Ball is now in other G-8 nations' courts. Match it?
Of course, let's hope that Congress passes the thing, otherwise it won't be so hot. Keep an eye on the "Nay" votes. They'll need to go, even if they're Republicans. Nobody should compromise on this issue. It's too big to reduce to politics.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Drop in the bucket.
And, watch for the strings attached. If I recall correctly, this aid is tied to the elimination or great reduction of family planning and education for those countries that get it.
By the way, if Bush has signed it then Congress has already passed it.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"We believe in the value and dignity of every human life."
What?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
It's empty feel good rhetoric.
This has become one of the few strongpoints of Mr. Bush, the meaningless rhetorical flourish.
And don't forget, no child gets left behind
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: Drop in the bucket.
You would prefer nothing? We just TRIPLED our share. Half a loaf remains better than no bread.
quote: And, watch for the strings attached. If I recall correctly, this aid is tied to the elimination or great reduction of family planning and education for those countries that get it.
quote:The new AIDS package, which Congress completed last week, recommends that 55 percent of direct aid go to treatment programs, 20 percent to prevention, 15 percent to palliative care and 10 percent to children orphaned by the disease. It also would allow, but not require, the administration to contribute up to $1 billion in 2004 to the international Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
... To appease conservatives, the measure says one-third of the money going toward prevention be set aside for projects that promote abstinence -- an issue that was prominent in the final congressional debate. The bill says religious groups will not lose funding because they oppose certain preventive methods, such as condom distribution.
Nothing about removing the family planning options. They get two-thirds of the prevention money. (See the effective "ABC" program in Uganda.)
quote: By the way, if Bush has signed it then Congress has already passed it.
You've forgotten how Congress works.
quote:While the legislation nearly triples current U.S. contributions to AIDS programs, Congress still must approve actual spending levels in its annual budget appropriations process.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
There has to be some Bigger Plan behind this, though. I can't believe the US just gives away money for anyone's sake. Of course it will 'strengthen the ties' with African countries and international organizations, but since when did they start caring about those things?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Half a loaf is better than none at all?
Are you kidding?
You give a starving man half a loaf of bread, then cut away a thrid of that and the man is still starving. Half measures don't fix the problem.
Besides, we're not talking about a single man or a loaf of bread, we're talking about the truck loads of medicine that the world needs, and here we just tripled our share from nothing to next to nothing.
And then removoved a thrid of that!
It's world wide! Ten billion wouldn't do anything for even a thrid of Africa, but then you have India and China on top of that.
But hey, yay for Mr. Bush, the United States finally did something. It saw a buliding on fire and walked up and threw a cup of water on it.
quote:Of course, let's hope that Congress passes the thing....
Apparently you missed what I was responding to.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Nobody "removed" a third of anything. You must be stoned.
Unless you're going to tell me that abstinence causes AIDS, and the Ugandan ABC program is a failure, when it clearly isn't.
You know, if you really feel THIS strongly about it, how much money did YOU donate to AIDS-related charities this year?
Well, you just donated another $47. So did I. Happy now?
(Actually, given our tax system, you and I didn't donate quite that much. Those evil rich people did. And that goes beyond whatever they normally donate to said NGO charities. Hate them.)
OH, and BTW, the last UN report I read about this crisis asked for a global donation of 7 billion a year to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and Malaria. Given that we'll now be putting up $2-3 billion (between 28% and 43%of that,) by ourselves, says something. We are, as usual, taking on a good chunk of Someone Else's Problem. Not bad for an evil nation that only cares about its own interests.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
"There has to be some Bigger Plan behind this, though."
Well even if it is just a plain PR-thing, a countermeasure if you will, against all the shit they got for Desert Storm II, it's not the worst motive ever. And that may be an encouraging thought.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: OH, and BTW, the last UN report I read about this crisis asked for a global donation of 7 billion a year to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and Malaria. Given that we'll now be putting up $2-3 billion (between 28% and 43%of that,) by ourselves, says something. We are, as usual, taking on a good chunk of Someone Else's Problem. Not bad for an evil nation that only cares about its own interests.
