The US response to the Tsunami, the largest natural distaster in modern history, has brought up a growing discrepancy between how we Americans' view our generosity and what we really do.
So far, the US government has pledge $35 million to the relief efforts. The UK has pledged $96 millions and Sweden (a country with a population 3% of the US population and an economy that is 2.2% of the US economy) has pledged $75 million.
This situation might, and hopefully will, change in the coming days and weeks but it disturbs me because it is part of a much bigger picture.
In 2003, the US gave $16.254 billion in foreign aid, approximately 3/4 of which was humanitarian aid. The remainder military aid. That is 80% more than was given by any other nation -- which sounds good until you realize that the US has 2.3 times the populations and a 3 times larger economy than any other wealth nation. In fact, of the 22 wealthiest nations in the world, the US is 22nd (dead last) in the amount of foreign aid given as a % of GDP and 18th in the amount of foreign aid given per capital. If you add in private giving, it does not change the results.
Country $Aid/Person Norway 446 Denmark… 323 Sweden 267 Netherlands 244 Luxembourg 420 Belgium 179 Switzerland 174 France 120 Ireland….. 127 Finland…. 107 UK 104 Germany 82 Japan 70 Spain 49 Australia 61 Canada 62 Austria 62 New Zealand 41 Portugal 30 Greece 34 Italy 42 US 55
Country Foreign Aid (billions) Norway 2.042 Denmark… 1.748 Sweden 2.4 Netherlands 3.981 Luxembourg 0.194 Belgium 1.853 Switzerland 1.299 France 7.253 Ireland….. 0.504 Finland…. 0.558 UK 6.282 Germany 6.784 Japan 8.88 Spain 1.961 Australia 1.219 Canada 2.031 Austria 0.505 New Zealand 0.165 Portugal 0.32 Greece 0.362 Italy 2.433 US 16.254
The big problem that I see here is not that Americans are stingy. Most Americans I know are quite generous. The problem that I see is that our good will does not translate into action. We believe we are the most generous people in the world, and yet give less than half as much per capita than French.
Why does this gap between the way we percieve ourselves and the reality exist and what can we do to change it.
[ December 31, 2004, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"So far, the US government has pledge $35 billion
Rabbit, I think the numbers are in the millions. US just raised the amount to 350 million.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I need to proof read my posts more carefully.
To put the US aid pledge in perspective, as of Dec. 29, the US federal emergency management agency (FEMA) approved $391.7 million in aid to Puerto Rico for damage from the Tropical Storm Jeanne.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
From VoteNoWar:
quote:President Bush, after days of silence, emerged from his Texas vacation to issue a brief statement. Following a public rebuke and the worldwide reaction of utter contempt, the initial aid offering of the Bush administration was raised from $15 million to $35 million. More is to come, Bush officials promise, as they jockey to have a U.S.-led "coalition" take the leadership of the relief effort away from the United Nations.
Many have commented on the paltry, really disgraceful U.S. aid offer. The U.S. spends approximately $270 million each day for the occupation of Iraq. The cost of one F-22 Raptor fighter jet is $225 million.
The Bush-Cheney Presidential Inaugural Committee intends to raise $40 million in the next few weeks to host its gala parties and the inaugural parade.
This year, the Bush Administration provided a total of $13.6 billion in emergency funding to Florida (it was an election year) in response to the four hurricanes that caused so much destruction in the state. The death, suffering and property destruction was great. More than 100 families lost a loved one. But in the last week more than 100,000 people in South Asia have died. 5 million are now without access to the basic requirements of life - water, food and sanitation. In Indonesia (the largest Muslim country in the world) and in Sri Lanka and India whole villages and towns have been entirely wiped out.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I have a hard time with the whole Iraq idea as it is, and this just accentuates it.
However, we do provide a lot of the transportation for these efforts, right? Is that factored in? And is the American Red Cross funded by the government? Where does the money we pledge go, and maybe that is just a small amount of the things we provide these efforts?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:However, we do provide a lot of the transportation for these efforts, right? Is that factored in?
I don't know the answers to those questions. I suspect that transportation costs are factored in but I don't know.
The American Red Cross is an non-government organization. It does receive some of its funding through federal grants but to the best of my knowledge, the American Red Cross does not participate directly in Internation relief efforts directly -- That would int The International Red Cross.
As for the money we pledge -- do you mean the money we donate individually or the money our government has pledged.
A year ago when the major earthquake hit Iran, countries were quick to pledges around 1 billion in aid. So far less the 2% of the pledged money has actually been given.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, Rabbit, I think you do the U.S. a small disservice by not counting military manpower/transportation and private donations (which are the backbone of most U.S. relief efforts).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Again, Rabbit, I think you do the U.S. a small disservice by not counting military manpower/transportation and private donations (which are the backbone of most U.S. relief efforts).
The numbers for foreign aid are not mine. They come from "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development". They have two sets of numbers, one for Official Development Assistance which list the US at 15.791 billion/year and another which includes things like transportation and puts the US at $16.25 billion/year. I used the higher number in my calculations.
If you have information that the OECD, of which the US is a member, has omitted some substantial fraction of the US governments humanitarian aid, please let me know. I have no been able to find any such evidence.
By "We" I mean our government. In other words, do we writ a check, and to whom, or do we provide things?
Tom, I see it as separate, the government and private donors. The stats Rabbit used are comparing governmental donations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But you need to include private donations. I believe the U.S. is ahead of many if not most in per-capita charitable donations to foreign causes. Just because those countries choose to accomplish it via government charity doesn't mean our private charity isn't comparable.
Dagonee
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Tom, I'm very curious why you automatically assume that I am doing a disservice to the US by leaving something out.
As a US citizen who has always been proud of my nations generosity, I found this numbers to be shocking and disturbing. I have searched, but found no evidence that they are incorrect. I don't think that those numbers reflect the values most Americans hold and I believe that if more Americans were aware of those numbers -- we would not let them stand.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But you need to include private donations. I believe the U.S. is ahead of many if not most in per-capita charitable donations to foreign causes.
Everyone agrees that getting good statistics on private donations to developing countries is difficult. The best numbers I could find indicate the total US private giving to developing countries was ~ $34 billion dollars. Over half of this amount, $18 billion, is personal remittances, or money sent from US immigrants to family in developing countries, 1.5 billion comes from foundations, 2.8 from businesses, $6.6 from humanitarian NGO's and 3.4 from religious ministries.
If you add this amount to the governments donations, this puts the US at $171/person and .45% of our GDP: a substantial improvement. However, even if their is no private giving at all from the other wealthy nations, this still puts seven countries ahead of us in generosity.
I will continue searching for estimates on private giving in other countries but anyway you look at it -- the US simply isn't a generous as we think we are.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Do the numbers for the other countries also include private donations from their citizens?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Do the numbers for the other countries also include private donations from their citizens
No all the numbers I quoted in my original post are official government aid, no private giving is included for any country.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I would guess (just a guess people! Nothing to back it up) that Americans are equivalent to, but not more generous than, other westerners when it comes to private donations to foreign countries.
I do think the government statistics are worrying, especially when you consider the potential for aid. That is that a government will nearly always be able to donate more than its citizens, no matter how generous they are. This trend, incidentally, is also true in other humanitarian endeavours that the US is part of (the UN GA springs to mind immediately).
