NEWS: NY Times calls U.S. aid for tsunami 'miserly'

An editorial appearing in the New York Times called the United States response to the tsunami crisis miserly. It further stated that the U.N. official who criticized western states for not giving enough was on target. They further criticized President Bush for waiting until Wednesday to express sympathy and called the 35 million earmarked for relief a drop in the bucket.


I�m not exactly sure what the NY Times editorial staff was expecting other than controversy to sell more papers. Curious, how much has the Times offered in the way of aid? Or does this editorial constitute their best effort for the people of Asia? I�m sad to see that it boils down to pledged money for some people and not the whole package. The rant / editorial eaves out the cost of diverting an entire carrier battle group, or the Marine expeditionary unit. Or the cost of the transports and plane doing search and rescue. Perhaps if they really look at what was being provided rather than taking cheap shots at a President they did not endorse, they could see the whole scope of things.



[edit on 31-12-2004 by Banshee]

Originally posted by FredT
The rant .. leaves out the cost of diverting an entire carrier battle group, or the Marine expeditionary unit. Or the cost of the transports and plane doing search and rescue. Perhaps if they really look at what was being provided rather than taking cheap shots at a President they did not endorse, they could see the whole scope of things.

And Satellite images and technology ... etc. etc. etc.

FredT ... you said it so perfectly! This RAG (NYT), and for that matter
anyone who refuses to admit that Americans have given FAR MORE
than the 35$ million initial government package, just want to live
with blinders on for their own bizzare political (anti-American) reasons.
The donations from corporate America are IMMENSE. Yep, those big
bad anti-people business sure are coming through *sarcasim intended*.
The millions that those companies are donating come right out of the
company profits and directly out of the pockets of shareholders
(AMERICANS for the most part). UPS, Johnson and Johnson, Catholic
Charities, Amazon.Com, etc. etc. etc. ... The TV news estimated that
the PRIVATE amounts (non-gov't) given out of America will easily
reach one billion dollars. (reported by CNN, MSNBC, and FOX)

BTW - 'GIVING' means just that ... GIVING. Not forcing a tax on
someone so they HAVE TO send $$$ around the world. Not taking
$$$ that we have already paid the US Gov't for other things and
diverting it to Asia. Giving means GIVING, which Americans are
doing all over the country and which doesn't make the news.
Heck .. I walked into the News Stand around the corner and there
was a big glass jug with a hand written message on it asking for
donations for the quake victims. The jar was FULL of cash. This
from a tiny little news stand in Delaware. How many more of these
are set up around the town? Around the state? Around the country?
None of them will make the news and yet it is all $$$ given by
AMERICANS.

One person's commentary on the 'giving' thing...
www.townhall.com...

The RANTS about America being 'miserly' or 'stingy' are NAUSIATING
at best. I guess you can lead ignorant people to the truth
(that America is VERY generous) but you can't force them to
accept it, can you? Sad for them. Very sad.

When you take into account that Bush's innaguration will cost $45million, the fact that we spend 100m on the war on terror daily- 30 something million donated to the cause is peanuts and it is miserly. I know that individually, Americans are extremely generous and will more than double this amount-thank goodness.

dgtempe

As I pointed out just looking at $$$ figure is misleading. How much would you put on the planes and ships heading that way? Or the Airlift. Or the P-3C's already performing search and rescue operations. Or the chopers lifting supplies, etc etc These alone run into the 100's of millions, yet are not even considered :shk:

Don't we have some angry Republicans about?

I'm so sorry for your loss. Wait, you aren't the victims. I keep forgetting.

By the way, here's some interesting factoids on Bush's previous "generosity" with your tax dollars in the face of tragedy, not to mention some perspective.

137 Red Staters die under Govenor-Brother's watch...

Bush Requests $7.1 BILLION from Congress for Florida Aid

130,000 plus die somewhere else...(about the same amount of civilians Bush has killed in Iraq so far)

Bush offers about...

The cost of his Second Inaugural Party: $30 Million Dollars plus.

Or ten 30 second SuperBowl ads: 3 million dollars each.

Whatever. I'm not one to expect anything from Bush, but the feigned indignation from those shocked the UN or others criticise Bush's stand on the concept of humanity is a tad much.

[edit on 31-12-2004 by RANT]

C'mon, we should all know that G.W. Bush's intentions are anything but "Christian".

He doesn't give half a damn about the unfortunate.


And if your average individual American really was/is so generous; half of the nonsense that is going on right now wouldn't be.

The average American would be outraged, that near a $100 Billion dollars has been spent on this BS "War on Terror" instead of going toward things like this, if they were so generous.





[edit on 31-12-2004 by Tamahu]

More $$$ that is not in the offical tally

The Pentagon is also spending millions on relief, but that figure could not be calculated quickly. The relief included the arrival of four C-130 cargo planes in Thailand loaded with food, water and sheltering material, and a large supply of rice and other food and assistance was due to arrive in Indonesia by Friday.

