UN disaster relief fund hit with $75m shortfall as world's richest countries pledge tiny contributio - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;33922307]Because Republicans in Congress.[/QUOTE] The inevitable Republican-bashing train has arrived everyone, get on board! No seriously, I'm sure many Democrats would be against increased funding for such programs as well. Stop blaming everything wrong with the US on the Republicans.

The US prefers giving aid bilaterally as opposed to letting the UN manage it. That way, the US can choose where the aid is sent to, allowing for them to give it to places that could have long term benefits, as opposed to giving it to a central fund that gives aid (relatively) impartially. Either way, it's still pretty pitiful how small a donation it is, especially when it works out at 1.6 cents a person, tops, relative to Ireland's $1 per person. (or so) It isn't really due to whatever political party is in power, as cutting aid given could be political suicide if a major media outlet picked up on it. (providing that major media outlet is not any of the UK tabloids, or Fox news)

[QUOTE=smurfy;33921962]The entire fund is just 0.08% of the US defence budget America's contribution to the fund is 0.0009% of its defence budget Also I hope you like the table in the OP, I had to use some tableception to get it to work[/QUOTE] Well if it makes you feel better, the US gov't has 0.0000000% of that budget to pay for it's budget.

[QUOTE=leach139;33922042]Why are we putting the most in, something has to be wrong if we're the most charitable nation in the UN[/QUOTE] Seems like most rich countries don't give a shit and hope that other countries fill in for them. That top 20 looks depressing. Yes we have economic issues that need fixing, but 20 million isn't much for a country. Especially the US, China and Russia. What are you doing. Increase that atleast a tenfold for fuck sake. Look at the top 4, it's not like they don't have their own problems. What a bros. edit: Debatable if the UN will use it properly, but there's no way to get all of it used efficiently.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;33921916]fuck disasters we need to pump more money into our military[/QUOTE] Ideally I think if we [I]must[/I] deploy all over the world, then we should use our unbelievable manpower to help out in disasters.

are you serious? the UK gave 94 million? that's awesome. the US gave 5 million? what the fuck?

[QUOTE=smfE;33921949]im proud of denmark because we are such a small country but give so much :)[/QUOTE] Denmark $17.9m United States $5m US is far larger I assume Wow US, why so greedy. Seriously, fuck the US.

Don't worry guys we are buying enough military-grade hardware to take out Mother Nature if she starts shit again. Fuck yeah.

[QUOTE=J!NX;33924355]US is far larger I assume[/QUOTE] The population of the US is 56 times larger than the population of Denmark

[QUOTE=J!NX;33924355]Denmark $17.9m United States $5m US is far larger I assume Wow US, why so greedy. Seriously, fuck the US.[/QUOTE] Yes, because America right now just has money to throw around. Hell, it's just falling from the fucking sky.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;33924528]Yes, because America right now just has money to throw around. Hell, it's just falling from the fucking sky.[/QUOTE] matching denmark's contribution at least would be small potatoes compared to the rest of the budget

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;33924528]Yes, because America right now just has money to throw around. Hell, it's just falling from the fucking sky.[/QUOTE] More like it falls and then forms a big pool of jets, tanks, and aircraft carriers.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;33924528]Yes, because America right now just has money to throw around. Hell, it's just falling from the fucking sky.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States[/url] um yeah it kinda fucking is They could've given even 10 billion and barely even flinch but no, 5mil [editline]27th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Terminutter;33924515]The population of the US is 56 times larger than the population of Denmark[/QUOTE] so how's denmarks economy going...

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;33924528]Yes, because America right now just has money to throw around. Hell, it's just falling from the fucking sky.[/QUOTE] Just to point out, Ireland, the UK and tonnes of other European countries are having issues, and are more than matching the US bid, we're literally multiplying it. Ireland is spending roughly $1 per capita, as opposed to $0.016 per capita, and is in an economic state too, as is the UK. The UK military budget is large, and we spend roughly $800 per capita - the US spends $1630 per capita or so on military. If they cut back on $30 per person on the military budget, that's quite literally a few hundred million dollars for emergency aid, as opposed to the kind that takes days to clear. [QUOTE=J!NX;33924842]so how's denmarks economy going...[/QUOTE] I don't know, but I'd assume struggling, like most countries are at the moment.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;33922684]The US prefers giving aid bilaterally as opposed to letting the UN manage it. That way, the US can choose where the aid is sent to, allowing for them to give it to places that could have long term benefits, as opposed to giving it to a central fund that gives aid (relatively) impartially.[/QUOTE] That way the US can still give aid to regimes like Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and so on! [editline]28th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Terminutter;33924515]The population of the US is 56 times larger than the population of Denmark[/QUOTE] Do you mean in terms of weight or population? (both are true!) [editline]28th December 2011[/editline] [quote]Libya isn't the only repressive Arab regime benefiting from U.S. military aid. Obama wants $120 million for Yemen next year, including $20 million for a military accused of brutally putting down a popular revolt, and $11 million to promote democracy and human rights, something critics say doesn't exist in Yemen. The U.S. also gives Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, substantial military aid. In the last four years, the United States provided security forces in Bahrain $51 million. On Feb. 14, Obama asked Congress for $26 million more, even though its royal family is not democratically elected and is accused of using military force to put down a popular revolt against the monarchy. [/quote] Pro-West dictator? Sure, have as much money as you want! $20 million for the UN? I ain't giving no money to the pinko-commie UN, they don't even do anything. Besides, we have no money

[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;33921930]Isn't Liechtenstein one of the top 10 countries with most income per household?[/QUOTE] They hide behind their small size and pray to god no one notices their piles of gold behind the (whatever the hell is in Liechtenstein.)

