|
Uncle Sap?
Well Uncle Sam is again chipping in to help the victims of earthquake and
tsunami. Let's see who else chips in. Rich Arabs? Muslim nations? Don't hold your breath. |
DeWayne wrote: Well Uncle Sam is again chipping in to help the victims of earthquake and tsunami. Let's see who else chips in. Rich Arabs? Muslim nations? Don't hold your breath. I think it's safe to say that there will be aid coming from all corners of the globe. dxAce Michigan USA |
dxAce wrote: DeWayne wrote: Well Uncle Sam is again chipping in to help the victims of earthquake and tsunami. Let's see who else chips in. Rich Arabs? Muslim nations? Don't hold your breath. I think it's safe to say that there will be aid coming from all corners of the globe. Additionally, I spoke to the Red Cross here earlier this afternoon and if you desire you can make a donation with your local Red Cross to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) specifically for earthquake relief which will be forwarded to them. dxAce Michigan USA |
dxAce wrote:
dxAce wrote: DeWayne wrote: Well Uncle Sam is again chipping in to help the victims of earthquake and tsunami. Let's see who else chips in. Rich Arabs? Muslim nations? Don't hold your breath. I think it's safe to say that there will be aid coming from all corners of the globe. Additionally, I spoke to the Red Cross here earlier this afternoon and if you desire you can make a donation with your local Red Cross to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) specifically for earthquake relief which will be forwarded to them. Radio Australia is reporting that the UN has said that the relief operation will be the largest in HISTORY. 23,000 dead so far, and injuries and disease (from all the dead bodies and bacteria contaminated water) are expected to kill thousands more. It's the worst natural disaster in nearly 100 years-hell, the quake itself was the largest since the Alaska shaker in 1964, and that one caused the earth to ring like a bell for three weeks. American experts are guessing that the Indian Ocean hasn't experienced a tsunami like this in 500 years, but they don't know since nothing in the recorded histories of those countries matches what happened. |
"running dogg" wrote in message ... dxAce wrote: dxAce wrote: DeWayne wrote: Well Uncle Sam is again chipping in to help the victims of earthquake and tsunami. Let's see who else chips in. Rich Arabs? Muslim nations? Don't hold your breath. I think it's safe to say that there will be aid coming from all corners of the globe. Additionally, I spoke to the Red Cross here earlier this afternoon and if you desire you can make a donation with your local Red Cross to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) specifically for earthquake relief which will be forwarded to them. Radio Australia is reporting that the UN has said that the relief operation will be the largest in HISTORY. 23,000 dead so far, and injuries and disease (from all the dead bodies and bacteria contaminated water) are expected to kill thousands more. It's the worst natural disaster in nearly 100 years-hell, the quake itself was the largest since the Alaska shaker in 1964, and that one caused the earth to ring like a bell for three weeks. American experts are guessing that the Indian Ocean hasn't experienced a tsunami like this in 500 years, but they don't know since nothing in the recorded histories of those countries matches what happened. The only thing that springs to mind offhand is what happened to Thera and the Minoan civilization, circa 1500 BC. --Mike L. |
Michael Lawson wrote:
"running dogg" wrote in message ... dxAce wrote: dxAce wrote: DeWayne wrote: Well Uncle Sam is again chipping in to help the victims of earthquake and tsunami. Let's see who else chips in. Rich Arabs? Muslim nations? Don't hold your breath. I think it's safe to say that there will be aid coming from all corners of the globe. Additionally, I spoke to the Red Cross here earlier this afternoon and if you desire you can make a donation with your local Red Cross to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) specifically for earthquake relief which will be forwarded to them. Radio Australia is reporting that the UN has said that the relief operation will be the largest in HISTORY. 