United States aid to Tsunami victims

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The UN should be ignored at every turn if at all possible. Giving aid to the tsunami victims is a perfect example of an activity where the U.N. is wholly useless.

Ideally, the U.S. wouldn't be giving aid in the first place.

They'd be collecting far fewer taxes and letting the citizens decide how much they want to give. All in all, americans are pretty charitable and I wouldn't be surprised if the private charitable contributions rival or exceed the token amounts given by government.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

And how would they go about doing that?

[/ QUOTE ]

hetron, I go about it by giving money to Oxfam which is one of the better charities out there for things like disaster aid and famine relief. There are plenty of those types of organizations but it's best to research them before sending money.

natedogg

[arabie]

You are wrong!
the US is giving 35 million and Japan is giving 30 million.
Its fun to make up facts though, isn't it?

[MelchyBeau]

If I am wrong, it is because my source was wrong.

Here it is.
[ QUOTE ]
Japan has sent three navy vessels to Thailand and pledged 40 million dollars to provide emergency food, medicine and shelter to tsunami victims.

The relief mission to southern Thailand marks the first time officially-pacifist Japan has used its own ships to help in an overseas disaster.

The two destroyers and one supply ship that were sent had just ended a mission in the Indian Ocean to provide logistical support to the US campaign in Afghanistan.

Japan has pledged 30 million dollars in direct aid to tsunami-hit countries... and nearly ten-million dollars to Japanese aid organisations working affected regions.

A 20-member Japanese medical team is in Sri Lanka and disaster surveillance experts sent to Indonesia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source


Melch

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
So the Japs are giving a lot more per capita then.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know you probably didn'y mean anything by this, king, but japanese react to the word "Jap" like african americans react to the word "nigger". try to use the whole word 'japanese' please.


"Also, dude, chinaman is not the prefered nomenclature, asian american, please." -walter Sobecheck
"this isn't a guy who built the railroads, here, he peed on my rug!" -the dude
--from the big lebowski-- i love that movie.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
If you take a look at charity by private donors, both in dollar amounts and in volunteer hours, the US far outstrips other industrialized nations in the world. Off the top of my head I remember one figure that showed that average household in America gives 6-7 times the amount that the average German household does. The US is by far the biggest contributor to these sorts of causes. Funny how a free market economy that gives people choice on how they spend their income ends up this way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Imagine how much more good we could do if we stripped out the inefficient government middle man. Think if all that government waste actually went to the charity itself instead. And imagine we might even be able to give MORE to the charity AND keep more for ourselves simultaneously w/o the government waste involved. What an epiphany! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[jakethebake]

Personally I look at the fact that my government steals less from my pocket to give than the respective governments of Japan and the U.K. as a good thing. I'll give something to the Red Cross for this though.

[Hack]

I already donated $100 to the Red Cross. And I don't think the United States government should give anything. The entire concept of foreign aid is completely unconstitutional. The American people are generous, and they will give.

[bholdr]

There are many altruistic reasons for the government to give foreign aid, and many more selfish reasons. the benefits that this country has reaped over the years, imo, outweigh the cost, which is negligible in most instances when compared to the sizes of our government and the nation's GDP.

as for those who have said that such charitable contributions should be reserved for individuals to make, I submit that many individuals believe that the government is the best tool for facilitating that charity, and that the charity doled out by the gov represents the collective charitable will of the nation. and the government is 'by the people' here, there is no 'us and them' duality. the great majority of Americans concede that giving foreign aid is both wise and desirable. welcome to representative republican democracy.
I, personally, do not have the time to research and identify which overseas charities will use my money best. I believe that the U.S. government had the right infrastructure and experience to do a much better job than I personally can, in terms of the multitude of deserving people and nations receiving a fair amount. this would be different if I made millions of dollars to donate, but the amount of my taxes that end up overseas (and I am speculating here) is probably less than a hundred bucks each year.
In addition these people, in this instance, at least, need all the help they can get from whatever source we can use to send it to them the last number I heard was 75k. I point this out not as argument, but to express my own shock and sorrow at the tragedy.

natedogg said:
[ QUOTE ]
They'd be collecting far fewer taxes and letting the citizens decide how much they want to give. All in all, Americans are pretty charitable and I wouldn't be surprised if the private charitable contributions rival or exceed the token amounts given by government.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, but just because private donations may exceed the governments, that does not mean that, if the government gave zero dollars, then the resulting increase in private donations would make up for the difference. in addition, private donors have difficulty donating things like search-and-rescue helicopters with trained crews, aircraft carriers on which to base them, c 140s to drop aid packages, etc.

now for the not so selfless reasons:

First, the United States has a political interest in securing the collective goodwill of the international community. Giving aid to disaster victims, developing countries, victims of genocide, war, famine and tyranny goes a long way towards establishing that good will, at a relatively small cost. additionally private contributions through 'the society to end world hunger' (I made that charity up as a sample name only) simply don't generate such goodwill as effectively as planeloads of rice labeled "USA".

second, the united states has an economic interest in helping the less fortunate recover and develop. I refer you to the years following WWII, and the re industrialization of Japan and Germany, and those country’s subsequent recovery and participation in the world economy. Giving a little now to keep a nation from collapsing or suffering unduly can go a long way towards establishing a profitable economic relationship. we live in an increasingly globalized world, and what effects those nations struck by tragedies effects us as well.

Third, the united states has a national security interest in giving foreign aid. some examples would be our support of Pakistan and president Musharraf, aid considerations for Libya after they had promised to dismantle their WMD research and make reparations for past crimes, lots of aid to post-soviet Russia to prevent a slide back into totalitarianism, aid to finally stabilize the Balkans, etc, etc, etc.


I personally believe that the evidence and arguments in favor of government facilitated charitable giving greatly outweigh the benefits of the position that it is not the job of the federal government to give foreign aid.

bottom line, the federal government's giving of foreign aid, however you slice it, is very much +EV


and which exact provision of the constitution does it violate?

[MelchyBeau]

Spain currently leads the donation list, if you care.
They are giving $68 million. Germany is giving 27 Mill now.

Pakistan offered assistance to India. I didn't expect that to happen.

Melch

[ACPlayer]

There are many good reasons for the US govt to be involved. Two that come to mind are:

First: It can bring possibly the best infrastructure support to facilitate assistance.

Second: It can build a leadership role in the world. Leadership includes assisting those you want to lead.

I am happy to see that Bush has decided to actively support the victims and to assist in setting up an early warning system in the Indian Ocean - following Australia's lead on this. Unfortunately, it took a stinging stingy remark for Powell to change his tune from we will see what we can do to add to the initial offer to these are the things we will do. The initial tone was unfortunately lukewarm and correctly seen that way.