Complete and utter nonsense. No one said it is better for the homeless man to recieve $100 rather than $10,000. The argument is who is more generous the man who gives away 50% of his meager possesions or the man who only gives 0.1% of his great wealth (don't know actual value but since we're talking in hyperboles) With great wealth comes great responsiblity.
I'm not that up to date on my Spiderman quotes, but wasn't it "With great power comes great responsibilty"? Welcome to Capitalism 101.
This may be a dumb question but do any of you know how much it will take to rebuild those damaged areas? With all of this arguing about what is enough, did you ever think that money is not what they need? Maybe the worldwide fundraising (or even just the US fundraising) has already raised more then enough money. My point is, the damages havent been assessed yet. How can you expect the contributions of states to be final when it isnt even known what needs to be replaced and/or built. Any critiqing of the contributions to this point only demonstrates a lack of understanding of the situation. The contributions to this point are not final. Would you prefer the US (or any other nation) throw out some random number, say 500 million, the first day after the tragedy? It doesnt make any sense, and neither do most of the posts in this thread.
That's correct, the GREAT RESPONSIBLITY is not only limited to giving money. For example, Canada's defense budget are but a fraction of U.S. budget. Which means their armed forces can not defend its borders alone. However its expected that U.S. will come to her aid when needed. And U.S. provide security for a lot more countries than just Canada. This is just one example of there are many other places which U.S. needs to spend money on that other smaller countries do not. It's easy to shout slogans like "With great wealth comes great responsiblity", but ppl should think before they speak.
Well, let's say the same person who only had $200 in his bank account comes up with some great idea and suddenly becomes a billionaire overnight. Am I right to assume that the only way he could be considered as generous as he used to be is if the next time he sees a homeless person he gives them $500 million? Wouldn't you find that a little ridiculous? Is there no limit in how much can actually be given in the name of charity? I think it's a bit simplistic to base everything on percentage. When some of the other countries have enough money as the U.S. and are still putting the exact same percentage into foreign aid as they are now, then let me know. Until then, what is there to complain about?
So what is important in a time like this isn't helping out the people affected by the tsunami but rather how generous we look in doing so? Right...
Hence the hyperbole. It is ridiculous, the whole notion of giving a homeless dude $10,000 when you have no clue what he'll use it for is ridiculous even if you are Bill Gates. I am not argueing about how much aid is enough, who knows? I'm argueing as to how to measure generosity. If that same man who now has $500 million still only gives $100 to charity is he still as generous as when he only had $200?
On the % GDP v. Abosulte $ issue, I think both sides are a little right and a little wrong. The Pro-% GDP argument is fairly obvious, but when you delve into it a little, questions are raised for the 'Con' side. For instance, what if we have the same GDP ... but twice as many people (i.e., our per capita income was half of what it is now). Would the % GDP still be fair if the burden on each individual was doubled? Another issue: Americans tend to work more weeks in the year than Europeans. Since this increases our GDP ... you see where this is going. There are many more examples that pollute a straight % of GDP approach. Similarly, I don't understand how anyone could support the Absolute $ approach w/o recognizing some merit and improved equity of the % approach.
Just listened to Clinton on TV, saying the media gave Bush a bum rep. he said it's unfair. He cares about giving aid, the president does, and so does America.
you're right, this is especially important. all those people stranded in stinking jungles w/ no water, food, shelter, or friggin' electricity need to be able to watch them some dubya.
I dunno, but I read that Sandra Bullock just gave one million. http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-01-03-bullock-donation_x.htm Props to her.
The Admin could easily give more money. I'm certainly grateful that the Admin is doing what they have but you have to understand we seem to be OK with spending $4 Bil a month in Iraq so it seems to me that we could afford to send more. As for other countries I certainly encourage them to give as much in aid and resources as they can, Japan has pledged $500 mil, but just because others are doing a lot doesn't mean the US shouldn't be giving more.
Its true that damage assesment is far from being done but just from the scope of it reconstruciton will easily be in the billions. The problem with thinking that we should wait before giving money is that there are immediate needs and now while the tragedy is fresh in people minds is the best time to raise funds even if they're not used right away. Anyway the immediate needs of getting clean water, healthcare, food, shelter and cleaning up the bodies could possibly use up $350 million already. The scope of this disaster is beyond anything that's been seen since WWII.
It just feels good to help people...The idiotic terminology of "Embarrassing" for the U.S., and President Bush is phoney baloney unstable ground rubbish, as even President Clinton has affirmed this. To the chagrin of the wayward, we are doing good, we ARE making a positive international relationship effect, and quite frankly this was no surprise...
Sorry you don't understand, but the other 237,000,000 Indonesians who still have electricity can be pissed about being dissed.
As far as I'm concerned, we are on the right track aiding the tsunami victims. But... the bottom line is that on other issues we have not given what we said we would, which is embarassing. We pledged a certain amount of aid, and did not follow through. The anecdote you give isn't appropriate because we are talking about a huge amount of money, and the difference between generous and stingy is only a half percentage point. We're talking about shades of grey, not black and white.
