Canada increases aid to 400 million

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

As per CBC newsworld. To be spent over a period of 5 years.

[Eagle Eye]

Here is a link to the Globe and Mail Story

doesn't give too many details yet

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...0/BNStory/Front

[Ironhorse]

It'll be interesting to see if they actually pay up on all of that.

Usually a lot of countries will promise aid, but then when push comes to shove later on, they don't fork it over. This usually happens when the disaster is well out of the public eye...

[CaptainCrunch]

As long as we can wire the money and don't have to fly it over, we'll be fine

[TheCommodoreAfro]

CNN puts the pledge into perspective vis a vis the US.

Canada matches US Aid Pledge

That should probably move us up the per capita donator charts, as well, behind Australia and Sweden.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Jan 10 2005, 11:35 AM
As per CBC newsworld. To be spent over a period of 5 years.

$400 million over 5 years works out to $80 million a year. In other words, Martin hasn't increased his commitment to disaster relief from last week's offer. What's the big deal with this announcement? Are we supposed to be impressed? It seems to be much to do about nothing.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Sammie+Jan 11 2005, 10:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Jan 11 2005, 10:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mean Mr. Mustard@Jan 10 2005, 11:35 AM
As per CBC newsworld. To be spent over a period of 5 years.

$400 million over 5 years works out to $80 million a year. In other words, Martin hasn't increased his commitment to disaster relief from last week's offer. What's the big deal with this announcement? Are we supposed to be impressed? It seems to be much to do about nothing. [/b][/quote]
I'm no fan of the Liberals either, but...

Uh, 400 million vs. 80 million is an increased commitment so I have no idea how you can say Martin hasn't increased aid to disaster relief. Using your own logic it boils down to last week's commitment of 80 million dollars, per year, for one year, vs. the new commitment of 80 million dollars, per year, for five years.

It's 320 million dollars more going towards Tsunami Relief than last week. That is what the big deal is with this announcement...

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Sammie+Jan 11 2005, 08:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Jan 11 2005, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mean Mr. Mustard@Jan 10 2005, 11:35 AM
As per CBC newsworld. To be spent over a period of 5 years.

$400 million over 5 years works out to $80 million a year. In other words, Martin hasn't increased his commitment to disaster relief from last week's offer. What's the big deal with this announcement? Are we supposed to be impressed? It seems to be much to do about nothing. [/b][/quote]
If you'd read the CNN article, you would have seen that it's not $80 million per year (which would be a significant increase over a flat $80 million in it's own right) but instead:

"The money includes $215 million in emergency aid and $130 million over five years for reconstruction"

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Mike F+Jan 11 2005, 11:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Jan 11 2005, 11:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

$400 million over 5 years works out to $80 million a year. In other words, Martin hasn't increased his commitment to disaster relief from last week's offer. What's the big deal with this announcement? Are we supposed to be impressed? It seems to be much to do about nothing.

If you'd read the CNN article, you would have seen that it's not $80 million per year (which would be a significant increase over a flat $80 million in it's own right) but instead:

"The money includes $215 million in emergency aid and $130 million over five years for reconstruction"[/b][/quote]
I read the whole CNN article. $400 million over 5 years is still $80 million a year and I'm still not impressed. He was two weeks late in sending the D.A.R.T. and then ended up sending them to a location that was over-run by aid-workers.

Chances are good that by the time Martin gets around to spending some of that $215 million in emergency aid money he'll be too late for that too. Which means he'll change gears and want to spend $130 million on reconstruction only to discover he missed the boat there too.

Let's face it, we've got a prime minister who has diarrhea of the mouth. Meaning that the words keep gushing from his mouth but when all is said and done neither he nor we have a clue what he just said.

In other words, he never remembers what he promises long enough to carry them out and he usually dithers around doing nothing so long that many people forget to notice that he hasn't carried out another one of his many, many promises again. Making a promise to spend $400 million over 5 years plays right into this promise-and-dither strategy of his.

I'm sure the majority of this money promised to emergency aid and reconstruction over there will end up in the hands of the Liberal party faithful and their friends and will be spent wisely in laying the groundwork for victory in the next Federal election. :angry:

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally posted by Sammie@Jan 13 2005, 01:04 AM
Let's face it, we've got a prime minister who has diarrhea of the mouth. Meaning that the words keep gushing from his mouth but when all is said and done neither he nor we have a clue what he just said.

Lets face it - there's nothing Paul Martin could do that you'd actually say was good - I doubt a 1 billion promise would have swayed you.

I find it pointless to debate things with people that automatically brand stuff a failure just because it's associated with the Liberal party. It's a knee-jerk reaction and impossible to get them to think otherwise. Think Steven Harper could have done better?

Not that I like any politicians. All of em. All cut from the same cloth. That and the extreme right and left. The Tories were famous fat cats during the Mulroney Era-Airbus scandal anyone?. Even Ralphie's minions have been guilty of helping out their friends.

My point - all the parties are as filthy as the next.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse@Jan 13 2005, 01:18 AM
My point - all the parties are as filthy as the next.

How can you say that when you keep voting in the same fools time and time again? It make no sense at all to keep electing the crooks into office because these same crooks keep telling you they're less scary than those other perceived crooks. You may be surprised, the other guys may be honest and better for the country. You certainly couldn't vote in anybody much worse. Even the NDP might be a refreshing change, perish the thought.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Sammie+Jan 13 2005, 10:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Jan 13 2005, 10:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-I-Hate-Hulse@Jan 13 2005, 01:18 AM
My point - all the parties are as filthy as the next.

How can you say that when you keep voting in the same fools time and time again? It make no sense at all to keep electing the crooks into office because these same crooks keep telling you they're less scary than those other perceived crooks. You may be surprised, the other guys may be honest and better for the country. You certainly couldn't vote in anybody much worse. Even the NDP might be a refreshing change, perish the thought. [/b][/quote]
I'd have to agree with this though. Everyone think's they have all the other parties figured out corruption and hidden agenda-wise when they vote Liberal, but it's only been a Liberal government in power for the last decade. So it's only been a Liberal government in a position to really be corrupt and wasteful and they've shown the country time and time again that they are just that. Any other party can really do no worse, it would seem.

I actually was looking forward to when Martin became Prime Minister cause I thought the party may straighten itself out and I would've considered voting for them if they did. They haven't though, in my opinion, and it's time to give someone else a try...