A Multitude of Sins

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:37 pm

Curiosity, considering I dont have the time and you all seem to be able at all times to come up with facts and info...

Whats the percentage of AID that the USA gives in comparison to other countries of power(aka countries with the money to do so)? Kinda diverting away from the local individual charity talk, but I am curious...

I know that a majority of the funds are to Isreal but I do not know how that is handled, is it America's fault the money goes into their Military or is that just Isreal's decision?

I know people love to bash on America especially during the current screwball affair but it can't be that we don't donate or supply more AID than most. I dont mean just charity I mean sending military and support to earthquake's in pakistan or sending supplies to countries etc without a war effort being a reason..

(EDIT - Btw I don't give to charity, Im a bastard.)
(EDIT 2 - I also don't buy the 200$ Dolls. I hate kids)
(EDIT 3 - Fable not everyone gives to charity or as much as they should but not everyone is buying 200 dollar dolls. If 100 people donate 2 bucks a piece and one person buys a 200$ Doll... what is the bigger gesture?)

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:18 pm

RandomThug wrote:(EDIT 3 - Fable not everyone gives to charity or as much as they should but not everyone is buying 200 dollar dolls. If 100 people donate 2 bucks a piece and one person buys a 200$ Doll... what is the bigger gesture?)

RT, did you read what I wrote, above? Because I pointed out that a dollar-for-dollar comparison is useless by itself. Several other factors, including but not limited to income, need to be taken into account. I've been focusing on the figures of Charity Navigator, and on the need to make large corporations and the extremely wealthy individuals who sit at the top executive level cough up a percentage of their take for charity. I think this is a lot more humnaitarian than taking the money and simply handing it over to either a euphemistically labelled "Defense Department," or to pork barreling politicians.

As I remarked above, I think that when you see the wealthiest, most polluting, most consuming nation on the face of the earth spending roughly one-quarter on charity in a year what it spends on gifts around the holidays alone, then it seems cause for concern. There's so much US money and resources that could actually save so many lives; and it's a shame that so little of it goes towards charity, and so much of it towards gifts. Is gift-giving in itself wrong? Of course not. But that's obvious. The problem lies in a culture that could and should (IMO) do so much more. Because with power and wealth (which today is arguably the greatest arbiter of power) comes responsibility.

I know this isn't a popular view, and cynics smirk at the idea of supporting anybody other than themselves and those closest to them. Guess I'll just have to seem old-fashioned, in this context.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:42 pm

RandomThug wrote:Whats the percentage of AID that the USA gives in comparison to other countries of power(aka countries with the money to do so)? Kinda diverting away from the local individual charity talk, but I am curious...

Official Development Assistance from the US amounts to 0.22% of Gross National Income or a total of $27.5 bn. Compared to Norway, being at the top of the list with 0.93% of GNI. 2005 numbers from OECD, and this was an unusually high year for the US, mostly because of Iraq. Other countries: France 0.47%, UK 0.48%, Germany 0.35%.

I know that a majority of the funds are to Isreal but I do not know how that is handled, is it America's fault the money goes into their Military or is that just Isreal's decision?

Not true. The majority goes to Iraq. The money going to Israel is managed by the Israeli government, but is likely to be conditional of US purchases.

Breakdown of US ODA/OA, top ten 2003-2004:

Total ODA/OA, average of 2003-2004: US$ 19505 m, or roughly 0.16% of GNI (If I got the calculations right - error is likely to put the number higher than actual, so I'm sure that I'm not intentionally introducing negative bias). ODA = Official Development Assistance, OA = Official Aid.

Iraq US$ 2286 m
Dem. Rep. Congo US$ 804 m
Egypt US$ 767 m
Russia (OA) US$ 737 m
Jordan US$666 m
Afghanistan US$ 632 m
Pakistan US$ 590 m
Colombia US$ 536 m
Israel (OA) US$ 525 m
Ethiopia US$ 500 m

Source: OECD.

I know people love to bash on America especially during the current screwball affair but it can't be that we don't donate or supply more AID than most. I dont mean just charity I mean sending military and support to earthquake's in pakistan or sending supplies to countries etc without a war effort being a reason.

The numbers above include everything from the US government except the actual war in Iraq - humanitarian aid, development aid, disaster assistance, etc. The depressing part is not primarily the size of the aid as much as how it is used as a leverage in foreign policy. If you look at the top ten list, I think you can quite easily see what was "expected" of the respective countries for them to receive aid. My intent here is not to bash America as a whole. Most Americans actually think they are a kind and humanitarian people, because the government tells them so. It is even quite likely that they would be if given the chance. It's the US government I have issues with...

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:46 pm

Fable... come on now you know I didn't read everything. My attention span has become something less than spectacular. Don't get me wrong I hate the holiday's and agree with you about those on top. Guys like buffet and gates are humanitarians and deserve a big pat on the back. (I reject that statement if somehow you can prove it wrong.)

