A Multitude of Sins

[Lady Dragonfly]

The inspiration quote from fable:

But it seems, to me, at least, that instead of giving to worthwhile causes, many people prefer to stay in line from 6 AM to fight others to buy $200 dolls for their kids. And computer platforms. And the list can be extended indefinitely. Fight AIDS, world hunger, the plight of the homeless, or those tortured in prisons?

Are we really that vain and selfish? As a matter of fact, the Americans can be very generous when it comes to charities. And there is nothing wrong if they buy their loved ones a gift or two at the same time, without weeping about the world's direst problems while shopping Wal-Mart in December. (True, the Wal-Mart itself is a good cause for a good weeping and nose-blowing but that is beside the point).

The americans donated:

AFTER SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACK — 2 BILLIONS
AFTER TSUNAMI IN SOUTHEAST ASIA -- 1.54 BILLIONS
AFTER HURRICANE KATRINA -- 4.2 BILLIONS

But, truth to be spoken, there are some bad apples in our merry basket (tm).
And I don't mean the notorious shoppers fighting over $200 dolls (fable, were you perchance Chr... Ahem... shopping when you happened to watch that? ).
Back to the bad apples.
Here comes another quote, this time from Oscar Wilde:

Charity creates a multitude of sins.

There are many ways to cheat, you know.
'Donating to a charity can be a rewarding experience. However, be sure that your charitable contribution is used for the purpose you intended. Learn as much as you can about the organization before you make a donation. It is unfortunate when you've donated money to a legitimate charity that spends its funds inefficiently. It is even worse when you contribute to a phony group that misrepresents its fund-raising intentions or solicits charitable funds for nonexistent causes. '

And now, please enjoy a small article by

TRENT STAMP
the president of Charity Navigator
December 6, 2006

The Grinch is Back

All the holiday good will in the air is making me a little uncomfortable, so let's throw a few people under the bus, Charity Navigator-style.

How about Ethan Palmer, the owner of a thrift store in New Hampshire? Mr. Palmer was caught, for the second time, stealing bags of clothes left in clothing donation bins for charities to give away, so that he could sell the items in his store.

Maybe you'd prefer Robert A. Martin of Gulfport, Mississippi. Mr. Martin, like many of his fellow citizens of the Gulf, filed a claim with FEMA for disaster-assistance after Hurricane Katrina ravaged his state. The only problem was that Mr. Martin appears not to have owned any property in Mississippi, and in fact, was in prison at the time of the storm. Mr. Martin, upon release from prison, recived about $6000 from FEMA.

Prefer someone on the inside of a charity? Will Robert Graves suffice? Mr. Graves embezzled $78,000 from a Comfort Inn where he worked in 1994. Since he served no prison time, he was able to parlay his skills into becoming the accounting director for the National Kidney Foundation of the Virginias, where he apparently set about stealing, over a 6-year period, about $175,000 from the charity. They only caught him because the charity decided, six years after they hired him and put him in charge of their finances, to do a criminal background check on him. When they did, the original embezzling charge surfaced, and they felt compelled to perhaps scrutinize his work for the charity a little more closely.

Or, finally, how about Gerald Lami? Mr. Lami used his weapon of choice, the telephone, to commit his crimes. He called citizens of Missouri, pretending to be a police officer and raising money for something called the Police Tribune. Donors were asked to make contributions purportedly to benefit law enforcement-related programs and organizations. Prospective donors were told the programs would benefit survivors of officers killed in the line of duty and provide shopping trips to underprivileged youth. If the business owner agreed to make the donation, a courier was often sent to the business to pick it up. Shockingly, Mr. Lami's Police Tribune appears not to have been legit. Even more shockingly, Mr. Lami was actually caught by Missouri officials and no longer is allowed to fundraise in that state. Of course, that only leaves 49 other states for him to ply his trade.

Of course, according to this NBC station in Maryland, "charity fraud is down this year," as if the charity fraudsters all register each year at some sort of registration desk.

