Subject:
|
Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:58:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
895 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > 2) The USA has a dire record in offering development and humanitarian aid to
> > > developing countries [~1.25 dollars per U.S. citizen in '97].
> >
> > B as in B, S as in S. The US government gives more in raw dollars than anyone
> > (hardly "dire"), and that doesn't even count *private* giving...
>
> Giving more in raw dollars and being lower as a percentage of GDP are not
> mutually exclusive if the GDPs are different, a fact being conveniently
> ignored by your detractors, John.
I'm not ignoring anything. GDP is the standard way of measuring it - under
Agenda 21, the Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of GDP
was set. Even when measured per head of population, the USA is still hitting
below its weight - and a good deal of what it does give goes to the IDF.
Anyhow, John’s assertion that the "US government gives more in raw dollars than
anyone" is wrong. In 1999-2001 the USA gave $9870 billion pa, whilst Japan gave
$12687 pa.
>
> This also omits private contributions, and the aid in kind for doing things
> like saving the world from various evils (at least twice now)... how much is
> that worth?
1)The USA was forced into the war - it had to have its "ass kicked" first.
2)The USA did not act alone, and could not have done.
3)The USA has benefited substantially from WW2.
>
> Or more straightforwardly, would the world be a better place if N Korea had
> taken over S Korea 50 years ago, or 20, or 10, or 5?
Would it be a better place if the USA had not supported Iraq, Israel, Pinochet
etc etc?
> If your answer is no,
> then the sums expended need to be included. Ditto for all the other places
> we've protected from neighboring aggressors.
>
> But the base assertion that the US isn't giving enough is based on the
> unstated assumption that the US should be giving anything at all in the
> first place. Those claiming the US isn't giving enough would need to justify
> that assertion first. And they haven't. They're just letting it go unstated
> because if you accept it and argue that we're giving enough, you've already
> agreed that we should be giving *some*.
Personally, I feel obliged to help those in need. Personally, I feel proud that
the UK is taking international aid seriously. The wealth of western nations is
built on exploitation of the developing world and the destruction of the global
environmemt. If USA does not want to give 0.39% [eu average] of that wealth
back, then I think that is a real shame. I think these goals are worth working
for in 2015:
50% reduction in people living on $1 per day
Primary school for all children
67% reduction in child deaths
75% cut in maternal deaths
Halve the number of people without clean water
"Private charity is an act of privilege, it can never be a viable alternative
to State obligations" Dr James Obrinski [Medicins sans Frontier]
> In my view the world isn't *entitled* to any aid whatever, and shouldn't GET
> any, beyond what private parties within US feel like giving for their own
> reasons.
You are entitled to that view.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) Bingo. (...) Ouch! Truth. (...) Slam! Down goes Fraser! (...) And finally the punch that Ali never threw--Wow, new appreciation for Scott. (...) Wow! Scott hit the nail directly on the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| (...) Giving more in raw dollars and being lower as a percentage of GDP are not mutually exclusive if the GDPs are different, a fact being conveniently ignored by your detractors, John. This also omits private contributions, and the aid in kind for (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
