patrick.net

Dan.
Can you find the data to create a pie chart like the one for global military expenditures, and show what amount of protection America gets from others and what amount America spends protecting others?

Can you find the data to show how much America spends in aide (cash, food, whatever) to others and how much aide others send to America? That would be a cool pie chart.

Bap33 says

Can you find the data to create a pie chart like the one for global military expenditures, and show what amount of protection America gets from others and what amount America spends protecting others?

America doesn't protect others except to further it's own political and economic agendas. That's why we fought Iraq twice but let civilians get slaughtered in Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Syria.

100% of America's military spending is for our own selfish interests.

Bap33 says

Can you find the data to show how much America spends in aide (cash, food, whatever) to others and how much aide others send to America? That would be a cool pie chart.

Easily done.

Notice that foreign aid accounts for 0.44% of the federal budget, and even less of federal spending since foreign aid doesn't have the option of going over budget.

Notice how tiny that slice is.

Even all foreign affairs put together adds only a mere 0.72%. And that includes things like building oil rigs to suck out other nation's natural resources.

Please read more about this in this Word Press article.

In a recent poll (Table 1), people were asked to name the two largest areas of federal government spending. In the poll people said the “Foreign Aid” budget was larger than either “Medicare” or “Social Security.”[1]

Realty: The United States spends only a minuscule amount on foreign aid.

And please educate yourself against these false myths that your tax dollars go to foreign welfare queens. They don't.

Obama may not be the "most radical, leftist" but I think he's losing his mind just like the rightist. There aren't enough psychiatrist to help those in the three branches.

I trust your answers, but the information I requested was not in the last one. On the global scale, like you used for military, how does Americ stack up against everyone else in terms of aide. You know, like when there is a big disater and we come save the day, or the millions we give to other nations .. how much do other nations give us in aide? Thanks.

Bap33 says

how does Americ stack up against everyone else in terms of aide.

OK. Thanks for clarifying the question.

The answer: poorly, unfortunately.

We're dead last in a list of industrialized countries.

Chart from: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2010/pages/rich-countries-foreign-aid.aspx

Sweden and Norwegian rock though! They set a great example.

wait a second Dan, on the first chart you went with total numbers on a global scale and on this chart you went with percentage of GDP per entity. To be fair you should produce the same charts again, only with the oposite systems. meaning, produce that military chart using percent of GDP, and produce the aide chart using total numbers. That would only be fair, right? Thanks.

Bap, you need to learn how to do math. The first chart shows how much the U.S. spends on military compared to other nations. As such, absolute dollars makes sense because the strengths of the militaries are proportional to absolute dollars not percentage of GDP.

However, it would be completely meaningless to compare absolute dollars from the richest nation in the world, the United States, with a population of over 300 million people to a small country like Sweden which has a population of 9,379,116. It just would be nonsensical.

A per capita comparison between the two countries would be somewhat meaningful, but if you're comparing generosity, then a per GDP is exactly how you meaningfully compare the two countries.

This should be pretty straight forward.

I am pretty sure your response, or lack there of, indicates that my questions are spot-on and show a possible twisting/spinning/shading of the numbers to fit a particular view. I only figured it this way after I thought about it ... and realized how switching between the two data sets is EXACTLY what the REwhores do with housing numbers .. they use average when it is in thei favor, actual when it's better, national when that is best, and local when it is best. Are you doing the same thing? If not, then just produce the same data using the different sets of input. I can only assume you did already and the results made you chose to counter my request and call me an idiot, vs sharing the data that was revealed. I honestly do not know what the numbers would be, but I have a hunch.

Dan8267 says

absolute dollars makes sense because the strengths of the militaries are proportional to absolute dollars not percentage of GDP

why?

Dan8267 says

However, it would be completely meaningless to compare absolute dollars from the richest nation in the world, the United States, with a population of over 300 million people to a small country like Sweden which has a population of 9,379,116. It just would be nonsensical.

why?

Why is it sensible to compair Sweden with America?

