Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Is the U.S. really the most generous nation?
Smooth:
--- Quote from: Machiavelli on December 28, 2004, 12:39:18 PM ---
--- Quote from: Ant on December 28, 2004, 11:22:52 AM ---Actually we didnt send $35 million and your logic is retarded. Why would less-developed countries help a wealthy country when it needs money? If Bill Gates house burns down are you going to send him a check to have it fixed?
--- End quote ---
Actually we did send $35 mil and YOUR logic is retarded. What about Canada or France? Are they so "less-deleveloped" that they couldnt help us during the Hurricanes or 9/11.
The Bill Gates analogy was so stupid im not even going to comment.
--- Quote ---Eventually the U.S. may pledge to give more, but last I read, the IRC asked for $7 million and we pledged around $4 millionn. In comparision to the hundreds of millions we spend each day in Iraq, its a rather insignficant amount. In comparison, George Soros, who is villified by modern republicans, personally gives away around $400 million annually to a variety of global causes.
--- End quote ---
What the fuck is your point about the IRC? The US is not obligated to give shit to other Countries/International Organizations. We just do because we are kind and gernerous people. And what the hell is your point about George Soros? Just because he gives money the government should?
--- Quote ---Really though this shouldn't be all that difficult of a concept. A billionare gives away 10k annually, or a guy making 35k a year gives away 1k annually, who is more generous?
--- End quote ---
The guy who is making 35k because hes giving 2.8% of his money while the billionare is only giving 0.001% of his money.
--- End quote ---
Actually we (Canada) helped the US with 9/11, can't remember exactly now what it was, but I remember reading about it for sure.
Ant:
--- Quote from: Machiavelli on December 28, 2004, 12:39:18 PM ---
--- Quote from: Ant on December 28, 2004, 11:22:52 AM ---Actually we didnt send $35 million and your logic is retarded. Why would less-developed countries help a wealthy country when it needs money? If Bill Gates house burns down are you going to send him a check to have it fixed?
--- End quote ---
Actually we did send $35 mil and YOUR logic is retarded. What about Canada or France? Are they so "less-deleveloped" that they couldnt help us during the Hurricanes or 9/11.
The Bill Gates analogy was so stupid im not even going to comment.
--- Quote ---Eventually the U.S. may pledge to give more, but last I read, the IRC asked for $7 million and we pledged around $4 millionn. In comparision to the hundreds of millions we spend each day in Iraq, its a rather insignficant amount. In comparison, George Soros, who is villified by modern republicans, personally gives away around $400 million annually to a variety of global causes.
--- End quote ---
What the fuck is your point about the IRC? The US is not obligated to give shit to other Countries/International Organizations. We just do because we are kind and gernerous people. And what the hell is your point about George Soros? Just because he gives money the government should?
--- Quote ---Really though this shouldn't be all that difficult of a concept. A billionare gives away 10k annually, or a guy making 35k a year gives away 1k annually, who is more generous?
--- End quote ---
The guy who is making 35k because hes giving 2.8% of his money while the billionare is only giving 0.001% of his money.
--- End quote ---
Let's try again. If someone has a disaster, and they can afford to fix it, why would other people give them money to fix it? If my house burns down, and I have more than enough money to fix my house, why would my cousin, who is well off, but makes less money than me, give me money to fix my house? I'm sorry the Bill Gates analogy was too extreme for you. This one is less, now feel free to explain your logic.
Secondly, I doubled checked, and around mid-day the U.S. pledged a total of $35 million, so on that issue you are correct, when I read about the story it was only $4 million. However, we initially pledged less, and after being called stingy by the U.N., the IRC, and others, we decided to give more. In comparison, we gave billions to Florida after the hurricanes. 50,000 people just died, and whole countries got fucked, $35 million, or even $50 million is insignificant. In comparison, we spend billions everyday on Iraq. Now, I'm not really arguing that we should give more, I'm only trying to point out, that we aren't really being international saviors when we give $35 million away. If it cost a few billion to help Florida, what is 35$ million really going to do for these people?
finally, I spent this whole threat pointing out that the U.S. is the least generous nation, and after everyone disagreeing with me, you actually end up agreeing with my main point. You said, at the end, the guy who gives a higher percentage of what he makes away is more generous, well the U.S. gives away only .01% of annual GNP, the lowest of every single developed nation. Now I've never said whether generosity is good or bad, I could make an argument that it is bad, but for everyone arguing with me that the U.S. is a very generous nation, the fact is, we are the least generous nation.
Machiavelli:
--- Quote ---Let's try again. If someone has a disaster, and they can afford to fix it, why would other people give them money to fix it? If my house burns down, and I have more than enough money to fix my house, why would my cousin, who is well off, but makes less money than me, give me money to fix my house? I'm sorry the Bill Gates analogy was too extreme for you. This one is less, now feel free to explain your logic.
--- End quote ---
Other countries should help us in our time of need because we always help them. Its not the matter if we can afford it or not its the matter of someone helping us because we always help them like France. We saved there ass twice and they didn't want to help us in Iraq.
--- Quote ---Secondly, I doubled checked, and around mid-day the U.S. pledged a total of $35 million, so on that issue you are correct, when I read about the story it was only $4 million. However, we initially pledged less, and after being called stingy by the U.N., the IRC, and others, we decided to give more. In comparison, we gave billions to Florida after the hurricanes. 50,000 people just died, and whole countries got fucked, $35 million, or even $50 million is insignificant. In comparison, we spend billions everyday on Iraq. Now, I'm not really arguing that we should give more, I'm only trying to point out, that we aren't really being international saviors when we give $35 million away. If it cost a few billion to help Florida, what is 35$ million really going to do for these people?
--- End quote ---
Where not being international saviors when we give 35 million away wtf you talking about? That's the most out of any country. The US gives the most money out of all other countries combined to other countries and organizations every year. How about France they only gave $100,000 to Asia. And don't say "Oh well its because the US has the most money and greatest economy", if that's true what about Australia? They are the worlds second supplier of money and they have a small population and economy.
--- Quote ---finally, I spent this whole threat pointing out that the U.S. is the least generous nation, and after everyone disagreeing with me, you actually end up agreeing with my main point. You said, at the end, the guy who gives a higher percentage of what he makes away is more generous, well the U.S. gives away only .01% of annual GNP, the lowest of every single developed nation. Now I've never said whether generosity is good or bad, I could make an argument that it is bad, but for everyone arguing with me that the U.S. is a very generous nation, the fact is, we are the least generous nation.
--- End quote ---
The least generous nation? Yeah okay. Fuck percentages. It doesn't matter, because we still give the greatest number of money out of everyone combined.
Ant:
Ant: A billionare gives away 10k annually, or a guy making 35k a year gives away 1k annually, who is more generous?
Machiavelli: The guy who is making 35k because hes giving 2.8% of his money while the billionare is only giving 0.001% of his money.
Ant: You said, at the end, the guy who gives a higher percentage of what he makes away is more generous, well the U.S. gives away only .01% of annual GNP, the lowest of every single developed nation. Now I've never said whether generosity is good or bad, I could make an argument that it is bad, but for everyone arguing with me that the U.S. is a very generous nation, the fact is, we are the least generous nation.
Machiavelli: The least generous nation? Yeah okay. Fuck percentages. It doesn't matter, because we still give the greatest number of money out of everyone combined.
Thirteen:
so you're saying that everyone that lost their house in Florida is well off like bill gates?
ant you're a fucking idiot when it comes to the most basic of things...you're making this big deal about generosity when you don't have the fundamental understanding of it... a dollar given to someone in need is great no matter if it's poor going to the rich or vice versa
bottom line is you're a fucking idiot and it doesn't take all the posts in this thread to prove what many of us already know
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version