Completely pathetic. Worse, the USA has to defend itself against our own media.
And this from a CBS Report.Mr Powell was forced yesterday to defend the US response. On broadcaster CBS, interviewer Harry Smith suggested that the initial $US15million "doesn't seem like very much money from the United States of America". Mr Powell said it was "a start" and would increase.
Measured another way, as a percentage of gross national product, the OECD's figures on development aid show that as of April, none of the world's richest countries donated even 1 percent of its gross national product. Norway was highest, at 0.92 percent; the United States was last, at 0.14 percent.
This is like saying that if I give a homeless person $1000 it would be around 1.3% of my pay. If Bill Gates gave the same guy $10,000 it would be 0.0000025% of his income. And by the UN representatives statement, My gift would be worth more than Bill Gates. What?
[I got that thought from Right Thinking from the Left Coast.]
[I got that thought from Right Thinking from the Left Coast.]
I suppose we should realize that you don't get thanks all of the time for your generosity. But then, you don't have to put up with third parties criticizing your very charitable giving.
7 comments:
Well, this is a glorious little fiction that the UN trots out any time they're feeling unloved. Yes, lots of governments in the world give a greater percentage of their GDP than our government. What's not counted by the UN when they trot this figure out is that individuals in our country contribute tons more than individuals in other countries. So that if we were to factor in the contributions of individuals and report it as such, then the other countries look like misers compared to the US. Funny, this is frequently not mentioned by those that believe greater & greater centralization of weatlh is the answer to the worlds ills.
The math also fails in that the people that do the accounting for the data the UN uses warps that data against the US. They never include charitable donations in country that benefit all of the world. Say like money given to the cancer research groups, or disease research groups. They also don't allow us credit for charities that help our own disaster victims in country. The US never gets out of country charities for hurcanes or tornadoe devestation.
It doesn't mean your donation would be worth more than Bill Gates', it means it would be more generous. There is a difference. It pisses me off when the UN gets uppity with us, but there is a point to be made here. This is a link to my post on the subject if you're interested:
http://parentheticalremarks.blogspot.com/2004/12/bushs-fuzzy-math-on-tsunami-relief.html
I wasn't suggesting that the US was stingy, just that the the government's pledged aid is. In fact, I think the American people are incredibly generous which is a fact we should be very proud of. I'm just not so proud of our government's response, but that will surely grow as the enormity of all of this sinks in.
PJB...
To start, I will agree strongly with your statement of pride for the high levels of giving by the American Public. We should be proud that people give so willingly without intervention or requirements of a governmental body. You're blogs write up was interesting, though I would contend that the numbers, though quoted, aren't telling the whole story.
I would disagree with your argument of worth. Worth, with respect to charitable donations, should be viewed from the perspective of the receiver. $10,000 always has more worth [actually value is more appropriate] than $1000 to the receiver.
I would argue that, with respect to charitable giving, the giver's perspective is irrelevant. The giver is giving out of either the goodness of their heart or as an alleviation of some need. [Tax deduction, remission of sin, etc.]
As to the relationship of Government giving, I'll put on my Libertarian hat. When the government collects taxes it is supposed to be for the use of running the country. Section 8 of the Constitution states:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nowhere does it speak to charitable giving. This begs the question of appropriate use as well. Who decides where the money should be used? Since the government already provides a certain level of charitable support, the rest should be left to individual conscience rather than requirements thrown on by the government.
I also see that the giving by our government is, and should continue to be used as the fast reaction funding in disasters. People need that money immediately. The problem with NGO charities is that they aren't very quick on their feet and thus need some time to ramp up in assistance. That is where our government does a huge service.
And lastly, the last number I saw had the overall aid over $100M. At this moment I'm betting that there is a huge volume of cash just sitting around waiting to be used. If more is needed I'm certain the purse strings will be loosened again.
I found Day-by-day to be interesting today:
http://daybydaycartoon.com
I think they hit it close to the mark. I just don't think we need to trust the UN with our purse strings. The US can piss away money way to easily on its own.
Post a Comment