If I have to be a math wiz to understand, then just produce the two simple graphs, just like you did the other ones, only with the other data sets. Then, my poor math skills will not matter. Right? It's just data and info, right? No tilt or slant or political position in play, right? Cool, then, please, if you do not mind, since you do have the skills to do it with little effort, please share the graphs. You seldom hase off any info that is available in a plain fashion, and I apprieciate that. Don't break your streak now!! lol Thanks.

Dan8267 says

Even Nixon doesn't warrant hatred despite being the central crook in Watergate. That level of corruption isn't in the same ballpark, hell even the same sport as human rights violations. As such, Obama and Bush are the only presidents that actually merit hate,

You clearly weren't of draft age or were asleep during Nixon's reign. Vietnam and the Cambodia intrusion ring a bell? The lives lost by the public believing Nixon had a "secret plan" to end the war while he expanded it make Obama look like a piker, though I will grant you Bushe's lies to get us into Iraq are on the same level

Bap, I really don't know if I can dumb this down any more. It's a basic math thing.

When comparing the military spending of the U.S. to other countries, it only makes sense to compare absolute dollars, absolute number and quality of planes, aircraft carriers, tanks, etc. Because when you fight wars, absolute numbers determine victory and defeat. Do you really not understand that?

When comparing foreign aid, it makes no sense to use absolute dollars when comparing a country with a population of 300 million to a country with a population of 9 million. One would expect, if the countries were equally rich, that the country with 300 million would give 33 times as much as the company with 9 million. Again, it's a math thing. Do you really not understand that?

Furthermore, since the two countries are probably not equally rich, it really makes sense to compare their foreign aid as a percentage of GDP when determining how generous they are being. Do you really not understand that?

If the point you want to make, bap, is that 300 million Americans contribute more to foreign aid than 9 million Swedes, than point made. It's a stupid, meaningless point, but point made. 300 million people can do more than 9 million. Wow, that's profound.

Why don't you just come out and state the thesis you want people to accept, and then we can debate that particular thesis based on its merits and the evidence. I'm not avoiding your questions, I'm just trying to figure out what your hidden agenda is.

rdm says

You clearly weren't of draft age or were asleep during Nixon's reign. Vietnam and the Cambodia intrusion ring a bell?

Certainly Vietnam and Korea were unjust wars and a massive wastes of life, and the draft was unethical and not applied to the politically connected.

However, even that evil does not come close to torture, secret prisons, sexual humiliation of prisoners of war, kidnapping non-combatant civilians, drone strikes on U.S. citizens, and all the other evils passed under Bush and Obama like the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

So, unfortunately, I have to say that America over the past 12 years has done worse things than it did during the 1960s and 1970s. The evil has been taken to a higher level.

However, I do understand why some people hate Nixon and Johnson for their roles in Vietnam. It's just that having lived through Bush and Obama, it's adjusted my sensitivity levels from overexposure.

Dan8267 says

However, even that evil does not come close to torture, secret prisons, sexual humiliation of prisoners of war, kidnapping non-combatant civilians, drone strikes on U.S. citizens, and all the other evils passed under Bush and Obama like the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

Disagree, just because you didnt live through it doesn't mean it wasnt worse. It may seem that way, as it is in the fading past but having lived through both I would think Nixon equal Bush is a reasonable comparison (Nixon was much smarter, Bush more of a front man for the neo-cons). Nixon equal Obama or Obama worse then Nixon is not even a close call, Nixon far worse (we are not comparing domestic policies) in actions affecting civil liberties and war. If you study what went on in the Vietnam theater of war and in this country: the use of napalm, agent orange defoliating large areas of the country, carpet bombing of North Vietnam, Mai lai and other massacres the vast majority unreported. I would suspect that more civilians were killed in one week of Nixon's peak "effort" then Obama has killed with his drone strikes in his entire term and I will throw in actual terrorists into the pot.

