RhinofromWA said:We should have a smilie with asmilie sitting on a fence and name is a :JrB:....kind of like a
j/k
So true...so true....
The wishy washy thinker smilie has yet to be born 
Are we stingy?
- Thread starter Jr_Bullit
- Start date
So true...so true....
The wishy washy thinker smilie has yet to be born 
RhinofromWA said:
i'll lob a green/yellow one in yr direction if you truly believe the 1st sentence you typed.
I just might eat it....(we are talking about buggers, right?narlus said:
)I do beleive it..... If we are going to be hounded for not doing anything or not enough....lets take what we do away for a while and let the world deal with itself on its own. Let us stop being the muscle (with military and funds) because the world needs an reality adjustment. Most importantly we need to direct that aid back to are own in the states.
I don't think we deserved to be loved....but this is getting rediculous. Let us give and leave us alone. We should be doing more for our own than giving it elsewhere. (God I sound a little like a Democrat, demostically
)
What a trainwreck of a thread. I can't believe people are comparing THIS to 9/11. Everything else aside, how many kids and babies were killed in 9/11?
SOME of these comments are the reason the world doesn't like you.
Sending money to "aid" the US is like you personally donating money to Bill Gates. You didn't NEED it. Other countries helped in other, non-monetary ways however.
And to the members of the most generous country in bla bla bla.... how many of you PERSONALLY have donated money to the Red Cross, or whatever? To be able to use the word "we", as in "we are generous", I think it only fair that you must have something to do with things. Sort of like "WE WON THE WORLD SERIES!!". No....the team you support won the World Series. You watched.
So, to claim any kind of self satisfaction for whatever aid the US gov't sends (stingy or not), is ridiculous. The most generous/chairtable country in the world by definition, should be comprised of the most generous/charitable people in the world. Not sure I'm really seeing that here.
And furthermore, no-one every called anyone stingy in the first place!! The UN dude even said that it's his JOB to say "Thank you, but can you send more?" He wasn't accusing anyone of being stingy.
wow you people piss me off sometimes....
SOME of these comments are the reason the world doesn't like you.
Sending money to "aid" the US is like you personally donating money to Bill Gates. You didn't NEED it. Other countries helped in other, non-monetary ways however.
And to the members of the most generous country in bla bla bla.... how many of you PERSONALLY have donated money to the Red Cross, or whatever? To be able to use the word "we", as in "we are generous", I think it only fair that you must have something to do with things. Sort of like "WE WON THE WORLD SERIES!!". No....the team you support won the World Series. You watched.
So, to claim any kind of self satisfaction for whatever aid the US gov't sends (stingy or not), is ridiculous. The most generous/chairtable country in the world by definition, should be comprised of the most generous/charitable people in the world. Not sure I'm really seeing that here.
And furthermore, no-one every called anyone stingy in the first place!! The UN dude even said that it's his JOB to say "Thank you, but can you send more?" He wasn't accusing anyone of being stingy.
wow you people piss me off sometimes....
No sh!t. I agree.MMike said:
Well the world isn't exactly endering itself to the US either.
Funny how "we" can't join in claiming to be part of the donations but we can take credit for not doing enough? That is screwed up isn't it?
Personally, I have only sent $50.
You are seriously going to play semantics? I think many have said we have been in this thread alone. If the words weren't said verbatum, the fact that the US was singled out is pretty funny...
...the US,and other countries.......
rhino, if you think the world enjoys the US playing cop for everyone, think again. i for one would be happy if we decided to pull out all the troops from various places of the world, but our hawkish (and draft-dodging, war-evading) leadership likes 'em there.
True....narlus said:
But I think the world would be suprised if we did jump back and reduce monetary and physical assets (equipment and personell) They like us enough to call upon us when they do need a world cop. So yes I think they do like us playing world cop in a way, but they want to have a farse of an organization controling the US.
Do I truely think we should pull back support? I am :JR_B: (aka as on the fence
) about it.But with asmuch of the poorly executed things we have done, we get jack in recognition for the good we do as a country, and people (outside of the gov.) to help out around the world.
How long can we feel good about helping when we are getting beat down internationally.....sooner or later something is going to give. No matter how much we do that is positive we are the worlds punching bag. I can see people in the US getting sick of it....on a personal level. That anger will then sway their choice of leaders and the world spirals downward.
