Earthquake in Haiti leaves tens of thousands dead

posted at 1:24 pm on January 13, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The earthquake that hit Haiti may wind up surpassing the number of people killed in the tsunamis of 2004. Initial estimates run from the “thousands” (news media, being cautious) to 100,000 (Le Monde), to as many as a half-million people (the Haiti government). Tweets from locals say there are no hospitals left in Port-au-Prince, and the local jail collapsed entirely. One of the poorest nations on the planet has been utterly devastated:

Haitians are piling bodies along the devastated streets of their capital after a powerful earthquake flattened the president’s palace and the main prison, the cathedral, hospitals, schools and thousands of homes. Untold numbers are still trapped.

President Rene Preval says he believes thousands of people are dead even as other officials give much higher estimates — though they were based on the extent of the destruction rather than firm counts of the dead.

His prime minister, Jean-Max Bellerive, tells CNN: “I believe we are well over 100,000,” while leading senator Youri Latortue tells The Associated Press that 500,000 could be dead. Both admit they have no way of knowing.

Fausta, always a go-to resource for Western Hemisphere news, has the following videos showing the destruction:

The American Red Cross has responded:

6:20 pm The American Red Cross is pledging an initial $200,000 to assist communities impacted by this earthquake, and is prepared to take further action as local responders assess the situation. As with most earthquakes, we expect to see immediate needs for food, water, temporary shelter, medical services and emotional support.

12:30am (1/13/2010) You can text “HAITI” to 90999 to donate $10 to American Red Cross relief for Haiti.

Barack Obama signaled US commitment to assist in recovery:

The US Navy will play a big role in the effort to assist Haiti. Donate to reputable response organizations, and keep Haitians in your prayers.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 3:50 PM

How many nation’s military’s have hospital ships and other resources solely committed to disaster relief. Yeah other countries send food, money, etc. But how many actually put boots on ground, provide humanitarian relief, AND air support all in the name of humanity? Just us.

Rightwingguy on January 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM

i didn’t lose any sleep after the tsunami either… oh great,,,,more of my tax dollars flushed down the turd world toilet? i am wondering what happens to the billions of my tax dollars in aid that is sent abroad..oh wait i know,,,it enriches the parasites…
let private charities save them,,,
save your breath libitard ,before you get all huffy on the replies, its my tax money and i’m tired of the turd world looking for handouts….parasites, much like the welfare careers we have been forced to pony up for in the states…

AMERICAN VETERAN on January 13, 2010 at 5:16 PM

should make OwlGore happy… less carbon foot prints….

AMERICAN VETERAN on January 13, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Here is the shame…because we have such poor economic leaders, because we have spent 1.3 trillion, read again, 1.3 trillion more then we should have, we don’t have the resources we need to help like we have in the past.
The foolish spending policies of this administration, will allow millions to suffer, just so he can get his “agenda” passed…but they won’t get it, liberals never understand humanity, just what they can take from others.

right2bright on January 13, 2010 at 5:22 PM

AVet:
Agreed. Obama will spend billions for foreign aid, and little for domestic defense.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 13, 2010 at 5:23 PM

The US is on the bottom of the list (or second to it). Period.

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 3:50 PM

You are an idiot…where do you get such statistics. Please show us that link that has the supporting evidence.
You won’t, you can’t, you are a liar…that’s right a liar.
Here is a link to help you. Actually it is not for you, you are a liar and you won’t like the facts, this is for others who want to know the truth.

Q. Are Americans more or less charitable than citizens of other countries?
A. No developed country approaches American giving. For example, in 1995 (the most recent year for which data are available), Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status. On the contrary, if we look at two people who are identical in all these ways except that one is European and the other American, the probability is still far lower that the European will volunteer than the American.

right2bright on January 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM

As I said before, I am writing another paper on individual conributions, and the results are the same:

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Some statistics for your paper, Dave: http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers/article_print

Who are you calling cheap again?

patriette on January 13, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Here’s one of the reputable relief agencies:

http://anglicanaid.net/?/main/page/19

greggriffith on January 13, 2010 at 5:35 PM

AMERICAN VETERAN on January 13, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Since you’re down in the dumps, I’ll tell you this: your taxes also pay my salary. Tremble at the thought at what a young squid purchases with his money. Mwahahahahahaha!

(If it makes you feel better, I just bought some uniform items and a textbook. So I’ll look sharp and be intelligent.)
:-)

Rightwingguy on January 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Del Dolemonte:

Uh, the story that you link to was published almost 4 years ago.

Uh, the story I linked to was 2 years after the tsunami. If a nation didn’t find the time to write a check in 2 years, I doubt that the money was spent after that.

Bishop:

Saudi Arabia provides cash, that’s great, now how do they plan on getting it there?

Cash buys aid. People deliver aid and accept cash as payment. Other countries have boats. You don’t need guns or attack planes on a boat in order for it to carry aid. Also, other countries have planes, which are also capable of carrying aid.

Chemman:

Dave 742 the problem with what you are arguing is that you can never account for all the individual acts of giving that Americans do.

These “individual acts” are covered in individual aid contributions. If you give money to the church, the church reports it in their taxes, and it gets counted. Also, did you realize that people in other countries also contribute “individual acts”? If your claim is that American’s “individual acts” outdo those of other countries, fine. This is unprovable either way. What I have proven that the US government gives far less financial aid than other countries, and the same is true for individual contributions. You are free to think what you will about the “individual acts” of Americans, and to think of it so hard that you forget about how cheap Americans really are.

AMERICAN VETERAN:

i am wondering what happens to the billions of my tax dollars in aid that is sent abroad..oh wait i know,,,it enriches the parasites…

I am sure that if America agreed to stay the hell out of everyone else’s country, other nations would be more than happy to stop taking aid in return

Patriette:
Your link gives no references for any figures it gives. There is a source for the first chart, which is the “giving usa foundation”. Here is their website:

http://www.aafrc.org/

Show me where this organization got this data. It is freakin’ hilarious that you will take a completely unsourced paper like this as fact, because it says what you want to hear, but when I take data that is universally accepted, even by Mr. Spencer, and treat it correctly, you say I am a liar. No wonder propaganda works so well in the US. You are all imbeciles.

Who are you calling cheap again?

The US. And they are smelly, too.

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM

save your breath libitard ,before you get all huffy on the replies, its my tax money and i’m tired of the turd world looking for handouts

Aren’t there some kids you have to shoo off your lawn?

YYZ on January 13, 2010 at 5:45 PM

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Awww. I got ignored.

Rightwingguy on January 13, 2010 at 5:47 PM

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM

BTW, you are still waaaay wrong, dude.

Rightwingguy on January 13, 2010 at 5:48 PM

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Hey stupid….that figure for America is just what the government provided (the UK figure includes private).
If you included the private it almost triples.
Just this one report states:

U.S. Charities have received more than $400 million, according to estimates by the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

That does not include religious organizations, which was 4 times that amount.
So you are looking at about 950 mil, plus 400 mil, plus about 1.2 billion, so you have over 2 billions given…at least.
So your figures are not only off, but way off, and I would say, purposely.
Next time try not to be so obvious in your lies…

right2bright on January 13, 2010 at 5:49 PM

LDS charities give 100% of the money to relief…not a dime goes any where else…so if you want to give to a charity where you know the money is actually getting where it should go…go with LDS charities

dirksilver on January 13, 2010 at 5:52 PM

BTW, you are still waaaay wrong, dude.

