Securing our borders

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

I don't understand your point Jason, nor yours Mary. You say America gives more than any other country, I didn't say it didn't give. You say you're aware of how much bigger the GNP is. So how can the fact that America gives any more than say New Zealand, be anything to rave about. Of course it should freakin give more than New Zealand or the likes. It should give a certain percentage (and so should Aust. etc.) of the GNP, no matter what that may be, but it is not. It is taking money from the poorest countries from old debts. And yes Mary, people look to America for the aid because it's the country that can provide the most. If each gave a certain percent, the amount coming from America would naturally be greater so it's the key one to be eager on receiving. Doesn't mean other nations get off the hook either. Australia doesn't give enough either, I've never denied that. But if Australia still gave it's 0.7% we'd be giving far less than America so naturally when disaster strikes, practicalities come into place and America is the one they're keen to receive money from the most.

And don't treat me like I'm a naive kid. Patronising due to age will not get you far when there's a thread further down about that very thing. Perhaps you're just a misinformed American then? You say charity begins at home, and it does but it's about distribution of GNP and it's simply not going in the right places. America has been a large contributing force when it comes to stripping nations of their wealth and so you can't then turn around and use the excuse that the aid money for these nations should now go to homeland issues. Money should go to domestic causes but there is enough money to be given back to the poorest people in the world who are only in that position because the rest of us freakin put them there!

Also, expecting aid from America is not an issue. Aid should be expected from all the wealthy nations. You do not get to complain about being expected to provide aid. As I just said above, the ranking system only comes about due to the wealthier nations actions against the poorer nations. It is the least we can do for them and every wealthy nation is expected to. So just don't even complain about that one.

One more thing Jason, you talk about Corporate donations as aid. So if you're adopting corporation's aid as American aid, we'll adopt corporation's destruction as American destruction. Watch out because then you'll have a lot of explaining to do. In that case you're destroying most of the earth, you're responsible for most of the poverty. It's double sided, so are you still going to take on corporation aid as your own?

Actually Lux, EXPECTING aid at ALL is a mistake. Maybe I was too generous when I said you were young therefore idealistic. Possibly your youth just translates to foolishness. I dont know what any previous thread said about "patronizing due to age", but I can tell you, once you've lived a little (and I've lived a little more than you) you begin to realize some of your dearly held idealisms go by the wayside. Also: where do you get the idea that America's GNP needs to be redistributed OUTSIDE of America? That is unbelievable! America's GNP is driven at its heart by American workers and it is THEY who should be reaping the benefits! America is under NO obligation to fork over, unless there is some treaty or contract between the two countries in question. If Nations had your attitude (you have more than me so fork over because you OWE me), borders would be closed and barred and locked for all time. If we are talking about true AID here (not some sort of reparation for past wrongs--such as Germany or Japan received from us after WWII) then it should be given as an expression of humanitarianism NOT merely because we have it.

If a society determines that it wants to help its poorest members, it does so, within limits. But that is different from constantly sending out $$$ outside the country. There is NO obligation to do so absent some agreement between the countries

Also, on a side note, I heard just recently that the GNP is not an accurate indicator of wealth so you may be using the wrong benchmark.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by amber

That's true. I'm mad at those other countries, too. But we have been the wealthiest for a long time, and in conjunction with The rise of industrialization, have been able to perform the largest scale rapeage. We also consume more and pollute more than the other industrialized nations. (yes, China is big now, with pollution, I know). Anyway, I'm not letting others off the hook, but I do think overall, we are the worst.

Just a quick note here: China is the worst polluter at this point because they are the fastest growing industrialized nation and they have none of the environmental checks in place that we have (even tho W is doing his level best to do away with them, we still have SOME in place).
As for wealth, the top 85-90% of this Nation's wealth is held by precious few people. The Rockefellers, Gates', Morgans etc are the individuals in the best position to offer help and yet........

As for the poor struggling Continent of Africa, as I recall, the Nation that plundered THAT part of the world (South Africa, becuz the rest is a wash) is ENGLAND, and to a lesser extent the Dutch. I dont believe America has ANY claim to fame in THAT part of the world.

