# Should we be ashamed?



## MA-Caver (Dec 24, 2004)

This article posted as an editorial in the New York Times, certianly makes one think about present policies of the current administration. We've called ourselves the most powerful nation on earth and yet just how much do we help our poor, our hungry? How much do we truly help those we are liberating from their oppressors? The amount that we provide aid and solace compared to the amounts of warfare we wage against others are badly imbalanced. A 30 to 1 ratio.
There are worse governments I agree and there are worse situations and worse circumstances elsewhere.  But how can we justify our intentions compared to our actions. Is it really all necessary?
We promise X amount and deliver Y. What gives? 
Am I missing something here or is it just me?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 25, 2004)

Yes, I'm ashamed of our national agenda,but I continue to be impressed by the generosity of many ordinary Americans.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Dec 26, 2004)

I think you are probably missing a great deal if you take everything in the New York Times at face value. Pretty much out of the closet now, the NYT is anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-administration, anti-establishment, anti-capitalism, and anti just about everything else in Washington from the Iraq war to global warming. 
This little gem of an opinion piece likens the billions of dollars this country sends abroad to a $50.00 check. Hummm, seems exagerated to me.
Oh yeah. It also says we should be more like Norway and Sweden. Are they kidding? Norway and Sweden do more for underdeveloped countries than the USA? A joke, right? I forgot, the New York Times doesn't have a sense of humor.
 They might as well say Latvia and Luxembourg. I mean, Norway and Sweden? The sales tax on what this country buys and gives away probably exceeds the GNP of these two powerhouses.
Last, and surely least, the NYT criticizes your and my country because we now address critical needs first. Long term hunger eradication programs are, they claim, getting lower priority. Let's think about this. If the long term programs were working, we wouldn't be having all these messy famines. So, maybe we should help the people who are starving, like today, and get with that long term solution when we actually have one. Of course, if we take the Times' advice and let the starving people starve, the long term problem will solve itself.
I'm proud of what this country does every day to help people here and abroad. No other country does as much and asks so little. I didn't want to jump too hard on all this, don't let the NYT frame the question. If it's made in America, they don't like it.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 26, 2004)

Your profile doesn't give any information as to where you live.

Such vitriol against *liberal Easterner* thought.

What's the matter with having a point of view and expressing it?  First Amendment.

To paraphrase - "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 26, 2004)

On the subject of brainwashing, O Ghostdog, p'raps you might want to look up the history of Rev. Sun Myung Moon's paper, the "Washington Times."

And on the matter of Sweden and Norway, the point was that they spend more of their GNP to help others than we do, by a considerable margin. And oh, just incidentally, most of the standard-of-living measurements assert that Norway and Sweden are better places to live than the United States.

And oh yeah, last I checked Cuba--yes, THAT Cuba--had a) lower rates of infant mortality, b) higher rates of adult literacy, than we do. And the only other countries besides ours that still had capital punishment were...hm, Communist China, Iran, North Korea....that sorta place.

But all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 27, 2004)

While it's exciting to rant against the "liberal bias" of the New York Times, the cold, hard figures in the editorial are inescapable, "Ghostdog".  You might try looking them up yourself, and considering the implications.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2004)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> I think ... anti just about everything else in Washington from the Iraq war to global warming.


Just an FYI - Global warming isn't "in Washington" ... it's global.



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Norway and Sweden do more for underdeveloped countries than the USA? A joke, right?


Not a joke. There are things out there called 'facts', you might avail yourself of them. 
Also, just a primer in mathematics, if each country agreed to contribut .7% of their GDP to the cause in question, and Sweden and Norway are giving more than that percentage, and the US is giving less than that percentage, then yes, Virginia, they are doing more for underdeveloped countries.

Think of it like a flat tax.



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> The sales tax on what this country buys and gives away probably exceeds the GNP of these two powerhouses.


Are you suggesting we should redirect our Sales Tax to this cause? That would be very noble of you indeed. 

But, if you are not making that suggestion, it seems this statement has no bearing on the fact that the United States is not living up to its agreements. We promised to contribute to this program, and we aren't.

Why reduce poverty and hunger in the world when we can instead build a missile defense sheild, I mean, except for that one of these programs works, and the other doesn't. 



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> No other country does as much and asks so little.


Spoken like Sean Hannity. Of course, it has no bearing on the truth, but I see no reason to let that stop you.

Have a Merry Christmas.

Mike


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 27, 2004)

Ghostdog,

Do you contribute to any American charity which helps the poor? Do you donate your time to literacy projects, soup kitchens, even coat drives? How about Big Brothers & Big Sisters? Do you coach a kids' sports team?

And, if you do contribute, do you take the tax deduction, or do it out of the goodness of your heart?

Try doing what I do - fund raising for a non-profit organization. I work mainly with corporations, most of whom are generous year after year to my organization, among many others. I also count among my constituents a large number of extremely wealthy, influential, Republican, Bush-supporting, Easterners who read the NY Times. He**, some of these people are responsible for bringing into being the media you watch, listen to, and read every day.

