RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world."

RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:22:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What such criticism ignores, however, is that the measure, developed by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), fails to take into account the primary way in which Americans help others abroad: through the private sector. "ODA is an outdated and inaccurate way of measuring a country's generosity," says Dr. Adelman, Director of the Center for Science in Public Policy, at the Hudson Institute. "Americans prefer to give people to people assistance versus Europeans who give primarily government to government aid." But many countries have also seen large private donations, some exceeding their government's donations. The same BBC article also lists some of those: Germany: $200m United States: $120m Britain: $189m

minnetar -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:23:49 PM)
Thanks again Firm. i am reading the boards and watching the draft. Appreciate the link!! minnetar

FirmhandKY -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:25:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee BzzzzzzzzT! Private charity is not foreign aid. Apples vs oranges. uh .. ok. quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Foreign aid is strategic giving. It is seldom charitable and only rarely beneficial to the average citizen. It is often paid (kicked back) to companies in the "donor" country, in the form of development contracts, usually for mega projects or it is bled to the lap-dog despots in the target country in return, for political and commercial access. That or it comes with policy and regulatory, even legislative prerequisites. For instance, AIDS relief being denied unless condoms are replaced by abstinence counselling. It's not generosity if you expect more in return than you give. So, by your definition, the fact that the US doesn't give as a large percentage of its GDP to "foreign aid" as some other nations means that the US is less ... manipulative ... than other countries? Percentage-wise? I get that right? And, since it's non-governmental giving is higher as a percentage of GDP than any other nation, then that means that the US is morally in a higher position than all those that give so much governmental foreign aid in an attempt to manipulate othe nations? FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:26:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What such criticism ignores, however, is that the measure, developed by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), fails to take into account the primary way in which Americans help others abroad: through the private sector. "ODA is an outdated and inaccurate way of measuring a country's generosity," says Dr. Adelman, Director of the Center for Science in Public Policy, at the Hudson Institute. "Americans prefer to give people to people assistance versus Europeans who give primarily government to government aid." But many countries have also seen large private donations, some exceeding their government's donations. The same BBC article also lists some of those: Germany: $200m United States: $120m Britain: $189m Good for them. There are good people everywhere, certainly. But, if you are trying to equate a few paltry million with billions .... I think we are an order of magnitude different here. [:D] FirmKY

NorthernGent -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:29:31 PM)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1231-01.htm The 60 countries that have provided aid, including the United States, have also pledged equipment, military support, and supplies from corporate donations and private charities in addition to the government's donations. As of yesterday, US corporate donations reached $60 million, CNN reported. But even with these additional contributions taken into consideration, America's perception of itself as the most generous country in the world is contradicted by the reality, economists and specialists on international aid say. Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at Columbia University and a specialist on aid to developing countries who has worked with the United Nations, said, ''There is a very big difference between American attitudes, which are generous; beliefs, which is that we do a lot; and the reality. . . . The reality is we actually do very little by comparative measures. ''I think the disaster in Asia is a stark example of this for a lot of Americans. It challenges their perceptions of their own country," Sachs said.

FirmhandKY -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:31:44 PM)
Typical anti-Americanism that you always post, NG. Again, you are talking percentages, rather than absolute numbers, and totally ignoring everything except government (tax) funds. Let's stack the deck, shall we? I'm calling you on it, as normal. FirmKY

NorthernGent -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:32:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What such criticism ignores, however, is that the measure, developed by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), fails to take into account the primary way in which Americans help others abroad: through the private sector. "ODA is an outdated and inaccurate way of measuring a country's generosity," says Dr. Adelman, Director of the Center for Science in Public Policy, at the Hudson Institute. "Americans prefer to give people to people assistance versus Europeans who give primarily government to government aid." But many countries have also seen large private donations, some exceeding their government's donations. The same BBC article also lists some of those: Germany: $200m United States: $120m Britain: $189m Good for them. There are good people everywhere, certainly. But, if you are trying to equate a few paltry million with billions .... I think we are an order of magnitude different here. [:D] FirmKY You should recognise the country after the second bullet point. The m stands for millions. This is private money given for the Tsunami.

minnetar -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:35:51 PM)
NG that is totally unfair as that is one catastrophe Sir. minnetar

NorthernGent -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:37:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Typical anti-Americanism that you always post, NG. Again, you are talking percentages, rather than absolute numbers, and totally ignoring everything except government (tax) funds. Let's stack the deck, shall we? I'm calling you on it, as normal. FirmKY A post with links stating aid given is deemed to be anti-American. Genius. 1) Of course I'm talking percentages. My contention is that per head the US does not give as generously as other nations. If you believe the total figure is more relevant than per head, then that's your call. Personally, I think each person's contribution is more relevant. 2) Both of my posts concerned private charity. Have another read and you'll see private charity mentioned in both of them.

