Posted on 12/28/2004 8:02:21 PM PST by OXENinFLA
Since there's a huge uproar over the comments made by Jan Egeland and there doesn't seem to be a transcript of the press conference posted by the UN (and even if you E-mail the UN they tell you to read a Fox News Transcript of him backpedalling because his comments were "taken out of context.")
I decided to transcribe the relevant part of the press conference so all could read what this arrogant UN Humanitarian really said. And he said a bunch.
[I can't make out the question.]
[31:00]JE: "It is really a problem that for to many rich countries..er. it's..the pie is finite... to take out a slice and [????] is left for the rest, and I think an unprecedented disaster like this one should lead to unprecedented generosity from countries that should be new and additional funds, cause I wouldn't want to see many of our friends, the donor countries, depleating their natural disaster coffers the 1st two weeks of Jan. then have nothing more when we come to other disasters. Some others have the same, some for all disasters in the world, I'm afraid for the coming year, cause there are several donors who are actualy less generous than before in a growing world economy."
[SKIP]
[40:40] Blond Woman Reporter: "When you were talking about donor countries that in a growing economy that were giving less are you prepared to name them?
JE: "No.. er... ah....I would say that ..er....I'd rather say that it is remarkable that we may, we have ...um...no country up to the 1%...um..line of foreign assistance in general and we have, I think, three ....um...Scandinavians that have exceeded, and Holland, the 0.7% line of cross national income for assistance...em....We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries. And it is beyond me why we are. Why are we so stingy really? When we are ...and even at Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least, how rich we have become and if actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2% of their gross national income. I think that is stingy really, I don't think that is very generous.... And I have an additional point. Politicians do not understand their own populations, because all the populations, in the United States, in the European Union, in Norway which is number one in the world, we want to give more as...as voters as taxpayers. People say we should give what we give now or more. Politicians [?? upon ??] their belief that they are really burdening the taxpayers to much and the taxpayer wants to give less, that's not true. They want to give more."
The stingy remark is nothing compared to his remark about how "all" of the US thinks and how our Politicians view us.
A guy on Fox News explained it well. Norway is proud that they donate .9% of their gdp (i think it is) to foreign aid (possibly disaster relief), while the US only donates .14% of their gdp. But, no one took into account the amount the US gives privately, and thru other avenues.
Perhaps if more of the Third World Disaster countries fully
observed Christmas, there would be less poverty and more
prosperity.
Bianca Jagger was mouthing off today also about how "stingy" the United States is. What a twit.
I saw that. Witch.
The last I checked, .14% of the US GDP translates into a sh*tload more cash than .9% of Norway's GDP.
cha ching bump
Has the UN and others forgotten we have a war to finance? If they have I hope our team remembers our priorities.
The verbatim quote from Jan.
Yeap. The host on Fox pointed out that Norwegians are taxed up to their hairlines. And, also pointed out that no other nation can probably compete with our private donations.
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN I'm going to bed..........
Good Find,
They also did not count food donations in those figures.
And they don't define our donations to sources within our own country that then go on to donate as a group to foreign AID..
Regards,
Joe
What a rat b****rd. I think we should divert ALL foreign aid, except 2 or 3 countries, to this disaster. After that they can all go hang.
Blonde woman reporter? That's a necissary detail?
The USA gives .13% or .14% I've seen both numbers used.
Jan's remark was Aimed directly at the USA.
Myself and anyone else would rather have the USA's .13% of a $10 trillion economy than Norway's 1% because the USA's .13% is a vastly larger amount of money. Those that want to bad mouth America use the percent because that is the only measurement that we're not number one in.
Part of the luxury of having a $10 trillion economy is that we can do so many more things because each thing takes a smaller slice of the $10 trillion economic pie.
Everybody is drooling over the possibility of a huge slush fund for "relief". I sympathize with the thousands who lost loved ones, and the millions who lost their homes and other possessions. But giving a potload of money to the U.N. is not the answer. Remember Oil for Food.
And notice how the countries affected have started raising the statistics for loss of life? Soon, they will be doing the same for cost of rebuilding. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The country which screams the loudest and claims the most loss will get the highest amount of relief from the U.N. (after Kofi and boys take their cut).
And he said he didn't mention the United States by name?
...in Norway which is number one in the world...
Not per capita, baby.
...we want to give more as...as voters as taxpayers...
I'd like to see him back that up.
People say we should give what we give now or more.
Who the heck is he talking about?
United State's GDP is $10.99 trillion x 0.14% = 1.538.600.000
The above numbers from CIA World Fact Book. I hope I got the math right. :-9
Libs and Socialists never deal in terms of dollars always percentages to hide their socialistic ways.