Rightwingguy on January 13, 2010 at 5:48 PM

You mean because he included private giving in the U.K, but not only gov. and not private for the U.S.???
Why dave642 would never do something like that on purpose…no, not him…naw, he would never want to decieve.
Why I bet if he finds this out, he will take down that post of his and apologize……
HAHAHAHAHAHA! I crack myself up….he will never apologize for posting false information, he’s a liberal.
If we don’t believe a liberal for his lies, that’s our problem, not his……HAHAHAHA! I am on a roll.
Hey davey, just to make sure, what is 2 + 2, I want to be sure you know simple addition….no Googling now….

right2bright on January 13, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Patriette:
Your link gives no references for any figures it gives. There is a source for the first chart, which is the “giving usa foundation”.

Dave, I would encourage you to read the fine print. Sources for the data cited in the linked synopsis of a much more detailed study include Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, as well as Dr. Brooks’ book on the subject, “Who Really Cares” (Basic Books, 2006). The latter has a much more extensive bibliography of Dr. Brooks’ research. If you’re such the number-cruncher that you claim to be, I’m sure you’ll be interested in reading up on the extensive research cited there. But then again, it might suit your agenda more to just to take Kanye West-style pot shots at George Bush than look at actual, you know, statistics.

patriette on January 13, 2010 at 5:57 PM

right2bright on January 13, 2010 at 5:54 PM

That and he totally ignores what the U.S. military does. Do you have any idea how much it costs to move ships and supplies needed in a humanitarian relief operation? That is outside the bounds of what we consider “monetary” aid and wouldn’t be included in any study that looks at simply cash given by the USG for disaster relief.

Rightwingguy on January 13, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Hopefully people will put their money with their mouth is and help prove dave742 wrong. I’ll post the link to Nazarene Compassionate Ministries again. My wife and I were discussing the tragedy over supper. NCM will join forces with other help organizations such as World Missions to combine resources and work off of one another’s strengths. The Nazarene Denomination has people on the ground in many countries, many of them nationals. This is what makes them so efficient, especially in disasters like this. One program that NCM has right now in Haiti is a clean water program. They will install wells or cisterns so that communities have fresh drinking water. Our church took up an offering at Christmas for this project. With this terrible earthquake, fresh water is one thing that will probably be in short supply.
`
I could continue this debate, but it isn’t worth my time. I just want to provide information in case some of you great people want to provide help.

CBP on January 13, 2010 at 5:58 PM

LDS charities give 100% of the money to relief…not a dime goes any where else…so if you want to give to a charity where you know the money is actually getting where it should go…go with LDS charities

dirksilver on January 13, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Same with Lutheran Disaster Response….there are quite a few that do the same.
Just like the LDS, churches do this, the administration fees come from the general funds.

right2bright on January 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Del Dolemonte:

Uh, the story that you link to was published almost 4 years ago.

Uh, the story I linked to was 2 years after the tsunami. If a nation didn’t find the time to write a check in 2 years, I doubt that the money was spent after that.

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM

You can’t state that as fact-it’s your opinion and nothing more, unless you prove it with more recent statistics.

But using your “logic”, the US didn’t donate any money after the date the British newspaper article you link to was published. And once again, that’s not a fact-it’s simply your opinion.

Del Dolemonte on January 13, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Meant World Vision, not World Missions

CBP on January 13, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Where are all the liberal commentators chiding America to step up and help the Hatians, ala their initial response to the tsunami? Oh yeah, there is a Democrat in the White House. My bad…….

Mallard T. Drake on January 13, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Worse than the disaster itself is the hundreds of billions in aid that will be shoveled into this sh!thole only to fatten the overseas accounts of all the government officials.

I’m a sr exec for a 501 c (3) that delivers aid to 3rd world nations. When we landed in Cap Hatien to deliver desperately needed aid DIRECTLY to the people through a large Christian church we were held at the airport until we paid a bribe of $800 to “the governor”. We bargained them down to $300.

The next month we brought another cargo plane and got off with just forking over Disney passes.

Regardless of how much money we pour into this corrupt lawless cesspool, it won’t make a difference.. sorry to burst any warm fuzzy bubbly feelings that always follow in the wake of disasters.

And, you best be belivin Obama will use this as an opportunity to contrast himself to Bush in Katrina, so be prepared to see hundreds of billions of our tax dollars wasted in this sphincter of the world.

Alden Pyle on January 13, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Rightwingguy on January 13, 2010 at 5:58 PM

What he tried to ridicule, is the fact the new nuclear aircraft carriers were specifically designed for relief efforts, along with being war machines. The greatly increased their capacity to filtrate water, to supply fresh water out of sea water, and they redesigned their hospitals, which normally have about 50 beds, so they can be used in disaster relief and assistance.
He is a left wing guy, that has limited knowledge, but an unlimited imagination…

right2bright on January 13, 2010 at 6:18 PM

Where are all the liberal commentators chiding America to step up and help the Hatians, ala their initial response to the tsunami? Oh yeah, there is a Democrat in the White House. My bad…….

Mallard T. Drake on January 13, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Ask and you shall receive! Howie Fineman has already worked the blame Bush meme into this story.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/13/why-hurricane-katrina-looms-over-obama-s-relief-efforts-in-haiti.aspx

Del Dolemonte on January 13, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Rightwingguy on January 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM

if you are on active duty or a retired service member, i am proud to pay your salary and benefits!!, when you cash that check, spend it on what ever you want Sir, you have earned it…

salute!!!

AMERICAN VETERAN on January 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Rightwingguy on January 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM

GO NAVY!!

Bubblehead or Skimmer Puke???

BigWyo on January 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM

YYZ on January 13, 2010 at 5:45 PM

NOPE, I PUT UP A ELECTRIC FENCE…GOT IT FROM OWLGORE,,ITS SOLAR POWERED!!!NOW GET BACK ON YOUR SIDE OF THE STREET…AHAHHAHHAHAHAH

AMERICAN VETERAN on January 13, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Cash buys aid. People deliver aid and accept cash as payment. Other countries have boats. You don’t need guns or attack planes on a boat in order for it to carry aid. Also, other countries have planes, which are also capable of carrying aid.
dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Really?? They have boats??? Do their boats provide electricity??? Water purification plant??? Hospital services??

Last time I checked, aircraft carriers could do all that and a hell of a lot more.

BigWyo on January 13, 2010 at 6:38 PM

The US. And they are smelly, too.

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM

where are you heroes the Iranians? why hasn’t the dinner jacket and the MAHDI went over there and fixed it up already??

right4life on January 13, 2010 at 6:43 PM

BigWyo on January 13, 2010 at 6:38 PM

You’re wasting your time. To paraphrase the noted philosopher Tommy Chong, dave is definitely not all here.