By the way: Nations that consume HUGE quantities of resources are--
Japan, Russia, and China. Its all well and good to say we Americans consume resources but our Exports (in toto) to the rest of the world far outweigh what any of the aforementioned countries' can claim....

I just want to stress this point because I think it is incredibly arrogant for ANYONE to think that America automatically MUST go around aiding the rest of the world: When our government pledges aid in times of disaster (the tsunami comes to mind), that money comes from the pockets of Joe America.
that is OUR TAX DOLLARS, which obviously WONT be used to fix our own problems at home. I cant condemn strongly enough the notion that its somehow our "duty" to go around with financial bandaids every time there is a problem. Sooner or later, that goose isnt going to lay golden eggs any more and when that happens, the rest of the world will just have to figure out how to solve their own problems. Who the hell is going to step up to the plate if AMERICA needed help?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . As for wealth, the top 85-90% of this Nation's wealth is held by precious few people. The Rockefellers, Gates', Morgans etc are the individuals in the best position to offer help and yet........

And history demonstrates they do. I mean look at Vanderbilt Hospital, the Morgan/Whitney Foundations, the Gates Charitablle trust, and many many more. All of those provide charity to millions daily. Interestingly, they also support the arts, which is a charity in many ways (the arts are for everyone, art/music can act like a tonic, etc. )

Originally Posted by irishgrl

As for the poor struggling Continent of Africa, as I recall, the Nation that plundered THAT part of the world (South Africa, becuz the rest is a wash) is ENGLAND, and to a lesser extent the Dutch. I dont believe America has ANY claim to fame in THAT part of the world . . . .

Let's not forget the French

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

And history demonstrates they do. I mean look at Vanderbilt Hospital, the Morgan/Whitney Foundations, the Gates Charitablle trust, and many many more. All of those provide charity to millions daily. Interestingly, they also support the arts, which is a charity in many ways (the arts are for everyone, art/music can act like a tonic, etc. )



Let's not forget the French

Jason the days of Noblesse Oblige are fading into the sunset. As for supporting the Arts, I submit that only the financially secure (those with ample discretionary income) can even afford the Arts. Middle Americans are more likely to run to the Video Store if they want "Art."

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

The GNP is the benchmark used by the UN when calculating percentages given in aid. The percentage was pledged by the 22 participating nations, only five have reached it.

I could go on to but I'd be repeating myself. If you don't see why America (and other wealthy nations) should give aid overseas you've got a screw loose. Do you honestly think some nations are born wealthy and others poor? Do you honestly think America is not a contributing force behind the impoverished conditions of poorer countries?

Oh and you must be right. I'm just 22, what would I know about anything? This is the source of your appointed superiority naturally. I'm but a foolish youth who's never experienced the world but simply by your age we must assume you've experienced more than I. Don't f*cking patronise me with your bull****. How the p**** would you know about me? Just 'cause I don't mention in every post what good I'm doing for the world or what my domestic struggles are, don't assume anything about me. And if you think it comes down to the age you've got a second screw loose. Age is a number, not an automatic entry into superiority.

Unfortunately, from that little tantrum, Id say that you've clearly demonstrated your "age", AND your lack of insight. Back to the corner with you.

BTW: I notice you fail to mention which 5 Nations ARE meeting their obligation and what THEIR GNP is.....It must not amount to much or you wouldnt be salivating over the American GNP. The UN is a sad shadow of what it started out to be. It is not the end-all or be-all. In fact, I think the US should withdraw completely and let the rest of youse sort yerselves out. Then you can squabble in your extra large sandbox about who has the biggest GNP and who should get the largest share.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

Do you honestly think some nations are born wealthy and others poor?

Partly: Some are born poor due to lack of resources or poor location.
but NO nation is born rich. America is wealthy because of hard WORK. And we HAVE shared. My point, which you keep missing, is that whatever is shared for a humanitarian reason, is given out of a spirit of generosity, not because other nations are standing around EXPECTING it. Talk about a screw loose

Im sure you'll have some scathingly sarcastic reply, too bad I dont have the time to enjoy it as I am off to WORK.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Jason the days of Noblesse Oblige are fading into the sunset. As for supporting the Arts, I submit that only the financially secure (those with ample discretionary income) can even afford the Arts. Middle Americans are more likely to run to the Video Store if they want "Art."

