patrick.net

leoj707 says

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.

YesYNot says

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.

socal2 says

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.

socal2 says

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.

Vicente says

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.

socal2 says

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.

socal2 says

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.

socal2 says

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.

socal2 says

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.

socal2 says

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.

leoj707 says

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.

socal2 says

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.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/3bvP7LXmQDY

The defense industry is the biggest socialist program in America.