Isn't it part of the whole ideal of making more money, spending more money, capitalistic viewpoint our whole country works around at the current moment. I mean I look at it through the eyes of a greedy jerk (Me). The way I see it is I work hard for my money and do what i can to take care of myself, if I make 45,000 this year I'll spend a good chunk at the bars drinking cheap gin and tonics, if I start making 75,000 next year I'll be down at that same bar drinking Tanqeray(Spelling?) and tonics because I worked harder for my money and I will spend it according to my desires.

Thats the small scale but on the larger scale it applies as well (in my mind). If I start a company that rivals walmart and I take out the competition through clever business tactics... well isn't it the American dream to make it big and rich and buy more and more stuff and have more and more things, this isn't a country based on Moral grounds sure the christians want you to believe that but its been a long time since the corporations started curving our government's choices.

I Guess my point is that is it wrong that we dont give as much as we spend just on the holidays? Or is it my right to do with my money whatever the hell I want to? I earned it. I bled for it.

Im with you to a degree it just falls short when the finger is pointed at someone to "HAVE" to give. Your talking about people wasting money on 200$ dolls.... but these are presents and gifts to your family, people who directly effect your life daily... I dont buy gifts personally all I asked for christmas was to be left alone but whats wrong with giving to those whom you love than those who you dont know, regardless of their horrible outcome. I mean yeah buying a cheap trinket for my nephew isn't the same gesture as donating to help stop AIDS in africa but why is it "wrong" for me to do with my money what I choose?

And if you already addressed this, just smight me.

btw silur fable thanks for responding. Boring day at work.

@ Silur - How much more is the GNI for America over norway.. i guess my question would be is it fair to say that the USA doesn't give enough yet its only askewed numbers because we make so much more and have so many more people, its easier to have higher numbers when you don't have as many people. I mean take 100 people and maybe 30 donate take 50,000 people and 300 donate, its not worse for the 50k people they've donated 100 times more than the group of 100, but the percentages look nicer for the group of 100. eh... brain needs more coffee, go ahead and crush me. BTW any young american should know that his government tells him what they want him to believe, not what is actually black and white truth. As should any young frenchman or English man or Norwayian(hehe)

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:19 pm

RandomThug wrote:Fable... come on now you know I didn't read everything. My attention span has become something less than spectacular. Don't get me wrong I hate the holiday's and agree with you about those on top. Guys like buffet and gates are humanitarians and deserve a big pat on the back. (I reject that statement if somehow you can prove it wrong.)

Didn't mean to imply that you should, RT. Probably just post-birthday blues.

By the way, on the subject of Gates, a funny and true story. I have a couple of married friends who live and work in the Vegas casino/hotel system. back in 1995, I think it was, Comdex was having its yearly event there, and Gates was the official guest. Because Microsoft brought an enormous number of people to the show (more than many countries have in their UN delegations), he got the penthouse suite free at one of the most prestigious hotels.

At one point when my friends and I were enjoying a nice dinner, one of them took a phonecall. He came back and his wife looked at him. "He got stiffed," he said. She snickered. It seems that the "underclass" at the casinos and hotels keep a sort of constant network going, and they had a bet on over how much if anything Gates would give to his bellhop who had to transfer an enormous amount of luggage. Answer: none. This was pre-reformed Gates, before he was challenged publicly by Ted Turner, and subsequently married his PR director. He gave nothing to charities, and boasted about it.

It was pretty funny, in a very sad sort of way, at the time. I was led around some of the caverns that work under and between the casino/hotels, and this was the main topic of conversation and marvel for a bit.

Isn't it part of the whole ideal of making more money, spending more money, capitalistic viewpoint our whole country works around at the current moment. I mean I look at it through the eyes of a greedy jerk (Me). The way I see it is I work hard for my money and do what i can to take care of myself, if I make 45,000 this year I'll spend a good chunk at the bars drinking cheap gin and tonics, if I start making 75,000 next year I'll be down at that same bar drinking Tanqeray(Spelling?) and tonics because I worked harder for my money and I will spend it according to my desires.

Capitalism can't be reduced to just spending more money. From what I can gather, it's an understanding of the laws that underlie the marketplace. Different economists promote different facets of capitalism. As for your money belonging to you and only you, I think you will find that people who have the most money agree with you, since they believe all checks on pricing and monopolistic practices should be removed. A free, untrammeled marketplace would allow them to charge you whatever they wish for whatever you have. Remember, for the consumer, the realization of laissez faire economics is that the biggest wolf eats you, as well as all the smaller wolves.

Thats the small scale but on the larger scale it applies as well (in my mind). If I start a company that rivals walmart and I take out the competition through clever business tactics... well isn't it the American dream to make it big and rich and buy more and more stuff and have more and more things, this isn't a country based on Moral grounds sure the christians want you to believe that but its been a long time since the corporations started curving our government's choices.

