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______________________________

[Willie Green]

I guess that's what people who never pick a winner do.

Yeah, well I guess I'm just one of those stodgy old foolish conservatives who can't learn to cast aside time-honored values and principles depending on which way the wind is currently blowing.

Please forgive me.

[Howlin]

Yeah, well I guess I'm just one of those stodgy old foolish conservatives who can't learn to cast aside time-honored values and principles depending on which way the wind is currently blowing.

Well, it's good to know what you think of the rest of us who have "compromised" (your word) ourselves, Willie.

[MeekOneGOP]

bump!

[roaddog727]

Perhaps the NYT should contribute a substantial portion of their 2004 profits to the aid effort and put their money where theie Pie-hole is.

IMHO.

Beyond that, they can STFU.

[Zhangliqun]

The rest of the world was born with a handful of "Gimme" and a mouth full of "not enough".

[.cnI redruM]

Good way to put it. That was genuinely funny.

[.cnI redruM]

I would refer them to post 191. They need to drink a cold one of the STFU Stout.

[Willie Green]

it's good to know what you think of the rest of us who have "compromised" (your word) ourselves,

I was going to use the word "compromise", but for some reason, it didn't seem quite right. It's kinda "soft", warm & fuzzy, you know what I mean? I'm looking for something a little harsher and more judgemental, but can't come up with it. I guess I need another cup of coffee, it'll come to me eventually!

[Musket]

This kind of stuff is counter-productive in that it just makes me want to sit on my wallet.

[roaddog727]

"I would refer them to post 191. They need to drink a cold one of the STFU Stout."

Perhaps a kegger of post 191.........

[.cnI redruM]

Aid politics can be very nasty. They often get used as an excuse to insult someone as stingy. People can really display their worst when they should be at their level best.

[Paridel]

Only until the low dollar rises again, the US will again take the top spot. :)

Japan 7bn
US 6.9bn
UK 5.6bn
France 5.4bn
Germany 4.5bn

Source: CIA worldfactbook

Of course the Japanese economy is smaller than ours... and we have more people and higher GDP per head. Lets give credit where credit is due.

2002 data:

USA:
Population (m) 286.9
GDP (US$ bn; market exchange rate) 10,446(b)

Japan:
Population (m) 127.1
GDP (US$ bn; market exchange rate) 3,973.3(b)

and look at GDP per head ($ at PPP) US/JAPAN
2000: 34,770/25,948
2001: 35,438/26,639
2002: 36,432/26,944
2003: 37,831/28,000

(All number from Economist country briefings)

Now sure we have other things that probably isn't counted in that aid number... like military expenditures used in policing the globe. But I welcome a little friendly competition in this area, it certainly couldn't hurt us to increase our giving a little to keep up. Of course I think this is all public aid? So I'm not sure what happens when you include private aid. I think that is where we should increase our donations. I couldn't really tell from the CIA footnote. Any takers on explaining this? Purely a governmental aid number or?

This entry refers to net official development assistance (ODA) from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations to developing countries and multilateral organizations. ODA is defined as financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. The entry does not cover other official flows (OOF) or private flows. -- "Economic aid - donor", CIA World fact book 2002.

-paridel

[Zhangliqun]

I would refer them to post 191. They need to drink a cold one of the STFU Stout.

They need the whole keg, regardless of the born-on date.

[BurbankKarl]

phuket!