Stop helping the middle east and africa then. Don't bitch about it here, there are only americans and europeans reading here.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Yup and france is a socialist country, and the rest are bordering on it also. And if money wasnt the force that drives everyone, why was the euro created? Probably so more european countries could have control over Richer countries assets.CameronPoe wrote:
Europe rewards hard work but makes sure the vast majority of its citizens don't get left behind. In Europe we generally work to live, not live to work.
In USA you can go from successful to destitute in the bat of an eyelid. In USA the bottom line is the dollar - life can take a back seat.
Which system do you prefer?
Another problem is, because of all the worlds bitching, we end up spending trillions a year taking care of the rest of the worlds destitute, leaving our own lacking. WOW were such a bad country, shame on us for our giving nature. every time a country is in need, were the first up to bat for them.
Fuck you Anti American Asshats. Turns my stomach when opinions are only formed from Bias european reporters and news agencies!
Poll
European society is superior to US society. Do you agree?
| Yes, what a stupid question! | 56% | 56% - 94 | ||||
| No, keep widening that gap between rich and poor! | 43% | 43% - 73 | ||||
| Total: 167 | ||||||
I believe both cultures have their strengths, and obviously, their weaknesses. To say the entire society of a prosperous nation is somehow inferior to another is nothing short of egotistical nonsense, your poll is biased, as is you're frame of mind, apparently. You are of the same mindset as the people 200 years ago that were saying blacks and Irish were inferior, and therefore open to exploitation. To put it simply, you sound like a slave owner, nicely done.
Hey, since you're so sure about that, could you please take the time to find some facts and numbers that substantiate these claims that the US are the first and the most generous?<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Yup and france is a socialist country, and the rest are bordering on it also. And if money wasnt the force that drives everyone, why was the euro created? Probably so more european countries could have control over Richer countries assets.CameronPoe wrote:
Europe rewards hard work but makes sure the vast majority of its citizens don't get left behind. In Europe we generally work to live, not live to work.
In USA you can go from successful to destitute in the bat of an eyelid. In USA the bottom line is the dollar - life can take a back seat.
Which system do you prefer?
Another problem is, because of all the worlds bitching, we end up spending trillions a year taking care of the rest of the worlds destitute, leaving our own lacking. WOW were such a bad country, shame on us for our giving nature. every time a country is in need, were the first up to bat for them.
Fuck you Anti American Asshats. Turns my stomach when opinions are only formed from Bias european reporters and news agencies!
In 2005 we were giving aid to about 150 nations (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/98-916.pdf Congressional Research Report). Not to mention we help a lot when disasters happen, like us helping after the Tsunami and helping in Pakistan after the quake there, we send food, water, supplies. Also charity wise, Americans donate the most money than any other country.mikkel wrote:
Hey, since you're so sure about that, could you please take the time to find some facts and numbers that substantiate these claims that the US are the first and the most generous?<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Yup and france is a socialist country, and the rest are bordering on it also. And if money wasnt the force that drives everyone, why was the euro created? Probably so more european countries could have control over Richer countries assets.CameronPoe wrote:
Europe rewards hard work but makes sure the vast majority of its citizens don't get left behind. In Europe we generally work to live, not live to work.
In USA you can go from successful to destitute in the bat of an eyelid. In USA the bottom line is the dollar - life can take a back seat.
Which system do you prefer?
Another problem is, because of all the worlds bitching, we end up spending trillions a year taking care of the rest of the worlds destitute, leaving our own lacking. WOW were such a bad country, shame on us for our giving nature. every time a country is in need, were the first up to bat for them.
Fuck you Anti American Asshats. Turns my stomach when opinions are only formed from Bias european reporters and news agencies!
Oddly enough the US still falls $62bn dollars short of the UN target.Random-Hero58 wrote:
In 2005 we were giving aid to about 150 nations (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/98-916.pdf Congressional Research Report). Not to mention we help a lot when disasters happen, like us helping after the Tsunami and helping in Pakistan after the quake there, we send food, water, supplies. Also charity wise, Americans donate the most money than any other country.mikkel wrote:
Hey, since you're so sure about that, could you please take the time to find some facts and numbers that substantiate these claims that the US are the first and the most generous?<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Yup and france is a socialist country, and the rest are bordering on it also. And if money wasnt the force that drives everyone, why was the euro created? Probably so more european countries could have control over Richer countries assets.
Another problem is, because of all the worlds bitching, we end up spending trillions a year taking care of the rest of the worlds destitute, leaving our own lacking. WOW were such a bad country, shame on us for our giving nature. every time a country is in need, were the first up to bat for them.
