NationStates Jolt Archive

The U.S. government is the world’s largest foreign aid donor, contributing economic assistance to more than 150 countries. The United States is also the largest national source of humanitarian and emergency relief aid. Before the U.S. government provides foreign nations with nearly as much development aid and humanitarian assistance as did France, Germany, and Great Britain combined v-- $45 *B*illion in 2004.

Private giving, donations and investments by private US citizens and entities to developing countires -- $71 billion in 2004.

So, keep giving America shit. Call France next time there is a tsunami or some lunatic invades and plunders a neighbor.

America may donate the largest absolute amount, but it's relatively stingy when you measure it as a percentage of its GDP, IIRC. It'd be like a lower-middle class person donating $100 to charity, and an upper-classer donating $1000 -- sure, the rich person gave more, but they could afford to give much more in comparison to the other guy.

Charity isn't that important, anyway -- we should really be focusing on helping poor nations to become more stable and self-sufficient, economically speaking.

...gets popcorn and soda...kicks back to enjoy the warmth of the flames...:eek:

America may donate the largest absolute amount, but its relatively stingy when you measure it as a percentage of its GDP, IIRC. It'd be like a lower-middle class person donating $100 to charity, and an upper-classer donating $1000 -- sure, the rich person gave more, but they could afford to give much more in comparison to the other guy.

Wouldn't it be better to keep those billions home? Dude, look out the window -- you live in Alabama.

the U.S. government provides foreign nations with nearly as much development aid and humanitarian assistance as did France, Germany, and Great Britain combined v-- $45 *B*illion in 2004.

next question, what is the combined population of france, germany, and ye olde uk?

investments by private US citizens and entities to developing countires...

so now we're counting sweatshops and land grabs as humanitarian aid?

Wouldn't it be better to keep those billions home? Dude, look out the window -- you live in Alabama.
Not surprisingly, that's a pretty short-sighted attitude to take. Didn't you learn anything from 9/11? When you have failed states, they tend to cause problems down the road.

The U.S. government is the world’s largest foreign aid donor, contributing economic assistance to more than 150 countries. The United States is also the largest national source of humanitarian and emergency relief aid. Before the U.S. government provides foreign nations with nearly as much development aid and humanitarian assistance as did France, Germany, and Great Britain combined v-- $45 *B*illion in 2004.

Private giving, donations and investments by private US citizens and entities to developing countires -- $71 billion in 2004.

So, keep giving America shit. Call France next time there is a tsunami or some lunatic invades and plunders a neighbor.

You need to realize that as annoying as the "I hate America, America is teh ebil, America has no culture/civilization/anything" threads and comments are, they're mostly just hot air. Take a deep breath and count to some number. And the constant "Try calling France the next time" line is getting a bit threadbare. Oh, and I think we were the last lunatics who invaded and plundered anyone, so I wouldn't use that one, either.

Wouldn't it be better to keep those billions home? Dude, look out the window -- you live in Alabama.
Alabammy's in the crapper mainly because of the state constitution. Consider:

* It's the longest constitution in the world (360,000 words, 772 amendments)
* It still contains racist sentiments
* Its tax provisions heavily favor large industries and place most of the burden on the poor
* It has no home-rule policy; whenever a county wants to pass a local law, every county in the state must vote on it as an amendment to the state constitution

For more gems like these, just take a look at the Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_constitution) about it. I especially love the whole "loony laws" section. ("The legislature shall pass such penal laws as it may deem expedient to suppress the evil practice of dueling"? WTF?)

You need to realize that as annoying as the "I hate America, America is teh ebil, America has no culture/civilization/anything" threads and comments are, they're mostly just hot air. Take a deep breath and count to some number. And the constant "Try calling France the next time" line is getting a bit threadbare. Oh, and I think we were the last lunatics who invaded and plundered anyone, so I wouldn't use that one, either.

They are hot air, and America liberals like you have to realize that self-hatred is hatred too.

...gets popcorn and soda...kicks back to enjoy the warmth of the flames...:eek:

I do love an open fire, or firing squad. Whichever.

They are hot air, and America liberals like you have to realize that self-hatred is hatred too.

On what basis are you stereotyping him or her as liberal?

They are hot air, and America liberals like you have to realize that self-hatred is hatred too.

All I can say is:

http://www.angloshpear.com/discus/messages/763/23890.jpg

Alabammy's in the crapper mainly because of the state constitution. Consider:

* It's the longest constitution in the world (360,000 words, 772 amendments)
* It still contains racist sentiments
* Its tax provisions heavily favor large industries and place most of the burden on the poor
* It has no home-rule policy; whenever a county wants to pass a local law, every county in the state must vote on it as an amendment to the state constitution

For more gems like these, just take a look at the Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_constitution) about it. I especially love the whole "loony laws" section. ("The legislature shall pass such penal laws as it may deem expedient to suppress the evil practice of dueling"? WTF?)

I think they should suppress dueling. I mean, you have enough trouble in Alabama without people throwing gauntlets all over the place.

The U.S. government is the world’s largest foreign aid donor, contributing economic assistance to more than 150 countries. The United States is also the largest national source of humanitarian and emergency relief aid. Before the U.S. government provides foreign nations with nearly as much development aid and humanitarian assistance as did France, Germany, and Great Britain combined v-- $45 *B*illion in 2004.

Private giving, donations and investments by private US citizens and entities to developing countires -- $71 billion in 2004.

So, keep giving America shit. Call France next time there is a tsunami or some lunatic invades and plunders a neighbor.Now, let's take a quick look at this:
GDP
United States: $ 12,310,000,000,000
Germany: $ 2,480,000,000,000
United Kingdom: $ 1,818,000,000,000
France: $ 1,794,000,000,000
(Source: CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html))

So, the United States doesn't give as much as Germany, France, and the UK combined, according to your unlinked source, while these states combined have less than half the GDP the USA does. The EU actually has a comparable GDP to the USA, but if three of its most important members already beat the US contribution, that doesn't say much for the US.
The fact that private donations are higher than national donations should is shameful.

Yeah, the United States deserves being called stingy, and that's not considering the actual benefit of the money spent. The Scandinavian countries have much better programs that take a better look at the needs and where the money was spent than any other nations in this world, so any investment they make is usually much more efficient, and not just throwing money at a problem.

They are hot air, and America liberals like you have to realize that self-hatred is hatred too.

No, no, nice try. I don't hate my country, I love my country. I've probably lived in longer than you, having been born in the Truman Administration. I think the United States is by far and away one of the best places on Earth. I do not think that the direction the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress have taken us is the way to go. We are mired in a senseless, useless war, the only excuse remaining for which is, "Our intelligence was so bad we couldn't make a correct decision." Many of the countries who stood beside us on September 12th have turned away because of president Bush's "you're either with us or against us" attitude that brooks no discussion and no possibility of admitting an error.

No, sorry, calling me a liberal and saying I hate my country won't work. I am proud to be a liberal and I love my country. I want to see my country stand for more than war and the diminution of civil rights, for peace and what is good in the world. At the same time, I have no problem with going after countries or organizations that inflict casualties and damage on our property or our citizens, but that in a rational, sane manner, not the way an angry child would.

personally...i think america should just cut the crap with the whole humanitarian thing...if they were really humanitarian...they should pull bacvj some of that money to improve america...once living standards inprove in their own country then they can help whoever the hell they want...thats the problem with most high developed countries...they focus too much on trying to make other countries think that they are better than evryone else by giving aid here...and giving aid there...when they should really focus on improving the conditions for their own people first...once they do that...other countries will respect for that and not by how much they give out to underdeveloped countries

Now, let's take a quick look at this:
GDP
United States: $ 12,310,000,000,000
Germany: $ 2,480,000,000,000
United Kingdom: $ 1,818,000,000,000
France: $ 1,794,000,000,000
(Source: CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html))

So, the United States doesn't give as much as Germany, France, and the UK combined, according to your unlinked source, while these states combined have less than half the GDP the USA does. The EU actually has a comparable GDP to the USA, but if three of its most important members already beat the US contribution, that doesn't say much for the US.
The fact that private donations are higher than national donations should is shameful.

