Relief Aid - 35 Million

Inauguration Bash - 40 mil.

 

What the f*** is that.  He already had one inauguaration he needs to spend 40 million more? Take the oath, eat dinner, and send the rest to the millions who are/will be suffering in Asia.

 

America needs to get some of its priorities in shape

Except the US gov isn't paying for most of the inauguration. Private donors are.

I can today be proud of my country by stepping up and pledging another 36 million dollars in Tsunami relief to total 40. I hope this sort of becomes a bidding war to see who can put the most forward.

 

The other top donors are the USA at 35, Japan at 30 and Australia at 27.

 

 

source

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...nami041229.html

Edited December 30, 200421 yr by KipWellsFan

The EU entity (separate of the individual states) donated 33 million Euros. (40+ million Dollars)

I have to back track from my earlier posts. I got caught up in someone's spin. It seems the USA, in fiscal year 2003, donated 40% of ALL monies that were dontaed for disater relief world wide. That is just what the US Gov't donated. You can add to that all the private donations that come out of the US.

 

The rest of the world needs to just stfu.

It seems the USA, in fiscal year 2003, donated 40% of ALL monies that were dontaed for disater relief world wide.  That is just what the US Gov't donated. 

Not sure what you mean Yasny.

Not sure what you mean Yasny.

If you take all the money donated for disaster relief throughout the world ... for earthquakes, hurricanes, civil war relief, etc .... 40% came from the US Gov't.

If you take all the money donated for disaster relief throughout the world ... for earthquakes, hurricanes, civil war relief, etc .... 40% came from the US Gov't.

Oh okay, thanks for explaining. Do you have a link?

Oh okay, thanks for explaining.  Do you have a link?

Sorry, no. I heard it on TV yesterday.

Oh okay, thanks for explaining.  Do you have a link?

I read the samething yesterday, I am guessing on either CNN or MSNBC. Of course that little tidbit was buried somewhere in an article. Also buried was the fact that they $35 million pledged has drained the remaining funds in the federal disaster relief fund, and that the US CAN'T pledge anymore money until they petiton the budget office for more funding.

The US gov is, and will always be, the largest donor to relief and disaster efforts because, duh, we're far and away the largest economy (including the EU).

 

That said, I think $35 million is low from a relative historical persepctive. However, based on the crappy US economy, the defecit, etc.. I think its plenty. We can go back n forth all day how our government wastes our tax dollars - be it Iraq, social security, welfare, or legislator junkets to whorehouses in Costa Rica.

 

I'm a ragin liberal, and in this case, I think the US gov at $35 mil is giving enough. At this point, I think the US gov needs to do two things:

1) encourage private donations from US companies that a economic interest in that part of the world. There are plenty. Banks, Starbucks, GM... My company - a German bank - is matching employee donations dollar for dollar. So my measly $20 turns into $40.

2) US leadership needs to get on Air Force One and visit the affected areas. Sob in the hospitals, help clear debris off the beach, and make inspiration speeches about rebuilding. That sort of stuff goes a long long way in shaping a positive image of the US to other nations. This would especially important in Indonesia - the largest Muslim nation on the planet - where the US ain't so popular these days. Sadly, Bush isn't know for this type of action. After the Bali bombings, which killed mostly Australians, he should've been on the next plane to Sydney to grieve with our allies. Instead he parked his ass on the couch at the "Prarie Chapel Ranch" and watched football. Politics aside, that's just a pathethic excuse for leadership.

 

That's my two cents. But what the hell do I know.

Relief Aid - 35 Million

Inauguration Bash - 40 mil.

 

What the f*** is that.  He already had one inauguaration he needs to spend 40 million more? Take the oath, eat dinner, and send the rest to the millions who are/will be suffering in Asia.

 

America needs to get some of its priorities in shape

I am willing to be that many of the corporations and individuals helping to foot the bill for the inauguration love fests are also leading donors to the private relief efforts.

 

IMNSHO Inaugurations are important. I believe a big role of the President is that of master motivator. Reagan's greatest accomplishment was getting Americans to believe in themselves again. Leading up to RR was Nixon and the CREEP and all of their shenanigans. Then Ford and his WHIP campaign to Whip Inflation Now with buttons. Then Carter and us seemingly as a nation being held hostage by the Iranians. (At least in that day they weren't into beheading hostages) Then riding high on his horse was Reagan. Confident, almost aristocratic. American was energized. Clinton, in many of the same ways motivated America with his youthfulness, something we hadn't seen since Kennedy.

 

So let's put on the western hats and boots and have a shindig in Washington and propel W into his second term.

If you take all the money donated for disaster relief throughout the world ... for earthquakes, hurricanes, civil war relief, etc .... 40% came from the US Gov't.

I am wondering how that number is determined. I believe it must be through a central clearing house like the UN. How can they track private, direct donations, to the areas? It seems like there should be a rest if the statement like

 

40% of all UN disaster relief is paid for by the US.

Just curious Tex, where do you get that figure?

