STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

SheilsBabe · BCBG

Does anyone else feel a little disgusted...

Irene · Dooney & Bourke

Actually, our donation is going to be closer to a billion dollars if you include labor and manpower to rebuild the country and some other stuff. The $35 is an initial offering. And believe it when they need the manpower more than money. Their infrastructure is totally gone. To rebuild that is the most important thing right now.

Last year the US gave $2.4 billion in aid, 40% of the total humanitarian aid given. I think we are a pretty generous country.

RyanJ · Coach

Don't worry 35 million is just the beginning. I think the rest of the world knows we are an extremely compassionate country.

Bush vows more US aid for victims of tsunami

United States President George W Bush said on Wednesday the United States' initial grant of $US35 million in the aftermath of the tsunami disaster in South East Asia was "only the beginning of our help" but he did not announce an immediate increase in aid.

It was Mr Bush's first public statement since the tsunami struck on Sunday. The death toll is now nearing 70,000 and could ultimately exceed 100,000.

"These past few days have brought loss and grief to the world that is beyond our comprehension," Mr Bush said.

"The United States will continue to stand with the affected governments as they care for the victims. We will stand with them as they start to rebuild their communities and together the world will cope with their loss. We will prevail over this destruction."

Mr Bush, who spoke to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia on Wednesday, said criticism that rich nations were not giving enough for disaster relief were misguided.

"I assure those leaders that this is just only the beginning of our help," he said.

The White House faced criticism on Tuesday over the fact that Mr Bush, who is vacationing at his Crawford, Texas ranch had not yet appeared in person to talk about the disaster.

Jan Egeland, the emergency relief coordinator for the United Nations, said on Monday that the west had generally been "stingy" in its aid to poor countries.

"I felt like the person who made that statement was very misguided and ill-informed,"
Mr Bush said.

"In the year 2004, our Government provided $US2.4 billion in food and cash and humanitarian relief ... that's 40 per cent of all the relief aid given in the world last year."

On future US aid for the tsunami victims, Mr Bush said: "There will be an assessment of the damage so that the next tranche of the relief will be spent wisely. ... our Government is fully prepared to continue to provide assistance and help."

-- Edited by RyanJ at 11:22, 2004-12-29

lsubatgirl · Gucci

The EU numbers and Japan must have changed because as of 7 am this morning they were significantly lower than us. You also have to take into effect that the EU is a set of 20 or so nations so they should be giving just as much if not more than the US. I don't think that the US is going to stop at the 35 mil we pledged and this is not taking into account the American Red Cross and other not-for-profit organizations that we Americans donate to.

I am rather disguisted at the UN worker from Norway telling us that we are stingy and not giving enough when I haven't even heard Norway give a penny to the relief effort and France is only giving a couple hundred thousand dollars. That is distguisting to me. Even though they are a part of the EU, Britain is giving almost as much as we are and their amounts will probably increase too.

-- Edited by lsubatgirl at 11:14, 2004-12-29

cc · Marc Jacobs

-- Edited by cc at 14:42, 2006-02-02

RyanJ · Coach

quote:
Originally posted by: cc
"I think people probably think it seems really stingy in light of the fact that Bush's inauguration is expected to cost $50 million.

Which is from private donations

cc · Marc Jacobs

-- Edited by cc at 14:43, 2006-02-02

Karina · Chanel

I don't feel disgusted at all. We are the country that is giving the most help and money in this disaster.

SheilsBabe · BCBG

It's one thing for Bush to talk about giving more in the future, it's another to actually allocate more money now, when it's desperately needed. If we do end up giving more, then fine. But right now, our donation just isn't stacking up. Sure, private donations from US citizens will (hopefully) make a difference, but the government should give regardless of that. I believe that Spain just donated $68 million - we can surely do better than that.

Irene · Dooney & Bourke

quote:
Originally posted by: SheilsBabe
"It's one thing for Bush to talk about giving more in the future, it's another to actually allocate more money now, when it's desperately needed. If we do end up giving more, then fine. But right now, our donation just isn't stacking up. Sure, private donations from US citizens will (hopefully) make a difference, but the government should give regardless of that. I believe that Spain just donated $68 million - we can surely do better than that. "

It's not a competition.

lsubatgirl · Gucci

I agree that its not a competition either. We are doing other things to help like sending navy ships with supplies over there but no one's looking at that. I think its smart to wait and see how bad the numbers of dead and sick are each day and pledge more money accordingly.

blink · Coach

I don't really feel disgusted, but I do feel a little saddened that the US doesn't offer more upfront. I don't care what other countries donate, but it is to our global benefit to exceed their contributions. This is just a question of should, not could. And I strongly believe that the US should donate more than 35 million now.

manhattanmonkey · Kenneth Cole

RE: RE: Does anyone else feel a little disgusted..

cc · Marc Jacobs

RE: Does anyone else feel a little disgusted...

SheilsBabe · BCBG

Maybe disgusted isn't the right word. Disappointed; that could be more accurate. I'm not citing donation amounts to imply that this is a competition; I'm trying to show that countries who are not as wealthy as the US or in our position of influence are willing to donate more - right now - than us. As far as waiting to predict how bad the situation is, the death toll is rising by 10s of thousands each day, and there's the possibility that the number of people who died in the tsunami will succumb to communicable diseases. How much longer should we wait?

lsubatgirl · Gucci

I think the other thing that our government has to be careful of is theses countries cultures. The NYTimes had in an article that Indonesia is a proud country and one that never asks for aid of any sort for any of their disasters but this time around they are willing to accept the aid. I think that since so many countries hate the US for so many different reasons its hard to please everyone and we are doing the best we can. Sometimes you do have to back away for a day or two to see how people in these other countries and cultures are going to react before throwing money in their direction.

honey · Gucci

in reference to our "initial offer" i never realized that charitable contributions were negotiable.

Karina · Chanel

quote:

Originally posted by: Irene
"It's not a competition."

I totally agree with that. If you think that the US is not doing enough - are you doing all you can to help these poor people in SE Asia? Sure you are just one person, but are you trying to make a difference or just depending on your country to do it?

-- Edited by Karina at 13:38, 2004-12-29

RyanJ · Coach

I don't see what the big deal is about the amount we intially donate is. We are going to donate more and do so much for the people that have been harmed by this disasters. So why does it matter what are intial amount we give is? 35 million is the starting off point. The US does so much too help people in other countries and there are coutries that do give a dime to help out countries in need. The US is a great country that does so much to help people. I worry that people forget that.

Elle · Hermes

On one hand, I feel our aid contribution should be viewed as a gift and an offer to help without expectation of receiving anything in return. Therefore there isn't a set amount we 'should' or 'should not' be contributing and they should be glad for whatever help they receive (not meaning this to sound cold, just technically speaking)

On another hand, we are the strongest nation in the world. Apparently, our administration believes we have the right to invade countries and tell other nations how to run their countries. With that power comes responsibility, so if we have named ourselves as 'world police force', than we should be responsible fixing/helping/aiding every stinking country who needs it. If we are willing and able to knock a country down, we should be willing to pick a country up when they are in need.

BTW, does anyone know where the money we are donating is coming from? Is it all part of the 'foreign aid' fund or have we magically pulled it out of our bureaucratic a$$es?