ikke 0 #26 July 28, 2003 As I said, it's still a pot of cash and more in absolute terms than anyone else, looking at it in the way that usaid.gov does, i.e. by GDP, the US isn't quite as benevolent as you might have thought. I don't have a breakdown of these figures and I'm not going to bother looking for them just now. It's just a fact that most Americans consider their country to be significantly more generous than others when it comes to foreign aid, when this is not the case, quite the opposite in fact. Should contributions or evaluations thereof be based on GDP? I think so, you may disagree. It's not my intention to bash the US, and if it were this isn't the place I'd do it. Just presenting the facts. Cheers John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #27 July 28, 2003 QuoteAs I said, it's still a pot of cash and more in absolute terms than anyone else, looking at it in the way that usaid.gov does, i.e. by GDP, the US isn't quite as benevolent as you might have thought. Exactly the point. We DO give more than everyone else.... we just give less per GDP or per perons than everyone else. If we matched GDP or per person contributions with the higher end Euro countries, the total dollar amout would be completely obscene. Edit to add, this thread is not about foreign aid anyway. Its about the fact that PR asked us to leave Vieques, and is now complaning about the consequenes of that request. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #28 July 28, 2003 QuoteAs I said, it's still a pot of cash and more in absolute terms than anyone else, looking at it in the way that usaid.gov does, i.e. by GDP, the US isn't quite as benevolent as you might have thought. Give me a set of numbers and I'll make them say what ever you want them to say...... Oh - and I'm asking for the Swedish Bikini Team RIGHT NOW!Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ikke 0 #29 July 29, 2003 I'm not sure "obscene" is the word I'd use given the context, but it would be *lots*, absolutely. IIRC, the link I posted earlier pointed out that France and the Netherlands combined contribute nearly as much as the US. About 75 million people in total, the US about 280 million...so they're handing over what, just under four times as much per head? As I said, judging these things by GDP or per capita seems to me to be a sensible way of going about things. If you don't fine, I'm sure we can both live with thatI hope that in pointing out a common misconception I've not incurred the displeasure of several dozen Americans . As I said, that wasn't my intention. Cheers John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #30 July 29, 2003 Well ikke, we just spend our money on other things. If someone in the whitehouse ever managed to pass a 20% tax hike so we could match the combination france and netherlands per capita... Well I do believe you would see 2 things. 1.) The use of the arms the second amendment guarantees us. 2.) The whitehouse on fire. As far as at least I am concerned. The US gives more than France. The US gives more than the Netherlands. And that is plenty by me. And if the UK, Fance or the Netherlands has to add their countries together to match ours or do the per/capita game so be it. But I think you as soverign countries should EACH match our total foreign aid. I am sure it would do the world a lot of good. So, Quit slacking, put in as many hours as we do in a work week, be as productive per hour as we are and pay up. I just hope I broke your misconception that we are slackers and should do what everyone else wants us to. Because we work a lot harder than you do and can do with our money as we please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TitaniumLegs 8 #31 July 29, 2003 Quote0.5% of GDP rather than the 20% that Americans think they provide. Fine. Give me my 0.5% back. That's gotta be at least 5 jump tickets. (>o|-< If you don't believe me, ask me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #32 July 29, 2003 Before I scroll down and read all of this...I ask this...Dollar Figures - NOT percentages - What are the numbers.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #33 July 29, 2003 OK, so I read the rest up to now. My question is still in dollar figures not percentages. There is always a way to make the numbers more insignificant. GDP being just one. How about this: What if... We called in all our markers. Everything that is owed to us should be paid to us by the end of the week....I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ikke 0 #34 July 29, 2003 Well, I'm not an economist, but if you were to "call in" your debts I imagine several third world economies would collapse, lots of people would die...that sort of thing. To be taken with hefty amounts of salt, but from what I gather, the US spends around $10 billion annually on foreign aid...works out at around $35-40 per person per year (so, not quite the 5 jump tickets that Titaniumlegs was hoping for .) The Danes, to pick a nation from the other end of the spectrum, pay around $300 per person per year. I'm not looking to make the numbers less significant, the GDP/GNP/per capita method is generally how these things are measured. It's wealth redistribution and, like taxes, is generally evaluated according to how many of you there are and/or a percentage of what you earn. Cheers John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #35 July 29, 2003 QuoteIt's wealth redistribution and, like taxes, is generally evaluated according to how many of you there are and/or a percentage of what you earn. Whew! For a second there it was looking like someone was suggesting that we become communists. Wealth resdistribution is not a good thing as far as I am concerned. We already interfere with Darwyn enough. You just have to draw the line somewhere. People are not above evolution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #36 July 29, 2003 of course the problem with the per