However, it should be noted that the US Government has now pledged 350 millionin aid, up from the original 35.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Ther is a billboard in Timnes Square which calculates the cost of the Iraq War(old article)
"A billboard in Times Sqaure counts the cost of the Iraq war starting at $134.5B and increases at a rate of $177M per day, $7.4M per hour and $122,820 per minute." By Anders Krusberg, AP
eep. With those numbers, it is hard to make even 350 million seem significant.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Is this the Keeping-up-with-the-Jones school of foreign aid?
Does it really matter what other countries give, and how we rank?
We ought to look at the problem and make the aid adequate to the problem. We should be more concerned with Indonesia, south Asia, and East Africa than Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.
[ December 31, 2004, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The US has approved more money, $391 billion, for aid to victims of a tropical strom in Puerto Rico. We spent $18 billion aiding uninsured victims of huricanes in Florida this year.
The pledges our government is making to aid victims of this disaster are far from generous, still only at $1.20 per person. We can do more and we should.
I have made my own donations privately but I there is something different about what we do as "A People" and what we do as individual people.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I fully agree that we should give more as A People, and I just think that we should look to Sri Lanka and not Norway to tell us when we have given enough.
I wonder how much the admin considers us A People?
[ December 31, 2004, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I read that India refused aid, which surprised me. they said they are fine on their own, and are helping quite a bit with Sri Lanka.
Also, the true proof will be in the next months and years. Apparently, Iran is still waiting for promised aid.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
There is a difference, though. We are a democracy, with all of the benefits and burdens that go along with such a government. When we don't give aid, it's about us, and it properly shows a poverty in our character, for we do purport from the outset to be one people.
[ January 01, 2005, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:We ought to look at the problem and make the aid adequate to the problem.
quote:When the world's governments met at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, we adopted a programme for action under the auspices of the United Nations -- Agenda 21. Amongst other things, this included an Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) for rich nations, roughly 22 members of the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development), known as the Development Assistance Committee (DAC).
ODA is basically aid from the governments of the wealthy nations, but doesn't include private contributions or private capital flows and investments. The main objective of ODA is to promote development. It is therefore a kind of measure on the priorities that governments themselves put on such matters. (Whether that necessarily reflects their citizen's wishes and priorities is a different matter!) Other aid, such as private capital flows may be for investment purposes, etc.
In regards to global poverty, we have looked at the problem and we are giving far less than we assessed was needed. What's more, we are giving far less than we could easily give based on the performance of other peoples.
When looking at the current dissaster in Southeast Asia, Indonesia and India, we do not even begin to know how great the need is -- but it is certainly far far greater than the needs were in Florida following this years hurricanes that killed ~100.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Is this the Keeping-up-with-the-Jones school of foreign aid?
No that wasn't my point at all. My motivation in starting this stems from several recent statements by GW and others that the US is "The most generous country in the world". A 2001 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (U of MD), found that the overwhelming majority of Amricians believe this idea. The average american believes that the US spends 24% of its budget on assistance to developing nations, more than 20 times the actual amount.
My concern is not whether or not we "Keep up with the Jones's" but the enormous discrepancy between how generous we think our country is and how stingy we really are. I think that is a big problem.
If we as American's want to be the most generous nation in the world (and I think we do) I believe its very important that we look at the number and make our actions match our desires.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Generosity is good no matter how much. What is the point of giving freely if there is some sort of competition involved? --That isn't generosity.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Personally, I'm pleased that such a large portion of the relief monies are coming from private/corporate donation. It means that we can each feel free to give of ourselves, without thinking that we've already "given at the office" through our tax dollars.
[ December 31, 2004, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Generosity is good no matter how much. What is the point of giving freely if there is some sort of competition involved? --That isn't generosity.
There is a sense in which it's generosity, and then there is a sense in which the government is shirking it's responsibility. We don't have a choice about whether to give to the victims, we have a duty, and whether we want to neglect our duty is another question.
Ladydove,
I like it when it comes through taxes. It shows that our public officials aren't scared to act as if a sense of duty in the face of tragedy is every bit as American as going to war.
[ December 31, 2004, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Generosity is good no matter how much. What is the point of giving freely if there is some sort of competition involved? --That isn't generosity.
What is generosity? What makes a gift generous? The dictionary defines generosity as "liberality in giving" but that means little more to me than the original word.
I would propose that a gift can be considered generous if if meets anyone of the following criteria.
1) It is large relative to ones available resources. 2) It is large relative to the needs. 3) It is large relative to what is commonly done or is expected.
The numbers suggest that US foreign aid does not meet any of those criteria. Yet we Americans perceive ourselves to be generous as a nation. Is this because we believe we are giving a larger portion of our resources than we really are? Is it because we be believe the needs are much smaller than they really are? Is it because we b elieve that what is commonly done is much less than it actually is?
Or is it because we don't really want to give generously and are happy believing what we do is "generous" just because we said so.
If it is any of the first three answers, then the numbers and comparisons I've given are extremely relevant because they show that what we give is quite small relative to our resources, to what others give and to what is needed.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If you don't count private donations then you get skewed numbers because the US has a much lower income tax rate then some of those other "wealthy" nations.
Stop using the Puerto Rico example because we have special obligations to our own territories ans since Florida and Puerto Rico didn't receive any international aid the amount they receive from the American government is obviously going to be disproportionate to international disasters.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Good point, newfoundlogic. It is interesting to note that when we have a disaster, there is not a barrage of foreign aid coming our way. I know we are wealthy and can(or should) be able to take care of ourselves, but since we do have to, it is not fair to use money spent on ourselves as an example.
Rabbit's point, though, is that we do not give as much as we think we do.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Personally I believe that for each person in count in the US should give even just something small, like... hey even a dollar. With about 400,000,000+ people, that total could be huge... and it's just a dollar.
Imagine 5, 10, or even 20...
Have you also been looking at what's been being given to charities? Those aren't officially funded by the US government. I dunno if it would be a huge difference. Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
From the article LadyDove linked to:
quote:Among the biggest corporate givers are Pfizer Inc, which is donating $10 million in cash and $25 million worth of drugs to relief agencies; The Coca-Cola Co, which is donating $10 million; Exxon Mobil Corp, which is giving $5 million; and Citigroup Inc, which is contributing $3 million. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has pledged $3 million.
Merck & Co Inc is giving $3 million in cash while Johnson & Johnson and Abbott Laboratories Inc are each donating $2 million; each of the three are also sending drugs and other health care supplies to the region. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co is donating $1 million in cash and $4 million in antibiotics and antifungal drugs.
I'm going to be cynical, and I hope I'm wrong... but a long while back I remember reading of similar giving -- I think it was about drug companies making donations to Gulf War I. A reporter looked into the donations, and drug companies, to get tax credits, had cleaned out their outdated inventory and shipped a bunch of useless drugs to the Middle East.
Posted by The Real Katharina (Member # 7178) on :
The NYT says that the aid from the US just increased from 35 million to 350 million.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
It is easy to be impressed when reading of the large quantities of donated medical supplies and drugs that charities and businesses send to areas devastated by wars, earthquakes and other disasters. These donations usually help to alleviate human suffering but sometimes they cause additional problems.
Here are some examples from the World Health Organization (WHO) of in-kind donations that made bad situations worse:
During its war for independence, Eritrea sent out carefully worded requests for medical supplies needed by its suffering population. In many cases the specific requests were overlooked and large quantities of inappropriate drugs arrived in this distressed country. Those drugs included seven truckloads of expired aspirin tablets, which took workers six months to burn, and 30,000 bottles of expired amino acid infusion that could not be easily disposed of because of its strong smell.
Southern Sudan was devastated by war in 1990. Amidst the rubble and the intensity of the rescue effort, the goods arriving included a shipment of fifty boxes of donated drugs. All were labeled in French, which is not spoken in Sudan, and only twelve boxes contained drugs that were at all usable. Some products were highly inappropriate, such as appetite stimulants and contact lens solution, and other products could have even been dangerous for Sudanese people.
In Lithuania in 1993, eleven women temporarily lost their eyesight because they were accidentally treated with a donated veterinary drug that had been received in packages without product information. Doctors had incorrectly matched the product’s name with leaflets for other products.
And during the Bosnian War in 1992–1996, fifty to sixty percent of all donated medical supplies were inappropriate, according to a recent article by a group of European doctors in The New England Journal of Medicine. The doctors suspect that massive amounts of “drug dumping” occurred in Bosnia, including, medical supplies from World War II and plaster tapes dated 1961. By mid-1996 about 17,000 metric tons (or about 37.5 million pounds) of inappropriate medicines were taking up space in Bosnian warehouses.
Why would so much useless or unusable medicine be distributed? A company might have an excess supply of drugs that are about to expire. Rather than incur the costs of destroying or storing the drugs, it might ship them to a stricken region, thereby avoiding expenses and receiving a tax deduction. It costs about $2,000 to destroy a metric ton of medicine. So the donor's responsible for giving approximately 17,000 tons of inappropriate medicines cited above may have received some hefty tax deductions and saved themselves $34 million in drug destruction costs that must be paid for by the recipient country or humanitarian groups operating in the field. In addition, the authors of the Journal article cite the health and environmental hazards, and the expenses of storing, handling and sorting unneeded or useless medical supplies.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Oh, heavens. I have to do more research on my chosen charity, AmeriCares. It says it is reputable, but still...
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Contributions continue to pour in for the relief effort, and as of 7:00 pm on Thursday evening, December 30 th, the American public had generously pledged $43.7 million to the American Red Cross International Response Fund. Contributions to a relief organization like the American Red Cross will allow the organization to provide immediate relief and long term support through supplies, technical assistance and other support to those in need.
The American people do get mobilized and contribute when necessary - who knows how much has been pledged to other organizations? The Red Cross, while the largest and best known, isn't the only place that is collecting donations for relief efforts.
Can we really factor how much the American people have pledged and given?
Like LadyDove, I'm much more impressed by the efforts of individual Americans choosing to give of the money in their own bank accounts, than by governmental decrees.
Personally, I don't give through large charities, I don't trust any of them.
I give through my church and through Christian charities that I have more personal knowledge of, and can be confident that my money is indeed going where I want it.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
But that statistic of 2% of those who pledged support for the earthquake in Iran worries me. Can we even count money pledged? Perhaps we should count only money that's already been given? Or at least provide both numbers side by side?
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:I'm going to be cynical, and I hope I'm wrong
Me too, Plaid. Since that article exposed what I would consider an abuse of the term "charitable giving", let's hope that there are safeguards in place now.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
From the BBC website....
quote:Hundreds of survivors in Aceh swarmed to the provincial airport on Saturday, drawn by the arrival of Seahawk helicopters from US aircraft carrier, Abraham Lincoln, which is moored off shore, as well as other foreign military aircraft.
In pictures: Aid reaches Aceh Indonesia press on Aceh disaster
The vehicles are reported to be carrying food, water and generators. Back on board the Abraham Lincoln, the Americans say they have the facilities to purify up to 90,000 gallons of water a day.
The Americans are also bringing in 80 trucks from the town of Medan across the provincial border.
"We just got here, we're here to help and we're going to keep working until the mission is done... Where they say they need (aid) we will move it," Captain Larry Burt, commander of US Carrier Air Wing Two, told Reuters news agency.
Funny thing is that none of that, or any of the other ships in the region, or the supplies they hold, are used when calculating the aid that we are giving.
All our ships, trucks, and helicopters in the area (plus many more enroute) are going to be used to help the region, but I don't see an accounting of that anywhere.
That isn't including the private donations or the charitable donations by private donations.
As an American, I am proud of our current response to this tradedy, and I hope it continues. I don't make the mistake of thinking that the goverment is the only, or even the primary, way Americans will choose to channel their funds into the region.
As far as what we spent on the US hurricane damage this year....that is what we have a goverment for, to help ourselves.
God knows no one else will do it for us.
Kwea
[ January 02, 2005, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
The US may have a much larger GDP than European nations, but has much less control over it. Taxes are low in the US compared to Europe. Also, I'd be quick to point out that federal government does not represent me, since there are few things that I think federal government does right.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Irami-
quote:I like it when it comes through taxes. It shows that our public officials aren't scared to act as if a sense of duty in the face of tragedy is every bit as American as going to war.
If I truly believed that increasing my taxes would do more to benefit the peoples in need of housing, food, medicine, etc. not only abroad, but in my own backyard, then I'd agree with you. What I believe is that the majority of our elected officials will divide up the tax monies to favor the lobbies that keep their pockets lined and their political machines well oiled.
Though it would be nice to see politicians act from a pure sense of civic duty, I think funding a war is fits more easily into the model of keeping promises to lobbies than funding a humanitarian rescue effort.
Given these assumptions, I prefer to see private donations with many people deciding to give out of their own pockets to the causes they believe in, rather than a few people in the government deciding to pull money out of everyone's pockets to fund the causes that they believe in.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
So far as I know:
Granted more could be done. 6 C-130's loaded with supplies (they are planes) 9 P-3 Orions (surveilance planes) The USS Abraham Lincoln Strike Group The USS Bonhomme Richard Expiditionary Group are on thier way over.
With all the ships in the strike group they can make well over 500,000 gallons of water a day. On top of that, the ship's are carrying supplies for the effort.
Of course you sit there and wonder why so much was given to Puerto Rico and Florida ....ummm... aren't they kind of PART of the U.S.?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
This just blows my mind.
If I have fallen into a pit and need help getting out, I'll be more concerned that my neighbors bring a rope that is long enough and strong enough to get me out. I will not care one whit how many of them had to go in together to buy the rope.
I've noticed, however, recently that the criticism of American giving for the disaster has come from the same groups that criticize the US no matter what we do. It is the same group of harpies waiting for some opening.
And yes, the US military is providing huge amounts of aid to the victims, both in manpower and materials. Do you know why it isn't getting coverage from these weeping magpies? Because it is the US military. Yanno, the jackbooted thugs working so that we can keep our feet on the world's necks.
Strangely enough, it isn't the national governments from those areas that are complaining. It's not even their local aid groups. It is the same old whiny pissants that do it every time.
And how much did the rest of the world send to Puerto Rico and Florida? How about San Francisco a few years back during the earthquake?
America, we'll help you even if you could care less whether we live or die.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I am so thankful for what we in the US are doing, both as individuals and as a country. Good show. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I listened to Colin Powell this morning on CBS. I will miss him so.
I was watching as people threw food off a truck, and people fought each other to get it. My husband said there was no way to create order in that situation, if an armed military presence couldn't do it. I thought, crap, they should send some retired kindergarten teachers over there. They know how to create order out of chaos.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:If I truly believed that increasing my taxes would do more to benefit the peoples in need of housing, food, medicine, etc. not only abroad, but in my own backyard, then I'd agree with you. What I believe is that the majority of our elected officials will divide up the tax monies to favor the lobbies that keep their pockets lined and their political machines well oiled.
Though it would be nice to see politicians act from a pure sense of civic duty, I think funding a war is fits more easily into the model of keeping promises to lobbies than funding a humanitarian rescue effort.
