WillyPete

I thought the claim was that the US was 'stingy'.

Stingy is a term relative to the amount you earn and what you are prepared to give away.
It is not a good way to measure someone's 'stingyness' by comparing what they give to what another gives. It is a measure of one OWN ability to donate or give away.

PS, I'm not saying the USA is stingy, just that to say they are or aren't by comparing what they donate internationally compared to other countries is not the right way to look at it.

There's also wisodm to consider.

The rich man who gives a hundred dollars once a week to the smackhead who sleeps outside his factory door is doing less good work than the guy who give $10 to a single mother and offers to look after her kids for one hour a night so she can go to school.

Remember, foreign policy and not just demand also dictates how much aid goes to other countries. I can guarantee that if a big earthquake hit cuba, a lot more money would come from Canada or UK than from the USA, simply because of policy.

Yakk

The USA gave less per person than a good chunk of developed nations. So, each person in the USA gave less than each person in a large number of other developed nations, including most of Europe. (USA, Canada, Japan, Austrailia, Kiwiland, Taiwan, Singapore, Europe, Isreal, Russia -- that's a nearly complete list of "developed nations". You could possibly add in South Korea, South Africa, and a few other also-rans.).

This means that the citizens of the USA are not more generious than other developed nations, dispite the original poster's claims to the contrary. In fact, they are less generous.

The USA, as a whole, gave less than the EU. If I remember right, the EU gave (as a whole) about 2 to 5 times more than the USA.

The USA, as a fraction of it's economic wealth (GNP is a decent measure of wealth), gave a very small amount.

Someone could call that "stingy" and not be unreasonable.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

alansmithee

I'm not sure myself, but has anyone found out how much of this "offered" aid has been delivered by all these countries. I seem to remember hearing after the big earthquakes hit in (2004? 2003?) many countries pledged aid, but few actually delivered on their promises, especially after the news quit talking about the tragedy 24/7. I'm not saying the other countries haven't given, or that the US is fully paid what they offered, but I do think it's a valid consideration.

Seaver

Ok Yakk... so the EU gave more than the US.

How many more people do the EU have than the US?

Which poll are you considering using these statistics? Polls in the past have proven to have an OBVIOUS bias considering they dont take into consideration the majority of our foreign support based on biased reasoning. Our economic support of Pakistan being witheld due to their "inhumane treatment" while other countries are allowed to donate to "earthquake relief" and allowed to count (as example on previous stingy threads).

How much money does the EU rely on FROM the US through military NATO aid? How much of this money essentially granted by the US is "donated" by those countries to others in "good faith"?

When you take that into consideration you'd see the playing field much more level, and America is far from "stingy" no matter how much you wish it to be.

cybersharp

That IS a political theory. Love would not cause wealthy people to give their fellow man money, heck I am not wealthy, yet I would not accept charity. If you LOVE your fellow man then you will achnowledge that you should not live life for others in anyway but should live merely for yourself. If ALL men acceppted this then maybe they would propigate a means to surivival on their own instead of relying like a parasite on others.

Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead. Each of these books shows true humanitarian value's to their fullest, also contradicting exactly what you just said very proficently.

If a man who worked and owned all his proceed's was to give all he had except that which he need to survive to anouther, each would come out worse. The one who gained would simply look to take more, (in most case's) while eventualy if not relieved the one upholding such dire help to the needy would eventualy be weighed down by the person who gained.

heh... Ayn Rand submit's the points so much better than me..

__________________
0PtIcAl

pan6467

Ah yes, base your philosophy on a failed Hollywood screenwriter, who was an athieistic, egotistical writer who was as self righteous and self promotional as they come. Her writings are very predictable, boring, one dimensional and are FICTIONAL. To try to apply her "philosophy" into society is laughable.

