"The United States has been criticized for spending only about 0.16 percent of its national income on non-military assistance abroad while the European Union has pledged to reach the U.N. target of 0.7 percent of its income by 2015."
George W. Bush's international aid chief, says the US is giving enough money already to the ailing rest of the world:
"If we ever reached 0.7 percent, we would be the dominant force in all aid" and be accused of "imperial development," said Andrew Natsios, administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development.
He said that 0.7 percent would amount to $91 billion and added: "We couldn't spend $91 billion if we wanted to."
I agree with the President on that one. The US gives more in non-military aid than any other nation.
Natsios' comment was either taken out of context or he quite badly misspoke. I think it's time for Bush to declare a gag order for his whole cabinet. No, strike that. It sure is entertaining to read all of the quotes you post.
The Latin America one is not accurate. Clinton and Bush administration gave tons of money to ''stop the coca production'' and ''to educate farmers' but instead 80% went on military.
Those might be intended for non-military, but majoirty are used for military purposes.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
It's not the quanity, Ozzy, it's the effort. Almost everyone else on that list is giving more of a percentage of their income compared to the United States. Some of them are giving .76 percent while were giving .16.
I disagree. We give more than double than Japan behind us based on that chart. It is about the quantity. If we gave .76% of our GDP, we'd be giving more than all other nations combined, but our quality of living would suffer greatly.
The US gives about 19
Holland number 6 on that list gives 4.235
Holland has 17 million inhabitants, the US has at least 280 million not sure about the real number to lazy to look it up. But lets say 280. Thats about 16.4 times as much.
4.235*16.4=69.454
In conclusion Holland gives 3.6 times as much as the US does... Stop complaining you don't give away that much.
Hell after a quick glance it seems like the Netherlands gives more money then anybody else on average per citizen, what the hell are you complaining about?
What are you getting so defensive about? Your conclusion is wrong. The US gives 18.9 billion in foreign aid a year. The Netherlands gives 4.235 billion. How is that 3.6 times more? And Norway gives .87 of its GNP. How is the Netherlands giving more than anybody? Besides, the US has increased its contribution every year. The chart shows the Netherlands has dropped.
The US gives plenty of money to the rest of the world.
In conclusion Holland gives 3.6 times as much as the US does...
nowhere in that line did you say "per citizen.
But I understand where you are coming now. But if the US gives .76 of its GNP, it would dwarf the rest of the world. Even with percentages, the US gives more than double the next closest nation. Does the percentage really matter to the people receiving it, or is the whole dollar amount important. Would you rather receive 18.9 billion a year that's a .16% or 4.235 billion that's .76%. I'll take the larger of the two anyday.
Last edited by Oswald Kenobi on Jun 30th, 2005 at 03:43 AM
just tossing this out as a side note if you want some good info read the book "End of Faith" I think it's by Sam Davis or something, it shows the cost of war very well.
__________________ The hardest part about being a mass murder is the mass.
But don't claim the US should not give more money because it already gives enough. Other country's give a lot more on average then the US does, so really even if the US gives more in total then the rest it isn't really paying all that much.
A child giving a 100 dollars to charity is really great because its a lot of money for most children. A fully grown adult that happens to be the director of a multi million dollar company giving a 150 dollars is absolutely nothing and quite cheap actually.
The director is an ass and the child is a great kid when looking at charity only, the US can give more but refuses to do so. How does that make them better then the other country's that give what they can give? Or at least more then the US.
I agree with your logic, but in the end it's the whole dollar amount that matters. I really don't think the US should give any more. To talk about being cheap, I would need to bring up the almost trillion dollar debt the US is owed by other countries in the world among other things.
LOL. It absolutely does not make the US better than a country giving $280 million, but it doesn't make us any worse. If at .7% the European Union were to be giving away $91 billion a year or anything close it, they have the right to criticize. They don't.
Each citizen here loses more money then each citizen in the US does becuase of charity, really US citizens have no right to complain about giving away so much money. Its all bull
Why not? When did it become my responsibility to support the rest of the world? When did it become yours? I have no problem contributing to lesser countries, but I should not be criticized from the amount I give. A handout is a jandout and beggars can't be choosers.
That you give something is nice, but when Americans start complaining they give to much they should look at the facts, they don't give all that much compared to other country's. So why the hell should we care about that? If they would give more then others I would agree, but right now I just can not and will not.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 29th, 2005 01:24 PM