Just curious Tex, where do you get that figure?

that as my question of YASNY. How was that number determined. It seems like an impossible act. If we are talking only of direct aid through the UN or some other central clearinghouse type thing, I could understand the number.

that as my question of YASNY. How was that number determined. It seems like an impossible act. If we are talking only of direct aid through the UN or some other central clearinghouse type thing, I could understand the number.

It was just a number I heard on TV. I've got no backing for it. Sorry guys.

It was just a number I heard on TV.  I've got no backing for it.  Sorry guys.

Actually it was our President that said it...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/28/...s.ap/index.html

The more I read this quote from the UN dude, the more funny it seems. He never mentioned the US. He referred to the Western countries as being "stingy" with aid - partially having to do with a G7 agreement to raise the percentage of GDP to somewhere close to 1%. None of them have. It's not the raw numbers, its the percentage donated.

 

Folks in the "liberal media" took it to mean us, in particular. Commentators and Wingnuts and apparently our own president jumped on it to mean specifically us - or, more realistically, to give themselves another excuse to bash the UN - while it's doing the things it does best, helping the poorest among us survive, after disasters of horrifying scale.

I've seen US, Japan, Australia and Canada's figures mentioned, so I'll post the current figures from my home country too.

 

Government - £50 million ($95m)

People's donations - £32 million ($61m)

 

(Not sure about the dollar figures I used 1.9$ to the £)

 

LINK TO SKY NEWS ARTICLE

Here is an article on American Corporate donations...

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...orporate_giving

The World Bank has pledged 250 million dollars, roughly one half of the money donated by governments and public NGOs since this crisis started.

 

There's talk of a final death toll for this exceeding 400,000 people now.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Dec 29, 2004 -> 10:48 AM)

This is how the US is treated in the world... when we do something other countries disagree with we are raked over the coals and portrayed as bullies, but when something bad happens we are the first country they turn to and expect to pass out money... That's how it's been since anyone can remember and that's how it always will be. The United States is the most unappreciated nation on this planet.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Dec 29, 2004 -> 12:27 PM)

I didn't say bush did the "f***ing" in Asia.   He failed to seize an opportunity to change the world's view of the USA. He's showed his tendency to be a world leader when it goes against the wishes of the free world. Yet, when he has a chance to step up and be a world leader in a time of disaster and human suffering, well.... Let's go mountain biking! What would you have him do YAS? Would it satisfy you if he went to Sri Lanka or Indonesia and pick through some rubble with the survivors? This is really petty and carping criticism of the President if I ever heard it.     What's more substantive? A press conference or the C130's that were landing with relief supplies hours after the disaster occured?

QUOTE (NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 2, 2005 -> 02:13 AM)

<!--QuoteBegin-YASNY+Dec 29, 2004 -> 12:27 PM--> QUOTE (YASNY @ Dec 29, 2004 -> 12:27 PM) <!--QuoteEBegin--> I didn't say bush did the "f***ing" in Asia.   He failed to seize an opportunity to change the world's view of the USA. He's showed his tendency to be a world leader when it goes against the wishes of the free world. Yet, when he has a chance to step up and be a world leader in a time of disaster and human suffering, well.... Let's go mountain biking! What would you have him do YAS? Would it satisfy you if he went to Sri Lanka or Indonesia and pick through some rubble with the survivors? This is really petty and carping criticism of the President if I ever heard it.     What's more substantive? A press conference or the C130's that were landing with relief supplies hours after the disaster occured? All that he had to do was step up to the mike, express his condolences and the US's intention of offering a substantial amount of aid. And to do so in a timely manner. It's not too difficult.

As the top spokesperson for the United States, part of his responsibilities is PR. Perhaps we are unappreciated because our Presidents have not taken that role seriously enough through the years.

 

When people protest against the United Stares what are the top three images they use?

US Flag

Picture/Likeness of the President

Picture/Likeness of Uncle Sam.

 

I don't think the President needs to immediately fly to the disaster scene, in fact I think that is sometimes the worst thing to do. I don't even think he needs to go to Washington. But he does need to address the world and show the world what the US is feeling. If he goes skiing or grabs a quickie with an intern, that is what the rest of the world thinks the US feels about the problem. If he cancels his schedule and retreats inside to watch CNN or reruns of Dallas, the world just knows he is mourning and staying abreast of the situation.

 

He does not have the same freedoms in that regard as we do. Symbolically at least, he represents what all of us are feeling. Perhaps unfair, but let's face it, POTUS isn't a fair position. When my brother died, the nest day I was golfing with a buddy. If I was President, that would have been wrong. For me it was a way to cope.

 

There is a lot that goes into being the POTUS. Not every President has the PR skills of Reagan or Clinton. This one clearly lags a bit behind, but that is part of is charm.

Arab groups are now accusing their own governments of being cheap in aiding the tsunami victims. There are also some religious groups saying that the killer waves were the wrath of God. Sound familiar?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/internat...print&position=