You are all still assuming that he won't donate. So even if he hasn't donated yet, you should at least give him time to confirm/deny this statement.

Also, Bill: congrats, you're in my position. But the fact that we aren't donating isn't really SAJN's business. It's not SAJN's job to be the moral one who blows the whistle on the immoral.

Maybe you should read a little closer. Nobody has said the tax money was Bush's. What is your cite for Bush being a billionaire? Also, if you wan't to be shocked I suggest you look at tax return information comparing Bush's annual charitable donations to other politicians that maybe have ran against him in the past. Because a White House spokesman couldn't answer the question doesn't mean that he hasn't or won't personally donate.

edit - I meant that he couldn't answer the question in the way some might have wondered. Even though he said he would make a donation soon, I still doubt he really knew at the time.

kind of sad, but true.

even if no foreigners were killed, there would still be large coverage, epecialy in the australasian area as we are right next to them.

OK, so how does that relate to my post?

I'm a nub

And yet everyone fails to consider the idea that perhaps Bush has been too busy working on getting the US to donate $350 million to actually take the time to donate himself. It's only been, what, 8 days? Look at the other people he's been compared to: a band, professional athletes, and a movie star. I highly doubt they have nearly as many pressing issues as the President of the United States. The Red Cross can't even spend the money half as fast as it's coming in, and besides, given their past history, they're probably going to stockpile a bunch of the donations for "future disasters" anyway - at least until the public realizest hat they're doing it again, and everyone who donated to the Red Cross joins in public outcry.

Yeah, look how long it took Bush to leave that classroom after a disaster happened in his OWN country!

Uhh.. I dont think he'd personally be riding his push-bike down the Red Cross agency and writing a cheque. It'd more be a matter of an advisor telling him he should make a donation, then an aide actually carrying it out. Wouldnt take more than 10 seconds away from the man himself.

Think of their families....
probobly over 100,000 families lost a loved one.

Exactly, Jipe. I was waiting for someone to say that, and I was worried it might not have come up and I would have to say it.

And honestly who really cares whether Bush donates or not? Here's a news flash for you: most people won't donate.

For some reason I was thinking of George Lucas when I read the topic. Even more so when it started with a actress donating money.

5 million homeless, their entire lives washed away. Entire communities wiped off the face of the earth. Infrastructure and local ecomonies shattered.

This is the third world, people do not have insurance.

And all Flexor can say "Oh it's not really that bad if you think about it".
What a crock of crap.

Right...so...he's going to donate soon. I don't much care for Dubya, but I also don't see what the big freaking deal is here.

Incidentally..is it any of your business whether someone donates or not?

No.

Get over it..and it's not like he said he would never donate, either.

let's be honest, it doesn't take much searching

not when you base your critism on fantasy.

You totally missed the point. Let me dumb it down for you; the exact same thing happends to hundreds of thousands of people every year and it gets very little attention to the media. Just because this happened all in one place, everyone's donating for this particular incident, while the smaller incidents get ignored.

Well, I don't really think it any of my concern or business to whom, when, and how much he donates money to. Perusing his 2003 tax return, though, he earned $822,126 in '03 of which he payed $227, 490 in taxes. Out of the $594,636 remaining, $68,360 went to tax deductible charities. So even if he only donated to tax deductible charities (doubtful) he still donated roughly 11.5% of his net income. Seems respectable to me.

Also, doing a slight ammount of research I only find this donation comment in a blog on the usatoday website. No major google hits, no cnn hit, no fox news hit, and it didn't happen at Monday's press conference where one would presume it did. Interesting.

that is because smaller ones are much easier to handel with that country, and if not that, in that region.

this thing caused billions of dollars in damage to a number of nations. there is no way they could put their country together again on their own and the other countries would be too busy trying to put their own nation back together again.


Or, more simply,

small disaster = handled internaly with the rregular donations form groups that cater to victims of those areas and those types of charities.

medium disaster = internaly with help form neighbouring countries and some large charitable organisations.

large disaster = see above to a larger extent with some international aid.

possibly the biggest disaster in modern history (money wise) caused by the largest earthquake in 40 years resulting in the destruction of cities in numerous countries in the area = extreme amount of aid as the countries require tourism to survive and he places desroyed are where the tourists went.