US Relief

Originally posted by FredT
These alone run into the 100's of millions, yet are not even considered :shk:

I sure wish I could give you a bunch of applause! Facts and
figures are presented. Our American culture of private donations
is explained and examples are given .... and yet the boo's and
hisses continue. I'm thinking some folks just want to be
angry with America ... no matter what.

I've got to go dust off my college psychology books and take a
look at this behavior pattern. It's really mind numbing.

Originally posted by RANT
Don't we have some angry Republicans about?

I'm so sorry for your loss. Wait, you aren't the victims. I keep forgetting.

By the way, here's some interesting factoids on Bush's previous "generosity" with your tax dollars in the face of tragedy, not to mention some perspective.

137 Red Staters die under Govenor-Brother's watch...

Bush Requests $7.1 BILLION from Congress for Florida Aid

130,000 plus die somewhere else...(about the same amount of civilians Bush has killed in Iraq so far)

Bush offers about...

The cost of his Second Inaugural Party: $30 Million Dollars plus.

Or ten 30 second SuperBowl ads: 3 million dollars each.

Whatever. I'm not one to expect anything from Bush, but the feigned indignation from those shocked the UN or others criticise Bush's stand on the concept of humanity is a tad much.

[edit on 31-12-2004 by RANT]

RANT,

With all due respect...your point didn't get across here. Are you saying that Bush should NOT have dedicated funds to Florida for rebuilding? Are you saying that we should give as much to other countries as we do for our own people? Because if you are - that's ludicrous. We typically don't take mass amounts of money from the global community to mend our own wounds, but I would think we would have to start if we are going to try to apply equality of funds on every global disaster.

Though it seems some people are deluded into believing that a socialized globe would be utopia...I don't personally believe that. And until everybody signs on to such an arrangement, a given country is pretty much expected to foot the majority of its own disaster funds, and then the rest of us should pitch in to assist...not fund the whole darned thing.

Concerning how much is being spent on the inauguration. Though I absolutely agree its disgusting...it has already been pointed out that all funds contributed to this night of excessive consumption are private donations and not U.S. tax funds...so that is an entirely different issue.

[edit on 12-31-2004 by Valhall]

I am getting sick of hearing people say that the contributions of the US are pitiful. Personally, I think we ought to withdraw foriegn aid to a few countries that were not in the tsunami's path. Lets see just how generous our contributions really are. Just more people hateing on America. I am no Bush fan, and would use quite abit to show my thoughts about him. However, those American citizens that use this as an oportunity to Bash Bush are doing a disservice to our great nation. People, fget ovet it. Where would the rest of the poor countries be with out the economic help that America provides for them. This is just an example af ignorance embraced

Originally posted by RANT
137 Red Staters die under Govenor-Brother's watch...

Bush Requests $7.1 BILLION from Congress for Florida Aid

The cost of his Second Inaugural Party: $30 Million Dollars plus.

Or ten 30 second SuperBowl ads: 3 million dollars each.

Hello? The hurricanes were in AMERICA. Of course we are going to
spend more $$ on rebuilding America. We didn't exactly get hundreds
of millions of $$ in aid from other countries to help rebuild after our
hurricanes came through, did we? We had to do it ourselves. R U
complaining about what was spent in rebuilding and in aid? Heck, if
it wasn't spent in rebuilding and in aid I bet you'd still be complaining.
Be honest .. you would, wouldn't you?

BTW - it's not our responsibility to rebuild every country, every where,
when there is a disaster. The U.N. is supposed to be doing that. I
was rather pleased with the response from the World Bank. They
surprised me. Actually ... they shocked me.

I agree that the millions spent on inauguration should be shelved,
however I betchya' that Kerry and Skerry Terry would have spent
at least that much if not more on their coronation. When it comes
to lavish ... dems are equal opportunity offenders. (and considering
how spoiled Skerry Terry is .... )

The superbowl thing is ... well ... what is that? I don't understand
what the quote of a commercial cost has to do with relief efforts???
(I'm a hockey person, so I can't relate to super bowl stuff anyways)

Originally posted by dgtempe
When you take into account that Bush's innaguration will cost $45million, the fact that we spend 100m on the war on terror daily- 30 something million donated to the cause is peanuts and it is miserly. I know that individually, Americans are extremely generous and will more than double this amount-thank goodness.

Colin Powell made a statement yesterday regarding the initial amounts sent and explained why this was done. Guess the media wanted to run with the Bush bashing rather then the facts again.

What Powell stated was he was on his way to assess the situation first hand with a team of experts to help determine what and how much is really needed before just sending out what amounted to a blank check.

He did not say those exact words, they are mine, however it was rather clear from what he said and how he said it, that they wanted to see the damage first hand.

What he said made sense to me. I also noticed very few of the networks actually carried that story. My guess is they prefered the Bush bashing then giving out the real facts.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I've got to go dust off my college psychology books and take a
look at this behavior pattern. It's really mind numbing.

And herein lies part of the problem.

It's the adherence to this Western "psychology" that creates such ignorance here in America.

Western thinking is devilish and backwards, and totally out of tune with the Laws of Maat, Islam, Buddha and Christ.

*sighs*








[edit on 31-12-2004 by Tamahu]

Originally posted by Valhall
Concerning how much is being spent on the inauguration. Though I absolutely agree its disgusting...it has already been pointed out that all funds contributed to this night of excessive consumption are private donations and not U.S. tax funds...so that is an entirely different issue.

I didn't know that. I probably should have figured that, but I didn't
know that! Private donations? Corporate and private? Interesting.
I think it's still a bit much, but if it's private and not our tax $$, then
I guess politicians can spend all they want and I don't have any
say in it. (I'd still like to see it toned down ... considering what's
going on around the world)

One point in regards to the Florida hurricanes, the Loma Prieta Quake, the Irvine quake, the U.S. more or less deals with its own crisis, its own disasters.

Pledging money at the disaster does nothing except engage in a pissing contest with other countries. A far better measue is looking at actual responce. By far the U.S. has committed 12 major naval vessels (One the Ben Franklin has a 600 bed hospital + 200,000 gal desalination plant0 4 C-130's, multitudes of other planes and chopters.

This is real aid and will and IS helping right now.

Originally posted by Tamahu
It's the adherence to this Western "psychology" that creates such ignorance here in America. Western thinking is devilish and backwards, and totally out of tune with the Laws of Maat, Islam, Buddha and Christ.

Okay ... I'm interested. Please explain more.
(I was a psychology major)

Edited to add - How is donating tens of millions of dollars officially,
and hundreds of millions (a billion is expected) unofficially to be
considered 'out of tune' and 'devilish and backwards'?



[edit on 12/31/2004 by FlyersFan]

I am confused here now, I though the NY times make Mr. Bush man of the year.

By the way, compared to the 1 billion that other countries all together had pledge, I think the tsunami victims are very well taking care off.

And for Mr. Bush well, you can tell we are hurting for money here in our country when he is even cutting our defense budget because the Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts are becoming to expensive.

And remember the generosity of the American people has not boundaries, with all the pledge from private companies and citizens we will be on the top of the list anyway.

Perhaps Mr. Bush is counting on that same generosity so he does not has to used more of our tax payer money on the disaster, after all he has three countries to support, US, Iraq, and Afghanistan.


[edit on 31-12-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043
And remember the generosity of the American people has not boundaries, with all the pledge from private companies and citizens we will be on the top of the list anyway.

There ya' go! Thanks Marg! Ya' got it!

Really, it's not a contest to see who is 'on top of the list',
but, come on folks, just admit that Americans are generous
and giving and quit the irrational anti-america-no-matter-what
hatred. It's really strange. And it flys in the face of the facts.

Heck, even CNN was estimating that private donations
out of America will probably be around one billion $$.

If CNN can understand that ... (and MSNBC and FOX said it too)
.... It can't be that hard to understand.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

I didn't know that. I probably should have figured that, but I didn't
know that! Private donations? Corporate and private? Interesting.
I think it's still a bit much, but if it's private and not our tax $$, then
I guess politicians can spend all they want and I don't have any
say in it. (I'd still like to see it toned down ... considering what's
going on around the world)

Well, I still think it's shameful. But it has been, from day one - that would be 1776 or whenever that first inaugural ball took place. Though I understand the ball is connected with a tradition, that tradition itself is shameful as far as I'm concerned. The old "let them eat cake" mentality.

As long as one single american child goes to bed hungry, because their daddy is unemployed and can't buy food, or pay the utilities or even put a roof over their heads there should be no "grand celebration" of a presidential inauguration - out of respect for the ones we simply haven't been able to provide for. And when you consider that we will NEVER be able to provide for every one under our watch (and we won't - that's a fantasy) there should never have been, and should never be this type of celebration.

Every single president since day one has been guilty of allowing this to happen so no one president is more guilty. But it sure would be nice to get a president that had the honor and integrity to say...it aint happening with me!



[edit on 12-31-2004 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
RANT,

With all due respect...your point didn't get across here.

Understood. But I wasn't trying to necessarily make the point several others have over the past few days or is being critisized here. I purposefully did not jump on this situation with an opinion either way until I could begin to grasp the full scope of the global tragedy and (frankly) until I couldn't stand the two political sides arguing it any more.

I neither smirked nor guffawed when others called the US miserly or bashed Bush. I also understood when people defended Bush's reaction and the US to a point.

Now the whole thing is just fodder. I could excuse the initial Bush bashing as some emotional reaction to the tragedy up to a point, but not the backlash-backlash. I'm sick of hearing people that are sick of hearing people upset about this. Get me?

Now this is some "political" issue for some to call all lefties opportunists or bash the UN or complain about taxes or hate on liberal media or get even more xenophobic or make points about foreign aid or whatever.

If "lefties" were wrong to bash opportunistically, then "righties" need to walk the talk.

It's a mind numbing tragedy I can't help but consider globally.

Though it seems some people are deluded into believing that a socialized globe would be utopia...I don't personally believe that.

Input does not compute? Though I'd say I'd much prefer the delusion of socialized utopia to nationalistic struggle and greed.

If only we all were so "deluded" to want peace, harmony and compassion.