Yeah, the United States deserves being called stingy, and that's not considering the actual benefit of the money spent. The Scandinavian countries have much better programs that take a better look at the needs and where the money was spent than any other nations in this world, so any investment they make is usually much more efficient, and not just throwing money at a problem.
Shame on you, introducing facts into a debaate like this. ;)

The U.S. government is the world’s largest foreign aid donor, contributing economic assistance to more than 150 countries. The United States is also the largest national source of humanitarian and emergency relief aid. Before the U.S. government provides foreign nations with nearly as much development aid and humanitarian assistance as did France, Germany, and Great Britain combined v-- $45 *B*illion in 2004.

How much of that aid is tied into development packages that force developing countries into adopting liberal trade policies? Or force them to give up sovereignty on national resources? Foreign aid is a far more complicated process than simply handing a big wad of cash to some 3rd world potentiate. Most of the time, it comes with strings attached.

Alabammy's in the crapper mainly because of the state constitution. Consider:

* It's the longest constitution in the world (360,000 words, 772 amendments)
* It still contains racist sentiments
* Its tax provisions heavily favor large industries and place most of the burden on the poor
* It has no home-rule policy; whenever a county wants to pass a local law, every county in the state must vote on it as an amendment to the state constitution

For more gems like these, just take a look at the Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_constitution) about it. I especially love the whole "loony laws" section. ("The legislature shall pass such penal laws as it may deem expedient to suppress the evil practice of dueling"? WTF?)

well.....having been involved in some local government, I'll comment on that..

Home rule can be idiotic, and I'm not so sure Alabama would be any exception. All sorts of time, effort and money can be spent chasing stupid laws that experience in other part of the state may have shown to be non-productive. there is a thread here somewhere about a town in Nevade that passed a law about flying Mexican and US flags, some crap like that. All sorts of heat and no light. And town attorneys and planners, etc, are not financially benefitted by staring at the wall and not drafting new laws, so there is a viscious circle there.

At the state level, you obviously don't want dumb laws to stay on the books, but again, the expense, time and effort to constantly have a bunch of legislators' and lawyers' fingers up in the air to catch the latest politcal correct breeze is daunting.

Tax burdens I don't know about, but I'm a flat tax advocate. And the states that heavily tax industry find it has an interesting effect on companies -- they leave. Creating poor unemployed people...who generate more need for government social programs....which raises the tax burden...which means citizens have to pay more taxes...

The way many states address that circle is...you guessed it...trying to attract companies and jobs with tax credits...

Wouldn't it be better to keep those billions home? Dude, look out the window -- you live in Alabama.

Wow, you're pretty ignorant. Alabama isn't the same place it was 20, or even 10, years ago. Every been to Huntsville? Heck, in the past few years even Mobile and parts of Birmingham have become passable. Montgomery is still a hell-hole, but, meh, it's Mongomery...

On a per capita basis most Euro countries give more than the USA. It would probably be better if you took the total aid given by the entire Eurozone and compare that to the USA. Even though, if you did this, it'd probably be a bit lower than the USA's considering the poor EU countries are basically receiving aid from the rich ones. But if you look at it that way, aid given to Greece, Portugal, and Eastern European countries are probably not counted as aid and therefore lower the total aid given by the rich countries.

To sum it up: you're silly.

Shame on you, introducing facts into a debaate like this. ;)Ach, I don't have much time to debate them anyway, as I have a paper on the sorry state of pesticide regulation to write. Plus, the post will probably be ignored by those who don't want to see the importance of their own delusions diminished ;)

On what basis are you stereotyping him or her as liberal?

Unerring instinct. Note he just answered " I am proud to be a liberal ."

heh....:cool:

EDIT: Laerod beat me to it while I was busy Googling.Well, just correct it now...

Unerring instinct. Note he just answered " I am proud to be a liberal ."

heh....:cool:

Well after you classified him as such
Nothing in his statement was of a liberal ideology. Just goes to show you are going to clasify anyone as "liberal" that does not agree with you

It is becoming as bad as a godwin nowadays.

Well, just correct it now...

You did a better job than me anyway, I think I'll just delete the post.

You did a better job than me anyway, I think I'll just delete the post.I did use a calculator too :p

Wow, you're pretty ignorant. Alabama isn't the same place it was 20, or even 10, years ago. Every been to Huntsville?

I have been! As long as the US taxpayer and the Army keep Redstone Arsenal and the Marshall Space Center open, Huntsville will look economically healthy.

As long As Richard Shelby (who I've broken bread with many times) sits on the Senate Appropriation Defense Subcommittee, Huntsville will be fine.

Unerring instinct. Note he just answered " I am proud to be a liberal ."

heh....:cool:

She did, didn't she? :cool: See, you think you insult me by calling me a liberal. That would be like Glorious Freedonia trying to make me cry by calling a Feminist (or Feministy, which I rather like).

Your problem, my friend, is that you think the world is all black and white. It isn't. Not only are there shades of gray, there are colors, too. Not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy.

I read somewhere that some of President Bush's "you us or against us" outlook may come from his being a recovering alcoholic (a very commendable thing). Folks who have been htrough that, I'm told, tend to see the world in absolutes. Ambiguity isn't good for them because it opens up avenues to taking a drink, something they should never do.

Anyway, greetings from Liberal America! ;)

I have been! As long as the US taxpayer and the Army keep Redstone Arsenal and the Marshall Space Center open, Huntsville will look economically healthy.

As long As Richard Shelby (who I've broken bread with many times) sits on the Senate Appropriation Defense Subcommittee, Huntsville will be fine.Funny. You haven't answered a single criticism of your original premise. Wonder why that is?

Well after you classified him as such
Nothing in his statement was of a liberal ideology. Just goes to show you are going to clasify anyone as "liberal" that does not agree with you


Ahhh...not really. I'm anti-gun, pro-choise, staunchly liberatarian (outside of some national defense issues in these days), and a bunch of other non-Conservative positions, so I don't think that's true.

Anyone that expresses visceral hatred of the US foreign policy (slash Bush)after 9-11 was a Republican hater way back.

The U.S. government is the world’s largest foreign aid donor, contributing economic assistance to more than 150 countries. The United States is also the largest national source of humanitarian and emergency relief aid. Before the U.S. government provides foreign nations with nearly as much development aid and humanitarian assistance as did France, Germany, and Great Britain combined v-- $45 *B*illion in 2004.

Private giving, donations and investments by private US citizens and entities to developing countires -- $71 billion in 2004.

So, keep giving America shit. Call France next time there is a tsunami or some lunatic invades and plunders a neighbor.


Thanks for posting this, but-for the people that know this to be true,it isnt necessary and they people that dont want to believe it-those slithering,do nothing turd gobblers-they will now start taking their petty pot-shots at you.
People that just talk from countries that just talk.

I read somewhere that some of President Bush's "you us or against us" outlook may come from his being a recovering alcoholic (a very commendable thing). Folks who have been htrough that, I'm told, tend to see the world in absolutes. Ambiguity isn't good for them because it opens up avenues to taking a drink, something they should never do.

Anyway, greetings from Liberal America! ;)

Interesting, I've sorted of noticed the last point too in recovering alcoholics. But mostly in substance abuse issues. I'm not sure it extends to politics.

Thanks for posting this, but-for the people that know this to be true,it isnt necessary and they people that dont want to believe it-those slithering,do nothing turd gobblers-they will now start taking their petty pot-shots at you.
People that just talk from countries that just talk.
Didn't read the rest of the thread, I see.

