|
You guys are right, the Bush administration sucks! Look at what he's done now.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trintiy |
Live Aid founder Bob Geldof has shocked the international aid community by praising George W. Bush's administration as one of Africa's best friends in their fight against AIDS and famine.
"You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical -- in a positive sense -- in the approach to Africa since Kennedy," Geldof told the Guardian newspaper during a visit to Ethiopia.
Ireland's Geldof, who staged the world's biggest rock concert to help Africa's starving in 1985, made his comments on the first day of a five-day trip intended to highlight the plight of the Ethiopians.
Aid agencies estimate 14 million Ethiopians are at risk of starvation after the worst drought in nearly two decades. HIV/AIDS has made the country's plight even worse.
The Irish musician and activist said Bush's predecessor Bill Clinton had talked passionately about Africa, but done little, while the European Union had provided a "pathetic and appalling" response to the continent's humanitarian crisis.
Lord Alli, a British aid activist accompanying Geldof on the trip organised by the UN children's agency UNICEF, agreed.
"Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn't talk, but does deliver," he told the paper.
On Tuesday, Bush signed into law a $15 billion plan to help fund the fight against AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean, a move which aid agencies welcomed.
And just to prove that no matter what Bush does it will never be enough I give you the peanut gallery:
But critics said the plan fell far short of what was needed at a time when AIDS kills one person every 10 seconds.
Christian Aid Trade Campaigner Andrew Pendleton told Reuters there were always strings attached with aid.
"The Bush administration have increased massively the subsidies that they give to U.S. farmers so there will be huge amounts of cheap surplus food available," he said.
"That makes it harder for African farmers to compete."
Justin Forsyth, Oxfam's director of campaigns and policy, said Geldof's comments should not be taken out of context.
"The international trade rules are a major obstacle to developing countries and America is a big impediment to resolving these," he said.
"The harm that trade rules do to the developing world is worth much more to African countries than the American aid budget will ever be." |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
well, i applaud this.
however, i guess i'm in the peanut gallry, by pointing out that 15 billion is not enough.
especially when bush just gave a 350 billion tax cut to the weatlthy.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/m.../tax1-m28.shtml |
How much is Canada or Europe giving?
It's silly to critisize aid donations |
|
|
| trintiy |
Ah, yes John Smith. I know I don't visit the boards much but I do enjoy our debates. Especially when you post a link to the world socialist website. Let me first start by saying the data you posted is somewhat accurate but not complete.
As a tax paying American, and father of a 5 month old daughter, and a wife just now returning to work after 9 months off for maternity leave I offer the follwing rebuttal:
Under the president's proposal to speed up tax relief, 92 million taxpayers would receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,083 in 2003.
- 46 million married couples would receive an average tax cut of $1,716.
- 34 million families with children would benefit from an average tax cut of $1,473.
- 6 million single women with children would receive an average tax cut of $541.
- 13 million elderly taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of $1,384.
Let's take the average tax break of roughly $1,100 for a typical family of four with two earners making a combined $39,000 in income. Without getting into a debate on the merits of the tax break, here are some of the things you could do with the money, should they get their crumbs, as the socialist so aptly put it:
Establish an emergency savings of three to six months' living expenses. As Karl Romero, a certified financial planner from Santa Ana, Calif., so aptly put it: "You need to have a reserve because the water heater will break. Your car will break down. Something is always happening."
Pay down your credit card debt. If you are like the average credit card holder, you have about $8,000 in charges on your credit cards, maybe more. You might be inclined to think $1,100 wouldn't make a significant dent in your balance. But keep thinking that way and you'll stay in debt purgatory.
For example, let's suppose you're only making the 2 percent minimum payment of $160 on the $8,000. At 18 percent, it will take you 647 months to be rid of the debt -- almost 54 years. In that time, you will pay $22,931.52 in interest.
However, if you paid an extra $91.66 a month (that's the tax break of $1,100 divided by 12 months), and kept on paying it, you would pay off your credit cards in 44 months. As a result, you would pay $2,951.08 in interest. I think that's worth the effort.
Increase your contribution to your 401(k) or similar workplace retirement plan. One-quarter of those with access to 401(k) plans do not participate, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Despite the current economic and stock market conditions, your 401(k) is still one of the best ways to save for retirement.
Play catch-up on your retirement savings. Under the so-called "catch-up" provision of the 2001 tax cut, workers age 50 and older can contribute an extra $1,000 for 2002. You don't have to worry where you're going to get that extra $1,000 under Bush's plan.
Open a 529 college savings plan. Earnings in a 529 plan grow tax-free, and when you withdraw the money the federal government does not tax it if you use the money for college expenses.
I hardly think $1,000 is crumbs and inbetween the diapers and formula I would gladly welcome and extra grand in my bank account. And if the rich get a bigger tax break than I'm getting so be it, tax is directly related to income earned why should someone be penalized for earning a good living, the fact of the matter is their still going to have to pay federal taxes. Besides, what the wsws failed to state is that the Bush proposal would end the federal government's practice of taxing company profits twice: once at the corporate level and again on shareholder dividends, which is why executives would receive larger tax breaks not returns. |
|
|
| trintiy |
Oh and occrider to answer your question:
As of December 2, 2002 this is what Oxfam reports.
The Canadian International Development Agency has contributed a total $49.1 million.