NorthernGent -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:39:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: minnetar NG that is totally unfair as that is one catastrophe Sir. minnetar It was given as an example in response to the blanket claim that Europeans don't provide private charity. There is nothing unfair about it in the context of what I was replying to i.e. that which I highlighted in bold.

FirmhandKY -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:42:08 PM)
Long-Term U.S. Tsunami Aid Michael A. Fletcher Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 11, 2005 He has pledged $350 million in U.S. aid -- a figure that he has indicated will increase as needs demand. So far, about $78 million of that money has been spent, according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Beyond the money committed by the government, the U.S. military has been providing emergency relief at a cost of as much as $6 million a day. Lawmakers have said they expect the administration to send an emergency budget request to cover tsunami relief, including the Pentagon's costs.

pahunkboy -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:42:31 PM)
what they mean is we have become the very boogieman we so venently fought- per the cold war. this admisistration took a world power- in decent financial shape-, plunderred our treasury, "freedom" has come to mean reord oil profits. in the words of michael milkin, infamous junk bond king of the 80s- "greed is good" the danger in all this- is we set a precedent for unilateral- unchecked corporate power run amuck.

FirmhandKY -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:45:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You should recognise the country after the second bullet point. The m stands for millions. This is private money given for the Tsunami. You are correct. I didn't catch that you were only talking about a single instance. FirmKY

NorthernGent -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:46:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: minnetar NG that is totally unfair as that is one catastrophe Sir. minnetar From the same article: Here is a view of the full picture, both private and state aid/charity combined: In terms of private donations to charity, American citizens and corporations give generously -- more than $3 billion a year. But Sachs and other analysts say that amount only slightly changes -- from 0.15 percent to 0.18 percent of GNP -- the relatively low standing of the United States. Sarah Kline, head of UK and European Union relations for Oxfam UK, said, ''If you want to compare records, overall the best way to do that is to look at what percentage a country spends as a percentage of its [gross domestic product], and in that sense America has always spent less than most of the other developed countries." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1231-01.htm

minnetar -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:46:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: minnetar NG that is totally unfair as that is one catastrophe Sir. minnetar It was given as an example in response to the blanket claim that Europeans don't provide private charity. There is nothing unfair about it in the context of what I was replying to i.e. that which I highlighted in bold. NG then why not find a source to give a total figure in private aid from a country. i appreciate Your clarification and my not reading well. minnetar

FirmhandKY -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:46:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It was given as an example in response to the blanket claim that Europeans don't provide private charity. There is nothing unfair about it in the context of what I was replying to i.e. that which I highlighted in bold. Who made this claim? FirmKY

minnetar -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:47:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It was given as an example in response to the blanket claim that Europeans don't provide private charity. There is nothing unfair about it in the context of what I was replying to i.e. that which I highlighted in bold. Who made this claim? FirmKY Firm not me Sir. minnetar

NorthernGent -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:50:59 PM)
Minnetar, I've just given one above. You could argue that total aid & charity is a better measure than per head aid & charity. If I give £10, and you and Firmhand give £7 each, then using the total measure you're more generous than me. I wouldn't agree with that sentiment.

NorthernGent -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:52:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It was given as an example in response to the blanket claim that Europeans don't provide private charity. There is nothing unfair about it in the context of what I was replying to i.e. that which I highlighted in bold. Who made this claim? FirmKY Read your quotes on this thread.

FirmhandKY -> RE: "America has lost it's standing in the world." (4/28/2007 4:53:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: minnetar Firm not me Sir. I might have missed it, but when I reread the thread, I couldn't find anyone who made that claim, either. FirmKY

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125