Regarding civil liberties talk to the people in the antiwar movement about how well their civil liberties were respected, in a word they were not. The FBI had files on thousands of antiwar and civil rights activists. At Kent State people demonstrating against the war were killed and crippled for life, has that happened under Obama, or Bush for that matter? (it was national guard so Nixon doesn't get direct blame but they were protesting his secret invasion of Cambodia). I do not feel killing an American in a terrorist camp in Yemen is on the same level to killing 4 kids protesting the war in Ohio. If you do then we will have to disagree. A big difference in perception is that the public, due to changes in communication tech. has more access to what is actually occurring. In Nam no one had cell phones with video capability to post on the internet in near real time, even so what has filtered out over the years is horrific. All this aside from his attempts to directly subvert the electoral process with his Watergate shenanigans.

rdm says

You clearly weren't of draft age or were asleep during Nixon's reign. Vietnam and the Cambodia intrusion ring a bell? The lives lost by the public believing Nixon had a "secret plan" to end the war while he expanded it make Obama look like a piker, though I will grant you Bushe's lies to get us into Iraq are on the same level

I was of draft age, I lucked out with a high lottery number. The Vietnam war involvement peaked in 68, nixon took office in 69. He took his time winding it down, but he did wind it down. Even with going into Cambodia he did not expand it.

The 69 Cambodian incursion was far far too late, but a very good idea. There should have also been a Laos incursion. Letting the NVA have a huge inviolate sanctuary just over the border was always a stupid idea. There were huge amounts of materials destroyed and large amounts of NVA killed. NVA operations dropped dramatically for 3 years, probably saving a lot more American lives than were lost in the actual incursion.

From a military point of view the operation was a big success. The NVA was shattered and wasn't able to mount a large military operation again until the Hue offensive in 1972. Like every defeat suffered by the NVA in the Vietnam war, the NVA just rolled back, rebuilt and waited for the US to stand down again.

From a political point of view it was a disaster. People could now clearly see that Johnson and McNamara had been lying about Vietnam for years. Protests against the war went ballistic.

For the Cambodians it was worse than disaster. Since no one bothered to tell the Cambodians it was coming the incursion was a total shock that destroyed confidence in the Cambodian government, led to civil war, and eventually the Khmer Rouge. With allies like the US who needs enemies?

rdm says

Disagree, just because you didnt live through it doesn't mean it wasnt worse.

Obviously.

But what was the 1970s equivalent of Gitmo?

I suspected this was a geezer forum...

rdm says

the use of napalm, agent orange defoliating large areas of the country, carpet bombing of North Vietnam, Mai lai and other massacres the vast majority unreported.

True, point taken. But don't we have to include Johnson in the list of the guilty as well? He escalated the war. Perhaps even Kennedy deserves some blame for starting the war.

I think the big difference between the 1960/70s and today is that today people openly accept torture as ok. At least back then no one advocated torture. During the past 12 years, a third of Americans actively wanted to torture prisoners including waterboarding them and using dogs to eat them alive.

rdm says

Disagree, just because you didnt live through it doesn't mean it wasnt worse. It may seem that way, as it is in the fading past but having lived through both I would think Nixon equal Bush is a reasonable comparison (Nixon was much smarter, Bush more of a front man for the neo-cons). Nixon equal Obama or Obama worse then Nixon is not even a close call, Nixon far worse (we are not comparing domestic policies) in actions affecting civil liberties and war. If you study what went on in the Vietnam theater of war and in this country: the use of napalm, agent orange defoliating large areas of the country, carpet bombing of North Vietnam, Mai lai and other massacres the vast majority unreported.

I don't think this is valid. Nixon inherited a much larger, more active, far worse war. Most of the actions you mention were implemented by Johnson. Nixon continued on, but did wind it down. In the same 4 years as Obama has wound down Iraq. But the Iraq war was much smaller and had been simply an occupation for 6 years when Obama took over. Nixon took over a much larger hot war just after the peak. If you actually did live in the times then you know that. Nixon could have done much better, but I don't think the comparison is valid at all.

There is just no comparison in civil liberties, none at all. The civil liberties violations by government agencies of the 60's was egregious, but not systematic . The FBI and CIA went rogue, but once it became public there was real outrage within congress and the white house. If you really lived then you will remember the Church committee and hearings. That's where FISA came from in the first place.