I personally never heard that the American Dream was to buy more and more stuff. I thought it was security for you and yours, a good education for one's kids, a nest egg to retire on, a good community without violence, the ability to speak freely on any and all issues, etc. Guess I'm out of the loop.

But what happens if you develop a major disease next month? Or the economy turns sour, and you can't keep your business going? What happens when your money runs out? Do you turn to family to support you? What if this affects your entire family, or they don't care to support you, or can't handle it?

As for the moral ground argument, I'm definitely not Christian. Nor are many others here in the forum, but I think quite a few of us hold that the human condition means all of us looking out for one another. And that the less pain and suffering there is for all, the more we can truly call ourselves human beings.

Im with you to a degree it just falls short when the finger is pointed at someone to "HAVE" to give. Your talking about people wasting money on 200$ dolls.... but these are presents and gifts to your family, people who directly effect your life daily... I dont buy gifts personally all I asked for christmas was to be left alone but whats wrong with giving to those whom you love than those who you dont know, regardless of their horrible outcome. I mean yeah buying a cheap trinket for my nephew isn't the same gesture as donating to help stop AIDS in africa but why is it "wrong" for me to do with my money what I choose?

And if you already addressed this, just smight me.

Heh. Wouldn't think of it.

But I have dealt with some of this stuff, above. My concern isn't so much that anybody buys gifts, but that the sheer power of resources (including money) that we possess in the US is such, we could probably solve a lot of problems the world over if we didn't spend 4 times as much on gifts just during the holiday season as we spend on charities the year around. So it's a matter of degree and attitude, I think. Other nations with a far lower income per household contribute more of what they make to charities, and I know we could all do so, too. Save a few lives--that's the kind of gift that keeps on giving.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:24 pm

@RT:

Sorry, I should have included the actual dollars of the other nations. The US GNI was roughly US$ 12500 bn in 2005, or US$ 41000 per person (please note; this is NOT average income... this is net income for all products and services in the US and the "per person" calculation is for comparison only). Current population is roughly 300388647 people.

Norway, 0.93% of GNI or US$ 2775 m. Population: 4610820. GNI is about US$ 300 bn.

Norwegian aid is roughly 10% of what the US gives in dollars, from a population that is roughly 1.5% of that of the US. GNI per person is US$ 64500, which makes Norway quite a bit more productive than the US, probably because they have oil and don't use all of it themselves.

UK, 0.48% of GNI or US$ 10754 m. Population: 60609153. GNI is roughly US$ 2240 bn.

Same numbers, UK aid is roughly 40% of US, with 20% of the population. GNI per person is US$ 37000, making the UK less productive per person than the US.

As you can see, the US is pretty bad whichever way you cut it.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:49 pm

@Silur - Bad like good right? Like the US is a Bad mother... right?? Kidding.

Anyhow...

@Fable I guess I take in the whole theory that man is just a beast with the ability to think deeper, I mean sure if I got sick my natural instincts to survive would demand help from the state. I pay taxes and all, but never from a business or from an individual. I would expect or rather hope my country that I support and the government I employ. Yet now healthy I believe that if I were to get sick, well I die. Cause Im weaker. This is a kid who grew up spending every other day ill (asthma hay fever and allergies... so many sick days) and every other day hopp'd up on meds.

I've never believed that the American Dream is what you said, the Human Dream perhaps but America has always represented a capitalistic society in which I am not a democrat nor a republican I am a consumer and only the latter when election year comes around. It is the goal to become succesful and secure with your success, I watched a General Contractor (dad) have fistfuls of cash my whole youth and now at 55 (weeeeiiird your my dads age) struggles to pay rent. I guess the way I see it in America you either sink or swim, sometimes you gotta doggy paddle for years sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you get your foot caught in some seaweed and drown.

I don't believe that any one country is a good or moral place, we are all beasts and do what we can for the best of mine and ours. I care on some level about the plights of those in (Insert crappy place somewhere else) but its not enough to make me think its more important than the goings on of my own life, regardless if i make 50k a year to 600k a year.

@Silur - You say bad but my mind any charity is that in itself charity, its not something needed, or required. To say the US is bad because it doesnt give enough is condeming them for being charitable. Not as charitable as perhaps some other nation but still...

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:08 pm

RandomThug wrote: @Silur - You say bad but my mind any charity is that in itself charity, its not something needed, or required. To say the US is bad because it doesnt give enough is condeming them for being charitable. Not as charitable as perhaps some other nation but still...

No, I'm just saying that compared to the rest of the world, the US is bad. There is nothing absolute in my statement. I haven't really complained about the level of aid, my focus has mainly been on who it goes to and how it is given. I've also had some issues with the inclusion of personal remittance in the official figures, which reeks. Still, if I wanted to, I could point out that the US is *far* below the level of aid it has agreed to in the UN, which is 0.7% of GNI. Granted, most other countries are a bit lacking on this point as well...

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:30 pm

@Silur I am glad you mentioned other countries fall short as well. I also can't wait till 2008.