While I agree, you do not give a man fish but teach him to fish and thus he becomes self reliant, she took that to extremes that could not, nor would not work in any society, except that of a selfish, self righteous, faceless society that would lead to decadence based on her philosophy that the only value in life is that of the individual's life. It would also lead to decay and a crumbling of society, in that the less fortunate would never advance. Fortunately, it has been man's desire to always question and look for ways to advance..... something that if we followed her philosophy politically and economically would cease to exist. Nor did she ever take into account man's psychological need for a society interdependant on each other.

For any society to move forward, people have to place value on society, help the less fortunate and educate others so that all may advance and that goes against everything Rand ever taught. Nor could she ever truly back up her philosophy, with explanations of how society itself would move forward and advance.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Yakk

I gave a huge list of per-capita amounts.

In terms of "which political unit gave the most", USA is not on top. The EU is.

In terms of per-capita or fraction of the economy, the USA isn't anywhere near the top of the developed world.

Austrailia, with 20 million people, gave over 1 billion USD. USA, with a population of 300 million people, gave under 2 billion USD.

I can't remember what the result for "per capita giving from the EU" was -- I ran the numbers a while ago.

The EU has under 500 million people. The USA has about 300 million people. The EU gave more than twice as much as the USA did, if I remember right.

The EU and the USA have roughly the same GNP.

67% more people.

What poll? I wasn't using a poll. I do not understand.

Why would you use a poll to determine the total amount of money a nation gave to something like tsunami releif? Aggregate numbers are availiable from various charitible institutions within each nation.

I was only attempting to measure direct tsunami relief.

How much money does the USA rely on from China through mass purchase of USA 30 year government bonds?

I am simply looking at one statement made by the original poster, and disagreeing with it.

Feel free to provide your own numbers. I'd love to see them.

I am simply disagreeing with the claim that the USA's tsunami releaf dwarfs other developed nations. This statement looked to me like a lie.

Lacking the ability to do serious research on the subject, I got most of my numerical information from the wikipedea. If you can find a better source, I'd be happy to hear about it. The wiki happens to agree with mainstream media source values for the USA, Austrailia, Canada and the UK (those being english-language nations for whom I could check the values) and Sweden/Norway (whose unusually high contributions where noted), and Qatar/UAE/Saudi Arabia, so I assumed the rest of the information was reasonably accurate.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

aceventura3

NOT POLITICAL THEORY.

You say : "If you LOVE your fellow man then you will achnowledge that you should not live life for others in anyway but should live merely for yourself. If ALL men acceppted this then maybe they would propigate a means to surivival on their own instead of relying like a parasite on others."

Your point assumes giving to "fellow man" and implying the "fellow man" capable and not in need. What about a parents supprot and nurturing of a child? what about societies care of orphanes? What about societies care for the sick? Elderly? Mentally disabled, or those met with tempory needs after disaster? Even in the animal kingdom many species will care for each other in time of need. When animals do it, do you call that a political theory also?

There are a few holes in this point: "If a man who worked and owned all his proceed's was to give all he had except that which he need to survive to anouther, each would come out worse."

Motzart died pennyless, gave all he had, made the world a better place.
Mother Teresa died pennyless, gave all she had, made the world a better place.
When I got divorced I gave my ex-wife everything except what I need it to survive, and I came out better! How do you explain that?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

pan6467

Ace I do agree with you on this. It isn't POLITICAL THEORY, taking care of the society and others is the nature of man. Societies that have stopped caring about their advancement and helping each other have died off, look at Rome, as a great example of a society that stopped caring about the people and the ruling class lived for greed.

To add to your list: Thomas Jefferson died pennyless but had given everything he had to better society, setting up libraries, schools, and so on.

People remembered and revered throughout history have not been the rich, in fact they often died pennyless but bettered society at great cost to themselves.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

And because the US gave less to an international disaster we're a bad greedy nation?????

We ship more money overseas and into causes than we probably give our own citizens. I have a feeling sad to say more money went to the Tsunami than to NO/and the Gulf area. Which to me is sad because a country must take care of it's own before they can even think of helping another.