To compare the FBI and CIA secretly opening peoples mail with actively passing laws that totally invalidate the bill of rights and calling them equal is beyond my comprehension. Are you serious or is this some type of humor?

Kent state was just a fuckup of panic and confusion, not a violation of civil rights. Sometimes people just screw up without it being a grand statement.

rooemoore says

I suspected this was a geezer forum...

The polite term is historically experienced.

bob2356 says

The civil liberties violations by government agencies of the 60's was egregious, but not systematic .

That's kind of my take on the comparison, too. It seems that in the 1960s, state governments had systematic violations of civil rights, but the federal government's violations were more the exception to the rule. And the federal government certainly didn't violate human rights and brag about it as if it were a good thing. That changed in the start of the 21st century. Human rights violations became acceptable.

my bad, I thought you could do the graph with little effort. I never figured to change your mind, only open it up just a taste.

The larger the population, and land mass, and global economic impact, and global net worth, and percentage of freedom, then that much more effort should and must be made to secure those things. Simple.

The amount of cash aide we recieve from others $0. The amount we give away to other nations >$0. Until such time as you share the graph, I'll just keep the figures simple.
The amount other's spend to arm and train tha UN $X (added together). The amount we spend >$X. Again, I'll leave that alone until you show real numbers.

Don't be a hater Dan. America is the greatest place on Earth, and will be that much better when Holder goes to prison and Barry goes back to Chi town.

Dan8267 says

. But don't we have to include Johnson in the list of the guilty as well?

Your original point was that only Bush and Obama were presidents deserving of hatred, but absolutely Johnson got us deeply in the mess that killed over 50K Americans and millions of people in South East Asia ( no accurate numbers) , perhaps he deserves more blame than Nixon. We don't really know what Kennedy would have done but I think it probable he would have followed much the same course as Johnson.

Bap33 says

my bad, I thought you could do the graph with little effort

I would never do a graph that I thought was meaningless. Math is important to me.

Bap33 says

I never figured to change your mind, only open it up just a taste.

I'm always willing to change my mind about anything at any time, but I need a good reason.

You still haven't even stated what you want me to change my mind to.

Bap33 says

The larger the population, and land mass, and global economic impact, and global net worth, and percentage of freedom, then that much more effort should and must be made to secure those things. Simple.

Not sure what "percentage of freedom" means, but at least for population and land area...

Yes, but that doesn't mean we should be spending five times as much as China on the military. It means we should be spending less than China. Remember, China has about 4.3 times and many people as the United States, 1,338,299,512 vs. 311,591,917. China is also about the same size as the United States.

Not sure how you can meaningfully measure "global economic impact" nowadays since all major corporations are international with no allegiance to any nation.

Bap33 says

The amount of cash aide we recieve from others $0.

We're the richest country in the world. We shouldn't be receiving cash foreign aid from other countries. Does this really upset you? Is it some indignity to you that less than half a percent of federal spending goes to feed and vaccinate starving foreigners? Is that really what crawls up your ass? I hate to tell you what bankers and land speculators are costing you.

Bap33 says

The amount other's spend to arm and train tha UN $X (added together).

I have no idea. I doubt I'd be able to find a breakdown that goes to "arms and military training", but I'll look up the total U.N. funding by nation. Again, I have no idea what it is, but I don't see how it's relevant to anything.

Found this at http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/topics/intorg/un/fiecun.html

The United Nations (UN) is funded by its member states through compulsory and voluntary contributions. The size of each state’s compulsory contribution depends mainly on its economic strength, though its state of development and debt situation are also taken into account.

Just found this. Not relevant to your question, but I found it interesting. I'll put that in another thread.

So far, this is the closest I could find. I don't know what constitutes "operational activities". Source: http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/1982046.06771469.html

Finally something to build a graph on. U.S. Gets as Much as it Gives to the U.N.