Also, other countries have planes, which are also capable of carrying aid.

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM

That’s a two-edged sword too. I remember after Gulf War 1, the US foolishly agreed to let Saddam Hussein retain some small planes and helicopters to “carry aid” to the people of Iraq. He promptly used them to ruthlessly suppress uprisings.

Del Dolemonte on January 13, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Heh, even if we burn hundreds of billions to restore this country BACK to where it was BEFORE the earthquake, it would only be bringing it UP yo abject poverty. Doesn’t make good fiscal sense. Let private groups take care of it.

Alden Pyle on January 13, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 13, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Yeah, I know. I was reading some of dave’s screed earlier today.

Dude is way gone and has a serious case of the ButtHurt about America….he congealed this paper and he’s just been waiting to trot it on out. Just had to wait for a tragedy to happen. Probably been busy all day posting to multiple blogs.

Be interesting to Google ‘I hate America’ and ‘READ MY PAPER’….

Maybe throw in ‘Death to the Infidels’ and ‘Robert Spencer should DIAF’

Truly an unhinged Toilet Bug.

BigWyo on January 13, 2010 at 7:08 PM

For example, in 1995 (the most recent year for which data are available), Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans.

Anyone know how much aid Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Dubai and Turkey give to disasters such as this? I’m making certain assumptions about Muslim countries and their charitable giving but I’m probably not being fair.

CarolynM on January 13, 2010 at 7:17 PM

Anyone know how much aid Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Dubai and Turkey give to disasters such as this? I’m making certain assumptions about Muslim countries and their charitable giving but I’m probably not being fair.

CarolynM on January 13, 2010 at 7:17 PM

I think it is quite high…it would not look good with them sitting on all the oil and billions of dollars and not throw out a few bones for the dogs…just a guess, but I wouldn’t be surprised at some pretty heavy contributions…also, don’t forget, a country in ruins doesn’t buy oil….

right2bright on January 13, 2010 at 7:19 PM

NOPE, I PUT UP A ELECTRIC FENCE…GOT IT FROM OWLGORE,,ITS SOLAR POWERED!!!NOW GET BACK ON YOUR SIDE OF THE STREET…AHAHHAHHAHAHAH

AMERICAN VETERAN on January 13, 2010 at 6:34 PM

We’ll wait till dark….oops forgot about that little “solar” problem did you?….

right2bright on January 13, 2010 at 7:22 PM

What he tried to ridicule, is the fact the new nuclear aircraft carriers were specifically designed for relief efforts, along with being war machines. The greatly increased their capacity to filtrate water, to supply fresh water out of sea water, and they redesigned their hospitals, which normally have about 50 beds, so they can be used in disaster relief and assistance.
He is a left wing guy, that has limited knowledge, but an unlimited imagination…

right2bright on January 13, 2010 at 6:18 PM

Not to mention the USNS Comfort. An entire hospital ship self-contained with operating theaters, beds, and medical personnel. France is sending dogs (which is necessary) but what other nation than the US can provide such an asset on such short notice?

highhopes on January 13, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Ask and you shall receive!

Del Dolemonte on January 13, 2010 at 6:25 PM

You know, I was a little disappointed that Fineman wasn’t able to work Cheney into his screed. C’mon Howard, try harder!

Mallard T. Drake on January 13, 2010 at 7:26 PM

If you give money to the church, the church reports it in their taxes, and it gets counted

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Well, you are good for entertainment but, that’s about it. I was treasurer for our local congregation for four years and you sir don’t know what you are talking about.

boomer on January 13, 2010 at 7:43 PM

right2bright:

So your figures are not only off, but way off, and I would say, purposely.
Next time try not to be so obvious in your lies…

I compared government contributions in my paper for all my comparisons. This is very clear to anyone that can read. As I said about a dozen times already on this thread, the results for private contributions are similar. Please read before commenting.

You mean because he included private giving in the U.K, but not only gov. and not private for the U.S.???

I did not include private charity for the UK. Spencer did. I did not. I specifically said it was wrong for Spencer to include private aid for the UK when he did not do so for any other country. Can you read?

Patriette:

Dave, I would encourage you to read the fine print.

I read the paper. The chart in your paper that is relevant to this thread is the one that I mentioned and gave a link to and asked where the data came from. The Roper chart compares aid donations of religious vs. secular people. That is not the discussion here. We are comparing cross-national charity, which is discussed at the beginning of your article, and the only source given which might cover that data is form the first chart, which I mentioned.
That this freak would write a paper and not give a reference within that paper makes him something less than a truthful scholar. He does make the same comments in his book on page 120 (visible on amazon), but the notes are not on amazon. Luckily, the book is at my library, so I’ll get it tomorrow if I have time. I will consider what it says.

If you would like to look at the Reuters data for private contributions (Go here: http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/aidtracker/fulldonors.htm and then click on “government vs. private aid” tab), here are the rankings for private aid:

Switzerland 575.29
Ireland 516.40
Netherlands 458.50
Sweden 396.99
Australia 354.22
Norway 346.36
UK 296.51
Luxembourg 293.89
Kuwait 267.56
Canada 237.91
Germany 226.97
Singapore 217.57
Austria 209.84
Finland 208.25
France 189.87
Denmark 182.75
Saudi Arabia 181.04
Begium 171.45
New Zealand 154.37
Taiwan 140.11
United States 122.92
Greece 74.75
Czech Republic 47.81
South Korea 36.62
Italy 34.02
Japan 28.53
Portugal 21.07
Turkey 20.62
Hong Kong 13.83
China 9.22
Mexico 3.83

(same units as in the paper)

I guess Reuters is a bunch of liars.

Rightwingguy:

That and he totally ignores what the U.S. military does. Do you have any idea how much it costs to move ships and supplies needed in a humanitarian relief operation? That is outside the bounds of what we consider “monetary” aid and wouldn’t be included in any study that looks at simply cash given by the USG for disaster relief.

As I already said, this is already accounted for in the Reuters data:

“Government aid comes in many forms – outright grants, military logistical help, debt relief, in-kind donations and concessional loans”:

http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/aidtracker/methodology.htm

Del Dolemonte:

But using your “logic”, the US didn’t donate any money after the date the British newspaper article you link to was published. And once again, that’s not a fact-it’s simply your opinion.

Yes, I guess the US was waiting for a few years after the disaster to donate their aid. That makes sense.

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 8:11 PM

boomer:

Well, you are good for entertainment but, that’s about it. I was treasurer for our local congregation for four years and you sir don’t know what you are talking about.

Tell me how I am wrong

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 8:12 PM

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Yawn, but how many of these countries in the past year have saved or created 2 million jobs?

Ladywolfnl on January 13, 2010 at 8:34 PM

International Rescue Committee

Plan


World Vision

Top notch outfits.

Maquis on January 13, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Dave742,

I guess Reuters is a bunch of liars.

Actually they’re fairly notorious liars.