Interesting, I've sorted of noticed the last point too in recovering alcoholics. But mostly in substance abuse issues. I'm not sure it extends to politics.

Well, I can't recall where I read that, so I can't cite it verbatim. It seemed an interesting thought, though. One wonders whether having the President take a drink now and then might not be a bad thing. I believe it was Lincoln who said, "Show me a man with no vices and I'll show you a man with no virutes." Or something like that.

well.....having been involved in some local government, I'll comment on that..

Home rule can be idiotic, and I'm not so sure Alabama would be any exception. All sorts of time, effort and money can be spent chasing stupid laws that experience in other part of the state may have shown to be non-productive. there is a thread here somewhere about a town in Nevade that passed a law about flying Mexican and US flags, some crap like that. All sorts of heat and no light. And town attorneys and planners, etc, are not financially benefitted by staring at the wall and not drafting new laws, so there is a viscious circle there.

At the state level, you obviously don't want dumb laws to stay on the books, but again, the expense, time and effort to constantly have a bunch of legislators' and lawyers' fingers up in the air to catch the latest politcal correct breeze is daunting.

You basically just supported "home rule" even if you didn't intend to. It's better for one county to adopt a "dumb law" than it is for all of the counties to adopt that law.

Tax burdens I don't know about, but I'm a flat tax advocate. And the states that heavily tax industry find it has an interesting effect on companies -- they leave. Creating poor unemployed people...who generate more need for government social programs....which raises the tax burden...which means citizens have to pay more taxes...

The way many states address that circle is...you guessed it...trying to attract companies and jobs with tax credits...

First off, the tax system in Alabama is screwed up. The current governer tried to fix it, but for some reason everyone was convienced he was going to raise taxes. Here's a pretty good summary of the problem: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:-bIp2peHoc4J:www.itepnet.org/wp2000/al%2520pr.pdf+property+taxes+in+alabama&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6.

And there's one little flaw in your arguement: major industries don't employ that many people. Whenever a new factory from a major company is built(In Alabama examples can be found in the relatively new Toyota and Mercedes plants), only a few hundred people will go snatch up these very high paying job. What Alabama needs to do is hike up the taxes on the large companies and give large tax breaks to smaller local companies and retailers. Those are the companies that employ the largest section of the labor force.

Thanks for posting this, but-for the people that know this to be true,it isnt necessary and they people that dont want to believe it-those slithering,do nothing turd gobblers-they will now start taking their petty pot-shots at you.
People that just talk from countries that just talk.

People from France, Germany and Britain all have the right to take pot shots at the US, after all it has already been proven that all those countries give a much higher proportion of their GDP in foreign aid.

I guess you'll just call that pinko-liberal-commie mathmatics now though won't you?

Thanks for posting this, but-for the people that know this to be true,it isnt necessary and they people that dont want to believe it-those slithering,do nothing turd gobblers-People that just talk from countries that just talk.

The socialist country's answer to foriegn aid is always some version of percentage of GDP, since they tax their poor bastard citizens out the wazoo to fund a Big Brother government.

they will now start taking their petty pot-shots at you.

Pot and shots don't bother me. In fact, it was the theme of my 20s....:D

Well, I can't recall where I read that, so I can't cite it verbatim. It seemed an interesting thought, though. One wonders whether having the President take a drink now and then might not be a bad thing. I believe it was Lincoln who said, "Show me a man with no vices and I'll show you a man with no virutes." Or something like that.


Before some liberal jumps in to mention that Cheney had a beer before he shot that guy in the face, I'll throw it in :-)

Could someone please find me the numbers on the private donations to international relief efforts by France, Germany and the Unitd Kingdom? We already have the US' listed here and I have to get going to class and then work, it would save a lot of time in advancing this argument which will quickly spiral out of control if someone could get those for me while I am away. I don't know about the policies of the EU nations but in America the opinion is that private donations by Americans should count towards our total since it all comes from the same place in the end. Now, before people start flaming me I would like to say two things.

1.) The only developed nations meeting the requirements set forth by the United Nations are Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, every other nation is falling well short of the .7% of GDP the United Nations says should be given to developing nations. (I think, these are just off the top of my head, but the Scandinavian countries were mentioned as meet their quotas and I believe the line is .7% of GDP.)

2.) Where does the money go? Everyone is quick to throw examples out there of where US aid went into the wrong hands and our investments in developing nations allowed dictators to rise to power. It seems like these things always have a way of coming back to bite the West in the arse. Donating is good, but let's make sure we know where it is going first, it hardly helps if we just start sending a bunch of money over to whomever asks just to build up our numbers.

Just throwing this out there, but the United States pays for 25% of the UN's annual budget.

Before some liberal jumps in to mention that Cheney had a beer before he shot that guy in the face, I'll throw it in :-)

:p We did get some good jokes out of that one, admit it now.

For what it's worth, here's the amount of Official Development Aid (ODA) given by Western Countries in 2004 & 2005.
USA is the largest donor, it's true. However, it's still the smallest in terms of % of GNI (at a impressive 0.22%). The average is 0.42%.

Here's the largest donors (with the % of ODA/GNI), for 2005:
United States $27 457 (0.22%)
Japan $13 101 (0.28%)
United Kingdom $10 754 (0.48%)
France $10 059 (0.47%)
Germany $9 915 (0.35%)
Netherlands $5 131 (0.82%)
Italy $5 053 (0.29%)

Incidently, France, Germany, and Great Britain combined ODA = $30.728 Billion US, which is $3.271 Billion more than what the US gives - and this from 3 countries whose combined GNI is ~ half the USA's. Also, the EU gives out $55.704 Billion - slightly more than double the amount of the USA, and coincidently the EU's % ODA/GNI is double the USA's (0.44 vs 0.22).


Special mention should go to the Scandanavian countries:
Sweden $3 280 (0.92%)
Norway $2 775 (0.93%)
Denmark $2 107 (0.81%)
For their % contributions.

Figures in millions of $US, btw

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/27/36418598.pdf

I have been! As long as the US taxpayer and the Army keep Redstone Arsenal and the Marshall Space Center open, Huntsville will look economically healthy.

As long As Richard Shelby (who I've broken bread with many times) sits on the Senate Appropriation Defense Subcommittee, Huntsville will be fine.

First off, Shelby is a douche who's probably done Alabama more harm than good. Remember the goofy little stunts he pulled on Gore and Clinton? And it doesn't matter what he does; Huntsville over the years has built up a wonderful high-tech infrastructure and will remain attractive to companies for years to come, with or without Shelby.

And every year Redstone Arsenal and Marshall Space Flight Center are becoming less relevant to Huntsville's economy. Cummings Research Park is more important than those two combined.

oh please america isnt as stingy as you think on the tusmami in 2004 the goverment pleged about 900,000,000$ Yet the people gave over 2,000,000,000 dollars. if you do the amount given per population amercia gives i think like 900$ per person thats about seven times more then some countries in western europe and my source is a program I saw on a major tv station

...my source is a program is saw on a major tv stationIt shows.

my source is a program I saw on a major tv station

http://www.hjo3.net/orly/gal1/orly_bowie.jpg

ok i need to clarify something im not just talking about the Tsunami im talking about the total amount given by the entire country and i can't quite remember what the progam is i think it was like 60 mintues or dateline or something

America may donate the largest absolute amount, but its relatively stingy when you measure it as a percentage of its GDP, IIRC. It'd be like a lower-middle class person donating $100 to charity, and an upper-classer donating $1000 -- sure, the rich person gave more, but they could afford to give much more in comparison to the other guy.