@Fable I found a quote for you to understand my point of view, I agree with the mad man Hunter S. thompson on a lot of p.o.v's and this is one..

America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.
Hunter S. Thompson

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:53 pm

RandomThug wrote:@Fable I found a quote for you to understand my point of view, I agree with the mad man Hunter S. thompson on a lot of p.o.v's and this is one..

America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.

Except that Thompson meant that disparagingly as an example of everything he felt was wrong about a nation gone out of control. So you seem here to be identifying yourself with the attitude Thompson loathes.

Besides, you don't fully believe that, yourself. Because you also write, "I mean sure if I got sick my natural instincts to survive would demand help from the state. I pay taxes and all, but never from a business or from an individual. I would expect or rather hope my country that I support and the government I employ."

But why should the government or anybody else take care of you, if you're not the government or anybody else? If your philosophy is one of complete selfishness, it seems to me that it founders on the expectations of others. Even the Virginian Arcadians, who wanted the least government possible, believed that the unsplittable foundation of society wasn't the individual, but the mansion/farm with its extended family community.

But of course, nowadays it isn't enough to rely upon the extended family. Kids no longer live where there parents do. Health care costs are sky high. To get ahead in the world it isn't sufficient to inherit your parents' worldly goods, but to have the best education possible. Which usually means subsidies. And while a farm's owners and hands could easily render rough justice on any poachers or thieves, security today is too complex to rely upon family.

We're all interconnected in that sense. We need far more than family, at some point in our lives. The selfishness that allows you to deny others protection under law, a disease free environment, a good education, dignity and security, is just the kind of thinking that get neo-cons elected--who have already done away with so much of what little safety net we had, and will gladly remove the rest. Including whatever was set up to help you.

So if you want to be selfish, at least be enlightened in your selfishness. Support a strong safety net for those who are in bad straits, so it will be there when you need it.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:03 pm

@fable

You know, it is sad but sometimes it seems that we speak different languages.
I speak about people donating money to charitable organizations. After that point, it is not any individual's fault how these money are allocated, wasted, stashed or burned. I cannot agree more that the whole system is corrupted. That is the topic of this thread.
You just pointed out that the money donated by individuals are being given to <> and succesfully mismanaged. I believe it. I believe all donations are mismanaged the same way everything else is mismanaged and screwed up in this country.
That makes me wonder whether it is worth to donate at all.
I am going to repeat my arguments about percentage for the last time. I understand that you mean that percentage-wise the americans don't give generously enough. Perhaps. But we were talking about forcing generosity upon somebody by introducing a fixed 5/10/15%. And here we disagree. It is sad that some people turn their backs to the other people in crisis but what would you do about it short of demanding money at a gunpoint?
Now let's talk about corporations. Everybody who took pain to read through all I said would know my position.

In my opinion, the whole system of charity is ridden with corruption and hypocrisy, starting with the 'tax deductible' incentives and probably not ending with the blatant fraud I mentioned above.
[B]The tax write-offs are supposed to stimulate the corporate willingness to share a fraction of their wealth with the needy.[/b] Stimulated or not, the charitable money trickle out, and this is still better than nothing.
I would like to know the correlation between the amount of cash/goods donated and the amount 'deducted' on a corporate level. Along with the other benefits bestowed upon the corporations for donating.

Then I gave examples how corporations benefit from their 'donations' and try to cover that up with the 'noble glitter'.

You quoted one sentence I highlighted and said:

Great! Then you agree, despite your initial comments in your first post, that any true workable definition of generosity cannot be based upon an actual amount given, but upon a percentage of income, as you note above! That being the case, you can correct your initial statement, and find out for us what perecentage of income, per income group, the US citizen gives in charity each year. That will be a big help in determining just how generous Americans are.

I didn't know how you deduced that from what I said, perhaps because I used the word 'fraction', so I replied:

I disagree that individuals must give a percentage of their income. It is only applicable to the church tithing which is historically one-tenth.
If to donate a certain percentage of income was mandatory, it would not be any different from the taxes. Actually, it would be a new tax. Would you like to increase the taxes?
You understood my sarcastic line about write-offs stimulating corporate willingness to share a 'fraction (a tiny amount) of their wealth' too literally, I am afraid. I am against any regulations involving voluntary donations. It is not right to pressure people 'to be generous'. A generous person would give voluntarily. If somebody chooses not to give that is fine too. If somebody gives only after being 'persuaded', it is not a donation, it is extortion.And why do you want me to find out the percentage of income given? I assume the amount would not correlate with the income; there is no law to regulate this amount and therefore the 'percentage' per capita cannot be calculated fairly.

So, I was still talking about individuals, people, the only subject I care about.
And sure enough, you quoted only the lines I highlighted, taking them out of context, and replied:

And if tens of millions die of hunger each year, you can always salve your conscience with the idea that you haven't hurt those poor corporations by forcing them to donate. Saving the industrial might of the US from extortion to feed the poor, to clothe the hungry, to heal the sick: how very Christian of you!

In any case, as I wrote and you ignored: "...any true workable definition of generosity cannot be based upon an actual amount given, but upon a percentage of income, as you note above! That being the case, you can correct your initial statement, and find out for us what perecentage of income, per income group, the US citizen gives in charity each year. That will be a big help in determining just how generous Americans are."

Again, I was a bit taken aback by your ability to interpret my words a peculiar way. So I said:

Fable, I realize that my English is not as good as it should be. I type in a conversational manner without much regard for rhetorical value or style. But I thought it was clear in the context that I was talking about common people, individuals, not about corporations. I don't care about bloody corporations. They donate money because it benefits themselves as I attempted to show in my posts.
I am talking about taxes common people have to pay. By forcing them to "donate" a certain percentage of their income you impose a new tax. It is unfair. I do not try to compare dollar-to-dollar amount versus percentage. I do not want to compare anything. I believe that individual donations should be voluntary and anonymous.
What does "saving of US industrial might" have to do with that?

But we are talking different languages. Your reply:

Your English is fine, as you well know. You posted as follows:

"You understood my sarcastic line about write-offs stimulating corporate willingness to share a 'fraction (a tiny amount) of their wealth' too literally, I am afraid. I am against any regulations involving voluntary donations."

The first sentence is about corporations. The second one appears to comment and expand upon it, stating that you are opposed to all regulations involving voluntary donations, including those of corporations. Is this a bad summation of what you wrote?

Now I am responding so everybody can see how this conversation is proceeding:
Dear fable, your summation is bad.
Please read everything we both said (preferably original posts). Does it really seem that I am a corporate fan? If it does, then let me tell you again that I am not. Never have been. Never will be. My concerns are with the common people whatever their positions on charity are.

Why should I change targets when your comments above provide such a huge and obvious one?

Yeah, really, why? One enemy at the time. Usual tactic.

Afraid not. To quote another of your posts, "But it is perfectly fine, in my opinion, for a black Christian who accepts Jesus as a personal Savior, to personalize him a little bit more. Fortunately, there is no Inquisition to show us the errors of our ways, so everything is cool." (My italics.) Unless of course you want to say that you were joking, and you aren't Christian? As you haven't replied to this point and stated outright what your religious beliefs are, I can only assume I hit that mark dead center.

The expression known to me goes 'errors of our ways' no matter what.
I respect any faiths, whether people believe in Jesus or Budda. I respect holy cows too. As long as the believers/fanatics don't hurt somebody in the name of their Gods. The discussion was not about my personal beliefs but about a particular fact. I have never openly stated in this forum what my personal faith or lack of it was. What I strongly believe though, any person deserves respect regardless of what he/she believes in. Any voice deserves to be heard, without name-calling. You can assume anything you want.

One little word is all that's needed to make up a lie, yes, as you well know. And that's what you did to me when you lied about what I'd written and felt. It's your attempt to make me appear other than I am, your responsibility for the comment and for the results. I've never hated anybody in my life, and would never value humanity so low that I could write off any part of it with such an intense, dismissive emotion as hate.

Your subsequent comments are, of course, ridiculous. Having been proven a liar, you then go on the offensive when you're caught out. An apology on your part might have been expected, had your remark come from someone who truly valued both people and the impact words can have. But no...and the combination of the lie and lack of an apology really removes what little credibility you had left as a conversational partner, in my opinion.

I even don't want to comment on this. I am embarrassed for you.
Good buy.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:21 pm

Hey fable man not always tryin to put the gloves on and fight. Little misread maybe little mis spoke. I understand thompson and I agree with his loathing. I just believe thats what has happened, not what should be. I don't live with hope and fantastic belief that something will change and my country wont be corrupt.

I said in an act of self preserverance.(wow?) Currently I don't think the state should do **** for me. I won't say I am a man of great will and currently find myself living a life around my addictions, so I cant stand tall and say I'd never fail and hope (and on some levels expect help).

To me the world is just a infested blood stain splattered across a pretty rotating globe, each one of us slowly taking and taking and taking eventually to just rot into the ground... to give back a small percentage of what you took. No big faith no big hope, were just mammal's with the ability to create god. To imagine and to fear. Its not paranoia, thats just ignorance, its acceptance of the fact that my country is run by carsalesmen ready to go to war at any cost and unless I get a swaying move in the politcal system to change it myself, its not going to change. So why argue it why fight it... why not just accept the fact that the reason I wake up to palm tree's and beautiful days every day is because people worked hard to get me here. Sure some people had to die but thats the natural order of things. At least I dont have to worry about wearing a gas mask to work. As much as my government wants me to worry about it I dont.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:30 pm

Lady Dragonfly wrote:You know, it is sad but sometimes it seems that we speak different languages.

Very sad. Horrifically so, and that's the truth. But we all must do the best we can to understand one another, and to use language to communicate, instead of to confuse or hurt.

I speak about people donating money to charitable organizations. After that point, it is not any individual's fault how these money are allocated, wasted, stashed or burned. I cannot agree more that the whole system is corrupted. That is the topic of this thread.

This is where directness counts.

You began by posting a quote followed by partial facts from Charity Navigator that lead you to conclude Americans are very generous with charities. You returned to those figures, too, in your thread. So of course, some other forum members (such as myself, Silur, RT, etc) took these comments as the main theme. In the future, when you don't want to discuss a subject, it's probably best not to elaborate upon it, first, and repeatedly state it, later. If your theme is the use of charity as a scam tool, consider (and this is just a suggestion) leading off with that, instead of spreading figures and facts that are incomplete in form, and disputable in content.

I am going to repeat my arguments about percentage for the last time. I understand that you mean that percentage-wise the americans don't give generously enough. Perhaps. But we were talking about forcing generosity upon somebody by introducing a fixed 5/10/15%. And here we disagree. It is sad that some people turn their backs to the other people in crisis but what would you do about it short of demanding money at a gunpoint?

This last question can be stated just as easily about any income tax, and has, over the years; yet people pay income tax, as long as they perceive the benefits for doing so outweigh the cost of avoiding it. In Europe, those benefits, in the form of a social safety net and social responsibility, have been stated often enough by cultural leaders to make a considerable impression. (After all, if we go back 100-150 years, dedicated social services were no more developed in Europe than in the US.) My point is that Americans can be convinced about giving to charities via government--which is one traditional way of distributing federal tax revenues in the US--if there's leadership from the top urging this. If instead of giving back tax monies to the top 10% of the "earners" in the US (who also run those large corporations we both complain about

), Congress and the members of the Executive branch were to address the value of helping others, and the responsibility that comes with power, within a relatively short period of time we'd have a turnaround. Remember, the US did rebuild the destroyed infrastructure of much of Western Europe and its Axis enemies after WWII through the Marshall Plan, and years later it also engaged the youth of a generation with the Peace Corps. It took Reagan, neo-con leadership in Congress, and Bush Jr the better part of 25 years to create a generation that thinks of themselves and believes governments should spend huge sums of money--on invading other nations. That can be turned around.

There are many ways to reinforce this message. Perhaps if our government leaders were to focus less on stating why they hate stem cell research or abortions, and more on explaining why it is important to give to others around the holidays, they would have an effect. Similarly, if business leaders were to state that they would donate 25% of their proceeds on key retail products to named charities, at the very least it would show a proper spirit. Or what about a government that encourages people to buy gifts, not for family, but for donations in the name of one's family to various charities? (This is done on the side, of course--we've purchased and given huge quantities of food each year for this purpose--but government isn't involved.) Bush appearing with a child in an orphanage? Cheney gesturing to starving masses in camps on the edge of the Sudan? How about federal and state lawmakers publically stating that they are each giving $100,000 (they can afford it; 94% of the US Congress is comprised of multi-millionaires) to the Save the Children Foundation, the Arthritis Fund, homes for battered children, etc?

Another way of handling matters is to hit the top 10% of extremely wealthy corporations in the nation by increasing taxes on the most wealthy individuals, the ones who control them. Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy hasn't exactly created a climate of generosity, but neither has it generated the enormous return via private reinvestment that his Trickle Down neo-con advisors have promised. It has instead provided a private windfall; and if it were pushed back into the government for use in re-developing and deploying a social safety net, it could be turned into a moral windfall, instead. Something that shows government is capable of taking the lead in more areas than simply providing highly placed private contractors with a year round Christmas time bonus in Iraq.

Now I am responding so everybody can see how this conversation is proceeding:
Dear fable, your summation is bad.

LD, if you could avoid making statements that appear to be referring to corporations when they really aren't, we would be merely moving on to the next matter for discussion.

The expression known to me goes 'errors of our ways' no matter what.
I respect any faiths, whether people believe in Jesus or Budda. I respect holy cows too. As long as the believers/fanatics don't hurt somebody in the name of their Gods. The discussion was not about my personal beliefs but about a particular fact. I have never openly stated in this forum what my personal faith or lack of it was. What I strongly believe though, any person deserves respect regardless of what he/she believes in. Any voice deserves to be heard, without name-calling. You can assume anything you want.

If we knew what religioius vantage point you brought here, we'd have a better sense of the background of your ideas. But since you won't state your religious affiliations, you can expect from time to time to have people look at the comment of yours that I quoted (or others like it), and make what appear to be obvious conclusions. If they're wrong, you can always correct them when you decide to be forthcoming.

I even don't want to comment on this. I am embarrassed for you.
Good buy.

This last couple of lines certainly lives down to my current expectations of you, based on your lies about my views above, and your subsequent attacks; though to tell the truth, I was hoping for better. I promise not to, in the future. But to return to some of my remarks as a launching point:

"The National Retail Federation in the US put the total of holiday spending for 2005 at roughly $440 billion. That's compared to approximately $106 billion spent directly on charity in the US for the entire year, even if we allow personal remittances to be included (see Silur, above). That comparison speaks pretty tellingly about how charity rates next to the latest console or doll around the holidays. We don't buy toys. We sink beneath a sea of them.

