burrecaries that spread the money around.. cause hey you need to hire and pay people to keep track of the money, to make sure it goes to the right spot etc.. etc..

The government is the most inefficent system in the world, feeding it more is like putting 5 donuts infront of a hungry man and telling him to give them all to someone 100 miles away but also telling him that that person thinks they're only getting one. You think that person will get all five donuts or will a few of them "get lost" during the trip?

Tiny?

You dont live in Brunei, last time I checked Austy was 1/3 the size of the US.


Our population is 20 million. The US population is 300 million (or close enough)

We are quite small by comparison.

Australia's billion dollars includes short term grants and long term LOANS. Australia has ambitions as a regional power and its generosity partly serves political and economic ends--prestige, influence, business--although it is among the more generous donor nations as well.


That's very true. I would rather if my country acted selfless and gave the money, but you can't expect everything I suppose. Nearly all other countries are doing the same though...

Well hey, if its allright to do it this once, why not make it permeanent every year and give that much money every year? Why not extend it to multiple practices? Why not make it a percentage of everyone's salary instead of a set number? Why not force every person to give 1% of their salary as taxes to the third world?

Sounds good to me! Let's see, I'm not sure of the numbers but let's say there's 15 million Canadians (half of the population) in the work force and we'll say the average salary is around $40,000. 1% of that would be... 6 billion dollars. Imagine what could be accomplished with that every year.

Now, on the other end, the average person would be giving away $400 of their pay. Now, some people may be budgeting to get by but a price of $1 per day probably won't kill anyone.

Nevermind that a lot of that money when given to teh government will file through burrecaries that spread the money around.. cause hey you need to hire and pay people to keep track of the money, to make sure it goes to the right spot etc.. etc..

The government is the most inefficent system in the world, feeding it more is like putting 5 donuts infront of a hungry man and telling him to give them all to someone 100 miles away but also telling him that that person thinks they're only getting one. You think that person will get all five donuts or will a few of them "get lost" during the trip?

Which would be the same for any charity organization, but still, how much of 6 billion would really be lost along the way? One percent? One tenth of a percent? Even less?

Government, however, is held accountable for its spending. It reports how money is being spent and this info can be found by anyone. If a lot of the money destined for international aid goes missing, chances are someone will find out.

Sounds good to me! Let's see, I'm not sure of the numbers but let's say there's 15 million Canadians (half of the population) in the work force and we'll say the average salary is around $40,000. 1% of that would be... 6 billion dollars. Imagine what could be accomplished with that every year.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Now, on the other end, the average person would be giving away $400 of their pay. Now, some people may be budgeting to get by but a price of $1 per day probably won't kill anyone.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Which would be the same for any charity organization, but still, how much of 6 billion would really be lost along the way? One percent? One tenth of a percent? Even less?

Try considerably closer to 50% than to 1% when it comes to the government.

Government, however, is held accountable for its spending. It reports how money is being spent and this info can be found by anyone. If a lot of the money destined for international aid goes missing, chances are someone will find out.

If the American government were held accountable for its spending it would be declared bankrupt and sold off at auction to those it owes money to. The government is not held accountable for anything but which it allows it self to be held accountable for, and its spending habits aren't among them.

Sheesh, this thread went right off the rails right from the start didn't it... :)
So the Australian Government has decided to give 1 billion dollars in aid to Indonesia over 5 years...thats great news, I don't see why people had to start comparing every Governments contributions. As an Australian I can say that I'm extremely proud that our Government has taken this course, however I'm even prouder of the Australian people themselves and the ammounts they are personally giving up to help. Did our Government have political interests at heart when handing over this money??? Of course they did, but then thats part of being a Government. We elected them and they will do what they think is in the best interests of their country, their citizens, and their region.....and themselves ;) I really can't understand what all the fuss is about, just give what you think you can, if its in your heart to do so. As for all those that think the U.S. is inherently evil.....get over it, thats another discussion for another time. Anyways, my heart goes out to anyone involved in this tragedy. On a somewhat lighter note, if you want to have a competition on whos donating the most, perhaps you can take a page out of Michael Schumachers book and donate 14 million. :eek:

[QUOTE=Salvondia] Why not make it a percentage of everyone's salary instead of a set number? Why not force every person to give 1% of their salary as taxes to the third world? Nevermind that a lot of that money when given to teh government will file through burrecaries that spread the money around.. [QUOTE]

Now you've got the idea!! Still needs some improvement though. I'd say that the average amount should be 1-2% however it should be graduated like income taxes. After all, those who benefit to a greater extent in society have a greater responsibility to that society, n'est pas? Since the government beaurocracies are already extant, with a physical infrastructure it would probably be a lot more efficient to use them since than to construct a whole new parallel institution.