Charity isn't that important, anyway -- we should really be focusing on helping poor nations to become more stable and self-sufficient, economically speaking.



you're right but the fact remains, many europeans have a higher standard of living than many americans. Higher HDI and what not, so its not like GDP is the sole reason the US donates more.

i agree that we should help smaller countries get on their feet economically, but didnt the G8 do that just last year? I thought they paid off the debt of like the 20 poorest countries.

For what it's worth, here's the amount of Official Development Aid (ODA) given by Western Countries in 2004 & 2005.

--snip--

Does any of that factor in PRIVATE donations, which I've noticed none of the attempted refutations have addressed?

you're right but the fact remains, many europeans have a higher standard of living than many americans. Higher HDI and what not, so its not like GDP is the sole reason the US donates more.

i agree that we should help smaller countries get on their feet economically, but didnt the G8 do that just last year? I thought they paid off the debt of like the 20 poorest countries.

Most Euro countries have lower HDI than the USA. http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/

1.) The only developed nations meeting the requirements set forth by the United Nations are Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, every other nation is falling well short of the .7% of GDP the United Nations says should be given to developing nations. (I think, these are just off the top of my head, but the Scandinavian countries were mentioned as meet their quotas and I believe the line is .7% of GDP.)

1. 0.7 not a requirement, it's a recommendation.

2. Not surprising that the 190 something UN members set a target for the 30 something developing countires, is it? Sort of like the Democrats voting for more entitlement programs in the US.

3. The developed counties include countries like Macau and Bermuda. Kicking in big time!

4. Not a developed country? Russia, China, all of South America, all of Africa, India....hmmm....what percentage of the world's popualtion am I tithing to?

6. The target data for the recommendation was 2015, not 2006.

7. Some countries pledged to meet it, I do not believe the US was one of them (I could be wrong on that).

Also, that:
Private giving, donations and investments by private US citizens and entities to developing countires -- $71 billion in 2004.
is very misleading, as it tallies all remittances (money sent home by foreign workers) in with it, which grossly exaggerates the generosity of Americans.

For example, in that year quoted (2004), remittances to Latin America totalled $45 Billion. Most of that would have come from the USA.

And of course, you have people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet donating billions of their money. Take those two out of the total, along with remittances and it isn't as impressive as it first looks.

Sure American people are very generous, but not as generous as the OP makes out.

The socialist country's answer to foriegn aid is always some version of percentage of GDP, since they tax their poor bastard citizens out the wazoo to fund a Big Brother government.I was right. You never intended to respond, troll.

actually the U.S. pays for 22 percent of The U.N. budget

Another issue with American 'donations' is that the strings that are attached can be very detrimental.

A perfect example is Aids charities. America will not allow funds to those NGO's who condone condom use.

actually the U.S. pays for 22 percent of The U.N. budget

Not relevant. We're talking about aid to countries, not who pays for some bureaucrat's hotel room.

if you divide the total amount given by the population the U.S. still gives the most, not mentioning the amount of time give by the average citizen

Does any of that factor in PRIVATE donations, which I've noticed none of the attempted refutations have addressed?
Doncha love how when the original argument has been exposed, they just immediately change tact without even a blink of an eye?
First it was US ODA donations pawn all, and when that failed it immediately becomes US private donations pawns all.

I also love how it's 'attempted' refutations.
Guess publishing data from the OECD website just isn't enough for some people to change their minds. Too many bricks in the way, I suppose.

actually the U.S. pays for 22 percent of The U.N. budget


LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/index.htm

so when is the US going to pay its arrears?

America may donate the largest absolute amount, but its relatively stingy when you measure it as a percentage of its GDP, IIRC. It'd be like a lower-middle class person donating $100 to charity, and an upper-classer donating $1000 -- sure, the rich person gave more, but they could afford to give much more in comparison to the other guy.

Charity isn't that important, anyway -- we should really be focusing on helping poor nations to become more stable and self-sufficient, economically speaking.

You're right. Let's quit giving billions of dollars in charity, because after all, that amount of money isn't important, the results of that money don't really make any difference.

Percent doesn't matter. It's the amount that's given. Otherwise, you're just making up excuses to underplay the significance of the actual act and amount.

You basically just supported "home rule" even if you didn't intend to. It's better for one county to adopt a "dumb law" than it is for all of the counties to adopt that law.

True! But the chance of dumb laws seem to be diluted by more input. (in very general human terms)

First off, the tax system in Alabama is screwed up. The current governer tried to fix it, but for some reason everyone was convienced he was going to raise taxes. Here's a pretty good summary of the problem: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:-bIp2peHoc4J:www.itepnet.org/wp2000/al%2520pr.pdf+property+taxes+in+alabama&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6.

I politley decline to chase that issue :-)

And there's one little flaw in your arguement: major industries don't employ that many people. Whenever a new factory from a major company is built(In Alabama examples can be found in the relatively new Toyota and Mercedes plants), only a few hundred people will go snatch up these very high paying job. What Alabama needs to do is hike up the taxes on the large companies and give large tax breaks to smaller local companies and retailers. Those are the companies that employ the largest section of the labor force.

I'm very uncomfortable with parsing out levels of taxation in a Big Brother fashion. Just to throw out one big counter-argument, large companies and their accountants are much, much better at dodging taxes than everyone else.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

some excerpts:

Recent increases [in foreign aid] do not tell the whole truth about rich countries’ generosity, or the lack of it. Measured as a proportion of gross national income (GNI), aid lags far behind the 0.7 percent target the United Nations set 35 years ago. Moreover, development assistance is often of dubious quality. In many cases,


Aid is primarily designed to serve the strategic and economic interests of the donor countries;
Or [aid is primarily designed] to benefit powerful domestic interest groups;
Aid systems based on the interests of donors instead of the needs of recipients’ make development assistance inefficient;
Too little aid reaches countries that most desperately need it; and,
All too often, aid is wasted on overpriced goods and services from donor countries.[/
QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show US aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than their government. Private aid/donation has been through charity of individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas—more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion at that time:


International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000


and In addition, as award-winning investigative reporter and author Greg Palast also notes, the World Trade Organization’s Trade-Related Intellectural Property Rights (TRIPS), “the rule which helps Gates rule, also bars African governments from buying AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis medicine at cheap market prices.” He also adds that it is killing more people than the philanthropy saving. What Palast is hinting towards is the unequal rules of trade and economics that are part of the world system, that has contributed to countries such as most in Africa being unable to address the scourge of AIDS and other problems, even when they want to.

A good site with lots of information.

So, to the OP, can you tell me what percentage of the government aid the US sends out each year is economic aid, how much is humanitarian, how much is economic, how much is tied, how much is real as opposed to phantom,etc.?

This link may also help:
http://www.devinit.org/realityofaid/

3. The developed counties include countries like Macau and Bermuda. Kicking in big time!

6. The target data for the recommendation was 2015, not 2006.
Macau has a per capita GDP of $22000US, so I think we can say it's developed.
It's also a very nice place to visit, incidently. The Portugese restaurants (especially Fernando's) are fantastic.

Actually the target date was originally sometime in the mid-70s. It was first agreed upon in 1970. They just keep pushing the date back when everyone (or nearly everyone) fails to meet it.
You are right though: It is NOW set to be 2015. 0.56% by 2010. And no doubt it will be pushed back when 2015 comes around and no-one's up to 0.7%.

Also, thats just the aid money. How many other countries sent over a Nimitz-Class carrier for the tsunami?

Another issue with American 'donations' is that the strings that are attached can be very detrimental.

A perfect example is Aids charities. America will not allow funds to those NGO's who condone condom use.

This is incorrect. They will not fund NGO's who condone abortions.

This is incorrect. They will not fund NGO's who condone abortions.

Nor will they provide AIDS relief to countries that do not penalise prostitution. IIRC, Brasil was one of the few countries that refused US AIDS $$ because they were having better luck working with sex workers than against them.

