Most of flood donations money "still pending"

Math class.
You receive 30 Million and you have to build 218 houses.
30 Million divided by 218 = 138.000 per house.
Where are the houses?
Where is the money?

(Einstein, 24 November 2014 14:55
It is apparent you do not understand how it really works. There is a lot of cost in dispersing these funds when they arrive, several channels and hands that have to be paid along the way. Out of the 138,000 per household you calculated I would say that about 25,000 will make it to "some" of the recipients for publicity purposes before the coffers are empty.
You don't really think that the immense number of trips taken by govt officials is actually coming from the state budgets do you??

Brussels had enough money to prop up Kiev within 24 hours, but to help a bunch of poor people in Bosnia and Serbia, only promises have been received. With these floods Brussels had a good opportunity to convince people in the Balkans that the EU is a good idea, and will benefit them. What does it say about the EU when they miss opportunities like this?
(marKo, 24 November 2014 17:23
Apparently, you have a poor memory. Go back and read the articles on this site of funds and equipment that poured in immediately from Serbia's neighbors for emergency assistance. Most European countries and especially the EU was there to help. Now these funds are reconstruction funds and typically they come with some sort of assurances that they are going for the cause in which they are intended and not for vacation homes and villas for politicians not even affected by the flood.
You seem just like the street beggars who instead of being grateful for what you do give them, are insulting you for not giving more.

Brussels had enough money to prop up Kiev within 24 hours, but to help a bunch of poor people in Bosnia and Serbia, only promises have been received. With these floods Brussels had a good opportunity to convince people in the Balkans that the EU is a good idea, and will benefit them. What does it say about the EU when they miss opportunities like this?

"Most European countries and especially the EU was there to help."

Actually most of the help was in offered LOANS - loans which have interest to be paid back. And Serbia was also being told who to buy from - and they tended to be the more expensive companies meaning Serbia wouldn't get as much bang for its buck.
So the loans were a way to make Serbia buy things and get a profit for specific companies.

Loans are simply purchases on credit - and this is simply good business for the loaners - as long as there's no default. Plus if the are forced to buy from certain countries/companies it is self-serving.

Brussels had enough money to prop up Kiev within 24 hours, but to help a bunch of poor people in Bosnia and Serbia, only promises have been received. With these floods Brussels had a good opportunity to convince people in the Balkans that the EU is a good idea, and will benefit them. What does it say about the EU when they miss opportunities like this?

Brussels had enough money to prop up Kiev within 24 hours, but to help a bunch of poor people in Bosnia and Serbia, only promises have been received. With these floods Brussels had a good opportunity to convince people in the Balkans that the EU is a good idea, and will benefit them. What does it say about the EU when they miss opportunities like this?
(marKo, 24 November 2014 17:23
Apparently, you have a poor memory. Go back and read the articles on this site of funds and equipment that poured in immediately from Serbia's neighbors for emergency assistance. Most European countries and especially the EU was there to help. Now these funds are reconstruction funds and typically they come with some sort of assurances that they are going for the cause in which they are intended and not for vacation homes and villas for politicians not even affected by the flood.
You seem just like the street beggars who instead of being grateful for what you do give them, are insulting you for not giving more.

Math class.
You receive 30 Million and you have to build 218 houses.
30 Million divided by 218 = 138.000 per house.
Where are the houses?
Where is the money?

(Einstein, 24 November 2014 14:55
It is apparent you do not understand how it really works. There is a lot of cost in dispersing these funds when they arrive, several channels and hands that have to be paid along the way. Out of the 138,000 per household you calculated I would say that about 25,000 will make it to "some" of the recipients for publicity purposes before the coffers are empty.
You don't really think that the immense number of trips taken by govt officials is actually coming from the state budgets do you??

"Most European countries and especially the EU was there to help."

Actually most of the help was in offered LOANS - loans which have interest to be paid back. And Serbia was also being told who to buy from - and they tended to be the more expensive companies meaning Serbia wouldn't get as much bang for its buck.
So the loans were a way to make Serbia buy things and get a profit for specific companies.

Loans are simply purchases on credit - and this is simply good business for the loaners - as long as there's no default. Plus if the are forced to buy from certain countries/companies it is self-serving.