TorgoX complains that Bush's tone is "huffy." Look, when you give more than everyone else and people look at you and say you're being cheap, it's going to get you a little miffed. Note also that those stats only include government gifts, not private, and guess what: we lead the world there, too.
Not that we can't give more, but, as aevil is wont to say, no good deed goes unpunished, and that's the point.
Re:GNP
pudge on 2005-01-11T23:47:19
I don't particularly like the huffiness, but yeah, it's understandable.
What actually bugged me more was when they first started looking for money, came up with like $35m, said "this is only for starters," and then everyone attacked them for not giving more. When they, a few days later, said they would give $350m (with more to come), people said, "oh, you just did that because we criticized you, and you still had a weak initial offer, so you still suck." Just stfu.
Re:GNP
bazzargh on 2005-01-12T14:10:32
The UN figures are hereIts true that in the last 3 years the US has given more in absolute terms to least developed nations (prior to 3 years ago, Japan was the largest donor 7 years running). And I'm not complaining about that. More is better, no argument.
However, if you're going to make a comparison, using that number is silly: the US is *bigger*, and you need to scale this somehow if you want to compare their contribution. Scaling by GNI seems fair enough as its scaling on the ability to give: Norway has a higher GNI/capita than the US so it scales
/down/ their contribution in comparison. (the world bank lists those figures as $38,700 and $35,400) If we just scaled by population, which would tend to rate the US contribution higher, the discrepancies still pop out: 293M people versus just 10M in Belgium, but only gave 4x more?
Or, take a similar population: France, Germany, UK, Italy (total: 260M, GNI/cap around $22,000) gave double what the US did.
Put it this way: if Bill Gates gave double what you do to charity each year, would you consider him generous? The answer isn't a straight yes or no, and the same applies to US ODA.
Re:GNP
KM on 2005-01-12T14:44:38
Let me be really simplistic about this..
If people want to gripe about what we do/don't give.. don't ask for help when you need it (and you will ask).
If you go by population, I'd expect China to be giving leaps and bounds more than anyone else.
If Gates only gave double to charity each year of what I did, yes.. I would consider him generous. Why? It's CHARITY. It's not an obligation.. and any charity is more generous than none.
Why can't people just be grateful anymore? Why does charity and aid have to be made into a global pissing contest?Re:GNP
pudge on 2005-01-12T16:51:36
Scaling by GNI seems fair enough
I think comparing is stupid. This is my main point, which KM addressed nicely.
My secondary point is that if you must compare, we still give a hell of a lot, and as per the first point, don't bitch about it.
My third point is that those comparison numbers do not include an area where the US gives more than most other nations: private donations (over $200m as of Jan 5... surely a lot more since, at least $280m and counting [the American Red Cross alone has $80m more today than it had on Jan 5]).
A fourth point I didn't mention at the start was that the announced aid comes in different forms: if you exclude aid in the form of loans, and you include our military aid (to the tune of $6m/day in the tsunami efforts), then the US surpasses Australia (despite the assertions that we're giving substantially less, as many people continue to believe they are giving $1b USD instead of closer to $380m USD). And of course once you add the aforementioned private monies, it's not even a contest anymore (which it should not have been to begin with).
Re:GNP
bazzargh on 2005-01-12T18:58:10
To repeat myself: I am NOT complaining about the amount the US gives. More is better,/whoever/ gives it. Charities here (in the UK) are arguing that it is not a bad thing that its become a politicial pissing contest, as it only results in more being given all round.
The comparisons originate with the figures I pointed at, because the UN suggested a target for developed nations to reach 0.7% of GNI for overseas development aid. The US has tripled their aid in that category WHICH IS GREAT.
In private life this same kind of target is common: in Islam, the 'zakat' asks for roughly 2.5% of your income in alms; the christian tithe of 10% has the backing of the law in several european countries.
BTW I totally agree that the US give much more in military aid, debt relief and probably in corporate donations, but the private donations are actually comparable to elsewhere (eg $189m in the UK by 6th Jan). I don't mean to belittle US donations by that, only to say that govt aid is far larger and argues your case better (eg the US is committed via the World Bank HICP to something in the region of $20bn debt relief)Re:GNP
pudge on 2005-01-12T20:05:10
In private life this same kind of target is common
But, to be blunt, who the hell is the UN to tell us how much we should give? It's this sort of thing that turns Americans against the UN.
the private donations are actually comparable to elsewhere
I know some other nations give about the same in private donations; if I implied otherwise, it wasn't intentional. Busy day, I don't write as carefully as I should.:-)
Re:Context
pudge on 2005-01-12T00:49:08
It is also 42 hours of spending for the Iraq war.
You think that's interesting? It isn't. Comparing apples and oranges never is.
Bush proposed spending $270M on lying to kids about sex next year.