Mike Honcho on January 13, 2010 at 9:14 PM

Patriette:
So, according to the UN data, the Swedish government gave over 17 times as much aid as the US did, and according to the Reuters data, the Swedish citizens gave over 3 times as much as the US citizens did. Liars.

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 9:20 PM

Mike Honcho:

Actually they’re fairly notorious liars.

Of course. Someday I will learn that the only people I can trust are the posters on HA.

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 9:21 PM

BigWyo on January 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM

LOL. Shore sailor as of right now. I’m just getting trained up.

AMERICAN VETERAN on January 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM

LOL. I appreciate it, sir. Thank you.

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Hmm. Well, it must be pretty cheap to move those military assets around then. Much less expensive than I imagined. My only problem is how in the heck do the Swiss give more than us? They live on a gosh-darn mountain! Singapore? Connecticut is bigger than Singapore!

Rightwingguy on January 13, 2010 at 9:46 PM

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Well, it’s true. I would never steer you wrong.

Rightwingguy on January 13, 2010 at 9:47 PM

So then, how long are we going to let this turd high-jack this thread?

CPT. Charles on January 13, 2010 at 9:59 PM

dave742,

Of course. Someday I will learn that the only people I can trust are the posters on HA.

Well Reuters did lie about the photos initally and I guarantee you I could find more evidence of disingenuous, agenda driven bullsh*t from them. Particularly if it involves depicting Israel and the United States in the worst possible light.

I have no desire to do this however. You and your silly little paper have had enough attention for one day.

Mike Honcho on January 13, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Rightwingguy:

My only problem is how in the heck do the Swiss give more than us? They live on a gosh-darn mountain! Singapore? Connecticut is bigger than Singapore!

Generosity does not depend on the type of terrain that you live in, or the size of the country you live in. It depends on empathy. Anyone who supports their country to constantly bomb other countries does not know the meaning of the word empathy, so I do not expect you to understand. The most generous people I have ever heard of are the Ugandan women I talked about at the end of my paper. They make $1.20 a day, yet they donated an average of $4.50 each to victims of the Katrina hurricane, who happen to live in one of the richest countries on the planet. And the US accepts their money! I cannot tell you how proud that makes me feel.

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 10:10 PM

I am sure that if America agreed to stay the hell out of everyone else’s country, other nations would be more than happy to stop taking aid in return

Highly doubt it. I didn’t realize we were in Haiti to begin with. In any case, if nations actually want that, their governments are welcome to make such a request. Care to explain why they haven’t?

RINO in Name Only on January 13, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Catholic Relief Services has been on the ground since yesterday. They are always first, and stay until the end.

tcn on January 13, 2010 at 10:40 PM

I cannot tell you how proud that makes me feel.

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Well, that and the tiny little penis you keep in your left pocket.

Just keep choking that chicken, buddy.

Nobody cares.

tcn on January 13, 2010 at 10:42 PM

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Ahhhh. That’s my problem. I’m not empathetic enough.

Rightwingguy on January 13, 2010 at 11:17 PM

Tell me how I am wrong

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 8:12 PM

I’ll tell you how you are wrong:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19409188/

In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7 percent. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73 percent, while France, with a 0.14 percent rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany.

Please note that the above analysis does not include the value of in-kind services such as the very expensive deployment of US Military and other government personnel, expenses won’t show up in any kind of tabulation of charitable donations, but which is paid for by US taxpayers and which represents a substantial additional contribution by the people of the United States.

No other country on earth has the type of hardware (ships, planes, helicopters, etc), and the capability to send that hardware within the critical response time during major disasters.

The most generous people I have ever heard of are the Ugandan women I talked about at the end of my paper. They make $1.20 a day, yet they donated an average of $4.50 each to victims of the Katrina hurricane, who happen to live in one of the richest countries on the planet. And the US accepts their money! I cannot tell you how proud that makes me feel.

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 10:10 PM

http://kampala.usembassy.gov/katrina.html

Uganda collected a grand total of $200,000 for Hurricane Katrina relief. That was very nice of them, and much appreciated, but the population of Uganda is over 31,000,000 people. Divided by 200,000 that means the average Ugandan contributed about 6/10ths of one cent to Hurricane Katrina relief.

I guess the Michael Moore School of Public Policy and Analysis isn’t big on quantitative methods, or the consistent use of logic. Don’t give up your day job.

Dreadnought on January 13, 2010 at 11:36 PM

Rightwingguy,

Ahhhh. That’s my problem. I’m not empathetic enough.

There are worse things than war.

Incidentally opposing “dropping bombs” would have condemned 50 million people to live under the brutality of the Taliban and the bloodlust of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Doesn’t strike me as terribly empathetic.

Mike Honcho on January 13, 2010 at 11:42 PM

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 10:10 PM

You will never be proud of your country, do you share the same hatred for China? They rank #76 in your final table of numbers.

As far your alleged paper, your premise is this:

Cheap, Smelly Americans

For starters, smelly is your opinion. An opinion can not be presented as fact, you lose this argument. Now let’s assume it is fact just for kicks. You imply all Americans are smelly because you place no qualifier on the term. You lose this argument as well. You may smell, but not all Americans do.

We are left with cheap which is the main premise of said paper. Based on your numbers from table 3, the US gave 33% of the total aid, Germany second at 27%. What mattered to the tsunami victims was real money, not some arbitrary metric that you cherry picked and created. Real money paid for food, water, and other needs that the victims other wise would not have had. You can not discount this fact just because it does not agree with your agenda.

You then attempt to make an argument about why GDP is a better basis to judge how cheap America is. It is convenient to your premise that America has roughly five times the GDP of second place Germany.

Yet, using only GDP does not take into account how many people are used to create it. What matters more than total GDP is GDP per capita. After all, some individuals produce more than others, and some none at all. GDP per capita is an even more credible metric than just GDP for this reason. It takes into consideration the entire population that is creating the production.

When GDP per capita is used, America, instead of being ranked ninth in Table 4 as you assert (only to fall even further in later tables), would be ranked second to only Germany. Also interesting, Luxembourg ranks first in GDP per capita, almost double the amount than America, yet appear nowhere in your tables and yet you are not disparging them for being cheap.

But you already knew this. That is why your cherry picked the number at the start.

Every other table after Table 4 is garbage because your starting point in table 4 is garbage.

Yet the question remains, no matter how you want to cherry pick the numbers or calculations, you only want to point to America is being cheap and smelly. You make no mention of China being the same, but even using your wrong calculations, China falls below America.

I guess you are also an AGW scientist. They like cherry pick facts to make their assertion appear more credibile as well.

rukiddingme on January 13, 2010 at 11:45 PM

Interesting how the donors stack up for the Tsunami. Little or nothing the Arab countries to help a largely Islamic demographic. I see nothng for the Haitians from Obummer’s friends the commies and islamists. The hated US and Israel both have boots on the ground. Christian and Jewish fund raising efforts are in progress as average Americans cringe at the horror and dig for whatever to help. The EU wrings it’s hands.

