« First « Previous Comments 72 - 94 of 94 Search these comments
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. "
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%
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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:
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?
Private charity gives us much more control.
Yes, if the charity is transparent and you have full knowledge of where the money is going.
Churches have less transparency than the government. There is no over site on the money given and churches can and do spend it on anything.
There was church here in Oakland that recently got some bad press because they use kids in BART stations to solicit donations to build a school (or something like that, I don't remember). Anyway, they had been taking donations for many years and the school was not getting built.
Also, you might want to look into Mother Teresa and what she did with the millions in charitable donations. Can’t find it? That is because her organization never declared what they did/are doing with the millions. You can look into how MT’s houses of suffering are run and quickly tell that the money certainly was/is not going there.
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.
By what measure is it more effective? Because it is a choice to give? How does that make a donation "more effective"?
In that case voluntary donors choosing to build a billion dollar animal shelter for pets "orphaned" whose owners have died is "more effective" than a billion dollars in taxes that goes to feeding poor kids (Hmmm... perhaps PETA would think that more effective).
OK...not the way I would measure effectiveness.
I might buy into the idea that private donation was "better" if in order to be considered a charity an organization had to be entirely transparent; have well defined goals and a clear plan on how to reach them; metrics for measuring the success/failure of the goals; low "admin" costs; etc.
We beat most countries by a mile.
Beat them by what? Being foolish enough to throw our money down black-hole charities? All the issues with churches aside most of them are not "intentional" scams; they just have no fiscal accountability and huge overhead (sound familiar?) There are a shitload of other charities that are outright scams with pennies on the dollar going to the purported cause. One needs to wade through a lot of shit to find an honest charity.
Other developed countries seem to be further along the way of "solving" problems that charities should be tackling. Hmmm... what are they doing that we are not... I guess throwing money at any shady organization that says it is going to help might not be the smartest solution.
It's interesting to see some of the same criticisms levelled at church charity, as people often level at government welfare, one example:
The great thing about giving to private charities (religous or not) is that we have CHOICE. If we think a charity is abusing the donations and spending it on themsleves instead of the needy, we can always find another charity.
We can't do that as easily with the US government.
And talk about overhead, look at my link from Forbes that shows "charitable committment" percentages. Do you think the US government (with high union pay and pensions) could crack above 75%?
And talk about overhead, look at my link from Forbes that shows "charitable committment" percentages. Do you think the US government (with high union pay and pensions) could crack above 75%?
The government is not a "charity". Charity and government are fundamentally different.
Do you really need someone on an internet forum explain to you why a society needs taxes and does not let the population micro manage where the dollars go?
We beat most countries by a mile.
Beat them by what? Being foolish enough to throw our money down black-hole charities?
Again - my whole point about bringing up this charity issue was to push back against the false argument Dan was spreading that Americans are a bunch of selfish tightwads by only looking at US government foreign AID. Any way you want to measure it, percentage of GDP, gross dollars, per capita.........Americans are some of the most generous people on earth.
Also - which other countries are truly "further along" than the US in solving problems? Have you been paying attention to the news out of Europe this week? Please find a country that has similiar diversity as the US and has a population bigger than my home town (San Diego) and let us know how they are doing.
The government is not a "charity". Charity and government are fundamentally different.
Tell that to Dan. He seems to think that America is "dead last" of industrialized nations in terms of "AID" because he linked to a chart that only measures government expenditures and not private charities.
Is the aid money I've provided to African charities no good because it didn't formally come from the US government through my taxes?
It's totally arbitrary to call a church tithe charity but call a public tax something else.
It's totally arbitrary to call a church tithe charity but call a public tax something else.
Been a while since I've been to church, but I recall that we would often have an extra plate that went around at each service. One plate was a tithe to support the individual church, the other plate was for whatever charity they were supporting or organizing that particular year.
Another thing that Dan's initial chart doesn't include is American individual's TIME and LABOR they donate supporting various charities. I have a religious co-worker that goes down to Mexico a couple times a year to help build homes for the needy with his church-group.
I know it irks secular liberals, but there is study after study showing how "dumb redneck science hating christians" donate alot of their time and money helping the needy through church charities.
I know it irks secular liberals, but there is study after study showing how "dumb redneck science hating christians" donate alot of their time and money helping the needy through church charities.
Must especially irk the demographic that helps the needy the least -- secular conservatives.
Is the aid money I've provided to African charities no good because it didn't formally come from the US government through my taxes?
A marvelously vague question.
Is the base assumption that "African charities' are more supported by churches, than private or government programs? It's difficult to even parse. Do we measure by who's giving more, who's doing more with it, who is "more effective" whatever that means, or what? Africa is a pretty big place, where do we start?
