HoKr: Most people outside the US take offense to that, since you're not even putting in the sort of real effort we do.

Just get off your high horses, you're not goodness incarnate.

Since of course money only counts when it's given to foreign aid by governments, how dare private citizens even think of helping others. That's the governments' territory and anyone who thinks otherwise should be lynched.

See the multiple other posts about how private donations by Americans to international charities are higher than those given by most/all other countries. Granted doing that may force you to see reality and rationality so I hold no responsibility if the resulting shock kills you.

sendtodave: Y2Jericho: I'm well aware of what "they" think, junior. That's why I'll be sporting a McCain 2008 sign in my yard.

Ah, so you know think we are their enemy because we continue to back Israel? Good.

Most people think they just hate Amer'cans.

/Pressing 1 for English

Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2005

Country ($amount)
Luxembourg 3.49
Switzerland 3.31
Japan 3.06
Liechtenstein 3.03
Norway 3.01
Denmark 2.69
Iceland 2.38
Qatar 2.14
Austria 2.13
Netherlands 2.10

Pocket Ninja: Oh, right. This is the thread where everybody comes in and pretends to be concerned about the world's hungry but really just wants to bash the UN.

I'm just here for the UN-bashing, thanks.

Nocens: What are the numbers on direct aid dollars, private charities, and other programs like rubbers for Africa?

United States aid programs to Africa

We were only talking about the World Food Programme and the US's contribution to the UN budget. You can look up the figures for that here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/assessmt/dues2005.pdf

Voluntary contributions are all well and nice, but not playing well with others has recently been a defining trait of the US, this being a prime example.

Step 1: Complain about global warming and promote ethanol
Step 2: Watch food prices (specifically corn used to make ethanol) skyrocket
Step 3: Profit!

HoKr: ReisFlynn

Do you hold a degree in development economics, or do you just feel entitled? If the former, please accept my apologies, I would love to hear how the process could be made so much better based on your thorough understanding of the UN's modus operandi.

I don't need to hold a degree in economics to tell you that the least efficient way to manage money is to have a gargantuan bureaucracy populated almost entirely by corrupt politicians get it's grubby mits all over it before it even gets within vague spitting distance of someone it could possibly help.

Quote for the day:

Cornered Beef: Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2005

Country ($amount)
Luxembourg 3.49
Switzerland 3.31
Japan 3.06
Liechtenstein 3.03
Norway 3.01
Denmark 2.69
Iceland 2.38
Qatar 2.14
Austria 2.13
Netherlands 2.10

Those cheap, sons of biatches only donated $27 combined!?

Cornered Beef: Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2005

Country ($amount)
Luxembourg 3.49
Switzerland 3.31
Japan 3.06
Liechtenstein 3.03
Norway 3.01
Denmark 2.69
Iceland 2.38
Qatar 2.14
Austria 2.13
Netherlands 2.10

The UN is so spineless. It should just kick the US out of its organization. I mean, if the US is not going to play by its rules, they should not belong.

/oh noes, don't throw me in that briar patch...

ManicParroT:
Um, no, Afghanistan should tell the world not to piss on the working bear, it will get pissed and slap you down hard. invade the wrong country, getting involved in a horribly expensive counterinsurgency, despite not having suceeded in the first country it invaded.

In Afghanistan, the US invaded the correct country and achieved the desired deterrent effect of removing from power the government responsible for greatly aiding the attacks. Iraq is the Republican failure, not Afghanistan, which was as justifiable and as well run as any war in US history (oh yeah there were SNAFU's, but there's a reason SNAFU is a very old acronym...).

KellyX: Dear United Nations,

How are you doing? We're not doing so great right now. :(

Our economy is kind of going into the shiater because we, you know, sort of protect the world with our military

Protect the world from what? Martians?

ReisFlynn: HoKr: Still, that does not mean that what everyone here keeps touting (ie: that the US is the biggest contributor) is true. They are actually at the bottom, when it comes to per GDP-capita comparisons.

Are you taking into account private donations to non-sham charities as chosen willingly by the citizens as opposed to government "generosity" with other people's money?

Of course he isn't. That little tidbit doesn't fit into his America bashing.

sendtodave: Are you saying that you are pro-starvation?

