New York Times says we're stingy

http://www.nytimes.com/

Its an editorial but I'm not a member, maybe someone here could post it?

These are the same Liberal media and Democrats that are pro UN and anti American, they would sale out our sovernty at any cost IMHO. :dis:

Some people claim the media isn't biast.

 

from NYT:


"EDITORIAL
Are We Stingy? Yes

president Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunamis in Asia. He also hurried to put as much distance as possible between himself and America's initial measly aid offer of $15 million, and he took issue with an earlier statement by the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, who had called the overall aid efforts by rich Western nations "stingy." "The person who made that statement was very misguided and ill informed," the president said.

We beg to differ. Mr. Egeland was right on target. We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world's poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world's richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That's less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.

The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.

Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.

Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.

Mr. Bush said yesterday that the $35 million we've now pledged "is only the beginning" of the United States' recovery effort. Let's hope that is true, and that this time, our actions will match our promises."

 

I personally think $35 million is too much.. I have no illusions to the fact that I'm stingy and selfish . If we are going to spend $35 million dollars helping starving homeless people we have enough of those right here is America. It's not our job to feed, cloth, and shelter the world.

 

I read somewhere that Powell said the US amount given would exceed 1 billion eventually. That includes all man-power, money, food, etc. I hope that includes private donations as well, because that's a whole hell of a lot of money.

I think pledging 15 million the day of as well as sending 12 ships out of a fleet, creating a coaltion, and sending in the Marines is pretty impressive, if not a bit excessive. Pretty good for a guy on vacation. He could have pulled a Chirac and gone back to the White House and said he would give $150,000.

Some one will come up with a theory in which global warming can cause earthquakes, and then it won't matter how much we gave it would be Bush's/America's fault to begin with. The blame game is amazing, both parties are guilty of making everything about politics - they need to let it go every once in awhile.

 

I NEVER said anyone who disagrees with me is Anti-American.
But I need someone to tell me how you can support the UN and all their scandals and
support the USA as well?

Do you think the liberal press who calls us stingy is in support for the USA or the UN?
We give MORE MONEY, goods and services to everyone in the world than anyone else
yet we are stingy?

Don't buy it!
Red, don't put words in my mouth, giving more money to this tragedy isn't bad.
Don't try and change the subject that way, this is about the messenger who is the
UN then the New York times backs them up, well , its phoney bologna.

I don't claim that all Liberals and Democrats support the UN and everything they stand
for but they are some out there, don't kid yourself.

I hear today that Kofi Annon is on vacation just like the president but only the president gets attacked about that.
Isn't that the way it always is?

UN, no matter how bad is always swept under the rug but the good Ole USA takes another hit.

 

one of the liberal talking points these days is to decry how conservatives are apparently labeling any sort of dissent as "un-american".

the term "un-american" has so much baggage, and almost never have heard conservatives us it with the intent that the liberals are claiming.

liberals often do give the impression that they do not like america, they do not trust us, we are imperialist, we are the big bad bully (none of which is true, we are the best, smartest, nicest, most generous and all around good country there ever was, by a wide margin), and if this is what conservatives mean when they label liberals as unamerican, then it is true. liberals often do take the side of europe or the UN in opposition to the united states. that doesnt mean they are unamerican in the sense that they hate the values that america is supposed to stand for. and i dont think many people are accusing them of that.

it is fair criticism, when so many liberals claim they are ashamed of how we are running our country. but it probably isnt the best choice of words.

 

if they think that's stingy they should let me run things.

1st order of business would be kick the UN off american soil.
2nd order of business make sure NO money goes to ANY foreign aid, zilch zero a big fat goose egg. :nope: maybe after the poor people in AMERICA are taken care of then they MIGHT get a dime. that means tsunami and wild buffalo victims too.

do you EVEr see anyone RUSHING to help Americans? during a Hurricane? well do you? I didn't think so. good day.

 

I'll tell you why he says that. Because it is true. It has nothing to do with agree or disagree. If a person/s is helping foreign interests by tarnishing the United States reputation then they are anti American.

I dont visit bars but if I did and the truth got me in a fight, then so be it. There comes a time when you just have to call a spade a spade.

Red I do respect your point of view. I just don't respect those that want to run down thr US. then pick our pockets.