Bill and Melinda Gates just started the largest ever at #22 Billion and there currently are 55,000 out there ranging from $22 billion to around $100,000. So, while I think the robber baron days of The Gilded Age (1870- 1910) are over, the giving keeps coming in. It will be interesting to see what effect the repeal of the estate tax has on this. I think it will minimal because these people at this level realize the greater good, etc. At least that is what they say. I mean there was no such tax when the robber barons did it and really no such tax until, I think, the 30's or thereabouts. Here is a history on the estate tax http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETHistory.html - personally, I think that is they raised the ceiling to $10 million and then levied a 10% tax on anything over that - no one would complain. It is when it was at 70% and farmers and small businesses were not excluded that it was a problem.

Also, the Met in NYC is free as are a whole bunch of other "suggested donation" museams Plus, symphonies give free concerts all of the time and they have hugely discounted tickets usually available. So, access is out there - now the PARKING fee is another story - OY

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Partly: Some are born poor due to lack of resources or poor location.
but NO nation is born rich. America is wealthy because of hard WORK. And we HAVE shared. My point, which you keep missing, is that whatever is shared for a humanitarian reason, is given out of a spirit of generosity, not because other nations are standing around EXPECTING it. Talk about a screw loose

Im sure you'll have some scathingly sarcastic reply, too bad I dont have the time to enjoy it as I am off to WORK.

"didn't need no welfare state - everybody pulled their weight - gee our old LaSalle ran great - Those were the DAAAAAAAYYSSSSS"

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Bill and Melinda Gates just started the largest ever at #22 Billion and there currently are 55,000 out there ranging from $22 billion to around $100,000. So, while I think the robber baron days of The Gilded Age (1870- 1910) are over, the giving keeps coming in. It will be interesting to see what effect the repeal of the estate tax has on this. I think it will minimal because these people at this level realize the greater good, etc. At least that is what they say. I mean there was no such tax when the robber barons did it and really no such tax until, I think, the 30's or thereabouts. Here is a history on the estate tax http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETHistory.html - personally, I think that is they raised the ceiling to $10 million and then levied a 10% tax on anything over that - no one would complain. It is when it was at 70% and farmers and small businesses were not excluded that it was a problem.

(Jason, yer gonna make me late!) I think what the Gates have done is admirable, but I think they are probably among the last to do this sort of charity.

ok, I go now.

[strandinthewind]

I agree the days of the huge charitable trusts are somewhat numbered at least unitl the next economic boom - Interestingly, Turner gave a billion or so to the UN - so it does happen.

Here is a cool article for 03 that shows the clearly generous nature of Americans:

Buddy, We're Sparing Fewer Dimes
WASHINGTON, Oct. 27, 2003


Contributions to the largest charities fell in 2002 for the first time in a dozen years because of the troubled economy and uncertainty among donors, a survey finds.

Donations to the 400 largest charities dropped 1.2 percent last year, to $46.9 billion from $47.5 billion in 2001, according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy's annual survey released Monday. During the previous five years, donations increased an average of 12 percent each year.

"This economic downturn has just had so many twists and turns that donors aren't feeling very certain about the future, so they aren't as willing to give," editor said. "As donors are feeling more pinched, charities are feeling it, too."

She said the growing number of charities also contributes to the decline, as more organizations compete for donations. In response to the hard times, some charities are changing the way they raise funds, adding staff and sponsoring events to attract donors.

For the first time in a decade, the Salvation Army — with nearly $1.4 billion in contributions — slipped from the top spot, the survey said.

A surge in giving prompted by the Sept. 11 attacks pushed the American Red Cross from ninth to No. 1 last year. With $1.1 billion given to the Red Cross' Sept. 11 fund, the organization's donations totaled more than $1.7 billion — a 161 percent increase over 2001.

Even as larger nonprofits struggled, some smaller charities prospered. According to the report, Conservation International in Washington saw a 251 percent boost in donations. Donations to New York's Museum of Modern Art doubled.