In relavence to this thread and support being sent to survivors and countries effected by the Tsunami, calling someone offering aid (The US has given $ and manpower) stingy, or accusing them of not doing enough doesn't exactly encourage them to keep doling it out.
Would sending more money make the world think better of us? not really...they have their minds set.
Is not giving more the right answer? No, but it becomes an option when you are insulted after you have given. It certainly makes it easier to give up and play the role the world has cast you in.
If you're going to compare the US to a cop, you should maybe point out that we are the crooked cop who only makes a bust when there happens to be dope, cash, or a blowjob in it for himself.
The US just increased their financial support 10x to $350m. We are suddenly also the leader of an international coalition and Powell is backpedalling during a tv presentation with Kofi Annan. Before this change, the US contribution was equivelent to $0.12/person contribution which ranked us 19th in the world. Examples of other countries contributions are: Sweden ($8.40/pp) Denmark ($2.86pp) and Britain ($1.57).
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2004/12/31/global_analysts_dispute_perceived_us_generosity/
Even more importantly, we are sending Jeb Bush over to shock and awe them with compassion and "aw shucks".
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2004/12/31/global_analysts_dispute_perceived_us_generosity/
Even more importantly, we are sending Jeb Bush over to shock and awe them with compassion and "aw shucks".
Hmmm interesting....'dan-o said:
Per capita is hte measure of acceptability.....how convienent.
So now the US is giving 350 mil and private is around 60 mill......at near and might easily exceed with resources of miltary etc....410 mill.
Britain gives 96 mill (+ any other non mnetary amounts) at a population level that is approx 1/5th of the USofA. Making it about 480 (96mill x 5) are we really that far off.
Is it the fact that we were cautious with $$$ initially (15 mill then 35 mill is cautious.) and sent in actual man power to help out? I think people over reacted.....seriously.
rhino, if per capita isn't the correct measure, what metric would you propose? if you look on a GDP basis (what i would think the correct metric to use), the US would fare even worse.
over-react? this is the worst disaster of our lifetime. bar none. think about it.
over-react? this is the worst disaster of our lifetime. bar none. think about it.
Get over yourself.....narlus said:
over reacting about US donations and assistance.
Per capital is a tool of measurement. The US suffers partially because of its large population. Sweden made out like champs....
I am simply putting the data in a different perspective. How about total $.
For an abstract example....
An ant can lift many times its own body weight (animal planet is playing in the back ground...please excuse this. ) If the ant was the size of a human it couldn't stand up. Per capita, the ant the size of a human wouldn't measure up. Never mind the normal size ant is lifting a twig. The human sized ant would have to hold up and carry a Bayliner boat to be "equiviliant".
Now that the US is donating 350 to over 410 million dollars the world still cries "per capita". No win.
The per-capita figures in the article were from before the increase. Where have you heard criticism of the US since the increase?RhinofromWA said:
Bush is a world leader, arguably THE world leader. His not immediately stepping up to the plate and acknowledging the tragedy it more enlightening to me than the financial figures. Beneath the veneer of compassionate Christian, he is a spineless and soulless bastard.
Factor in Indonesia being one of, if not the largest Muslim country in the world and his inaction produced yet another spectacular missed opportunity in foreign relations.
aren't you supposed to be good at math, being an accountant? :nuts: with this in mind, how is "putting the data in a different perspective" a valid response whatsoever to the question of "if per capita isn't the correct measure, what metric would you propose?"?RhinofromWA said:Per capital[sic] is a tool of measurement. The US suffers partially because of its large population. [my comment:
I am simply putting the data in a different perspective. How about total $.
So because he didn't immediately say the US would give 350 million dollars he is a souless bastard. because as far as I could see the initial assistance was almost immediately....sending ships and manpower for the east. And some money to start....while the whole world was in shock.dan-o said:
Heartless bastard.
That would undoubtedly been seen as a farse and he would be bitch slapped for being to obvious, cause a heartless bastard of a US President wouldn't outright give $ to a Muslim world without an alternative motive. See above as a sacrastic dramatization based on another factless "error" waged against Bush. I can understand you not liking him but he gives you lots to bash him about....lay off the fictional stuff.