23,000 dead so far, and injuries and disease (from all the dead bodies and bacteria contaminated water) are expected to kill thousands more. It's the worst natural disaster in nearly 100 years-hell, the quake itself was the largest since the Alaska shaker in 1964, and that one caused the earth to ring like a bell for three weeks. American experts are guessing that the Indian Ocean hasn't experienced a tsunami like this in 500 years, but they don't know since nothing in the recorded histories of those countries matches what happened. The only thing that springs to mind offhand is what happened to Thera and the Minoan civilization, circa 1500 BC. And that was as much the rain of hot lava as the tsunami created by the eruption. As I understand it, the damage caused by the 9.0 magnitude earthquake was relatively minor and localized, it was the tsunami that caused all the death and destruction. That means that this tsunami was easily the deadliest and most destructive tsunami in recorded human history. Radio Habana Cuba claimed last night that "hundreds" of people in Somalia-in Africa-died in the tsunami, although I have yet to hear confirmation of that anywhere else. Somalia is on the other side of the Indian Ocean from Sumatra-6,000 miles, IIRC. --Mike L. |
beerbarrel wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:36:57 -0800, running dogg wrote: Michael Lawson wrote: "running dogg" wrote in message ... dxAce wrote: dxAce wrote: DeWayne wrote: Well Uncle Sam is again chipping in to help the victims of earthquake and tsunami. Let's see who else chips in. Rich Arabs? Muslim nations? Don't hold your breath. I think it's safe to say that there will be aid coming from all corners of the globe. Additionally, I spoke to the Red Cross here earlier this afternoon and if you desire you can make a donation with your local Red Cross to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) specifically for earthquake relief which will be forwarded to them. Radio Australia is reporting that the UN has said that the relief operation will be the largest in HISTORY. 23,000 dead so far, and injuries and disease (from all the dead bodies and bacteria contaminated water) are expected to kill thousands more. It's the worst natural disaster in nearly 100 years-hell, the quake itself was the largest since the Alaska shaker in 1964, and that one caused the earth to ring like a bell for three weeks. American experts are guessing that the Indian Ocean hasn't experienced a tsunami like this in 500 years, but they don't know since nothing in the recorded histories of those countries matches what happened. The only thing that springs to mind offhand is what happened to Thera and the Minoan civilization, circa 1500 BC. And that was as much the rain of hot lava as the tsunami created by the eruption. As I understand it, the damage caused by the 9.0 magnitude earthquake was relatively minor and localized, it was the tsunami that caused all the death and destruction. That means that this tsunami was easily the deadliest and most destructive tsunami in recorded human history. Radio Habana Cuba claimed last night that "hundreds" of people in Somalia-in Africa-died in the tsunami, although I have yet to hear confirmation of that anywhere else. Somalia is on the other side of the Indian Ocean from Sumatra-6,000 miles, IIRC. --Mike L. The Pacific is by far the most active tsunami zone, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But tsunamis have been generated in other bodies of water, including the Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas, and the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. North Atlantic tsunamis included the tsunami associated with the 1775 Lisbon earthquake that killed as many as 60,000 people in Portugal, Spain, and North Africa. This quake caused a tsunami as high as 23 feet (7 meters) in the Caribbean. But most of the dead in Iberia (Spain and Portugal) were from the earthquake, not necessarily from the tsunami that followed it. In Southeast Asia, most of the dead were specifically from the tsunami. See the difference? |
