quote:

ORIGINAL: deadbluebird

i dont think its about being a "world leader". its about being seen as fair, decent, kind people, which we are not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: selfbnd411

Not true.  America is the second most miserly developed nation in the world in terms of foreign aid as a percentage of GDP.  We edge out Greece!

The three most generous developed nations in the world as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product are:
Greece (1.03%)
Luxembourg (0.89%)
Norway (0.89%)

The three least generous developed nations in the world are:
Italy (0.2%)
USA (0.17%)
Greece (0.16%)

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

quote:

ORIGINAL: minnetar

quote:

ORIGINAL: selfbnd411

Not true.  America is the second most miserly developed nation in the world in terms of foreign aid as a percentage of GDP.  We edge out Greece!

The three most generous developed nations in the world as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product are:
Greece (1.03%)
Luxembourg (0.89%)
Norway (0.89%)

The three least generous developed nations in the world are:
Italy (0.2%)
USA (0.17%)
Greece (0.16%)

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

i am in total shock in regards to that statistic - is there any other site to back that up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I'm with popeye, I don't really care at all, zero, nada, what the "generic" world thinks.

Now, some places do have a right, presently to judge us, because we have troops in their countries. I'd pull them all back as soon as feasible, let the world figure it out. And then it's none of their business anymore how we conduct ourselves because it's all within our borders.

Really, I'm all for a isolationist policy in regards to government intervention in foreign lands. We can talk and trade, whatever. But militarily speaking, and aid US only, barring attack. So, we should be in one other country right now, and that would be afghanistan. We don't need to be in the 100 Plus other locations around the world.

Simplistic, maybe, but this huge mess we call a planet is impossible to "fix" to the satisfaction of everyone. And we are in the present situation by sticking our noses in everything. So, you help country x country y  hates you, or some faction hates you. Some country will always hate us for A. Helping X country, or B not helping X country. Seems cheaper and safer just not to help any country, and protect your own country. And it doesn't help our cause at all and doesn't seem to help the country long term economicly to Hurt country X for our long term benefit either, as they always seem to get free from us eventually, or exploiting another country hurts our own economy.

Best to do no harm, and harm is often wrapped in good intentions as well. So, do nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: minnetar

i am in total shock in regards to that statistic - is there any other site to back that up?

minnetar

• Australia: $88m
  
• Germany: $200m
  
• United States: $120m
  
• Norway: $60m
  
• Britain: $189m
  
• Italy: $20m
  
• Sweden: $60m
  
• France: $49m
  
• Canada: $57m
  
• South Korea: $13m
  
• Netherlands: $35m
  
• Saudi Arabia: $31m
  
• Switzerland: $39m

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

minn,

Don't buy it whole hog.

Look up non-governmental giving as well, not simply tax monies spent.

You might get a different idea.

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: minnetar

i am in total shock in regards to that statistic - is there any other site to back that up?

minnetar

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/disasters/tsunami.asp

The above is a link relating to aid for victims of the Tsunami. Of course, it's only one example.

It includes the following:

But many countries have also seen large private donations, some exceeding their government's donations. The same BBC article also lists some of those:

• Australia: $88m
  
• Germany: $200m
  
• United States: $120m
  
• Norway: $60m
  
• Britain: $189m
  
• Italy: $20m
  
• Sweden: $60m
  
• France: $49m
  
• Canada: $57m
  
• South Korea: $13m
  
• Netherlands: $35m
  
• Saudi Arabia: $31m
  
• Switzerland: $39m

quote:

ORIGINAL: minnetar

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I'm with popeye, I don't really care at all, zero, nada, what the "generic" world thinks.

Now, some places do have a right, presently to judge us, because we have troops in their countries. I'd pull them all back as soon as feasible, let the world figure it out. And then it's none of their business anymore how we conduct ourselves because it's all within our borders.

Really, I'm all for a isolationist policy in regards to government intervention in foreign lands. We can talk and trade, whatever. But militarily speaking, and aid US only, barring attack. So, we should be in one other country right now, and that would be afghanistan. We don't need to be in the 100 Plus other locations around the world.

Simplistic, maybe, but this huge mess we call a planet is impossible to "fix" to the satisfaction of everyone. And we are in the present situation by sticking our noses in everything. So, you help country x country y  hates you, or some faction hates you. Some country will always hate us for A. Helping X country, or B not helping X country. Seems cheaper and safer just not to help any country, and protect your own country. And it doesn't help our cause at all and doesn't seem to help the country long term economicly to Hurt country X for our long term benefit either, as they always seem to get free from us eventually, or exploiting another country hurts our own economy.

Best to do no harm, and harm is often wrapped in good intentions as well. So, do nothing.

What about the need for being in the Sudan based on the genocide going on there?

minnetar

quote:

ORIGINAL: minnetar

thank You Firm but that is why i had asked for an additional source as i was very skeptical.

... the authors found at least $62.1 billion in U.S. private donations to developing countries in 2003, the last year numbers are available. This philanthropy, from U.S. foundations, corporations, non-profits and volunteerism, universities and colleges, religious organizations and individuals is over three and one-half times U.S. Official Development Assistance (ODA) of $16.3 billion.

While the United States gives the greatest absolute amount of ODA to developing countries, it is routinely criticized for being "stingy" because U.S. Government aid ranks last among donor nations as a percent of Gross National Income (GNI). U.S. official aid is .15 percent of GNI compared to Norway, the highest ranked donor, at .92 percent.

What such criticism ignores, however, is that the measure, developed by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), fails to take into account the primary way in which Americans help others abroad: through the private sector. "ODA is an outdated and inaccurate way of measuring a country's generosity," says Dr. Adelman, Director of the Center for Science in Public Policy, at the Hudson Institute. "Americans prefer to give people to people assistance versus Europeans who give primarily government to government aid."

Nor does the OECD fully measure count U.S. military contributions to peacekeeping and security, U.S. private industry investments that generate the bulk of research and development for better food and medicines, or preferential trade agreements that support imports from developing countries. The measure also excludes the $1.5 billion in foreign aid that the U.S. provides to Israel, Central and Eastern Europe, and Russia since these countries exceed the OECD poverty criterion.

Most importantly, the number does not include $51 billion of U.S. private capital flows to developing countries, consisting of foreign direct investment and net capital markets. This private investment creates jobs and economic growth, the surest way to reducing poverty.