No, but for every 1 dollar we put into free food/welfare, we should put $10 into researching and disseminating effective birth control.

Birth control/suppression that is mandatory from birth and reversible on a month-by-month basis via injection (for *any* couple that wishes to procreate) would be preferable.

This is the future of the human race.

ReisFlynn

That's nice. You obviously believe the army would be better off without generals and the goverment would be better off without an administration also, right?

See, not everything is as simple as they would let you believe in "just be happy about yourself" school.

keypusher:

Protect the world from what? Martians?

From themselves. Obviously.

HoKr: Voluntary contributions are all well and nice, but not playing well with others has recently been a defining trait of the US, this being a prime example.

Why is this an example? You said that the US needs to get off it's high horse. Yet your only justification is that the US goverment does not contribute the same to one specific group and program.

In other words, I take it you'll never be satisfied unless the US is the higher per [insert every metric known to god] contributor to every single charity in existence?

Or is the UN and a couple government programs the single grand and only measure that there can be off how much good a country does to the world?

HoKr: We were only talking about the World Food Programme and the US's contribution to the UN budget. You can look up the figures for that here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/assessmt/dues2005.pdf

Voluntary contributions are all well and nice, but not playing well with others has recently been a defining trait of the US, this being a prime example.

So... giving is bad, or at best doesn't count, unless you give to the UN?

samimgreen:That's right, I said you were lying. Show me how I'm wrong.

Well, in all honesty, I'm not exactly sure what you said. I think your message got lost in your condescension & sarcasm.

As far as the Bush/Cheney thing goes, I realize that they are trying to clean things up now, but that does not justify the initial act. A murderer does not get a pass for saying "sorry", or for donating cash to the victim's family -- even if done in earnest. ...and Bush is responsible for at least tens of thousands of deaths -- not just one.

/and the "cleaning things up" bit would go on with or without them
//it will have to, since we'll still be in this mess come January

phillydrifter: Gee, maybe if the US didn't strong arm almost every other nation on earth into outlawing cannabis, people wouldn't be starving to death because they could grow hemp (it does, after all, grow just about anywhere, in any climate, in any soil) and make food from it.

Uh... no.

keypusher:
Protect the world from what? Martians?

For starter, piracy. The role of the US Navy in maintaining seas safe for commercial traffic is well recognized and monetized. See Somolia's "territorial" waters for one sample of the blissful state of US-military-free anarchy. South Korea also has had a few real gut checks when the US military said, "You really want us to just leave, because we could do that you know." And even Germany got a little worried when the US was working out drawing down their deployment there (but more due to the loss of income that would entail). Hell, look at the tsunami relief work if you would accept "protecting from national disasters."

If you don't recognize what the US military supplies to the world, you're an idiot.

HoKr: ReisFlynn

That's nice. You obviously believe the army would be better off without generals and the goverment would be better off without an administration also, right?

I believe the government would be better off without an administration, actually, or at least without 9/10ths of it's administration.

See, not everything is as simple as they would let you believe in "just be happy about yourself" school.

At least they taught us not to be happy about being robbed by shady strangers in back alleys who promise to do great but unspecified things with it while offering no clear way to ensure that your money ever goes anywhere beyond the nearest liquor store.

Ral,

A couple billion there not even on the UN books.

HoKr: Still, that does not mean that what everyone here keeps touting (ie: that the US is the biggest contributor) is true. They are actually at the bottom, when it comes to per GDP-capita comparisons.

You know, funny you should mention that in a thread about population and resources (even though it's not actually true when private donations are taken into account). How come everything has to be by per-capita GDP?

After the recent dollar fall, Europe has about the same GDP as the US (Europe's is a touch higher). Why is it our fault and not theirs that they cram a quarter more people into the same GDP, or four times the people per unit of area? Shouldn't someone be taking the Europeans to task for stretching their land and economic resources so much further than the US? And shouldn't someone really, really be angry at India for cramming over 10 times as many people into each unit of area and 15 times as many people per unit of economic strength (on a purchasing-power parity basis)?

Shouldn't the US be congratulated, rather than excoriated, for being so wise with our economic and land resources, particularly after 200-plus consecutive years of also being the most accepting country of surplus population?