Says here that charity fraud is never "down" enough, and that we all need to do what we can to protect our friends and families from the scammers that prey on the benevolent and uninformed.

After the show
Mini poll: when you first read this topic, what was your guess?
What did you think it was supposedly about:
1.sex
2.apples
3.sex

[Xandax]

<snip>

Are we really that vain and selfish? As a matter of fact, the Americans can be very generous when it comes to charities. And there is nothing wrong if they buy their loved ones a gift or two at the same time, without weeping about the world's direst problems while shopping Wal-Mart in December. (True, the Wal-Mart itself is a good cause for a good weeping and nose-blowing but that is beside the point).

The americans donated:

AFTER SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACK — 2 BILLIONS
AFTER TSUNAMI IN SOUTHEAST ASIA -- 1.54 BILLIONS
AFTER HURRICANE KATRINA -- 4.2 BILLIONS

But, truth to be spoken, there are some bad apples in our merry basket (tm).
And I don't mean the notorious shoppers fighting over $200 dolls (fable, were you perchance Chr... Ahem... shopping when you happened to watch that? ).
<snip>

My whole problem with "charity" as this is that it requires a major event for people to actually think about it. It is the same in Denmark, although we as a nation donate a lot of money (per capita) - then every time there is a major event everybody stands in line to donate additional money .... that makes it "fake" to me, a pretend gesture, as if it were "real charity", it would happen without such a catalysts.
Now I don't dispute the need for additional money after such events, but it simply irks me the wrong way.
Also - in Denmark - we seem to get into a state where it is not "accepted" to not give and we'll have one organisaiton after the other performing a teleton or nationwide collection, and it just .... gets too overwhelming from time to time and sickens me .
Also what bothers me most is the celebrities who use it for "exposure" - that annoys me

But then again - I've never stood in line for getting $2000 stuff for $200 either, so I fit in neither category.


But I think most people are not so "vain". They just don't think rationally or draw the connections between the dots of their behavior - and that is likely why such catalysts as major events needs to take place before people "give" to charity.

[Chimaera182]

AFTER SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACK — 2 BILLIONS

How much blood was donated after September 11? There were likely to be few survivors of the attack, and while blood would certainly help, it wasn't exactly the greatest donation idea. And how many gallons of blood wound up being wasted since they had gotten too much? It was an empty gesture; donating blood was supposed to be something easy for the people to do to show their patriotic spirit, it wouldn't require them to sacrifice anything but time to do "their part." Once they donated the blood, they could claim they'd done something for the cause. It was not as noble a deed as it appeared on the surface, and it was not very well thought-out by the American people. Which makes Americans either stupid... or selfish.

[fable]

LD, what are your sources for these figures you're quoting? Because I've read recently a detailed report about less than 10% of al the monies promised post-Katrina have actually arrived.

Secondly, and more importantly, what's the breakdown on the numbers for the contributions of "Americans" between corporate and private donations? Without that figure, the numbers are meaningless since many corporations take huge tax writeoffs by supplying out of date drugs, baby formula, substandard building materials, etc, to disaster reliefs. Several major charities such as the Red Cross have complained bitterly about this in recent years. It is by no means limited to the US, but due to the structure of US tax laws revised during the Reagan years, US corporations tend to be the worst offenders in this regard.

[Lady Dragonfly]

LD, what are your sources for these figures you're quoting? Because I've read recently a detailed report about less than 10% of al the monies promised post-Katrina have actually arrived.

Secondly, and more importantly, what's the breakdown on the numbers for the contributions of "Americans" between corporate and private donations? Without that figure, the numbers are meaningless since many corporations take huge tax writeoffs by supplying out of date drugs, baby formula, substandard building materials, etc, to disaster reliefs. Several major charities such as the Red Cross have complained bitterly about this in recent years. It is by no means limited to the US, but due to the structure of US tax laws revised during the Reagan years, US corporations tend to be the worst offenders in this regard.

