Financial aid -> bursting some bubbles. (678 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.43 on 18 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by MrB (View user info) at 2004-12-30 13:19:06 EST
I've read a lot of critisism about the U.S. spending money on the disaster in asia, and claims that the U.S. think they're the biggest spenders of the world in financial aid to other countries. That's why i want to present a few facts. As a total amount the U.S. did spend the most in 2003, but if you look at percentage to GNP, they are one of the "greediest" (i don't agree with this term though, any country giving financial aid is per definition not greedy) in the countries that agreed to pay at least 0,7% per year.
There was a poll amongst U.S. citizens with the question "how much do you think the U.S. are giving financial aid in terms of % of GNP?". The average american thought it was 24%. In fact it was a whopping 0,14% in 2003.
Now i don't think that the U.S. should spend more, because one should take in account that as the sole remaining superpower (sorry U.K. citizens that read this, it is true) they spend a huge amount on policing the world. They have the highest amount of soldiers stationed abroad percentage wise and total amount wise per country in the world. And although some don't agree with their foreign policies, i firmly believe the world is a safer place because of it. At the very least for me, and 99% of the people that read this site.
However, it is my opinion that some of the posters here should be enlightened by graphs on how much they actually spend, so they have better knowledge of what they are talking about, rather then spit out some figures they -think- they're spending.
In regards to the post about france not giving enough financial aid: per total amount in 2003 France gave half of what the U.S. gave in financial aid, and 0,41% of GNP. Per head of capita they were also giving more then the U.S..
Now for graphs:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
Scroll down a few pages for the graph that covers most of which was stated above.
And read this:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2003/0429rich.htm
Now i am dutch myself, and i guess i should be proud about beeing nr.1 in giving development aid financially, technicly and productive wise...but i wouldn't mind lowering some taxes here on that account, i'd be happy with a nice 5th place and 40% instead of 42% taxes... And for those wondering, yes i've sent some money to aid the affected countries in asia.
User Reviews
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2004-12-30 19:31:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Ok.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2004-12-30 19:18:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2004-12-30 16:35:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
"gas is still over $2 a gallon"
HAHAHAHA
And you think you've got it bad?!
We pay about $5.85 a gallon in the UK.
(Based on 81.9p a litre, 3.79 litres to the gallon, exchange rate of £1=$1.89 - like anyone cares)
Sorry, that was completely unrelated but amused me.
_________
Do you have ANY IDEA what the United States would do to the rest of the world if Americans had to pay $5 a gallon for gas? G'wan, imagine.
OK, now re-imagine that, only with nuclear weapons.
Jebus, you all think we're assholes NOW - we'd have the 82nd Airborne in East Anglia, trying to get to the North Sea oil...
Submitted by transhuman (user info) at 2004-12-30 18:54:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
you deserve a +2 for posting something that has ALREADY been covered, but for covering it intelligently instead of in an inflammatory manner.
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2004-12-30 16:35:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"gas is still over $2 a gallon"
HAHAHAHA
And you think you've got it bad?!
We pay about $5.85 a gallon in the UK.
(Based on 81.9p a litre, 3.79 litres to the gallon, exchange rate of £1=$1.89 - like anyone cares)
Sorry, that was completely unrelated but amused me.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-12-30 16:06:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you deserve a -2 for posting something that has ALREADY been covered, but the british comment was amusing and your post was decent enough.
If you were poor would you rather have 200 bucks from a billionaire or 90 bucks from me? point: the rich might not give as much as they can, but if you are the one getting aid, you only care about the bottom line (how much you get).
Submitted by Loren1 (user info) at 2004-12-30 16:03:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah? How much?
Submitted by screamfeeder (user info) at 2004-12-30 15:51:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
/yawn
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2004-12-30 15:07:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Who cares how much the US spends - wars don't pay for themselves, y'know (well, sometimes they do, but gas is still over $2 a gallon)
The best part of this post was the apology about Britain not being a superpower anymore - I think they lost that status, oh, about 90 years ago.
Submitted by MrB (user info) at 2004-12-30 14:01:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry about the comma period....but look at it this way: don't you feel all international translating it to periods at the moment?
Submitted by Fartman (user info) at 2004-12-30 13:59:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Good info, but the comma/decimal point thing is confusing at first. Or, maybe I'm just another dumb American.
Submitted by MrB (user info) at 2004-12-30 13:52:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Spook, in a way you are right; because GNP's differ, the absolute amount differs. This is without a doubt correct. However, a poor guy giving $20 is still more generous then a rich guy giving $20, right? Plus, the "per head of capita" is very reflective of how much is spend per person in that country. The Netherlands for example gave just over 4 Billion dollars in aid in 2003 with a population of almost 16 million. The U.S. has somwhere in between 250 and 300 million people giving just over 15 Billion dollars. Now that's a big difference per head of capita in giving financial aid. And that's comparing apples to apples.
* I must add that i do not consider countries (as a whole rich) that still have a large % of the population homeless. You're a rich country if you can say that no-one registered citizen -needs- to be homeless.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2004-12-30 13:42:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Um. Percentages don't mean shit without data to compare with. Apples to apples, not oranges to apples.
Take my example:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/55458#1044008
Submitted by RyuFu (user info) at 2004-12-30 13:39:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I'm gonna go the route of Blitzkrieg_Bob and formally announce this is THE LAST post relating to the South Asia disaster to which I will give anything higher than a -2. This particular post gets a positive because there was at least some research done.
That being said, I have a few points to bring to light:
1. Were there any UK citizens that actually thought they were part of a superpower before reading this post?
2. I know that the internet is worldwide, but the creator of uber is American, and I'm pretty sure the server is located in the US. Can we please, please, PLEASE use decimal points instead of commas when we're expressing numbers in terms of...decimals? This is just me breaking from my normal 'global community' stance and turning into an ethnocentric American asshole for a tiny pet peeve.
3. Ignore what I've written. It's crap.
4. I'm bored.
Submitted by MrB (user info) at 2004-12-30 13:38:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I know Bob, that's why i actually mentioned that the U.S. spends most in 2003 as a total amount. But if you rate spendings of a country, especially that of financial aid, it's always interesting to look at figures like per head of capita and % of GNP.
I for one still think it's admirable the U.S. spend so much, because lets face it, there are millions of people homeless in the U.S., i wouldn't blaim the U.S. government if they were to help those first.
Countries like The Netherlands and the U.K., Portugal and Spain -should- be big spenders. One of the reasons they are as rich as they are now is because of the unfair trading and shipping slaves and such in the past. In that perspective the U.S. should be spending more on those that made some groups in the U.S. rich in the past, instead of aiding abroad -> slaves. But reading some remarks towards the coloured groups in the U.S. on this page, i don't think many would agree.
As for the vatican, that's not really a solid comparison is it?
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-12-30 13:26:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Very objective!
You have to remember that percentages do not equal dollars, though. Re-organize those charts so that the total contribution is ranked by dollar amounts -not by percentages- and now who is on top?
One would think that the Vatican would have the highest charitable contirbution percentage-wise.
I know one of the authors of one of those articles, too.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2004-12-30 13:25:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2004-12-30 13:24:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Sorry - (-1) because I'm so sick to death about this topic.
Ya know, offhand, I wonder how many of those whiny asshole bitches at the UN would be willing to give back all the saddam bribe money for looking the other way during that "Oil" for "Food" *wink wink* sweetheart deal they had going on? Why haven't they donated THAT to the relief fund?
Submitted by WhatTheHell (user info) at 2004-12-30 13:22:27 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Blow me, dutchboy, your paint sucks.