It's their pathetic attempt to justify their own inadequacies.
Regards,
Joe
But, we don't give enough. We are stingy. We want to be taxed more to give more. Our politicians just don't understand that is our desire.
She don't give no . . . satisfaction.
UN's Jan Egeland Responds to Freeper Email
And lots of Freepers would like to know about all of this.....
"She don't give no . . . satisfaction."
Must be because ole' Bianca was stingy herself to poor old Mick. :)
"I wonder how much he personally gave towards this disaster relief."
ME TOO! I wonder if he has given, personally, out of his own pocket, even ONE DOLLAR!
the $124-billion figure for Norway's GDP represents purchasing power parity (ppp), the dollar value of the universal "basket" of goods and services that Norway's GDP earnings could buy (within Norway, at Norwegian prices).
GDP: US$10.45 trillion
She didn't find it; she downloaed it and transcribed it for us.
Plus there is this:
6/19/03
Bernville, PA, USA - Medical product donations distributed overseas by private humanitarian organization members of the Partnership for Quality Medical Donations (PQMD) exceeded $812 million in 2002, 44% above 2001’s $564 million, newly released data show. The new data bring PQMD members’ donations since 1998 to $2.7 billion.
The idiot doesn't have a prayer,with FR around.Let's rub his nose in his own words.Those of you who know HTML,Send him his own words in an E-mail.Send the transcript to the N.Y. Post,Rush,Sean,and everyone else you can think of.
European viewpoint: This State(country) gives more, therefore this State cares more.
American viewpoint: It's my money, and I choose when & where to give.
2002 Generosity Index ALL RETURNS by State
State Average Income Charitable Contribution Giving as % of AGI
United States $46,160 $3,455 7.48%
Mississippi $33,754 $4,484 13.28%
Arkansas $35,467 $4,303 12.13%
Oklahoma $37,098 $4,117 11.10%
Louisiana $37,102 $3,940 10.62%
Alabama $38,472 $4,136 10.75%
Tennessee $39,773 $4,856 12.21%
South Dakota $35,907 $3,746 10.43%
Utah $41,042 $5,596 13.63%
South Carolina $38,123 $3,830 10.05%
Idaho $37,636 $3,379 8.98%
Wyoming $43,817 $6,356 14.51%
Texas $43,546 $4,540 10.42%
West Virginia $34,941 $3,114 8.91%
Nebraska $39,708 $3,421 8.62%
North Dakota $35,654 $3,124 8.76%
North Carolina $41,896 $3,579 8.54%
Kansas $42,187 $3,505 8.31%
Florida $43,875 $3,779 8.61%
Georgia $44,802 $3,937 8.79%
Kentucky $38,210 $3,072 8.04%
Montana $33,775 $2,814 8.33%
Sorry, but I don't seem to be able to get the formatting correct.
Ahhh...
You are correct...
Oh, BTW, Glad you got Responses, neither of mine to him received responses. I posted mine in the other thread where I listed the email addresses last night.
I did get an out of office reply from Stephanie Bunker though...
Regards,
Joe
The UN recommends .7% of GNP be given as foreign aid.
Only socialist countries meet or exceed the .7% statistic. That is because THE PEOPLE HAVE NO CHOICE!!!!! They have to give HUGE percentages of their income to their governments and their GOVERNMENTS get to choose who gets THEIR $$$$....
It's VERY different here in the world of democracy. Our citizens, our corporations, and our government give generously.
America makes me proud - especially when the world needs us.
Maybe if Norway (and many others, too) had to pay for its own defense, they would have less to give away.
...not to mention if they also paid a hefty chunk toward the defense of others.
Seems like that should also be counted into Uncle Sugar's 'giving' column.
BTW, I wonder how much should be added to our disater donations total for sending two entire air craft carrier groups, and extra aircraft with supplies, to the scene to assist. That certainly can't be cheap.
It would be nice to see how much private donations equal to. Anyone have those statistics?
.
I saw that and wondered the same thing!!! I keep wanting to say - "what's that supposed to mean?"
YEAH!!!
Uncle Sugar's Giving Column...
ROFLMAO
Thanks E for the ping.
The above numbers from CIA World Fact Book. I hope I got the math right. :-9
The USA is only higher, in actual dollars, by a factor of a thousand, but Jan at the UN wants everyone to believe that Norway's aid is 6.4 time greater.
I heard his weasly "backtracking"...And my blood is still boiling!
New math.
Typical ignorencia intelectual. The pie is too small mentality. No concept of making more pies.
The glass is not half empty, the glass is not half full. To them the glass is too big.
Mississippi Bump!