I just don't understand how we decide as a nation who lives and dies and who to invade and who is a threat, and then get persnickety when that same government- made of those same people- sets itself upon helping out disaster victims.
Is it that we don't mind our official's corruption when they are deciding other people's lives, but we do mind their corruption when the officials dole out public money?
And if this is true, what does that say about the quality of our character, that we will suffer graft and incompetence when it comes to bombing people, but not to tsumani relief.
Truthfully, I'm more wary of corporations unloading junk, excess inventory and hats and fanny-packs and calling it a donation in order to claim a tax credit.
I feel comfortable in my worries because it's in the nature of a corporation to be amoral. I do have a higher standard for a moral American government elected by a moral people.
[ January 02, 2005, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I'm sort of torn on this issue, because I wasn't impressed with the initial U.S. pledge of 15, then 35 million.
And I'd been listening to conservative talk radio all day on Wednesday, and I was even more infuriated by some of the conversations going on there, where people admitted that is just wasn't a big deal to them. It made me afraid that all the U.S. was going to have that attitude. "It's not happening to us. It's an act of nature, not an act of man like 9/11 was, so I'm just not as concerned about it."
I was ready to renounce conservatism after that. But I was equally irritated with left-wingers who immediately jumped on their usual anti-Bush tirades, nitpicking every aspect of Bush's response.
It seemed apparent then that highly-divisive politics were now apart of every aspect of American life, that we couldn't even respond to such an enormous human tragedy without arguing yet again over the merits of George W. Bush.
However, it's been heartening to learn that, despite all this, the U.S. government is pledging more money (and that number will hopefully keep rising, and we had better deliver on that pledge) and American citizens are donating generously to private relief organizations.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The US may have a much larger GDP than European nations, but has much less control over it. Taxes are low in the US compared to Europe.
If Foreign aid were a significant part of the federal budget, this might be a relevant point, but since Foreign Aid constitutes less than 1% of the budget -- it's hard to imagine that the lower tax rates make a significant difference. What's more, you forget to point out that having a lower tax rate is a choice our country has made. If we choose to have lower taxes rather than aid the extremely poor -- it hardly justifies the claim that we are "generous". What's more, 25 years ago US foreign aid was 0.5% of our GNP -- over three times the current percentage.
quote:Stop using the Puerto Rico example because we have special obligations to our own territories.
Since most of us don't regularly deal with sums on this order of magnitude, some reference point is needed for us to understand whether the US pledges are large or small.
I chose Puerto Rico as example because it was recent and readily available and offers a point of comparison. If Puerto Rico needed $391 million in aid to recover from a tropical storm, it illustrates that the $350 million the US has pledged will not go very far to aid in this disaster. If this we were stretching our resources to do this, it might be considered generous -- but we are not.
I am curious about why you believe that we have a special obligation to our own territories that goes far beyond what we owe to those outside our country. I have been reading a set of philosophical essays on the ethics of aid to the distant needy and have yet to find one convincing argument that would suggest I have a greater ehtical obligation to strangers in Puerto Rico or Florida than I do to strangers in Thailand and Sri Lanka.
Even if we concede that the we have special obligations to our own country men, how much special consideration should we give -- 2 fold, 10 fold, 100 fold. What is the number?
Tropical storm Jeanne killed 2 people in Puerto Rico. The Tsunami has killed over 130,000 by latest estimates. A ratio of 65,000. Do you really believe we owe our own countrymen 65,000 times more consideration than distant needed?
Christ taught that those gifts we give to friends, family and countrymen, gifts for which we might receive reciprocation, do not count for righteousness. It is those gifts we give to strangers, paupers, and enemies, gifts which will never be returned, that are required of the righteous (generous) person.
As a Christian, I believe that it is critical that we compare what we give to strangers to what we give to friends and family not because the two should be equal, but because the ratio of the two is an important indicator of whether or not are pure gifts are generous.
The tropical storm in Puerto Rico was not a major global disaster. In fact, it was not even a major national disaster -- barely making the news this hurricane season. For this disaster, the US did not ask for international aid because we had the resources to handle the needs ourselves, just as India has declined international aid in this disaster.
Less than 10% of the deaths in this disaster were in India. Most of the devastated coastlines were in much smaller, poorer countries with far few resources available to meet the needs. This is a disaster which demands the aid of the world. The US monopolizes nearly 1/3 of all the worlds resources. In crises like this, ethics demand that we use those resources generously to aid the less fortunate. So far, our response has been far less than than is needed and far less than we are able to do.
[ January 02, 2005, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:And if this is true, what does that say about the quality of our character, that we will suffer graft and incompetence when it comes to bombing people, but not to tsumani relief.
We suffer the incompetence and graft because it seems to be an integral part of the system. It's a system that needs a major overhaul, but one in which we have glimpsed moments of greatness.
Despite my distaste for Bush, I am actually hopeful that he will do something great in the next four years. Though I have disagreed with nearly every decision he's made, I think that most of those decisions were politically or financially motivated. The second term is the legacy term. Given an opportunity to choose a legacy, I think that he will make decisions that will attempt to prove he was a decent human being who wanted the best for his country in general rather than for special interests.
I didn't have a choice in Bush's decision to go to war. I smart at the thought that I am personally paying to kill people. If we truly had a say over where our tax dollars go, then maybe the money spent would be a reflection of our character. In the meantime, the reflection of our character lies in what we give freely and individually, out of our own pockets, in support of the causes that reflect our values.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Irami-
As an aside, do you feel responsible for the decisions made by your elected officials?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Yes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I am curious about why you believe that we have a special obligation to our own territories that goes far beyond what we owe to those outside our country."
Because we DO. By both law and tradition. It's what having a territory MEANS, in fact.
In the same way that I have a special obligation to provide for my wife and child that I do NOT have for, say, Geoff Card, our country has a special obligation to those territories it has sworn to protect in exchange for their allegiance.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Irami-
That shows a sense of empowerment and faith in the system that I must have lost over the years. When I look at the government's action regarding the war and the humanitarian efforts I feel angry, not embarrassed.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: If Foreign aid were a significant part of the federal budget, this might be a relevant point, but since Foreign Aid constitutes less than 1% of the budget -- it's hard to imagine that the lower tax rates make a significant difference.
With smaller taxes, a larger portion of the budget has to go to areas that don't receive private funding. Last I checked, private citizens weren't buying tanks for the army, but they were giving large sums of money to charities.
quote: I chose Puerto Rico as example because it was recent and readily available and offers a point of comparison. If Puerto Rico needed $391 million in aid to recover from a tropical storm, it illustrates that the $350 million the US has pledged will not go very far to aid in this disaster. If this we were stretching our resources to do this, it might be considered generous -- but we are not.
I am curious about why you believe that we have a special obligation to our own territories that goes far beyond what we owe to those outside our country. I have been reading a set of philosophical essays on the ethics of aid to the distant needy and have yet to find one convincing argument that would suggest I have a greater ehtical obligation to strangers in Puerto Rico or Florida than I do to strangers in Thailand and Sri Lanka.
First, the "strangers" in Puerto Rico and Florida pay something called taxes to the US government. Second, as I have already said and others have reiterated in this thread, virtually every country capable of giving a dime has done so in this disaster, even India a country that has suffered from personally is providing refief to Sri Lanka (although with alterior motives I suspect). On the other hand no other countries provided any type of aid to Puerto Rico or Florida after the barrage of hurricanes so of course the United States is going to have to provide an amount of money that is disproportionate.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's not the system I trust, it's the people. I trust Americans, I wish I liked more of them-- if you really knew how many individuals I didn't like, you'd be astounded-- but I trust people.