Reality Check on January 14, 2010 at 12:03 AM

Not according to this.

dave742 on January 13, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Dave, I took the same website you cited in showing “how little” the US gives, and I clicked a different tab. That tab shows the USA with having fulfilled 100% of its promise, and Germany less than 40%. Now, if you deny one tab on a website you have to deny them all, since they are all different views of the same data.

So either your first assertion is false, or your second one is. You lose either way.

unclesmrgol on January 14, 2010 at 12:18 AM

I’ve got a great idea, dave742. Since you obviously hate America and love the Middle East, why don’t you move to Iran? We’ve learned in previous posts that you admire Ahmedinejad. So, why don’t you get a one way ticket to Iran, land at the border, and walk to Tehran, so you can experience Iranian hospitality. You’ve spent this entire thread ragging on America. Move or shut up.

kingsjester on January 14, 2010 at 8:31 AM

Dreadnought:
I’ll answer you first, since you actually made an attempt to look up real information, which puts you in the top 1 percentile on this site. The report that is referred to in your MSNBC article is here:

http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20Comparisons%20of%20Charitable%20Giving.pdf

This report compares a dozen different surveys run in different countries. SURVEYS!! (like telephone surveys!). This is ridiculous. You cannot make accurate comparisons by calling someone up on the phone and asking them how much money they give to charities. You know what a better way is? To count the dollars ACTUALLY GIVEN by people. You get better results when you compare what people actually give, and not what they say they gave.

Uganda collected a grand total of $200,000 for Hurricane Katrina relief.

Uganda’s GDP is 40.8 billion. For every million dollars of GDP, they gave $4.90 to the US for Katrina aid. The US gave $15.01 for tsunami relief. So the US gave 3 times as much aid for tsunami relief than Uganda gave the US for Katrina aid. Are you really proud of this? The fact that a dirt poor country like Uganda is giving one of the richest countries in the world any aid at all, and the fact that the US accepts it, makes the US look like the cheap, smelly country that they are. It’s like the homeless people in the US giving money to Bill Gates if his house burns down. I guess what makes you proud makes me sick to my stomach.

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 9:23 AM

unclesmrgol:

So either your first assertion is false, or your second one is.

None of my assertions are false. The article I linked to showed that the US was coming up short on what they promised. They were looking at direct aid, not things like loans, debt relief, etc. When you look at direct aid, the US came up short on its promise. The Reuters site, however, looks at all types of aid, including loans, debt relief, sending aircraft carriers, etc. You have to look at what is being compared.The US replaced promises of cash with contributions of things like debt relief. For Reuters, this does not matter.
The Reuters site says that the US gave 100% of what they promised, and Germany gave 40%. Great. I accept that. I could care less what countries promise, or what individuals say they give over the phone. I am concerned with what countries and individuals actually give. I am concerned with reality. The reality is that according to the Reuters data, Germany gave 2.6 times as much as the US did. I don’t care if this is only 40% of what they promised, I care that it is 2.6 times as what the US actually gave. If person A promises to give $500 to charity and only gives $300, he is MORE generous than a person who promised to give $50 and gives $50.

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 9:47 AM

Rukiddingme:

You will never be proud of your country

I will be proud when my country gives a reason to be proud. Unlike most people, I cannot be proud of my country merely because I was born here.

do you share the same hatred for China? They rank #76 in your final table of numbers.

I don’t “hate” the US because they are cheap and smelly, but you are correct that China is even more cheap than the US. I am unable to do the mental gymnastics that people here do to justify what their country does regardless of the facts are. The fact is that China is very cheap, and I acknowledge it. I like to shape my worldview on reality.

For starters, smelly is your opinion.

Yes, I was not being serious when I add this word. I agree that I have no proof that Americans are smelly. You win. Lighten up.

“Yet, using only GDP does not take into account how many people are used to create it.”

Of course it does, you imbecile. If a countries gdp is 14 trillion, like the US, this is directly dependent on the number of people that contribute to it. It is gdp per capita, the stat that you use, that negates the number of people used. What the hell did you do, divide the amount each country gave by their gdp per capita? What in God’s name does that give you? What are your units for that number? Jesus Christ. From this point on, I am going to request that complete imbeciles not address me any more.

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Rightwingguy:

“That and he totally ignores what the U.S. military does.”

For the fourth time, the Reuters data counts the value of military aid. Please pay attention.

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Misery at a unprecedented scale. As a Christian, I must do something to stop the suffering.

Reagan Republican on January 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM

right2bright :

“You are an idiot…where do you get such statistics. Please show us that link that has the supporting evidence. You won’t, you can’t, you are a liar…that’s right a liar.”

Eat me.

right2bright and patriette:
You both point to the this link.

The comparative data that Brooks quotes is unsourced in the link you give. I am shocked. I looked up the same comparative data in Brooks’ book on amazon (which can be found on page 120), and the reference he gives for this statement (in note 9) is not visible on the amazon site, so I went to the library (a place that contains books, journals, and similar items), and got the book (I doubt if anyone on this site has been to a library in the past decade, unless it was to get CD’s to burn onto their IPOD. The reference Brooks uses for his data is this site.

The methodology used on this site can be found here.

Once again, this is a freakin’ joke. They count things like donations to health care, hospitals, education, etc. Europeans do not have to give charitable donations for these types of things because these things are paid for through their taxes. Jesus Christ. The data also includes charitable contributions the ballet, the opera, country clubs, leisure clubs, etc. Let me make this clear:

I AM TALKING ABOUT AID TO POOR COUNTRIES, ESPECIALLY IN RESPONSE TO CATASTROPHES.

When it comes to this type of aid, the US is cheap and quite smelly. I will accept that Americans might be generous when it comes to giving to their country clubs or to the ballet. Imbeciles.

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 12:51 PM

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 10:31 AM

You sure are good at name calling, supporting your assertions not so much.

If a countries gdp is 14 trillion, like the US, this is directly dependent on the number of people that contribute to it.

That was my point to you, glad we have found agreement.

It is gdp per capita, the stat that you use, that negates the number of people used.

GDP per capita does not negate the number of people used for production, it accounts for each individual and properly puts them on the same playing field. After all, the drivel in your paper seems to be all about everyone being equal.

GDP per capita is the superior metric. Ever wonder why the US GDP is roughly 5 times that of Germany? Could it be the US has roughly 5 times the population? Yet, GDP per capita between the US and Germany is roughly the same, imagine that.

What the hell did you do, divide the amount each country gave by their gdp per capita? What in God’s name does that give you?

Does not matter what the resulting calulations are, what matters is the ranking of those calculations. The USA only falls to second place. Those other countries that you are proud of, still rank at the bottom.

What are your units for that number?

Do the math, if you are capable.

BTW, I am very proud of my country. You would be too if you stopped wasting your time creating false calculations and then having the audicity to use those calculations to give the appearance that empirical evidence exists to support your hate.

How about instead of spewing hate, go get some therapy?