A frequent argument is we are "helping too much" or helping in the "the wrong way". Let's talk recent & closer to America, like Haiti where relief flooded in briefly a few years ago, and quite a lot of it was garbage that made charities FEEL GOOD about unloading more so than actually useful. There was quite a lot of stupidity there, and was any of it transparent, or auditted? No. People wrote a check and forgot about it. IMO some charities get away with murder, and they only time there are consequences is if there's a sex scandal or outrageously blatant spending spree.
A marvelously vague question.
Is the base assumption that "African charities' more supported by churches, than private or government programs? It's difficult to even parse. Do we measure by who's giving more, who's doing more with it, who is "more effective" whatever that means, or what?
Dan's original chart from the Gates Foundation doesn't address any of that either. It just gave net aid as a percentage of GDP making America look like the most selfish industrialized country on the planet.
Here's a good article:
Haiti Doesn't Need Your Yoga Mat:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/10/stuff_we_dont_want_haiti
My favorite example "Teddies for Tragedies" which sent a teddy bear to a child with tuberculosis. You would think the same money to ship that bear across the planet could be better spent on medicines treating tubercolosis, or preventing more kids from getting it. But that's just me.
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/
If you don't know the difference between a spending bill and the federal budget then there is absolutely no point in trying to explain it to you.
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
Why post an article that is just a repeat of another article? Does having the same thing repeated make it more impressive somehow? So if you back out tarp completely from both years the spending increase is 3% a year. Not exactly an inferno and not much different than other presidents. Yawn. Spending as a percentage of GDP is back up to Reagan first term levels. Double yawn. Obama isn't budget busting, or much of anything else as far as I can see.
President Barack Obama signed a $410 billion spending packag
I was against the stimulus package as I'm not a Keynesian like every Democrat and every Republican in office (except Ron Paul, he's an Austrian, too). So, of course, the Republicans would spend to stimulate the economy just as much as the Democrats because Republicans also buy the bullshit that spending got us out of the First Great Depression. And if you believe that, which most people on this site do, then the stimulus made sense. I have a different take, but that's another issue.
The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Republicans would have used the "stimulus" spending for war.
Nevertheless, $410 billion is like pissing in the ocean. It is utterly insignificant.
The total cost of Bush's wars is at least $3.7 trillion and counting as of a year ago. I don't have the figure for today, but it's higher.
So, let's compare.
Or, if you prefer a pie graph...
And yes, the pacman pie chart is to scale.
Yet, I don't hear you bitching about all the spending on wars. Wars cause poverty by wasting resources and destroying infrastructure. Wars are bad for the economy.
And so even with blaming Obama for stimulus spending, he's still a freaking spendthrift compare to Bush. And Democrats are still way more fiscally responsible than Republicans.
You cannot reduce the size of the federal government or the deficit without a drastic, 80% or more, reduction in so-called "defense" spending. It's a math thing. Deal with it.
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."
Sounds exactly like a Republican.
I know it irks secular liberals, but there is study after study showing how "dumb redneck science hating christians" donate alot of their time and money helping the needy through church charities.
Yes, that's like the only good thing they do. Still, I prefer my charity to be secular via taxation, and I'm in a high income tax bracket. State-run charity is transparent and accountable and the only strings attached are the ones that make ethical sense. Like food stamps can only be used for necessities, not cigarettes. There are no strings that should be there, like you have to accept Jesus as your savior to eat at this soup kitchen.
So, I much prefer my donations to the poor go through a secular, governmental organization that answers to the people not to some fictitious god. And when you add up the tax dollars that we libduhs gladly part with, I'd suspect it's higher than what the "dumb redneck science hating christians" donate. You see, that sciency stuff pays better than sheep shagging, so we pay more in taxes. And I'm actually ok with that provided that my tax money goes for good things instead of war, secret prisons, domestic spying, warrantless wiretapping, TSA rape scans -- you know, evil shit.
Must especially irk the demographic that helps the needy the least -- secular conservatives.
That's a damn good point. The Mitt Romneys of the world have done more to create poverty than all the charities in the world can relieve.
It just gave net aid as a percentage of GDP making America look like the most selfish industrialized country on the planet.
If that's what you get out of it then
1. You misinterpreted the graph.
2. You didn't read any of the articles I linked to.
3. You didn't pay any attention to my responses.
That was not in any way the point of the graph. And it takes a very insecure person to take that interpretation. Read my posts again and this time turn on the brain first.
Pika Pika!
There's no reason to post this other than that I want to, and that's good enough for me. Sorry, I got no way to work it into the conversation.
« First « Previous Comments 72 - 94 of 94 Search these comments
Start video at 1:55 for relevant part, or just laugh during the beginning of the video. The 5 minute mark is where the really important stuff starts.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/G2ih_qnzYS8
Notice that Reagan and Bush 2 are the biggest spenders. Yeah, small government my ass.
#politics