Oh, and introduce restrictions like, the money sent to aid the country of, say, Afghregastan (economy imploded) can only be spent on industries within Afghregastan thereby stimulating the growth of public infrastructure. None of that garbage USAID pulls off where all the 'donated' money goes straight back to US corporations allowing them to dump produce and acting like corporate welfare.

So, I agree, it's a good idea.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:



:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Heh, well the double-triple headbang just can't be responded to so I guess I'll wrap this up now. I apologize for using math, I'll try harder next time.

Try considerably closer to 50% than to 1% when it comes to the government.

When the money is collected in a seperate tax with one destination? Well, ok.

If the American government were held accountable for its spending it would be declared bankrupt and sold off at auction to those it owes money to. The government is not held accountable for anything but which it allows it self to be held accountable for, and its spending habits aren't among them.

Psst, I've been talking about Canada.

Now you've got the idea!! Still needs some improvement though. I'd say that the average amount should be 1-2% however it should be graduated like income taxes. After all, those who benefit to a greater extent in society have a greater responsibility to that society

No.

Since the government beaurocracies are already extant, with a physical infrastructure it would probably be a lot more efficient to use them since than to construct a whole new parallel institution.

Right, because we trust something that has no need to be efficent, has already proven itself to be bloated to somehow miraciously become efficent now? Bullshit.

Oh, and introduce restrictions like, the money sent to aid the country of, say, Afghregastan (economy imploded) can only be spent on industries within Afghregastan thereby stimulating the growth of public infrastructure. None of that garbage USAID pulls off where all the 'donated' money goes straight back to US corporations allowing them to dump produce and acting like corporate welfare.

Yes restrictions like that should exist. Though what the corporations were doing was donating things and taking it as a tax write off. Not donating money and getting it back.

Heh, well the double-triple headbang just can't be responded to so I guess I'll wrap this up now. I apologize for using math, I'll try harder next time.

It has nothing to do with math you insolent *censored by myself*. It has to do with the inherent horror of someone who would be willing to write off 1% of everyone's salary and give it away to the government and trust them with it. And next hey why not given the government all of your salary because obviously they know how to spend it better than you do.

When the money is collected in a seperate tax with one destination? Well, ok.

What, South-east asia is one destination? I didn't know that... how do you distribute the money? How do you count it? How do you file it? How much do you decide to give to X company, X country, X county, X city. How do you insure it goes to the right people? How do you protect those people? How do you X, X and X. I trust private charities to do those tasks a lot more than I trust a faceless government employee.

Psst, I've been talking about Canada.

Natuarlly, and I've been talking about America. I assue you Canada would likely run into large problems as well if it ever had to go through an independent audit.

It has nothing to do with math you insolent *censored by myself*.

Ok, first of all, settle down. Really, if you can't handle people disagreeing with your views this forum is going to give you a stroke.

It has to do with the inherent horror of someone who would be willing to write off 1% of everyone's salary and give it away to the government and trust them with it.

How would this be any different than the rest of the tax money the government takes? If you can't trust the government with this, what can you trust it with?

And next hey why not given the government all of your salary because obviously they know how to spend it better than you do.

Why yes, I am economically left-leaning. I don't automatically assume you want to abolish all government control, have some respect here.

What, South-east asia is one destination? I didn't know that... how do you distribute the money? How do you count it? How do you file it? How much do you decide to give to X company, X country, X county, X city. How do you insure it goes to the right people? How do you protect those people? How do you X, X and X. I trust private charities to do those tasks a lot more than I trust a faceless government employee.

By 'one destination' I meant the aid fund. Since when are government employees faceless?

I think we've reached the end of the road here. Basically, you don't trust the government to do this and I do. No amount of discussion is going to change that.

I'm thrilled that people are giving. Individual funds, governments, whatever. I think the point is that people are extending their hearts, accompanied by their hands, to those in need. Brav.





:fluffle:

Ok, first of all, settle down. Really, if you can't handle people disagreeing with your views this forum is going to give you a stroke.

Disagreeing about views is one thing. Your reply was nothing but an insult so don't bother with trying to act mature about it.

How would this be any different than the rest of the tax money the government takes? If you can't trust the government with this, what can you trust it with?

As little as you possibly can.

Why yes, I am economically left-leaning. I don't automatically assume you want to abolish all government control, have some respect here.

There is nothing to assume about you. You have made your viewpoint very clear. "I don't care how they want to spend their money, I know better and therefor I should get to spend it for them." That is a summary of your standpoint. Whether you wish to spend 1% of their money or 100% makes no difference.

By 'one destination' I meant the aid fund. Since when are government employees faceless?

Government employees are generally assigned their jobs. Those who work for a charity desired to help people. Government employees are massive in number and can quite easily hide in the woodwork while taking bribes and sending money where it shouldn't go. Much more accountability exists inside private charities. Simply put, no government is efficient. None. They should not be trusted with something like charity because you do is send the money through more people than you would otherwise and the people who send it to have less of a desire to get it to where it should go.