There is an article dated Feb 27 2006, 6 months after Katrina:
Two-Thirds of Katrina Donations Exhausted

"Two-thirds of the $3.27 billion raised by private nonprofit organizations and tracked by The Post went to help evacuees and other Katrina victims with immediate needs -- cash, food and temporary shelter, medical care, tarps for damaged homes and school supplies for displaced children.
...

The Post survey, the first detailed examination of the largest outpouring of charity in the nation's history, also found the following:

· The American Red Cross, which was criticized for slow distribution of donations after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, has given out 84 percent of its Katrina and Rita donations.

· 50 cents of each donated dollar went out in cash to victims.

· 6 percent of contributions came in the form of supplies -- building materials, food, water, clothing, heavy equipment -- donated mostly by corporations.

· 56 percent of remaining donations are controlled by faith-based organizations. They include such well-known institutions as Catholic Charities USA and the Salvation Army but also such lower-profile groups as the United Methodist Committee on Relief and United Jewish Communities.

What remains to be done goes well beyond even the staggering costs of rebuilding infrastructure -- projects estimated to require nearly $200 billion in government aid over the long term.

The speed of the charitable inflow after Katrina topped the torrid pace of donations after the Sept. 11 attacks, when donations hit the $1 billion mark in six weeks and ultimately rose to $2.8 billion, according to Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy.

Donations to Katrina, in contrast, hit $1 billion in three weeks."

Another article:
Hurricane Katrina: Information from Answers.com

"The American Red Cross, Salvation Army, Oxfam, Common Ground Collective, Emergency Communities, and many other charitable organizations provided housing, food, and water to the victims of the storm. These organizations also provided an infrastructure for shelters throughout Louisiana and other states that held thousands of evacuees. They were not, however, allowed into New Orleans proper by the National Guard for several days after the storm because of safety concerns. These organizations raised $4.25 billion in donations by the public, with the Red Cross receiving over half of the donations.[83]"

Interesting facts about donations pouring into the country from the Muslim world:
Katrina Relief

So, nations and individuals donated lots of money and goods... And they want to know where their money went.

But, remember the topic, A Multitude of Sins?.. :devil:

Profiting from Katrina:
Fraud:
Profiting from Katrina - The Center for Public Integrity
Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Hurricane Katrina Contracts :: Committee on Government Reform, Minority Office
USATODAY.com - Fraud mounts in Katrina aid program
Red Cross Probes Post-Katrina Fraud, Charity Investigates Alleged Misconduct By Volunteers - CBS News

Cronyism:
Profiting from Katrina - The Center for Public Integrity

Interesting, isn't it...

[Magrus]

My idea of charity for strangers is telling them the truth about themselves. It is by far more helpful than any other thing you can give to some random person.

As for charity fraud, well, that's been going on for a long, long time. Hell, if it weren't for the risk of going to prison, I could totally rip off all of the rich idiots surrounding me no problem. I wouldn't feel the least bit guilty for it either. Who needs a BMW, 2 Mustangs (one convertable, of course), one red, and one yellow Hummer, and a Harley for vehicles for 2 people? A house, a cabin, a lake house, and a condo on the coast of florida too?

[fable]

You seem to have overlooked one very important point: that most of the charitable organizations you listed accept and distribute in-kind corporate donations. So just as I asked, LD, you need to determine what level of contribution came from corporations, and what level from individuals; and how much was in-kind, and how much was cash; and how much of in-kind was the sort that the Red Cross complained vehemently about last year, in the form of such things as past-date pharmaceuticals. This is charity to oneself, charity of bad inventory being converted into tax writeoffs.

That being the case, then concerning your post:

"Are we really that vain and selfish? As a matter of fact, the Americans can be very generous when it comes to charities. And there is nothing wrong if they buy their loved ones a gift or two at the same time, without weeping about the world's direst problems while shopping Wal-Mart in December. (True, the Wal-Mart itself is a good cause for a good weeping and nose-blowing but that is beside the point)."

...you haven't proven a lack of selfishness, or generosity from the US public, nor that they donate a percentage of their annual income equal to the population of many European nations, much less that they have any right to gorge themselves on enormous blowouts of goods around the holidays after being told they're better Christians for doing so by the American Association of Retailers.