How condescending and blatantly false. Let me dumb it down for you. Financial aid and donations already flow to those affected in smaller incidents. You believe that people and governments only donate when something this large happens? No. Now something this large is obviously going to inspire some people to donate or donate more and more foreign aid to flow but isn't that kind of a no-brainer?

-
Originally posted by Flexor
When you think about it, 150 000 dead isn't that big a deal.

Haha. Hot damn! Well that only leaves him with about $526 thousand dollars. I am surprised he can live on that kind of money. Lets also not forget about the money he's got tied up in various companies... halliburton and such.

Lets also not forget about the various "reasons" why people donate to charities and such.

Examples:

"My accountant told me it would save me tons of money."

Ahh, so assuming he has this money tied up in companies like Halliburton he should cash in all his investments so you wierdos can criticize him for that so you can then say he doesn't donate enough of it? Hey, I cite his tax return. You cite your ***.

Which is not true when it comes to cash which his contributions were. If it were all in used clothes or something, that would be different.

I'll just pretend like you didn't say anything, because in reality, you didn't say much of anything.

Allow me to say this again.

Reasons for donating:

"My accountant told me it would save me tons of money."

Well, sorry, but neither did you. And I did mean sorry but ou pulled some number out of the air. I cite exactly what you will find on his return. If he has other investments, which of course he does, he'll pay taxes when he cashes them in. Unless, of course, he wills them to his kids. Then the government will rape it even worse.

But donating cash does not save you money. It reduces your taxable income but you do not save any money. You're still out more than if you never donated at all.

edit - and the president certainly knows enough about his finances to understand that so I don't see where your statement comes into play.

I'm sorry, but what Darth Evad said still holds. I thank and commend you for posting what you did Evad.
How about a certain disaster that's been going on since the beginning of the year that has decimated nearly the same amount of people? Where is the United States or President Bush or Google with their front page ad about how to help the tsunami sufferers? Huh? The most recent account I can find of the death toll is in October, and that sets it at around 50,000 to 80,000 dead, with two months to go. 300,000 to 1.4 million I have seen, displaced from their homes. And this is not counting any that have died in conflict, that is just the death's by malnutrition, lack of food and water, and disease.


- [URL=CNEWS.]http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/10/04/655705-ap.html[/URL]


- [URL=News.com]http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11847606%255E1702,00.html[/URL]

Indeed, since there has obviously been a wrong done here rather than the course of nature, one would think it would strike more accordingly with the hearts of our leaders to "liberate" this destitute and hungry people. To maybe remove a government that is hateful and repressing, killing even, its own people.

Oh well. I guess that's just too much to ask...

When we're talking about rich, powerful businessmen, a tax return rarely indicates their actual wealth.

Axle, I partially agree with Evad. Problem is, the only way to solve the problem of African genocide is a massive military invasion of the affected countries. That's just never going to happen. Now with regards to hunger/disease issues in other areas, I tend to be a little colder hearted there. Basically, if you can't work the land, don't live there; or don't donate money and humanitarian aid to them but values and capitalism. And although I say cold hearted, I say that with a cold, broken, heart. You can't look at those people and not weap, at least on the inside.

you're not being honest

You wouldn't have the ego to admit I am.

In this case he's right. Now, if you're talking about real reasons to criticize a president then there are always reasons. In this case we get the luxury of also having a guy who flubs his words occasionally.

What SAJN are you talking about? I never started asking people about donations and such. I said I donated because people asked me how much I donated. That's all. I posted an article from USAToday, but I didn't even comment about it in the original post. So why all the hate twoards me? I posted an article I thought others would like to read, now all of a sudden its SAJN said this, and SAJN said that!

can we please keep on the topic.

This is all on topic. However, I'm curious if SAJN can find an actual news story, article, quote, or anything other than a blog on this. There doesn't seem to be anything major so I doubt the authenticity of the whole thing. His quote does exist, but only in a blog so that I've found.

By posting that article, people are implying that you are trying to take a dig at Bush....