Imagine that. Instead of penalising the women most affected, Brasil wants them to help be part of the solution. Crazy.

Also, thats just the aid money. How many other countries sent over a Nimitz-Class carrier for the tsunami?
You're right, that changes everything.

You're right, that changes everything.

No, but im pointing out that the United States contributes more than just money.

This is incorrect. They will not fund NGO's who condone abortions.

That as well. However the US gov will not give aid money to NGO's that distribute condoms and also give information on birth control.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/3/gr080304.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7371950/an_epidemic_failure/

So, to the OP, can you tell me what percentage of the government aid the US sends out each year is economic aid, how much is humanitarian, how much is economic, how much is tied, how much is real as opposed to phantom,etc.?

No. You're right. It's all illusory and tainted. We should stop. Only pure European countries should give aid.

BTW, given the enormous Muslim populations in Europe, do you suspect that their aid may be slanted to those voters...er...I mean countries?

No, but im pointing out that the United States contributes more than just money.
And you think no other country does the same?

Nor will they provide AIDS relief to countries that do not penalise prostitution. IIRC, Brasil was one of the few countries that refused US AIDS $$ because they were having better luck working with sex workers than against them.

Imagine that. Instead of penalising the women most affected, Brasil wants them to help be part of the solution. Crazy.

Doesn't surprise me. I think the issue before was that many NGOs who support abortion also condone condom use--though condom use is not the reason. Condom use is the correlation of the causation: NGOs who support abortion as not receiving aid money.

I don't deign to suggest that the US holds a higher moral ground than other nations. We don't. And, in my opinion, we shouldn't need to pretend we do. But, that is beside the point.

That as well. However the US gov will not give aid money to NGO's that distribute condoms and also give information on birth control.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/3/gr080304.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7371950/an_epidemic_failure/

"Buried in the fine print, U.S. policy under PEPFAR does allow for the provision of condoms and information about condom use under certain circumstances, coupled with the message that only abstinence can provide 100% protection against HIV. Yet, that message may not be translating overseas. Reports from the field indicate that many believe that the United States only will support programs that exclude or deemphasize information about condom use even for unmarried young people who are already sexually active. To the extent that this perception takes hold, PEPFAR's approach to preventing the sexual transmission of HIV/AIDS itself becomes a high-risk strategy."

We still allow [condom provision], albeit under circumstances. It appears to be a matter of the nuances of language not effectively communicating these stipulations to foreign nations, thus furthering the belief that all condonement of condom use will not be met with US aid.

Nor will they provide AIDS relief to countries that do not penalise prostitution. IIRC, Brasil was one of the few countries that refused US AIDS $$ because they were having better luck working with sex workers than against them. Imagine that. Instead of penalising the women most affected, Brasil wants them to help be part of the solution. Crazy.

Brazil also led the fight to break patents on AIDs drugs, including against Merck.

Maybe Brazil will start coming up with all the new breakthrough AIDs drugs now that they disincentivized research.

Nor will they provide AIDS relief to countries that do not penalise prostitution. IIRC, Brasil was one of the few countries that refused US AIDS $$ because they were having better luck working with sex workers than against them. Imagine that. Instead of penalising the women most affected, Brasil wants them to help be part of the solution. Crazy.

Yes, encourage th "sex worker" profession since whoring is so beneficial to women's self-esteem, upscale mobility, health and well-being.

And that is probably why Brazil has the worst child prostitution problem in the Western World.

But, hey, way to go Brazil...

Yes, encourage th "sex worker" profession since whoring is so beneficial to women's self-esteem, upscale mobility, health and well-being.

Encourage is the wrong word to use

You're right. Let's quit giving billions of dollars in charity, because after all, that amount of money isn't important, the results of that money don't really make any difference.

Percent doesn't matter. It's the amount that's given. Otherwise, you're just making up excuses to underplay the significance of the actual act and amount.
Look, I didn't say that the money we give doesn't do any good -- that's a ridiculous thing to say. What I did say is that we can do far more good by helping the developing nations become developed nations.

Simply throwing money at the problem only sustains the poor nations at the poverty line long enough for their population to grow and make the problem worse. If we want to stop the vicious cycle, we need to concentrate on bolstering their economies and standards of living, and not simply feed them.

True! But the chance of dumb laws seem to be diluted by more input. (in very general human terms)
I don't know about that... take a look at this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16443-2004Nov27.html).

BTW, given the enormous Muslim populations in Europe, do you suspect that their aid may be slanted to those voters...er...I mean countries?

Is it possible for you to discuss any issue without whaling on the Muslims? There's a word for that, you know, and it's "Islamophobia".

Look, I didn't say that the money we give doesn't do any good -- that's a ridiculous thing to say. What I did say is that we can do far more good by helping the developing nations become developed nations. Simply throwing money at the problem only sustains the poor nations at the poverty line long enough for their population to grow and make the problem worse. If we want to stop the vicious cycle, we need to concentrate on bolstering their economies and standards of living, and not simply feed them.

That would involve encouraging US corporate investment to create jobs which, as has been explained in this thread by others, is evil.

I don't know about that... take a look at this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16443-2004Nov27.html).

I did, but not sure I get your drift. I'm not saying that large voter bases will avoid dumb decisions, just that smaller populations will have more. For just one quick reason why, state-wide issues get more professional media discussion and attention than, say the Bumfuq Weekly Gazette.

That's because conservatives are more generous than liberals (I'm not claiming this -- an atheist, college-educated liberal is).

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/brieaddy111406.html

That's because conservatives are more generous than liberals (I'm not claiming this -- an atheist, college-educated liberal is).

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/brieaddy111406.html

And you believe these ebil liberal college lecturers? Since when?

That's because conservatives are more generous than liberals (I'm not claiming this -- an atheist, college-educated liberal is).

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/brieaddy111406.html


Not surprising given that religious people tend to be more conservative and heavy charitable givers.

And you believe these ebil liberal college lecturers? Since when?

MTAE's always been a little soft on the liberals. He's got a Bookchin quote in his signature, after all.

you're right but the fact remains, many europeans have a higher standard of living than many americans.

This is a difficult statement to formulize and graph :-)

This is a difficult stemant to formulize and graph :-)

It's not that difficult. You can look at a variety of factors, including incidence of infant mortality, incidence of disease throughout life, class mobility, quality of education, air pollution, communication network coverage, and a myriad others. I'm sure you can find loads of Quality of Life indices online.

That's because conservatives are more generous than liberals (I'm not claiming this -- an atheist, college-educated liberal is).

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/brieaddy111406.html

I would love to see the raw data that he uses for THAT study ... of course not provided ... along with ANY figures whatsoever

The U.S. government is the world’s largest foreign aid donor, contributing economic assistance to more than 150 countries. The United States is also the largest national source of humanitarian and emergency relief aid. Before the U.S. government provides foreign nations with nearly as much development aid and humanitarian assistance as did France, Germany, and Great Britain combined v-- $45 *B*illion in 2004.

Private giving, donations and investments by private US citizens and entities to developing countires -- $71 billion in 2004.

So, keep giving America shit. Call France next time there is a tsunami or some lunatic invades and plunders a neighbor.Not sure where you got those figures, but the CIA seems to think that UK by itself has the US beat on Official Development Assistance. With US ODA being only 29% of the ODA of the listed EU countries. But then these figures won't be too accurate since most of the figures were from before 2004.

But again aid changes massively over time. As seen in this graph of German ODA as a % of GNP.
http://www.bmz.de/en/figures/InDetail/02-oda-1964-bis-2004-grafiken-en.pdf
For instance US ODA was a mere $6.9 billion in 1997.

Western aid is often damaging in that projects loose funding before completion. Aid can also be siphoned off in corruption and used to further agendas of warlords, corrupt politicians and corrupt officials.