Until and unless you can say that you are doing all you can to eradicate hunger, illiteracy, and all the other extant ills, please continue to read the Times' editorials as well as OpEd pieces - including those of Nixon's former speechwriter, who is a regular contributor both there and in the Sunday magazine.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Dec 27, 2004)

Let me see if I've got this straight. I should read the NYT, quit reading the Washington Something, move to the East Coast, join a non-profit, embrace my brothers in Cuba, and quit knocking world leaders like Norway. Okay, got it.
Sorry I rattled so many cages. You guys are right, this country stinks and anyone who stands up for it is a traitor or a misguided simpleton. True patriots and real intellectuals rip the ole USA every chance they get. And I'll remember to use that word " ashamed ", like this thread did.
Talk about brainwashed. Oh well, gotta go coach Little League.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Dec 27, 2004)

On re-reading my last post, I realized that the tone was all wrong. Please accept this as a modified retraction . The flippant note was inappropriate.. This topic deserves more maturity than that. Let me think about what's been said and craft a more sensible response.
Back at ya' shortly.
GD2


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 27, 2004)

The tone's irrelevant; it won't matter, were you to say the same things in another fashion.

What counts are the leaps of logic (so go live there, since you hate this country), and the general refusal to look at reality. 

One isn't at all sure that, "ashamed," is appropriate. However, occasional embarassment and reconsideration sure as hell seems to be in order.


----------



## Ender (Dec 27, 2004)

The whole atricle is just a smoke screen. I've read several articles where INDIVIDUAL charity from Americans amounts to 51% of the entire worldwide contributions. We as individuals give more out of our own pockets than the entire world COMBINED.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> The whole atricle is just a smoke screen. I've read several articles where INDIVIDUAL charity from Americans amounts to 51% of the entire worldwide contributions. We as individuals give more out of our own pockets than the entire world COMBINED.


I would love the source on this statement.

And where do you suppose those contributions go? I'm sure the Harvard endowment is desperately seeking more contributions.


----------



## Ender (Dec 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I would love the source on this statement.
> 
> And where do you suppose those contributions go? I'm sure the Harvard endowment is desperately seeking more contributions.



Actually I beleive it was an article in Business week or Forbes a few years back. By your tone, I'm assuming you have a a slight skepticism. Well, lets look at state ranking from the Center for Philanthropy


Individual Generosity Index by State 2004: (2002 US State Data)

Having Rank is the amount of wealth a state has.
Giving rank is the rank in which a state gives to charity
Rank relation is the "Having Rank" minus the "Giving Rank"
Generosity Rank is the overall Score

State, Having Rank, Giving Rank, Rank Relation, Generosity Index 
Mississippi 50 5 45 1 
Arkansas 47 6 41 2 
Oklahoma 43 8 35 3 
Louisiana 42 10 32 4 
Alabama 38 7 31 5 
Tennessee 34 3 31 6 
South Dakota 44 14 30 7 
Utah 31 2 29 8 
South Carolina 40 12 28 9 
Idaho 41 20 21 10 
Wyoming 21 1 20 11 
Texas 23 4 19 12 
West Virginia 48 31 17 13 
Nebraska 35 19 16 14 
North Dakota 46 30 16 15 
North Carolina 27 15 12 16 
Kansas 25 18 7 17 
Florida 20 13 7 18 
Georgia 17 11 6 19 
Kentucky 39 33 6 20 
Montana 49 43 6 21 
Missouri 29 24 5 22 
New Mexico 45 40 5 23 
Alaska 24 21 3 24 
Indiana 28 29 -1 25 
New York 5 9 -4 26 
Iowa 36 44 -8 27 
Ohio 32 42 -10 28 
California 6 17 -11 29 
Maryland 4 16 -12 30 
Illinois 10 22 -12 31 
Maine 37 50 -13 32 
Delaware 13 27 -14 33 
Washington 11 25 -14 34 
Vermont 33 47 -14 35 
Oregon 26 41 -15 36 
Hawaii 30 45 -15 37 
Virginia 7 23 -16 38 
Arizona 22 38 -16 39 
Nevada 14 32 -18 40 
Pennsylvania 18 36 -18 41 
Michigan 16 35 -19 42 
Colorado 8 28 -20 43 
Connecticut 1 26 -25 44 
Minnesota 12 37 -25 45 
Wisconsin 19 46 -27 46 
New Jersey 2 34 -32 47 
Rhode Island 15 49 -34 48 
Massachusetts 3 39 -36 49 
New Hampshire 9 48 -39 50 


How odd that the "Blue" states congregate near the bottom.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 27, 2004)

Ender, If you can come up with the citation for the article, it'd be most appreciated.  Interesting.

GhostDog,  
You're not listening to what we're attempting to tell you.  No one has said they would move to another country.  I did for a semester and didn't really care for it, was glad to be back in the USA.  I was also glad for the opportunity to be an example of a *non-ugly American* to the people I met and attempt to improve our image abroad.

My point to you is that, if you disagree with what's being said about our country, then do something about it.