Fuck you Anti American Asshats. Turns my stomach when opinions are only formed from Bias european reporters and news agencies!
That PDF says most of it goes to Israel, too. I wouldn't really describe that as foreign aid.
Also, check the graph at the top of page 27.
Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-28 07:02:43)
The stats on page 27 has been brought up last year as discussion between many economists, because one of the socialist northern european nobgobblers actually accused the US as being stingy with it's foreign aid during the aftermath of the tsunami. It was pointed out that America doesn't need to give as much $$$ through it's goevernment because a ridiculous amount is given directly out of pocket in charitable donations, in either direct currency, goods, or labour. Not to say that there is anything wrong with the way the scandinavians are going about doing things, it is simply removed from their paycheck before it's ever printed, while we prefer to do it in a more hands on method.
And ytf doesn't Israel count? You got something against Jews?
And ytf doesn't Israel count? You got something against Jews?
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-05-28 07:27:49)
Other than the fact that Israelis kick Palestinians out of homes and spend most of it on their military?
Yeah, and the israelis dont need the money.
Charitable donations really do not count towards the foreign aid contribution of a country. Figures obtained from these organisations are speculative at best, the actual amount of money reaching the needy is completely variable, with many examples of charitable organisations spending more on administrative overhead than actual aid efforts. With all this factored in, every single American above the age of 15 would have to give $360 worth to charity a year for the US to reach these goals, and that just isn't happening. Not in the US, not anywhere.kr@cker wrote:
The stats on page 27 has been brought up last year as discussion between many economists, because one of the socialist northern european nobgobblers actually accused the US as being stingy with it's foreign aid during the aftermath of the tsunami. It was pointed out that America doesn't need to give as much $$$ through it's goevernment because a ridiculous amount is given directly out of pocket in charitable donations, in either direct currency, goods, or labour. Not to say that there is anything wrong with the way the scandinavians are going about doing things, it is simply removed from their paycheck before it's ever printed, while we prefer to do it in a more hands on method.
Because Israel is a developed country. Being accused of antisemitism every time something negative about Israel is said is getting really tedious. Egypt is second on the list, and that's pushing it, too.kr@cker wrote:
And ytf doesn't Israel count? You got something against Jews?
So you got problems with those goddamned sand niggers too, eh? Tell me what countries full of white people are worthy of assistance. And what is foreign aid if not a federally subsidized form of charity? What does the US benefit from digging indonesia out from the mud after a tsunami? Would the US go balls up without that critical resource, egyptian cotton? How convenient for your argument that donations of resources "do not count", why not, because I don't ask for a receipt everytime I give blood? Should I have sent Kofi a copy of the grocery bill of my 3 figure purchases that went to the middle east just so us yank's could get credit for it?Although you are right on the part about how ridiculously high the UN's expectations are for money they want us to give them to distribute as they see fit. Especially considering their inability to execute anything more than angry letter writing campaigns. I would them figure out a scale that would allow all countries to contribute equally, however this could never be accomplished for a plethora of reasons. Why is it so many nations come up with these great plans like the kyoto accord wherein the US is expected to toss in a disproportionately large some of money only to get next to nothing in return? Surprisingly when we don't fall for it, we get critiscized, no shit I'm not going to fund Italy's practice of using all of it's yearly allotment of pollution vouchers by the end of the first quarter. What do we get in return for our troubles? Jack shit. Tell me how much of your GNP went toward rebuilding the city of new orleans? Don't bother, we both know if any of it ended up over here it wasn't enough for anyone to miss if it were gone. Though now I have my curiosity up, maybe I'll look it up after my hangover goes away.
Must be doing something right, just got another unsigned, unexplained negative for this one.
Must be doing something right, just got another unsigned, unexplained negative for this one.
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-05-28 15:06:59)
usa aid is a one way street ..
if we do nothing they bitcvh if we do everything they bitch
if were in trouble were alone ..aside from the uk
we'll just keep helping the world while they talk shit like the retarded stepchild they are
if we do nothing they bitcvh if we do everything they bitch
if were in trouble were alone ..aside from the uk
we'll just keep helping the world while they talk shit like the retarded stepchild they are
OMFG, LOL look at how Russia has turned out after Stalin... Ohh so rich and prosperous. I mean they have rusting subs, poor people, schools getting hijacked ect. I mean they barely even need 1000 (i think) US personel to keep terrorists from stealing their nukes.PBAsydney wrote:
Why do Americans hate Socialism? I don't see any downsides of free healthcare for everyone for example...
maybe you guys are not 100% socialist but in a few to tens of years we are going to have to come back and save your sorry little arses
If it weren't for France, I'd pick Europe...instead, I think I'll stick to my nice quiet corner of the Pacific, thanks
Re: Socialism and free healthcare etc...to those of you who oppose the idea, think of this. If my country has conscription laws, it expects to be able to tell me to go to war in times of need, possibly against my will. If I'm expected to go fight for my country and possibly die in the process, do you not think it should look after me?
