The sad thing is, he didn't make millions. He only received like $30,000 a year from it. I mean, if you're going to steal, at least steal big, you know?

Sadly the region needs as many tourists as possible to continue. As it would seem that a large portion of the revenue is from tourism.

We (Canada) have our own papers that have slammed the federal government over their response. They just don't have the same profile as the NYT, so you'd wouldn't hear of them in the news.

The initial Canadian government contribution was quite "miserly", as was the initial US contribution (I'd assume that it will increase later). I think the criticism by the papers may actually do some good this time, if it results in increased contributions.

On a dollar for dollar impact basis, contribution to the relief efforts will probably do a lot more good for the world than things such as Iraq or the Canadian gun registry.

I think it's a very bad idea, ill-timed, and stubborn political bullshit myself. You don't want to go through the UN for military operations? fine. But this is one thing the UN is well-prepared to coordinate and for us to circumvent it out of spite is deplorable.

That's what my parents always told me. And if you steal enough you can usually give it back and not be prosecuted.

Kofi was a bad parent.

Personally, I don't think taxpayer money should be given to <b>any</b> country
and at least a few Presidents agree, assuming these quotes I saw at another site are accurate

"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. ... I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."
~ President Grover Cleveland, 1887; vetoing an appropriation to help drought-stricken counties in Texas.

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity... (such spending) would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
~ President Franklin Pierce, 1854; vetoing an appropriation bill to help the mentally ill.

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
~ James Madison,

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
~ James Madison, objecting to Congress appropriating $15,000 to assist French refugees.

I can agree with that. Look at the European countries and their heavy taxes, sure they've given out a lot to humanitarian groups, but a lot of that money goes straight to dictators. It also been a political tool that has been abused far too many times. So it's my opinion that the only country the US should look out for is itself. However, I have absolutely no problem with privately-funded humanitarian groups (as long they're not helping terrorist groups).

While I tend to agree, being a libertarian, I do recognize the fact that some methods of aid (equipment, specifically) are maintained by the military, which puts the government in a unique position that the private sector cannot duplicate. This really only comes into play for large natural disasters, though.

:thumbsup: Let those who want to give above and beyond their taxes, do so freely.

I can see the point there and almost want to agree with it. But I also feel proud when my nation steps up and helps victims like this. It would be a shame if public funds only ever went to attack other countries and not ever to assist them.

That said, I'm all for charitable private donations and consider that to be the truest form of charity since the motivation is purely good.

I was looking over the world map today and realized this is probably the most damage an earthquake caused tsunami could do (with a simular magnitude). The low lands with high populations near a subduction zone. Tsunami warning system in this area probably wont matter now since its been over 500 years since the last tsunami (no records of a tsunami this size in this part of the world since 1509 and no one knows of any legends before that which could infer one).

I could maybe beok with tax money being used to <i>directly buy food/water/medical supplies/building materials/etc <b>from US companies</b></i> and then shipping those supplies over. But not just handing out money

I doubt very much that that's what they're doing. I mean, some cash will be used to stabilize the economies of these nations, but the bulk of the $ amount you see is going to be in tangible aid and services.

And then you ask yourself why so many people hate Americans.

It's not a personal shot, Mike - it's just a shot at the attitude of 'not in my backyard' that seems so prevalent in the world today. Nothing these days is ever done without thinking 'how will it affect me'. <i>It's not the problem of the United States, so taxpayers shouldn't be required to do anything about it.</i>

Even the idea of giving goods that are provided 'from US companies' indicates a very much 'me first...me only' attitude that is often associated with America. America invades Iraq...the US companies get lots of money. America gives money to various international humanitarian groups...but they sure as hell want to provide something in return.

No, that may not be true, but it's very much a <b>perception</b> that lingers when politicans do come out saying (certainly at a time like this) things like this - that it's not the job of the US Government to help out people less fortunate. A Government <b>is</b> her people.

As Gil said - giving at a time like this should be something to be proud of. It's a display that, at the end of the day, political differences, boundaries and ideological spats are put aside and we all band together to support each other.

He's not saying Americans shouldn't help, he's saying it should come from private funds. There's a big difference. Paying for charities from taxpayer funds is compelling everyone to pay for it. I happen to agree, in theory anyway. Do you think private citizens would be stingy? The $6.7 million donated through Amazon along would seem to indicate otherwise.

Over 100,000 people have died and that number keeps rising. Millions are homeless, the economies will no doubt go to shit. An initial aid offering fo $15,000,000 from the US is pathetic, especially when one considers how many BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS of dollars we spend on the military, every year. Why not take even a quarter of the money we spend ATTACKING other countries and help one of them out?

We are, after all, all humans, occupying the same planet. It could just as easily have happened in California as it did in Asia.

Maybe if everyone set their differences aside and actually helped each other out, especially in such a horrible, horrible situation as this, we wouldn't lived in such a fucked up world and be so pissed off at each other.

The comments some people have made in this thread are shameful.

and I'm not just talking about this flood case, I'm against tax funded foreign aid in general. Besides, even when we give we're still hated, so that obviously has no effect
How much did the UN get countries to send us after the FL huricanes?

The hurricanes don't even come close to comparing.

Last I checked we didn't exactly need foreign aid to help us with the hurricanes. We have these things called insurance companies. They pay out claims when disasters occur. Not to mention we are, by far, the wealthiest nation on the planet. If you seriously think the Florida hurricanes and this tsunami are even remotely similar in magnitude and need for aid, then there's no point to continuing a conversation with you.

This is what I mean by perception. We won't donate (as a Government) because "they didn't give anything to us".

Disaster, tragedy, poverty...they don't just stop at our border and cease to be our problem. The 'rich, evil West' opinion is (IMO) in part because we have this attitude. And I'm not just talking about the US - I'm including other nations as well (including Australia).

Even when we do give it, we expect something in return. Trade deals, favoured nation status, expectations that people will change their way of life because we've given them money (World Bank and cash crops). We <b>as nations</b> don't give simply because it's the right thing to do...we do it because it's going to benefit <b>us</b> in some way.

As for the $15 Million, well...IMO, that IS pathetic. With a population of 300 million people, that equates to $0.05 cents per person. If you tried to even give that as a tip to your waitress, you'd have it thrown back in your face. And yet your Government thinks it's acceptable.

Even our Government's $26 million (US dollars, around US $1.30 per person) is pretty paltry when you think that wouldn't even buy us a sandwich for lunch.

obviously this flood is worse, I never said it wasn't

oh and where is this 15 million coming from?
our <b>initial</b> amount it 35mil with more once our people get on site and evaluate the situation. I watched Colin say that very thing on the news

When has the US ever said we wouldn't give aid to a country because they haven't given us any help? And the figure of 15 million is out of date, it is 35 million now, not counting donations by the American public to various charitable organizations. I am sure that is still not enough for you, but the fact of the matter is that countries all over the world are doing what they can and in the end the countries will be restored as well as they can be considering the devastation and tragic loss of life.

Your initial amount was $15 million, not $35 Million. On the 27th Dec from Colin Powell:

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/041227/3/1ts5h.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=363473

(That has since been raised, but it was the initial amount when they knew that at least 20,000 lives had been lost).

I heard Coca Cola was donating $10 million and Pfizer $35 million.