Y2Jericho: Ashtrey: Why don't we just bring the Africans over here, let them work us and give them food and shelter in return?

/wait

We already trained one wave. It's about time to send them back home so they use what we taught them to fix their own damn country.

We tried that once. It's called Liberia. It is a big pile of fail.

No, but saying that the US is the biggest contributor to the UN budget is a lie. That's the point I was making, the high horse remark was regarding this point touted all over this thread.

It did have another element to it (which was from an imbecile earlier), about how we should all be grateful for the Iraq "policing" action, but that's secondary.

And yes, I do believe that it's a sign of not playing well with others that one of the richest countries in the world is donating so much less to a common cause than the others.

Gash - FYI the whole 'Blackhawk Down' incident happened under UN control. We didnt have such problems until after the US was handed control to the UN, since we werent in the business of 'Nation Building' Apparently the UN wasnt in the business of maintaning security and not interfering with indigenous politics just because we dont approve of the guy who's most popular.

Lemon-Lime Malthus: No, but for every 1 dollar we put into free food/welfare, we should put $10 into researching and disseminating effective birth control.

Birth control/suppression that is mandatory from birth and reversible on a month-by-month basis via injection (for *any* couple that wishes to procreate) would be preferable.

This is the future of the human race.

Not without precedent.

HoKr: No, but saying that the US is the biggest contributor to the UN budget is a lie. That's the point I was making, the high horse remark was regarding this point touted all over this thread.

It did have another element to it (which was from an imbecile earlier), about how we should all be grateful for the Iraq "policing" action, but that's secondary.

And yes, I do believe that it's a sign of not playing well with others that one of the richest countries in the world is donating so much less to a common cause than the others.

Aren't causes supposed to get shiat done?

And why does the US government get to decide what charities I donate to anyways? If you think food programs are helpful, donate your own money to them. I think they hurt the third world in the long run, so I won't.

Cornered Beef: Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2005

Country ($amount)
Luxembourg 3.49
Switzerland 3.31
Japan 3.06
Liechtenstein 3.03
Norway 3.01
Denmark 2.69
Iceland 2.38
Qatar 2.14
Austria 2.13
Netherlands 2.10

Of course, Luxembourg is at the top of that list. There's only 12 people living there...

and a big part of the food and $$$ we send out every year goes to countries that want to destroy us. After 9/11 we asked Afghanistan to back us, and they said no, and then asked the U.S. for their annual $500 million a half of year early because they spent that years money already. Screw them all!! That is your and my tax $$ going to them and all they want to do is kill us.

YixilTesiphon:
We tried that once. It's called Liberia. It is a big pile of fail.

At least they're eating well.



/it's people

Manfred J. Hattan

Dunno. Rockefeller was not using more roads and his children were not getting more (goverment funded) education than the poor ones, so why did he have to pay more in taxes?

That's just the way it usually is. Richer ones pay more taxes.

HoKr: And yes, I do believe that it's a sign of not playing well with others that one of the richest countries in the world is donating so much less to a common cause than the others.

You sound like the bossy lady at work who comes around to collect for the Charity of the Month. Because "everyone else is doing it", I should too, despite the fact that I probably give more than half the people at work /privately/ to charities. My buck in a manila envelope is all that matters.

It's easy to be "charitable" when the government takes your money and gives it - you hope, because you have no way in hell of knowing where it actually goes - to needy people. True charity is giving when nobody is making you do it.

Kentucky Fried Children: Here is your solution, freerice.com - improve your vocabulary, and give rice to the needy! (pops)

Your long sideburns... show them to me.

/pretty please?
//with slashies?
///threadjack OFF

jshine: samimgreen:That's right, I said you were lying. Show me how I'm wrong.

Well, in all honesty, I'm not exactly sure what you said. I think your message got lost in your condescension & sarcasm.

As far as the Bush/Cheney thing goes, I realize that they are trying to clean things up now, but that does not justify the initial act. A murderer does not get a pass for saying "sorry", or for donating cash to the victim's family -- even if done in earnest. ...and Bush is responsible for at least tens of thousands of deaths -- not just one.