Data manipulatied (aka statistics) used to defend a slanted view...is what I am argueing.Toshi said:
Per capita is not the be all end all....it is a simple number for comparison. Is it the basis to bash the US? No. But by all mean let that be the basis to argue....
I brought up the fact that Britains 96 million is generous, per capita (not knocking the amount, just using it for comparison). If Britain was the size of the US would they be able to keep up the per capita donation ratio? I don't beleive so.
If Bill Gates was his own country his per capita amount would be outrageous.
I do beleive I answered his question by illustrating another means to look at the same comparison. How about the donation by county as a figure? No, you say? It isn't fair? Well if you take Per Capita simple numbers as the "be all end al"l factual basis for and don't look further than that, I can't imagine you actaully attended a university.....
neaky:
How did he not step up to the plate?Toshi said:
He sent military we had near by to be used in rescue efforts and offered up "some" money....then increased it and as the effects and devistation sets in he starts to increase the money.
Again how did he not step up in good faith? Warm bodies are worth a heck of a lot more than $ in the moments after a event such as this. I cant remember the last time a person was saved by a peice of currency
My bottom line is this: America, this ISN'T about you.
And for the record, I fully admit that I am now a total sap. Fatherhood has completely changed me. Before I would have watche the footage and thought "Wow...that's terrible"....and moved on. But now, I see to footage of people burying kids and babies, and it makes my blood run cold. I cannot imagine how freaking unspeakable it would be to have to do that.
So my disgust with this thread largely stems from my new sappiness...
So my disgust with this thread largely stems from my new sappiness...
rhino, at least try to be quantitative about it. your "per country" metric is useless. it's a simple question i pose.
It isn't useless.....a one to one ratio. All it is, is another means of measuring things.narlus said:
What I am saying is saying how much was given per person is just a simple measurement. It isn't a mystery....and in doing so gives you just as useless a #. You are saying a country of (a small number) compared to (Whatever the US is) has no difference in the effective amount they can or should give. You are resting your opinion on a number given to you by deviding the amount donated, by the population.
I am just saying that there are factors like size that would make the per capita amount harder to reach with a country so big. Law of diminishing returns?
Especially when the amount given is large, standing on it's own. That is assuming you didn't know who was giving it in the first place.
News Flash: This isn't about the Tsunami!MMike said:
It is about the worlds perception and expected action of the US.
I agree the Tsunami and the devistation it caused is terrible
I was furious when I didn't see more about it right after it happened on the news stations. This isn't about that. It is about the world spitting in our face as we offer assistance....then getting angry at us.This IS about us.....and how we are viewed in the wake of the Tsunami.
We sent people and aid right away....a dollar bill never yanked a kid out of the water. now the money is coming in. The news today says that donations and support are getting bottle necked and being delayed in reaching the people who need it. I hope our troops can lend a hand. I to found the mass graves more than a little disturbing.
MMike embrace your newfound sappiness....you were kinda dry humored before it.
Mmike , isn't it amazing how parenthood changes how you look at things . I know it did the same thing to me.
Look, if Bill Gates gave $1000 (and I'm using him as an example not because he's cheap, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation pledged 3 Million right away to help out here...) after September 11 and expected everyone to fawn over how ****ing generous he was, you'd laugh, right? Because that's really not a lot of money for Bill Gates.
Now, if we look at the Bible, like George likes to do, we see this passage:
"And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the multitude were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. And calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, 'Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.'"
Mark 12:41-44
Faith without works indeed, George...
Now, if we look at the Bible, like George likes to do, we see this passage:
"And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the multitude were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. And calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, 'Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.'"
Mark 12:41-44
Faith without works indeed, George...
I wouldn't laugh. Would you? Now after Mr Gates does donate....spit in his face and say that is pitiful. Not exactly what calls out for you to help more.Silver said:
The US wasn't looking for a medal, or recognition, but they weren't looking to get spit on either.
Silver I can't remember what time zone you are in....but happy New Year man. Hope you are consuming some beverages....Pepsi is my pitiful choice this year.
@ myself.
I've got bronchitis, so my beverage of choice right now is codeine cough syrup.RhinofromWA said:Silver I can't remember what time zone you are in....but happy New Year man. Hope you are consuming some beverages....Pepsi is my pitiful choice this year.
Happy New Year to you as well, you stingy whore!
