Those greedy self centred Americans

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by InTheSlot@Jan 5 2005, 04:53 AM
To be fair, America(ns) has/have donated lots of things besides just money. They've send troops over there on aircraft-carriers loaded with bulldozers, cranes, and dump trucks.

They've sent planes with first-aid kits and MREs (Meals Ready to Eat), as well as blankets, pillows, bottled water, and what have you.


So, to say that we're stingy, that kinda p*sses me off. :angry:

Wasn't the stingy comment way back when the US had promised something like 20 million? Wasn't it retracted something like the next day?

Who the hell is calling the US stingy? I haven't seen a lot of that talk on this board, yet apparently you guys have plenty of hurt feelings about it. We've got some real horn-tooters over here. Throw a couple bucks at some starving homeless people and all of a sudden you're beyond criticism? Give me a break.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I'm pretty sure sending stuff like medicine, water, troops, etc will get added into the total. It's not as though the US government is gonna write a cheque for $120 Million dollars, or Canada, one for $65 million. I'm pretty sure all of those numbers represent dollars the country intends to SPEND on disaster relief fund, whether that is sending an aircraft carrier, a DART team, or cash.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Jan 5 2005, 03:36 PM
I'm pretty sure sending stuff like medicine, water, troops, etc will get added into the total. It's not as though the US government is gonna write a cheque for $120 Million dollars, or Canada, one for $65 million. I'm pretty sure all of those numbers represent dollars the country intends to SPEND on disaster relief fund, whether that is sending an aircraft carrier, a DART team, or cash.

How much do you think it costs to run an aircraft carrier for two months? Do you think that will come off of the top of US government contribution $ amount? Or is that donated above and beyond the government commitments?

[Abstract]

Not strictly on topic here but i work for a very large (if not the largest in the UK) retail compnay. Today they sent out newsletters to all their stors from the Director of the store, his point was that as the company also employs people in Sri Lanka (as warehousing and manufacture presumably) that we should be thinking about making a donation of our salaries to the appeal. I have absoloutly no problem with that and if i hadn't already donated then i certainly would have then. My problem was that the newsletter then went on to say that they have donated £250,000 to the crisis appeal. Again a fine gesture, however what spoiled it completely for me was the next page of the newsletter detailing the company's performance over the festive period and that we are expected to clear a profit of £452 million for this trading year alone. Profit, not turnover. Does quarter of a million really seem so good now? I dunno. Obviously they have no obligation to give anything and therefore whatever they do donate is a splendid gesture but compared to that staggering yearly profit it seems a bit cheap, epsecially as as the newsletter says we have staff out there. All numbers in GBP remember.

Thoughts? Am i being unfair to my company?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Abstract@Jan 5 2005, 05:07 PM
Not strictly on topic here but i work for a very large (if not the largest in the UK) retail compnay. Today they sent out newsletters to all their stors from the Director of the store, his point was that as the company also employs people in Sri Lanka (as warehousing and manufacture presumably) that we should be thinking about making a donation of our salaries to the appeal. I have absoloutly no problem with that and if i hadn't already donated then i certainly would have then. My problem was that the newsletter then went on to say that they have donated £250,000 to the crisis appeal. Again a fine gesture, however what spoiled it completely for me was the next page of the newsletter detailing the company's performance over the festive period and that we are expected to clear a profit of £452 million for this trading year alone. Profit, not turnover. Does quarter of a million really seem so good now? I dunno. Obviously they have no obligation to give anything and therefore whatever they do donate is a splendid gesture but compared to that staggering yearly profit it seems a bit cheap, epsecially as as the newsletter says we have staff out there. All numbers in GBP remember.

Thoughts? Am i being unfair to my company?

I work for a pretty big Calgarian Oil and Gas Company (CEO part-Flames owner!) and I think 'we're' donating 100 grand, plus another 100 grand to match employee contributions. 200 grand isn't bad... but if you work for the largest retailer in Britain, then maybe your company is being a little cheap

I'm sure the world's aggregate donation for this disaster will reach a staggering amount if nearly every semi-large corporation pitched in like ours. I heard Doctors Without Borders no longer wants or needs tsunami-specific cash, though general donations are still welcome, naturally, they're suggesting other NGO's for tsunami cash.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 5 2005, 09:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 5 2005, 09:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bring_Back_Shantz@Jan 5 2005, 03:36 PM
I'm pretty sure sending stuff like medicine, water, troops, etc will get added into the total. It's not as though the US government is gonna write a cheque for $120 Million dollars, or Canada, one for $65 million. I'm pretty sure all of those numbers represent dollars the country intends to SPEND on disaster relief fund, whether that is sending an aircraft carrier, a DART team, or cash.