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Dec 27, 2004)

*Point : Counter-Point*​ 
1) Such vitriol against *liberal Easterner* thought.  kenpo tiger
*Never called it that. You did. And you're wrong..fuzzy thinking isn't confined to Eastern liberals.*

2) most of the standard-of-living measurements assert that Norway and Sweden are better places to live than the United States.  rmcrobertson
*Sure they are. That's why we've been seeing that massive wave of Scandanavian immigration: everybody wants to live there.*

3) And oh yeah, last I checked Cuba--yes, THAT Cuba--had a) lower rates of infant mortality, b) higher rates of adult literacy, than we do. rmcrobertson 
*Again, that would explain why so many people are moving to Cuba and no one is trying escape...I mean leave.*

4)Just an FYI - Global warming isn't "in Washington" ... it's global.  michaeledward
*Thanks for the tip. Didn't know that. Thought all the hot air in D.C. had created its own ecosystem.*

5) Sweden and Norway are giving more than that percentage, and the US is giving less than that percentage, then yes, Virginia, they are doing more for underdeveloped countries.  michaeledward
*Imagine, Norway with a GDP of $171b and Sweden with a GDP of $283.3b give a larger percentage than the U.S.A with a GDP of @$10.99t (yep, that's trillions compared to billions). Since Cuba may want to join in, you should know the GDP there is $32.13b. Not much, but at least they can all read about it. On second thought, maybe not. Castro doesn't let the locals in on much.*

6)Why reduce poverty and hunger in the world when we can instead build a missile defense sheild, I mean, except for that one of these programs works, and the other doesn't. michaeledward
*You got me. When you're right, you're right. Missile defense systems are a lot more feasible than world aid programs. And a lot more honestly run; Just ask Kofi's son. There's money in welfare.*

7) Try doing what I do.  kenpo tiger
*No thanks. I'm sure you are good at what you do.*

8)(so go live there since you hate this country)  rmcrobertson
*Again, see comment 1. No one has suggested you leave; at least not on this thread. But if you go, please take the Baldwins with you. You might want to look into Oslo, I hear it's beautiful.*

Merry Christmas everybody, I'm worn out.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 27, 2004)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> *Point : Counter-Point*​
> 
> 
> 1) Such vitriol against *liberal Easterner* thought. kenpo tiger
> ...


GhostDog,
I *am* very good at what I do.  Seriously, please consider what else was contained in that part of my post.  If you are concerned, you can help.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> By your tone, I'm assuming you have a a slight skepticism. Well, lets look at state ranking from the Center for Philanthropy
> 
> 
> Individual Generosity Index by State 2004: (2002 US State Data)
> ...


How completely out of context for this discussion. You post some statistics relating the 50 United States against themselves, disregaurding the other 180 plus nations that inhabit the planet in a discussion concerning charitable activities among *countries.*

And ... you use it to slam your fellow citizens.

2 minutes in the penalty box for you.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2004)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> *Missile defense systems are a lot more feasible than world aid programs. And a lot more honestly run; *​


​




Wow ... are you at all familiar with the United States Strategic Defense Initiative? *more feasible: honestly run*.​

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4097267.stm​

The latest test .. two years in the planning ... the interceptor did not even get out of its silo. Not bad for 130 *B*illion dollars. Who do you think is getting that 'honest money'.​ 
Of course the official statement from the 'Honestly Run' military is :​ 


> "I definitely wouldn't categorize it as a setback of any kind," he said. "We weren't able to complete the test that we had planned."


 
Please!​ 
:bs:​


----------



## ghostdog2 (Dec 27, 2004)

In the Spirit of the Holiday Season, I'm throwing in the towel. We can agree to disagree on some things but I'll bet we agree on more. Please enjoy your holidays.

p.s. Kenpo Tiger
I'll be in New York all next week. Yes, I'll read the NYT, but no, I won't admit it ever again.
p.s. michaeledward
 My point @ the missile defense system was a bit of a reach, but...hey, I was on the clock


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 27, 2004)

1. The thread's topic centered on the percentage of GNP that this country contributes to world charity.

2. Other statistics that might indicate we have something to at least look a little hang-dog about include literacy rates (lower than that of a Communist dictatorship like Cuba's!) and infant mortality rates, life expectancy, and per capita income.

3. One notes that none of these stats were in any way refuted; instead, claims about what the people citing the stats must have in mind were made.

4. It seems to be hard work, maintaining the illusion that this country is better than any other country at everything.

5. It remains interesting to see the extent to which, "Red Staters," (if we must use that silly distinction) have come to rely on demands for political correctness, ideological rigor, and the repetition of claims that were absurd even in the 1950s. Especially interesting, too, given the extent to which the Right continue to claim that liberals and Leftists were blinded by political correctness, ideological rigor, and the repetition of old slogans.


----------



## Ender (Dec 27, 2004)

The thread started out by slamming the US for a lack of giving in world community (by Govt Standards). Again you missed the point,I say that individual giving is by far a better measuring stick and in particular those with religious views.

For example, from the Economist.com:

Measuring philanthropy is difficult, but two things are clear. Private giving is small in all rich countries, relative to state spending. And American generosity outstrips that of most other countries, especially in money terms.

In America, religion accounts for a staggering (to non-Americans) share of donations: 62%, according to Indiana University's Centre on Philanthropy Panel Study (COPPS), which looks at what a cross-section of individuals do over a period of time, rather than at what some donors put on their tax returns. On adjusted figures, says Richard Steinberg, of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, the poorest fifth of the population gives an average of $234 a year to religious charities and $85 to other causes; and black people give $924, compared with $439 from non-religious groups. 

