Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Bush Responds To Stingy Comment

WASHINGTON - President Bush defended American generosity Wednesday, even as his administration figures out how to pay for more help beyond the $35 million it has already promised to tsunami victims in Asia.

In his first remarks since the weekend disaster that so far has killed more than 76,000, Bush --ť like some in his administration previously --ť took umbrage at a U.N. official's suggestion that the world's richest nations were "stingy," and indicated much more is expected to be spent to help the victims.

"Well, I felt like the person who made that statement was very misguided and ill-informed," Bush said from his Texas ranch. "We're a very generous, kindhearted nation, and, you know, what you're beginning to see is a typical response from America."

Bush noted that the United States provided $2.4 billion "in food, in cash, in humanitarian relief to cover the disasters for last year. " That's 40 percent of all the relief aid given in the world last year."


America leads the world in providing foreign aid to countries in need and we will no doubt lead the world in providing relief to those harmed by this disaster as well.

But some on the left have decided to try and make some political hay out of this "stingy" issue by pointing out how much money private donors have provided to Bush's inauguration celebration (around $40 million by most estimates) in contrast with the $35 million (and growing) amount Bush has pledge to tsunami relief.

Lets use our heads here.

The money being used for Bush's inauguration is privately donated cash from Bush's supporters given to the cause long before this tsunami disaster occurred. It is just plain stupid to criticize Bush for not making his pledge for disaster relief proportionate to the the donations received for his inauguration. What does one have to do with the other? Are we really expecting the President to sit down and consider the price of his inauguration celebration before pledging disaster aid to foreign countries?

And I'd also point out that private U.S. donations to tsunami relief are likely to double what the government itself is giving if the rapid fire donations going on at Amazon.com tell us anything.

Update:

If we're going to accuse people of being stingy how about focusing some attention on France, which has pledged a grand total of $135,000 U.S. to tsunami relief.

Comments

Avatar for Mark

While not wishing to become too deeply involved in a ‘who is meaner than who’ debate (could probably get more than a little boring) I think it is important that, in assessing the generosity of each nation, comparisons should be made on the relative basis of the GDP of each nation, rather than on the brute figure donated (i.e. divide amount given by GDP). This would give a more accurate indication of ‘stinginess’/generosity.

Mark on December 29, 2004 at 11:13 am
Avatar for Mark

Rob -
I’m not getting into any debates here (certainly not defending France, which objectively seems to be pretty miserly) - just pointing out the best way of measuring things.

Two other things - I see you’ve passed 400,000 (congratulations), and I love your gravatar (what happened to that show? It just seemed to disappear in this country)

Mark on December 29, 2004 at 12:12 pm
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

America’s GDP: $10.99 trillion.

France’s GDP: $1.661 trillion

America’s donation of $35 million divided by the GDP equals 0.0032.

France’s donation of $135,000 divided by the GDP equals 0.0000812.

France is pretty stingy by that measurement.

And as far as this debate being boring, I wouldn’t be bringing it up were my country and my President not being accused of being “stingy” and uncaring despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on December 29, 2004 at 12:13 pm
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

I’m not getting into any debates here (certainly not defending France, which objectively seems to be pretty miserly) - just pointing out the best way of measuring things.

I know Mark.  I was just trying to point out that I wasn’t writing this stuff just for the sake of starting a frivilous argument.

I see you’ve passed 400,000 (congratulations)

Thanks.  It still amazes me that people actually come here to read this stuff.

I love your gravatar (what happened to that show? It just seemed to disappear in this country)

Its still on the air here, though I don’t think it ever became as popular as was expected.  I’m not much of a TV watcher, but I try to catch it when its on.  It never fails to crack me up.

And the Gravatars are very cool.  You should get one.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on December 29, 2004 at 02:12 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

Mark suggests, “I think it is important that, in assessing the generosity of each nation, comparisons should be made on the relative basis of the GDP of each nation, rather than on the brute figure donated (i.e. divide amount given by GDP).”

How about measuring it according to population?  America is around 5 % of the world.  Just five.  We are so rich because we are free (largely) to act on our resources.

This would give a more accurate indication of ’stinginess’/generosity.

Just measure it by population.  America far outclasses almost all other nations combined.  *And there’s no reason that a lot of other countries couldn’t be near or just as wealthy.

likwidshoe on December 29, 2004 at 04:12 pm
Avatar for Mark

Unsure about that, likwidshoe.

For example, let’s take sub-Saharan Africa as a whole (roughly the same number of inhabitants as America) - by your way of calculation, the citizens here should give, in total, precisely the same amount as America in order to be equally generous.

I don’t think that makes a lot of sense.

Mark on December 30, 2004 at 08:12 am
Avatar for Six Meat Buffet » 2004 » December

[...] Say Anything bellied up to the buffet [...]

Avatar for Charlie

I would like a straight answer to my question how much money was donated to 2004 boxing day tsunami. And how many people offered assistance by helping in ingeries etc. I would really appriciate an answer to this email. Many thanks for your time. Charlie

Charlie on March 14, 2006 at 01:36 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.