BleacherCoaches.com

The US is the most generous nation on earth in terms of how much money is given. However, if you compare nations to their GNP, the USA ranks near the bottom of industrialized nations. Keep in mind, the "moron" from the UN made his statement after Bush originally declared 15 million in aid. Apparently the guy got their attention and now the aid is starting to pour in. I wonder if the same amount of aid would be going through if he hadn't made that statement?

There's no doubt in my mind. Do you think it'll stop at 35 million? No chance. You're giving your UN buddy the benefit of the doubt that he made the statement when the aid was 15 million. Why don't you try giving Bush the benefit of the doubt for once in that maybe we didn't know the full scale of devastation at the time it was announced. We'll be rebuilding and assisting those areas for years to come. Tell me runner, how much is France giving?

Even you can't be that liberal to believe that the US would've stopped at 15 million, and that some pissant idiot from the UN can make a statement to force us to give more. Maybe you are though.

I think France is giving around 15 million euros (~20 million dollars) but why does that matter?

At the time Bush gave 15 million, there were already a reported 50,000 dead. He didn't know the full scale of devastation and would have undoubtedly given more. However, the "pissant idiot" from the UN (when did you resort to name calling LP?) achieved his purpose. He got the richer nations to donate more money right away. So apparently I am liberal enough to believe that the the statement by the UN "idiot" had an effect on what the US is doing.

I reserve my name calling for the idiots that deserve them. The pissant from the UN fits the bill.

I call you a liberal :lol: , but you're far from an idiot.

His timing was just good. That aid was going to be bumped up no matter what and will continue to rise. Trust me, that guy had no effect.

He was just trying to embarrass Bush because of Iraq - take that to the bank.

I believe that Americans will rise to the occasion and donate as much, if not more, than the amount the government pledges anyway. That's who we are, regardless of how much the rest of the world puts us down.

I hope that everyone who is able to will consider helping out. This tragedy is probably the biggest any of us will ever know about in our lifetime.

I just read this after my last post. This is from President Bush, after raising the US pledge to 350 million.

"Our contributions will continue to be revised as the full effects of this terrible tragedy become clearer," said the statement released by the White House while Bush vacationed at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.


The president said the dramatic increase in assistance, which eclipsed a $250 million aid pledge from the World Bank (news - web sites), was based on the initial findings of U.S. assessment teams in hard-hit areas of southeastern and central Asia, and on recommendations from senior officials including Powell.

My biggest problem with the pissant idiot from the UN is his statement that Americans are just screaming to have our taxes raised so the government can spend our money for us. The people of this country are good people, and there's no doubt in my mind that we would've surpassed ANY nation just on private donations when this is all said and done. We don't need the government telling us how to spend our money. If people can give to help out, they will. If they can't, they won't.

Since you are so good at comparing the size of the contribution to GNP, I wonder if you would be interested in comparing any of our contributions versus income compared to the Hollywood liberals. I'll bet most of us surpass the liberals if you compare that way.

Once again we'll have to agree to disagree. I know Bush would have eventually given more than the initial 15 million even without the opion of the UN guy. I still believe his statement embarrassed the administration and they are now bending over backwards to prove him wrong. I don't feel their aid would have been as generous without his comments.

As far as how much the Hollywood liberals are giving, I would have to agree with you, but there is of course no way of finding out...it's not like they publish that stuff on the internetl. I would also venture say the same would apply to the Hollywood conservatives.

Take my word for it. If Springsteen or Streisand each gave a million, we'd know about it!!

The difference between the Hollywood liberals and the Hollywood conservatives is this: the liberals expect the government to do it, the conservatives will do it on their own. Liberals will hold a "hands across America" type event to raise money off the backs of those less fortunate, while contributing very little themselves. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having an event to raise money for this, just that their own personal contributions will be lacking. Now blast away at me.

Between the US, Japan, India, and Australia, those 4 countries have pledged almost one half (900 million) of the 1.9 billion pledged so far. Japan has really stepped up to the plate with their latest pledge.

Where are all the other nations of the UN? Why aren't they upping the ante, and why aren't they being blasted for being stingy?

It all comes back to Iraq.

I haven't read one single article on the France, Germany and Spain contributions. I'm sure they are contributing, but can it compare to what these other 4 nations are doing? I'll say it again - no other nation on the face of the earth is more generous than the US, especially in times like this. Yet, the world continues to snub their noses at our sacrifices. And with all that, we'll still help those in need, thank you's be damned.

You may be right about the Hollywood liberals/conservatives, but I'm not privy to their accountants books, so I can't really say. Perhaps you can give me some examples to back up what you say? I do know Springsteen has donated money/proceeds to over 2 dozen charities.

I won't argue that the US gives the most money to help other countries, especially in these cases. But the amount of money can't be sole criteria of generosity. Is not a poor country that contributes all it can just as generous, if not more, than the rich nations who donate?

As far as what other nations are contributing......
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6767190/

I can't tell you if Germany or France is being stingy in this case. I'm not familiar with their nations finances.