All we gave is five million? Jesus.

Yay Norway is the #1 donator per capita by far

Stay classy, italy.

Why would the pope country donate 666 666 dollars?

[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;33921930]Isn't Liechtenstein one of the top 10 countries with most income per household?[/QUOTE] Yes, but they've only got 36.000 citizens, so they actually paid the most per citizen.

[QUOTE=smurfy;33921962]The entire fund is just 0.08% of the US defence budget America's contribution to the fund is 0.0009% of its defence budget Also I hope you like the table in the OP, I had to use some tableception to get it to work[/QUOTE] Yes, we suck, we know.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;33922279]Where the heck is canada on the list?[/QUOTE] given our current government do you really think there's going to be much priority given to international aide Harper probably needs the money to frame and hang more photos of himself in parliament

$8,7 million from Finland? I wonder if it is good or bad thing. Was this collection done by so that only goverment money went in or were citizens allowed to donate some dosh aswell?

[QUOTE=Marlwolf78;33927799]All we gave is five million? Jesus.[/QUOTE] The funny thing is that we're not conservative with our money either. The politicians and bureaucrats in Washington spend billions on various studies and projects which have almost no positive yields for the American taxpayers. Here's a rather interesting example of what I mean. [url]http://cnsnews.com/node/69351[/url]

[QUOTE=Contag;33925036]That way the US can still give aid to regimes like Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and so on! [editline]28th December 2011[/editline] Do you mean in terms of weight or population? (both are true!) [editline]28th December 2011[/editline] Pro-West dictator? Sure, have as much money as you want! $20 million for the UN? I ain't giving no money to the pinko-commie UN, they don't even do anything. Besides, we have no money[/QUOTE] its funny because the US contributes the most funds, by far, to the UN [editline]28th December 2011[/editline] but i'm sure you knew that, right?

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33930122]The funny thing is that we're not conservative with our money either. The politicians and bureaucrats in Washington spend billions on various studies and projects which have almost no positive yields for the American taxpayers. Here's a rather interesting example of what I mean. [url]http://cnsnews.com/node/69351[/url][/QUOTE] [release] The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $181,406 this year to a researcher at the University of Kentucky to study how cocaine enhances the sex drive of Japanese quail... ...The grant, “Enhancement of Sexual Motivation,” was awarded as part of a program conducted by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (a division of the NIH) that is [b]intended to find ways to better treat or cure addiction in humans.[/b][/release] hi I'm boba_fett I only read headlines maybe the next study can be used to get some japanese quail to lend you their attention span

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33930223][release] The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $181,406 this year to a researcher at the University of Kentucky to study how cocaine enhances the sex drive of Japanese quail... ...The grant, “Enhancement of Sexual Motivation,” was awarded as part of a program conducted by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (a division of the NIH) that is [b]intended to find ways to better treat or cure addiction in humans.[/b][/release] hi I'm boba_fett I only read headlines maybe the next study can be used to get some japanese quail to lend you their attention span[/QUOTE] While I'll admit, that particular article may perhaps been a lapse of judgement on my part, it doesn't invalidate the general point I'm making. You don't have to be an ass about it either.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33929506]given our current government do you really think there's going to be much priority given to international aide Harper probably needs the money to frame and hang more photos of himself in parliament[/QUOTE] Or maybe it's because this is only based on pledges for 2012. Canada is the 5th top contributor with a total of $209,178,724 provided over the past 6 years. To put that in perspective for 2011 we paid $41,188,191. The US paid $36,000,000 for the past 6 total.

[QUOTE=Thlis;33930603]Or maybe it's because this is only based on pledges for 2012. Canada is the 5th top contributor with a total of $209,178,724 provided over the past 6 years. To put that in perspective for 2011 we paid $41,188,191. The US paid $36,000,000 for the past 6 total.[/QUOTE] When our previous pledges were made I bet we didn't have a conservative majority government now did we [editline]28th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33930391]While I'll admit, that particular article may perhaps been a lapse of judgement on my part, it doesn't invalidate the general point I'm making. You don't have to be an ass about it either.[/QUOTE] Sometimes it's hard not to be an ass when nearly every one of your posts is parroting some asinine conservative talking point that can be debunked with a few minutes of reading I mean for god's sake you [i]proved yourself wrong[/i] my head is exploding here