Trusting a system means trusting business or economics or engineering or some other feat of technology. I trust the human heart and conscience, and as we elect people and not calculators or strategists, I trust our officials and I take that trust seriously. And when they betray that trust or conscience, I take it that seriously, also.
[ January 02, 2005, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Secretary of State Powell on Meet the Press this morning gave a good defense to the administration response. He noted that the scale of the disaster only gradually, over a period of days, became evident, and that the amount pledged grew from $15 million to $350 million as more casualties became apparent. He also noted that other countries had similar scale ups in aid pledged. Note that news reports and Quidscribis' thread showed the mounting death toll day by day.
quote: The average american believes that the US spends 24% of its budget on assistance to developing nations, more than 20 times the actual amount
I have run into this wrong belief more than once in arguments with conservatives, who complain about the massive funding of other countries that their taxes pay for. They similarly complain about welfare. With no conception of the real spending, in real dollars or as a percentage of GDP or national budget, and expressions of disbelief and accusations of lying when I recite true figures, further argument becomes an exercise in futility.
Posted by Desdemona (Member # 7100) on :
quote:Japan has sent dozens of firefighters, doctors, and other relief workers to affected areas. It also has dispatched two naval destroyers and a supply ship to waters off Thailand to help with the recovery effort.
[ January 02, 2005, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Desdemona ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
You can't count our aid to foreign countries in dollars alone. We have two carrier battle groups assisting the aid efforts in the effected regions.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And a hell of a lot more than dozens of firefighters and a couple of ships....which were a lot closer to the disaster area than most of ours was.
As far as owning anything to other countries, I don't think we OWE them anything...if we did it wouldn't be charity. We help because we feel we should, and we give what we are comfortable giving.
Feel free to discount all the private giving, and all the help given by the US millitary....don't even consider what the US Corps of Engineers will do in helping rebuild....
We don't OWE them anything, just like they didn't OWE us any help when we suffered disasters.
PR and Flordia pay taxes (or in the case of PR we own half the damn island) so they have a reason to expect something from the goverment in return.
Kwea
Posted by Desdemona (Member # 7100) on :
I'm not trying to argue either way- I don't have enough knowladge of the american contribution to this effort. I was just posting some new information on what other countries have given.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Because we DO. By both law and tradition. It's what having a territory MEANS, in fact.
That's hardly an ethical justification. It was once law and tradition that one could own slaves, kill serfs, beat your children, and steal from the neighboring tribes.
The question is not whether or not we have an obilgation to members of our own country -- the question is why we don't owe that same obigation to every person on earth. If we owe less to those who are of our "tribe", how much more do we owe? This is a classic ethical question that has been asked by every major religious figure for thousands of years.
The relief aid we sent to Florida and Puero Rico was not contingent on how much the victims paid in taxes -- why should our aid to Thailand be different?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
The help that America is providing in military equipment alone is invaluable - one of the UN officials said on Fox News last night that American Army helicopters were the only means of getting food and supplies to many areas.
We should not just be lining up numbers side by side and comparing what is being done that way - personally I'm very proud of how quickly this country has stepped up to the plate and is doing things that make tangible, real differences to the survivors.
Do you think the average survivor right now cares how much money Japan has pledged? On the flip side, do you think they care when they see a helicopter landing full of food that their family desperately needs?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:In the same way that I have a special obligation to provide for my wife and child that I do NOT have for, say, Geoff Card ...
[writes Tom off next year's Christmas list]
Just kidding. I actually agree with Tom to a large extent, though either side in this argument needs to be taken in moderation.
quote:The question is not whether or not we have an obilgation to members of our own country -- the question is why we don't owe that same obigation to every person on earth.
I roll my eyes at isolationists who think that American resources should go exclusively to American interests because America is the only thing that matters to Americans. With great success comes great responsibility. We are one of the richest and most capable nations in the world, and in my mind, that alone obligates us to help out whenever we can.
But at the same time, you just can't compare a nation's internal means of self-support and problem-solving to the support it gives to outside interests.
First of all, there are too many major problems scattered across the globe for America to solve them all. I've just been reading Jared Diamond's new book Collapse, and it's incredible some of the nigh-insurmountable problems that other countries are dealing with. America does not have the means to clean up China's pollution, replant Haiti's forests, import the Dominican Republic's garbage, and desalinate Australia's soil, even if those countries were interested in giving up their own soverignty to the degree it would take for us to do it. There are limits to what America can accomplish, and so we set some priorities. It's like the instructions on an airplane to put on your own oxygen mask before helping your neighbor. It doesn't help anyone for you to run around fixing all the problems around you, only to drop dead yourself after a few minutes.
The American government's first responsibility is to preserve its own people and perpetuate American prosperity. That's why the American government was created. But now that it exists, it is ALSO morally obligated to use its surplus resources to help other nations as needs arise. But that obligation does not trump or replace the original, core responsibility of the government.
Say you're looking at two neighboring families, the Smiths and the Joneses. The Smiths suddenly lose their income right before Christmas, and in a fit of goodwill, the Joneses come over on Christmas Day and give presents to the Smiths' children.
If the Joneses spent more money on their own children than they did on the Smiths' that year, does that make them ungenerous?
[ January 03, 2005, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Rape News It seems to me that these people are pretty ate up as they say around here. Nothing better to do then turn on the women in the refugee camps? You would think it was a UN mission!
This is why despite our giving and buying we cannot ever make the third world rich, they are too willing to tear each other down.
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You think we are somehow exempt from this here?
Dagonee
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
The US is being called "ungenerous" by some based on the amount of aid pledged as a percentage of GDP compared to that of other nations, but I imagine that most of these people simply do not understand the full picture of what is involved in the US aid effort. The enormous amount of military aid - in terms of transportation, personnel, and more - adds up to a great deal more. Particularly considering the fact that much of this aid will remain deployed in the area for a good long while. All those people who talk about the major cost of keeping the military in Iraq? Well, we're talking about the same kind of mounting cost here, albeit on a lesser scale. An article on CNN describes how enormous this military aid effort is. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/03/military.mission.ap/index.html
quote:At least two dozen Navy ships with thousands of sailors and Marines are at the disaster scene or en route...
quote:...ships offer a variety of potential aid, including water purification equipment and medical supplies...
quote:While immediate aid was a priority, the military also was planning for the longer term, as indicated by the Pentagon's decision Monday to send the USNS Mercy, a 1,000-bed hospital ship that is based in San Diego and will take an estimated 33 days to reach south Asia.
quote:While immediate aid was a priority, the military also was planning for the longer term, as indicated by the Pentagon's decision Monday to send the USNS Mercy, a 1,000-bed hospital ship that is based in San Diego and will take an estimated 33 days to reach south Asia.
quote:A major part of the relief effort is a collection of 12 ships from the Navy's Military Sealift Command, including six laden with equipment and supplies to support 15,000 Marines for 30 days, and also carrying food, fuel, medical supplies, construction equipment and other materials.
Those six ships also have water purification equipment that is capable of producing 600 gallons of potable water per hour from sea water. They can pump water from ship to shore from up to two miles away using floating hoses, according to a Military Sealift Command fact sheet.
