Ex-presidents discuss aid drive

***substand*** · Jan 4th, 2005 2:27 PM

Originally Posted by CNN

President Bush on Monday tapped two former presidents -- his father, President George H.W. Bush, and his predecessor, President Clinton -- to head up a massive campaign to help raise private donations for victims of the Asian tsunamis.

@ http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...linton.appeal/

Bush 41 and Clinton are hitting up the donors and convincing the American people to dig deep into their pockets, reach past the part where taxes come from, and give in addition to what the government gives on our behalf.

Do you think the private donations will be a success? How successful or how much of a failure? Will the lack of money raised by these ex-presidents (who are reaching past party lines!) show greed and selfishness or just be a reflection of how little extra cash Americans have lying around. Or will we give so much that one could not fail to see the generosity of the US.

Is the 350 million already enough, making it silly to ask us for more? Is it not enough?

What do you think?

**MetalMilitia** · Jan 4th, 2005 2:29 PM

Congress expects $100 billion war request
Category : War | Posted : 04 Jan 2005 10:14 am

Congress expects the White House to request as much as $100 billion this year for war and related costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, congressional officials say.

Hey, that's only $273,972,602 a day if that figure holds up - Why not blow it on another country and on war!?!?

We can spend that on war - and ppl bitch about the amount spent on humanitaian aid?

***substand*** · Jan 4th, 2005 2:36 PM

Hey, that's only $273,972,602 a day if that figure holds up - Why not blow it on another country and on war!?!?

We can spend that on war - and ppl bitch about the amount spent on humanitaian aid?

Well, 270 million dollars goes a lot further in humanitarian aid than it does in war. And depending on your position, you could consider the war effort humanitarian aid as well. Rebuilding war torn country, liberating people...

**Skippy** · Jan 4th, 2005 4:34 PM

Some flotsam and jestam to add.....

Colon Pummel....Tsunami Aid May Help US image.

It just ain't news unless there's a telethon

But, then we see this note from Medicins sans Frontieres ....We've got enough contributions!

**2cool4stats** · Jan 5th, 2005 1:11 PM

The money isn't enough because lives have been taken. I also remain open-minded at all times as to the possible causes of this disaster.

I checked the link above and I will admit, these quotes from Powell are quite interesting:

Powell: Tsunami Aid May Help U.S. Image

``What it does in the Muslim world, the rest of the world is giving an opportunity to see American generosity, American values in action,''
``America is not an anti-Islamic, anti-Muslim nation. America is a diverse society. We respect all religions,''

At what lengths will this "American Image" go to in order to promote itself?

***substand*** · Jan 6th, 2005 1:58 AM

The money isn't enough because lives have been taken.

huh? lives are taken all the time and little to no one gives money. what do you mean by this?

I also remain open-minded at all times as to the possible causes of this disaster.

as far as i've read, it was caused by a huge earthquake. do you have something else in mind?

**2cool4stats** · Jan 7th, 2005 8:05 PM

Originally Posted by 2cool4stats

The money isn't enough because lives have been taken.

My bad on that one. It was a mistake for me to dismiss the money as futile because any amount of help is needed to repair some of the damages. Even though lives can never be replaced, humanitarian aid will not be taken for granted.

With that being said, I convey that America's reputation around the world should be a non-factor in this crisis. What we think of these former presidents and of the current U.S. administration [whether that concerns the motivations behind this aid drive or anything else for that matter] is nothing but vanity. Especially when it is in direct proportion to this devastation. Therefore, with respect for the people who have been torn by this catastrophe I will constrain my standpoints regarding these ex-presidents.

***dutchie*** · Jan 17th, 2005 2:12 AM

It amazed me that so many countries in the world stumbled over each other to be the first to donate astronomical amounts of money to aid in the relief of this disaster.

And of course, $350 million is a ridiculously small amount, compared to what is being spent on a daily basis on war...

In my country there was a marathon TV show to raise private money. It raised € 125 million so far (around $ 160 million) on 16 million citizens. Amazing.

It's even more amazing that starvation relief in Darfur for instance is very much "less popular" than the tsunami relief. Why are we suddenly focusing on ONE particular disaster, while there are people dying everywhere? Is a human life on Sri Lanka worth more than a life in Sudan? I'm not saying it's not terrible what happened in South East Asia, but why is THIS particular disaster suddenly so spectacularly BIG in the media?

And - last but not least - it remains to be seen if all of the money promised by governments will eventually be paid, as we have seen so many donations being stripped to nothingness over time... Remember the earthquake in Ban? Only $ 13 million got paid from the initally promised $ 350 million...

**Havoc Angel** · Jan 17th, 2005 9:27 AM

Why is the focus so much on the tsunami and not on other places which need aid, too? The answer is quite simple imho: Quite a few tourists have died there. It's always the same. When watching the news i realised that a disaster is a mere side note lasting only a few days in the news unless some german people got affected, then it lasts way longer and is in a stronger focus. exchange german for the country you live in as i only know this from german news but i believe it also applies to other countries.
If no or only very few citizens of western industrialized countries had died in the tsunami the media would most likely abandoned the event by now. Like It's sad it happened but it's not us. no direct emotional connection, less sales, less value, run it a few days and then go on with life, it's not that special.
I remember a bus accident in turkey where a few people died. wouldn't be anything special, happens all the time everywhere. but it made the news because a german family died in the accident. The same systematics apply to the tsunami disaster though on a larger scale.

***substand*** · Jan 17th, 2005 2:10 PM

Why is the focus so much on the tsunami and not on other places which need aid, too? The answer is quite simple imho: Quite a few tourists have died there.

Perhaps because of the scale.

***dutchie*** · Jan 18th, 2005 4:10 AM

heh... more people are dying DAILY in Africa than the entire number of casualties from the tsunami... JUST malaria takes a million lives per year....

Scale is relative. It's plain and simple media attention through spectacular (read horrible) footage.

***stewey*** · Jan 18th, 2005 5:14 PM

Originally Posted by dutchie

heh... more people are dying DAILY in Africa than the entire number of casualties from the tsunami... JUST malaria takes a million lives per year....

Scale is relative. It's plain and simple media attention through spectacular (read horrible) footage.

You are 100% correct.

Some of the countries over there are blaming the USA for the tsunami, actually saying we intentionally caused it (either through nuke or some other ridiculous idea). I personally do not think we should give a damn cent, and instead use that money here. I realize that Africa could use the money, but the problem there is a lot more than just too little money.

***dutchie*** · Jan 19th, 2005 1:08 AM

Originally Posted by stewey

You are 100% correct.

Some of the countries over there are blaming the USA for the tsunami, actually saying we intentionally caused it (either through nuke or some other ridiculous idea). I personally do not think we should give a damn cent, and instead use that money here. I realize that Africa could use the money, but the problem there is a lot more than just too little money.

Blaming the US for the tsunami is such a bizarre idea, I won't even go into it..

Although I agree that the African problem is not just money, I really would like to have you think again about that statement. Firstly: money WOULD help. There are countries that do NOT just spend all of their money on armed conflicts, but really ARE in trouble because of natural disasters. Most countries that were hit by the tsunami are not third world countries at all. They have plenty of financial resources to help themselves. But in Africa it's a different thing. Children are starving to death or are dying of diseases we rooted out in our countries decades ago and could be cured for a few bob.
...instead use that money here... you said. On what? Do you really think problems in the USA are in any way comparable to what is happening in some African countries? Think again, stewey. Americans and Europeans are dying from luxury, literally!!

***stewey*** · Jan 19th, 2005 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by dutchie

Blaming the US for the tsunami is such a bizarre idea, I won't even go into it..

Although I agree that the African problem is not just money, I really would like to have you think again about that statement. Firstly: money WOULD help. There are countries that do NOT just spend all of their money on armed conflicts, but really ARE in trouble because of natural disasters. Most countries that were hit by the tsunami are not third world countries at all. They have plenty of financial resources to help themselves. But in Africa it's a different thing. Children are starving to death or are dying of diseases we rooted out in our countries decades ago and could be cured for a few bob.
...instead use that money here... you said. On what? Do you really think problems in the USA are in any way comparable to what is happening in some African countries? Think again, stewey. Americans and Europeans are dying from luxury, literally!!

I agree, it would be great to see that money spent on Africa, but a lot of the problems there are corruption that money will not solve. If there is a sure place to donate that aid money where it would benefit the people of Africa, I would be all for giving it. By spending here, I meant on the flooding in California and such.

***substand*** · Jan 19th, 2005 11:21 PM

350 million is too little and the US should be ashamed of its paltry effort

who voted for that? show yourself!

***substand*** · Jan 19th, 2005 11:22 PM

does anyone have any figures on what the bush-clinton fund has raised?

i want to change my vote. i wish we could see what a reduction in taxes would do to private giving in the US.

***DontBeAfraid*** · Jan 20th, 2005 7:11 PM

You know it would do next to nothing subs. How much is bushes party going to cost? Just wondering.....

**Havoc Angel** · Jan 20th, 2005 8:03 PM

Last info i got from german news was around 40 million US$ for the party, financed through donations. But, hey, it's a event of national importance, it can't be too expensive for a party lasting only one day.

***substand*** · Jan 21st, 2005 3:26 PM

You know it would do next to nothing subs. How much is bushes party going to cost? Just wondering.....

I doubt it would do next to nothing.

The party was 40 mil. if you can raise 40 mil in donations for a party, you can raise tons for disaster relief.

***substand*** · Feb 10th, 2005 3:29 PM

900 million given from major companies, churches, schools, etc:

http://blog.simmins.org/td.pdf

White House estimates 700 mil (and pledges 600 more):

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/09/tsunami.aid/