Humanitarian Aid - the myths!

farfromglorified · January 2007

Collin wrote:

Something can be stupid and true, you know.

No. Two different things can be stupid and true. But stupid and true and mutually exclusive.

I know you give more in total dollars but that's just because you have a bigger population. Everyone (most western countries) give money, so what's the point in acting all high and mighty about it?

It's not as simple as having a "bigger population". Accounting for private donations, the United States appears much higher on these lists. Furthermore, the entire idea of chastizing the US here is ridiculous. Why aren't people criticizing Italy or New Zealand (#19/#21)?

Should I be able to criticize HH because, well, Ireland is not #1 on the per-capita list? Or how about criticize everyone here since Western foreign aid pales in comparison to nations like Saudi Arabia who donate close to 5% of their GDP to foreign aid??? It's ridiculous to chastize generosity -- there's no justifiable way to do so.

They're boasting about something that everyone does. And ok, maybe they did do something spectecular, but again, all those countries did.

And the fact remains, if you look at percentages, the US is at the bottom of the list.

Yes, the US is at the bottom of the GDP list for government aid. I fail to see what's wrong with this, particularly considering the list is of 23 nations generating positive aid (more going out than in). Should I be criticizing Lesotho, since they're on the bottom of the total list??? Should I demand that they raise their GDP so they can give more total foreign aid??? It's absolutely preposterous and it completely mirrors the holier than thou attitude of the people this thread it pretending to reject.

dunkman · January 2007

miller8966 wrote:

Yea but everybody wants to be us.

I don't think i've ever seen you type more than one sentence. Mind you, if they are as vacuous in substance as your normal 1 sentence posts... then there's no point i suppose.

miller8966 · January 2007

dunkman1974 wrote:

I don't think i've ever seen you type more than one sentence. Mind you, if they are as vacuous in substance as your normal 1 sentence posts... then there's no point i suppose.

I dont think ive ever seen you type anything worth reading.

Collin · January 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

No. Two different things can be stupid and true. But stupid and true and mutually exclusive.

I disagree

It's not as simple as having a "bigger population". Accounting for private donations, the United States appears much higher on these lists. Furthermore,

Source?

the entire idea of chastizing the US here is ridiculous. Why aren't people criticizing Italy or New Zealand (#19/#21)?

I agree but it's the Americans on the board who started with the 'look how much money we give'.

Yes, the US is at the bottom of the GDP list for government aid. I fail to see what's wrong with this,

Nothing wrong with it, the US gives great amounts but it's a bit foolish, imo, to boast about how much money you give considering these facts.

Collin · January 2007

Maybe you missed the part where HH said this:

Now this is not me bashing the US or anything... any aid is good and welcome...

farfromglorified · January 2007

Collin wrote:

I disagree

So you believe a statement can be both true and stupid? Ok.

Source?

Read Carol Adelman's research.

I agree but it's the Americans on the board who started with the 'look how much money we give'.

Ok. If that's true, why does that allow you to take on the same ridiculous holier than thou attitude and, more importantly, why would you want to?

Nothing wrong with it, the US gives great amounts but it's a bit foolish, imo, to boast about how much money you give considering these facts.

It depends on the context. If that "boasting" is simply rejecting the idea that Americans don't give foreign aid, then it's not very foolish. If people are trumpeting America's efforts in an unsolicited fashion, it's probably very foolish. Regardless, that doesn't change the incredible foolishness of a thread dedicated to guilt-tripping Americans.

farfromglorified · January 2007

Collin wrote:

Maybe you missed the part where HH said this:

Now this is not me bashing the US or anything... any aid is good and welcome...

I did see that. What I also saw was this, first:

"By the way, congrats to Luxumbourg, Norway, Netherlands and Denmark... THEY can be proud."