/and the "cleaning things up" bit would go on with or without them
//it will have to, since we'll still be in this mess come January

I'm sorry, I was just trying to talk down to your level. But, again, we are back to the beancounting. I have continually asked to discuss how you intend to do things for the future and you continue to talk about things that really have nothing to do with anything. I'm not a republican. I don't give a fark what you care about "a worthless going nowhere yell into the air at the injustice of it all letting a murderer stay free" idea you keep trying to go back to.

Okay, you want to start putting murderers into jail? Maybe I get it now. Let's get the McCahillama to go out there and start rounding up all the murderous leaders of past and present that are still alive. Is that where we are going? Okay, develop the thought.

HoKr: And yes, I do believe that it's a sign of not playing well with others that one of the richest countries in the world is donating so much less to a common cause than the others.

So in other words unless the US is the largest donor per [insert every metric known to god] to every international charity in existence, you won't be happy?

Or is the UN the only charity in existence that matters and is the single way of defining goodness?

You can't use a random, and in many people's view useless, charity as a metric unless one of the above is what you think. So which is it?

Lemon-Lime Malthus: sendtodave: Are you saying that you are pro-starvation?

No, but for every 1 dollar we put into free food/welfare, we should put $10 into researching and disseminating effective birth control.

Birth control/suppression that is mandatory from birth and reversible on a month-by-month basis via injection (for *any* couple that wishes to procreate) would be preferable.

This is the future of the human race.

okami36: Cornered Beef: Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2005

Country ($amount)
Luxembourg 3.49
Switzerland 3.31
Japan 3.06
Liechtenstein 3.03
Norway 3.01
Denmark 2.69
Iceland 2.38
Qatar 2.14
Austria 2.13
Netherlands 2.10

Of course, Luxembourg is at the top of that list. There's only 12 people living there...

and they're all rich and the country is the size of a postage stamp...

Lemon-Lime Malthus: No, but for every 1 dollar we put into free food/welfare, we should put $10 into researching and disseminating effective birth control.

Birth control/suppression that is mandatory from birth and reversible on a month-by-month basis via injection (for *any* couple that wishes to procreate) would be preferable.

This is the future of the human race.

Then first go and kill every single bloody catholic missionary in Africa.

If I remember correctly the Catholic church views all forms of birth control as inherently evil and their priests will flat out lie to make sure no African uses them.

How about we not give anything for several years and they when we finally do start giving to the U.N. again (at a fraction of what we gave initially) we will be perceived as being "generous".

That is not realistic and the U.N. would likely collapse if we did. However, the food shortage problem in developing parts of the world would take care of itself for the most part.

Solarex: How about we not give anything for several years and they when we finally do start giving to the U.N. again (at a fraction of what we gave initially) we will be perceived as being "generous".

That is not realistic and the U.N. would likely collapse if we did. However, the food shortage problem in developing parts of the world would take care of itself for the most part.

I like that idea, except without starting giving again.

Rakishi: Lemon-Lime Malthus: No, but for every 1 dollar we put into free food/welfare, we should put $10 into researching and disseminating effective birth control.

Birth control/suppression that is mandatory from birth and reversible on a month-by-month basis via injection (for *any* couple that wishes to procreate) would be preferable.

This is the future of the human race.

Then first go and kill every single bloody catholic missionary in Africa.

If I remember correctly the Catholic church views all forms of birth control as inherently evil and their priests will flat out lie to make sure no African uses them.

I call shenanigans. It's the priest's fault that the people choose which rules to abide by or is it the people who want to have premarital sex with no condom because it feels so good? Hmm?

/no Catholic, but tired of that fallacy also
//Never the fault of the person doing it, always someone else's...

Demon of the Fall
Well a lot of people use the argument that the United States has to keep funding its military-industrial complex to the degree it does because the economy would suffer too much if it stopped.

Where that argument fails is that a lot of industry/manpower/research/resources would get re-directed towards other means and perhaps cause an even greater economic stimulus.

I just wonder. especially looking at the existing trade deficit, whether that stimulus would be caused in the US or whether a big chunk of the money would get redirected abroad.
Or at least how long it would take to do the redirecting, (re-)educating and creating of an equal amount of jobs.



For example, military spending in Western Europe has dried up from the all-time highs of World War II but instead of their economies shrivelling up and dieing they slammed a lot of money into education and infrastructure, which the effects are now being seen in the creation of a strong economic Euro entity.

