Should we be ashamed?

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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]

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.

That doesn't include billions more the United States spends in other areas such as AIDS and HIV programs and other U.N. assistance.
...
Americans last year gave an estimated $241 billion to charitable causes -- domestic and foreign -- according to a study by Giving USA Foundation. That's up from $234 billion in 2002. The foundation did not break down how much was for domestic causes and how much for foreign.

 

[lvwhitebir]

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]

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?