How much do you think it costs to run an aircraft carrier for two months? Do you think that will come off of the top of US government contribution $ amount? Or is that donated above and beyond the government commitments? [/b][/quote]
I have no idea what they'll do. In the end it's all accounting anyway. Who cares what the final numbers are so long as the people over there get the help they need. Could the US have donated more? Certainly, but so could every other country. Am I going to berate any country for not spending enough? No, that would make me a hipocrite, because I certainly could have spared more than I did, as I'm sure every person here could as well. It's sad, but we all have to pick and choose what causes we contribute to, and in what way, becasue it's impossible to give everything to every cause, it's the same for us as it is for governments.

[InTheSlot]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 5 2005, 08:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 5 2005, 08:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Wasn't the stingy comment way back when the US had promised something like 20 million? Wasn't it retracted something like the next day?

Who the hell is calling the US stingy? I haven't seen a lot of that talk on this board, yet apparently you guys have plenty of hurt feelings about it. We've got some real horn-tooters over here. Throw a couple bucks at some starving homeless people and all of a sudden you're beyond criticism? Give me a break. [/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare
Americans have been somewhat stingy. [/quote]

Call me crazy, but I'd say he's calling Americans stingy.


If that was retracted and apologized for, then I'm sorry for bringing it up, but I didn't care to read through all 20-30 replies.

I never said I or my country was beyond criticism, but I think you and I have some completely different views on the world if you regard bulldozers, cranes, MREs, and other disaster-relief items as "a couple of bucks".

I guess our efforts to help the needy are completely futile, so the next time someone is in trouble, we'll just send a brick that says "Sucks for you guys" on it, then we'll see how you like it.

Would you prefer that?

I'm sure the people who are receiving our aid are very grateful, and it shows extremely bad taste for you to minimize the U.S.'s efforts.

[Agamemnon]

Call me crazy, but I'd say he's calling Americans stingy.

The original 'stingy' comment came from a UN official I believe, and he later retracted it the following day. As for people on the board, if they want to think the US is stingy, I guess you have a an issue there.

I guess our efforts to help the needy are completely futile, so the next time someone is in trouble, we'll just send a brick that says "Sucks for you guys" on it, then we'll see how you like it.

Rwanda is still waiting for their brick.

I'm sure the people who are receiving our aid are very grateful, and it shows extremely bad taste for you to minimize the U.S.'s efforts.

Is there no debating the issue with you without you swearing or belittling someones intelligence or beliefs? Stick to the topic, and argue points. There's no need to attempt to put people down, it reflects poorly on you (again) and the level of class you bring to the table. My 'taste', bad or good, has little to do with this.

[MarchHare]

Call me crazy, but I'd say he's calling Americans stingy.

I was referring to the per capita donations made by individual US citizens to charitable organizations, not the actions of the American government. And if you look at the chart I linked, it's clear that Americans have been stingy, at least when compared to the donations made by citizens of other first-world nations.

If the situation has changed since my post and US citizens have donated much more to bring their average up, I'll be happy to retract my comment.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jan 5 2005, 10:40 PM
And if you look at the chart I linked, it's clear that Americans have been stingy, at least when compared to the donations made by citizens of other first-world nations.

Whoops, there we go, looks like someone definitely believes in American cheapness.

I'm not even sure per capita is a great way to measure it. I'd say first divide a State's GDP among its population, and find out the value of each individual, and THEN compare that to their contribution. If I give 10 bucks, and a (poor) Nigerian gives 10 bucks, didn't he give a whole lot more than I?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 5 2005, 04:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 5 2005, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@Jan 5 2005, 10:40 PM
And if you look at the chart I linked, it's clear that Americans have been stingy, at least when compared to the donations made by citizens of other first-world nations.#

Whoops, there we go, looks like someone definitely believes in American cheapness.