Let me state my views another way: we have extraordinary power here in the US through our enormous income and what it buys in the form of government, technologies, and influence around the world. And we could use it all to effectively curtail poverty, disease, starvation, even end it in some areas. Only we don't accept the responsibility that comes with that power, and we spend far, far more on holiday toys than we do on charities for the full year."

LD, don't you think that we as Americans should be more charitable? Do you think any attempts to make us so are lost causes? Are we always going to lag behind a number of other nations in charitable donations, based on their income and GNP? Haven't charity scams always existed; and isn't the best method of dealing with them strong laws and effective policing of the marketplace?

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:39 pm

RandomThug wrote:Hey fable man not always tryin to put the gloves on and fight. Little misread maybe little mis spoke. I understand thompson and I agree with his loathing. I just believe thats what has happened, not what should be. I don't live with hope and fantastic belief that something will change and my country wont be corrupt.

Didn't think you were aiming for a fight, RT. Thought you misunderstood Thompson, and I was wrong, so you get an apology.

To me the world is just a infested blood stain splattered across a pretty rotating globe, each one of us slowly taking and taking and taking eventually to just rot into the ground... to give back a small percentage of what you took. No big faith no big hope, were just mammal's with the ability to create god. To imagine and to fear. Its not paranoia, thats just ignorance, its acceptance of the fact that my country is run by carsalesmen ready to go to war at any cost and unless I get a swaying move in the politcal system to change it myself, its not going to change. So why argue it why fight it... why not just accept the fact that the reason I wake up to palm tree's and beautiful days every day is because people worked hard to get me here. Sure some people had to die but thats the natural order of things. At least I dont have to worry about wearing a gas mask to work. As much as my government wants me to worry about it I dont.

Um, whoa. I feel like you just defined a giant Mac truck and yourself as the latest roadkill.

Are you depressed at the moment, or is this how you feel on an average day? It seems to be a recipe for absolute pessimism and lethargy. Though the latter part confused me. Whom do you mean by the people who worked hard to get you where you are--your folks? And the following line--"Sure some people had to die but thats the natural order of things."--what does that refer to? I'm trying to understand. It's natural for all people to die. It's unnatural for people to die before their time because governments sacrifice them as chits in games of conquest. Don't know if that's what you meant, but it's the best I can come up with, at the moment.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:52 pm

RandomThug wrote:@Silur I am glad you mentioned other countries fall short as well. I also can't wait till 2008.

To put it bluntly, the entire industrial world is pathetic. Even the countries that live up to the agreements do so for all the wrong reasons. I happen to live in one of those countries, and we only pay up because "it would look bad" otherwise. I'll join you under that Mac truck if there's still room.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:34 pm

A point I try to make to all who talk bad about (enter country) is that most modern countries are all just as bad as each other in their own corrupt way.

Yeah its a mac truck, lots of room.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:02 am

RandomThug wrote:A point I try to make to all who talk bad about (enter country) is that most modern countries are all just as bad as each other in their own corrupt way.

Well, the concept of national states is right up there on my list of least favourite things, together with monotheistic religions, large corporations without transparency and political parties of any denomination. Interestingly, they share the purpose of betterment for one group at the cost of another. This may sound communist (and by the wider US definition, it definitely is), but I dream of a world where humanity strives for a higher goal than just hoarding possessions. Don't get me wrong, I'm as bad as the rest of us - I'm nowhere close to living what I preach. It depresses me that I cannot break free of the shackles of my culture.

Before anyone starts arguing about me singling out the monotheists, I'll explain why; no other religions promote the concept of unity under *one* leader as strongly as they do. Polytheistic religions often have their gods bickering like children, showing that disagreement is not something to frown upon and seldom give the highest ranking god ultimate power, balance generally being the key. As for the abstract and atheist religions, they're far too contemplating and introvert to be a threat to anyone.

To get back to charity (so Fable doesn't delete my post

), it is of course better that people have the will to give charity rather than not, this is hardly an issue to fight over. Considering how charities are managed by the various organisations, I would also argue that not giving to charities is not necessarily a sign of lower moral standards - as an example, one organisation here collecting second hand clothes and reselling them, used more than 85% of their earnings to give bonuses to the management, build a resort for the staff, and almost nothing (I think 2% was the end result) actually reached anyone poor or needing. This is just one example, and new scandals keep popping up, so I can understand why people feel cheated and rather buy a $200 doll than give contributions to the charity management's BMWs. The honorable charity organisations suffer badly from this, since every scandal sets back their results as well, the crooked ones use more marketing and advertisement and most people feel overwhelmed with the amount of detective work needed to find out which charities are worthwile.

