And now for what was really said
-
David Wulff wrote: Thanks for setting me straight. I don't think that is possible. David Wulff wrote: He chose the US as an example The because doesn't matter. Why choose anyone as an example? What does it gain you other than bad will. Especially when the the country you choose to make an example of has been and will be the single largest provider of humanitarian aid on the planet. It's pretty stupid. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote: Why choose anyone as an example? He was asked.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
I think I'll let my C# compiler do the "math":
public bool IsContributionStingy(double contribution)
{
if ((contribution == 0.1) || (contribution == 0.2))
return true;
return false;
}public void Main()
{
double contributionOfUsa = 0.14;
if (IsContributionStingy(contributionOfUsa))
Console.WriteLine("US contribution is stingy");
else
Console.WriteLine("US contribution is NOT stingy");
}/* The output from this application will be:
US contribution is NOT stingy
*/;P
Do you want to know more? WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and Forums
It seems you have not modeled the problem correctly, it is not .1 or .2, it is between .1 and .2. :) + ;) = ;P Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Gary Kirkham wrote: Why choose anyone as an example? He was asked.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
You keep saying that, but I can't find where he was asked anything. This says that he was the originator of the question: Despite his claim of being "misinterpreted," a review of the transcript of Mr. Egeland's initial press briefing confirms that he asked reporters at the United Nations why Western countries are "so stingy" and specifically cited the United States as an example of a country whose citizens want to pay more taxes so that foreign aid can be increased. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
It looks likely that some comservative leaders and pundits have gone off the deep end about an alledged comment by a UN under-secretary that was never said about the United States, or directed only toward the United States. In this article[^] Jan Egeland says, "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really." He goes on to say, "If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous" No where does he point a finger at the US in particular. In fact, it looks as though he laments all the western nation's low contributions as compared to GNP. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book. Personally, I'm disturbed by the fact that our (read: United States)conservative leadership have decided to mislead us into believing that the UN is spewing more anti-American rhetoric behind this tragedy. I hate this type of politicing--especially considering the magnitude of the event it is attched too. Do these guys have no shame? I give our conservative leadership a resounding *bronx cheer* for this one. Embarrassingly, Jerry He said this was like painstakingly assembling the first layer of a house of cards, then boasting that the next 15,000 layers were a mere formality.--The Code Book, pp. 331 Toasty0.com The Recipe Project
Lets not forget the millions that Americans will donate privately, not just from the government. Kind regards, Tim
-
It looks likely that some comservative leaders and pundits have gone off the deep end about an alledged comment by a UN under-secretary that was never said about the United States, or directed only toward the United States. In this article[^] Jan Egeland says, "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really." He goes on to say, "If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous" No where does he point a finger at the US in particular. In fact, it looks as though he laments all the western nation's low contributions as compared to GNP. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book. Personally, I'm disturbed by the fact that our (read: United States)conservative leadership have decided to mislead us into believing that the UN is spewing more anti-American rhetoric behind this tragedy. I hate this type of politicing--especially considering the magnitude of the event it is attched too. Do these guys have no shame? I give our conservative leadership a resounding *bronx cheer* for this one. Embarrassingly, Jerry He said this was like painstakingly assembling the first layer of a house of cards, then boasting that the next 15,000 layers were a mere formality.--The Code Book, pp. 331 Toasty0.com The Recipe Project
Lets talk about the reality of the situation. On this[^] site private American charitable giving is detailed. Over $4 billion in foreign donations just by private citizens. Personally I'm not impressed with how most governmental organizations spend money, and I think most Americans are less than pleased with the government spending more of their money. Personnaly I would rather donate to a private organization and allow them to spend the money bypassing the bureacracy..... and putting guys like Egeland out of a job. BTW the total of American donations to charity was something like $241 billion..... thats neither peanuts or stingy. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Lets talk about the reality of the situation. On this[^] site private American charitable giving is detailed. Over $4 billion in foreign donations just by private citizens. Personally I'm not impressed with how most governmental organizations spend money, and I think most Americans are less than pleased with the government spending more of their money. Personnaly I would rather donate to a private organization and allow them to spend the money bypassing the bureacracy..... and putting guys like Egeland out of a job. BTW the total of American donations to charity was something like $241 billion..... thats neither peanuts or stingy. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