You two gentleman, Rhino (not indigenous to Baja Canada) and Silver have a very happy new year. Oh, send some damn money to the Red Cross, a twenty from all of us would go a long way.
Absolutement, mon ami.MMike said:
law of diminishing returns? so the more people in a given population pool, the higher the influence of not giving?RhinofromWA said:It isn't useless.....a one to one ratio. All it is, is another means of measuring things.
What I am saying is saying how much was given per person is just a simple measurement. It isn't a mystery....and in doing so gives you just as useless a #. You are saying a country of (a small number) compared to (Whatever the US is) has no difference in the effective amount they can or should give. You are resting your opinion on a number given to you by deviding the amount donated, by the population.
I am just saying that there are factors like size that would make the per capita amount harder to reach with a country so big. Law of diminishing returns?
man, if you indeed are an accountant, i hope H&R Block has you do the 1040EZ forms.
Listne up and maybe expand your resonign abilities.narlus said:law of diminishing returns? so the more people in a given population pool, the higher the influence of not giving?
man, if you indeed are an accountant, i hope H&R Block has you do the 1040EZ forms.
As an example:
When something (Say a company) is small the cost of doing anything can be pretty high, per person. As it grows and those costs can be spread out and the buying power incerases, the cost per person/employee can drop. Now continue growing there come a point where the costs of running a even larger company starts to increase back up (diminishing reutrns)
How many times have you heard about less governement? It is to big and expensive. The infrastructure of the US and shear size is daunting and gets expensive to sustain.
I have seen it at the local county level her in WA state when I work with them helping them with there finacial foot notes. It is crazy how big and complicated we have made our lives.
If you think that simply because there are more people to pull from that it is as easy to get that money from them if not easier I have a little suprise for you....it isn't. If you think that there is no difference in the ability for a small country and a large company to give on a per capita basis you are pretty nieve.
So what makes you a international relief expert? Where is you support for the Per Capita being the end all unit of measurement? Didn't think so....
I will leave the 1040EZ for you since you seem to be comfortable with them... I have never used one, I actually prefer the good old std 1040....just what I am used to.
individuals have freedom of choice. there is no "economy of scale" when you are dealing on a micro-level like this. the analogy of using a nation of discrete people and juxtaposing the structure of a company to it does not make any sense.
good luck w/ yr career.
good luck w/ yr career.
Rhino, I know you are the typo king but that is a new high...RhinofromWA said:
And I disagree btw. Your justification for fewer people giving money to get more overall money does not hold water.
Michael Schumacher donted 10 million.... not too shabby, pal...
Yeah, but of course on a per-capita basis it's much easier for him to raise money than it would be for a nation with millions of inhabitants, so he's stingier than the USA.MMike said:
Or sumfink.
Much easier for him considering who he is....per capita.fluff said:
I bet he didn't give the money for praise......
Now you ****s are going to the next extreme, but feel free.
So how do we figure in the 15,000 military people we have over there and 70 helecopters , nemerous ships, doctors, and support crews, and all the rest of the non-monetary resources that we donate to the problem? Hmmm?
I guess the fact that the military resources are making it possible to deliver support to people who would not be able to recieve it and after delivering supplies, airlifting injured to hospitals, etc.
That counts for nothing.
That is right the US does nothing..........they should run teh whole show....oh wiate we are just expected to pay for it, per capita....and let other people run it.
Face it. You dorks have very little of any case against the US being stingy with regard to this instance.
Oh I heard the US created the tsunami with an underground nuclear test....
Well OK then, since you don't understand it......fluff said:
You still have no case to say the US was stingy...and haven't used anything but a unit of measurement to try and support your case.
Per Capita.....yeah now there is the end all proof of being stingy.How about other neighboring muslim nations....maybe some that are oh I don't know rich with oil? They have provided little in support and according to the Canadian news say they deserved it...getting drunk and stuff. They deserved to die.
edit: You are right Fluff. That was pretty bad.....typo-wise.
Ah, actually they aren't that far off. A government is essentially a large business. Oddly enough that is why people hate BIG government.narlus said:
What exactly do you do since you have the universe figured out?
i write the songs that make the young girls cry.
and apparently the posts, too.
and apparently the posts, too.
Gee thanks!RhinofromWA said: