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

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;33930134]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] Most by far? You mean about a [B]fifth[/B] of the budget? And you constantly hold it over the head over the organization to try and force it to your whims [quote]The Obama administration swiftly said it would cut off funding for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation after the group voted 107-14 to accept the Palestinian Authority as a full member.[/quote] [url]http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-cuts-un-funds-on-palestine-vote-20111101-1mtty.html[/url] [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] In terms of studies, virtually all of them are worth while. Honestly you're looking for wasteful government spending and best you can come up with is research? that's bloody laughable mate

Holy crap we gave more than united states? Well to be honest 5 million isn't much.

[QUOTE=Contag;33931089]In terms of studies, virtually all of them are worth while. Honestly you're looking for wasteful government spending and best you can come up with is research? that's bloody laughable mate[/QUOTE] Surely he could've made some jab at NPR or endowment for the arts, but he went straight for quail study.

[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] Uh, wow, you get that source from Glaber or something?

China, you're such an asshole

[QUOTE=Lambeth;33921916]fuck disasters we need to pump more money into our military[/QUOTE] But that's our disaster relief fund, we have a massive disaster happening here in regular basis called "Russians"

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;33924528]Yes, because America right now just has money to throw around. Hell, it's just falling from the fucking sky.[/QUOTE] To put it better: in case you haven't noticed, we're pretty damn broke at the moment.

[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;33932621]To put it better: in case you haven't noticed, we're pretty damn broke at the moment.[/QUOTE] So the next time something like this happens [img]http://imgkk.com/i/vv4z.jpg[/img] I guess you'll just go [img]http://imgkk.com/i/p0n7.jpg[/img]

-snip-

By Comparison, the estimated unit price of an AH-64D Apache attack helicopter is.. around four times what the US contributed

[QUOTE=J!NX;33924842][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] so how's denmarks economy going...[/QUOTE] The danish economy isn't exactly top notch at the moment, there are several major spending cuts in the process of being done and governmental jobs are being cut. However with the welfare system, it isn't putting people in the streets, yet... either way. Denmark has a population of 5,6 million danes and the US has 300 million americans. The total area of Denmark is 16,641 sq miles, while the US is 3,794,101 sq miles. Of course our military budgets are pretty low compared to the rest and there is only around 10,000 active military personal at the time.

[QUOTE=smurfy;33932953]So the next time something like this happens [img]http://imgkk.com/i/vv4z.jpg[/img] I guess you'll just go [img]http://imgkk.com/i/p0n7.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Proud to be British now.

What is disaster relief and why isn't that money going into our defense budget.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33931057]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[/QUOTE] I really don't see why you need to hate me for my opinions though. I've always tried to be friendly, but it seems everyone who disagrees with me receives me with nothing but pure hostility. Plus, I mean, although I do make a lot of mistakes, I admit when I'm wrong.

Hey if everyone's miracle candidate Ron Paul gets elected I'm sure our contribution will be even smaller!

The united states has so much money and they only paid 5 fucking million. Greedy government.

[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;33932621]To put it better: in case you haven't noticed, we're pretty damn broke at the moment.[/QUOTE] No you're not. You're pretty well of. To be honest - at least part of military spending can be considered a form of disaster relief, as the military does very often help in cleanup operations, evacuation etc. And they often help in other nations as well. But we can all say that a lot of the spending is excessive.

[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;33921930]Isn't Liechtenstein one of the top 10 countries with most income per household?[/QUOTE] Also has only 33k people. Thats 6,5 a person. If America did 6,5 a person they would donate more then 2 billion dollars. But in Liechtenstein they make 3 times more(141k a capita vs. 41k a capita) so even if America donated not 6,5 per capita but 2,11 per captia they would still donate more then 650 million dollars. So infact Liechtenstein gives more then any other country on the list.

[QUOTE=ItsMozy;33935127]Also has only 33k people. Thats 6,5 a person. If America did 6,5 a person they would donate more then 2 billion dollars. But in Liechtenstein they make 3 times more(141k a capita vs. 41k a capita) so even if America donated not 6,5 per capita but 2,11 per captia they would still donate more then 650 million dollars. So infact Liechtenstein gives more then any other country on the list.[/QUOTE] -snip- cliicked wrong post, rate me boxes

I like how the US didn't give mcuh. Shows we're trying to conserve more money.

The US has spent tens of billions of dollars on the UN in the last few years. Meanwhile, the UK announced this year that they will be cutting their funding for the UN, and they did. I think some other countries could contribute. [editline]28th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Contag;33931089]Most by far? You mean about a [B]fifth[/B] of the budget? And you constantly hold it over the head over the organization to try and force it to your whims [/QUOTE] Yes, by far, in terms of hundreds of millions more than Japan and billions more than Australia. Nice try ignoring my point though, you were flat-out wrong with your sarcastic comment ("I ain't giving no money to the pinko-commie UN, they don't even do anything.") and since you realized that, you just attempted to attack my wording. Real nice. Also, [B]I[/B] hold nothing over the head of the UN. I am not my country. [editline]28th December 2011[/editline] see what i did