God bless the victims in Haiti.

rukiddingme on January 14, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Dreadnought:
I’ll answer you first, since you actually made an attempt to look up real information, which puts you in the top 1 percentile on this site. The report that is referred to in your MSNBC article is here:

http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20Comparisons%20of%20Charitable%20Giving.pdf

This report compares a dozen different surveys run in different countries. SURVEYS!! (like telephone surveys!). This is ridiculous. You cannot make accurate comparisons by calling someone up on the phone and asking them how much money they give to charities. You know what a better way is? To count the dollars ACTUALLY GIVEN by people. You get better results when you compare what people actually give, and not what they say they gave.
dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 9:23 AM

I’m sorry sir-but your assertions in the above paragraph are laughable. You are cherry-picking the charitable response to ONE particular event (the 2004 tsunami) and using it to try to prove that Americans are less charitable than other countries. That is only ONE event, an event that affected Europeans much more than Americans, due to the fact that several of the affected areas were much more popular as vacation spots for Europeans than for Americans, and as such, Europeans probably felt more affected by the event, and more prone to contribute money (e.g., 500 Swedes died in the tsunami versus only 50 Americans).

There is nothing wrong with doing a telephone survey to get an accurate picture of overall charitable giving. In fact, you won’t find a social scientist or statistician in the world who will tell that cherry picking the response to ONE event, is going to give you a better picture of OVERALL charitable giving, than a well-designed survey intended to measure OVERALL levels of charitable giving.

If you think otherwise, then you are either completely ignorant of quantitative methods in social science, or you are so blinded by your anti-American bias than you have convinced yourself that a ridiculously bad methodology is valid. Either way, you need to take a step back.

And the survey referred to in the MSNBC article is not the first I’ve seen on this subject. But all of the surveys regarding charitable giving by nation do come to the same conclusion-even when the effects of GDP or average income are normalized-Americans are the most generous.

Dreadnought on January 14, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Stop feeding the little clown.

His shit rag of a paper has already been discredited several times over. It was nothing more than a weak attempt of trying to get some hits on his scribd account.

I’m telling you, the only remaining cards in this guys deck are the jokers.

You-Eh-Vee on January 14, 2010 at 1:07 PM

rukiddingme:
You cannot use GDP pre capita as a comparison for aid donations. I cannot believe I have to explain this.

Try this example:

Country A and country B have the same GDP per capita. Country A has 300 million people , country B has 1 person. Country A, (which has a 12 trillion dollar gdp) gives 300 million dollars, and country B (with a gdp of 40,000 dollars), gives 2 dollars. Which country is more generous between these two nations with the same gdp per capita, the country that gave 300 million dollars, or the country that gave 2 dollars?

Please, oh please tell me how you came up with your rankings. I really want a good laugh.

Do you wonder why the UN Millennium project goals, which were developed through discussions among just about every nation in the world, uses total GDP as their measure, and not GDP per capita? In your world, the UN MIllenium project woould ask country A above, with 300 million people, to give 84 billion dollars for international aid. If you were in charge, you would also as country B, which consists of one person, to also give 84 billion dollars, correct? They have the same gdp per capita, don’t they?

Imbecile.

I can’t for your response that will make you look even more stupid.

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Dreadnought:

There is nothing wrong with doing a telephone survey to get an accurate picture of overall charitable giving.

Yes. People are 100 percent accurate when someone on the phone asks them how much money they gave to charity. Just like people are accurate when they tell the government on their taxes how much they gave to charity.

Once again, I prefer to count how much is actually given, not how much people say they gave. If someone calls me, I’ll say I gave 15 grand last year to charity. That’ll help boost the US number for these bullshit studies, and you can feel better about yourself.

I focused on the tsunami, but that is not all that I considered.The Millennium goals count all international aid. All of it. Every year. Here are the rankings. This is not one event. This is everything. Go ahead, explain it away.

If you think otherwise, then you are either completely ignorant of quantitative methods in social science…

My wife is a PhD who does research in Social Psychology. She conducts these studies for a living. I know what I am talking about. The study you are pointing to is unpublishable, and is only meant for propaganda purposes for the sheeple. There is a reason this thing appears in a handful of MSM articles, and that’s it.

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 1:38 PM

BTW, feel free to read my paper on the “Gates of Ijtihad”! It’s a page-turner!

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 2:27 PM

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Your wife has a PHD so “You” know what you’re talking about? My God you really are a pompous arogant pr!ck. F%#K-off you Ignorant Blind Puppet Monkey.

ronnyraygun on January 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 9:47 AM

I stand by my statement, backed by proof from your own quoted site (Reuters). Weaselling around isn’t going to change things for you. You bit your own tail on this one.

unclesmrgol on January 14, 2010 at 2:33 PM

unclesmrgol:

I stand by my statement

And I agree with your statement. Germany did not give what they promised. SO WHAT. They promised to give 6 times more than the US, and only gave 2.6 times more than the US. I don’t know what that proves.

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 2:40 PM

The reality is that according to the Reuters data, Germany gave 2.6 times as much as the US did.

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 9:47 AM

Wrong. Germany gave $344M+$663M == $1.007B US gave $857M+$1775M == $2.63B. Therefore, the US gave 2.6 times as much as the Germans did.

You should really look over your numbers more carefully.

unclesmrgol on January 14, 2010 at 2:42 PM

makes the US look like the cheap, smelly country that they are
dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 9:23 AM

What are you? Four? What a perfect example of a Progressive Elitist Pr!ck you are. In marriage only of course.

ronnyraygun on January 14, 2010 at 2:44 PM

ronnyraygun:

Your wife has a PHD so “You” know what you’re talking about?

I read and discuss these types of studies nearly daily. I know what goes into a good study. Calling people on the phone and asking them how much they contribute to charity, and doing so following 12 different methodologies in the 12 different countries, and then comparing them, is not a good study. Once again, that is why this “study” appears in a few MSM articles, and would be laughed at in an academic setting. It’s propaganda for the sheeple. There is no reason to do a BS phone study, because data on what people actually give to charity is readily available. The most that this study proves is that Americans claim they give more than other countries. That is not a surprise.

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM

ronnyraygun:
Smelly like poopy.

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 2:48 PM

unclesmrgol:

Wrong. Germany gave $344M+$663M == $1.007B US gave $857M+$1775M == $2.63B. Therefore, the US gave 2.6 times as much as the Germans did.
You should really look over your numbers more carefully.

Wrong. First of all, when I say that Germany gave 2.6 times as much as the US, I was talking in terms of aid as a percentage of GDP. If you don’t realize yet that this is the correct way to compare aid, then stop posting. Secondly, I was talking about government aid. If you look at table 5, according to the Reuters government data, the US gave $68.13 in aid per million dollars of gdp, and Germany gave $182.41. 182.41/68.13 = 2.6 (rounded down for generosity).

Now you want to change the comparison, and include private aid along with government aid. Fine. The US gives 2.63 billion, and Germany 1.007 billion. Germany’s gdp is 2.925 trillion, and the US gdp is 14.44 trillion. The US, including private and government aid, gave $182.13 per million dollars of gdp. Germany, including private and government aid, gave $344.27 per million dollars of gdp. So, including private donations, Germany gave 89% more than the US did. Any more comparisons you would like to make?

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 3:11 PM

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 1:38 PM

I didn’t know goats could earn PhD’s. What state allows human/farm animal marriage? Vermont?