Sorry kids, but you can't have it both ways. I'm very proud of the private donations I've made to both foreign and domestic interests. I'm also very proud of some of the expropriated money of mine the government has used in foreign interests. My pride has nothing to do with what another nation is doing.

dunkman · January 2007

miller8966 wrote:

I dont think ive ever seen you type anything worth reading.

yet not only did you read my post you actually responded to it

and you did it with the one sentence.

Collin · January 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

So you believe a statement can be both true and stupid? Ok.

I believe something can be stupid and true, yes. Like my little nephew can burp all his favorite songs, it's true but it's stupid.

Read Carol Adelman's research.

I'll take your word. Did she do research on private donations in those European countries as well?

[quoe]Ok. If that's true, why does that allow you to take on the same ridiculous holier than thou attitude and, more importantly, why would you want to?[/quote]

Where did I take on the holier than thou attitude?

It depends on the context. If that "boasting" is simply rejecting the idea that Americans don't give foreign aid, then it's not very foolish.

I agree. But that was not the case.

ThumbingMyWay32 · January 2007

Collin wrote:

I believe something can be stupid and true, yes. Like my little nephew can burp all his favorite songs, it's true but it's stupid.

That's not stupid. That's talent.

Collin · January 2007

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

That's not stupid. That's talent.

I knew I should have gone with my cat example.

evenkat · January 2007

Heineken Helen wrote:

http://www.sln.org.uk/geography/Documents/Tsunami/Aid%20Quiz.doc

Here is a quiz some of you should take. I am sick of hearing 'the US give more money by FAR in aid to other countries'. Ok this is wrong as the US actually comes in second on that*.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don-economy-economic-aid-donor

That's not taking into account that 3/4 of that aid is bi-lateral, meaning that it must be spent on American goods and services :eek:

But how are small countries like Ireland going to compare to that? We only have a population of 4m unlike what? 301m in the US. Well see there's a thing called 'per capita' which is where the money is broken down to see how much is actually given per head... and guess what? The US comes in 20th on this list

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don_percap-economic-aid-donor-per-capita

Now, there is also another way of judging it... per GDP. US comes in 23rd on this list.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don_pergdp-economic-aid-donor-per-gdp

Now this is not me bashing the US or anything... any aid is good and welcome... but I just want to quash those myths that the US gives more aid 'BY FAR' than any other country... cos it doesn't on any of those lists.

By the way, congrats to Luxumbourg, Norway, Netherlands and Denmark... THEY can be proud.

I think you shouldn't measure something like giving humanitarian aid to other countries based on the giving country's per capita. For instance, there are 37 million Americans currently living in poverty, which is about 13% of the US population and is more than the total populations of Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands and Denmark combined. How can we include those living in poverty in the equation (per capita) when they themselves need aid? Then the poverty affects the economy, which affects the GDP. Each country is not the same and therefore shouldn't be measured the same as you can't compare a country with a population of 300 million with a country with 2 or even 20 million people. Big country just means bigger problems. Denmark needs to create jobs and employ about 5 million people but the US needs to create jobs and employ about 300 million people, well less the children of course. There are over 1.3 billion people living in China but China is no where to be found on the lists even though just about everything is made in China...bigger country so even bigger problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

The US is not as rich as led to believe. But the US could do a lot more considering over $300 billion dollars have been spent on the Iraq war. That money could have gone to something better.

evenkat · January 2007

Heineken Helen wrote:

EVERYBODY donated money to katrina victims... there were people collecting all over the place. Just like the tsunami. How teh fuck am I supposed to remember what I gave... it was ages ago. But I DID give and it was a lot at the time. Not that it's any of your business but I have a standing order to a charity every month - that's MY priority. What's yours? What percentage do you give and to what charity?

Wow, even Sri Lanka were sending aid to Katrina victims... so don't gimme that 'how come we never got aid' bullshit...

Lol, sounds familiar?

Heineken Helen · January 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Awesome! Now, do you also recognize that millions of people in the United States share that priority?.