But is that really comparable? I think the circumstances were quite exceptional and more of a "normal" industry that got turned into an over-the-top wartime production mode for a (comparatively) short amount of time.

There was a continent full of rubble that had to be turned into an infrastructure, money from the outside (US) paying for lots of it and more work than people were left to do it.
And it was sound and probably necessary to produce goods locally as the market wasn't already flooded with Asian products that were cheaper than the ones you could produce locally.
There also was a high demand - though not much money - even for simple products since everything was broken.

And don't forget that WWII was followed by the Cold War.
Isn't that mostly responsible for the creation and/or on-going existence of todays military-industrial-complex after WWII.


[cynical]
No wonder that the Iraq mess was started so close after the breakdown of the USSR which removed the threat that kept everything going for so long.
You have to have a threat somewhere to justify spending all that money..(*).
[/cynical]


(*) like that German secretary of the Interior and Scaremongering after 9/11;
he always claimed that the biometric crap like fingerprints they introduced into our passports, ID cards etc after 9/11 was a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y necessary, otherwise we would all be killed by terrorists.
After his term was over he started a well-paid job with the company that produces those biometric systems..

Rakishi

Well, mr Fascist (or just high blood-pressure), I believe that if your country is giving less money to the UN than other developed nations, you shouldn't put your country on a piedestal of goodness because of how much more they contribute to that institution than other countries.

What happens here? The developed world decides on a way to do something, funds it out of (my pocket much more than yours), then the US decides to give less than others. How is this not arrogance? How is this not sticking a finger into other's faces saying 'We just know better than you fools, so screw you all'?

Thing is, this would still be fine by me, if it weren't for the hicks in threads like this beatig the "US#1" drum on every occasion they can think of.

The Voice of Doom: (*) like that German secretary of the Interior and Scaremongering after 9/11;
he always claimed that the biometric crap like fingerprints they introduced into our passports, ID cards etc after 9/11 was a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y necessary, otherwise we would all be killed by terrorists.
After his term was over he started a well-paid job with the company that produces those biometric systems..

Damn those evil capitalist Americans... oh wait...

/that's hilarious!
//Gore is more of a capitalist than you think, also...

samimgreen: I call shenanigans. It's the priest's fault that the people choose which rules to abide by or is it the people who want to have premarital sex with no condom because it feels so good? Hmm?

/no Catholic, but tired of that fallacy also
//Never the fault of the person doing it, always someone else's...

So if two people come to you with an odd device on which you have no outside information. One is a friend and community member who you trust and says the device does nothing and may actually kill you, and that the other person is a liar. The other is a random stranger who says it will help prevent the spread of evil spirits that cause sickness and will also prevent the stork from bringing you a baby. Which would you believe?

Surpheon: keypusher:
Protect the world from what? Martians?

Surpheon, the US military costs the US $600 billion a year. Our contribution to piracy surpression is minor. The only other examples you can come up with are South Korea, which I suspect is able to defend itself against its starving northern neighbor by now, and Germany, where you concede the only role the military has is protecting a few German retailers from insolvency. It would be hard to spend $600 billion on anything and not do some good, but the US military comes close. And I haven't even mentioned the stupid Iraq war.

If you don't recognize you've been sold a bill of goods about the US military and its "protection," you're a fool.

HoKr: Rakishi

Well, mr Fascist (or just high blood-pressure), I believe that if your country is giving less money to the UN than other developed nations, you shouldn't put your country on a piedestal of goodness because of how much more they contribute to that institution than other countries.

What happens here? The developed world decides on a way to do something, funds it out of (my pocket much more than yours), then the US decides to give less than others. How is this not arrogance? How is this not sticking a finger into other's faces saying 'We just know better than you fools, so screw you all'?

Thing is, this would still be fine by me, if it weren't for the hicks in threads like this beatig the "US#1" drum on every occasion they can think of.

Wow, soooo much Fail, how can you know where to begin. Okay, no spelling or grammar nazis, we'll just say he typed fast. It happens. How about hitting the reading comprehension where this has been bashed to smithereens over and over in this very same thread? I think I will just let him finish reading so he can catch up with the rest of the class and see if ever comes up with anything meaningful or new for the thread.