|
Bush opposes UK Africa plan (aka Bush is a twat) (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
You still dont understand do you?! This is about America's refusal to accept the DEBT relief proposals... |
Right because the proposal is to use IMF gold as a means to reduce debt which was has always been rejected by the US for reasons outlined by my link. If you want debt relief use the World Bank imo. |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
You still dont understand do you?! This is about America's refusal to accept the DEBT relief proposals... |
If America refuses then SO WHAT? Move on, continue the plan, and live life as normal. As far as I am concerned you are upset at something the United States never promised in the first place. |
|
|
| Jackson |
| Seems like greed to me. |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
It would be greed either way.
If the US doesn't help by lifting Debt constraints or tariffs on goods they are greedy and if they decide to help people will say there is an ulterior motive such as African oil that the US is after and again be labeled as greedy. It is truly a no win situation. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Why?! Why is Bush such a ing cnut?! And why the did people vote him back in power?! Jesus sometime stuff like this makes me mad :mad:
link |
Well if Bush is a "ing cnut" its not because he doesn't send millions of dollars in aid to Africa:
"[Bush] pledges approximately $674 million of additional resources by the United States [sic] to respond to humanitarian emergencies in Africa":
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-brea...60845-1997r.htm
Looks like someone else looks like a ing cnut now. Eh Georgey?! ;)
:p |
|
|
| Fundamental |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jackson
Seems like greed to me. |
It's just that Bush already has one hand in the Iraqi pie, so if he uses the other to offer help to Africa then he won't have one left to scratch his own balls.
I just hope that the UK goes forward with it's proposal regardless, and that the US follows suit at a more appropriate time for them...
| quote: | Originally posted by BadBadNeil
As far as I am concerned you are upset at something the United States never promised in the first place. |
It's not something that should have to be promised. It's something that everyone with a sense of morality should be aiming to deliver.
""This is not a time for timidity nor a time to fear reaching too high." |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Well if Bush is a "ing cnut" its not because he doesn't send millions of dollars in aid to Africa:
"[Bush] pledges approximately $674 million of additional resources by the United States [sic] to respond to humanitarian emergencies in Africa":
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-brea...60845-1997r.htm
Looks like someone else looks like a ing cnut now. Eh Georgey?! ;)
:p |
To use your own source...
| quote: | | The Secretary-General also welcomes the specific pledges of approximately $674 million of additional resources by the United States and $300 million by the United Kingdom to respond to humanitarian emergencies in Africa." |
USA pop. = 300 million
UK pop. = 50 million
674/300 = $2.24 per person in the US
300/50 = $6 per person in the UK
6/2.24 = UK per person is giving 2.6 times the amount extra, of the US excellent point we must be the cnuts :haha: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| To put it in perspective, 0.7% of the US GDP would be roughly $70,000,000,000.00. ($70 Billion). THis is not a pissing contest, but it sounds like some want the US to up their contribution by 100 fold, while at the same time we hear daily incessant bitching about the U.S. budget deficit. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
To use your own source...
USA pop. = 300 million
UK pop. = 50 million |
Actually you're wrong.
UK pop. = 60.5 million (source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...ok/geos/uk.html)
Therefore
300/60.5 = $5 per person.
Look, obviously you mean to nitpick but if you nitpick do so wisely. At least know the population of your cnuts for freakin sake ;)
| quote: |
6/2.24 = UK per person is giving 2.6 times the amount extra, of the US excellent point we must be the cnuts :haha: |
Right and therefore it would seem that UK people are 2.6 times stupider than their US counterparts. So?
Plus I don't understand how a total sum effects the contribution to Africa. This is not some interal metric (say health care spending per citizen) but an external metric. If you want to see the real result you must look at it as spending per African pop. or spedning per effected African nation pop.