In my book, the pious, hypocrite religious charities are even worse than the crooked ones, since in their case it is truly a case of "greeks bearing gifts". Oh sure, most of the aid actually reaches it's weak, needing targets, but so does the doctrines, the brainwashing and the implicit demands on conversion or at least acceptance of the views of the religious backers. When you are weak and suffering, you are in no condition to fight off these beguilers and while abusing the good will of the charitous rich is bad enough, abusing the weakness and need of the recipient to further an agenda is absolutely abhorrent.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:38 pm

Silur wrote:To get back to charity (so Fable doesn't delete my post ), it is of course better that people have the will to give charity rather than not, this is hardly an issue to fight over. Considering how charities are managed by the various organisations, I would also argue that not giving to charities is not necessarily a sign of lower moral standards - as an example, one organisation here collecting second hand clothes and reselling them, used more than 85% of their earnings to give bonuses to the management, build a resort for the staff, and almost nothing (I think 2% was the end result) actually reached anyone poor or needing. This is just one example, and new scandals keep popping up, so I can understand why people feel cheated and rather buy a $200 doll than give contributions to the charity management's BMWs. The honorable charity organisations suffer badly from this, since every scandal sets back their results as well, the crooked ones use more marketing and advertisement and most people feel overwhelmed with the amount of detective work needed to find out which charities are worthwile.

I'd agree, Silur, except that most people don't buy $200 dolls, etc, because they've spent money on fake charities. There simply is no media-created consciousness over here in the US about charitable scams, and if they happen locally, they don't out on the important wires like AP, UPI, Reuters, etc, that furnish the news-behind-the-news. I can give you no figures on this, but I'll bet that if you ask 99 out of 100 USians if they give to charities, they'll never mention scams. They may know of the phony Nigerian bank scam letters, and the scams run by literally close to 75 Republican federal legislators now under inditement, because these are discussed in the best researched meta-blog sites that are looming ever larger. But that's about it.

I just read some figures (unfortunately unsupported for source) a few minutes ago to the effect that USians are spending $1000/head this season in gifts. That undoubtedly needs to be adjusted for those who are spending far, far more. I'm sure Cheney isn't going to spend $1,000 on gifts; and I know of one major tobacco company that has been cutting workers' benefits and inflation raises for the last two years, but saw fit to give their chief executive a $5 million Christmas bonus. But still, it reflects what some sociologists are telling us is an atmosphere of out-of-control spending. In other words, it's not as though we can afford to spend it. Many don't have the cash. But the spending continues, and the money goes to--charities? No, to the giant corporate manufacturers who have had their taxes repeatedly cut and their worksites deregulated by Bush over the last 6 years. In so far as this fuels the cycle of debt, the rich-getting-richer and the poor-getting-poorer, I do take exceiption to this arrant example of cynicism.

In my book, the pious, hypocrite religious charities are even worse than the crooked ones, since in their case it is truly a case of "greeks bearing gifts". Oh sure, most of the aid actually reaches it's weak, needing targets, but so does the doctrines, the brainwashing and the implicit demands on conversion or at least acceptance of the views of the religious backers. When you are weak and suffering, you are in no condition to fight off these beguilers and while abusing the good will of the charitous rich is bad enough, abusing the weakness and need of the recipient to further an agenda is absolutely abhorrent.

Precisely why I don't count roughly half the money Charity Navigator claims as showing how charitable we USians are. It goes towards the big business of spreading religion. It is part of a quid pro quo: you get food and shelter, and in turn you listen to me preach about my religion until you come to think that since nobody else cares, I'm telling you only the truth and you convert. The US government thinks so, too--at least, when the religion in question is Islam. The point is that it's supposedly charity when it's Christian, but conversion when its Islam; but I think away from the BS of politics, we can simply call it a conversion wolf in charitable sheep's clothing, and let it go at that.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:00 pm

To those interested in giving to charities:

American Institute of Philanthropy - Charity Watchdog Helping Donors Make Informed Giving Decisions

'The American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP) is a nationally prominent charity watchdog service whose purpose is to help donors make informed giving decisions.'

There are several good articles helping people choose wisely and avoid scam; you can also read AIP President's testimony before Congress about charities' response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

xxslainxx · Post by **xxslainxx** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:03 pm

quote: But it seems, to me, at least, that instead of giving to worthwhile causes, many people prefer to stay in line from 6 AM to fight others to buy $200 dolls for their kids. And computer platforms. And the list can be extended indefinitely. Fight AIDS, world hunger, the plight of the homeless, or those tortured in prisons?

There is absolutely nothing wrong for caring about your own before others.

There is a short story in the Hindu scripture (The Baghavathgeetha AKA Geetha) of a man who is the most benevolent person in the village and helps everyone. However, at home his parents are sick and dying and uncared for. Whence the day of his judgement comes, he is punished for it.

True, the analogy is a a little stretched. However, the point is still the same. If the 200$ doll makes your child smile. It is worth it. Besides, for all you know the child may be terminally ill.