beerbarrel wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:56:46 -0800, running dogg wrote: As I understand it, the damage caused by the 9.0 magnitude earthquake was relatively minor and localized, it was the tsunami that caused all the death and destruction. That means that this tsunami was easily the deadliest and most destructive tsunami in recorded human history. Radio Habana Cuba claimed last night that "hundreds" of people in Somalia-in Africa-died in the tsunami, although I have yet to hear confirmation of that anywhere else. Somalia is on the other side of the Indian Ocean from Sumatra-6,000 miles, IIRC. --Mike L. The Pacific is by far the most active tsunami zone, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But tsunamis have been generated in other bodies of water, including the Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas, and the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. North Atlantic tsunamis included the tsunami associated with the 1775 Lisbon earthquake that killed as many as 60,000 people in Portugal, Spain, and North Africa. This quake caused a tsunami as high as 23 feet (7 meters) in the Caribbean. But most of the dead in Iberia (Spain and Portugal) were from the earthquake, not necessarily from the tsunami that followed it. In Southeast Asia, most of the dead were specifically from the tsunami. See the difference? But how do you really know? Nov. 1, 1755: After a colossal earthquake destroyed Lisbon, Portugal and rocked much of Europe, people took refuge by boat. A tsunami ensued, as did great fires. Altogether, the event killed more than 60,000 people. Aug. 27, 1883: Eruptions from the Krakatoa volcano fueled a tsunami that drowned 36,000 people in the Indonesian Islands of western Java and southern Sumatra. The strength of the waves pushed coral blocks as large as 600 tons onto the shore. June 15, 1896: Waves as high as 100 feet (30 meters), spawned by an earthquake, swept the east coast of Japan. Some 27,000 people died. April 1, 1946: The April Fools tsunami, triggered by an earthquake in Alaska, killed 159 people, mostly in Hawaii. July 9, 1958: Regarded as the largest recorded in modern times, the tsunami in Lituya Bay, Alaska was caused by a landslide triggered by an 8.3 magnitude earthquake. Waves reached a height of 1,720 feet (576 meters) in the bay, but because the area is relatively isolated and in a unique geologic setting the tsunami did not cause much damage elsewhere. It sank a single boat, killing two fishermen. May 22, 1960: The largest recorded earthquake, magnitude 8.6 in Chile, created a tsunami that hit the Chilean coast within 15 minutes. The surge, up to 75 feet (25 meters) high, killed an estimated 1,500 people in Chile and Hawaii. March 27, 1964: The Alaskan Good Friday earthquake, magnitude between 8.4, spawned a 201-foot (67-meter) tsunami in the Valdez Inlet. It traveled at over 400 mph, killing more than 120 people. Ten of the deaths occurred in Crescent City, in northern California, which saw waves as high as 20 feet (6.3 meters). Aug. 23, 1976: A tsunami in the southwest Philippines killed 8,000 on the heels of an earthquake. July 17, 1998: A magnitude 7.1 earthquake generated a tsunami in Papua New Guinea that quickly killed 2,200. BBC is currently reporting that deaths in the Southeast Asian tsunami have reached at LEAST 60,000, and are climbing by the hour. That puts it on a scale with the Lisbon earthquake/tsunami. I suspect that total deaths, especially in the future few weeks after disease sets in, will top 100,000, making it easily the deadliest tsunami in recorded history. Yes, there have been bigger tsunamis. But the tsunami of Christmas 2004 surely ranks as among the deadliest and most destructive, if not THE MOST deadliest and destructive, in recorded history. |
DeWayne wrote:
Well Uncle Sam is again chipping in to help the victims of earthquake and tsunami. Let's see who else chips in. Rich Arabs? Muslim nations? Don't hold your breath. Uncle Sam's international disaster relief aid budget is nothing to brag about either. There isn't a single country that spends even one per cent of it's GNP on international aid, including the US. |
beerbarrel wrote:
The Pacific is by far the most active tsunami zone, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But tsunamis have been generated in other bodies of water, including the Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas, and the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. North Atlantic tsunamis included the tsunami associated with the 1775 Lisbon earthquake that killed as many as 60,000 people in Portugal, Spain, and North Africa. This quake caused a tsunami as high as 23 feet (7 meters) in the Caribbean. Plagiarist. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...6_tsunami.html -- "Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchett |
This country could certainly use some good karma.