In Europe, giving to religion is almost certainly lower, although not always as low as some believe. In Germany, for example, a voluntary church tax collects an astonishing 8.5 billion ($9.9 billion) a year. In Britain, a recent study of charity trends by the Charities Aid Foundation, a non-profit body, found that 10% of income given to the 500 largest charities went to faith-based organisations.

America's religious enthusiasm partly explains its relative generosity. Quite a lot of research confirms that religious folk are more generous overall than non-believers. Indeed, COPPS figures suggest that people who profess a religion are more likely to make a gift and to make a larger gift than people who say they have no religion. The difference is particularly striking for Jews. Intriguingly, other work suggests that Jews whose faith fades give less than those who remain believers. 

Further more:

There is a close relationship between America's political and economic traditions. That the individual pursuit of self-interest leads to the best result both for the individual and for society as a whole is believed to be a successful formula for both economic success and optimal political function. An effect of this can be seen by the fact that while the United States government is not the most generous donor of international aid, Americans are BY FAR the most generous in terms of individual charitable contributions. The precise amount of individual economic freedom that Americans should have is often debated, with the (usually slight) differences in opinion marking the major differences between political parties. The end result, however, is that the U.S. economy has become the largest on earth, with most of its citizens enjoying comparatively high living standards. 



So I stand by my comments. Individual charitable contributions are a better means of measuring giving, and Americans are the most generous on the planet.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 27, 2004)

1. The thread's topic centered on the percentage of GDP that this country contributes to world charity.

2. Your response said nothing whatsoever about the percentage of GDP--which incidentally, has nothing to do with what the government gives--that the United States contributes to world charity.

3. Do you have specific figures that belie the NYT claim that America contributes less of its GDP than anybody else, or do you not? For example, what is the sum total of all these generous individual contributions, expressed as a percentage of GDP?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 27, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> So I stand by my comments. Individual charitable contributions are a better means of measuring giving, and Americans are the most generous on the planet.


It's wonderful that you can stand by your comments. 

I will ask again ... to whom are Americans being charitable? What organizations are on the receiving end of this great American Altruism? And how do these organizations affect the "United Nations Millennium Declaration, a manifesto to eradicate extreme poverty, hunger and disease"?

The way I read this thread, the topic was 'extreme poverty, hunger and disease'.

If you would be so kind as to address these questions, then we can turn to whether the United States can honor commitments it makes, or if we can say one thing and do another at our whim.



> The Bush administration, as quoted in the NY Times (12/22/04, p. A3): "With the budget deficit growing and President Bush promising to reduce spending, *the administration* has told representatives of several charities that it *was unable to honor some earlier promises* and would have money to pay for food only in emergency situations."


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 28, 2004)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Sure they are. That's why we've been seeing that massive wave of Scandanavian immigration: everybody wants to live there.



Actually, like most non-American developed nations, it's extremely difficult to immigrate to Scandinavian countries.  Like all Western and Northern European nations, they have struggled with immigration from Eastern European and Near East Asian countries, and unlike the US' liberal immigration policies, Europe chooses (for right or wrong) to be less liberal.  So your point is both irrelevant, and wrong.



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Again, that would explain why so many people are moving to Cuba and no one is trying escape...I mean leave.



Again, you're missing the point... not terribly surprising.  The point isn't that we should leave the US... but that this country we love is failing to meet even its own commitments to world aid.  

Why do you keep relating everything to whether people want to live in a country rather than the actual topic of the thread?



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Imagine, Norway with a GDP of $171b and Sweden with a GDP of $283.3b give a larger percentage than the U.S.A with a GDP of @$10.99t (yep, that's trillions compared to billions).



Thanks for once again missing the point; Norway and Sweden both give a larger PERCENTAGE of their GDP in world aid, while also providing more for their own citizens.  What does that tell you about the priorities of our own nation, and how it spends its massive GDP?



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> When you're right, you're right. Missile defense systems are a lot more feasible than world aid programs. And a lot more honestly run; Just ask Kofi's son. There's money in welfare.



Interesting; we can't even get basic missile defense interceptor tests to run, which are far simpler than the full SDI program we proposed in the 1980s.  As for "more honestly run", the United Nations has run world food aid programs for decades, and the only accusation of dishonesty you bring up is the recent one of Kofi Annan's son and the oil-for-food program?

Keep in mind, as well, that the Iraq program issues are still being *investigated*.  No wrongdoing on the part of Annan's son have been demonstrated or concluded.  Not that facts or information have stopped you so far.



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> No thanks. I'm sure you are good at what you do.



Apparently, it's far easier to criticize than to actually help people, but this was a cute attempt at a cop-out.

Goodbye from the thread.  Do come back to The Study when you have some facts and logic with you.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Dec 28, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Thanks for once again missing the point; Norway and Sweden both give a larger PERCENTAGE of their GDP in world aid, while also providing more for their own citizens.  What does that tell you about the priorities of our own nation, and how it spends its massive GDP?



It tells me that perhaps our priorities are different.  We give more money, just less of a percentage.  Does that make us evil or make it wrong or shameful?  Priests devote 100% of their income to helping others.  Does me giving 20% make me wrong or make my giving shameful?