[QUOTE=smurfy;33932953]So the next time something like this happens [img]http://imgkk.com/i/vv4z.jpg[/img] I guess you'll just go [img]http://imgkk.com/i/p0n7.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] ---DELETED SCENES--- I made this but then took it out of the post but whatever [img]http://imgkk.com/i/ek9-.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33934576]I really don't see why you need to hate me for my opinions though. I've always tried to be friendly, but it seems everyone who disagrees with me receives me with nothing but pure hostility. Plus, I mean, although I do make a lot of mistakes, I admit when I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] Except you haven't admitted that you're wrong yet you said that although you picked something that goes against your point, "it doesn't invalidate the point you're making" Saying that you admit when you're wrong isn't the same as actually doing it

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;33935882]The US has spent tens of billions of dollars on the UN in the last few years. Meanwhile, the UK announced this year that they will be cutting their funding for the UN, and they did. I think some other countries could contribute. [editline]28th December 2011[/editline] Yes, by far, in terms of hundreds of millions more than Japan and billions more than Australia. Nice try ignoring my point though, you were flat-out wrong with your sarcastic comment ("I ain't giving no money to the pinko-commie UN, they don't even do anything.") and since you realized that, you just attempted to attack my wording. Real nice. Also, [B]I[/B] hold nothing over the head of the UN. I am not my country. [editline]28th December 2011[/editline] see what i did[/QUOTE] Of course you give billions more you dolt, you're on the fucking Security Council, the UN is on your soil, and you have the largest economy in the world You said [B]by far[/B] with regard to everyone else, and now you are backpedaling. 6% more is not by far. Are you seriously arguing that there haven't been plenty of demands to cut funding for the UN, and UN programs? [quote]One of the areas with the greatest misperception of US contributions lies in foreign aid. [B]The most recent OECD estimate for US overseas development assistance as percent of national income for 2006 is projected to be at 0.17%, the lowest of all countries.[/B] In 2005 it was at 0.22% GNI, above only Portugal and Greece, and at 0.17% GNI in 2004, above only Italy (for more information see [url]http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/5/38354517.pdf[/url] and [url]http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/41/35842562.pdf[/url]). However, A[B]mericans have historically overestimated foreign aid as a portion of the US budget by nearly more than 100 times the actual amount.[/B] As recently as June 2005, Gallup International asked Americans "what share of national incomes the United States actually gives in foreign aid to help development/poverty alleviation in other countries," with only 9% correctly estimating the amount at "higher than .1-.2 of a percentage point." 18% believed it to range from 5 to more than 25%, while another 11% thought it to range between 1-2%. Ironically, when asked to say what percentage of gross national income the US should give in foreign aid, a plurality (44%) preferred to give at least 1% and in general significantly more (see footnote for more detailed results). [5] Eighty-one percent have also believed, mistakenly, that the US gives more aid as a percentage of GDP than the other industrialized countries give (PIPA, January 1995).[/quote] [img]http://www.americans-world.org/digest/overview/us_role/graphs/usrole_concerns_grph.JPG[/img] [quote]Americans estimated that the US gave 37% of all development aid from rich countries and proposed a more reasonable percentage would be 26% (November 2000). In fact, according to recent OECD figures, the US gives just 12% of the total amount of official development assistance.[/quote] Quit shit posting mate. Honestly though, I think I'm a bit stupid for expecting a reasoned argument out of you of all people.

What is wrong with England :/ we give out millions to other countrys and such then up our Tax and VAT ect trying to pay back our Debt.... *Mind Blown*

"Oh united states you guys are dicks, not supporting the UN" Meanwhile, back in reality, the United States cannot legally provide the UN itself (as opposed to the CERF) with more money. We provide the maximum amount of funding that we can legally give the UN at 22% of their global operating budget. We can't give more because the UN can't rely any further on us for aid. There are actual rules in place that stop them from accepting it. Providing even MORE money for the CERF would further cause the UN to rely on the United States WHICH IS THE ENTIRE REASON THERE IS A BUDGET LIMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE. [url]http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/755[/url] In 2009 alone, the US provided 600,000,000 USD. We do this every year.

[QUOTE=GunFox;33943642]"Oh united states you guys are dicks, not supporting the UN" Meanwhile, back in reality, the United States cannot legally provide the UN itself (as opposed to the CERF) with more money. We provide the maximum amount of funding that we can legally give the UN at 22% of their global operating budget. We can't give more because the UN can't rely any further on us for aid. There are actual rules in place that stop them from accepting it. Providing even MORE money for the CERF would further cause the UN to rely on the United States WHICH IS THE ENTIRE REASON THERE IS A BUDGET LIMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE. [url]http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/755[/url] In 2009 alone, the US provided 600,000,000 USD. We do this every year.[/QUOTE] 600 million isn't particularly large for a state with an economy in the double digit trillions

[QUOTE=smurfy;33932953]So the next time something like this happens [img]http://imgkk.com/i/vv4z.jpg[/img] I guess you'll just go [img]http://imgkk.com/i/p0n7.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Might come as a shock to you, but every corporation in the US is not government subsidized.

The issue is that the US doesn't provide money to this disaster relief fund, which would ensure those who deserve it actually get aid. The US would rather do so bilaterally, meaning they can continue to support shit regimes in shit places which only fuck the US over later. Hello Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq etc. Honestly you guys should be just as pissed at your government as everyone else. [editline]29th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;33943751]Might come as a shock to you, but every corporation in the US is not government subsidized.[/QUOTE] At least until the Bush/Obama bailouts, anyhow.

I thought the UK was supposed to be poor and people finding it hard to get money...