The United States, which pays 22 percent of the U.N.'s regular annual budget of 1.8 billion dollars, has arrogantly demanded a dominant voice in management and administration -- primarily because it is the biggest single financial contributor to the world body.
…
In 2002, the United States received 24 percent (194.3 million dollars) of all U.N. contracts, which totaled 812.6 million dollars. In 2003, the corresponding figures were 21.8 percent (194.5 million dollars) out of a total of 891.8 million dollars.

In 2004, the United States took in 24.1 percent (315.8 million dollars) of all U.N. contracts, amounting to a total of 1.3 billion dollars. In 2005, the percentage was 20.4 percent (331.0 million dollars) out of total U.N. purchases of 1.6 billion dollars.

Also,

The newspaper exposed an NSA memo, dated Jan. 31, 2003, that outlined the wide scope of the surveillance activities; the memo said that the NSA was seeking any information useful to push a war resolution through the Security Council -- the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises.

For such improper and illegal spying activities directed from Washington, it is very convenient to have the U.N. headquarters located in New York City, he noted.

"Perhaps the U.S. government should be assessed a special user fee in recognition of this convenience," Solomon added.

Interesting. Anyway, at least now I can give you that graph you wanted.

Yep, you see that blue area in the graph above? What, no? Oh yeah, because it's so small. Well, that's the slice of the pie that the United States spends on funding the U.N.

To put that miniscule amount in perspective, the Iraq War cost $255 million per day or $1.8 billion a week. That's right, a week's worth of war cost us as much as the U.N. costs in an entire year for everybody. Our part of the annual U.N. budget is 37 hours, 16 minutes, and 14 seconds of the Iraq War. That's enough time to watch the Harry Potter movies twice or what I call a weekend.

So anyway, what was your point? Although the U.S. is the largest funder of the U.N., we account for less than a quarter of its funding, and what we spend on the U.N. is the tiniest fraction of our federal spending, and we get lucrative contracts in return as well as the ability to spy on others and force our will on other nations. How is the U.N. a bad deal for the U.S.?

Bap33 says

Don't be a hater Dan. America is the greatest place on Earth…

I don't hate the U.S. I hate the people who run it. I want to make the U.S. a better place. That's why I point out our flaws and their solutions. The first step to solving any problem is acknowledging its existence.

That said, it's meaningless bullshit and unfounded arrogance to say that American is the greatest place on Earth. We're not the most educated, the healthiest, the most equitable, the most free by a long shot. We are the richest, but not the country with the highest median income.

In any case, if you want America to become the "greatest place" -- whatever that means -- you have to be willing to acknowledge, in detail, its failings so that you can change them. Whitewashing a country's history or current state does not make it a better place.

rdm says

Your original point was that only Bush and Obama were presidents deserving of hatred, but absolutely Johnson got us deeply in the mess that killed over 50K Americans and millions of people in South East Asia ( no accurate numbers) , perhaps he deserves more blame than Nixon.

I'm certainly not one to defend either Nixon or Johnson. I dislike them both. I can only say that they don't invoke the hatred that Bush and Obama invoke in me.

Perhaps it's because I didn't live through that period. Perhaps its because the evils done by Bush and Obama are more overt and accepted. Perhaps it's because I really thought America was past being the bad guy when the cold war ended and I was optimistic about our role in the world in the 1990s.

All I can say for sure, is that it's my gut reaction that Obama and Bush are more evil than Nixon and Johnson. That's only my opinion, so of course, you are free to disagree with it. But it's not exactly much of a disagreement considering we both hold all four presidents in such low esteem.

On a scale of 0 to 10, I rated both Johnson and Nixon a 3, and both Bush and Obama a 1. Note that I used a hyperbolic scale. bob2356 thought that Nixon should be much higher. Perhaps you should try to convince him otherwise.

Note: I notice that in my post two ago, the "operations contributions" from the U.S. in the tables is greater than the U.N. operating funds. I think that the operations contributions are charity contributions for things like the UN Children's Fund.

In case you are having trouble accessing the PDF link -- it's flaky -- I'll post it at https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4B1gmdDSYeddTZ2elBMXzFqNVU

thanks Dan.