For instance, as a condition to letting US forces use an air base to support its operations in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan recieved much economic aid from the IMF on the recomendations of the US ambassador. This aid was meant to be a reward for Uzbekistan liberalising its markets. In truth, Uzbekistan had allowed a floatation of of its currency (is that the right term?), but had ceased free conversion of Uzbek soms to dollars. It had ceased state ownership of many companies, but in reality these companies were now owned by the previous public directors of the companies who had no interest increasing effiency of the companies. The government had also closed its borders and many open bazaars in an attempt to stiffle private enterprise. So it can be seen that the US helping to run a country's economy into the ground by providing aid.

Targeted and consistant aid is neeeded to help underdeveloped economies to help themselves.

Also, thats just the aid money. How many other countries sent over a Nimitz-Class carrier for the tsunami?Germany sent a hospital ship from its navy.

BTW, given the enormous Muslim populations in Europe, do you suspect that their aid may be slanted to those voters...er...I mean countries?You mean the many immigrants that don't have citizenship in the first place?

The U.S. government is the world’s largest foreign aid donor, contributing economic assistance to more than 150 countries. The United States is also the largest national source of humanitarian and emergency relief aid. Before the U.S. government provides foreign nations with nearly as much development aid and humanitarian assistance as did France, Germany, and Great Britain combined v-- $45 *B*illion in 2004.

Private giving, donations and investments by private US citizens and entities to developing countires -- $71 billion in 2004.

So, keep giving America shit. Call France next time there is a tsunami or some lunatic invades and plunders a neighbor.

Your peevish rant just goes to show where your name comes from.

We don't give that aid to be charitable. We give that aid because it's in our best interests to do so. If we weren't hit with the great depression our economic aid to Germany after WWI would have prevented the rise of the Nazi's. They were almost extinct when we were putting Germany back on its feet and the resurged when we cut off aid that we were no longer able to give.

If you think that America is going to cut off one iota of foreign aid just because your pride is hurt you're fucking dreaming. But then again, you're an avowed conservative when your movement is pretty much dead, so you're probably dreaming already.

Hey! You give money too! Super!
*thumbs up*

Making the world better is a-OK... wait...USA..?!?
:D

Not surprising given that religious people tend to be more conservative and heavy charitable givers.And free to give their wealth to, say... heathens of this world.

Is it possible for you to discuss any issue without whaling on the Muslims? There's a word for that, you know, and it's "Islamophobia".

I hate it that everyone that takes some shit tries to turn it into a self esteem thing by adding "phobia" to their name to look like they are tough. Maybe you are "conservaphobic"? Look! I made you a cowardly punk! ha-ha !

As to radical Islam, well, they declared war on us. Anyone ever think maybe it is the religion?

I hate it that everyone that takes some shit tries to turn it into a self esteem thing by adding "phobia" to their name to look like they are tough. Maybe you are "conservaphobic"? Look! I made you a cowardly punk! ha-ha !I like conservatism. When it's in context with pesticide regulation and not politics.

I hate it that everyone that takes some shit tries to turn it into a self esteem thing by adding "phobia" to their name to look like they are tough.
Stop dodging the issue. You diverted from the topic at hand to make a stupid sideswipe at Muslims. Stop doing it, that sort of racism has no place here.

Maybe you are "conservaphobic"? Look! I made you a cowardly punk! ha-ha !

Actually, no. I don't have a problem with Conservatives in general. I have no prejudices regarding them. I have a problem with you. Your ignorant bigotry and the way you can't have a simple debate about foreign aid without dragging up your hatred of those who are different from you really gets on my wick. Just stop.

Anyone ever think maybe it is the religion?
Not Islam in particular. The Crusades, if I remember correctly, weren't led by Muslims.
Following your logic ("A religion spawns violence, therefore it is evil and must be destroyed"), we should ban all religions. I didn't know you were such a hardline secularist.

Stop dodging the issue. You diverted from the topic at hand to make a stupid sideswipe at Muslims. Stop doing it, that sort of racism has no place here.

It's not about race. It is about a belief system that advocates suicidal mass murder.

Actually, no. I don't have a problem with Conservatives in general. I have no prejudices regarding them. I have a problem with you. Your ignorant bigotry and the way you can't have a simple debate about foreign aid without dragging up your hatred of those who are different from you really gets on my wick. Just stop.

Maybe you're just intolerant of other opinions. My foreign policy opinions are still shaped by 9-11, since I could smell the WTC burning from my house for nearly a month. I think the rest of the free world is ignorant or in denial about redical islam. And it gets on my wick. Whatever the fuck that means.

Following your logic ("A religion spawns violence, therefore it is evil and must be destroyed"), we should ban all religions. I didn't know you were such a hardline secularist.

I've mentioned a number of times here that I am an atheist. The demise of religions that spawn suicidal mass murder would be an excellent start. How do you really differentiate radical Islam from, say, the Manson family, other than social acceptance?

It's not about race. It is about a belief system that advocates suicidal mass murder.

The funniest thing here is that your denial of racism is in itself racist.
Islam doesn't advocate suicidal mass murder, and every terrorist attack committed by a Muslim (And a fair few committed by non-Muslims too, I should think) has been condemned by the Islamic community. This is why I called your bigotry ignorant.
You simply have no idea of the rest of the world. You genuinely believe that all Muslims are violent extremists with bombs strapped to their chests.

Maybe you're just intolerant of other opinions.

Nope.
I don't have a problem with Conservatives in general. I have no prejudices regarding them.


And it gets on my wick. Whatever the fuck that means.

You? Ignorant? Nawww.



How do you really differentiate radical Islam from, say, the Manson family, other than social acceptance?

When you can genuinely prove to me that
a) The majority of Muslims are radicalised, and
b) The majority of radical Muslims are terrorists,

then your analogy will stand. Until then, it doesn't have a pot to piss in.

The socialist country's answer to foriegn aid is always some version of percentage of GDP, since they tax their poor bastard citizens out the wazoo to fund a Big Brother government.

Oh, right. Like we don't here in the free market US.

Bullshit. This ain't no free market. Not that you'd support a free market anyway, since you're one of those hyper-nationalist buggers who believes foreigners are not really humans.

As for taxes, the shit the US takes from my paycheck seems to contradict your implication that the US doesn't have a big, bloated fucking federal government that robs it's own citizens.

* Accounts receivable tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
* Building permit tax
* Capital gains tax
* CDL license tax
* Cigarette tax
* Corporate income tax
* Court fines (indirect taxes)
* Dog license tax
* Excise tax
* Federal income tax
* Federal unemployment tax (FUTA)
* FICA tax
* Fishing license tax
* Food license tax
* Fuel permit tax
* Gasoline tax (42 cents per gallon)
* Gift tax
* Hunting license tax
* Inheritance tax interest expense (tax on the money)
* Inventory tax IRS interest charges (tax on top of tax)
* IRS penalties (tax on top of tax)
* Liquor tax
* Local income tax
* Luxury taxes
* Marriage license tax
* Medicare tax
* Property tax
* Real estate tax
* Recreational vehicle tax
* Road toll booth taxes
* Road usage taxes (Truckers)
* Sales tax and equivalent use tax
* School tax
* Septic permit tax
* Service charge taxes
* Social Security tax
* State income tax
* State unemployment tax (SUTA)
* Telephone federal excise tax
* Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
* Telephone federal universal service fee tax
* Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
* Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
* Telephone state and local tax
* Telephone usage charge tax
* Toll bridge taxes
* Toll tunnel taxes
* Traffic fines (indirect taxation)
* Trailer registration tax
* Transfer tax and Generation-skipping transfer tax
* Utility taxes
* Vehicle license registration tax
* Vehicle sales tax
* Watercraft registration tax
* Well permit tax
* Wheel tax
* Workers compensation tax


But unlike those socialists, we here in the US don't actually get much for those taxes. Public transport? Ha. Free healthcare so that maybe an epidemic, like maybe a biological weapon employed by terrorists, won't just kill us all at some point? No, what we get is dead Iraqi civilians. Seeing them die makes you feel safer, and your "feelings" is all that count.