[Silur]

I really should stay away from this thread, since it's basically a troll for anti-americanism. Here are some numbers regarding the Tsunami catastrophe:

Charity per capita after the Tsunami

If you consider the pillaging of third world countries, where the US is the undisputed king these days, the charities given are pathetic. Most of the former colonial powers such as France, UK, The Netherlands, etc aren't that much better, so to avoid turning this into a US-bashing feast, lets take Shell as an example instead, since it's rather clean cut and in the open...

Shell in Nigeria

...or is it? If you look at the corporate structures handling oil in Nigeria, it isn't just Shell. The are a number of oil companies active in Nigeria, roughly half being the Nigerian government's NNCP and the other half shared equally by European and US companies. They all use roughly the same methods for extraction, oppressing the population and making sure a little as possible of the profits remain in Nigeria (yes, even the government owned operation). The total amount of oil being shipped to the US 2005 was worth US$ 23 712 766 000, 49.7% of the total production in Nigeria. The profits extracted (repatriated is the correct term...) from Nigeria by US oil companies for the same period was roughly US$ 862 300 000 after costs for the oil alone. This is one country, one industry and the net inflow of capital to the US is roughly 3% of the total US aid globally (US$ 106bn, including Tsunamis and what-not), and more than 20% of the total US aid to the sub-Saharan region. If you add profits made on machinery, technical assistance, surveying, etc which the NNCP buys from the multinationals, the numbers get higher but I haven't managed to find actual data on that. If you start adding industries such as textiles, mining and all other natural resource productions, manufacturing, etc is when it gets really depressing.

Comparing against private charities is more difficult, since the US total is around US$ 230bn for 2005, but a vast majorities of the US charities are aimed at local recipients, such as hospitals, disabled, war veterans, etc. It is estimated that the charities going abroad are around US$ 47bn. This number also includes all the "charities" mentioned by Fable as well. Looking at the effectiveness of the organisations, it becomes blatantly apparent that just taking the tax money lost by the state and using that to alleviate the problems would be several times more effective - some of the organisations have "running costs" of far above 90% of the net influx of charity.

On a personal level, I'm not much better than most Americans, but at least I don't try to fool myself into believing otherwise.

Sources:
Climate Justice: Gas Flaring in Nigeria (HTML)
AGOA.info > Resource on the African Growth and Opportunities Act
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa ... os/ni.html
Nigeria to Let Oil Profit Rise - New York Times
The US and Foreign Aid Assistance - Global Issues
Aid flows top USD 100 billion in 2005
Charity Navigator - Giving Statistics

[Lady Dragonfly]

You seem to have overlooked one very important point: that most of the charitable organizations you listed accept and distribute in-kind corporate donations. So just as I asked, LD, you need to determine what level of contribution came from corporations, and what level from individuals; and how much was in-kind, and how much was cash; and how much of in-kind was the sort that the Red Cross complained vehemently about last year, in the form of such things as past-date pharmaceuticals. This is charity to oneself, charity of bad inventory being converted into tax writeoffs.

I don't think I overlooked anything. Both cash and in-kind donations are acceptable forms of donations, and donations are generally considered a voluntary, good will action. Many people really give from the heart (I am not speaking statistically here, so please don't twist your knife ). However, the point of my thread is not to inflate the 'pride' of the givers but invite everybody to discuss the charity as the existing practice.
In my opinion, the whole system of charity is ridden with corruption and hypocrisy, starting with the 'tax deductible' incentives and probably not ending with the blatant fraud I mentioned above.
The tax write-offs are supposed to stimulate the corporate willingness to share a fraction of their wealth with the needy. Stimulated or not, the charitable money trickle out, and this is still better than nothing.
I would like to know the correlation between the amount of cash/goods donated and the amount 'deducted' on a corporate level. Along with the other benefits bestowed upon the corporations for donating.