Dan8267 says

Perhaps its because the evils done by Bush and Obama are more overt and accepted.

I think this is it, there has been little reaction in the masses to what you feel are "evils". On some subjects like drone killings and Gitmo there is still pretty broad public support. Others such as NDAA and Patriot Act are greeted with a collective yawn because they don't or at least aren't yet directly affecting anyone or anyone anybody knows. Even the wars are being fought by a tiny segment of the population who volunteer to do it. I dont personally know anyone that has been to either Iraq or Afghanistan this was not the case during Vietnam.

Just to clarify my position I dont think Obama or Bush or Nixon are/were evil. I do hold Bush in very low esteem. One is hard pressed to find much of anything positive in what he did in 8 years. I will be voting for Obama because he is a better choice on many domestic issues than Romney and I think a little less likely to get us into a war with Iran.

Dan8267 says

That so does not apply to my graph or Bill Maher's.
The data I provided proves definitively that all Republicans have increased spending fuckloads more than any Democrats since 1980, and that Obama has increased spending the least, even decreasing real spending as opposed to nominal spending.

Are you still attributing all of the 2009 Fiscal Year spending to Bush and not Obama? Have you read the various "Fact Check" pieces that dismantled this argument?

Dan8267 says

OK. Thanks for clarifying the question.
The answer: poorly, unfortunately.
We're dead last in a list of industrialized countries.

Are you just measuring Government spending our tax dollars on foreign AID and not on PRIVATE charity Dan?

You might be surprised to learn that America is one of the most generous countries on earth when you include PRIVATE Charity.

"Americans give more to charity, per capita and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than the citizens of other nations."
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html

In fact, Conservative minded people are much more generous than Liberal minded people with both there money and time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

socal2 says

Are you still attributing all of the 2009 Fiscal Year spending to Bush and not Obama? Have you read the various "Fact Check" pieces that dismantled this argument?

Are you reading the same fact checks as me?

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

Says that almost all the increase in spending was in place before Obama took office. Most of it was TARP and Fanny/Freddy bailout as well as unemployment benefits (which are automatic). Maybe Obama should have killed the bailouts, but of course that would have been wrong also. I forgot that fiscal 2009 starts 1 oct 2008 which is 5 months before Obama actually took office. So 5/12's of the year was gone before Obama set foot in the White House, much less started doing anything.

Explain to me again how Obama spiked the 2009 spending.

socal2 says

In fact, Conservative minded people are much more generous than Liberal minded people with both there money and time.

Yes, Churches get a lot of money from conservatives.

From your link:
"It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives."

Churches are one of the worst "charities" one can give to. They are entirely opaque in their finances and have a huge overhead. When I choose a charity I never give to one where I can not see where the money is going, and how high the administrative overhead is.

It is entirely disingenuous to say that "Conservative minded people are much more generous than Liberal minded people" and contrary to the links you cited.

As a whole "conservatives" give more, but...

But a religious "conservative minded" gives at the same rate as a religious "liberal minded" person.

When the nonreligious "liberal minded" persons give more.

So, as "minded" persons liberals give the same or more than conservatives.

socal2 says

You might be surprised to learn that America is one of the most generous countries on earth when you include PRIVATE Charity.

Are you surprised that in spite of this overwhelming generosity America still has higher poverty than many other developed nations?

From your link:
"On the one hand, France, for instance, has less income disparity and less poverty than the U.S. So if people are motivated to give by seeing need around them, it may simply be that the French give less because they see less need. "

socal2 says

Are you still attributing all of the 2009 Fiscal Year spending to Bush and not Obama? Have you read the various "Fact Check" pieces that dismantled this argument?

Presidents take office on January 20th. Obama took office on Jan 20, 2009. Presidents ultimately set the budget for the next year, not when they are elected. That's why both charts are based on the years they show instead of the year an administration begins.

As for the stimulus package, Bush started stimulus spending to "avoid a recession", which wasn't avoided. Bush also bailed out the banks. Bush also racked up huge debts and obligations that Obama was forced to pay once he took office. It's hardly disingenuous to count the money spent by when it was spent rather than when the check cleared.

