December 31, 2004
SUBTRACT DEFENSE AND THEY'RE RIGHT UP THERE:
U.S. Aid Generous and Stingy: It depends on how the numbers are crunched -- total dollars or a slice of the overall economy. (Sonni Efron, December 31, 2004, LA Times)
A different key measure of international generosity was devised by the Center for Global Development and Foreign Policy magazine. It ranked rich countries' contributions to the poor in terms of contributions through aid, trade, investment, technology, security, technology and the environment. Countries got points for the quality as well as the quantity of their aid and contributions.On that scale, the U.S. ranked seventh out of 21 nations, behind Canada, Britain, Australia, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands.
Japan, which is one of the world's largest aid donors but collects huge interest payments on its development loans, ranked last.
The scale found that U.S. contributions of pure foreign aid was relatively much lower than other countries'. The U.S. scored higher on immigration and trade. Allowing foreigners and foreign products into the country are considered measures of how much a rich country is willing to help poorer ones.
But the study upended the commonly held view that shortfalls in U.S. government aid for the global poor were made up by private American contributions.
It found that U.S. government foreign aid in 2002 worked out to 13 cents per American a day. Private donations from U.S. citizens amounted to 5 cents per person a day.
But in 16 other countries, governments gave more. And in three other countries — Switzerland, Ireland and Norway — private citizens gave more.
The Norwegian government gave $1.02 per citizen a day while private giving came to 24 cents a day.
Cronin said that U.S. per capita giving would never match that of Norway, a nation of 4.5 million. On the other hand, the United States makes many other contributions that are hard to quantify in dollar terms, he said, including using its military prowess for worldwide peacekeeping operations that benefit others, or airlifting tsunami relief supplies to remote areas and sending in ships that desalinate water.
How many troops do they have on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, South Korea, the Philippines, Colombia, Darfur.... Posted by Orrin Judd at December 31, 2004 9:29 AM
The use of the tsunami tragedy to bash the US is getting pretty disgusting. The MSM and others are coming up with all sorts of ways to show how the US doesn't help people across the globe which are absolute BS. Comparing the US to Norway, which has practically no armed forces and cradle to grave social services, provides a very misleading answer.
Posted by: AWW at December 31, 2004 9:41 AMIn fairness, the President is using it to destroy the UN and elect his brother....
Posted by: oj at December 31, 2004 9:46 AMIt becomes more obvious every day those four hurricanes were deliberately sent to hit Florida as just another facet in the Bush/Rove plot to credential Jeb as an expert in disaster relief, so that whem Rumsfeld set off his nuclear weapon under water to trigger the 9.0 quake and tsunami, they could send the younger Bush to the disaster site, with Colin Powell once again serving as cover for their nefarious scheme to create an ongoing Bush presidental dynasty to rule the world (Hey, I'm just trying to get ahead of the curve here and figure out what the Indymedia/MoveOn.org/Countdown with Keith Olbermann folks' theme for next week is going to be...)
Posted by: John at December 31, 2004 10:10 AMWe are making progress here. When the attacks on US generosity started, no article was even "capable" of aggregating private and public aid. Now we at least see one. There have been serious studies on this subject (I wish I could recall the article in NR I read on the subject anout 2 years ago). Other factors that are never fully recognized -- and note that all these factors hit at the core beliefs of liberalism about what is good vs bad.
1) Trade Openness vis-a-vis the developing world
2) Portfolio investments (debt + equity) in developing countries
3) The cost of making the world safe for economic development (from controversial pre-emptice striles to less controversial patrolling the oceans)
The list is longer and must be fully understood.
Look at countries like France -- they block access of agricultural products into the EU, they confiscate private savings through high taxes into propping up national industries, they can not even make their country safe...
Posted by: Moe from NC at December 31, 2004 10:13 AMThere is no constituency in the US for increasing foreign aid in any substantive way. In fact, most Americans would pretty much scrap it. All the blather is just another example of the MSM just not getting it.
Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2004 10:55 AMAll you'd have to do is say you're cutting it from 10% to 3% and people would love you for tripling it. Americans think they pay way more than they do.
Posted by: oj at December 31, 2004 11:01 AMJohn, the hurricanes were just natural weather events (though a wonderful political opportunity for Jeb as you said), however, you are correct about the quake off the coast of Sumatra being triggered by a nuke test. The Saudi's carried it out w/the help of Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld. Just wait, after J. bush becomes President in '08 Karl Rove will stage a coup and step in to "reform" the UN w/himself as Sec. Gen. Yes, a new world order is about to dawn. don't let this information get out, I don't want to jeapordize the plot.
Posted by: Phil at December 31, 2004 11:08 AMA lot of work the US govt does is invisible although benefits the world greatly. The US Navy, for example, suppresses rampant piracy thus saving all other countries the burden of maintaining a navy.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at December 31, 2004 6:28 PMThe answer to this is almost too obvious. The United States saved the world from Kaiserism, Nazism, Nipism, and Communism and will save it from Islamicism. These services aren't cheap. Where would the Norwegians be if they had not been so rescued?
Posted by: Lou Gots at January 1, 2005 7:27 AMIn 1997 our Vice President claimed a $353 deduction for charity, on income of about $197,000 (0.18%). So there is SOME pattern of non-generous giving, even among persons who beseech us to help the needy.
Posted by: LarryH at January 1, 2005 9:11 AMAny giving by people on the left is generous, compassionate giving. Any giving by people on the right is stingy and snobish giving.
Posted by: Dave W. at January 1, 2005 12:23 PMThe above is what liberals fervently believe!
Posted by: Dave W. at January 1, 2005 12:24 PM