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:31:40 GMT, "DeWayne" wrote: Well Uncle Sam is again chipping in to help the victims of earthquake and tsunami. Let's see who else chips in. Rich Arabs? Muslim nations? Don't hold your breath. |
starman wrote:
DeWayne wrote: Well Uncle Sam is again chipping in to help the victims of earthquake and tsunami. Let's see who else chips in. Rich Arabs? Muslim nations? Don't hold your breath. Uncle Sam's international disaster relief aid budget is nothing to brag about either. There isn't a single country that spends even one per cent of it's GNP on international aid, including the US. I don't know if it's still accurate, but this web site: http://www.aglimmerofhope.org/philanthrophy/newsweek_02_02.htm has a quote from a February 2002 Newsweek article that says private American donors give 2.1% of our GNP to foreign aid each year. This is in addition to what our government gives. Here's a quote I like from the article: "No nation comes even remotely close to the U.S. on these things," says Scott Walker of the Philanthropy Roundtable. "If you're in Sweden or France, it's something the government is supposed to do. If you were in England, it is the nobility. Americans don't think it's enough to say, 'I gave at the office with taxes'." |
beerbrain wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:11:54 GMT, m II wrote: beerbarrel wrote: The Pacific is by far the most active tsunami zone, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But tsunamis have been generated in other bodies of water, including the Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas, and the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. North Atlantic tsunamis included the tsunami associated with the 1775 Lisbon earthquake that killed as many as 60,000 people in Portugal, Spain, and North Africa. This quake caused a tsunami as high as 23 feet (7 meters) in the Caribbean. Plagiarist. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...6_tsunami.html So sue me.... dxHaze HATES plagiarists. Ask Mike Terry. He forgot to put an accompanying URL with a quote once and got branded as a thief by your hero. I don't expect dxHaze to bother you, though. Hypocrites. mike |
m II wrote: beerbrain wrote: On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:11:54 GMT, m II wrote: beerbarrel wrote: The Pacific is by far the most active tsunami zone, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But tsunamis have been generated in other bodies of water, including the Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas, and the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. North Atlantic tsunamis included the tsunami associated with the 1775 Lisbon earthquake that killed as many as 60,000 people in Portugal, Spain, and North Africa. This quake caused a tsunami as high as 23 feet (7 meters) in the Caribbean. Plagiarist. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...6_tsunami.html So sue me.... dxHaze HATES plagiarists. Ask Mike Terry. He forgot to put an accompanying URL with a quote once and got branded as a thief by your hero. And actually Mike Terry ripped off my exact words as posted here and posted them in another forum without attribution. He's been known in the past for doing that. Now you just go tote it, 'tard boy, and leave the real radio stuff to the big boys. dxAce Michigan USA |
Mark S. Holden wrote:
I don't know if it's still accurate, but this web site: http://www.aglimmerofhope.org/philanthrophy/newsweek_02_02.htm has a quote from a February 2002 Newsweek article that says private American donors give 2.1% of our GNP to foreign aid each year. This is in addition to what our government gives. Here's a quote I like from the article: "No nation comes even remotely close to the U.S. on these things," says Scott Walker of the Philanthropy Roundtable. "If you're in Sweden or France, it's something the government is supposed to do. If you were in England, it is the nobility. Americans don't think it's enough to say, 'I gave at the office with taxes'." 00.14 percent. Nowhere near what you quoted. ===================================== In 2003, Norway spent $308 per capita on foreign aid, compared to $23.76 for the United States. http://www.fsmitha.com/world/norway.html ===================================== Stupid subscription site: ===================================== Almost a third of the way into the program (United Nations Millennium Declaration which we signed), the latest available figures show that the percentage of United States income going to poor countries remains near rock bottom: 0.14 percent of GNP). Britain is at 0.34 percent, and France at 0.41 percent. (Norway and Sweden, to no one's surprise, are already exceeding the goal, at 0.92 percent and 0.79 percent.) The government spends $450 billion annually on the military, and $15 billion on development help for poor countries, a 30-to-1 ratio that, as Mr. Sachs puts it, shows how the nation has become "all war and no peace in our foreign policy." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/23/op...?oref=login&th ===================================== |