Now, I may have some sort of short term memory disorder, but I recall this coming up before, and you bragging about how the US pays so much more than everyone else, and about how great you are and how all other countries should match you.
Then I recall showing the actual donation as divided by the GNP of the country. And I remember that, if you took into account the countries' wealth, America actually donated less per person than about 11 other countries, including the UK, Australia, Canada, France, and even fucking Belgium.
Now, I'm not so petty as to say that George has done A Bad Thing. Rather, he has done A Good Thing. But putting in the most money when you are the richest organism isn't quite as gracious as it would initially appear. Bill Gates could give $1 million to a charity, but it's a relative pittance to him, and in many ways it would mean a lot more if a poor old lady put in every penny that she had.
[ May 28, 2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I have to agree with Laim, and I don't mean to sound petty. Yay for Congress and yay for Mr. Bush.
This is a good thing, I just don't think it is nearly enough.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Yeah but consider that you're cutting taxes, increasing military spending and running your economy into the ground. Put in that perspective, it ain't that bad. Though 100 billion and fixing the cost of medicine to the 3rd world from your oh-so-benevolent drug companies (to prices they could actually afford, then levying the rest from funds) would go a shite load further.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Yeah but consider that you're cutting taxes, increasing military spending and running your economy into the ground.
I still don't get why you think the third is somehow connected to the other two. The federal budget is NOT the economy.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
I don't have time to take you through economics 101 Ommey.
Suffice it to say that there is a limited amount of resources at any time. Therefore what one sector does will effect the rest. Especially when that given section of the economy -governement directed spending, fiscal policy etc- is a damn large portion. Believe me, it has a shite load to do with the health of the economy.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I don't have time to take you through economics 101 Ommey.
Good, 'cause it'd be a waste of my time. 'A'.
there is a limited amount of resources at any time. Therefore what one sector does will effect the rest.
Exactly. When that uber-huge sector of the economy suddenly starts to consume a significantly smaller portion of the resources available, there will be more available to the rest of the economy. This is a Good Thing, not a Bad Thing. Mind you, I consider the contiunous inflation of the US money supply since WW2 a problem that's eventually gonna bite us on the ass and a Very Bad Thing, and deficit spending doesn't help that, but as for immediate economic growth, there is neither historical or theoretical evidence that tax cuts in and of themselves could possibly hurt the economy.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: contiunous inflation of the US money supply since WW2 a problem that's eventually gonna bite us on the ass and a Very Bad Thing
with the current worries about deflation, you may not have to worry about that much longer- and deflation could be worse than the low inflation most developed countries have now.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: I don't have time to take you through economics 101 Ommey.
Good, 'cause it'd be a waste of my time. 'A'.
I'm not completely sure about my US education terminoloy, but I thought "blah blah 101" usually referred to a university module/class. When did you start uni, Stevie-boy?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Last August.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
When did you stop being 15?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I was never that young.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I was never that young.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Were you always that repetitive?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yes he was. And he was 15. Painfully so.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Bill Gates could give $1 million to a charity, but it's a relative pittance to him
Er, gates gave the UN 100 million to fight AIDS, actually. That's over and above what the US government gives.
(Which, in fact, was what was wrong with your LAST little chart in the last $ argument we had, you didn't accound for the far greater amounts that US charities and NGO's provide, beyond what the US government does on its own.
Now, when you show me THAT chart, the one that INCLUDES those factors, I'll be impressed.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry: There has to be some Bigger Plan behind this, though.
There is.
Actually, there's more than one, but only two which are important in the short term.
#1. Global politics. It 'makes up' for actions in the Middle East (well, you know, besides removing two oppressive governemnts and dragging Israel and the Palestinians to the negotiating table) by making a big contribution to Africa. It makes international critics of American Foreign policy Look Bad (what have YOU donated, Jacques?), while it makes the people who were behind the plan Look Good. And it does it in a compassionate, yet not painfully expensive, way.