The number I've seen for American private overseas contributions is closer to $35 billion[^]. Which still more than triples Gov't spending. I'd be interested to know if private donations are about the same/less/more in other nations. More out of curiosity, than to say we/you suck. If these numbers are accurate though, I think it helps to show that aid will be available to the needy even without gov't help, despite what more socialist thinkers would say. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
You keep saying that, but I can't find where he was asked anything. This says that he was the originator of the question: Despite his claim of being "misinterpreted," a review of the transcript of Mr. Egeland's initial press briefing confirms that he asked reporters at the United Nations why Western countries are "so stingy" and specifically cited the United States as an example of a country whose citizens want to pay more taxes so that foreign aid can be increased. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
Asked about the response of rich nations to such crises, he said... If you ask me what my name is and I ask you why you want to know, you still asked the question.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
Lets talk about the reality of the situation. On this[^] site private American charitable giving is detailed. Over $4 billion in foreign donations just by private citizens. Personally I'm not impressed with how most governmental organizations spend money, and I think most Americans are less than pleased with the government spending more of their money. Personnaly I would rather donate to a private organization and allow them to spend the money bypassing the bureacracy..... and putting guys like Egeland out of a job. BTW the total of American donations to charity was something like $241 billion..... thats neither peanuts or stingy. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: Lets talk about the reality of the situation. On this[^] site private American charitable giving is detailed. Over $4 billion in foreign donations just by private citizens. US GDP is over 10,000 billion. Thus your 4 billion figure is roughly 0.04 percent of GDP. Doug Goulden wrote: Personally I'm not impressed with how most governmental organizations spend money, and I think most Americans are less than pleased with the government spending more of their money. Sad if true. Doug Goulden wrote: Personnaly I would rather donate to a private organization and allow them to spend the money bypassing the bureacracy..... and putting guys like Egeland out of a job. Here is a thought. Let the US military be funded by private donations. No, wait, you only suggest funding by private donation for those things where you don't care how much money is raised. The way you prioritise ideological dogma and petty anti-anti-US point scoring over humanitarian concerns appalls me. John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
-
Asked about the response of rich nations to such crises, he said... If you ask me what my name is and I ask you why you want to know, you still asked the question.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
Of course, that is not from the article I posted, so I went looking for it elsewhere. Asked about the response of rich nations to such crises, he said: "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really." "If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous," he said. No mention of the US and nothing in the question warrants the mention of the US by name. If the article I cited is correct, then he did mention the US by name. Where is that in the article you cite? I don't guess we will know the whole truth until the actual transcript is released. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Lets talk about the reality of the situation. On this[^] site private American charitable giving is detailed. Over $4 billion in foreign donations just by private citizens. US GDP is over 10,000 billion. Thus your 4 billion figure is roughly 0.04 percent of GDP. Doug Goulden wrote: Personally I'm not impressed with how most governmental organizations spend money, and I think most Americans are less than pleased with the government spending more of their money. Sad if true. Doug Goulden wrote: Personnaly I would rather donate to a private organization and allow them to spend the money bypassing the bureacracy..... and putting guys like Egeland out of a job. Here is a thought. Let the US military be funded by private donations. No, wait, you only suggest funding by private donation for those things where you don't care how much money is raised. The way you prioritise ideological dogma and petty anti-anti-US point scoring over humanitarian concerns appalls me. John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
John Carson wrote: Personally I'm not impressed with how most governmental organizations spend money, and I think most Americans are less than pleased with the government spending more of their money. Sad if true. When have you ever seen any program that the US any government runs well or efficiently? You have an overly inflated view of the value of government in my opinion. What I find interesting is that I would guess that you are probably very concerned about the attempt by the US to use the Patriot act because you are concerned with your rights. Yet at the same time you appear to advocate the government removing more of your (or my) income to help other people. I don't think that governments spend money effectively for aid or defense. That brings me to my second point.... John Carson wrote: Here is a thought. Let the US military be funded by private donations. No, wait, you only suggest funding by private donation for those things where you don't care how much money is raised. That is what is called a faulty assumtion on your part. I do suggest private contributions for humanitarian issues, as well as the government providing help. My problem with all of this is that so many people, yourself included apparently, wring their hands over what the government is doing to help. When was the last time that some of these same people have stepped up to help their