False. Even if there is some false information in there that could possibly rise to the level of a lie, most of it is accurate, whether you agree with its aims or not.
They want to spend $100M lying about Social Security.
False. Social security is scheduled for failure, and it begins to lose money starting in five years (that is, the trust fund will shrink beginning in five years... it is not for about 30 years until it actually has a deficit).
The data shows this. You can disagree with the data or its analysis, but to call it a lie is ridiculous nonsense.
They (spent) at least a million dollars lying to us about "No Child Left Behind" (the Army recruiter list).
Nothing on that page mentions any such thing, so I am not sure what you're referring to. Maybe you refer to the fact that NCLB says that schools must give student information to Army recruiters? How does this constitute a lie?
My personal view of it is that it is a bit distasteful, but I add it to one of the many reasons my children won't attend government schools. The government certainly has this right: we can't tell the federal government they have the right to give money to schools and direct their curriculum, but that they don't have the right to know who is in the schools. It's why I am against such federal control over the schools, and why I was against NCLB (the control/money part, not the recruiter part, which just logically follows).
"Misleading" citizens seems to be a chronic condition for this administration.
That issue is far less about being misleading than it is about being covert. Much of what they said in these propaganda spots was accurate, but the way it was done was clearly wrong. Those spots were probably more accurate than the "Drugs Are Bad" and "Army of One" ads we've seen from the government over the years, but these were done covertly, and hence, were worse.
I suppose you could say that by being covert they were misleading about the origins of the pieces, which is true, but different from the rest of what you've been talking about, which is the content of the messages themselves.
In short, we could easily pay for the damage if the administration would simply break one bad habit. That "huffy" tone was a clear signal that it isn't going to happen.
We already are paying for it. It is happening. And we've promised more if there is more need.
After all you've said above, I find it hard to care that you think Bush has been "lying" and "misleading" when the bulk of your evidence for it is, itself, exactly that.
Re:Context
phillup on 2005-01-12T01:29:21
but to call it a lie is ridiculous nonsense.
Ouch... I think I hit a soft spot.
;-)
That's what I get for trying to stay on topic. (Yeah, I was exagerating. I don't think Bush is lieing. That requires he know the statements to be false. I'm not convinced he knows much at all. A lot like Ronnie... He is simply repeating what he is told to say. (Same players even.) OTOH, they say that ignorance is no excuse... and even Bush has tried to kill retards.)
However.
I find it hard to care that you think Bush has been "lying" and "misleading" when the bulk of your evidence for it is, itself, exactly that.
I'm absolutely certain that for every "fact" you can present, I can find one that counters it. And mine will be as credible to me as yours are to you.
The hardest thing you and I could do is to agree on a source of information. (Even thou our opinions differ on many things, I'm pretty sure that if we could agree on the facts we could agree on things based on those facts. Said differently, I think reasonable men can be reasonable.)You think that's interesting? It isn't.It is also 42 hours of spending for the Iraq war.
Yes, I think it is interesting.
There is a lot of data there. Possibly more than some want to recognize.
Comparing apples and oranges never is.
Comparing how much we want to "help" a people that "asked" for our help vs. another people that want our help and have asked for it...
Those aren't apples and oranges.
(Oh wait... one would be a selfless, moral act. The other would be one mired in greed with a huge potential for future oil money... not to mention the immediate over billing potential.)
Anyways...
My "real" point was, and is, that the amount is a pittance compared to the things we do spend money on. And while it is our money to spend as we like, the priorities we have set are very telling indeed. How we spend our money says more about us than the words that we use to tell others about ourselves.Re:Context
pudge on 2005-01-12T02:30:20
That you think either Bush is or Reagan was unintelligent just makes you look unintelligent. Read some of Reagan's own writing, and you would be unable to assert that.
I'm absolutely certain that for every "fact" you can present, I can find one that counters it. And mine will be as credible to me as yours are to you.
You actually gave what you said was evidence that Bush was lying that turned out not to be that. Maybe you have better facts, but you already lied (or maybe you were just ignorant).
Comparing how much we want to "help" a people that "asked" for our help vs. another people that want our help and have asked for it.
All you're doing is redefining things to suit your purposes, which is boring.
Whether you agree with it or not, the reason we decided to fund the Iraq war -- including the reason Kerry said he would never let the troops go unfunded (I am not saying that to be cute, I believed him when he said it in late 2003, and I believe him now) -- was for the sake of national defense, because it is an important goal for our sake.
That is entirely dissimilar from the tsunami disaster.
one would be a selfless, moral act
There is no such thing (especially for politicians, in any country).
The other would be one mired in greed with a huge potential for future oil money
Yawn. You are really really boring. This is about the most boring thing anyone could say, because it's been said by many people many times over the last few years, and yet it's obviously and clearly without merit.
My "real" point was, and is, that the amount is a pittance compared to the things we do spend money on.