Of course I do... that's not the point of this thread. I KNOW there are plenty of wonderful americans and my intention was NOT to generalise against Americans here... my intention was for people to stop blowing their own trumpet when it takes them three HOURS to come up with ONE site to back their claims... they obviously hear something about how America is the best at something and go on and on and on about it... and it just pisses me off cos it's WRONG and this thread is simply to point THAT out.

farfromglorified wrote:

I am willing to give 50% of my income to charity. The government steals roughly 40% of that, so the remaining 10% goes to charities of my choosing..

So you actually only give 10% to charities? Not 50%! The government is NOT a charity. It's not the charity's fault that 40% was 'stolen'

farfromglorified wrote:

I didn't give you that bullshit. I simply challenged your ridiculous generalization of the Katrina situation, ignoring the millions of incredibly generous people here who donated their time, money and efforts.

I haven't ignored it... but it's YOU who have ignored the help and sympathy from other countries when Katrina happened... do they just not tell ya about it or something? WE sent money... WE sent food rations, tents, sleeping bags, soldiers, doctors, etc... and every other country did the same. It was the person who said 'charity begins at home' I directed that to. I'm just wondering, which will be rebuilt first, Iraq or New Orleans?

Heineken Helen · January 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

When someone suggests that the United States is "uncharitable" or does not deserve credit for the charitable works it does throughout this world, they've made things personal

Tell me... where did I say that??????? This is my original quote.

Heineken Helen wrote:

Now this is not me bashing the US or anything... any aid is good and welcome... but I just want to quash those myths that the US gives more aid 'BY FAR' than any other country... cos it doesn't on any of those lists.

By the way, congrats to Luxumbourg, Norway, Netherlands and Denmark... THEY can be proud.

Heineken Helen · January 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm curious, would those of you who talk about "percent GDP" on this issue do the same with issues such as the national debt? For instance, the United State's national debt, as a percentage of GDP, is lower than most European nations. Also, what about on Education spending, where the US is tenth, ahead of many European nations? How come "percent GDP" never comes up in those discussions? What about the poverty issue? How come "per-capita GDP" doesn't come up there, where the US ranks third?

Because that's not what THIS THREAD is about? You want to talk about that? Start another thread! but I'd appreciate you to stay on topic on THIS one.

farfromglorified wrote:

Furthermore, I don't see any mention at all of private donations in these figures. The United States citizenry donates nearly three times privately overseas than they do publicly through government institutions. Does this simply not count?

Yes, it does... I've amended that in my posts above... still not the highest before you start.

farfromglorified wrote:

The fact remains is that the United States gives the most hard dollars to foreign aid, by far. You cannot feed people with "percent GDP". You feed them with food bought with money or harvested with time. The US leads the world in these donations. Should we be celebrated as wonderfully charitable people? Not necessarily, no. Should we be vilified for not "giving enough"? Of course not. Those who receive this aid should simply be thankful. In most cases, they've done nothing to earn it. Those who simply observe this aid are in no position to criticize -- they own their own behavior, not the behavior of others.

You are of course right. I'm not villifying anybody here... I'm simply stating the FACTS! Do you have a problem with that?

farfromglorified wrote:

There is nothing more petty and disgusting than the child who will quibble with the giver over his charity. If you do not like it, do not accept it. If you do not think it's enough, supplement it. But do not pretend it is owed to you -- you've done nothing to earn it.

When did I ever say that? When? FACTS dear FFG... you seem to have a problem with them.

Heineken Helen · January 2007

NCfan wrote:

Hmmmmmmmm, has anybody asked themselves why there are no Middle Eastern countries on this list? I mean, many of them are drowning in oil. I think the king of Saudi Arabia recently ordered the most expensive personal yacht ever built - over $300 million by some estimates and over 500 ft long.