neighbor even? Government programs do tend to be wasteful and ineffective, welfare programs have succeeded in creating a class of people who are dependent (in large part) on handouts with many making little effort to get off it. I am all for giving help to people a hand when they need it, hell we can ante up food, medicines, even send Reservist and faith based organizations, I'm all for it. I just don't want to see in the long term, the formation of another buracracy to waste more money. Fund UNICEF or a handful of other organizations, I'm all for it. Build schools, roads, wells, etc so underpriveleged people can help themselves..... I'm all for it. But thats not the issue here, here it is about helping an enourmous group of people over what will probably be a relatively short time (say 6 - 9 months). They need the help, I never said they didn't, the scope of this is unimaginable. John Carson wrote: The way you prioritise ideological dogma and petty anti-anti-US point scoring over humanitarian concerns appalls me. I also didn't pri
-
The number I've seen for American private overseas contributions is closer to $35 billion[^]. Which still more than triples Gov't spending. I'd be interested to know if private donations are about the same/less/more in other nations. More out of curiosity, than to say we/you suck. If these numbers are accurate though, I think it helps to show that aid will be available to the needy even without gov't help, despite what more socialist thinkers would say. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the Newbrianwelsch wrote: If these numbers are accurate though, I think it helps to show that aid will be available to the needy even without gov't help, despite what more socialist thinkers would say. I don't honestly know if its more or less, but my point has been all along that problems like this shouldn't just be put forward as government operations. The problem I see is that many of the socialist thinkers are the ones who are afraid to get involved and help their neighbors. The guy broke down on the side of the road... let the cops help him. The crime they see.... don't get involved thats the cops job. Hey the town down the road gets flooded, FEMA or the National Guard will take care of it, I don't need to help. Personnaly I think we should be willing to stop and help one another, call that ridiculous if you want. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
The number I've seen for American private overseas contributions is closer to $35 billion[^]. Which still more than triples Gov't spending. I'd be interested to know if private donations are about the same/less/more in other nations. More out of curiosity, than to say we/you suck. If these numbers are accurate though, I think it helps to show that aid will be available to the needy even without gov't help, despite what more socialist thinkers would say. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the Newbrianwelsch wrote: The number I've seen for American private overseas contributions is closer to $35 billion[^]. Which still more than triples Gov't spending. A more detailed presentation by the same author (at least without paying for the article) is here: http://www.techcentralstation.com/082102N.html[^] Roughly half this total consists of remittances by migrants to their families in their country of origin. This would not normally be classified as foreign aid. Beyond that, I can't say how this figure can be reconciled with the much smaller one in the article cited by Doug Golden. brianwelsch wrote: If these numbers are accurate though, I think it helps to show that aid will be available to the needy even without gov't help, despite what more socialist thinkers would say. If those numbers are accurate, then foreign aid relative to national income is pretty close to zero --- in all countries. John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
-
Of course, that is not from the article I posted, so I went looking for it elsewhere. Asked about the response of rich nations to such crises, he said: "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really." "If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous," he said. No mention of the US and nothing in the question warrants the mention of the US by name. If the article I cited is correct, then he did mention the US by name. Where is that in the article you cite? I don't guess we will know the whole truth until the actual transcript is released. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
The article I cited was the one that started this thread so you can read it for yourself. All mention of the US in any negative way has been in the US press as commentary added by US reporters and by a select number of US CPians. Not that any of them would have any ulterior motive in this of course.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
John Carson wrote: Personally I'm not impressed with how most governmental organizations spend money, and I think most Americans are less than pleased with the government spending more of their money. Sad if true. When have you ever seen any program that the US any government runs well or efficiently? You have an overly inflated view of the value of government in my opinion. What I find interesting is that I would guess that you are probably very concerned about the attempt by the US to use the Patriot act because you are concerned with your rights. Yet at the same time you appear to advocate the government removing more of your (or my) income to help other people. I don't think that governments spend money effectively for aid or defense. That brings me to my second point.... John Carson wrote: Here is a thought. Let the US military be funded by private donations. No, wait, you only suggest funding by private donation for those things where you don't care how much money is raised. That is what is called a faulty assumtion on your part. I do suggest private contributions for humanitarian issues, as well as the government providing help. My problem with all of this is that so many