You shouldn't have lied/been ignorant to make that point.
And the point is stupid, because again, you're comparing different things; and as I noted -- and you did not address -- we are already giving as much as we think is necessary right now, with the promise to give more as the need grows.
It's like saying, well, I spent more money on computers than food this month, so therefore things are out of balance. If you could make the case there was an unmet need, then that would be one thing. Then you might have the beginning of something interesting. But you didn't, and you can't.
And really, after those stupid lies about how Bush lied, and those stupid lies about how the war was fought for oil, I really have no interest in hearing anything else you have to say on this, or any related, subject. If you decide you will be reasonable and not make outrageous assertions that you cannot come close to providing reasonable support for, then that's fine. Until then, I just don't care.
Re:Context
phillup on 2005-01-12T07:12:01
That you think either Bush is or Reagan was unintelligent just makes you look unintelligent.
I did not say they were unintelligent. I said he doesn't know much. There is a difference. I believe Bush has a poor command of the facts. I believe that his "belief system" makes him think he doesn't even need facts.
I think he is smart... in that Ted Bundy kind of way.
I also didn't say Ronnie was stupid. I said that Bush did like Ronnie. He says what people tell him to say.
Like a puppet. (or, in Ronnie's case... an actor)
Read some of Reagan's own writing, and you would be unable to assert that.
Do you have a link for anything he wrote while in office? (All I care about is whether he was fit for the job) All I could find was stuff writen before he became president and turned into a vegetable. It is interesting that all of the physicals he had as president never turned up anything to do with the alzheimers.
Boy, we sure are lucky that the timing of that desease waited till he was out of office!
You actually gave what you said was evidence that Bush was lying that turned out not to be that.
Your title was "Superlatives". I used superlatives. I exagerated. In all the cases I gave the administration has misinformed. I exagerated that (because the topic was "Superlatives") to lying.
None of that was meant to be given as evidence of lying. Get over that. It was AN EXAGERATION. Get it?
If I wanted to prove that Bush was a liar then I would just mention this briefing where Bush claims to have gotten to know Ken Lay a little bit later in time than Ken seems to recall.
But, trying to prove Bush is a liar would be... what is the word... oh yeah. Boring. (Unfortunately, having a liar in the White House seems to be status quo these days.)
All you're doing is redefining things to suit your purposes, which is boring.
Actually, what I'm doing is defining the comparisons *I* was making from the beginning. All our tsunami aid equates to 42 hours of Iraqi "aid". I compared the cost of Tsunami help with the cost of "freedom" help (or whatever it is they are calling it these days). There is no re-definition. (Unlike the administration, which has constantly re-defined why we are in Iraq.)
Your use of "boring" is... well... boring. It certainly doesn't convey much fact, or reasoning.
Maybe you have better facts, but you already lied (or maybe you were just ignorant).
Thanks, I appreciate that. I give a link of definitions, including:And this is your conclusion. I'll admit I'm not that great of a writer, and I may not have hit the mark with the first post... but the second should have been close enough.the degree of grammatical comparison that denotes an extreme or unsurpassed level or extent.
I'm going to have to take a double look at your reasoning in the future because...
Yawn
You do that a lot, but provide little to back it up yourself.
and as I noted -- and you did not address -- we are already giving as much as we think is necessary right now, with the promise to give more as the need grows.
You can turn on the TV and see the need. It is that simple. Sound huffy (I thought that was the point of the post) all you want. Just don't say that you are doing "enough". It isn't "enough", it is as much as you want. HUGE difference.
Every single person that loses a family member because there weren't relief supplies available will know that it wasn't enough.
No mater how much you gave.
The reality is that it simply is not a priority.
Until then, I just don't care.
I'm not terribly suprised.
Is it red or blue in your part of Washington? I ask because I'm in Idaho which is like 90 percent red.
Maybe we should swap...
;-)
^
|_____Re:Context
jdavidb on 2005-01-12T15:13:04
Ronald Reagan's Presidential papers. I am certain you can find plenty in there to make him look intelligent, as well as things that make him look unintelligent (a.k.a., "disagrees with your world view on some or many items")
Re:Context
phillup on 2005-01-12T16:13:44
Thank you.
as well as things that make him look unintelligent (a.k.a., "disagrees with your world view on some or many items")
I don't guage intelligence by opinion. I do guage intelligence by whether opinions are well reasoned. (Even if based on flawed data. You work with what you have. However, ignoring relevant data gets you dinged big time.)Re:Context
pudge on 2005-01-12T16:33:00
I believe Bush has a poor command of the facts.
I believe that his "belief system" makes him think he doesn't even need facts.
I think he is smart... in that Ted Bundy kind of way.
It is interesting that all of the physicals he had as president never turned up anything to do with the alzheimers.
You can turn on the TV and see the need.