m II wrote: Mark S. Holden wrote: I don't know if it's still accurate, but this web site: http://www.aglimmerofhope.org/philanthrophy/newsweek_02_02.htm has a quote from a February 2002 Newsweek article that says private American donors give 2.1% of our GNP to foreign aid each year. This is in addition to what our government gives. Here's a quote I like from the article: "No nation comes even remotely close to the U.S. on these things," says Scott Walker of the Philanthropy Roundtable. "If you're in Sweden or France, it's something the government is supposed to do. If you were in England, it is the nobility. Americans don't think it's enough to say, 'I gave at the office with taxes'." 00.14 percent. Nowhere near what you quoted. You really need to do a Google on CanaDuh's failing foreign aid policy's, 'tard boy. LMAO at both you, and CanaDuh. dxAce Michigan USA Boycott CanaDuh. |
m II wrote: Mark S. Holden wrote: I don't know if it's still accurate, but this web site: http://www.aglimmerofhope.org/philanthrophy/newsweek_02_02.htm has a quote from a February 2002 Newsweek article that says private American donors give 2.1% of our GNP to foreign aid each year. This is in addition to what our government gives. Here's a quote I like from the article: "No nation comes even remotely close to the U.S. on these things," says Scott Walker of the Philanthropy Roundtable. "If you're in Sweden or France, it's something the government is supposed to do. If you were in England, it is the nobility. Americans don't think it's enough to say, 'I gave at the office with taxes'." 00.14 percent. Nowhere near what you quoted. ===================================== In 2003, Norway spent $308 per capita on foreign aid, compared to $23.76 for the United States. http://www.fsmitha.com/world/norway.html ===================================== Stupid subscription site: ===================================== Almost a third of the way into the program (United Nations Millennium Declaration which we signed), the latest available figures show that the percentage of United States income going to poor countries remains near rock bottom: 0.14 percent of GNP). Britain is at 0.34 percent, and France at 0.41 percent. (Norway and Sweden, to no one's surprise, are already exceeding the goal, at 0.92 percent and 0.79 percent.) The government spends $450 billion annually on the military, and $15 billion on development help for poor countries, a 30-to-1 ratio that, as Mr. Sachs puts it, shows how the nation has become "all war and no peace in our foreign policy." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/23/op...?oref=login&th ===================================== What? No figures for CanaDuh? dxAce Michigan USA Boycott CanaDuh. |
beerbarrel wrote: On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:48:21 GMT, m II wrote: beerbrain wrote: On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:11:54 GMT, m II wrote: beerbarrel wrote: The Pacific is by far the most active tsunami zone, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But tsunamis have been generated in other bodies of water, including the Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas, and the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. North Atlantic tsunamis included the tsunami associated with the 1775 Lisbon earthquake that killed as many as 60,000 people in Portugal, Spain, and North Africa. This quake caused a tsunami as high as 23 feet (7 meters) in the Caribbean. Plagiarist. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...6_tsunami.html So sue me.... dxHaze HATES plagiarists. Ask Mike Terry. He forgot to put an accompanying URL with a quote once and got branded as a thief by your hero. I don't expect dxHaze to bother you, though. Hypocrites. mike Mike, Did you see me sign my name to it? The only thing that I sign my name to is the fact that you are a tard from Canaduh! Beerbarrel Sorry for plagiarizing your m II description DxAce. It could not be helped. It's just so fitting! It's in the public domain! dxAce Michigan USA Boycott CanaDuh. |
m II wrote:
Mark S. Holden wrote: I don't know if it's still accurate, but this web site: http://www.aglimmerofhope.org/philanthrophy/newsweek_02_02.htm has a quote from a February 2002 Newsweek article that says private American donors give 2.1% of our GNP to foreign aid each year. This is in addition to what our government gives. Here's a quote I like from the article: "No nation comes even remotely close to the U.S. on these things," says Scott Walker of the Philanthropy Roundtable. "If you're in Sweden or France, it's something the government is supposed to do. If you were in England, it is the nobility. Americans don't think it's enough to say, 'I gave at the office with taxes'." 00.14 percent. Nowhere near what you quoted. ===================================== In 2003, Norway spent $308 per capita on foreign aid, compared to $23.76 for the United States. http://www.fsmitha.com/world/norway.html ============================== Mike I saw the .14% figure you found listed someplace as the figure for foreign charitable donations by the U.S. Government. I don't know if that includes all foreign aid, or if it's a subset of the total. The 2.1% figure I quoted is for foreign charitable donations by private citizens. This would make the total donations from the USA 2.24% of GNP. IIRC, I read the government of Norway gives .92% of GNP as charitable foreign aid. I don't know what percentage their individuals give, but the article I provided the link to said "No nation comes even remotely close to the U.S. on these things," |