Nevertheless, if you want to make a counter-argument, please provide the reference you mentioned. I hate having to interpret people's messages as they often don't think my interpretation is what they intended. That's why I prefer they clarify what they mean.

In any case, the data I've used, which is completely non-partisan and comes directly from publicly available government archives, which I linked to and encourage everyone to read, shows a considerable decrease in spending under Obama even if we completely discount the year 2009 as a "transitional" anomaly that no one wants to take credit for (but really is Bush's fault for running multiple wars while cutting taxes on the rich and crashing the economy).

Here's the actual data, which you can also get going all the way back to George Washington by clicking the link provided above.

Year by Year Spending
Year	Revenue	Spending	Surplus	Change in Spending
1979	463,302	504,028	-40,726
1980	517,112	590,941	-73,830	17.24%
1981	599,272	678,241	-78,968	14.77%
1982	617,766	745,743	-127,977	9.95%
1983	600,562	808,364	-207,802	8.40%
1984	666,438	851,805	-185,367	5.37%
1985	734,037	946,344	-212,308	11.10%
1986	769,155	990,382	-221,227	4.65%
1987	854,288	1,004,017	-149,730	1.38%
1988	909,238	1,064,416	-155,178	6.02%
1989	991,105	1,143,744	-152,639	7.45%
1990	1,031,958	1,252,994	-221,036	9.55%
1991	1,054,988	1,324,226	-269,238	5.68%
1992	1,091,208	1,381,529	-290,321	4.33%
1993	1,154,335	1,409,386	-255,051	2.02%
1994	1,258,566	1,461,753	-203,186	3.72%
1995	1,351,790	1,515,742	-163,952	3.69%
1996	1,453,053	1,560,484	-107,431	2.95%
1997	1,579,232	1,601,116	-21,884	2.60%
1998	1,721,728	1,652,458	69,270	3.21%
1999	1,827,452	1,701,842	125,610	2.99%
2000	2,025,191	1,788,950	236,241	5.12%
2001	1,991,082	1,862,846	128,236	4.13%
2002	1,853,136	2,010,894	-157,758	7.95%
2003	1,782,314	2,159,899	-377,585	7.41%
2004	1,880,114	2,292,841	-412,727	6.16%
2005	2,153,611	2,471,957	-318,346	7.81%
2006	2,406,869	2,655,050	-248,181	7.41%
2007	2,567,985	2,728,686	-160,701	2.77%
2008	2,523,991	2,982,544	-458,553	9.30%
2009	2,104,989	3,517,677	-1,412,688	17.94%
2010	2,162,724	3,456,213	-1,293,489	-1.75%
2011	2,303,466	3,603,061	-1,299,595	4.25%
2012 estimate	2,468,599	3,795,547	-1,326,948	5.34%
2013 estimate	2,303,466	3,603,061	-1,299,595	-5.07%

socal2 says

Are you just measuring Government spending our tax dollars on foreign AID and not on PRIVATE charity Dan?

I'm not measuring anything. I'm referencing official reports. Check out the links, the websites, for details. I've laid everything out on the table. And I simply went for the most credible sources. I did not at all consider what the sources say or what conclusions one would draw from it. Nevertheless, if you believe you know of a more credible source, then feel free to provide it. I might even agree with you.

I'm a firm believer in facts first, agenda second.

socal2 says

You might be surprised to learn that America is one of the most generous countries on earth when you include PRIVATE Charity.

That may or may not be true. I haven't researched that. However, if you are offended that the data I've gather implies that the American people are immoral pricks, then you are barking up the wrong tree. The data I gathered simply shows that the federal government is only spending a miniscule amount on foreign aid in contrast to the high levels that most conservatives believe we are spending on foreign aid. I.e., I'm dispelling a myth.

As PBS reports in Foreign Aid Facing Proposed Cuts and a Public Perception Problem

Polls also show that many people overestimate the portion of the budget that goes to foreign aid, according to a survey released last month by the Program for Public Consultation, a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland.

