I'm tired of hearing about the US being sooo damn generous!

[fujiyama]

Yeah, so some people are giving some money. That's good but I'm sick and tired of hearing about the US being the most generous nations. With our wealth, we should have pledged at least a billion IMMEDIATELY.

The British public showed themselves to be just as generous if not more so. They gave 25 million pounds within a few days.

And their government has pledged more as has the Japanese government.

So even if the US is giving money, why does it have to be the most vocal and most arrogant about it. This is symptomatic of ALL Americans - both the government and people. I watched them interviewing people on TV, and they went on about how we're sooo generous, etc etc.

I'd like to hear a little humility.

[Tony_Illinois]

1. What do you mean "most vocal and most arrogant"?

I have seen some news clips where GWB and Colin Powell have responded to questions or statements about our contribution, but that's all.

[fujiyama]

2. Colin Powell's statement

that the US is the most generous.

I want to just tell him the STFU.

[rooboy]

3. Don't get angry about it... it's actually good in the long run.

I don't think many people know how Beijing got the votes to host the 2008 Olympics. They won the nomination because they spent lots of money in Africa by providing sports stadiums and other infrastructure to countries whose vote they wanted.

This sort of thing goes on in the Pacific Islands, for example. The Japanese, Taiwanese, Australians and others regularly compete to provide aid to small countries in the hope (and expectation) that good things will come of it. Why did Australia step in to help East Timor gain independence? So we could get our hands on their huge oilfields, that's why...

You only have to look at how much money was poured into Japan via the Marshall Plan to see what influence (and loyalty) money can buy.

So as America falls for the right-wing rhetoric of "why should my taxes pay to help people", other nations step into the void and increase their presence. Long term, this sort of thing only serves to bite the USA in the ass.

[KSAtheist]

4. None.

Duplicate post

[KSAtheist]

5. A billion dollars?

Unfortunately, you can't just pull a billion dollars out of thin air--especially not in America. You have to find ways of getting that billion dollars; you have to go through the treasury department, the house....

That's why I supported the gradual increase. Because, really, pledging a half-million dollars right after the fact may seem generous, but it will take weeks to get there, and months for it to be distributed.

[nascarblue]

6. At least a billion.

10 billion a year on star wars, 166 million on the Republican National Convention, 40 million on the inaugural ball.. I think definitely 1 billion. But if you look at what happened to the Iran earthquake disaster, the Bush admin pulled the same PR humanatarian crap. To this day not one penny has made it to Iran. 200,000 people are still refugees.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

8. $1 billion

Some the things you listed are PRIVATELY funded. Government doesn't work that way. We are wildly in debt. Should we spend every time there is a crisis in the world (a daily reality) or just when you think we should?

[fujiyama]

9. I don't know

but I think massive humanitarian disasters and crises such as this one require immediate action and aid.

Yes we are in debt, but it does not matter. We must do what is morally necessary. If we have enough money to keep spending on a disaster in Iraq, then we sure as hell have enough to help the victims of natural disasters.

Of course, realistically speaking we HAVE money for neither, but I'd say if we're going in debt, we may as well do it doing the right goddamn thing.

[LynnTheDem]

7. $1 billion equals 38 hours in Iraq.

bush doesn't have any problems grabbing billions for his invasions.