Re: New Orleans aid. Many other countries DID give aid to the USA in its time of need; by way of money, personell to assist or some combination of the two. Why is it that Cuba's offer of 1400 or so doctors wasn't taken up? Why couldn't the world's richest, most powerful and arguably most capable nation save itself? The US even KNEW that Katrina was coming, it should of been better prepared!
Re: Socialism and free healthcare etc...to those of you who oppose the idea, think of this. If my country has conscription laws, it expects to be able to tell me to go to war in times of need, possibly against my will. If I'm expected to go fight for my country and possibly die in the process, do you not think it should look after me?
Re: New Orleans aid. Many other countries DID give aid to the USA in its time of need; by way of money, personell to assist or some combination of the two. Why is it that Cuba's offer of 1400 or so doctors wasn't taken up? Why couldn't the world's richest, most powerful and arguably most capable nation save itself? The US even KNEW that Katrina was coming, it should of been better prepared!
I'm sure both societys have better points, the trick is to take the best from each other & apply it to them.
On a side note I cant wait to visit europe.
On a side note I cant wait to visit europe.
I think it's more that it's convenient for you that private donations should count. While I'm not dismissing their influence, my previous argument still stands. It does not matter if you count them or not, the US is not, and nor will they ever be reaching the UN goals if the current level of government funded foreign aid continues.kr@cker wrote:
So you got problems with those goddamned sand niggers too, eh? Tell me what countries full of white people are worthy of assistance. And what is foreign aid if not a federally subsidized form of charity? What does the US benefit from digging indonesia out from the mud after a tsunami? Would the US go balls up without that critical resource, egyptian cotton? How convenient for your argument that donations of resources "do not count", why not, because I don't ask for a receipt everytime I give blood? Should I have sent Kofi a copy of the grocery bill of my 3 figure purchases that went to the middle east just so us yank's could get credit for it?
It is entirely unrealistic to argue that the private charitable contributions going to foreign aid purposes will ever reach even a fourth of what it would take. The very people who argued that these contributions should be counted towards US aid efforts conveniently left out the fact that they counted charity in general, including charitable donations to social and disaster relief programs within the United States, which accounts for a great deal of American charity spendings.
Right now, with what I've learned about the subject, it seems like nothing more than a diversionary tactic to bring up private charitable donations.
Again, I am in no way dismissing the beneficial aspect, I'm arguing that it just is too sketchy to be pitted against the donations of other countries who do not themselves count private sector donations for those very same reasons.
Well this is just plain wrong. Those UN expectations are part of a treatsie on foreign aid from the 70s that the US not only agreed to willingly, but helped write! This isn't the UN expecting unrealistic things, as these countries willingly agreed to and willingly signed!kr@cker wrote:
Although you are right on the part about how ridiculously high the UN's expectations are for money they want us to give them to distribute as they see fit. Especially considering their inability to execute anything more than angry letter writing campaigns. I would them figure out a scale that would allow all countries to contribute equally, however this could never be accomplished for a plethora of reasons. Why is it so many nations come up with these great plans like the kyoto accord wherein the US is expected to toss in a disproportionately large some of money only to get next to nothing in return?
You also cannot argue that the US is expected to do anything disproportionally to other countries. The UN goal for aid relief is 0,7% of the GNI. That means that what the US has agreed to give is directly proportional to what other countries have agreed to give, and their aid efforts have actually decreased from well above that level to horribly below since it was signed, showing absolutely no signs of effort to begin with. The same goes for the Kyoto protocol. Neither of these have specific targets for specific countries. They're general targets for all participating countries that ensure that porportionality of effort is maintained. It might be that the US has more to do before being able to reach these targets, but is that anyone but the US' fault? I can fully respect that the US might need more time to adhere to these goals if they're far from reaching them, and so can the UN. The US, aswell as other countries, will and have historically been given a larger timeframe to reach targets that aren't realistically achievable within the timetable laid out by the various agreements.