I'm not saying that is grounds to invade Iraq or anything - but I just hate it when people talking about pressuring countries over there to be more "progressive" and oponents shout back how we shouldn't judge them and if their governments oppress their people - who are we to say they shouldn't. Like we need to respect their culture or something if we disagree.

You have UAE, Saudi Arabia, Quater, Kuwait all these countries as rich as any Western nation - yet they don't help any of their neighbors and leave that to the West sort out. That's just classy huh?

You have a very good point. It stinks!

Heineken Helen · January 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

No. Two different things can be stupid and true. But stupid and true and mutually exclusive.

It's not as simple as having a "bigger population". Accounting for private donations, the United States appears much higher on these lists. Furthermore, the entire idea of chastizing the US here is ridiculous. Why aren't people criticizing Italy or New Zealand (#19/#21)?

Should I be able to criticize HH because, well, Ireland is not #1 on the per-capita list? Or how about criticize everyone here since Western foreign aid pales in comparison to nations like Saudi Arabia who donate close to 5% of their GDP to foreign aid??? It's ridiculous to chastize generosity -- there's no justifiable way to do so.

Yes, the US is at the bottom of the GDP list for government aid. I fail to see what's wrong with this, particularly considering the list is of 23 nations generating positive aid (more going out than in). Should I be criticizing Lesotho, since they're on the bottom of the total list??? Should I demand that they raise their GDP so they can give more total foreign aid??? It's absolutely preposterous and it completely mirrors the holier than thou attitude of the people this thread it pretending to reject.

You're again missing the point and misquoting me... I never criticised ANYONE and certainly not the US... ok, I take it back, the people I AM criticising are those making false claims... I simply thought a thread was needed to shed light on the truth as quite a few people don't seem to understand. Here's an interesting article.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2676

You can insult Ireland as much as you want, but why would you want to? You seem to think I'd get as offended as you seem to be! But you fail to realise I'd KNOW it's only because you're pissed off with me for some reason that you've actually MADE up.

And something CAN be stupid and true... what about that guy who cut his balls off last year during the six nations cos Wales lost? Stupid!!!! Yet TRUE! :cool:

Heineken Helen · January 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

I did see that. What I also saw was this, first:

"By the way, congrats to Luxumbourg, Norway, Netherlands and Denmark... THEY can be proud."

Sorry kids, but you can't have it both ways. I'm very proud of the private donations I've made to both foreign and domestic interests. I'm also very proud of some of the expropriated money of mine the government has used in foreign interests. My pride has nothing to do with what another nation is doing.

It's just the fact that I don't think I've EVER seen any Norwegians, Danish, Dutch or Luxumbourgers post here about how they donated more than anyone in the world FACT... they don't go on and on and on and on about it. Anytime there's a thread about charity somebody always brings this up about the US and it's simply my job as an observer to point out that they're wrong.

Heineken Helen · January 2007

evenkat wrote:

I think you shouldn't measure something like giving humanitarian aid to other countries based on the giving country's per capita. For instance, there are 37 million Americans currently living in poverty, which is about 13% of the US population and is more than the total populations of Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands and Denmark combined. How can we include those living in poverty in the equation (per capita) when they themselves need aid? Then the poverty affects the economy, which affects the GDP. Each country is not the same and therefore shouldn't be measured the same as you can't compare a country with a population of 300 million with a country with 2 or even 20 million people. Big country just means bigger problems. Denmark needs to create jobs and employ about 5 million people but the US needs to create jobs and employ about 300 million people, well less the children of course. There are over 1.3 billion people living in China but China is no where to be found on the lists even though just about everything is made in China...bigger country so even bigger problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

The US is not as rich as led to believe. But the US could do a lot more considering over $300 billion dollars have been spent on the Iraq war. That money could have gone to something better.

Finally somebody disagreeing using something intelligent to say and giving reasons instead of just 'you're wrong' and jumping down my throat for stating the simple facts.

Humanitarian Aid - the myths!

Comments

Categories