If comparisons are to be done, what matters is aid amount for a nation as a percentage of the total GDP. This is then modified by the population to get a per capita aid amount.
(aid divided by GDP) divided by population
To speak only of absolute amounts is meaningless.
Factor in the prevailing opinion of the country within the halls of the UN, their ideology relative to that of the United States (by which all that is evil is gauged) and the perceived obligation of each nation to spend even a penny on charitable works, and you have a more realistic formula.
Keep a sharp eye on your paycheck...
That is the silliest statement I have heard in the longest time.
It is the cry of a mentality used to demanding credit for good intentions, not actual benefit achieved.
"To speak only of absolute amounts is meaningless."
only if you consider socioeconomic policy meaningless. get a crackpot dictator to drive any semblance of an economy into the ground with corruption, regulation and isolationism, and $100 looks like a significant chunk of the GNP. If you want to start playing games with what metrics of charity are meaningful, you need to consider ALL factors, including what resulted in a nation or nations being ill-prepared to financially handle a natural disaster. hell... the U.S. is nearly 8 TRILLION dollars in debt, but we are somehow prepared to handle our own disasters and others?
I think your formula has a flaw. It should include not only the amount of government aid, but should also include the amount of aid donated by private citizens, churches, charitable organizations and corporations, which in the case of the USA, would amount to several hundred million dollars more.
Even if you did factor in just the amount of government aid, you should not use GDP as the divisor - you should use the amount of GDP that is controlled by the government. The governments of some countries consume 60% of their GDP through high taxation, which of course gives them more of the nation's GDP to be "generous" with.