patrick.net

% 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?

socal2 says

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.

socal2 says

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.

socal2 says

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.

Vicente says

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%?

socal2 says

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?

leoj707 says

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.

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.