I couldn't begin to tally up how many millions of dollars this is equivalent to, but just paying a few thousand sailors and marines for a month no doubt adds up to quite a few million, and that's not counting the priceless - absolutely priceless - contributions of water purifying equipment, a 1,000 bed hospital ship, and countless military doctors.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
All of that IS payed for by the Goverment too, not private charities.
Kwea
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:We don't OWE them anything, just like they didn't OWE us any help when we suffered disasters.
If I own a mansion in the country, with a barn, and it's a hurricane and outside a vagrant--I don't sense danger-- rings my door and asks to sleep in the barn, I owe it to them to least let them sleep in the barn, and that's when the debate starts.
I don't know how we have forgotten this, it's not only the degradation of our moral fiber but manners.
[ January 04, 2005, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No we don't...we may CHOOSE to offer it. That is what free will is, the ability to choose.
If we had no choice in the matter it wouldn't be generosity. It would be obligation. Generosity exists when you do something you have no obligation to do.
[ January 04, 2005, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Now we are talking about fundamental metaphysical differences, then.
We have a different understanding of basic rights, responsibilities, and duties. It's not any more of a choice than peeing my pants at the dinner table, rather than getting up to go to the bathroom.
[ January 04, 2005, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Kwea is right in that the US does not owe any foreign countries aid. Canada doesn't owe us anything either, neither does Japan, or anyone else. As soon as we start feeding into that mentality, we create a culture incapable of taking care of itself. Unfortunately, that attitude and that culture is already prevalent in Sri Lanka.
I'm worried that getting so much aid will reinforce the attitude of expectation that I see so frequently here. They expect that, because I'm a foreigner, I ought to pay ten or a hundred times what the locals pay to get in to the zoo or the museum or any other sites of cultural interest. They expect that, because I'm white, I'm rich. They expect that, because I'm white, I can afford to give them anything they demand. They expect that I'll gladly do this for them or that for them. Because I show up, I'm on time, and I'm responsible, and therefore, they don't have to.
Not everyone has that attitude here, but enough of them do that it's a huge problem.
Having said that, I still believe that it will be beneficial all the way around if prosperous countries and prosperous individuals give as much as they can to help.
But I want that tempered with the locals giving of their time and money, as much as they can. If they've lost their homes, then they need to help rebuild. If they have no money to donate, then they can give of their time. But somehow, they have to play a part in rebuilding their country. It will help them become more self-sufficient, something which is now lacking.
Having said that, I am extremely grateful for those countries, corporations, and individuals who choose to help the affected areas. Many here are extremely poor beyond any standards that most in western nations can even comprehend.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
QS, I've been wondering, do you know if the Tamil Tigers are suspending their rebellion until after the disaster has been taken care of?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Depends on how you define "suspending their rebellion". There's been a cease fire since 2001, but there have been a lot of squabbles since then, and the cease fire is no longer due to a written peace treaty or anything, but more because both sides are playing the waiting game, waiting to see who will give in to demands first.
However. A police station was bombed a few months back. Tamils? That's the theory, but who really knows?
The Tamils control the north and the east. There are army checkpoints all over the place there from what I've read. I haven't actually been there, although it is open for tourism, at least theoretically. Well hell, I write for a travel magazine, and that's what the magazine says.
Some news reports said the Tamils weren't letting relief people in, but other reports said they were. Some news reports say that they're letting a limited number of people in. Some reports indicate that there are trucks in those areas that have been hijacked at gunpoint.
News has been scanty coming out of the Tamil controlled areas, and as near as I can tell, there is no government verification of numbers or statistics. But then, at this point, the Tamil control everything in those areas. At gunpoint.
At this point, that's pretty much all I know. I'll see if I can dig something else up. Heck, now I want to know. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:As soon as we start feeding into that mentality, we create a culture incapable of taking care of itself. Unfortunately, that attitude and that culture is already prevalent in Sri Lanka.
You seem like a nice and competent woman, but I'm a bit of a twit. By some act of luck and circumstance, as an American, I get to live my twit lifestyle in relative luxury, I still get information from Ancient Greece, clothes from China, and apparently I can even borrow money from future generations with relative impunity while my creditors are learning to walk, even though I'm a twit.
It's nice life, but I'm not one to pretend that I am self-sufficient. Maybe if I were "a self-employed accountant for nine years, and now I'm a stay at home writer/lazy person who plays on the internet all day," it would be different. (The quote is lifted from the Hatrack Superiority thread.) If you were accounting your own books from your own brick and mortar business, which did not deal with other cultures, even indirectly, I could see possibly where you are coming from, but that wasn't the case.
Look, lawyers, accountants, doctors, and the rest-- especially writers and teachers-- are all to some degrees parasites or symbiotes with the society, and the profound assertion I'm going to make is all of this is perfectly appropriate, and to ignore our interrelations and luck is dishonest and a little beastial, not to mention that it wreaks of an assumed and unfounded superiority and high-handed neglect of ones responsibilities, under the assumption that you earned everything you have and if people don't have as much, they didn't earn it. Bean Counter was similarly blessed in the now deleted Guns, Germs, and Steel thread.
[ January 04, 2005, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
? What?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Quid, I *think* he just said that you are Marie Antoinette with a "let them eat cake" mentality. But I don't know either.
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Something like that.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It is funny that you are so damn high and mighty Irami, when she is over there DOING something...even if it is just what she can do, no matter how little...while you are here at Hatrack proving you are a twit.
There is no entitlement that forces other people to pay for our mistakes. What makes charity so special is that it isn't forced, that it is offered freely, no strings attached.
What you describe is more like welfare than charity.
You don't prove anything by being pompous, Irami, other than proving your critics right and turning off others here.
You know, the people you like to lecture at, even though they aren't your equals, because they are always here....
[ January 05, 2005, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't see how anyone can really criticize the US in what we're doing to help. I don't see anyone other nations sending in half their navies to help rebuild, or thousands of troops, thousands of tons of supplies, so on and so forth. We'll probably end up spending a couple billion dollars on this thing total. And sorry we spent a lot on Florida and Puerto Rico but those are AMERICAN territories, you have to expect us to treat our own slightly better than the rest of the world.
We didn't even hesitate to help. We heard there was trouble and we kicked it into high gear, and there's a 1000 bed hospital ship on its way to the area from San Diego. Stop blabbing on about "small donations" and Bush taking too long to make an announcement, those things don't matter. What matters is what we do now and in the future. (I can't believe I defended Bush, I'm a bad, bad Liberal)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As we aren't sending anywhere near half our navy, your hyperbole isn't exactly strengthening the position we're doing an extreme amount.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And I forgot to mention this but wow Irami, you called Teachers parasites?
I'd call them champions, to get paid less than pretty much any other occupation that demands higher education, and getting no appreciation (obviously) to do so. It's amazing how people can say stuff like that and then still get angry when their own kids don't get the very best education in the world, there's a link.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Fugu -
I didn't mean half OUR navy. But even a sixth of our navy is still larger than most other navies in the world. I think we have 22 ships in the area right now, with something like ten more on the way. Besides, I don't know of any large numbers of other naval ships there to speak of, i know Australia sent one ship. My point is that we're still doing leaps and bounds more ON THE GROUND than anyone else.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Exactly, we have a much larger navy.
In absolute terms we may be giving quite a bit, while in relative terms we may be giving little (note that I haven't actually touched on that question, merely on those who attempt to dismiss it).