The government, sorry let me say the US population pays for a lot of things with its taxes.  What's the comparison of tax rate between the countries that give more and the US?  I hear people complain all the time about how we're paying too much in taxes.  I doubt we could easily be asked to pay more to help those in Africa.  And there is a lot that goes into the taxes and I'm sure it's incredibly difficult to stop paying for some things, as would be required to lower taxes or redistribute funds, to give more monetary help to the world.

Perhaps we use tax money to provide better education and jobs.  We are most likely the leading developer of technology in the world.  Our government spends a ton of money on defense contracts and funding advanced technology.  Look at how many people are employed by the defense contractors and what the impact would be if those jobs are lost.

Perhaps we use the money to better help our own population instead of putting it out to the world.  God knows that a large portion of our own population needs assistance.  Do we have to give it to Africa to be really giving?

I'm sure we can give more money to the world at large.  However, I don't think what we do provide is "shameful" just because someone else gives more.  God bless them for their charity and generosity in giving.  God bless us for our advances that help the world at large too.

WhiteBirch


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 28, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> It tells me that perhaps our priorities are different.  We give more money, just less of a percentage.  Does that make us evil or make it wrong or shameful?  Priests devote 100% of their income to helping others.  Does me giving 20% make me wrong or make my giving shameful?;



You're absolutely right that the issue of "wrongness" is debateable, given the issue of priorities.  However, the United States committed to provide a certain amount of aid, and has failed to do so.  I think most people believe that it's wrong to fail to follow through with a committment.



			
				lvwhitebr said:
			
		

> Perhaps we use tax money to provide better education and jobs.



Given our standing in education against the rest of the industrialized world, I think you can take down that particular argument.  We *do* use tax money to provide tons, and tons of defense jobs -- but if we spent that money on aid jobs as well, couldn't those people be employed helping people, instead of designing more intricate ways to fight the Cold War?



			
				lvwhitebr said:
			
		

> Perhaps we use the money to better help our own population instead of putting it out to the world.  God knows that a large portion of our own population needs assistance



I'd also be for that, but the Scandinavian nations we've discussed also do a far better job of taking care of their own populations, with higher standards of living, health care for all, etc.  

In the end, it comes down to what you're willing to pay in taxes, and what you're willing to give up in defense.  How many of the weapons we continue to design and build for the Cold War (missile defense, B-2 bombers, the F-22 and JSF) would fund these types of programs with no adjustment in taxes whatsoever?

In the long run, we'll all reap what we sow in these matters.  Whether you believe in the various religious visions or simply the historical ones.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 28, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> We give more money, just less of a percentage.
> WhiteBirch


This too, would be a wonderful statement to source and provide actual data to support.

I think you may find that we do *not* give *more* money. I don't know. But, if you are going to make such claims. Please verify with data.

Thanks - Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 28, 2004)

Beyod the request that folks provide actual facts, with which one can only agree--if for no other reason than this might point people towards actually HAVING some, one noted this little jewel of a comment:

"Perhaps we use tax money to provide better education and jobs. We are most likely the leading developer of technology in the world. Our government spends a ton of money on defense contracts and funding advanced technology. Look at how many people are employed by the defense contractors and what the impact would be if those jobs are lost."

So, a) our excuse for not ponying up as the rest of the industrialized world does is that we spend more money than they do on education and jobs--which simply isn't true; b) we should spend more and more and more on weapons, despite the fact that this turns out to be one of the very best ways to waste money in cost over-runs and assorted corruption; c) we have a War economy, and it would be a Bad Thing is we stopped the wars that mean so much to our economy.

Oh, goody.

We shouldn't be ashamed; we should see a psychiatrist.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 28, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I will ask again ... to whom are Americans being charitable? What organizations are on the receiving end of this great American Altruism?


Hey, I found this while poking about the internet.... 

The 2002 Slate 60. The largest 60 charitable donations made in America for the year 2002.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078472/

Let's check out some of who we generous Americans help out ...

Metropolitan Museum of Art
Americans for The Arts
Modern Poetry Association
Ave Maria College
University of California School of Medicine
Cambridge University
La Jolla Playhouse
U.S. Ski and Snowboard Team Foundation
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

I will point out that the communist Ted Turner supports the 'Better World Fund', 'Nuclear Threat Initiative', and 'United Nations Foundation'.

So much for helping the extreme poor and hungry.

Mike


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 28, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Let's check out some of who we generous Americans help out ...



This data backs up an NPR report I once heard that stated that Americans traditionally primarily support charities such as the arts and PBS rather than the poor, both locally and globally.  

The author of the report suggested that the benefits were both tax-related and personal, since maintenance of arts, museums, PBS and NPR, etc give them the sort of events, entertainment, recreation they like to experience while giving a healthy writeoff.


----------



## Ray (Dec 28, 2004)

I am not ashamed for what other Americans do (or don't do) only for my own actions (or lack thereof).  We can argue how biased the NYT is or isn't; and point to other sources that dispute the NYT editorial, but we each should ask ourselves if we are doing enough or not to help the needy.

Yes, there are those who pose as needy that aren't; there are those who are needy and appear as such; and lastly there are those who are in need that appear not to be (or wouldn't take help) but none of that should stop us from giving as our own concious's dictate.