capita method is a fairly significant portion of the US population doesnt pay any taxes.. i'm quite sure the amount that comes out of my paycheck is more than 40$ per year ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ikke 0 #37 July 29, 2003 Well, that's where we disagree...if interfering with Darwin means stopping people from starving then I say we can't interfere enough. And if we're to just let evolution have its way, then there's an argument for not healing the sick etc...a whole different kettle of fish. Now, shouldn't you be contributing to GDP rather than slacking around on dz.com? Cheers John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #38 July 29, 2003 QuoteWell, that's where we disagree...if interfering with Darwin means stopping people from starving then I say we can't interfere enough. Great, give your money to them... Don't ask for mine. QuoteAnd if we're to just let evolution have its way, then there's an argument for not healing the sick etc...a whole different kettle of fish. YOu are correct. But like I said, draw a line somewhere. Healing the sick in this country is a multi-billion dollar industry that creates jobs and contributes to the GDP QuoteNow, shouldn't you be contributing to GDP rather than slacking around on dz.com? ha ha ha thats the beauty of it. I am earning money while postwhoring... and I spend that money at the DZ thus contributing to the GDP. Therefore, post whoring is good for the economy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #39 July 29, 2003 Ok, if "Darwinism" is to be involved and it is ok to change the course of whatever course nature would take then shouldn't we just sterilize them to protect themselves from themselves? I mean if it's ok to give them money so they can live longer and overpopulate even more than the food and land will provide for...then why not ...why not just help them not make more population...interveining with the course of nature is ok, right?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricaH 0 #40 July 29, 2003 Here in the US though, we are not as dependant on our govt aid. We save our own $$ on which to retire (SS is running out incase you haven't heard). On average, we only get 3 weeks vacation & that's on the high end. And we work at least 40 hrs per week. If I knew my country would support me 100% if I became unemployed/sick/retired and got over 1 month off every year and only worked about 30 hrs a week... I might be a little more willing to pay more in taxes. However, I do not believe in equal distribution of wealth. I earned it, now I want to decide how to spend it - not let the govt decide. In the lovely world we currenly live in - one can chose in which country they wish to reside. It's the fact that no matter what the US does, we get shit for it. Isolationism is my choice . Cut the rest of the world off - we can take care of ouselves - very few other countries have this option. -> as a side note - I think this is a horrible option, I love the rest of the world, am working on filling my passport & can't imagine being stuck permanently w/in one countries borders. But some seem to be playing devil's advocate here & I thought I'd join in. There is no can't. Only lack of knowledge or fear. Only you can fix your fear. PMS #227 (just like the TV show) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ikke 0 #41 July 29, 2003 I agree there are just too many of us, but considering that we're the ones using far more than our share of the earth's resources, perhaps we should cut down on our excesses first - aviation fuel excepted of course I dunno really...mass sterilisation sounds a little fascist to me, didn't they try that in India a while ago? Is it up to us to forcibly do something like that? Again...I don't know... Until some kind of solution presents itself the only thing I can think of to try to help (and in the process salve my conscience) is to throw money at the problem and hope it goes away... Cheers John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ikke 0 #42 July 29, 2003 True, from my experience Scandinavian countries -and the likes of Holland and Germany - are far closer to the "welfare state" than either the US or the UK. Do people there work less hard than in the US? I don't know. In any case, they are among the wealthiest nations on earth and seem to be able to support their people and provide a little for developing nations etc. Having said that, their taxes are pretty crippling... As for letting the government decide where your money goes, that already happens through taxation. I think the leap from a degree of redistribution of wealth to equal distribution of wealth (communism - which I don't believe in either) is a fairly large one... Anyway, I'm not begrudging anyone their hard earned cash. I'm not bellowing from my soapbox that the US should hand over more aid. Just sayin that you aren't handing over as much as you perhaps thought you were (not aimed at you in particular, Erica, just trying to clarify my slightly battered position ). I appreciate you joining in, but could really do with someone joining in on MY side, damn it!! Enjoy yer travels Cheers John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricaH 0 #43 July 29, 2003 QuoteI'm not bellowing from my soapbox that the US should hand over more aid. Just sayin that you aren't handing over as much as you perhaps thought you were point accepted, it is true, it just seems that we get slapped in the face more often than not & that's why so many people are hyper defensive. QuoteI appreciate you joining in, but could really do with someone joining in on MY side, damn it!! good luck in that search! prob more likely tomorrow morning, when Europe is on-line more & the US is still sleeping. QuoteIn any case, they are among the wealthiest nations on earth and seem to be able to support their people and provide a little for developing nations etc. Having said that, their taxes are