Envision a world where there are 3 countries. One country suffers a massive disaster. Country A, which has an economy that produces 100 a year (the units don't matter, except that they're the same), donates 1 to the devastated country. Country B, which has an economy of 100,000 a year, donates 2 to the devastated country. Which country is more generous?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Except the real world isn't that cut and dry. America has a higher GNP yes, but our taxes are lower than all of Europe's based on our economy type. We are currently in debt from a myriad array of stupid programs and the Iraq War, and we look to be spiraling down a rabbit hole of even more debt, and at the same time are being scolded for not spending enough. Sorry, but we have our own problems to fix.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, most certainly so does the rest of the world have problems.
Second, as a large and growing part of our economy is closely related to that of the damaged region, this should not be thought of so much as charity but as investment and loss-management.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't understand how people can criticize generosity anyway. It's charity. Can you honestly tell me if you were walking down the street and a beggar asked for spare change, and you gave him a dollar, and he said "what? that's all?", you wouldn't want to take the dollar back and be angry?
That's why so many Americans think US Foriegn aid should be CUT not raised. Personally I think we SHOULD do more, by leaps and bounds. I think people tend to ignore money we spend that helps other nations, like medical research, biotech research (thanks to us, India can feed itself) and other things that don't have high profiles or big dollar signs. But when we give to the world, and the world slaps us on the wrist, it makes us not want to give anymore. Not saying I agree, but I certainly understand the feeling.
Personally I'm very internationally minded. I think the US should work more with the United Nations on things, shouldn't have the whole bravado go it alone we're the best attitude, but I'm also an American first, and think a lot of domestic issues are more important than international (though not the Tsunami Aid).
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote: I think the US should work more with the United Nations on things
No, Personally I think we should get out of the United Nations. I would love to elaborate, but I am in a hurry.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh how ye are wrong, let me count the ways...
Getting out of the UN would be the most horrible thing the US could right now. If the world didn't hate us before, they would now. We've been to the UN several times in the last few years to ask for help, and a couple more to admit we were wrong. Why would you want to leave a world body designed to help nations coexist peacefully? The UN does immense amounts of good around the world, far more than the US does (not that im knocking the US, just saying). Just because we're selfish and the world tends to not agree with us on a lot of stuff doesn't mean we should act like four year olds and pull out of the organization.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
That's the money that's been donated as of Tuesday. I know I donated again after I got paid, and I'll donate again next payday. America's not doing so bad, in my opinion.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:... are in addition to the $350 million pledged thus far by the U.S. government. Two ex-presidents renowned for their fund-raising prowess - Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush - have been recruited to spur more private giving.
From the link above this post.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:There is no entitlement that forces other people to pay for our mistakes. What makes charity so special is that it isn't forced, that it is offered freely, no strings attached.
What you describe is more like welfare than charity.
There is a difference between being forced to do a something and being obliged to do something. If you have a STD, you are not forced to tell your partner. If you have a child, you are not forced to read to him/her. If you are a US reporter with immediate knowledge of tactical US troop movements, you are not forced to hold the story. If you see someone being raped/kidnapped on the street, you are not forced to call the police or otherwise intervene. And when you are American, you are a not forced to do much of anything.
Force isn't a factor in any one of those decisions, and what's more profound, but harder to understand, is choice is not a factor in anyone one of those decisions, either. A parent's taste or preference or choice is not a relevant concern about whether they ought to abandon their infant. And more importantly, nothing that matters is ever an issue of choice or even charity, as we currently understand charity as a matter of choice.
Any moral issue is an issue of responsibility/propriety and understanding how one is obligated/obliged.
I've wrestled with manners all of my life, but the virtue of manners are that they concern propriety and not choice. For example, scratching ones private parts in public is not a matter of whether one wants to relieve an itch.(The problem of course being that propriety for the sake of propriety is as alien to morality as choice is. Propriety has to be for the sake of the thing it concerns, and not for its own sake. This can easily explain why there are so many well-mannered suburbanites are not very not good people at all, it's a misunderstanding of the role of propriety. Another aside, the same can me said with people who misunderstand the moral role of consistency, which was discussed on another thread.)
I've wrestled with religion for a while and one of the virtues of religion is its concern with propriety and not choice. When God said, "Thou shalt not murder," he didn't mean accept on tuesdays and sundays, or in cases where you want to, nor was it a matter of force under penalty.
Manners and religion presuppose that we are obliged not by a matter of choice--or by fear of force--, but by circumstance and the human condition. there is a difference between oblige and obligate. There is a sense in which we can pick and choose our obligations, enter into contracts or break these contracts at our fancy.
There are some very smart people who want to banish our understanding of the word "oblige," and say that everything is a matter of choice or maybe obligation. I think they are gambling with the dignity in man.
This is complicated by the fact that often, the best person to properly understand ones obliges and obligations is the individual agent. This can give the appearance that the agent is making a choice. This appearance is so convincing that even the agent is fooled into ignoring thinking and responsibility, and instead, the agent makes a mere choice by taste or calculation. But what is at stake is the very dignity of the human condition, which is tied to our understanding of responsibilities and duties. Heck, one very appropriate pro-life argument is that people who are pro-choice are essentially immoral because they are taking something that is essential moral-- a baby's life-- and subjecting it to a matter of taste.
Responsibilities are understood by thinking; choices are made by calculating interests. It's important even to draw attention to the fact that responsibilities are understood and choices are made. In those two verbs we see the difference of who is control, and why choices are more sexy than responsiblity. Choices put us in control, responsibities are more complex.
To further the abortion example, if a person is thinking about what it is to be a parent and baby in a womb, then whether one has the right to terminate the life becomes a decision.(decision is from the same root as incision, it means cutting off. This always concerns a morally relevant issue, and the world is being cut for good or ill.)
If that same person is making a choice, doing a cost/benefit analysis and calculating the hassle of housing, feeding, and clothing this kid for x amount of years, then that's taking something that properly belongs a decision and making it a choice.
Again, nothing that matters is an issue of choice, and as we elevate choice above propriety and responsibility, then we confuse that which is trivial with that which is precious.
Freedom is not concerned with choice. Choice is a matter of license, a matter of calculating the costs and the benefits-- including the governments threats or jail time. Contrast this choice with freedom, as the ability to act in accordance with responsibilities as they are understood by a thinking mind. While the US may have a choice on whether to help out Indonesia, we do not have the Freedom to not help. Our freedom lies in the thinking and deciding how much is appropriate by understanding the situation.
Once again, this is why US aid has nothing to do with Luxemburg or choice, but everything to do the problems in Indonesia and Sri Lanka.
[ January 05, 2005, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I agree that what we contribute has little or nothing to do with what any other country is doing, and everything to so with the needs of the people affected by this disaster.
What I don't agree with is your assumption that our government has an obligation to contribute at all.
The entire function of our government is to look after our interests in this country. We pay taxes to pay for debts our country incurs by doing just that...by building roads and highways, paying for emergency services, for maintaining a military to protect us. To provide us with a level of protection and care that would otherwise be unattainable.
No one but us pays into it, and the resources that are allocated only go so far.
quote: 1 : to bind legally or morally : CONSTRAIN
So while you may feel morally obligated to help others in far away countries, I may not.
And our governments primary obligation is to the people it represents, not to other countries. That is why disasters in this country get more money than other locales, and why that is the right thing to do.
We pay into the system, so we gain the benefits of it.
As a society a lot of people HAVE made the CHOICE to contribute....either out of sympathy for their situation or out of a feeling of private moral obligation.
But as far as obligating our government to said other countries more than we are doing currently, I don't think so.
[ January 05, 2005, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:We pay into the system, so we gain the benefits of it.
