Are We Stingy? Yes

NYT ^ | 30 December 2004 | Who Really Cares?

[.cnI redruM]

President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunamis in Asia. He also hurried to put as much distance as possible between himself and America's initial measly aid offer of $15 million, and he took issue with an earlier statement by the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, who had called the overall aid efforts by rich Western nations "stingy." "The person who made that statement was very misguided and ill informed," the president said.

We beg to differ. Mr. Egeland was right on target. We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world's poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world's richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That's less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.

The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.

______________________Snip______________________________

[MissAmericanPie]

I'm confused to, I thought we were suppose to give our donations to the U.N. so they can take credit for grandiose gestures of humanitarianism while talking about the evil USofA.

[Inwoodian]

This is emblematic as to how the Left thinks. It is stingy for the government not to give more of someone else's money to whatever is the recipient du jour. The government has no money whatsoever. It only can spend that which it extracts from the taxpayers. Lower taxes and see how magnanimous the American citizen is. Then, of course, the political class will no longer be lauded for their largesse.

[poindexter]

What do they mean "we"?

[commonguymd]

Here is the quote from the article:

Gifts to the top 400 charities accounted for nearly a fifth of the $241 billion given to all U.S. charities last year. Nearly 90 percent of donations come from individuals, Palmer said, with the rest from foundations and companies.

Sorry this was 2002 - The figure in 2003 was higher and I probably under reported the total a bit. I can assure you 2004 will be even higher.

[weegie]

Alway happy to be corrected with facts rather than emotions.

appreciated - genuinely

[Bon mots]

If it's true he earns $300,000 per year, then he does not in fact earn more than the President, whose salary is $400,000 annually.

Not really. He TAKES HOME, more than the President. He gets to keep over $300,000.00
The President, has to pay taxes on his salary, unlike Egeland.

[NMC EXP]

it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.

So, in short, most Americans are ignorant with regard to governmental spending [NL]

Americans are not only ignorant re: govt spending the same is true for their understanding of the Constitution.

Tell me NL, is providing taxpayer funded charity either domestic or foreign included in the list of enumerated powers?

[commonguymd]

http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/usassistance.htm

Here is an interesting tidbit you might all be interested in reading. Here is an excerpt:

When other official government and private assistance are added to this $44.5 billion, the United States moves far ahead in the total amount of resources provided to developing countries. So Americans have not given up on foreign aid. They have simply found new channels through which they can express their compassion for less fortunate people abroad. Official government aid has been displaced by a rising tide of private giving with significantly lower transaction costs, more client-directed services, and more willingness to cede ownership to recipients.

[Matchett-PI]

"Question for the paper: "Where was all this concern while Oil For Food was being ripped off by the billions and the Iraqi people were being brutalized with the proceeds?"

Elitist moral relativists in the Religious Left don't consider that to be a valid question. Try again.

[longtermmemmory]

The UN is taking credit for being the only organizing aid workers on site of the disaster.

How much money will UN officials siphon off on this? Why is UNICEF helping here? How much will they be stealing.

Do we have another "oil for food" scandal being operated right before our eyes?

(I certainly hope the NSA,CIA, or whowever was just reformed is tapping all the UN aid calls and heads)

[KC_Conspirator]

The NY Times hates America. American gave 40% of THE UN RELIEF BUDGET OF LAST YEAR and contributed even more through private organizations.

[Young Werther]

The New York Times mast should read

"All the News that's SPIT!

Spiteful

Political

Idiotic

Trash

[longtermmemmory]

Stockholders should demand their corporations stop wasting money advertizing in the NYT.

It is just plain dead as a newspaper.

[shubi]

Yep. How much help did we get for the hurricaines in Fla. from them?

[shubi]

Lets have weegie investigated for providing false federal figures against federal figure law.

[MarxSux]

As much as we on this forum and other places would like to see US out of UN and UN out of US, it just ain't going to happen. We're talking a REAL third rail here.

[.cnI redruM]

I shouldn't read it. It only raises my blood pressure....ARGGGHHH!!!!!

[.cnI redruM]

Let's keep Egeland's visible one out of our treasury!

[shubi]

You are some kind of liberal troll, eh?