Federal funding for foreign aid made up one percent of the budget in FY 2010, according to U.S. government statistics. But when asked in the Program for Public Consultation survey to estimate how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid, the average estimate by participants was 21 percent. The average response for how much would be "appropriate" was 10 percent.

Yep, the federal budget allocated 1% to foreign aid in 2010, but people would have been happy with it being 10% because they thought it was 21%. That's what my data demonstrates is wrong. It's not a moral judgment of Americas. It's a judgment of American's knowledge of where their tax dollars go. And it's important in an election year that people know what the government really spends their money on.

Another good graph from http://foreignassistance.gov/AboutTheData.aspx

Also, Americans Are Horribly Misinformed About How Much We Spend on Foreign Aid

So we really need to end the myth that America is wasting all its treasury reserves on foreigners when Americans need help. It's really a small amount, especially when contrasted with the defense industry waste.

% of budget
total dollars
lmao

bob2356 says

Are you reading the same fact checks as me?
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
Says that almost all the increase in spending was in place before Obama took office.

I was reading the Associated Press and Washington Post fact checkers. Also, much of TARP got paid back. Why does Obama get "credit" for that?
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama-part-2/2012/05/30/gJQA3V4d2U_blog.html

And Obama (with the Democrat controlled Congress) passed the 2009 fiscal year budget.
http://www.nchv.org/news_article.cfm?id=506

Dan8267 says

Presidents take office on January 20th. Obama took office on Jan 20, 2009. Presidents ultimately set the budget for the next year, not when they are elected.

Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress passed the 2009 fiscal budget.

http://www.nchv.org/news_article.cfm?id=506
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29632177/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-signs-massive-imperfect-spending-bill/

"Calling it an "imperfect" bill, President Barack Obama signed a $410 billion spending package Wednesday that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign. He insisted the bill must signal an "end to the old way of doing business."

The massive measure supporting federal agencies through the fall contains nearly 8,000 pet projects, earmarked by sponsors though denounced by critics.

Obama defended earmarks when they're "done right," allowing lawmakers to direct money to worthy projects in their districts. But he said they've been abused, and he promised to work with Congress to curb them."

leoj707 says

Churches are one of the worst "charities" one can give to. They are entirely opaque in their finances and have a huge overhead. When I choose a charity I never give to one where I can not see where the money is going, and how high the administrative overhead is.

I think that is true is some cases. But I think it is fair to argue that donating to a local or private church or charity is more affective than donating (through taxes) to the US Government or the UN as we are given a CHOICE on what to support. Private charity gives us much more control.

The point being is that Dan appeared to have no clue that Americans are some of the most generous people on earth in terms of voluntarily giving their OWN MONEY to charity. Its not even close. We beat most countries by a mile. I have no problem with Dan trying to point out our country's flaws trying to improve things. But I do have a problem with Dan being terribly uniformed as he posts 10 year old articles from anti-American and partisan hacks like Common Dreams.

Giving to a church is not giving to charity.

Giving to a church is giving part to a social club, part to a political pac, part to a hierarchical bureaucracy, and part to a charity.

How much of each of these probably depends on the church.

socal2 says

donating to a local or private church or charity is more affective

Most people delude themselves thoroughly on this, but a lot of money donated to local causes is absorbed in overhead.. To put it in Walmart terms, a small charity group is likely to have far more overhead than a larger one. Food banks are generally regarded the most "efficient" of the charities. Churches bother me somewhat for the focus on proselytism and helping friends of the church more so than the community at large.

It's interesting to see some of the same criticisms levelled at church charity, as people often level at government welfare, one example:

http://www.amazon.com/Toxic-Charity-Churches-Charities-Reverse/dp/0062076205/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

YesYNot says

Giving to a church is not giving to charity.

Got it. Funny how some of the largest charities in the US are religious groups.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/14/200-largest-us-charities-11.html

Are some people really unaware that churches run soup kitchens, homeless shelters and donate tons of aid money to other countries?