"Mark S. Holden" wrote: m II wrote: Mark S. Holden wrote: I don't know if it's still accurate, but this web site: http://www.aglimmerofhope.org/philanthrophy/newsweek_02_02.htm has a quote from a February 2002 Newsweek article that says private American donors give 2.1% of our GNP to foreign aid each year. This is in addition to what our government gives. Here's a quote I like from the article: "No nation comes even remotely close to the U.S. on these things," says Scott Walker of the Philanthropy Roundtable. "If you're in Sweden or France, it's something the government is supposed to do. If you were in England, it is the nobility. Americans don't think it's enough to say, 'I gave at the office with taxes'." 00.14 percent. Nowhere near what you quoted. ===================================== In 2003, Norway spent $308 per capita on foreign aid, compared to $23.76 for the United States. http://www.fsmitha.com/world/norway.html ============================== Mike I saw the .14% figure you found listed someplace as the figure for foreign charitable donations by the U.S. Government. I don't know if that includes all foreign aid, or if it's a subset of the total. The 2.1% figure I quoted is for foreign charitable donations by private citizens. This would make the total donations from the USA 2.24% of GNP. IIRC, I read the government of Norway gives .92% of GNP as charitable foreign aid. I don't know what percentage their individuals give, but the article I provided the link to said "No nation comes even remotely close to the U.S. on these things," They were discussing this on WLS earlier today and that statement would appear to be true. dxAce Michigan USA Leaving CanaDuh in the dust as usual. (Hopefully soon to be left in the fallout). |
"Mark S. Holden" wrote:
m II wrote: Mark S. Holden wrote: I don't know if it's still accurate, but this web site: http://www.aglimmerofhope.org/philanthrophy/newsweek_02_02.htm has a quote from a February 2002 Newsweek article that says private American donors give 2.1% of our GNP to foreign aid each year. This is in addition to what our government gives. Here's a quote I like from the article: "No nation comes even remotely close to the U.S. on these things," says Scott Walker of the Philanthropy Roundtable. "If you're in Sweden or France, it's something the government is supposed to do. If you were in England, it is the nobility. Americans don't think it's enough to say, 'I gave at the office with taxes'." 00.14 percent. Nowhere near what you quoted. ===================================== In 2003, Norway spent $308 per capita on foreign aid, compared to $23.76 for the United States. http://www.fsmitha.com/world/norway.html ============================== Mike I saw the .14% figure you found listed someplace as the figure for foreign charitable donations by the U.S. Government. I don't know if that includes all foreign aid, or if it's a subset of the total. The 2.1% figure I quoted is for foreign charitable donations by private citizens. This would make the total donations from the USA 2.24% of GNP. IIRC, I read the government of Norway gives .92% of GNP as charitable foreign aid. I don't know what percentage their individuals give, but the article I provided the link to said "No nation comes even remotely close to the U.S. on these things," I was referring to official government aid for international disaster relief, which is less than 1% of GNP for all nations that have foreign disaster relief programs. Even so, many are closer to 1% of GNP than the US. Worldwide government sponsored charitable aid is falling as many countries continue to get richer. So much for the 'rising tide' theory of wealth distribution. |
starman wrote:
"Mark S. Holden" wrote: m II wrote: Mark S. Holden wrote: I don't know if it's still accurate, but this web site: http://www.aglimmerofhope.org/philanthrophy/newsweek_02_02.htm has a quote from a February 2002 Newsweek article that says private American donors give 2.1% of our GNP to foreign aid each year. This is in addition to what our government gives. Here's a quote I like from the article: "No nation comes even remotely close to the U.S. on these things," says Scott Walker of the Philanthropy Roundtable. "If you're in Sweden or France, it's something the government is supposed to do. If you were in England, it is the nobility. Americans don't think it's enough to say, 'I gave at the office with taxes'." 