Charity officials have said their task in 2002 was complicated by many challenges: the waves of layoffs, the stock market plunge, the erosion of trust in some institutions, donor fatigue after the response to the attacks.

Gifts to the top 400 charities accounted for nearly a fifth of the $241 billion given to all U.S. charities last year. Nearly 90 percent of donations come from individuals, Palmer said, with the rest from foundations and companies.

The survey's annual statistics, which cover private donations and not government contributions, are adjusted for inflation.

According to a study released in June by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, total charitable giving in 2002 rose to $240.92 billion from $238.46 billion the previous year — only 1 percent.

When adjusted for inflation, charitable contributions of all types declined one-half of a percentage point compared with 2001, the report said.

In five years of rapid economic growth that began in 1996, giving posted annual increases in the double digits - ranging from 11 percent to 15 percent. But giving in 2001 posted just a 4.5 percent increase, followed by last year's 1 percent rise.

It was unclear whether any of the falloff in giving was due to the changes in the estate tax. Many wealthy families donate substantial sums to charity to reduce the size of their taxable estate. The amount of wealth exempt from estate taxes is scheduled to rise from $1 million to $3.5 million in 2009, before the law expires for a year in 2010.

Claire Gaudiani, senior scholar at Yale Law School and author of The Greater Good, says charitable donations and philanthropic giving is a vital part of the American way of life.

She told CBS News Correspondent Kelly Cobiella that charitable giving is two percent of the gross domestic product, compared to 0.7 percent for the second highest nation, Great Britain.

"Americans aren't generous because we're rich," Gaudiani said, "we're rich because we're generous."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...le560206.shtml

[irishgrl]

now that you've given us our irrelvant interlude, I have used my time a bit more wisely.
link

I see where you get your figures (since you neglected to post a link or any info)
but you fail to acknowledge that the US is STILL the largest single contributer:

The United States remained the largest aid donor in volume terms, followed by Japan, France, the United Kingdom and Germany.

and then there is this:

The net ODA from the United States in 2004 was 19 billion dollars, a 14.1 percent increase in real terms from 2003. Its ODA/GNI ratio rose from 0.15 percent to 0.16 percent. Most of the increase was due to a 1.8 billion dollar contribution to the International Development Association (IDA), the grant and soft-loan arm of the World Bank. U.S. aid to Afghanistan (875 million dollars) and Iraq (2.9 billion dollars) also rose substantially. ODA from the United States comprised 24.2 percent of the DAC total in 2004, its highest share since 1986, and nearly double the low point of 12.5 percent reached in 1995, the OECD report says.

btw: the 5 countries that managed to meet or exceed the .07 target:

Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.

Im sure that equals a princely sum. Wahoo.

now I really must go earn a living so my tax dollars can go elsewhere.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Lux

Um, what level of schooling did you finish? Of course the US aid amounts to more, I even mentioned this earlier but it hardly needs mentioning. Do you expect Sweden to donate the same amount as the US? That end up on the list of aid recipients. How can you mock their aid? The fact that their GNP is lower is not a matter to scoff at and the fact that you mock their donations while waving your yanky flag makes you the reason people want to kill Americans! All I can say is not to look surprised. Just like Australia should give more in aid than New Zealand, America should give more in aid than any other wealthy nation. Did you fail maths class?

The American Govt. does "give more in aid than any other wealthy nation." Thus, my point. And - that is just the govt. That goes not count the private donations which are well into the billions, even if you exclude corp. donations. Thus, I, again, think you are incorrect in asserting that America is cheap in its donations. I also think using the GNP standard is unfair because GNP is a disproportionate standard - but you do not.

But, and in the end, you will never acknowledge that America is anything but a bunch of elitist (again irony coming from you ) who are loathe to help anyone out. So be it :cool"

[tynan88]

Sorry but I have to weigh in to this now, America has to be a large contributore to funds not just through the government but in particular the corporations because they undoubtedly take so much from the rest of the world too. I won't make this a personal attack against America because the same should go for any group of people, the American multi-nationals make people work for a wage for which they can't afford a meal, So they should donate, but it is no different to the fact France should have paid compensation to the people that were affected by their atomic tests, they Australians should compensate Aborigines.