Once you bring anything into the world, it comes with a set of responsibilites that aren't of your choosing, with scant regard to how much money you puts in, and how involved you are in its creation and maintenance.
We could ignore the moral character of our nation, like a corporation, and pretend that America is merely an organization for the efficient division of labor for the sake of production. Or we can take moral fiber seriously, or at least acknowledge the responsibility that a nation has in the world, independent from the mere wants of any of its benefactors.
And as I'm pretty sure I think that this dignity lies in accepting responsibility and not neglecting it, I think the latter interpretation is more appropriate. Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't believe that the great rallying cry for WWII was, join up, it's in our best interest.
[ January 05, 2005, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Irami, your distinction between obligation and force is blurred when you cite examples like "thou shalt not kill," in which the obligation is also backed by a promise of punishment. Consider paying taxes; we are obligated to do so, to keep the country that benefits us solvent, but we are also forced to do so.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
But even then we didn't bear the whole of the expense, did we?
I feel that there are a whole set of obligations we incur, and that the obligations we have towards other Americans, particularly those who share the responsibilitys with us, far outweigh the others you feel we have worldwide.
Who determines that moral fiber, Irami? You? Once you begin mandating charity where does it stop?
We are an amalgamation of beliefs and race here in the US, and just because I don't feel it is the place of the US government to fund every little action the UN feels is necessary doesn't mean that I am heartless, or that I am immoral. It simply means that we differ in our priorities. If the US wants to help, which we are obviously doing, then we should....but o other country has the right to DEMAND it of us, or to question the amount of aid we send.
It is ignorant and ungracious to do so. Point blank, we have no legal obligation to do so, nor is the moral obligation as obvious as you would like it to be.
I have personally donate as much as I am planning to by now, but I still have cable, a TV, DSL, a phone....by some peoples standard I would not have given enough, as evidenced by my current standard of living.
I could care less what they...or you....say about the level of my charity. I didn't do it for them, or you.
And until you leave your home behind and give those same things up, you simply don't have the moral authority to require me to do anything....not even as much as I have already done.
And if you do go and leave this all behind, at least I won't have to listen to you whine about the ignorant, selfish Americans anymore. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is funny that you are so damn high and mighty Irami, when she is over there DOING something.
I think this is the key statement here. quidscribis was speaking from direct experience with the people here. I have no idea if her conclusions are correct, but I believe her observations are basically accurate.
Meanwhile, she's been condemned for her conclusion by someone with no personal experience whatsoever.
Combine that with the work quid is doing to help, and we get a true case of "doctor heal thyself."
Dagonee
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Whereas I was thinking more along the lines of Irami judging me (attacking me?) as, I don't know, stupid or ignorant or something, based on his perception of my occupation or personality rather than my experience.
In my experience, when people resort to insulting a person rather than using logic, it's because they have no more ammunitition left and they're reacting emotionally.
I don't owe Irami any explanations or justifications on my life. Therefore I don't care what Irami says about my life.
Edit: perception. Dagnabbit, perception. Let's be accurate!
[ January 05, 2005, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: quidscribis ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Tom,
quote:Irami, your distinction between obligation and force is blurred when you cite examples like "thou shalt not kill," in which the obligation is also backed by a promise of punishment. Consider paying taxes; we are obligated to do so, to keep the country that benefits us solvent, but we are also forced to do so.
Obligation is appropriately problematic. It's the natural place for debate to begin. WIth taxes, we are obliged to pay something, how much and for what are different issues and are properly controversial.
The same with the disaster victims. We are obliged to help somehow. How far are we willing to obligate ourselves is a matter for debate. I'm not sure it is a matter of choice, but it is one for debate. I've only taken issue with people saying that we don't owe them anything.
The second issue concerns self-sufficiency. Is someone who has to file bankruptcy self-sufficient? We talk a good self-sufficiency game, as individuals and as a nation, but it seems that a lot of that is self-delusion. We have fertile farms and even more fertile minds, but I don't know if we should consider ourselves self-sufficient, and in this interrelated world, I don't even think should even try to be self-sufficient, but I think these are some loaded terms that can be misapplied.
I'm not sure there is a virtue in self-sufficiency, I think the bigger virtue lies in working well together. I mean, there is a very good argument to be made that anyone who is paying off a mortgage is not self-sufficient.
[ January 06, 2005, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
But there is a distinction you fail to make, Irami....that of people who are involved in the system on both ends.
Teachers and writers are not parasites. They due work that is necessary, and are compensated for it. They pay taxes, and partake of the same society as the rest of us do.
If anything we don't pay teachers enough.
We are dependent on each other to a point, no doubt about that. But that is actually irrelevant...I don't know ANYONE who means completely isolated when they mention self-dependency, other than you.
There is a difference between everyone being dependent on the society in which they live, and people from without that society believing they have a right to all the rights associated with the society without any of the personal obligations to that society that go with it.
As a person in this society I am obligated to do my best to provide for myself, and to contribute to the whole. Doing so gives me certain rights that create an obligation TO me from that same society.
There is no obligation to someone outside that system who has no obligation to that same system itself.
We have every right to spend our own monies on people within our own borders if you choose to do so. I refuse to feel guilty for giving money to FL and PR, even if it means I have less to give to the current relief funds in Asia.
And I feel that out country has a greater obligation to its own citizens than to the citizens of other nations.
Kwea
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As we spend over 600 times as much on ourselves as we do on other countries, I feel in no danger of us putting everyone else before ourselves.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote: Teachers and writers are not parasites. They due work that is necessary, and are compensated for it. They pay taxes, and partake of the same society as the rest of us do
Yes, and those of us that recieve paychecks made available because of your tax dollars..guess what....they pay taxes too. Yes, military members pay taxes. Sometimes a hefty amount of it. I have long since given up thanking my parents for the paycheck. When your own paycheck is taxed, and those same taxes go to your paycheck, it's like paying yourself to do a service for your country.
BTW, my mother thought I would be going underway to help in this. However, my ship is not quite ready to go. Just a little more work to go and a really huge examination coming up is all that is left. Oh, and a few crew certifications.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
What Kwea said. Yup.
(Kwea, whenever I see your name, I think of Kiwi's. I guess it's cuz of how it sounds in my head. )
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You aren't the only one who has said that...kwisni and I call each other kiwi sometimes...
I don't think that there is anything wrong with spending most of your tax dollars fixing problems for your populous.
On the other hand I am glad that our government has sent those ships to the area. I imagine that their fresh-water making ability is worth more to those people right now than any amount of money would be.
I do think that the US had an obligation to do something in these matters, but it is an obligation that we impose on ourselves, and no one else has a right to DEMAND that we contribute any specific amount or percentage of our GNP. Part of the reason our GNP is so much higher than Europe's is that we don't tax the crud out of business and people here. Compare to our past the tax burden, even on the rich, is far less now than in our past. This means that while our GNP is higher, our government gets a proportionately smaller amount of it than in other countries. That equates to a smaller amount available, percentage wise, than in Europe.
I am not saying we shouldn't get involved, I was just tired of hearing from people complaining we haven't done enough. Once it is all said and done I would be surprised if we didn't contribute as a people more than most....if you figure everything in, including troop costs and whatnot.
Kwea
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Kwea, I'm with you. Completely.
I will ask for people to donate, I will ask for generosity. I will even tell y'all stories of the suffering over here in the hopes that it promotes your goodwill. And I will thank you for your generosity. That's it.
But to obligate? To demand? To condemn and criticize because it's not enough according to flawed judgement?
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)