But I suppose that doesn't mean much to you either. You'll take any line, believe in any contradiction and ignore any facts which contradict your convinient little worldview in which the USA is equal to God. People like you are the coin-flip of terrorists. They believe US is Satan, you believe it's God.

People like you destroy the world.

The U.S. doesn't give humanitarian aid for the sake of humanitarianism. It does it for strategic reasons, to coddle Third World nations and coax them into the Western camp. Even if the aid is flagrantly abused or stolen, we don't care (hell, look at Mobutu, Marcos, Suharto, etc.), so long as they remain on our side.

Stop dodging the issue. You diverted from the topic at hand to make a stupid sideswipe at Muslims. Stop doing it, that sort of racism has no place here.

To be fair, Islam isn't a race. Although, Islamophobia is just as bigoted, and just as bad, as racism.

But compared to what we could give, its low. We have a low percentage compared to many other countries.

Not that foreign aid is a good thing, anyway. Look at the billions of dollars of aid Africa has received, and most African countries' economies remain stagnant. More money is not the panacea to their ills, but good governance is (at least, it would be a start).

I can't be arsed to read this clusterfuck of a thread, since my head hurts, but has anyone pointed out that Japan donates more humanitarian aid than the U.S. yet?

To be fair, Islam isn't a race. Although, Islamophobia is just as bigoted, and just as bad, as racism.

Well, I wasn't suggesting that it was a race, but ok, I accept that racism was the wrong word.

Brazil also led the fight to break patents on AIDs drugs, including against Merck.

Maybe Brazil will start coming up with all the new breakthrough AIDs drugs now that they disincentivized research.

How has Brazil "disincentivized" research? Think logically, not ideologically, or reading straight from a book like a mantra. Your mantra is "Giving people cheap medicine will mean that the pharmaceutical companies wont make enough from their pills and thus wont research them."

Answer me this. How much money are the drug companies making in Brazil? The answer is stuff all. The poor Brazilians and for that matter, African's can't afford it. Merck can't lose business if it's not there.
Check out this book
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/0375508465

If the pharmaceutical companies weren't so blinded by ideology they'd understand this. The drug companies could look like the angels they try to say they are, if they themselves pumped out the drugs in Africa and other similar places at the cost of making the drug plus a relatively trivial extra amount such as 20 cents. Due to the high volume, they'd still make a profit.

No. You're right. It's all illusory and tainted. We should stop. Only pure European countries should give aid.

BTW, given the enormous Muslim populations in Europe, do you suspect that their aid may be slanted to those voters...er...I mean countries?

I never said all the aid was illusory or tainted. I asked you what percentage of the aid given to developing countries by the USA actually turns into a form of aid with no strings attached, and what form that takes. It appears that you can not answer my questions.

As to your unrelated question concerning Islam in Europe, my answer is that the Muslim population in Europe is too small to make a difference. Other factors such as the economic and political interests of the donor nation far outrank things such as religion.

*gasp* How DARE you attribute any benevolence with the United States!!! Just remember, everything we do has some sneaky sinister underlying meaning and all the other countries in the world have true intentions.

Yes, encourage th "sex worker" profession since whoring is so beneficial to women's self-esteem, upscale mobility, health and well-being.

And that is probably why Brazil has the worst child prostitution problem in the Western World.

But, hey, way to go Brazil...

Wow, you went from making uninformed judgements about sex workers in Brasil straight to some uncorroborated claim about child prostitution.

Look, a source, who actually works in sex-trade activism!:

Tuesday I attend a panel discussion titled "Sex Work, HIV and Politics" where, for the first time, I see Jodi Jacobson, a respected American activist who works with an organization called CHANGE (Centre for Health and Gender Equity). The discussion turns to PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (yes, the conference is a confounding festival of acronyms). In 2003, the Bush government created a policy that forces nations to sign a "prostitution pledge," preventing organizations that empower sex workers from getting US HIV/AIDS funding.

Brazil was one country that refused -- costing them a whopping $40 million. The civil societies stood beside the prostitutes, saying they couldn't do HIV/AIDS prevention and activism without them. Gabriela Leite, a Brazilian sex worker and activist with three decades of experience, speaks of the clothing line Brazilian hookers designed called Daspu, meaning "the whore." All of the models in the line's ads are sex workers -- young, old, fat, skinny, black, white -- and it's been a huge success both in raising positive awareness and money. Fuck you, Bush. Sisters are doing it for themselves!

http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_08.24.06/fun/lovebites.php

I suggest you do some research into the sex trade and the people who work in it before making statements that reveal the depth of your ignorance.

I hate it that everyone that takes some shit tries to turn it into a self esteem thing by adding "phobia" to their name to look like they are tough. Maybe you are "conservaphobic"? Look! I made you a cowardly punk! ha-ha !

It's only phobia when it's out of proportion to the harm that the object of your phobia can cause. To be afraid of falling out the window when you are in a windowless office is acrophobia (and perhaps defensitraphobia).

Most liberals are no more conservaphobic than we are "rat poison in our food-a-phobic" "bullets flying towards us-a-phobic" or "Michael Chriton has a new novel coming out-a-phobic."

How has Brazil "disincentivized" research? Think logically, not ideologically, or reading straight from a book like a mantra. Your mantra is "Giving people cheap medicine will mean that the pharmaceutical companies wont make enough from their pills and thus wont research them."

Answer me this. How much money are the drug companies making in Brazil? The answer is stuff all. The poor Brazilians and for that matter, African's can't afford it. Merck can't lose business if it's not there.
Check out this book
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/0375508465

If the pharmaceutical companies weren't so blinded by ideology they'd understand this. The drug companies could look like the angels they try to say they are, if they themselves pumped out the drugs in Africa and other similar places at the cost of making the drug plus a relatively trivial extra amount such as 20 cents. Due to the high volume, they'd still make a profit.


Brazil's piracy of drugs and selective ignorance of patents has spawned a large generic drug industry in Brazil, benefitting them, not the companies that actually spent untold hundreds of millions in drug research, trials and approvals.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050626-113509-7302r.htm

Yes, encourage th "sex worker" profession since whoring is so beneficial to women's self-esteem, upscale mobility, health and well-being.

And that is probably why Brazil has the worst child prostitution problem in the Western World.

But, hey, way to go Brazil...

I bet you thought it was a great idea when Rush Limbaugh said that we should tax poverty to punish people for not having enough money to promote wealth in this country, didn't you?

Brazil's piracy of drugs and selective ignorance of patents has spawned a large generic drug industry in Brazil, benefitting them, not the companies that actually spent untold hundreds of millions in drug research, trials and approvals.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050626-113509-7302r.htm

Doesn't this mean that Brasil has provided incentives for Brasilian pharmaceutical companies by deregulating them in terms of patents and copyrights?

[QUOTE=Gift-of-god;12025687]Wow, you went from making uninformed judgements about sex workers in Brasil straight to some uncorroborated claim about child prostitution.

""In Brazil, UNICEF estimates that the number of prostituted children exceeds 500,000. The average age is 13-17, but there are cases of children as young as six documented in Brazil""

""In Brazil, UNICEF estimates that the number of prostituted children exceeds 500,000. The average age is 13-17, but there are cases of children as young as six documented in Brazil""

Nice quote. Here's the link you missed:
http://www.ecpatusa.org/background.asp

an excerpt:
Non-governmental organizations have been instrumental in broadening international dialogue and expanding consensus for greater action. The International Labor Organization (ILO) and the United Nations have been at the forefront in the development of instruments to prevent child exploitation and forced labor. In 1959, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child proclaimed that "the child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation. The child shall not be subject to traffic in any form." The most significant development with regard to protection of children is the establishment of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989, outlining children's human rights in civil, political, economic and cultural terms -- the child's right to survival and development.