I'm not even sure per capita is a great way to measure it. I'd say first divide a State's GDP among its population, and find out the value of each individual, and THEN compare that to their contribution. If I give 10 bucks, and a (poor) Nigerian gives 10 bucks, didn't he give a whole lot more than I? [/b][/quote]
I don't want to get involved, but I don't like flawed logic in arguements.

The countries on the list given are all pretty well industrialized western nations. I think it would be safe to assume that the per capita GDP is probably pretty similar. I would even bet that the US is among the highest in the category for these nations. That being said, when you've got two countires that are over 16x higher than the US it is pretty hard to attribute that to differences in per capita GDP.

I still don't care who is or isn't being stingy, I just don't like it when people try to twist data to their own end.

[InTheSlot]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 5 2005, 03:31 PM

The original 'stingy' comment came from a UN official I believe, and he later retracted it the following day. As for people on the board, if they want to think the US is stingy, I guess you have a an issue there.

Rwanda is still waiting for their brick.

Is there no debating the issue with you without you swearing or belittling someones intelligence or beliefs? Stick to the topic, and argue points. There's no need to attempt to put people down, it reflects poorly on you (again) and the level of class you bring to the table. My 'taste', bad or good, has little to do with this.

I can't believe YOU are trying to tell me that I can't debate an issue without swearing or belittling someone.

I like to break down arguements piece by piece. It seems that if someone disagrees with you, you climb into a defensive shell where you question them and they way they approach the issue.


I don't believe there's anything wrong with being mad when someone calls my country (which reflects directly upon its citizens like me) stingy, especially when there is clear evidence that that is definitely not true. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to refute plain fact here.

As for your "taste", it has everything to do with it. When you make a post, it, and I think this is pretty obvious, reflects on who you are as a person. I think it's pretty crappy that you can't allow someone else to present another side of an issue without immediately throwing it out the window.

EDIT: Oh, and like I said, since he did retract his remark about being "stingy", I said I would apologize for that in advance, since I didn't read it in the posts prior to mine.

[Lurch]

So, speaking of stingy, I saw on Global News this morning that southern Alberta has donated either $1.2 or $1.8 million out of the $78 million (private donations) Canada has donated. Per capita, that puts us well below average for Canadians. OTOH, I'm sure we are well above Canadian average in income and wealth. Unfortunately I didn't catch where Global got their numbers, but I am a little bit surprised by this.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Jan 4 2005, 05:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Jan 4 2005, 05:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Between 200 million in private donations and the US governments 350 million dollar pledge, the number is more like 550 million, almost 5 times the 120 million referenced in that chart.

Don't want to freak anyone out, but according to Bill O'Reilly (yipes), the USA total contributions, government and private, is over $1 billion now.

And, he says, that's just over and above the expense that goes along with protecting everyone in the world.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
I happened to catch that too CP and couldn't believe it, and it struck me thinking what a whiney, passive aggresive country they've become. O'reilly was nearly frothing trying to assert that not only were the Americans generous, but that they were the most generous. He maintained that long after he himself flipped up a chart showing that Japan had given some 150 million more than they had. He still kept on saying they're the most generous. He factored in the private sector giving for the US but not for any other country who's citizens do the same. Any time you sound pleading that "we're generous, we're generous" you probably ain't.
To me all the media there seems more intent to talk about how this will "make America look good", give them some "international credit" etc. I find it even funny that the US 'news' seems fixated on the running totals of countries given; and they all do to some degree, rather than on the impact on places/people, like other news outlets are doing.
You can't watch a report without them asking if they've been "stingy" even after the UN coordinator directly praises them for not being. They've turned into whiners!!! whodda thought!
By the way, I'm not saying they have been stingy etc. I think most western countries have responded well, even their governments where the press seems to be trying to concoct stories, as if there isn't enough of one as it is.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Lurch@Jan 6 2005, 09:29 AM
So, speaking of stingy, I saw on Global News this morning that southern Alberta has donated either $1.2 or $1.8 million out of the $78 million (private donations) Canada has donated. Per capita, that puts us well below average for Canadians. OTOH, I'm sure we are well above Canadian average in income and wealth. Unfortunately I didn't catch where Global got their numbers, but I am a little bit surprised by this.

I guarantee you that Quebec has given less. What is classified as Southern Alberta anyway? I just read in an earlier post that one oil company gave over $200,000. My guess is the number you use is very much out-of-date. Albertans usual out-give the rest of the country simply because they have more to give.