Tell me how much of your GNP went towards the London and Madrid bombings, or how much of it went towards fighting the IRA, or how much of it went towards the German floods last year. A neglible amount if anything. Your argument is moot in that the concept of foreign aid is giving to people who cannot help themselves. Denmark sent monetary aid to the US for the rebuilding of New Orleans, just like Cuba, the UK, France, Germany and many other countries did. The reason why these amounts aren't as big as what goes to third world countries is simple and obvious. The third world countries need it infinitely more. This did not prevent even historical enemies of the US to help in the relief efforts.kr@cker wrote:
Surprisingly when we don't fall for it, we get critiscized, no shit I'm not going to fund Italy's practice of using all of it's yearly allotment of pollution vouchers by the end of the first quarter. What do we get in return for our troubles? Jack shit. Tell me how much of your GNP went toward rebuilding the city of new orleans? Don't bother, we both know if any of it ended up over here it wasn't enough for anyone to miss if it were gone. Though now I have my curiosity up, maybe I'll look it up after my hangover goes away.
It's completely inane to argue that the world's strongest economy shouldn't give foreign aid just because it doesn't recieve as much as third world countries to handle situations that are well within its economic capabilities.
Better than getting horribly and faultily explained but unsigned negative karma from closet racists all the time.kr@cker wrote:
Must be doing something right, just got another unsigned, unexplained negative for this one.
Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-29 02:15:18)
Sadly the trend has always been, America is first to help, and last to get help. Thats the way it will always be.
Not true man, we were quite fast to send some aid with Katrina with building damsd3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
Sadly the trend has always been, America is first to help, and last to get help. Thats the way it will always be.
but everything takes time
No, that has not been the trend. The US isn't "first to help". The US has historically been some of the last to help due to ridiculous embargos and stances on foreign policy.d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
Sadly the trend has always been, America is first to help, and last to get help. Thats the way it will always be.
*cough*bullshit *cough*^^^
Just to back it up a little, help does not alway mean direct help...theres alot you dont see, and yes i know for a fact.
Just to back it up a little, help does not alway mean direct help...theres alot you dont see, and yes i know for a fact.
All of you raging fools need to realize that US' foreign relations policies are merely a propellant towards goals of self interest alone.
I'm sorry but communism and socialism aren't the same thing.specops10-4 wrote:
OMFG, LOL look at how Russia has turned out after Stalin... Ohh so rich and prosperous. I mean they have rusting subs, poor people, schools getting hijacked ect. I mean they barely even need 1000 (i think) US personel to keep terrorists from stealing their nukes.PBAsydney wrote:
Why do Americans hate Socialism? I don't see any downsides of free healthcare for everyone for example...
maybe you guys are not 100% socialist but in a few to tens of years we are going to have to come back and save your sorry little arses
I haven't read this thread in its entirety, but one shouldn't say that socialism is great and doesn't fail. In truth it does; example would be Germany's long running dire straight or the waste in welfare system in the US as a result of the great society. Another thing might be the social security system as another example. Or maybe the idea of limiting or capping the price of prescription drugs; or using price caps at all. The point is that one should take any economic system with a grain of salt. Like the great debate between Kenyes and the Austrian school of economics. One is not right in entirety. Example would be the fore mentioned Kenyes school of economics. For many people thought that Kenyes was the best damn idea ever, specifically socialist minded people. But as a result of government spending runaway inflation happened. Basically, I am saying that anyone person that puts blind faith, or tries to make one economic system better than the other is a fool. This also doesn't take into consideration the morays and attitudes of the countries citizens. People in the US work hard. I personally like the level of economic freedom the US has.
Well I'm glad to see that you can deliver such undeniable proof of your claims when they're challenged. "Bullshit"! Now I truly know that you're right!d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
*cough*bullshit *cough*^^^
Just to back it up a little, help does not alway mean direct help...theres alot you dont see, and yes i know for a fact.
Socialism = Communism (closed markets, one democracy systems so on)
Social democratism = Capitalism (Open free markets, multiple democracy systems, so on)
No countries in Europe use socialism. It's simple, cause its almost like communism. The difference with the system of the EU and USA is minimal
Social democratism = Capitalism (Open free markets, multiple democracy systems, so on)
No countries in Europe use socialism. It's simple, cause its almost like communism. The difference with the system of the EU and USA is minimal
Venezuela is offering subsidized oil to US citizens below a certain income level and Cuba offered doctors in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. All around Europe we had collections for Katrina and our governments sent help in the form of water purification devices, manual help, etc. American 'help' usually involves collateral damage such as dead civilians.d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
Sadly the trend has always been, America is first to help, and last to get help. Thats the way it will always be.