Another post filled with ridiculous, unintelligent, ignorant, bullshit. I won't be replying to you anymore.Re:Context
educated_foo on 2005-01-15T07:56:41
see the apogee
of pudge-argumentation
in one sorry line
When the interlocutor finds himself caught between "I can outlast you in a nit-picking demeaning bastard contest" and "I'm taking my toys and going home," what is he to do?
Re:Context
pudge on 2005-01-15T09:04:46
Was I wrong? No? Then what's your complaint?Re:Context
malte on 2005-01-12T10:31:17
Being not really neutral either, I decided not to participate in this discussion. However, pudge, you really sound totally partisan, to the point that you ignore everything as irrelevant that doesn't 100% match your own thinking.Re:Context
pudge on 2005-01-12T16:39:38
Then you aren't listening very closely.
I don't mind criticism of Bush. I have plenty of my own (indeed, in that very post you are referring to, I said I disagreed with the very notion of NCLB, which is one of Bush's most prized initiatives, which is hardly something a "totally partisan" Republican would do). But his criticism was mostly bullshit, and I called him on it.
Sex
rafael on 2005-01-12T09:18:59
Not arguing about the other points... but even an understatement such as: there is some false information in there [sex education] that could possibly rise to the level of a lie denotes in itself a health hazard. Who will pay for the moral, social and medical damage of letting abstinence-only advocates enter the schools ?Re:Sex
pudge on 2005-01-12T16:28:23
Let me put it this way: every public school sex education curriculum I've seen has lies in it, which can constitute a health hazard (for example, I've seen the effectiveness of condoms wildly misportrayed in both directions). And I firmly believe this inevitable when politicians set such policies, instead of local school boards.
Remember, we started seeing a lot more sex and teenage pregnancy in schools in America under Clinton and his style of sex education. The incidence of such things did not decrease.
So you can ask your question about "who will pay?," but that question is the same regardless of which curriculum is in effect.Re:Sex
lachoy on 2005-01-12T18:01:49
I hate getting in the middle of this, but I think that teen pregnancy actually went down in the 1990s. At least that's what I take from a quick look at this set of statistics (Table 2 seems to be the most relevant).Re:Sex
pudge on 2005-01-12T18:37:18
I didn't want to get into specifics, but I was speaking more of economic/regional data than overall, e.g., that they went up in inner cities and such, where sex is more common, and sex education more relevant.
That said, yes, overall, pregnancy rates did go down (though sex rates fluctuated, from the data I've seen [which is much less reliable anyway]); and then again, there's no reason to think abstinence education will cause them to increase.
This gets very complicated, very quickly. For example, most of Bush's advocacy has not been for abstinence-only education, but rather for education that focuses primarily on abstinence, etc. (meanwhile, some groups don't even mention abstinence at all).Re:Sex
malte on 2005-01-13T17:48:36
I think eminem put it right:
Of course they gonna know what intercourse is. By the time they hit 4th grade They got the Discovery Channel, don't they?The human sexual drive and education is the classical definition of invariance
:) Re:Sex
pudge on 2005-01-13T18:40:55
I am against all school sex education, for my kids anyway. They will get a much better, more reasonable, broader understanding from me at home. I don't need some idiot teacher trying -- poorly -- to explain sex to my child. Another reason to avoid government schools.
Well, yeah, but where are you getting your numbers? Since when is the US Gov't giving more than everyone else? Or more than anyone else?Look, when you give more than everyone else and people look at you and say you're being cheap, it's going to get you a little miffed.
I haven't been keeping track, since the issue is pointless political posturing more than it is about actual aid and relief. As I remember it, the initial pledge from the US was $35M, when the other government aid packages were in the hundreds of millions; Japan's initial pledge was $500M.
After about two weeks and a conference to figure out how much the relief is going to cost, Austrailia is promising close to $1B, and other nations are revising their pledges way, way up. This is around the time the $35M magically became $350M with more to follow.
Re:It's the size, silly
pudge on 2005-01-12T03:45:13
Well, yeah, but where are you getting your numbers? Since when is the US Gov't giving more than everyone else? Or more than anyone else?
Well, clearly the US is giving more than many countries, by any standard. Not sure why you're bothering with "anyone else." But you're missing the context, which was regarding American international aid overall, not just to this one tsunami disaster. That's what TorgoX's original quote was regarding.
As I remember it, the initial pledge from the US was $35M
No. They first said $4M, IIRC. They announced funds as they secured them, as they come from different places. There was nothing remotely magical about it, it was merely a process, and there's nothing remotely bad about having such a process.
As to Australia, half of that $1B AUD (about $750M US) is in interest-free loans, while Japan has said it will be in direct grants.
So from government sources, the US might only be in the top five in total amount pledged, so far. However, the US will likely end up giving more than anyone else when you include private sources, which was part of the point: the US relies more on our citizenry than many of these other nations.