00.14 percent. Nowhere near what you quoted. ===================================== In 2003, Norway spent $308 per capita on foreign aid, compared to $23.76 for the United States. http://www.fsmitha.com/world/norway.html ============================== Mike I saw the .14% figure you found listed someplace as the figure for foreign charitable donations by the U.S. Government. I don't know if that includes all foreign aid, or if it's a subset of the total. The 2.1% figure I quoted is for foreign charitable donations by private citizens. This would make the total donations from the USA 2.24% of GNP. IIRC, I read the government of Norway gives .92% of GNP as charitable foreign aid. I don't know what percentage their individuals give, but the article I provided the link to said "No nation comes even remotely close to the U.S. on these things," I was referring to official government aid for international disaster relief, which is less than 1% of GNP for all nations that have foreign disaster relief programs. Even so, many are closer to 1% of GNP than the US. Worldwide government sponsored charitable aid is falling as many countries continue to get richer. So much for the 'rising tide' theory of wealth distribution. By restricting your count to the dollars that come from governments, you're not getting the full picture. Compare the total donations (public and private) from the USA with the total donations from other countries. I think you'll find the USA is at or near the top of the list. One of the reasons is the U.S. government subsidizes private donations by allowing us to deduct charitable donations from our taxable income. Raise our taxes to fund government donations of 1% of GNP, and I think you'll see the total donations from our country will go down because the government isn't as efficient as individuals when it comes to allocating money. A dollar from a check the government cuts isn't any more valuable than a dollar from a check you or I write - but if you send your dollar to the government first, a healthy chunk of it will end up getting spent on overhead before the rest finds it's way to the victims. |
What happens to that famous American giving statistic when you remove
donations to churches? If you give because you think you'll go to Hell if you don't that's not giving. It's paying protection to gangsters. |
David wrote: What happens to that famous American giving statistic when you remove donations to churches? If you give because you think you'll go to Hell if you don't that's not giving. It's paying protection to gangsters. Damn, more delusional rhetoric from the 'tard boy. Do you dream this crap up while you're sleeping? Boggling. dxAce Michigan USA |
"David" wrote in message ... What happens to that famous American giving statistic when you remove donations to churches? If you give because you think you'll go to Hell if you don't that's not giving. It's paying protection to gangsters. Not as much as you think. I, personally, don't consider a tithe as part of any charitable giving, since the tithe tends to stay within the local parish and help keep the parish running. If you've ever been to a parish council or a church leadership meeting for your local church come budget time, you'd be surprised at how little money the vast majority of them actually have. Having been a member of a parish council for some years in the 90's, I know that the budget is often very tight for all save the richest of churches, and all it takes is a major construction expense to wipe out a budget. That's not the charitable giving that Mark and others are talking about; there's the sponsoring of children overseas, the United Way, the Red Cross, and other ways people give without having to send the dollar to Uncle Sam first. At a university, you can find people who collect old textbooks (which tend to be better than the newer ones, IMHO) to send to schools overseas. Are the motives always pure?? No. High school kids may volunteer to help out because volunteering for charitable causes looks good on a college application. Other people want to advance a cause, political, religious or otherwise. Still others are shamed into it. That doesn't change the net effect, however. To pretend it doesn't count because the motives aren't pure is like pretending that Sweden and Norway and other countries that spend a higher official percentage of government dollars on overseas aid are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. --Mike L. |
beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:41:40 -0500, dxAce wrote: David wrote: What happens to that famous American giving statistic when you remove donations to churches? If you give because you think you'll go to Hell if you don't that's not giving. It's paying protection to gangsters. Damn, more delusional rhetoric from the 'tard boy. Do you dream this crap up while you're sleeping? Boggling. dxAce Michigan USA He sleeps? One does wonder. But then my understanding is that drug induced sleep is not really sleep at all. dxAce Michigan USA |
David wrote:
What happens to that famous American giving statistic when you remove donations to churches? If you give because you think you'll go to Hell if you don't that's not giving. It's paying protection to gangsters. The statistic I quoted was 2.1% of U.S. GNP being donated by private sources to foreign charities. It doesn't include churches or domestic charities. |
dxAce wrote:
Additionally, I spoke to the Red Cross here earlier this afternoon and if you desire you can make a donation with your local Red Cross to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) specifically for earthquake relief which will be forwarded to them. Just as soon as more than a tiny fraction of the $550 million collected for 9/11 victim relief finds its way to the actual victims. -- The state religion of the USA is atheism, as established by the courts. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com