#2. National Politics: It steals Democratic thunder (You wore the ribbons, but WE spent the money.) Anybody (Read: "Any Democrat") who dares to vote against the appropriation can be tarred and feathered as a heartless bastard who probably has KKK affiliations and wants to sit back and watch dark-skinned folks die. May bring enough black voters to the Republican side to swing the next few elections.
Of course, in order to believe in any of these plans, you have to give the current White House occupants credit for cleverness. They'll revoke your Democratic Party membership, if you do.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Dang double-post...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: (Which, in fact, was what was wrong with your LAST little chart in the last $ argument we had, you didn't accound for the far greater amounts that US charities and NGO's provide, beyond what the US government does on its own.
Microsoft is a US charity now?
Okay, it's a fair-ish point. But there's a reason why those companies are called "multi-national".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
So does anyone actually have numbers on (government foreign aid + non religious charities/NGO's) / GDP ....or something equivalent? Or is this all supposition, because this actually sounds kinda interesting but google is uncharacteristically unhelpful. (and thats an abnormally long word)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Questing in google:
Exhibit A: GDP percentages Wacky, considering that some articles put the percentage that Israel gets from the US at 30%.
quote: In an era of declining aid budgets, USAID's official Web site proclaims that "the principal beneficiary of America's foreign assistance program has always been the United States." The site notes that nearly 80 percent of USAID contracts and grants go "directly to American firms." It adds that USAID programs, which cost about $7.5 billion last year, have helped create new markets for American goods and "hundreds of thousands of jobs" for U.S. citizens.
quote: Other critics fault the buy-American approach. Research by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) showed that 53 cents of every dollar spent by the United States on tackling the AIDS crisis in Africa never left the Washington, D.C., area. "Much of the aid is very ineffective," he said. "It is in the hands of various consultants who fly over to Africa for a week and then come back."
quote: Under the Helms proposal, the Agency for International Development would be eliminated and its humanitarian and relief budget of roughly $7 billion a year would be given to a quasi-government foundation that would then make grants to private and religious groups.
Considering the number of articles I'm hitting about this guy, how successful was he? Given Bush's rather public views on the subject......its rather bothersome. How much of US foreign aid is just thinly disguised Jesuit-style evangelism? Geez.
Exhibit 5: Big huge article with non-governmental donations: US and Foreign Aid
There's also an nteresting tidbit for that Bill Gates reference. But onto the important part, the math:
quote: Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas -- more than three times U.S. official foreign aid of $10 billion
Unfortunately, there are no comparative statistics for other countries.
Using the much more recent GDP graph in the last article and assuming that no other country in the world has invented a "charity" (Dr. Evil style fingers): America rises from 22nd place to sixth, right behind Sweden. *shrug*
There, we have a partial answer.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Keep in mind that I'm NOT saying we don't need to do more. We need to do more. A poor country with a lot of dead people is a lousy marketplace, after all...
I'm just saying that the "we want it all, now now now" attitude doesn't help, especially when one isn't meeting one's own obligations. HOW many countries did that article say were meeting their goals, after all?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
*pages through*
quote: Which countries actually meet the 0.7% target? Only five - the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Luxembourg. The US, the world's richest country, allocates only 0.1% of GDP to aid, less than half of the OECD average. Britain, for all its talk, devotes less than the EU average (0.33%) with 0.32%.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Britain, for all its talk, devotes less than the EU average (0.33%) with 0.32%.
That's mainly cos we're cheapskates.
They were better off when we were in charge anyway...
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith:
quote:Britain, for all its talk, devotes less than the EU average (0.33%) with 0.32%.
That's mainly cos we're cheapskates.
They were better off when we were in charge anyway...
It's just a different policy, that's all.
Other countries send money so that people in poor countries can have better lives.
We let the people in poor countries come and live in Britain and give them free stuff.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :