Bush's ratings at historic low

As I sat watching CNN's coverage of the Tsunami, with the projected death counts at over 100,000 people, I couldn't help but think of the estimated civilian casualties of the Iraqi war (over 100,000). Then Bush offers a measley $35M for aid relief. In my business, I've written checks for more than that to purchase software. $35M is nothing when you think of what is being spent on the war and other things contributing to the deficit.

Is this man really pro-life, or simply pro-birth? Get the babies in the world but don't bother to take care of them once they arrive. I wonder what would happen if he lost his family and all his personal belongings, without food, water or sanitation to sustain him. Where's the empathy?

OK, so he's never had my approval, and each example of his policies simply makes me more and more mad each day.

I thought they were offering $35 million for now but would be giving more....

Complain all you want about the initial pledge of relief aid, but the US is still pledging more than any other nation, especially considering that Bush has also pledged military troops to aid with the disaster relief as well (some of which are already on the ground there) and long term support.

And where was the righteous indignation at Germany's initial pledge of only $2.7 million initially (that has been upped to $20 million now)? Or China's $2.6 million? Or France's 100,000 Euros (now upped to $20.5 million)? I think the US's $12 million pledge, upped to $35 million with long term support promised isn't exactly "stingy".

Personally I'm tired of the US in general and Bush in particular being the world's whipping boy.

Yes, it is indeed the truth, the U. S. is "stingy" when it comes to foreign aid, regardless of the administration in power at any one time.

The U. S. is the richest nation on earth, and yes, it does give the largest absolute sum in U. S. dollars in foreign aid of any country.

But, let us put this in perspective. The foreign aid the U. S. provides annually to the poorest of the poor is pocket change. Of all developed countries, that's right, all of them, the U. S. gives in foreign aid the lowest percentage of its gross national project, some 0.14%. That is just a little bit over one percent of one percent.

To put it in a different perspective, compare our pledge of $35 million to aid destitute tsunami victims to the Republican Party's latest budget for Bush's inaugural festivities -- $40+ million. I hope their champagne and caviar makes them sick.

Happy New Year, all,

Jim & Ann

$35 million is not all the US is giving...

We spoke of a "pledge." The full extent of assistance remains to be seen.

Furthermore, the percentage of GNP in our last post included all sources of foreign aid, not just cash money, including the U. S. Marines, more of whom ought to be enroute to help in Sri Lanka rather than dying in Fallujah.

Cheers,

Jim & Ann

Speaking of our pledges, back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar. NY Times, editorial page, 30 Dec. 2004.

Jim & Ann

Rhetorical question...

Had Clinton pledged $35 million to a disaster like this would he have been ripped to shreds for being "stingy" or been lauded for his generosity?

Your question is not at all rhetorical, and the answer is an uncategorical "Yes!" This point was explicitly intended when in our first post we applied the "stingy" label "regardless of the administration in power at any one time." We "ripped to shreds" all our administrations, regardless of political party, and no one person.

Jim & Ann

You are a tsunami victim. You get water, medicine, and food. I don't think you'll worry about what country sent it or how much the grand total is. You'll be grateful for what you did receive.

Can we focus on what IS being done? And to all who are griping we ALL could do more. Don't take your family on vacation next year. Give that money to the relief victims. Don't go out to eat. Send the money to them.

It's easy to point out the stinginess of others, including your government. Yes, the government could do more. We all could.

That must have happened after I wrote that post. I see now that Britain has also upped its pledge to $96 million. I did try to get the most up to date information when I wrote it, but obviously things are happening quickly with this story.

I find it so interesting that the same people who screamed to high heaven about the horrible deficit are now complaining because we aren't giving enough money. I'm not saying we are giving enough money, but for heaven's sake - a little consistency shouldn't be too much to ask!

And once again...the only one saying anti-American is you.

This should not be a contest about which country or leader is giving more or less.... Because, if that was the case we ALL could do a lot more to aid those countries that were affected. I think that Bush is doing his best with what he was given.

Was that a Freudian slip or intentional: "unpresidented" for "unprecedented"?
I know you'd like to get rid of him as soon as possible, Marge, but.... I think his mangling of the English language is starting to rub off on the rest of us!
One word to Bush's poor ratings: Iraq!

Thank you....I was hoping that someone would make this point. Who cares who gives what?!?! We are helping the best we can. Not just with the victims from the Tsunami....but we are trying to help people in Iraq....atleast that's what I believe....

Not to dispute you, but Canada has pledged 40 mil plus we have sent in disaster relief teams to assist. More money and support will follow. I think that the 35 mil pledged by the US is a great effort and I would never knock them for this. This is not about any war or conflict. This is a time for nations to pull together and help. For example, Canada has suspended debt repayment for all nations impacted by this disaster.

Just to clarify again, when I posted that post according the the most up to date information at the time, the statement that the US had pledged the most was true. Since that time, as other nations have stepped up their pledges, it is no longer true.

The point I was trying to make was that the allegation that the US was "stingy" was made when the US made the initial pledge of $12 million when other industrialized nations had put up paltry sums, i.e. France's $100,000 euros, and Germany's $2.7 million. Yet the US was the one getting slammed internationally. I expect Bush to get slammed in here no matter what he does, and of course he was.

I would never "slam" Bush and the US for the aid they have so generously given - I think that they have stepped forwrd as a leader in this time of disaster. For a country at war, the US has many resources spread over a wide area. The fact they are contributing while keeping up their other obligations is impressive. We also need to factor in the "expertise" they are sending in to help on the ground. That cannot be measured.

I think alot of nations made initial pledges low and once the scale of devestation was determined, everyone has stepped up. The important thing will be nations working together to prevent further deaths from desease. I also like Canada's idea of suspending debt repayment for the forseeable future for these nations in need.

I agree with you!!! Today, we went to a health food supermarket and saw a group of young girls (probably about 11 years old) selling hot chocolate to send 100% of the proceeds to the tsunami victims. Of course, we had to buy some to support them - it is people like them that I appreciate more than any government - because the government feels they are obliged to do so, but 11 year olds aren't, but they do it out of the goodness of their own hearts. I hope there are more kids like them, especially in todays world where kids are spoiled and selfish.

US Boosts Tsunami Aid to $350 Million

As with many other countries, after more assessments of the situation the US has upped it's pledge to $350 million, bringing the total world amount pledged to over $800 million. The world is coming together on this and as the need is becoming clearer the nations of the world are all putting forth what will be needed to help that region recover economically.

Perhaps for justifiable reasons? Just remember that most of the people slamming him here are also U.S. citizens, not xenophobes. Who's doing damage control? Colin Powell, who has managed to salvage some shreds of respect internationally, despite the WMD fiasco, and who won't be "available" for Bush's second term. Japan, roughly the size of California (geographically), is giving $500 million. If you think the criticism of Bush is tough here, check out some other forums - BBC, IHT, NYT, WP, LAT, CNN, AOL! "Killing" the messenger of bad tidings won't change the situation. Sorry if my post is b****y. but I believe you're not facing the situation.

Tricia,

In support of your point, certainly not to question it, the latest news here, if correct, is that Japan has now pledged $800+ million, in comparison to the $350 million by the U.S. And yes, gentle readers, I am well aware that Colin Powell has expressed the likelihood of more, and that our stretched-thin military is involved. He will undoubtedly continue to attempt to cool things between the U. S. and the rest of the world until the day Condi Rice takes over his desk, and, hopefully, even more visibly after. I also recognize, and never questioned, the liberality of the American people, as contrasted with their government.

The whole point in the beginning was that the U. S., among all developed countries, gives less foreign aid as a percentage of GNP than any other. That is indisputable -- a fact -- history -- and all the well-intended diversions and changes of the subject do not change that fact one iota -- they are not relevant to the issue. To change the focus of a discussion does not invalidate the original hypothesis, although that is a typical reaction by one who cannot rebut an argument.

In sum, while it may be true that the international community is responding to this tragedy, both through individuals and governments, magnificently, this started out by observing that the U. S. government, regardless of the political party presiding in Washington, is, in relative terms, stingy when it comes to foreign aid.

What has happened here is that the UK first came in with a pledge of about 3X the U. S. pledge at the time of $35 million, and the word started going around Washington that Tony Blair, our only reliable colleague internationally, was embarrassing Bush. Pennsylvania Avenue started simmering, and then the French, that's right, THE MUCH-MALIGNED FRENCH, came in higher than the U.S. That is when we went up to $350 million -- couldn't let the French show us up.

Right on, Tricia.

Jim

Wow, well, I see my opinion sure isn't welcome in this thread anymore! Points well taken...

No, no, Heidi. Not at all. Ann just jumped on me something awful.

You are one of my best buddies here. I suspect that it is clear to most that I love a good debate, and both my training and experience has been to debate either side of any particular question at the drop of a hat. Being bored in retirement I would be so disappointed if you did not throw me a bone now and then to trigger my interest. It takes two to tango, and you are a good dancer! You express rational and logical opinions and give relevant facts to support them. Disagreement with an opinion does not make it unwelcome -- quite the contrary in my case.

You have a great 2005, and meet me on IMO now and then and together we may trigger others to join in -- it matters not on which side. That is called "thinking in print," a great quality to possess. And, if you add up the posts on both sides here you might be surprised to find that I am in the minority, not you.

Cheers,

Jim