'Corporations donating resources for charitable causes are also recognized by society for its involvement and caring for less fortunate citizens. Their association with a charity organization is likely to lead to improved business relationships, an increased stream of revenue and a bright future. '

Nice.
Please check this out:

'Receiving a DOUBLE TAX WRITE-OFF while increasing your INVENTORY TURNS by donating your excess inventory may seem too good to be true, but many successful corporations receive it every year. Under the 170(e) law, you may deduct not only the base cost of your inventory, but one half of your potential profit (limited to double the cost) when you donate it to a qualified not-for-profit organization such as WIN.'
Corporations

And this:
'IRS reduces your income taxes by up to twice your inventory’s standard cost when it is donated to non-profit technical schools.

Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code states "donors that are regular (C) corporations may deduct the
cost of inventory plus half the difference between cost
and fair market value, not to exceed twice cost". '
Welcome to Idea

Since some corporate bodies may feel uncomfortable with such direct approach, there are more subtle and delicate ways to mask the financial profit with the noble glitter:

'People tend to be aware that there are financial benefits to corporations for donating to charities and that corporations want to be good, forward-acting citizens. What people—and many organizations—don’t realize yet is that there are still other motivators and benefits for corporate giving. The fact is, increasing numbers corporations are extending the benefits of their corporate giving activities by leveraging them as team building programs and employee support initiatives that increase even further the benefits these activities bring to the company itself.'
The Softer Benefits of Corporate Giving

...you haven't proven a lack of selfishness, or generosity from the US public, nor that they donate a percentage of their annual income equal to the population of many European nations, much less that they have any right to gorge themselves on enormous blowouts of goods around the holidays after being told they're better Christians for doing so by the American Association of Retailers.

I did not try to prove any lack of selfishness or research percentages of annual incomes donated; I just asked a rhetorical question. Let's discuss the issue and try to find answers.
The fact remains that people donate. Technically speaking, individual donation (and it's amount) is an entirely voluntary act irrelevant to what you or I think. Should we start the discussion about the proverbial widow's mite versus corporate donations motivated by IRS regulations?
Who gives what is a private affair. What has it to do with 'a right to gorge themselves'? American Association of Retailers might reply that consumers stimulate economy by buying goods and services. Anyway, I still think that you can do both simultaneously. One does not exlude another.

@Silur

I really should stay away from this thread, since it's basically a troll for anti-americanism.

It is not what I intended.

@Magrus

My idea of charity for strangers is telling them the truth about themselves. It is by far more helpful than any other thing you can give to some random person.

I tend to agree that some people get comfy with charity and public assistance to the point they feel they have a "right" to rely on it forever. Sometimes the whole families stay on welfare a generation after generation and don't want to move on and make an effort. That is another aspect of A Multitude of Sins...

[fable]

I don't think I overlooked anything. Both cash and in-kind donations are acceptable forms of donations, and donations are generally considered a voluntary, good will action.

Cute, but inapplicable. If you're going to say "Americans gave X much to charity," then count a very small amount of Americans and a large amount from international corporations headquartered in Americans, that's really not what most people would call "Americans." When we use terms like "Americans giving" or "British giving" we mean citizens of a specific nationality," and you simply haven't established that.

And the issue of in-kind junk inventory remains a serious American problem. But it need only be dealt with after you deal with the above.

The tax write-offs are supposed to stimulate the corporate willingness to share a fraction of their wealth with the needy.

Great! Then you agree, despite your initial comments in your first post, that any true workable definition of generosity cannot be based upon an actual amount given, but upon a percentage of income, as you note above! That being the case, you can correct your initial statement, and find out for us what perecentage of income, per income group, the US citizen gives in charity each year. That will be a big help in determining just how generous Americans are.

Many people really give from the heart (I am not speaking statistically here, so please don't twist your knife ). However, the point of my thread is not to inflate the 'pride' of the givers but invite everybody to discuss the charity as the existing practice.

Should we then discard your comment: "As a matter of fact, the Americans can be very generous when it comes to charities. And there is nothing wrong if they buy their loved ones a gift or two at the same time, without weeping about the world's direst problems while shopping Wal-Mart in December." Because that certainly does seem to be aimed at inflating the pride of Americans--who may or may not have given much, since that has yet to be established.