PimFortuynsGhost on January 14, 2010 at 4:29 PM

I don’t “hate” the US because they are cheap and smelly,

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Epic fail.

Usually even the most insipid of trolls wait until a later sentence before they blatantly contradict themselves. You could have at least done it after the comma.

RINO in Name Only on January 14, 2010 at 6:09 PM

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Dude, I only posted that once….

Rightwingguy on January 14, 2010 at 6:48 PM

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Interesting. Raw numbers and Dave’s cooked data all converge on 2.6. Perhaps it’s similar to 42.

I stand by my numbers. They come off the site you posted, and represent all aid actually delivered by the two respective countries, not the $300M or so Germany never delivered.

As you pointed out

If person A promises to give $500 to charity and only gives $300, he is MORE generous than a person who promised to give $50 and gives $50.

I’m just taking your logic to its conclusion: Because the United States gave more — far more, it was more generous.

I didn’t notice the Indonesians giving back the aid because they thought the amount to be inadequate, from either the US or Germany…

unclesmrgol on January 14, 2010 at 8:34 PM

Imbecile.

I can’t for your response that will make you look even more stupid.

dave742 on January 14, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Had to stop and actually, you know work, instead of trying to spend all day smearing crap on paper and attempting to call it a premise.

Your original math on Table 4 for all countries is this:

Dollars Donated/Dollars of GDP

Now that we agree that it reads

Dollars Donated/Dollars of GDP per person

Because your alleged paper says this:

“After all more people should give more money…” page 9

and this:

“People in different countries make different amounts…” page 10

You are not backing out of those statements are you?

Using your numbers in the example and the calculation:

Country A 300000000/40000 = 7500
Country B 2/40000 = 0.00005

Country A (you know the one with more people) has satisfied your first statement. As a country it gave more than Country B by a factor of 7500.

The second statement is irrelevant as the people in each country produce the same per person of 40,000.

Please, oh please tell me how you came up with your rankings. I really want a good laugh.

Are you laughing yet Dave?????

Then we have had a breakthrough. Now that your math doesn’t fit your argument, you can start being proud of America again and focusing your anger on that individual in Country B where it belongs.

But, somehow I am not holding my breath………

Thank you so much for playing!

rukiddingme on January 14, 2010 at 11:28 PM

Please, oh please tell me how you came up with your rankings. I really want a good laugh.

Sorry Dave742, could not resist. Here is the final flaw in your logic that is going to make you go away. And when this is done, I am requesting that Ed or AP please have you banned from here and to close this thread. You owe every one here an apology for hijacking this thread and spewing your hate. I was forced to read your hate to get at your math and am quite disgusted by this whole thing.

Individuals make up the GDP of countries. In your example, Country B can only donate a maximum of $40,000 (it’s entire GDP). Country A, (you know, the one with more people) can donate much more than that and it did. Your logic takes us down the path of Country A being limited to donating $40,000 as well if it followed the same pace as Country B. That is why the UN asks for funding based on the countries GDP basis, and not it’s per capita basis.

AP? Ed? please ban him and close this thread. It will be very appreciated.

rukiddingme on January 15, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Unclesmrgol:

Because the United States gave more — far more, it was more generous.

Some people simply don’t have the 80 IQ that is needed to understand this. Your stance is that if 20 people give a total of $220 to charity, then those 20 people are more generous than one person who gives $200, because the 20 people gave more altogether than that one person. No need for me to waste time with someone who’s brain cannot get past this.

If everyone in Europe and Asia along with Japan and Australia combined and made one country, their total aid output would far exceed the US. Then that super-country would all of a sudden by more generous than the US, without given an additional dollar! Amazing!

Gues what, the toal population of New England gave much more to charity than you did. I guess that makes you cheap.

Rukiddingme:

Are you laughing yet Dave?????

Probably more than I have ever laughed since I started posting on blogs. You are simply amazing. I have mentioned that I keep a document of all my favorite comments that I have seen on blogs over the years. The following not only goes in the document, but gets framed and put on the wall:

Country A 300000000/40000 = 7500
Country B 2/40000 = 0.00005

Absoutely the funniest thing I have seen in my life. The funniest part is that you can write things like this, and then say to me “Do the math, if you are capable.” Absolutely hilarious. What you have written here is completely meaningless. Tell me what you get when you divide the population of a country by the gdp per capita. You get a meaningless number! You might as well take the average height of the people in the country and divide it by the color of their eyes.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!

When you take math in the third grade, they teach you how to handle units to check your math. My unit are dollars of aid given per million dollars of gdp. This makes common sense. For every million dollars of gdp a country produces, they donate x dollars. It can’t be simpler. For your equation, the units for population are simply people, a numerical value. The units for gdp are dollars per capita, or dollars per person. So the units for your answer are (people) squared per dollar. What the hell does that mean?

BTW, the people in country A gave one dollar each. The person in country B gave 2 dollars. The person in country B is more generous.

I am requesting that Ed or AP please have you banned from here and to close this thread. You owe every one here an apology for hijacking this thread and spewing your hate.

I did not hijack the thread. I made a simple reference to my paper at the start. When I referenced the same paper on the Jihadwatch website, there was no response, and we continued to discuss another issue. It was clear to JW readers that what I said was unable to be rebutted, and they didn’t bother. They continued to discuss with me issues that they felt they did have a point on. I really thought that would happen here as well, because I seriously thought that people at HA were more intelligent than JW readers. Anyway, that did not happen, and people continually either attacked me or challenged me. All I did throughout this entire thread was respond to people. Responding to people is not hijacking the thread. Other than my first post, I made only one post in this entire thread that was not a direct response to another poster. Ed will not ban me for responding to people. He has integrity. Also, I am not expressing hate at anyone. Americans are cheap. I don’t have the ability to ignore a plain fact. What I feel about this is dissapointment and embarrassment, not hate.

dave742 on January 15, 2010 at 8:59 AM

RUkiddingme;
As another poster mentioned, if I have made you angry, then take out that anger by changing the stats, and donate generously to the Haitians. The only way to have a truly generous country is by donating more than other countries do, not less. Switzerland’s private contributions to the tsuanmi was $575 per million dollars of gdp. For a person that makes $40,000 per year, that works out to $23. If you make $40,000 per year, then donate $25 to the Haitians, and you will be doing you part to actually be the most generous country in the world. Better yet, donate $50 to cover the person who doesn’t donate at all, but yet still claims that the US is generous.

dave742 on January 15, 2010 at 9:10 AM

rukiddingme:

For your equation, the units for population are simply people, a numerical value. The units for gdp are dollars per capita, or dollars per person. So the units for your answer are (people) squared per dollar. What the hell does that mean?

I realize you first number is dollars, and not people. So dollars divided by dollars per person gives “people” as the unit for your answer. Almost as funny.

dave742 on January 15, 2010 at 9:28 AM

dave742 on January 15, 2010 at 9:28 AM

***sigh****

For one that believes himself to be a super duper genius, you sure are not very smart. I have gone through these calculations. It is is your math (why are you laughing at your math?), your data, and your premise. Problem is Dave, that your math (when adjusted properly) does not logically support your premise.