Saw this on Rich Galin's Site (www.mullings.com)
I love this guy!
The United States - the "stingy" United States - contributes 20 percent of the entire budget to run the United Nations. Out of every five dollars of Egeland's salary, the taxpayers of the United Stingy of America pay one.
As quickly as someone could draw up the papers, the United States pledged $15 million to the relief effort - a number which was upped to $35 million by yesterday afternoon.
By comparison the entire European Union had pledged $4.6 million. The French? The French decided to pony up $136,000.
And keep in mind, that $35 million is just the official US government portion. Many times that amount is being raised and spent by individual citizens giving to charitable organizations all over the country. Those donations are not counted in the $35 million which is not understood by intellectual thugs like Jan Egeland.
Egeland apparently believes that only money spent by governments counts. That's because he comes from Norway where the government does almost every thing for every one and so individuals don't have to do much.
However, in America we believe that the government should do what it NEEDS to do and the citizens are perfectly capable of handling the rest.
According to the UN website there are 191 members. Some of them are pretty well known to Americans: Great Britain, New Zealand and Spain to name three. Others are not so well known, such as: Lesotho, Tuvalu and Kiribati.
Here are my proposals: First, not one stingy penny of US money should be sent to the United Nations until Mr. Egeland is fired. Period. Let the French make up the difference.
Second: While I believe there should be a United Nations, it shouldn't be on the East Side of Manhattan.
If people like Jan Egeland are truly dedicated to their cause, they should do their work where it is needed most. We should move the UN to a place like Kiribati. Or Tuvalu. Or even to Lesotho.
Amen, Brother!
Stuart Varney had a writer for The Nation magazine on Neil Cavuto today, and Stuart came armed with charts showing the United States as the most charitable nation on the face of the Earth. Those charts showed dollar amounts even before the tsunami disaster. Ironically, the French typically donate roughly $136,000. America, Australia and Japan are the most charitable nations.
The United States is assessed 25 percent of the United Nation's general budget.
Our 25 percent compares to 12.5 percent for Japan and 8.93 percent paid by the United Kingdom.
The US. is assessed 31.7 percent of the cost of peace-keeping activities, compared to 8.5 percent for Russia, 6.3 percent for the U.K. and 7.6 percent for France.
The U.S. donates logistical support, weapons, NATO flights, intelligence, ships and manpower to U.S. peacekeeping operations while virtually all other countries are reimbursed for such goods and services.
The U.S. is also the largest donor to most of the U.N.'s independent agencies, such as UNICEF and the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees.
I saw that part of the show; I wish I could find his charts!
I also found this:
House Approves $582 Million Back Dues Payment to U.N. (Members say terrorist threat made action more urgent)
Author: Ralph Dannheisser
September 25, 2001
Text:
Washington File Congressional Correspondent
Washington -- The House of Representatives has approved a measure that clears the way for payment of $582 million in back dues to the United Nations - the second of three payments that the United States has pledged to clear up its acknowledged debt.
The legislation passed by voice vote after only about 10 minutes of discussion. The Senate had approved the payment by a 99-0 vote back in February, so House action sends the measure to President Bush to sign the measure into law. Members said the easy House passage September 24, after months of delay, reflected two new realities: the determination by legislators to avoid partisan infighting in the wake of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington earlier in the month, and the desire to remove an irritant to the international community at a time when the president is seeking to forge a broad antiterrorist coalition.
Representative Christopher Shays (Republican, Connecticut) termed the vote "one of the most important foreign policy decisions Congress will make this year." Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the third-ranking Republican in the House, had successfully blocked House action till now. He and conservative colleagues sought to make release of the funds contingent on approval of an unrelated amendment that would have exempted U.S. soldiers from the jurisdiction of an international war crimes court and withheld military aid from countries ratifying the treaty to set up the court.
DeLay has now agreed to consider such legislation separately. Swift payment of the back debt to the U.N. was strongly supported in floor statements by both House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois) and Representative Tom Lantos of California, the senior Democrat on the committee.
Hyde said enactment of the measure would ensure that "we can pay the second installment of our arrearages to the United Nations in return for continued progress in lowering our assessment ceilings for the U.N. regular budget and for U.N. peacekeeping operations."
His reference was to an agreement worked out last December by then-U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, under which the United States would pay some $926 million in three stages, while the United Nations would cut the future U.S. share of its operating fund from 25 to 22 percent, and gradually reduce the U.S. share of the separate peacekeeping fund from more than 31 percent to 25 percent by 2006.
In addition, the United Nations agreed to a range of financial and management reforms sought by the United States.
Wish I had written down the sources for his charts.
I didn't look quick enough!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.