• Home
  • About Us
  • Must Read Archives

Writings by the Hudson

No pretense of objectivity

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Is the U.S. too stingy with relief funds?
Empty talk show outrage? »

Why we’re stingy

December 30, 2004 by Igor Volsky

The NYT editorial page weighs in on the “Are We Stingy?” relief efforts debate and concludes that yes, we are. The paper contrasts the public perception that the U.S. gives 24% of its budget on aid to poor nations and the reality that we only spends a quarter of 1%. In 2003, America gave $16.2 billion in development aid, while the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, America offered $13.2 billion, while Europe contributed $29.9 billion. Also, very often, the U.S. does not actually deliver all the aid it promises.

Still, all spending is an indication of priority. When a country, a people, or a politician (do you like how politician get her/his own category?) allocate money towards a cause, they acknowledge the importance of that cause. When not enough money is allocated, the cause is deemed less important than a higher spending priority. In this case, the message couldn’t be clearer. Helping the poorest nations on earth overcome one of the largest natural disasters in history is less important than the Bush inauguration. The inauguration of Bush is more important than rebuilding the lives of millions.

Now, I wonder. If (God forbid) a natural disaster occurred in the Western hemisphere, or even in the United States, would we, as Americans, not expect all other nations to (1) send their condolences immediately and not wait almost a week [note to Bush: since you’re president and all, you’ll sometimes have to disrupt your vacation, especially when 80,000+ suddenly die in the poorest region on earth. If you were a true statesmen you would fly to India and Sri Lanka to survey the damage and extend your personal sympathies] (2) contribute all that they can to the relief efforts.

Is it all too much to ask for?

Advertisements

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

3 Responses

  1. on December 30, 2004 at 11:40 am Jeremy Roy

    No, its not too much to ask for. Bush is obviously already planning his retirement. All he has left to do on his agenda is take care of the mess he made in Iraq, and maybe throw some homeland security stuff into his profile. Other than that, its obvious he doesn’t give a damn about whatever else happens. Whether that be the deaths of more than 80, 000 people, or even domestic issues, he just doesn’t want to be bothered by any of it.


  2. on December 31, 2004 at 10:20 am dax

    Why the need for immediate emotional reaction?
    Why the addiction to the Clinton tears and the bitting of the lower lip?
    Give me a President with an MBA instead of a law degree.
    Give me decision makers that process information (right or wrong at the time)and act on that information.
    Give me a President that can recognise the difference between right and wrong.


  3. on January 4, 2005 at 12:15 am Joseph Grennon

    “The paper contrasts the public perception that the U.S. gives 24% of its budget on aid to poor nations and the reality that we only spend a quarter of 1%. In 2003, America gave $16.2 billion in development aid, while the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, America offered $13.2 billion, while Europe contributed $29.9 billion.”

    I believe your readers should note that you are comparing an entire continent, consisting of 44 nations, to one nation. If we take this into consideration, the gap in aid lessens. Compared to some European countries, however, it might appear that the United States gives less. It would be unfair, if not even erroneous, however, to assume that this makes the United States “stingy.” We are quite the opposite. We invest more into poverty stricken countries, supply technology, and trade with poverty stricken countries then some prominent European countries. According to a report by the Center for Global Development and Foreign Policy, the average of aid from the United States is on par with France, Germany, and Norway. On a final note, your figures, as well as mine, do not include the enormous amount of private donations of Americans. Reality is that we are only 6% of the world’s population but we give 40% of the world’s aid and 60% of the world’s food. I think a fine example of the United States giving aid is in the tsunami disaster. We immediately gave $50 million dollars, right away, before an assessment of how many people died and how much damage resulted. Once assessed, the United States increased funding to $350 million dollars in addition to whatever it costs for the United States to use its carrier groups and military to assist in delivering aid. Recently, President Bush asked former presidents George H. Bush and Bill Clinton to lead a private fundraising to help alleviate the suffering of the victims.

    “[A] natural disaster occurred in the Western hemisphere, or even in the United States, would we, as Americans, not expect all other nations to (1) send their condolences immediately and not wait almost a week [note to Bush: since you’re president and all, you’ll sometimes have to disrupt your vacation, especially when 80,000+ suddenly die in the poorest region on earth. If you were a true statesmen you would fly to India and Sri Lanka to survey the damage and extend your personal sympathies] (2) contribute all that they can to the relief efforts.”

    With Mt. St. Helens, earthquakes in California and Alaska, hurricanes, tornadoes- when have we ever received or expected “relief” efforts from foreign countries?

    With all that the United States does in foreign aid, in addition to the people we have helped and never asked credit for (Muslims in Balkans and people of Kuwait), because of our genuine want to assist with humanitarian efforts without any selfish interests. With all that the United States does, it cannot be considered “stingy.”



Comments are closed.

    Advertisements
  • Archives

    • July 2007 (9)
    • June 2007 (5)
    • March 2007 (3)
    • February 2007 (13)
    • January 2007 (8)
    • December 2006 (4)
    • November 2006 (16)
    • August 2006 (3)
    • July 2006 (2)
    • June 2006 (4)
    • May 2006 (4)
    • April 2006 (2)
    • March 2006 (15)
    • February 2006 (5)
    • August 2005 (2)
    • July 2005 (2)
    • June 2005 (11)
    • May 2005 (10)
    • April 2005 (3)
    • March 2005 (2)
    • February 2005 (28)
    • January 2005 (36)
    • December 2004 (118)
    • November 2004 (21)
  • Categories

    • 2008 Presidential Election (6)
    • Al Gore (1)
    • Ann Coulter (1)
    • Barack Obama (2)
    • College Politics (3)
    • Compassionate Conservatism (11)
    • Constitutional Law (2)
    • Dan Black Posts (29)
    • Debt and Trade (3)
    • Democratic Leadership (8)
    • Domestic spending (4)
    • Environment (5)
    • Essays (7)
    • Ethanol Critique Series (3)
    • Gay Issues (3)
    • Healthcare (3)
    • Hillary Clinton (2)
    • Igor Volsky Posts (73)
    • Iran (3)
    • Iraq (37)
    • John Edwards (3)
    • Media (22)
    • Mitt Romney (1)
    • Morning Links (8)
    • Oil (7)
    • Renewable Energy Politics (3)
    • Rudy Giuliani (1)
    • Sean Hannity (1)
    • Social concerns (28)
    • Sustainability (3)
    • U.S. Foreign Policy (32)
    • U.S.-Israel Strategic Alliance (11)
    • US Supreme Court (1)
    • Veterans Affairs (1)
    • War-on-Terror (25)
  • Pages

    • About Us
    • Must Read Archives

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


%d bloggers like this: