Should we be ashamed?

[MA-Caver]

This article posted as an editorial in the New York Times, certianly makes one think about present policies of the current administration. We've called ourselves the most powerful nation on earth and yet just how much do we help our poor, our hungry? How much do we truly help those we are liberating from their oppressors? The amount that we provide aid and solace compared to the amounts of warfare we wage against others are badly imbalanced. A 30 to 1 ratio.
There are worse governments I agree and there are worse situations and worse circumstances elsewhere. But how can we justify our intentions compared to our actions. Is it really all necessary?
We promise X amount and deliver Y. What gives?
Am I missing something here or is it just me?

 

[Phoenix44]

Yes, I'm ashamed of our national agenda,but I continue to be impressed by the generosity of many ordinary Americans.

 

[ghostdog2]

I think you are probably missing a great deal if you take everything in the New York Times at face value. Pretty much out of the closet now, the NYT is anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-administration, anti-establishment, anti-capitalism, and anti just about everything else in Washington from the Iraq war to global warming.
This little gem of an opinion piece likens the billions of dollars this country sends abroad to a $50.00 check. Hummm, seems exagerated to me.
Oh yeah. It also says we should be more like Norway and Sweden. Are they kidding? Norway and Sweden do more for underdeveloped countries than the USA? A joke, right? I forgot, the New York Times doesn't have a sense of humor.
They might as well say Latvia and Luxembourg. I mean, Norway and Sweden? The sales tax on what this country buys and gives away probably exceeds the GNP of these two powerhouses.
Last, and surely least, the NYT criticizes your and my country because we now address critical needs first. Long term hunger eradication programs are, they claim, getting lower priority. Let's think about this. If the long term programs were working, we wouldn't be having all these messy famines. So, maybe we should help the people who are starving, like today, and get with that long term solution when we actually have one. Of course, if we take the Times' advice and let the starving people starve, the long term problem will solve itself.
I'm proud of what this country does every day to help people here and abroad. No other country does as much and asks so little. I didn't want to jump too hard on all this, don't let the NYT frame the question. If it's made in America, they don't like it.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Your profile doesn't give any information as to where you live.

Such vitriol against *liberal Easterner* thought.

What's the matter with having a point of view and expressing it? First Amendment.

To paraphrase - "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

[rmcrobertson]

On the subject of brainwashing, O Ghostdog, p'raps you might want to look up the history of Rev. Sun Myung Moon's paper, the "Washington Times."

And on the matter of Sweden and Norway, the point was that they spend more of their GNP to help others than we do, by a considerable margin. And oh, just incidentally, most of the standard-of-living measurements assert that Norway and Sweden are better places to live than the United States.

And oh yeah, last I checked Cuba--yes, THAT Cuba--had a) lower rates of infant mortality, b) higher rates of adult literacy, than we do. And the only other countries besides ours that still had capital punishment were...hm, Communist China, Iran, North Korea....that sorta place.

But all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

 

[PeachMonkey]

While it's exciting to rant against the "liberal bias" of the New York Times, the cold, hard figures in the editorial are inescapable, "Ghostdog". You might try looking them up yourself, and considering the implications.

 

[michaeledward]

I think ... anti just about everything else in Washington from the Iraq war to global warming.

Just an FYI - Global warming isn't "in Washington" ... it's global.

Norway and Sweden do more for underdeveloped countries than the USA? A joke, right?

Not a joke. There are things out there called 'facts', you might avail yourself of them.
Also, just a primer in mathematics, if each country agreed to contribut .7% of their GDP to the cause in question, and Sweden and Norway are giving more than that percentage, and the US is giving less than that percentage, then yes, Virginia, they are doing more for underdeveloped countries.

Think of it like a flat tax.

The sales tax on what this country buys and gives away probably exceeds the GNP of these two powerhouses.

Are you suggesting we should redirect our Sales Tax to this cause? That would be very noble of you indeed.

But, if you are not making that suggestion, it seems this statement has no bearing on the fact that the United States is not living up to its agreements. We promised to contribute to this program, and we aren't.

Why reduce poverty and hunger in the world when we can instead build a missile defense sheild, I mean, except for that one of these programs works, and the other doesn't.

No other country does as much and asks so little.

Spoken like Sean Hannity. Of course, it has no bearing on the truth, but I see no reason to let that stop you.

Have a Merry Christmas.

Mike

 

[kenpo tiger]

Ghostdog,

Do you contribute to any American charity which helps the poor? Do you donate your time to literacy projects, soup kitchens, even coat drives? How about Big Brothers & Big Sisters? Do you coach a kids' sports team?

And, if you do contribute, do you take the tax deduction, or do it out of the goodness of your heart?

Try doing what I do - fund raising for a non-profit organization. I work mainly with corporations, most of whom are generous year after year to my organization, among many others. I also count among my constituents a large number of extremely wealthy, influential, Republican, Bush-supporting, Easterners who read the NY Times. He**, some of these people are responsible for bringing into being the media you watch, listen to, and read every day.

Until and unless you can say that you are doing all you can to eradicate hunger, illiteracy, and all the other extant ills, please continue to read the Times' editorials as well as OpEd pieces - including those of Nixon's former speechwriter, who is a regular contributor both there and in the Sunday magazine.

 

[ghostdog2]

Let me see if I've got this straight. I should read the NYT, quit reading the Washington Something, move to the East Coast, join a non-profit, embrace my brothers in Cuba, and quit knocking world leaders like Norway. Okay, got it.
Sorry I rattled so many cages. You guys are right, this country stinks and anyone who stands up for it is a traitor or a misguided simpleton. True patriots and real intellectuals rip the ole USA every chance they get. And I'll remember to use that word " ashamed ", like this thread did.
Talk about brainwashed. Oh well, gotta go coach Little League.

 

[ghostdog2]

On re-reading my last post, I realized that the tone was all wrong. Please accept this as a modified retraction . The flippant note was inappropriate.. This topic deserves more maturity than that. Let me think about what's been said and craft a more sensible response.
Back at ya' shortly.
GD2

 

[rmcrobertson]

The tone's irrelevant; it won't matter, were you to say the same things in another fashion.

What counts are the leaps of logic (so go live there, since you hate this country), and the general refusal to look at reality.

One isn't at all sure that, "ashamed," is appropriate. However, occasional embarassment and reconsideration sure as hell seems to be in order.

 

[Ender]

The whole atricle is just a smoke screen. I've read several articles where INDIVIDUAL charity from Americans amounts to 51% of the entire worldwide contributions. We as individuals give more out of our own pockets than the entire world COMBINED.

 

[michaeledward]

The whole atricle is just a smoke screen. I've read several articles where INDIVIDUAL charity from Americans amounts to 51% of the entire worldwide contributions. We as individuals give more out of our own pockets than the entire world COMBINED.

I would love the source on this statement.

And where do you suppose those contributions go? I'm sure the Harvard endowment is desperately seeking more contributions.

 

[Ender]

I would love the source on this statement.

And where do you suppose those contributions go? I'm sure the Harvard endowment is desperately seeking more contributions.

Actually I beleive it was an article in Business week or Forbes a few years back. By your tone, I'm assuming you have a a slight skepticism. Well, lets look at state ranking from the Center for Philanthropy


Individual Generosity Index by State 2004: (2002 US State Data)

Having Rank is the amount of wealth a state has.
Giving rank is the rank in which a state gives to charity
Rank relation is the "Having Rank" minus the "Giving Rank"
Generosity Rank is the overall Score

State, Having Rank, Giving Rank, Rank Relation, Generosity Index
Mississippi 50 5 45 1
Arkansas 47 6 41 2
Oklahoma 43 8 35 3
Louisiana 42 10 32 4
Alabama 38 7 31 5
Tennessee 34 3 31 6
South Dakota 44 14 30 7
Utah 31 2 29 8
South Carolina 40 12 28 9
Idaho 41 20 21 10
Wyoming 21 1 20 11
Texas 23 4 19 12
West Virginia 48 31 17 13
Nebraska 35 19 16 14
North Dakota 46 30 16 15
North Carolina 27 15 12 16
Kansas 25 18 7 17
Florida 20 13 7 18
Georgia 17 11 6 19
Kentucky 39 33 6 20
Montana 49 43 6 21
Missouri 29 24 5 22
New Mexico 45 40 5 23
Alaska 24 21 3 24
Indiana 28 29 -1 25
New York 5 9 -4 26
Iowa 36 44 -8 27
Ohio 32 42 -10 28
California 6 17 -11 29
Maryland 4 16 -12 30
Illinois 10 22 -12 31
Maine 37 50 -13 32
Delaware 13 27 -14 33
Washington 11 25 -14 34
Vermont 33 47 -14 35
Oregon 26 41 -15 36
Hawaii 30 45 -15 37
Virginia 7 23 -16 38
Arizona 22 38 -16 39
Nevada 14 32 -18 40
Pennsylvania 18 36 -18 41
Michigan 16 35 -19 42
Colorado 8 28 -20 43
Connecticut 1 26 -25 44
Minnesota 12 37 -25 45
Wisconsin 19 46 -27 46
New Jersey 2 34 -32 47
Rhode Island 15 49 -34 48
Massachusetts 3 39 -36 49
New Hampshire 9 48 -39 50


How odd that the "Blue" states congregate near the bottom.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Ender, If you can come up with the citation for the article, it'd be most appreciated. Interesting.

GhostDog,
You're not listening to what we're attempting to tell you. No one has said they would move to another country. I did for a semester and didn't really care for it, was glad to be back in the USA. I was also glad for the opportunity to be an example of a *non-ugly American* to the people I met and attempt to improve our image abroad.

My point to you is that, if you disagree with what's being said about our country, then do something about it.

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

 

[ghostdog2]

Point : Counter-Point​

1) Such vitriol against *liberal Easterner* thought. kenpo tiger
Never called it that. You did. And you're wrong..fuzzy thinking isn't confined to Eastern liberals.

2) most of the standard-of-living measurements assert that Norway and Sweden are better places to live than the United States. rmcrobertson
Sure they are. That's why we've been seeing that massive wave of Scandanavian immigration: everybody wants to live there.

3) And oh yeah, last I checked Cuba--yes, THAT Cuba--had a) lower rates of infant mortality, b) higher rates of adult literacy, than we do. rmcrobertson
Again, that would explain why so many people are moving to Cuba and no one is trying escape...I mean leave.

4)Just an FYI - Global warming isn't "in Washington" ... it's global. michaeledward
Thanks for the tip. Didn't know that. Thought all the hot air in D.C. had created its own ecosystem.

5) Sweden and Norway are giving more than that percentage, and the US is giving less than that percentage, then yes, Virginia, they are doing more for underdeveloped countries. michaeledward
Imagine, Norway with a GDP of $171b and Sweden with a GDP of $283.3b give a larger percentage than the U.S.A with a GDP of @$10.99t (yep, that's trillions compared to billions). Since Cuba may want to join in, you should know the GDP there is $32.13b. Not much, but at least they can all read about it. On second thought, maybe not. Castro doesn't let the locals in on much.

6)Why reduce poverty and hunger in the world when we can instead build a missile defense sheild, I mean, except for that one of these programs works, and the other doesn't. michaeledward
You got me. When you're right, you're right. Missile defense systems are a lot more feasible than world aid programs. And a lot more honestly run; Just ask Kofi's son. There's money in welfare.

7) Try doing what I do. kenpo tiger
No thanks. I'm sure you are good at what you do.

8)(so go live there since you hate this country) rmcrobertson
Again, see comment 1. No one has suggested you leave; at least not on this thread. But if you go, please take the Baldwins with you. You might want to look into Oslo, I hear it's beautiful.

Merry Christmas everybody, I'm worn out.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Point : Counter-Point​

1) Such vitriol against *liberal Easterner* thought. kenpo tiger
Never called it that. You did. And you're wrong..fuzzy thinking isn't confined to Eastern liberals.

2) most of the standard-of-living measurements assert that Norway and Sweden are better places to live than the United States. rmcrobertson
Sure they are. That's why we've been seeing that massive wave of Scandanavian immigration: everybody wants to live there.

3) And oh yeah, last I checked Cuba--yes, THAT Cuba--had a) lower rates of infant mortality, b) higher rates of adult literacy, than we do. rmcrobertson
Again, that would explain why so many people are moving to Cuba and no one is trying escape...I mean leave.

4)Just an FYI - Global warming isn't "in Washington" ... it's global. michaeledward
Thanks for the tip. Didn't know that. Thought all the hot air in D.C. had created its own ecosystem.

5) Sweden and Norway are giving more than that percentage, and the US is giving less than that percentage, then yes, Virginia, they are doing more for underdeveloped countries. michaeledward
Imagine, Norway with a GDP of $171b and Sweden with a GDP of $283.3b give a larger percentage than the U.S.A with a GDP of @$10.99t (yep, that's trillions compared to billions). Since Cuba may want to join in, you should know the GDP there is $32.13b. Not much, but at least they can all read about it. On second thought, maybe not. Castro doesn't let the locals in on much.

6)Why reduce poverty and hunger in the world when we can instead build a missile defense sheild, I mean, except for that one of these programs works, and the other doesn't. michaeledward
You got me. When you're right, you're right. Missile defense systems are a lot more feasible than world aid programs. And a lot more honestly run; Just ask Kofi's son. There's money in welfare.

7) Try doing what I do. kenpo tiger
No thanks. I'm sure you are good at what you do.

8)(so go live there since you hate this country) rmcrobertson
Again, see comment 1. No one has suggested you leave; at least not on this thread. But if you go, please take the Baldwins with you. You might want to look into Oslo, I hear it's beautiful.

Merry Christmas everybody, I'm worn out.

GhostDog,
I am very good at what I do. Seriously, please consider what else was contained in that part of my post. If you are concerned, you can help.

 

[michaeledward]

By your tone, I'm assuming you have a a slight skepticism. Well, lets look at state ranking from the Center for Philanthropy


Individual Generosity Index by State 2004: (2002 US State Data)

How odd that the "Blue" states congregate near the bottom.

How completely out of context for this discussion. You post some statistics relating the 50 United States against themselves, disregaurding the other 180 plus nations that inhabit the planet in a discussion concerning charitable activities among countries.

And ... you use it to slam your fellow citizens.

2 minutes in the penalty box for you.

 

[michaeledward]

Missile defense systems are a lot more feasible than world aid programs. And a lot more honestly run; ​

​

Wow ... are you at all familiar with the United States Strategic Defense Initiative? more feasible: honestly run.​

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4097267.stm​

The latest test .. two years in the planning ... the interceptor did not even get out of its silo. Not bad for 130 Billion dollars. Who do you think is getting that 'honest money'.​

Of course the official statement from the 'Honestly Run' military is :​

"I definitely wouldn't categorize it as a setback of any kind," he said. "We weren't able to complete the test that we had planned."

Please!​

:bs:​

 

[ghostdog2]

In the Spirit of the Holiday Season, I'm throwing in the towel. We can agree to disagree on some things but I'll bet we agree on more. Please enjoy your holidays.

p.s. Kenpo Tiger
I'll be in New York all next week. Yes, I'll read the NYT, but no, I won't admit it ever again.
p.s. michaeledward
My point @ the missile defense system was a bit of a reach, but...hey, I was on the clock