people, yourself included apparently, wring their hands over what the government is doing to help. When was the last time that some of these same people have stepped up to help their neighbor even? Government programs do tend to be wasteful and ineffective, welfare programs have succeeded in creating a class of people who are dependent (in large part) on handouts with many making little effort to get off it. I am all for giving help to people a hand when they need it, hell we can ante up food, medicines, even send Reservist and faith based organizations, I'm all for it. I just don't want to see in the long term, the formation of another buracracy to waste more money. Fund UNICEF or a handful of other organizations, I'm all for it. Build schools, roads, wells, etc so underpriveleged people can help themselves..... I'm all for it. But thats not the issue here, here it is about helping an enourmous group of people over what will probably be a relatively short time (say 6 - 9 months). They need the help, I never said they didn't, the scope of this is unimaginable. John Carson wrote: The way you prioritise ideological dogma and petty anti-anti-US point scoring over humanitarian concerns appalls me. I also didn't pri
Doug Goulden wrote: When have you ever seen any program that any government runs well or efficiently? Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise are run pretty efficiently - if you owe them so much as a penny they will come after you and your assets with no expenses spared. ;P
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
Doug Goulden wrote: When have you ever seen any program that any government runs well or efficiently? Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise are run pretty efficiently - if you owe them so much as a penny they will come after you and your assets with no expenses spared. ;P
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
:laugh::laugh::laugh: I stand corrected..... the Internal Revenue Service is a very effective agency here in the States pursuing the offender tirelessly Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
brianwelsch wrote: The number I've seen for American private overseas contributions is closer to $35 billion[^]. Which still more than triples Gov't spending. A more detailed presentation by the same author (at least without paying for the article) is here: http://www.techcentralstation.com/082102N.html[^] Roughly half this total consists of remittances by migrants to their families in their country of origin. This would not normally be classified as foreign aid. Beyond that, I can't say how this figure can be reconciled with the much smaller one in the article cited by Doug Golden. brianwelsch wrote: If these numbers are accurate though, I think it helps to show that aid will be available to the needy even without gov't help, despite what more socialist thinkers would say. If those numbers are accurate, then foreign aid relative to national income is pretty close to zero --- in all countries. John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
Some articles I scanned through suggest that if all countries met the 0.7% target for aid we'd have too much money floating around. Which could leave us with a surplus for situations like we now face. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
brianwelsch wrote: If these numbers are accurate though, I think it helps to show that aid will be available to the needy even without gov't help, despite what more socialist thinkers would say. I don't honestly know if its more or less, but my point has been all along that problems like this shouldn't just be put forward as government operations. The problem I see is that many of the socialist thinkers are the ones who are afraid to get involved and help their neighbors. The guy broke down on the side of the road... let the cops help him. The crime they see.... don't get involved thats the cops job. Hey the town down the road gets flooded, FEMA or the National Guard will take care of it, I don't need to help. Personnaly I think we should be willing to stop and help one another, call that ridiculous if you want. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
I think the more we rely on private donations the more problems end out effecting us personally and the greater interest people show. If we solve things government agencies I get the feeling we just end out sheltering ourselves from the problems. Except during campaign season of course. I wouldn't mind government-based agencies helping to coordinate between the myriad private charities if I thought they could help make things more effective. For example, government owned shared networks, databases, helping to procure materials in volume to save money, shared facilities/offices, etc.. The actual running of the organization however would remain private. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the New -
Some articles I scanned through suggest that if all countries met the 0.7% target for aid we'd have too much money floating around. Which could leave us with a surplus for situations like we now face. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the Newbrianwelsch wrote: Some articles I scanned through suggest that if all countries met the 0.7% target for aid we'd have too much money floating around. Such articles are nonsense. Give countries export credits and allow them to import machinery (or books or computers or medicines) or hire teachers or.... They could make use of this very easily. In the short term, there may be a shortage of organisational structures (the "bureaucracy" routinely decried) to make use of certain types of aid, but that is easily overcome in the long term (if necessary, you can simply hire people from the Western world to come over and run the program). John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde
-