I find it pathetic and very sad when other nations turn to us after they have bitched about us for help, then when we give it is not enough.

If people around the world haven't noticed, we in the US have no more to give. We are a nation deeply in debt, our wealth is being decimated and other countries are wanting more from us????? WTF?

I happily give money to others (and I can't truly afford it), but I give it to my neighbors in NO, the Gulf, Muscular Dystrophy, MS, Cancer Society and people on the streets.

Yes, we have to help other nations but we can only do so much, we have given for so long it is time other nations pick up the slack and start realizing that our giving has cost us dearly.

BTW, you point out how much other countries gave for the Tsunami..... how much did they give the US for our hurricanes and the tragedies in our nation? Not that we need other countries help, but there comes a time when we have to cut the cord and help our own people first.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

jimbob

The assertion that Jan Egeland claimed 'Americans are "stingy"' is false. He was speaking the day after the Tsunami disaster, when countries were slow to appreciate the scale of the disaster and correspondingly slow in their relief efforts and donations. He said that countries giving less than 0.2% of GDP were stingy and expressed his belief that 'the people' thought governments should do more.

Perhaps it would be more relevant if the thread concentrated on whether 0.2% is stingy and why the 'liberal' US media would happily spread and 'Anti-Americanism' untruth about an organisation when this claim is traditionally made by the political right.

I donate about .6% of post-tax income and on reflection I think it's stingy because I hardly notice it. If I earned less or had greater outgoings I'm sure I would consider a smaller percentage to be excessive.

Yakk

This statement is misleading. It is a not-true statement. It is either ignorant or an attempt to lie.

This statement is also misleading and false. It is in response to a post where I made no such statement. By placing it there, it implies I am saying that. Classic straw man -- invent a lie, claim your opponent said it, then prove your opponent is incorrect.

Your feeling is, as far as I am aware, without basis or ground.

By September 28th, the American Red Cross alone had raised 1 billion dollars towards Katrina relief. Notice the sum total of American aid to Tsunami damaged nations was less than 2 billion dollars, from all sources.

The US federal government allocated 51.8$ BILLION dollars to Katrina relief.

Dispite your feeling to the contrary, the US response to Katrina and the US response to the Tsunami are in completely different leagues.

Next, let us examine the amount of human suffering in the two events. Human deaths will serve as a proxy for this value. You wouldn't expect the international humanitarian response to a stubbed toe to be the same as the response to an event that killed 100 people -- the scale of the disaster should be taken into account.

The total deaths in Katrina where about 1,000 to 2,000 (via recall). The total deaths from the Tsunami is about 212,000 (via CNN).

So, saying that the Tsunami was a 100 times larger disaster than Katrina isn't all that unreasonable.

Foreign response:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ricane_Katrina
the foriegn reponse, given the relative sizes of the disasters, is huge compared to the Tsunami. Destroyers, multiple 100s of millions of dollars, disaster relief teams, etc.

Not all the resources offered where accepted by the USA.

Pan, your feelings about this issue are without basis. I would advise looking at the size of the numbers involved.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

cybersharp

Ah I believe that man by bettering himself does better society.... but I do concede your points.. The theory's of Ayn Rand do have many holes in them.. Yet I do think that as a political theory her's does benifit individuals very much. As you said. She was egotistical, but then again so am I, alot of people are.

__________________
0PtIcAl

MoonDog

Australia SHOULD be interested in giving more immediate aid to the tsunami-stricken nations, since the disaster happened in their sphere of influence. I believe Australia is a (the?) major power for that portion of the globe, and they would have serious, immediate reasons to work towards mitigating the situation. For example, do they want refugees? What are the trade implications? Would the Indonesian government take advantage of the Aceh situation to quell the rebellion and cause a humanitarian crisis?

Yakk, I am confused with what you have posted, as quoted above. If I follow your line of reasoning correctly, any country should, if faced with an "internal" disaster and an "external" disaster, automatically give more to the disaster that was greater in scope?

