patrick.net

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?

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.