The fact is we should have to compensate (or 'donate') to those who have been affected by our actions in an adverse way.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by tynan88

Sorry but I have to weigh in to this now, America has to be a large contributore to funds not just through the government but in particular the corporations because they undoubtedly take so much from the rest of the world too. I won't make this a personal attack against America because the same should go for any group of people, the American multi-nationals make people work for a wage for which they can't afford a meal, So they should donate, but it is no different to the fact France should have paid compensation to the people that were affected by their atomic tests, they Australians should compensate Aborigines.

The fact is we should have to compensate (or 'donate') to those who have been affected by our actions in an adverse way.

I get that and am not really arguing against it except to say repariations are a slippery slope into the ole "when is enough" argument. I mean should the Italians still be paying for persecuting Christians or has enough time passed

But, America to my knowledge never did anything to Africa in the way of making it the desolate place it is. Thus, why should we pay for it under a reparations theory? I do think we should help though and we do.

Also, I also think the whole "American companies exploit the world" argument is a little false. I mean it takes two to tango and the world participates with those companies. They would not go where it is not profitable and if they did not go some other nation would - in fact the domination of new markets if a hot hot hot global economic trned. Thus, are the consumers in those nations equally as guilty - they, after all, buy the goods and take the jobs when they are offered. Probably not. But, surely they have some cuplability though not as deep pockets, which is the rub.

In the end, I go back to America through all sources pays a significant amount of aid to the world and that is a good thing. Should they pay more - yes - but everyone should. And then what is more? I mean who here really gives to a charity and lives without electricity or other such luxuries probably not availbale in some of the countries receiving the aid. Why should we hold anyone to a different standard?

Anyway - food for thought and I enjoyed your post - as always

Also, not all companies pay low wages In fact, I suggest relatively few do in the big scheme of things and those that do are bad people. I mean GM pays its people selling cars overseas. Coca Cola pays its workers in the bottling plants. China pays its McDonald's workers. But, clearly the low wages happen and that is sad and needs to be changed.

[tynan88]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I get that and am not really arguing against it except to say repariations are a slippery slope into the ole "when is enough" argument. I mean should the Italians still be paying for persecuting Christians or has enough time passed

But, America to my knowledge never did anything to Africa in the way of making it the desolate place it is. Thus, why should we pay for it.

Also, I also think the whole "American companies exploit the world" argument is a little false. I mean it takes two to tango and the world participates with those companies. They would not go where it is not profitable and if they did not go some other nation would - in fact the domination of new markets if a hot hot hot global economic trned. Thus, are the consumers in those nations equally as guilty - they, after all, buy the goods and take the jobs when they are offered. Probably not. But, surely they have some cuplability though not as deep pockets, which is the rub.

In the end, I go back to America through all sources pays a significant amount of aid to the world and that is a good thing. Should they pay more - yes - but everyone should. And then what is more? I mean who here really gives to a charity and lives without electricity or other such luxuries probably not availbale in some of the countries receiving the aid. Why should we hold anyone to a different standard?

Anyway - food for thought and I enjoyed your post - as always

Also, not all companies pay low wages In fact, I suggest relatively few do in the big scheme of things and those that do are bad people. I mean GM pays its people selling cars overseas. Coca Cola pays its workers in the bottling plants. China pays its McDonald's workers. But, clearly the low wages happen and that is sad and needs to be changed.

I think you get the idea in general strand, and I agree one hundred percent that it takes two to tango! I mean the exploitation couldn't happen if people weren't willing to be exploited, and people couldn't be exploited if there was enough to share.

However the answer to this problem won't come soon, but it will come I think, in the quest for a global world, standards will need to be adjusted and more responsible thinking by ALL parties necessary. This includes aid, and I would agree with America saying, 'hey these war lords are stealing our aid, why should we bother?"

I also share your view on companies paying for overseas workers, I know people who won't eat McDonald's because it is American and I have always said, without McDonald's a lot of young Aussies would be without a job, and they use Aussie product too so it's a win win situation.

In the end responsibility and thought, not culpability is what is important I think, it is no good blaming anyone, just concentrating on how it can be fixed.