The humanitarian crisis in Southern Africa is expected to worsen in the early months of next year. Oxfam is calling for:
•Increased funding for food aid. So far donors have only funded 56% of
the UN World Food Programme’s appeal.
•Urgent earmarking of money to provide essential foodstuffs - pulses,
oil, corn-soy porridge - beyond the staple maize.
•Increased funding for non-food needs including health, water and
sanitation. The UN has asked for $78 million for health projects; so far it has received less than $8 million.
•International commitment to improve poor peoples’ access to
medicines to treat HIVAIDS and related illnesses.
•The specific needs of people affected by HIV/AIDS, particularly
children, to be incorporated into all aid and development work. |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
How much is Canada or Europe giving?
It's silly to critisize aid donations |
I guess by aplaud you thought i met critisize (sic)?
but, i digress, i spelled gallery wrong too so i'm admittedly a hypocrite.
in any case, i do think it's good that bush is giving money to africa to help fight aids. I've not done the research on this, so i can have no more opinion than that.
trinity, as for the tax cut, the part that is so bad about it, is that it eliminates taxes on dividends. this means, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
I've not done the resarch on that either, so for now, i'll just shut my mouth, but until then, here's a good explanation:
 |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
I guess by aplaud you thought i met critisize (sic)?
but, i digress, i spelled gallery wrong too so i'm admittedly a hypocrite.
in any case, i do think it's good that bush is giving money to africa to help fight aids. I've not done the research on this, so i can have no more opinion than that.
|
Well I got the criticism from the statement that it was not enough.
Kinda like if somebody buys you a car and you say something like ... you only got me a geo? |
|
|
| LiquidX |
Mmm I really don't get the way you titled the name of this thread. Anyways, I know it's very sarcastic from your part.
Im happy that money is going for a very good reason. The HIV/AIDS in Africa, which is worstening and worstening, and yes, it should be stopped. Now, the way you are saying that for some in here the Bush administration has done nothing, and the way you emphasize this as if giving money for an AIDS cause is just part of the many positive things Bush has done. Great, each to his own opinion. But let me make one thing clear first. I can be sure, but I wont be arse to confirm, although it was commented just a couple of months ago, that Bush was giving money to Africa in order to fight the HIV. However, for that same purpose, the African nations on the UN were the ones who actually supported the stance of the US to attack Iraq. So to me, really it seems just a favor that the US is giving back to Africa, ofcourse, looking good.. the administration can't look bad, so, that money goes for a well benefit, in change for a ( for many ) a bad decision, such as supporting the war ( which we all know now there's been a lots of talk talk about that mistaken war ).
So really, Im happy for the africans to get that, but really, with all I know it really makes me sick to see Bush act and be that slick with things. If Bush gave that much money to Africa for nothing in exchange, I would actually be like, , damm, nice action, but I know that thats not entirely true.
PS: Yes, Rumsfeld has IRAN in the look out for next target cause, now they are sheltering AL QUAEDA. They are so arsed to derive public attention now.. what a silly way to mainain the public afraid in order to keep them up high. really. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
But let me make one thing clear first. I can be sure, but I wont be arse to confirm, although it was commented just a couple of months ago, that Bush was giving money to Africa in order to fight the HIV. However, for that same purpose, the African nations on the UN were the ones who actually supported the stance of the US to attack Iraq. So to me, really it seems just a favor that the US is giving back to Africa, ofcourse, looking good.. the administration can't look bad, so, that money goes for a well benefit, in change for a ( for many ) a bad decision, such as supporting the war ( which we all know now there's been a lots of talk talk about that mistaken war ).
So really, Im happy for the africans to get that, but really, with all I know it really makes me sick to see Bush act and be that slick with things. If Bush gave that much money to Africa for nothing in exchange, I would actually be like, , damm, nice action, but I know that thats not entirely true.
|
Nations supporting US coalition of willing:
Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Despite the 15 billion being distributed across all of Africa it will be primarily focused in these 12 African countries:
- Botswana, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia - as well as Guyana and Haiti in the Caribbean.
Now how many of those countries in africa were supporters of the war against Iraq? Most of Africa was against war in Iraq especially South Africa and Nigeria! Wow this "bribe" accomplished a whole hell of a lot :rolleyes: |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| Point in showing all those countries?!?!.. I know the central american countries supported the war because of the deal, and still, I thought this is allready KNOWN that the majority was against it, so whats the point on naming the countries?!?! .. the thing here is the african countries....Well, Id have to research further to go into further debate. Im sure theres something in back of all this, it's not like there is NO defecit. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
Point in showing all those countries?!?!.. I know the central american countries supported the war because of the deal, and still, I thought this is allready KNOWN that the majority was against it, so whats the point on naming the countries?!?! .. the thing here is the african countries....Well, Id have to research further to go into further debate. Im sure theres something in back of all this, it's not like there is NO defecit. |
Perhaps I should have provided further clarification. The point is to refute your point. The list of countries was taken directly from the white house website. Of the countries that are to benefit from the $15 billion african aid the majority, Botswana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zambia were against war in Iraq. So your implications that this was some sort of nefarious deal to trade aid for support in the war are false. Especially since the majority of the recipients were against war. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| Ok nice then, well, hopefully something GOOD comes out of his term, hoping that this is one of those things. |
|
|
|
|
