Ok so try this one - all future fees for the U.N. we will send immediately to the Tsunami relief...and by the way - how about some real rent on that prime piece of Manhattan property...
Sharper Minds Daily...
Posted on 12/29/2004 10:01:47 AM PST by RockinRight
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) defended American generosity Wednesday, even as his administration figures out how to pay for more help beyond the $35 million it has already promised to tsunami victims in Asia.
In his first remarks since the weekend disaster that so far has killed more than 76,000, Bush — like some in his administration previously — took umbrage at a U.N. official's suggestion that the world's richest nations were "stingy," and indicated much more is expected to be spent to help the victims.
"Well, I felt like the person who made that statement was very misguided and ill-informed," Bush said from his Texas ranch. "We're a very generous, kindhearted nation, and, you know, what you're beginning to see is a typical response from America."
Bush noted that the United States provided $2.4 billion "in food, in cash, in humanitarian relief to cover the disasters for last year. ... That's 40 percent of all the relief aid given in the world last year."
But the journey from the $35 million to potentially $1 billion or more in help for the tens of thousands of latest victims is fraught with bureaucratic twists.
First, the U.S. Agency for International Development, which distributes foreign aid, will have to ask for more money, since the initial $35 million aid package drained its emergency relief fund, said Andrew Natsios, the agency's administrator.
"We just spent it," Natsios said in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press. "We'll be talking to the (White House) budget office ... (about) what to do at this point."
Natsios said the Pentagon (news - web sites) also is spending tens of millions to mobilize an additional relief operation, with C-130 transport planes winging their way from Dubai to Indonesia with tents, blankets, food and water bags.
As of Wednesday, dozens of countries and relief groups had pledged at least $261 million in help for South and East Asia, said the Geneva-based U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
"There's no doubt there'll be more than that," said Jamie McGoldrick, the U.N. officer in charge of coordinating the international response from Switzerland. "The size of this thing is a challenge."
But measuring the generosity of the United States depends on the yardstick.
The U.S. government is always near the top in total humanitarian aid dollars — even before private donations are counted — but it finishes near the bottom of the list of rich countries when that money is compared to gross national product.
Such figures were what prompted Jan Egeland — the United Nations (news - web sites)' emergency relief coordinator and former head of the Norwegian Red Cross — to challenge the giving of rich nations.
"We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries," Egeland said. "And it is beyond me, why are we so stingy, really. ... Even Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least how rich we have become."
Egeland told reporters Tuesday his complaint wasn't directed at any nation in particular.
Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) clearly was annoyed while making the rounds of the morning television news shows Tuesday. He said it remains to be determined what the eventual U.S. contribution will be, but that he agrees with estimates that the total international aid effort "will run into the billions of dollars."
Natsios was quick to point out Tuesday that foreign assistance for development and emergency relief rose from $10 billion in President Clinton (news - web sites)'s last year to $24 billion under President Bush in 2003. Powell said U.S. assistance for this week's earthquake and tsunamis alone will eventually exceed $1 billion.
"The notion that the United States is not generous is simply not true, factually," Natsios said.
The United States uses the most common measure of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 30 rich nations that counts development aid.
By that measure, the United States spent almost $15.8 billion for "official development assistance" to developing countries in 2003. Next closest was Japan, at $8.9 billion.
That doesn't include billions more the United States spends in other areas, such as AIDS (news - web sites) and HIV (news - web sites) programs and other U.N. assistance.
Measured another way, as a percentage of gross national product, the OECD's figures on development aid show that as of April, none of the world's richest countries donated even 1 percent of its gross national product. Norway was highest, at 0.92 percent; the United States was last, at 0.14 percent.
However, if it were me, I'd say "OK, you're right. As of now, ALL foreign aid is cut off, you a--holes."
I don't remember who, but someone posted on here yesterday that The U.S. should announce that our contribution will match the contribution of muslim countries, dollar for dollar.
Sounds fair to me.
(Now watch the Saudis donate more)
I personally would have much preferred our President tell the world with the same (and his, as usual) amount of class and dignity, that this humperdink punk's comment was not worthy of a response.
Just the kind of crap reporting we've come to expect from the Associated Press.
Call me stingy, but I thought sending $15 million of OUR TAX DOLLARS for this relief effort was too much. In fact, I think sending any foreign aid, in the form of tax dollars, for natural disaster recovery efforts is debatable, at best.
ping
Andrew Natsios is an impressive and very pro-American person who I've seen give press briefings over the last two days (good thing I surf around as Fox didn't see fit to carry his informative appearances).
Unlike the initial comments the AP reports here, they later get to his real message: The US is the leader in providing aid and we'll come through again like we always do.
He was on Fox today speaking with Chris Wallace (even though they didn't carry the briefings I was pleased to see this) and I do believe he impressed Wallace, too. He flat out said that President Bush is a very kind and generous person--not just with tax money which he realizes comes from the people--but with providing real aid and not just throwing money at it in meaningless amounts without drawing up a plan of action.
I like Natsios very much.
"Had it been me, I would have announced the redirecting of U.N. funding fromt he U.S. to aid relief."
I'll vote for that.
Part of the problem here also, is that money donated by USA citizens to charity organizations is lumped together with worldwide donations and not seperated to show how much was given by American citizens. I think in the future when I give I will demand that it be counted as a donation from USA.
I would've said;"Maybe Sadaam's moneymen at the UN who profited from the Humanitarian aid the US gave them.... to the tune of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS....could free up some of their ill-gotten gains to help out.....how 'bout it jacques....kofi?"
Does anybody know how much the UN is giving? Are they giving any money? Or are they just sending people to give advise (we know what that is worth).
"Every dollar and every life we spend fighting terrorists should be counted, if people must keep count. They end up being another kind of natural disaster."
Another way we could look at this is how much do we spend on disaster relief altogether. I mean, let us add together the money that has been spent from the 9/11/01 disaster, the electrical outage in NYC and elsewhere, the hurricanes in the South, all of the floods, tornadoes, earthquakes etc that happen right here in our country together, I wonder how much that all adds up to and what percent of GDP that comes to. These other events are taken care of almost exclusively by USA with zero help from any other country. Why do our needs not count? Afterall, if other countries helped us more, we would have more available to assist other nations with than what we do now.
Here's the yardstick the way I see it....The U.S. gives more money in gov't and private funds to aid the rest of the world, hands down. Message to the rest of the world(and Hollyweird):
"Put your money where your mouth is."
What great posts! You're a FreeRepublic treasure.
Wouldn't it be grand if he signed it the day the UN made Bill Clinton Secretary General. :-)
The reason the US government gives a smaller percentage of GNP than other countries is very simple.
In the US the GNP is generated and owned mostly by the people, while in the semi-socialist European countries, the governments own a big percentage of the GNP.
This is also why our smaller percentage is a bigger number, and vice-versa.
Thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.