Lastly, we should ensure to the best of our abilities that those organizations that we give to do not spend much on their own administration and/or salaries.

Should tax dollars be collected and re-distributed as aid?  I don't know (I have an opinion); but I know that I should give regardless.

Now tell me: how naive am I?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 28, 2004)

Interesting posts you guys.

*One, too* might ask where some of these notions spring from. The data reported for the charitable giving is almost three years out of date. The arts generally are crying for help and that's because most of us _aren't_ the Met. Hard as it may be to believe, quality of life comes from many different things - among them accessible great art, theatre, dance and music, which broadens one's horizons and encourages self-exploration. I would venture to say that a lot of the monies cited in that study are from private foundations and endowments made by charitable trusts -- and a lot from bequests. That's the hot fund raising ploy right now -- I'm sure you all are getting solicitations from your alma maters (help me here with the plural!) requesting that you name it/them in your will(s).

*One,too* might also report that most Jews *one (too)* knows are charitable for their entire lives. It's something taught at a young age; tzedakah (charity) is collected at synagogues and religious schools and distributed to the poor on a regular basis. Many many households have a special container into which goes loose change that is then donated to a chosen charity. Has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with being a citizen of the world.

We're all riding the planet together and need to help each other, especially those close to home.

Oh - and one other thing, Denizens of the Study.  Lighten up a little on the new guy, huh?  Christmas spirit and all that...


----------



## Tgace (Dec 28, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Oh - and one other thing, Denizens of the Study. Lighten up a little on the new guy, huh? Christmas spirit and all that...


Unusual....they are typically so nice. :shrug:

Im with Ray...be ashamed for what you, individually, do or dont do. I my disagree with some things my country has done, but ashamed? No. Sounds like we are the teenage kids of an embarrassing parent asking to be dropped off at the Mall. We each play our part in this nation. Unfortunately for some of us we have to deal with what the majority do or fail to do. Do your own part. Try to get others to agree with you and see where we go.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 28, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> The arts generally are crying for help and that's because most of us _aren't_ the Met. Hard as it may be to believe, quality of life comes from many different things - among them accessible great art, theatre, dance and music, which broadens one's horizons and encourages self-exploration.



Nothing's wrong with arts giving -- in fact, I strongly encourage it.  But we can afford to support the arts *and* feed the starving, n'est-ce pas?  

I mean, if those pathetic little Scandinavian countries that no one would want to live in with such small GDPs can do it...


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 28, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Nothing's wrong with arts giving -- in fact, I strongly encourage it. But we can afford to support the arts *and* feed the starving, n'est-ce pas?
> 
> I mean, if those pathetic little Scandinavian countries that no one would want to live in with such small GDPs can do it...


C'est vrai, mon petit Peche.

*Those pathetic little Scandinavian countries...* also have government-run healthcare.  Should we be ashamed that we, the all mighty and powerful USofA hasn't seen fit to provide decent healthcare for all its citizens?  This is about many of the poor being malnourished and not having decent healthcare, especially prenatal and pediatric healthcare.  This is also about providing healthy meals at school for children who might otherwise not get anything to eat.  This is about having a safe place to be a few hours a day, away from drugs and abusers.

While our money is greatly needed elsewhere, especially in the wake of the tsunamis in the eastern hemisphere (the 10 o'clock news has the death toll at over 55,000 and the US announcing its pledge of $20 million in aid), we _do_ need to provide for our own as well.

So, who's got the panacea?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 29, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> *Those pathetic little Scandinavian countries...* also have government-run healthcare.  Should we be ashamed that we, the all mighty and powerful USofA hasn't seen fit to provide decent healthcare for all its citizens?  This is about many of the poor being malnourished and not having decent healthcare, especially prenatal and pediatric healthcare.  This is also about providing healthy meals at school for children who might otherwise not get anything to eat.  This is about having a safe place to be a few hours a day, away from drugs and abusers.



Yep.  I don't know if you missed my sarcasm about the "pathetic Scandinavian countries" (a reference to our buddy ghostdog) or are simply agreeing with it.

I could get behind a United States that said "You know, we're not yet in a position to fully support world food aid because we're busily feeding all of our hungry, and taking care of everyone inside of our borders that needs medical treatment".  But, since we don't do that either...

I don't think it's about panaceas, it's about a pretty simple redistribution of priorities.  You don't have to stop employing people in order to feed the poor in our country and elsewhere; you just have to stop funding boondoggles designed to kill Soviet threats that haven't existed in decades and which haven't worked properly since their inception.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Dec 29, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This too, would be a wonderful statement to source and provide actual data to support.
> 
> I think you may find that we do *not* give *more* money. I don't know. But, if you are going to make such claims. Please verify with data.
> 
> Thanks - Mike



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/28/stingy.americans.ap/index.html



> The United States uses the most common measure of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 30 rich nations that counts development aid.
> 
> By that measure, the United States spent almost $15.8 billion for "official development assistance" to developing countries in 2003. Next closest was Japan, at $8.9 billion.
> 
> ...


----------



## lvwhitebir (Dec 29, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I don't think it's about panaceas, it's about a pretty simple redistribution of priorities.  You don't have to stop employing people in order to feed the poor in our country and elsewhere; you just have to stop funding boondoggles designed to kill Soviet threats that haven't existed in decades and which haven't worked properly since their inception.