For what reason - purely humanitarian? Because I would argue that the "normal" human reaction in such a situation is to do more for that which affects him or her more directly. I'm not sure that you can argue that the tsunami affected the majority of residents in the US more directly than Hurricane Katrina did.

Tell me, what is the economic impact of the tsunami? According to information (albeit old) on the following link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4154277.stm), it seems that reconstruction and economic impact related to the tsunami will cost somewhere under US$20 billion. That figure includes estimates from Indian damage, a burden that India has chosen to shoulder on its own, without foreign aid. Although there was a horrible loss of life, the economies of most of the affected countries were considered to be quite able to rebound with minimal effect.

Now, what is the expected economic impact of Hurricane Katrina on the US? Since you used Wikipedia in your post, I turn to that source here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...ricane_Katrina). Skimming through the entry, we see that it is considered Continuing, other predictions place I don't have the energy (forgive the pun) to delve into what the economic impact of the energy crisis that resulted from the hurricane, but rest assured that we US residents are feeling it even now. I suspect that there was at least a temporary affect on business and industry as a result.

If those numbers and predictions are accurate, then the Hurricane Katrina disaster was not only much more personal for US citizens and donors, but much costlier in terms of overall economic impact. Therefore, one could argue that Katrina was in fact the larger disaster. Of course, that is using a purely monetary scale for measurement, rather than the purely "human death" scale that you chose for your post. Who gets to choose which scale to use? You? The United Nations? The American Red Cross? The International Monetary Fund? Here's some good reasons that the US responded the way it did to Katrina: because our government is obligated to do so, because we have the financial means to do so, and because to do anything less would damage the economic and social fabric of this country.

To get back to the meat of the topic, however, are Americans "stingy"? It is my belief that calling $1.91 billion in total aid "stingy" is insulting, especially when arguments in support of that position are based on a "they make more, so they are obligated to give more" theory. Guess what - we do make more, and we did give more. And, on a global scale, how can we defend ourselves when critics get to pick and choose what aid counts and what aid doesn't count, and whether or not aid tied to results is valid, etc?

This argument is tired, and it is so tired that we here in the States see it in another context: Democrats stating that the wealthy need to be taxed more because "they can afford it", or "they have a moral responsibility". The underlying morality and values for there arguments aren't going to be solved here in a forum debate.

MoonDog

Also, someone needs to explain to me why comparisons based on GDP or per capita are valid? Just because someone puts together a chart using those figures? While it is an interesting statistic that displays "potential" or "capacity" for giving, it does NOT demonstrate ACTUAL giving.

What does demonstrate that? The final totals - which show that the US, and then Australia, gave the most.

It's not like charity is a contest or a race either. While there are foreign policy motivations in government aid, making charitable giving out to be like a contest or race is incredibly cheapening to the whole act.

**edited for spelling yet again! 2 posts - 2 spelling edits

MoonDog

I posted my feelings on Mr. Egeland's statements on how the people in those countries actually want MORE taxes on Page One of this thread. Unfortunately, I think that there is a logical construct that can be made using Egeland's statement. Logic statements were not always my strong point in high school, but let's see what happens...

STATEMENT: If the citizens of any nation give less than 0.2% of GDP to foreign assistance, then they are "stingy". The citizens of the United States give a total of 0.017% of GDP to foreign assistance. THEREFORE, the citizens of the United States are "stingy".

Egeland may not have mentioned the US by name, nor may he have even MEANT to imply that the US was a stingy nation, but by following the logic of his statement, one is left with only one conclusion - in Jan Egeland's personal viewpoint (or perhaps even the UN viewpoint, since he was speaking as a UN official), the US *IS* stingy.

Actual quote is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_egelund)

jimbob

The media reported this as a senior UN official singling out the US for criticism, which is not what happened, whatever the logic. And whether or not the US gives less than 0.2% is debatable, as you can see from this thread. I don't know how the costs figure as a % of GDP but if funding Israel, NATO and the war "on terror" etc should be included, as some seem to suggest in the thread, then the US may give more than 0.2% in which case there is no problem.