And since the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is such an important part of fighting child prostitution, the USA would definitely support it more than Brasil, right?

Let's see:
The CRC has been ratified by every United Nations member state except the USA and Somalia.
http://www.amnesty.ca/themes/children_un_convention.php

I never said all the aid was illusory or tainted. I asked you what percentage of the aid given to developing countries by the USA actually turns into a form of aid with no strings attached, and what form that takes. It appears that you can not answer my questions.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I choose not to be your research intern. Find me Cain's wife!

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I choose not to be your research intern. Find me Cain's wife!


Well, I did provide the site with all the relevant information. Since you were the one claiming that the USA is the world leader in aid, I expect you to be able to prove it, or failing that, at least admit that you were wrong.

EDIT: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

Well, I did provide the site with all the relevant information. Since you were the one claiming that the USA is the world leader in aid, I expect you to be able to prove it, or failing that, at least admit that you were wrong.

EDIT: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp


lolo...that site is so left wing liberal it would make Al Franken run to the right.

Here's their thoughtful comment on 9-11:

"Dig in your heels, the September 11 memorial propaganda steamroller is back again - to quell opposition to US wars and imperial policies. "

So, keep giving America shit. Call France next time there is a tsunami or some lunatic invades and plunders a neighbor.
What you really need to look at is the giving per capita.

America is a populous country with a wealthy people. Of course they're going to give numerically more than anyone else.

Here's their thoughtful comment on 9-11:

"Dig in your heels, the September 11 memorial propaganda steamroller is back again - to quell opposition to US wars and imperial policies. "
Which is true, of course. They would be able to give a nicer answer if that atrocity didn't get hijacked by people like you with sick agendas.

For what it's worth, here's the amount of Official Development Aid (ODA) given by Western Countries in 2004 & 2005.
USA is the largest donor, it's true. However, it's still the smallest in terms of % of GNI (at a impressive 0.22%). The average is 0.42%.

Here's the largest donors (with the % of ODA/GNI), for 2005:
United States $27 457 (0.22%)
Japan $13 101 (0.28%)
United Kingdom $10 754 (0.48%)
France $10 059 (0.47%)
Germany $9 915 (0.35%)
Netherlands $5 131 (0.82%)
Italy $5 053 (0.29%)

Incidently, France, Germany, and Great Britain combined ODA = $30.728 Billion US, which is $3.271 Billion more than what the US gives - and this from 3 countries whose combined GNI is ~ half the USA's. Also, the EU gives out $55.704 Billion - slightly more than double the amount of the USA, and coincidently the EU's % ODA/GNI is double the USA's (0.44 vs 0.22).


Special mention should go to the Scandanavian countries:
Sweden $3 280 (0.92%)
Norway $2 775 (0.93%)
Denmark $2 107 (0.81%)
For their % contributions.

Figures in millions of $US, btw

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/27/36418598.pdf

This bears repeating, since the OP keeps ignoring it. His silence is almost vocal.

Not surprising given that religious people tend to be more conservative and heavy charitable givers.
I'm religious and left-wing, and just one of dozens of such people I know, and millions in my country.

This "religious = conservative" stereotype is a creation of the US media.

1. 0.7 not a requirement, it's a recommendation.

6. The target data for the recommendation was 2015, not 2006.

7. Some countries pledged to meet it, I do not believe the US was one of them (I could be wrong on that).
If Americans are so moral, then surely you guys should be exceeding the recommendation, rather than making excuses like these.

Percent doesn't matter. It's the amount that's given.
In a debate where some guy is trying to prove the superior morals of America, it's all about the percent. Otherwise, he's just saying that Americans are better because they are more numerous.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I choose not to be your research intern. Find me Cain's wife!

How appropriate that you choose to defend the logic behind conservative positions with the remark that Carl Sagan coined to defend the likelihood of life on Mars. Especially because the two are equally likely to exist.

I'm sure you all love your country as much as I do.

But it's not perfect.
No country is.

We do the best we can- but our bipartisan, bicameral system of government sometimes makes it difficult.
In order for bills to be passed sometimes concessions have to be made, riders are added to stop a bill.
Congressmen are out for the interests of their own states- wether that means lower-class minorities living in the big cities, farmers, a booming middle-class, or the richest of the rich CEOs.

And isn't that how it should be?
Isn't that what the Founding Fathers intended?
For a good part of its early history, the United States was isolationist.
Why do we have to give aid at all?
What's wrong with a jingoist state?

Just like citizens of the great U.S., the other countries in the world have the same chance to thrive.
Who made their welfare our responsibility?

It's so hard to get it right, anyhow.
Third world dictators don't let our aid workers into the country.
They take most of the donations for themselves.
There's so much inherent violence and hate, what on Earth can we do to stop it?

Shouldn't we worry about our own problems before we try to fix the world?

Isn't it benevolent of us to try to help at all?

But war is contradictory to that theory.

Not if it is in our own best interest.
What if it eliminates enemies that could launch a surprise attack on us in the future?
What if it protects our trade?
Boosts our commerce?

No one can predict the future.

As for Iraq . . . I admit-
Our strategy was poor to start off with.
War games in the '90s told us we needed at least 300,000 thousand troops if We wanted to invade Iraq- we went in with 100,000.
But I believe in our reasons for going in.
I believe that there has been a lot of good we've done there, as well:
Schools being built, water lines and sewage systems being installed; last year I saw a special on Fox which noted a "Simple Life" style show- two western-style divas went around the Iraq countryside trying to live as the peaceful local farmers do.

But why did we go in with a third of the necessary force?

Probably because, if the administration asked for 300,000 they would be told to go in with 50,000 (or some other ridiculously low number) or not at all.

It's just a piddly little country with no trained army to speak of, after all.


There's so much in our country and across the globe that needs to be fixed- how do we decide where to start?
How do we get support for it- everyone else wants their intrests taken care of first, too.
Then- how do we implement it?
Where do we get the funds, the personnel, the time?

You have a genious idea?
Write to your congressman.

Or keep debating it on internet forums that have no way to get anything done- that works just as well.

His silence is almost vocal.

It's hurting my ears. :(

What you really need to look at is the giving per capita.

America is a populous country with a wealthy people. Of course they're going to give numerically more than anyone else.


We are considerably less populous than China and India -- two countries that would be on the "donee" end of UN definitions.

As would any number of countries that would as soon spit on our flag as shake our hand.

While the cacophony of the greedy and needy from the UN is not surprising, we have plenty of challenges here in America I'd rather address than acceding to the "charity" demands of people like Venezuela's Chavez, who wants US dollars so bad he was nearly apoleptic at the UN demanding his .07 pound of flesh.

Before anyone gets a dime of US money I would want to see a pledge/effort progress whatever to free markets, civil liberties, and a peaceful foreign policy. Otherwise we are just feeding dictators and communists. That is harsh so strike that...but what I mean is we are propping up failing systems.

Charity starts at

[QUOTE=Rhaomi;12022525]Look, I didn't say that the money we give doesn't do any good -- that's a ridiculous thing to say. What I did say is that we can do far more good by helping the developing nations become developed nations.

Simply throwing money at the problem only sustains the poor nations at the poverty line long enough for their population to grow and make the problem worse. If we want to stop the vicious cycle, we need to concentrate on bolstering their economies and standards of living, and not simply feed them.[QUOTE\]

"Besides, charity isn't important anyway"

Your exact words.

This implies that the money we give doesn't do any good--or, at the very best, in minimalized in an attempt to reduce the actual importance and significance of charitable giving.