You have gone to great lengths to demonstrate how a country’s total dollars donated can be magically diluted (by using total production) and equated to another country’s total dollars donated per production. You are wrong in using total production as your method for making countries equal. You have to use production per person as that accurately reflects the production maximum of every nation. For being a super duper genius, you sure have a problem with comprehension.

Lets look at your example in it’s simplest form.

Your example would lead one (yourself) to conclude that Country B has donated more than Country A on a per person basis by a factor of two. It does not lead me to the same conclusion for the following reasons:

1. Country A produced 99.9999997% of all production, Country B 0.0000003%.

2. Country A donated 99.9999993% of all donated funds, Country B 0.0000007%

See Dave on the surface, you win. Those cheap people in Country A did not donate in the same proportion as production as did Country B.

Those bloody Americans, they are so cheap. /s

In the real world, you lose. In order to have Country A and B donate in proportion to production on an individual basis, Country A should have donated $300,000,001, and Country B $1.

Are you kidding me? Are you insane? All this fuss over $1?????????? Because you hate America???????? Over a $1??????

That is a great laugh!!!!

Now let us step away from your fantasy land and use real world data. Yours to be exact.

Using your data and the related GDP per capita for that time period and only using your top ten countries in table 3 and 4. You will easily conclude that:

1. The USA produced 14% of all production on a per person basis, yet donated at a rate of 32%. Donations rate is double the production! Hmmmmmm…………

2. United Arab Emirates produced 8.8% of all production on a per person basis, yet donated at a rate of less than 1%. Hmmmmm………

Who exactly is it that is not donating at a rate in proportion to production?

Once again, thanks for playing. Although it does not look like you will get banned for remarks here, you should be banned for linking to that god, awful paper that you call research. It is filled with so much hate, can not help but to feel sorry for you.

Now you may have this thread all to yourself. Enjoy the smell!

rukiddingme on January 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM

rukiddingme:
I can’t even read your crap any more. Here is how the UN Millennium goals committee calculates aid:

http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/press/action7_oecd05.htm

They do it exactly as I do, as a percentage of GDP. The US was intimately involved with the dliberations leading to the Millennium goals. I suggest you send your analysis to the US government, and tell them that they screwed up. Maybe they need a laugh, too.

dave742 on January 15, 2010 at 2:47 PM

rukiddingme:
For 35 years, 22 donor nations have been working on the 0.7% of GDP Millennium goal for donating foreign aid:

http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/press/07.htm#01

Wait until the get your E-mail and they realize that 22 nations have got it wrong for the past 35 years! Man, will they be embarrassed!!

dave742 on January 15, 2010 at 2:52 PM

***knock***

Dave’s not here, yeah!

NATION E$DPNPPPP E$PNPPPP Diff
US 5.23 4.52 0.71
Norway 4.20 4.50 (0.30)
Germany 2.88 2.41 0.47
Canada 2.79 2.81 (0.02)
UK 2.37 2.43 (0.06)
France 2.29 2.39 (0.10)
UAE 1.51 1.70 (0.19)
Qatar 1.31 1.46 (0.15)
Kuwait 0.98 1.04 (0.06)
Saudi 0.40 0.44 (0.04)

This table represents what should have been donated by each nation in terms of equivalent dollars. It indicates whether a nation donated on a pace that is relative to what it can produce. Notice that The USA and Norway are relative in terms of what is expected because the GDP of each Nation is roughly the same per person. Norway comes in lower than the US because it did not donate at the same pace as it’s production. The US leaves Norway behind because it donated at a rate higher than what it produces.

NATION E$DPNPPPP E$DPNPPPP*Pop
US 5.23 1,971
Norway 4.20 31
Germany 2.88 304
Canada 2.81 123
UK 2.37 229
France 2.29 177
UAE 1.51 12
Qatar 1.31 6
Kuwait 0.98 8
Saudi 0.40 20
Total Donated 2,880

This table represents what each nation brought to the donation table with respect to an invidual nation’s value contribution to the entire donation pool.

How can these be dave, the USA, (you know the one you are not proud of) contributed more to the donation pool than what was expected from it, and the value that the USA brought to the donation table represents 68% of the total donation pool!

This is why you can not compare an individual nation’s GDP per person and population to those dynamics within another nation. Because each nation is limited by production per person and total population. For the very reason that you state in your paper, populations per nation and GDP per person vary by nation.

The individuals that donated for the USA donated at a rate of 2.51 per person, that is the value only to the individuals of the USA. That is not the value that the nation of the USA brought to the donation table. Why?

When the total donations of the USA were added together, placed in a bag, and dropped off at the donation table, the USA says those donations are worth 2.51 per person in the USA. The donation table said thank you very much and oh, by the way, this donation now has a value of 3.78 per person in the USA! Why?

This what the USA donation is worth to the other nations sitting at the donor table. The other nations have established that value when the USA sits down with them. There are some interesting dynamics that had to be considered, such as:

1) The nation’s GDP total as a % of the total contribution to the pool of all nations GDP contribution and the % population of each nation with respect too the toal populations of all nations..

2) The donation pool expressed in terms of what % rate a nation contribued to the donation pool in comparison to what % rate the nation contributes to the production pool. This is how to determine whether a nation has donated at a rate that is the same as it produces.

These tables (and the math behind them) prove conclusiveley that the USA with respect to this one incident, was the most generous nation. But that does not matter, it is a donation after all. My premise still stands that any nation that was able to donate can not be called cheap with respect to any other nation that donates.

Think about it, start with ten tables, each table represents a nation of people that is constrained by its population and production. When each representative sends a member to a new table called the table of nations, what is each member at the new table worth relative to all other nations at the table?

A paper, maybe. Might write up the final document and send it to Ed and AP, maybe then your hatred will be banned. I do not presume to be the smartest individual on the planet, that is a level of arrogance that no human should possess. I am more humble, there is always someone smarter out there. Please be very careful when you call other people names.

Other individuals have thought of this. If you think more deeply about this, you will find your answer as to why the UN basis it’s funding on a Nations Total GDP and Not GDP per capita. Another formula, another time!

Maybe I will call the paper Equivalent Shares of Production of Nations? Nope, acronym would be ESPN, that is already taken. How about we call it “Why dave742 can be proud of his country again!”

You owe me an apology. You started it by presenting data in a manner that suited your premise, you were called on it, and you said I was an imbecile. Your premise was wrong because your calculations are wrong. You can look at the dependent variables within a nation as a measurement, but the second that you try to compare them across nations, you have created a new standard of measurement. You called me and my nation (you know the USA) lots of things and you could not be more wrong!

Goodbye, until next time, (let us both hope there will not be another time). And if you ever show up in a thread claiming that the Nation of the USA is cheap, you will be asked one simple question……

What is the equivalent share of each nation per person per production with respect to all other nations in the nation pool? Then the calulations may begin!

But only after I say to you…..Are you kidding me?

rukiddingme on January 19, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4