The UN's viewpoint is that 1% of GDP should be donated, in which case about 3 countries are not stingy. Mr Egeland is more forgiving.

As pointed out in the Wikipedia article, Egeland's comments spurred countries into action and he seemed to have been humbled by the response, but it wasn't widely reported and it didn't figure in the article. If only there were a fair and balanced approach in the media then we wouldn't still be having this discussion more than a year on. It really is a storm in a tea cup.

I've always been good at logic and analysis so I'll analyze that. First, you misquote him. He didn't refer to the citizens of any nation except to say that they thought their governments should do more: "People say we should give what we give now or more"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309924/posts
Second, you put words in his mouth that he never even tried to say. Perhaps you should put 'FACT:' before the 0.017% bit, as without that it suggests those are Egeland's words. He didn't single out any country.
So what can we deduce about his views on the citizens of the United States from his statement? Well all he says is that they want the government to give at least as much as they do now. If 0.017% is true then the word 'stingy' can be used to describe Egeland's view of the US government in this case, following the logic you describe.
So to demonise the UN as much as possible the article could have had Egeland asserting "Americans want their government to be less stingy". (I still wouldn't be happy with that as it implies that Egeland thinks his view of stinginess is shared by those Americans who tell him their government should give more, and he's not suggested that in his statement. It also suggests he thinks there is a consensus when he may percieve those views as belonging only to a majority.) This could be twisted into a report on how a UN official is out of touch (I suspect) with the bulk of US public opinion but as such I'm sure it's unlikely to have been published.

It's very hard to make a bad headline out of this and stick to the truth of the statement.

jimbob

If we are concentrating on stinginess then it is the capacity for giving which is more important than the actual amount given, but there is another factor to consider - the opportunity cost of giving (what the money would be worth to you if you hadn't given it away). If a big earner gives the same amount as a poor person then you may think he is stingy (or the other is generous). But if the big earner has debts to service, kids to feed and elderly parents to care for they might ligitimately feel that to give more than they did would be too costly.

I don't really care how much aid the US gives - it's the trade practices that should be changed if the world's poor are to get a decent chance in life.

MoonDog

Umm, at the most, I will agree that I paraphrased his statement. He did not refer to citizens, as I did in my statement. Look at this direct quote of Egelund, as per your reference site and mine: "Christmastime should remind many Western countries how rich we have become, and if actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy, really." Egelund refers to "Western countries", so not just the US qualifies - but it DOES qualify. Foreign assistance could mean governmentally-provided foreign aid, I suppose, as well as charitable donations. However, who is the ultimate source for the monies provided by the US government for foreign aid - yep - US citizens. How about for charitable aid originating from the US? I'm guessing that it is primarily from US citizens. Hence my inclusion of citizens. But, he very well may NOT have meant the US, since he did not specifically mention any country.

Oops! You are right - I left out the FACT qualifier in my logic. It can be read as if I'm saying that Egelund said that, and he absolutely did not. So, given what I've covered so far, let's change that "logic" statement I wrote to the following:

STATEMENT #1: Many Western countries have become rich. STATEMENT #2: If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I (Jan Egeland) think that is stingy. FACT: The United States gives a total of 0.017% of GDP to foreign assistance. THEREFORE: The United States is stingy.

Well, Mr. Egeland clearly DOES believe that, and to quote "all the populations, in the United States, in the European Union, in Norway which is number one in the world, we want to give more as...as voters as taxpayers." He preceded this statement with one that showed that he believes that politicians do not understand voter positions on the issue. It appears to me that he feels that he knows the charitable intents of the citizens of the US, the EU, and his homeland better than their own politicians do. Without any backup (and I would hardly expect him to be producing any in that setting) I find that to be rather arrogant. If the US media had picked up on that, they may very well have published.