What Really Happened

[clocker]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@24 May 2003 - 20:55


By the way, I should point out that I don't necessarily have anything against US military interventions. Indeed, i think the problem is that American voters can't stomach the casualties, which leads to 800,000 dead to save 50 or 100 american lives. This ain't what i call bravery. Or selflessness.

Where/when did this happen?

[OlderThanDirt]

Well, I said it before and I'll say it again. Government funding does not constitute all funding. Using government foreign aid statistics alone in an inaccurate portrayal of aid from any country in general and wealthy countries in particular.

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@25 May 2003 - 03:46

myfiles3000 wrote:

I wish i knew definitively, but I believe the majority of NGO funding comes from the government anyway.

I doubt that. I suspect the majority of NGO funding comes from organizations like the United Way or corporate sponsorship (or both). And in the United Way's case, funding comes from grassroots America, one individual at a time ... though I suspect corporate sponsorships are the real cash-cows. But, as I said, I'm unaware of any statistical information either way.

Corporate?! Hang on a second, i thought the topic was international development aid. i don't know what % of funding is accounted for by corporations, but common sense would dictate that it's in the neighbourhood of squat. after all, providing clean drinking etc is not compatible with maximizing profits. its not the role of the private sector to save the world.

[OlderThanDirt]

myfiles3000 wrote:

Corporate?! Hang on a second, i thought the topic was international development aid.

I thought the topic was "the real war" ... and that questions of foreign aid (not just government foreign aid) came out of it.

i don't know what % of funding is accounted for by corporations, but common sense would dictate that it's in the neighbourhood of squat. after all, providing clean drinking etc is not compatible with maximizing profits. its not the role of the private sector to save the world.

No, it's the role of corporatations to find a tax write-off ... and corporate charitible funding is a very good way to do this -- especially if corporations give hard goods at "their" prices and write them off at "retail" prices. And NGOs are always lobbying them, eager to suggest methods of doing this. It's also a good PR tool. But, regardless of their motivations, the money is spent.

[clocker]

Originally posted by clocker+24 May 2003 - 21:03--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 May 2003 - 21:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--myfiles3000@24 May 2003 - 20:55


By the way, I should point out that I don&#39;t necessarily have anything against US military interventions. Indeed, i think the problem is that American voters can&#39;t stomach the casualties, which leads to 800,000 dead to save 50 or 100 american lives. This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.

Where/when did this happen?[/b][/quote]
Ah,I&#39;m still waiting...

[OlderThanDirt]

clocker wrote:

Ah,I&#39;m still waiting...

Me, too. I&#39;m unaware of any military adventure of the United States where we killed 800,000 people to save 50-100 American lives.

[clocker]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@24 May 2003 - 21:49

clocker wrote:

Ah,I&#39;m still waiting...

Me, too. I&#39;m unaware of any military adventure of the United States where we killed 800,000 people to save 50-100 American lives.

Perhaps he was indulging in a bit of ah, hyperbole.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000+24 May 2003 - 21:35--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 24 May 2003 - 21:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@25 May 2003 - 02:29

j2k4 et al, I&#39;ll let the numbers speak for themselves. I find them more convincing than platitudes like "at least we try" and "too much hand-biting".

Comparison of aid spending as % of GNI -- USA is 21st, behind Greece and Portugal

[/b][/quote]
Myfiles-

I noticed the numbers spoke (regardless of percentage of GDP) to the tune of &#39;1560&#39; (BILLION&#33;??&#33;?) in 1980 and &#39;fell&#39; steadily until they reached a low of &#39;2504&#39; (again, BILLION&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?) in the most recent year quoted.

I&#39;m not sure of the effect of inflation during the same time frame, but I&#39;d bet it doesn&#39;t keep pace with this, uh, (here goes nothing) GROWTH-SHRINKAGE

I hope you&#39;ll forgive me for failing to realize an expectation on the part of the U.N. (their &#39;target&#39; number) rose to the status of a hard obligation. In light of this, I&#39;m relatively sure they&#39;re upset about Iraq, too, huh? Just a guess.

I thought (even during the Clinton years) that we were the masters of our own ship; we haven&#39;t been scheduled by the U.N. to join the E.U. by any chance, have we?

By the way, just to confirm that I am up to speed:

The U.S. is officially a HYPERPOWER?

As defined by the U.N.?

Cool-THAT doesn&#39;t bother me in the least.

[kAb]

http://www.cbpp.org/4-25-00bud-f1.jpg

notice how the graph shows how much we&#39;re going to spend in the next two years

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by j2k4@25 May 2003 - 05:07
I noticed the numbers spoke (regardless of percentage of GDP) to the tune of &#39;1560&#39; (BILLION&#33;??&#33;?) in 1980 and &#39;fell&#39; steadily until they reached a low of &#39;2504&#39; (again, BILLION&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?) in the most recent year quoted.

I&#39;m not sure of the effect of inflation during the same time frame, but I&#39;d bet it doesn&#39;t keep pace with this, uh, (here goes nothing) GROWTH-SHRINKAGE

I hope you&#39;ll forgive me for failing to realize an expectation on the part of the U.N. (their &#39;target&#39; number) rose to the status of a hard obligation. In light of this, I&#39;m relatively sure they&#39;re upset about Iraq, too, huh? Just a guess.

I thought (even during the Clinton years) that we were the masters of our own ship; we haven&#39;t been scheduled by the U.N. to join the E.U. by any chance, have we?

By the way, just to confirm that I am up to speed:

The U.S. is officially a HYPERPOWER?

As defined by the U.N.?

Cool-THAT doesn&#39;t bother me in the least.

this argument wouldn&#39;t hold up in high school, let alone a first year econ class. let alone a discussion among educated adults. The US economy has grown immensely since 1980, whereas the increase in spending has not kept place, not even close. To try to counter relative economic statistics with absolutes, well, again, i&#39;ll let THAT rhetorical device speak for itself. What next, compare current spending with that of the 1800&#39;s?&#33; I know, I&#39;ll knock on some guy&#39;s door, explain to him that the home he&#39;s selling sold for &#036;7200 in 1904, and offer him &#036;1400, because, its 100 years old, after all.

As i said, i hate to muddle the discussion with facts....

AFAIK, usa as hyperpower is a widely accepted term. but perhaps i read too much.