I think the more we rely on private donations the more problems end out effecting us personally and the greater interest people show. If we solve things government agencies I get the feeling we just end out sheltering ourselves from the problems. Except during campaign season of course. I wouldn't mind government-based agencies helping to coordinate between the myriad private charities if I thought they could help make things more effective. For example, government owned shared networks, databases, helping to procure materials in volume to save money, shared facilities/offices, etc.. The actual running of the organization however would remain private. BW
"Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
Today"
-Days of the NewI agree completely, those C130s, C5's and other transports that John wanted privately funded should be made available whenever possible to help out with these efforts. I also think that helping people shouldn't be a matter of politics, I don't care if the disaster is in Europe, Africa, or the Middle East, people should work together to help one another ... suffering isn't a political thing. During Hurricane Andrew a friend of mine was in the Navy and helping he commented on how they actually had to stop working when all the politicians would show up for a photo op. He got to meet several politicians who shall remain nameless....:rolleyes: Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
John Carson wrote: Personally I'm not impressed with how most governmental organizations spend money, and I think most Americans are less than pleased with the government spending more of their money. Sad if true. When have you ever seen any program that the US any government runs well or efficiently? You have an overly inflated view of the value of government in my opinion. What I find interesting is that I would guess that you are probably very concerned about the attempt by the US to use the Patriot act because you are concerned with your rights. Yet at the same time you appear to advocate the government removing more of your (or my) income to help other people. I don't think that governments spend money effectively for aid or defense. That brings me to my second point.... John Carson wrote: Here is a thought. Let the US military be funded by private donations. No, wait, you only suggest funding by private donation for those things where you don't care how much money is raised. That is what is called a faulty assumtion on your part. I do suggest private contributions for humanitarian issues, as well as the government providing help. My problem with all of this is that so many people, yourself included apparently, wring their hands over what the government is doing to help. When was the last time that some of these same people have stepped up to help their neighbor even? Government programs do tend to be wasteful and ineffective, welfare programs have succeeded in creating a class of people who are dependent (in large part) on handouts with many making little effort to get off it. I am all for giving help to people a hand when they need it, hell we can ante up food, medicines, even send Reservist and faith based organizations, I'm all for it. I just don't want to see in the long term, the formation of another buracracy to waste more money. Fund UNICEF or a handful of other organizations, I'm all for it. Build schools, roads, wells, etc so underpriveleged people can help themselves..... I'm all for it. But thats not the issue here, here it is about helping an enourmous group of people over what will probably be a relatively short time (say 6 - 9 months). They need the help, I never said they didn't, the scope of this is unimaginable. John Carson wrote: The way you prioritise ideological dogma and petty anti-anti-US point scoring over humanitarian concerns appalls me. I also didn't pri
Doug Goulden wrote: When have you ever seen any program that the US any government runs well or efficiently? There a plenty of examples. Government funded health care in most Western countries compares favourably to the more privately funded US system (costing far less and producing longer life-spans). Public schools work well in Australia and, judging by some international comparisons of academic achievement, seem to work well in various European countries. On a smaller scale, there is a railway bridge over a river near where I live. It was originally constructed by a private firm and had to be pulled down a couple of decades later because the use of substandard materials made it dangerous. It was then built by government workers and has been problem free ever since. There are certainly plenty of examples of government inefficiency, but the public vs private comparison is far more mixed than you suppose. Doug Goulden wrote: My problem with all of this is that so many people, yourself included apparently, wring their hands over what the government is doing to help. When was the last time that some of these same people have stepped up to help their neighbor even? Government programs do tend to be wasteful and ineffective, welfare programs have succeeded in creating a class of people who are dependent (in large part) on handouts with many making little effort to get off it. We are roaming rather far afield here. Issues of long term dependency are hardly relevant when discussing responses to an acute crisis. Your comments do, however, lead into a little understood point. Why do those on the left prefer public provision? This is for several reasons, but the most poorly understood one is an economists' argument --- and not a specifically left-wing economists argument. Consider the issue of homelessness. Suppose that, by the wise spending of $x, the problem could be substantially alleviated. Now we ask each American how much it would be worth to them personally to have this alleviation take place and assume they answer truthfully. If, say, it is worth an average of $5 per person, then that is more than $1 billion in total. Suppose that the total comes to $y, where y > x. If everyone contributes x/y times what the alleviation is worth to them, then the project can go ahead and everyone is better off, including the homeless. Note that this is true using each individual's own judgement of when they personall