I think we've reached the end of the road here. Basically, you don't trust the government to do this and I do. No amount of discussion is going to change that.

You've summed the viewpoints up wrong. You wish to spend other peoples money while I wish to let them spend it how they wish.

How much did America give?

ok just saw, 429million. Now I see what the UN meant. If our tiny country gives more than America thats just sad.
The president has only so much authorization, but one congress convenes I have no doubt we will end up giving well over any other country.

Tiny?

You dont live in Brunei, last time I checked Austy was 1/3 the size of the US.

I love your location, Not America. Thats so original. I wish I could be as cool as you. Too bad I live in America, I cant write that. :rolleyes:WHAT? 1/3?
Australia is roughly equivalent in land size to america, if not in population.

Disagreeing about views is one thing. Your reply was nothing but an insult so don't bother with trying to act mature about it.

I was replying to a line of smily faces smashing themselves into walls. I'm sorry that I couldn't respond to that with an argument, my response was meant to be light-hearted. Maybe next time you could use words to express what you disagree with.

There is nothing to assume about you. You have made your viewpoint very clear. "I don't care how they want to spend their money, I know better and therefor I should get to spend it for them." That is a summary of your standpoint. Whether you wish to spend 1% of their money or 100% makes no difference.

Actually, my stance on this is that people are inherently lazy and as a group accomplish more when the first step is taken for them. I don't think I know how to spend their money better than they do, but I do know how I'd like them to spend a very small portion of their money.

Government employees are generally assigned their jobs.

What? Maybe in America, things might be done like that there. As having been a government employee for the past eight months I can assure you that's not how things are generally done here.

You've summed the viewpoints up wrong. You wish to spend other peoples money while I wish to let them spend it how they wish.

Well, I can base my theory of your distrust of government on the following sections of just this last reply:

How would this be any different than the rest of the tax money the government takes? If you can't trust the government with this, what can you trust it with?

As little as you possibly can.

Government employees are generally assigned their jobs. Those who work for a charity desired to help people. Government employees are massive in number and can quite easily hide in the woodwork while taking bribes and sending money where it shouldn't go. Much more accountability exists inside private charities. Simply put, no government is efficient. None. They should not be trusted with something like charity because you do is send the money through more people than you would otherwise and the people who send it to have less of a desire to get it to where it should go.

I was replying to a line of smily faces smashing themselves into walls. I'm sorry that I couldn't respond to that with an argument, my response was meant to be light-hearted. Maybe next time you could use words to express what you disagree with.

Perhaps next time you can simply ask "er, what does that mean?"

Actually, my stance on this is that people are inherently lazy and as a group accomplish more when the first step is taken for them. I don't think I know how to spend their money better than they do, but I do know how I'd like them to spend a very small portion of their money.

Yes, you feel you know how people should spend their money, and feeling perfectly good about forcing that on them. That’s wrong. Whether it is one Japanese yen or their entire salary.

What? Maybe in America, things might be done like that there. As having been a government employee for the past eight months I can assure you that's not how things are generally done here.

Your work load is determined by others and most government middle men never see the results of their labor and thusly don't get associated with it. That also happens in corporations. In corporations the people in charge have an incentive to stop it. In the government there is no such incentive.

Well, I can base my theory of your distrust of government on the following sections of just this last reply:

You have no need to create a theory seeing as I told you exactly why. when I went ahead and said: They should not be trusted with something like charity because you do is send the money through more people than you would otherwise and the people who send it to have less of a desire to get it to where it should go.

There is a reason why in Africa foreign government aide workers live in their compounds, drive their SUVs, get their satellite TV and live much higher on the hog than they ever possibly could back at home.

Never mind that my point has always been people should get to spend their money as they wish as opposed to creating a tax and forcing it to spend it some pre-determined way that was nothing to do with their own country. The government could be the model of efficiency and I would still protest.

(snip)


Haha, well it looks like this wouldn't be going anywhere from this point so I'm going to call it a night.

I really wasn't meaning to be insulting a few posts back, sorry if you took it that way.

One more comment before I go, the government workers really get more flak than they deserve. Since the summer I've been working on an education system project and the people there have all been incredibly committed to the task. Some of them didn't take a day off for weeks, others sometimes worked the entire night through to morning then took a nap and got back to work.

Nice talking with you.

Yeah but even with all this generous giving one major thing cannot be over looked about Australia.

It is sadly full of Australians :(

WHAT? 1/3?
Australia is roughly equivalent in land size to america, if not in population.

HA! We have 20,000,000
you have 300,000,000

People should give what they can. Whenever I leave a store, I give all my bum change, even notes if I'm feeling generous, but I give.