pretty crippling... a fact that is truly fascinating - would love to see a study on how that works vs. if it could work in the US. I'd love to be an ex-patriot for a few years... just haven't seen that job posted yet. i don't see the jump from redistribution to equal distribution as being all that large. once you swallow a small pill, taking a large one isn't so much a shock. There is no can't. Only lack of knowledge or fear. Only you can fix your fear. PMS #227 (just like the TV show) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #44 July 29, 2003 Quote I think the leap from a degree of redistribution of wealth to equal distribution of wealth (communism - which I don't believe in either) is a fairly large one... Uh Huh. Hill and Billary both think along those same lines. (Rather to say that they want us to believe it that way) Thank you (Erica) for recognizing my limited wit. No, I don't think we should really neuter the worlds less fortunate. But look at it this way...The media (as we know it) has only been around for a miniscule amount of time compared to the world as a home for humans. Sally Struthers may have a big heart, but the world took care of it's self and it's inhabitants without our grandparents money, or their grandparents money, or their.....and so on. Why is the burden on us? The burden rests on us because of the media's need to sensationalize a story, and the willingness of people to accept what they hear and see from those stories. You can't tell me that the world has suddenly become that much worse for these cultures. It has only become undesireable to see on TV, and everyone wants to fix it because they "Feel Bad". News Flash - You cannot change climates with money. It is a myth that everyone is entitled to the best of everything, as some would have you believe. If that was so, everyone would have their own pilots and planes to jump out of. So, until I start getting my jump tickets and gear provided to me, free of charge, and no strings attached, and don't have to work because, well, It's to hot and to dry, or what ever the reason, (like maybe I don't want to), I want every cent back that was taken from me and given to somebody else that did not a damn thing to earn it.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ikke 0 #45 July 29, 2003 I'd say that, to an extent, the burden rests on us because we're better off than they are. Call me old fashioned but making at least some effort to help out the less fortunate is something I believe in. The way I see it that's a fairly major element of Judeo-Christian culture - some degree of concern for the wellbeing of others. And no, I don't believe that suffering has necessarily exploded since the advent of the media, but I do think that doing bugger all to alleviate that suffering is less and less excusable now that it's there for us all to see. Cheers John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #46 July 29, 2003 QuoteCall me old fashioned but making at least some effort to help out the less fortunate is something I believe in. And we are helping out some.. The problem is other people telling us what we feel is adequate is not. Especially when those people that are telling us to pitch in more are the ones that get more vacation, and work fewer hours a week than we do. I work hard for the money I earn... just happen to be between projects at the moment. I am usually the guy putting in 50-70 hours a week, I get no vacation and no sick days. No when someone that works 30 to 35 hours and gets a month of vacation time tells me how to spend my money, I'm gonna refer them to a buttsex thread for further instructions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #47 July 29, 2003 Shouldn't that be the option of the giver? And if so many people feel so strongly about it... why aren't there more missionarys? And most of all - why do the bank accountsof those that say that they really care so, so, very much, are so FAT? The ones that chose to give shopuld give - the ones that chose not to should not have to. At least you are honest in the way that you admit that you would rather throw money at the problem than deal with it.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ikke 0 #48 July 29, 2003 I think Erica pretty much hit the nail on the head, either I've been unclear or you guys are a tad too defensive. True, you get a lot of flak from all and sundry, but I wasn't criticising. So, for the nth time: I didn't say that what the US was giving wasn't enough. What I said was that you weren't giving as much as you perhaps thought. Not a criticism of US foreign aid, just an observation -which, if I'd foreseen the shitstorm it caused, I would have kept to myself. I hope that this has cleared things up and exempted me from the buttsex thread. Cheers John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ikke 0 #49 July 29, 2003 Please see my previous post to the Blue One. Just addressing yer points though: - Yes, giving should really be voluntary, otherwise it's not giving. - I suspect there aren't that many missionaries because most people (myself included) aren't prepared to give up the perks of life in the developed world and would rather send off the odd envelope to UNICEF or whoever. Cheers John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #50 July 29, 2003 QuoteSo, for the nth time: I didn't say that what the US was giving wasn't enough. Sorry, I was talking more in general, not specifically you. QuoteWhat I said was that you weren't giving as much as you perhaps thought. I think this is a misperception. I realize how much we are giving. I think the reason this causes the shitstorm backlash that you saw is... most of us do know, and are tired of being told we don't. Is that what Erica was saying? If not its close. QuoteI hope that this has cleared things up and exempted me from the buttsex thread. ha ha ha You're no fun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