Unfortunately it's not so simple.  During the Clinton administration the government began downsizing.  My office was cut down to 1/4 of it's size.  That left a whole lot of people out of work and, I believe, started the unemployment problems we've experienced since 9/11.  History has shown that the more the government spends, the better the economy.

Government spending on those "boondoggles" is what creates things like the internet, computers, high-powered jet engines, and fuel-efficiency technologies.  Things like water purification systems and food preservatives have all come out of defense money.  Do we throw that all away because it was created with war money?

I don't like that we spend a ton on weapons either.  But if we re-directed that money for charity (funding food programs or job programs) we'd hurt on both the job front (they'd be lower-wage jobs) and on the technological advancement front.  It's all give and take.

And, I personally don't want the government to be used as a dispenser of charity.  I'd like more control over who gets the money and that's why I give to private organizations.  According the the CNN report I read, the GNP comparison that started this thread didn't take into account private charitable donations which was "an estimated $241 billion to charitable causes."

WhiteBirch


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 29, 2004)

If there's all this work for building weapons of war, then why is the technology industry tied to it a mere shadow of its former self here on Long Island?  Where did all those jobs go?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 29, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> History has shown that the more the government spends, the better the economy.



Then why not let the government spend it on employing people in peaceful endeavors?  I wasn't advocating simply dumping government spending -- merely transferring it from funding stealth bombers and missile interceptors to socialized medicine, technology research, work programs, and the like.

To get to some of your specific examples, DARPA's funding for the research that led to the Internet went to colleges forming research networks.  That same sort of funding continues today without any tie to defense planning.  Who says that we have to be working on stuff to bomb the crap out of communists in order to be working on high-tech equipment with high-paying engineering positions?

It's interesting that conservatives object to government spending unless it's on defence, even if history shows that the economy is better when the government spends more.

In the end, it's a nice thought to be able to choose your charities, but that "freedom" is really costing millions of Americans the ability to get medical care, food, and shelter, let alone the problems billions have around the world.  But as long as you're comfortable with that, I guess it's okay, right?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 29, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> If there's all this work for building weapons of war, then why is the technology industry tied to it a mere shadow of its former self here on Long Island?  Where did all those jobs go?



A combination of Clinton-era downsizing and subsequent mergers between the major military contractors in the past decade have reduced the number of competitors and jobs while dramatically increasing the profits of the military-industrial complex.

I suggest you spend a little time researching the Pentagon's budget, and in particular, expenses on R&D on weaponry that is of little to no use in current and future warfighting, including the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the F-22, the JSF, and other insanely expensive programs originally designed for the escalating Cold War.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 29, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> Actually I beleive it was an article in Business week or Forbes a few years back. By your tone, I'm assuming you have a a slight skepticism. Well, lets look at state ranking from the Center for Philanthropy
> 
> 
> Individual Generosity Index by State 2004: (2002 US State Data)
> ...





Hold on there, Babalooey.

Okay...so I'm supposed to believe that Mississippi by "having rank" is the richest state in the Union, and California one of the poorest?  What am I missing here?  If California was an independent nation it would have one of the top ten GDP's in the world.

On the foreign aid question, reference this:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs

It shows the U.S. waaaaaaaay behind Scandinavia when it comes to overseas development projects.  They don't give more overall, of course (Denmark has only five million or so people), but they give a hell of a lot more per capita.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Regards,
> 
> Steve


Thank you Steve.

I really didn't want to chase that information down ... but some of those statistics seemed a bit odd to me too.

You Go Boy.

Mike


----------



## lvwhitebir (Dec 30, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> In the end, it's a nice thought to be able to choose your charities, but that "freedom" is really costing millions of Americans the ability to get medical care, food, and shelter, let alone the problems billions have around the world.  But as long as you're comfortable with that, I guess it's okay, right?



Nope, I'm not comfortable with that at all.  I want everyone to have some help with health care.  I have many friends that don't have insurance because they have part-time jobs.  I'm just saying that it's not as easy to develop as you may think.  I don't want to live in a Socialist society where all my money goes to help someone else.  Most if not all of the countries with universal health care have a very high tax base.  And there have been reports in the media that while the basic care is ok, advanced care is not.

Why is that freedom costing Americans any ability for care, food, or shelter?  If the money is made available, does it have to be from my taxes?  I give money to charities to provide food and shelter.  Does the government have to be involved?

But if the government can design and run a plan that fits everyone, so be it.  I know they tried before and don't know what happened or why they're not still working on it.  It just seems to have lost its priority with Congress and the Bush administration.

Unfortunately, every time the government puts together a system such as this it's rife with overspending, mismanagement, or bloating.  Look at welfare.  When it was developed it was only supposed to be a short-term aid to help people get back on their feet.  These days there are people, sometimes generations of families living off it.  What happened?  It's not that I think everyone on welfare is cheating or anything.  I just know that some people are on it and never intend to get off.  Usually the more handouts people get the less likely they are to work to get away from the handouts.  There's no incentive to.

WhiteBirch


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 30, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> every time the government puts together a system such as this it's rife with overspending, mismanagement, or bloating.