Its just like saying if I make $1 a month and I give that $1 to chairty every month it means I am donating 100% to charity which sounds nice, but in reality I'm donating one worthless dollar that will not solve anything and I might as well of kept it. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Look, obviously you mean to nitpick but if you nitpick do so wisely. At least know the population of your cnuts for freakin sake ;)
Plus I don't understand how a total sum effects the contribution to Africa. This is not some interal metric (say health care spending per citizen) but an external metric. If you want to see the real result you must look at it as spending per African pop. or spedning per effected African nation pop. |
Wellllll if you want to take the nitpicking to another level it is actually only the increase in aid not the amount of aid. So the US could have been giving more in the first place.
But given that:
| quote: |
1. Luxembourg $352.30 per person
2. Norway $307.95 per person
3. Denmark $302.72 per person
4. Netherlands $216.71 per person
5. Sweden $191.48 per person
6. Switzerland $150.30 per person
7. France $104.68 per person
8. United Kingdom $74.88 per person
9. Belgium $74.25 per person
10. Finland $73.01 per person
11. Ireland $72.11 per person
12. Japan $71.53 per person
13. Germany $67.96 per person
14. Austria $50.07 per person
15. Australia $45.30 per person
16. Canada $40.36 per person
17. Spain $33.07 per person
18. Portugal $26.82 per person
19. New Zealand $25.23 per person
20. United States $23.76 per person
21. Italy $17.24 per person
22. Lesotho $0 per person
23. Saudi Arabia $0 per person
24. Korea, South $0 per person
|
| quote: |
Definition: The net official development assistance (ODA) from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations to developing countries and multilateral organizations. ODA is defined as financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. The entry does not cover other official flows (OOF) or private flows. Per capita figures expressed per 1 population.
|
>LINK<
gives you an idea who gives the most, the situation is possibly worse than it first appears given the previous source. And the US is not very high on the list. So whinging about how much the US does for the rest of the world is alot of wank.
EDIT:
Personally I think the UK should look at itself for people to help with 17% of people below the poverty line.
93. Sri Lanka 22% (1997 est.)
102. United Kingdom 17%
not too different eh? And we are ment to be a developed nation. Bit ain't it? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
gives you an idea who gives the most, the situation is possibly worse than it first appears given the previous source. And the US is not very high on the list. So whinging about how much the US does for the rest of the world is alot of wank. |
Here is a better source that really explains many opinions and perspective and then the reality on international aid:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRe...id.asp?so=d2002
It cites many interesting studies there. The conclusion I draw out that it really matters more the quality of the aid then the quantity of the aid and that private aid is superior to government aid.
Also the USA looks good in at least this part:
| quote: |
Side note on private contributions
As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities.
Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show US aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than their government. Private aid/donation has been through charity of individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas — more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion at that time:
* International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
* Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
* American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
* Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
* US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
* Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000
* Source: Dr. Carol Adelman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002. (link at source)
While Adelman admits that “there are no complete figures for international private giving” she still says that Americans are “clearly the most generous on earth in public — but especially in private — giving”. Hence these numbers and claims may be taken with caution, but even then, these are high numbers. |
| quote: |
EDIT:
Personally I think the UK should look at itself for people to help with 17% of people below the poverty line.
93. Sri Lanka 22% (1997 est.)
102. United Kingdom 17%
not too different eh? And we are ment to be a developed nation. Bit ain't it? |
I agree, I think by creating a more powerful economic entity you will indeed benifit the world more then throwing that money away into a third world nation directly.
Its like saying, if you had $100 billion dollar and you wanted to make $500 billion dollars out of it in 10 years, would you invest it in a African developing nation where you'd probably never see a gain, or would you rather invest it in your nation's infastructure which would create new jobs, new business, new employment, and generate a lot of new wealth - which in turn would probably supply trade with Africa or other developing nation with business on a concurring basis of more then $100 billion... |
|
|
| Jackson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Right and therefore it would seem that UK people are 2.6 times stupider than their US counterparts. So? |
How is that possible...you guys elected bush as your President...TWICE! :p |
|
|
|
|