Social Security
Eisenhowever Highway System
Rural Electrification
Medicare
Medicaid


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 30, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> Look at welfare. When it was developed it was only supposed to be a short-term aid to help people get back on their feet. These days there are people, sometimes generations of families living off it. What happened? . . . I just know that some people are on it and never intend to get off. Usually the more handouts people get the less likely they are to work to get away from the handouts. There's no incentive to.
> 
> WhiteBirch


Please define welfare.

There are not families living off welfare for generations. The Clinton / Gingrich Welfare Reform Act of 1994 eliminated long term welfare benefits. Usually, its two years and your out. A maximum of 5 years in your life time.

And of course, the stories you are referring to about people who 'never intend to get off' welfare ... often, while receiving welfare services, they and their families are eligable for Medicaid. By moving 'off' welfare, into an available workforce job, they are often no longer eligable for this healthcare coverage. So its a choice between working and not having healthcare coverage or not working and being able to receive healthcare treatment.

Nice Society, eh?


----------



## GAB (Dec 30, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Please define welfare.
> 
> There are not families living off welfare for generations. The Clinton / Gingrich Welfare Reform Act of 1994 eliminated long term welfare benefits. Usually, its two years and your out. A maximum of 5 years in your life time.
> 
> ...


Yes, lets hope we are going away from and not closer to the 1%-5% who own about 80% of all the worlds resources and want more, so they can give less.

Just remember the 10% you tithe goes to the same as above.

When handing that 10 spot to the person begging at least you know it will get back into the economy. Weather it is yours or theirs it is probably well spent.

Happy new year.

Regards, Gary


----------



## GAB (Dec 30, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This too, would be a wonderful statement to source and provide actual data to support.
> 
> I think you may find that we do *not* give *more* money. I don't know. But, if you are going to make such claims. Please verify with data.
> 
> Thanks - Mike


That is a two way street Michael, good tactic though.

You must be reading Robert's rules.

Regards, Gary


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 31, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> *I think* you may find that we do not give more money. *I don't know.* But, if you are going to make such claims. Please verify with data.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ghostdog2 (Dec 31, 2004)

CNN today reported that the USA is supplying $320 million in aid for tsunami victims. Sect'y Powell reveals that U.S. aid will exceed $1 billion. At the same time, another $12-14 million has gone to WHO for hunger relief.
Ashamed? I don't feel at all ashamed. I'm proud. 
Figures from Sweden aren't in yet.
As an aside, GDPs for Norway and Sweden were given to show, as I'm sure you divined, how deceptive percentages can be. A small base figure (like theirs ) makes modest contributions seem more important than the billions given by the US with a GDP of almost 12 trillion. US ODA contributions, I now know, exceed those of Norway, Sweden and Denmark combined, times two. See hardheadjarhead's of 12/29. Be proud of that too.
It is equally true that Western Europe surrendered its national defense responsibilities to the U.S. long ago. We are Europe's first line of defense. And their last hope. There ought to be more room in the European budget for aid programs with the U.S. taking care of little necessities like national security and defense R&D.
Oh well.
p.s. One reason we don't have socialized medicine is because many if not most Americans don't agree with the concept or the practice. It is groundless to believe that if defense spending were cut, spending on aid and social programs would increase. It's not a lack of resources, as has been pointed out.More likely, it is a reluctance to expand government into areas now served by private industry. Change that mindset and the rest will follow, don't you think?


----------



## Ray (Jan 1, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> .One reason we don't have socialized medicine is because many if not most Americans don't agree with the concept or the practice. It is groundless to believe that if defense spending were cut, spending on aid and social programs would increase. It's not a lack of resources, as has been pointed out.More likely, it is a reluctance to expand government into areas now served by private industry. Change that mindset and the rest will follow, don't you think?


I'm not sure what most Americans think about the practice, but I believe that socializing most things that private concerns should and could do is a poor route to take.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 2, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what most Americans think about the practice, but I believe that socializing most things that private concerns should and could do is a poor route to take.


On the one hand, having socialized medicine could guarantee health care for everyone.  On the other hand, you could end up with substandard health care because there are too many patients and too few qualified doctors.  If it was offered as an option, I'm sure people would take it, the other option being you could continue with your privatized health care if you so chose.

So Ray.  What would be your suggestion, other than socialized medicine, to have health care available to everyone in our country?


----------



## GAB (Jan 2, 2005)

Hi,

I am throwing in my thought.

I have talked to a few of the "snow birds", Canadians visiting during the winter and going home in their better weather conditions.

I feel they have a good system, it is better then ours as far as humane treating to all goes.

Why should we not have care for all??? If the people with money want to spend it, they are going to because they have it.

We need to change and get our head out of the sand. Disease etc. does not follow the "money line" on TV. 
In fact the ones who are costing the most are the rich and famous with some of the frivoulous stuff being done in the name of medicine...

Yes, we have some stop gaps, but the best is socialized medicine...

Regards, Gary


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 2, 2005)

Gary,

Socialized medicine, in countries like those in South America, allows people to indulge in vanity surgery as well -- at little or no cost to them.  What a concept!  We could all be lifted and tucked at the government's expense.:uhyeah:


----------