Once you get this matter out of the way, I'll be glad to contribute to the rest of the thread. But since such a major statement was made without justification right in the first post, I thought it needed to be backed up or dropped. Thus far, neither has occurred.

[Lady Dragonfly]

You cannot help twisting your knife, can you...

According to Charity Navigator, total donations reached $260.3 billion in 2005.
$199.3 billion (76.5%) was donated by individuals and only $13.7 billion by corporations. Is that the number you were looking for? Or perhaps there is a hidden sinister meaning behind the word 'individuals' they use? Or maybe the number is too insignificant? Or otherwise wrong? Please enlighten me because I don't quite understand your displeasure.
I also don't understand how the word 'Americans' can describe international corporations. Do you mean that $199 billion was in fact donated by some international corporations?
I disagree that individuals must give a percentage of their income. It is only applicable to the church tithing which is historically one-tenth.
If to donate a certain percentage of income was mandatory, it would not be any different from the taxes. Actually, it would be a new tax. Would you like to increase the taxes?
You understood my sarcastic line about write-offs stimulating corporate willingness to share a 'fraction (a tiny amount) of their wealth' too literally, I am afraid. I am against any regulations involving voluntary donations. It is not right to pressure people 'to be generous'. A generous person would give voluntarily. If somebody chooses not to give that is fine too. If somebody gives only after being 'persuaded', it is not a donation, it is extortion.
And why do you want me to find out the percentage of income given? I assume the amount would not correlate with the income; there is no law to regulate this amount and therefore the 'percentage' per capita cannot be calculated fairly.
Charity is a good will thingy and it had better stay this way. Do you really expect the common people to pay for the whole world welfare? While the government spends hundreds of billions on a worthless war and the unscrupulous corporations plunder the natural resources everywhere?
I'd rather change something in that direction than blame common taxpayers for not giving enough to the charities. And what is 'enough' anyway?
What is your vision, fable? Aside from the fact that you hate shoppers.

[DaemonJ]

Such is the reason why my ex-wife and I still donate regularly to the [url="Search Dog Foundation"]Search Dog Foundation[/url].

Most people are not aware of them and yet they are the majority reason for finding people alive after a catastrophic event (i.e. 9/11, etc.).

The fact that they are not spending part of their budget on producing commercials leads me to believe that they actually use the donated funds to the benefit of the organization. I always wondered how much the Red Cross spends on advertising even though everyone already knows about them.

I disagree with the outlook that it is my responsibility to take care of others. I own my own business and typically work close to 14 hours a day, which already deprives me of special time away from my elderly parents and growing children. The taxes that I pay are high compared to the poor representation that I am receiving. For example, while taking care of my parents, myself, my ex-wife, and my 2 children while living in an apartment and driving a 13-year old vehicle, my state senator has 3 houses fully paid for and has a main residence in Martha's Vineyard, makes 3x what I make, doesn't have to pay taxes, and many other perks that I do not have access to.

Regardless, the *only* responsibility that I have is to myself and my family. If I wish to donate a portion of my very hard-earned cash to a charity then that is my choice but it certainly should not be expected by anyone for me to do so. If you have such disposable income available to you then good for you and I would happily accept some of what you obviously do not need.

A large majority of the homeless are in that situation by their choice having walked away from typically a very well to do family and/or business. The few homeless that fell upon bad times certainly have options available to them to escape that lifestyle should they so choose to.

This is the same as I disagree with the church tithing. Typically a priest / preacher / whatever your religion calls it's spokesperson is supposed to be supported by the church and should not have need of material things. Yet everyday you can find any one of those "spokespeople" living in a 2,500 sq. ft. house in a nice subdivision, driving new cars, with motorcycles, jet skis, and a boat parked off to the side of the garage. So much for Christ's messengers not needing material possessions.

[Silur]

The numbers regarding donations from Charity Navigator also include something called personal remittance, in effect, people sending money to their families back home. Personally, I don't quite view that as "American" charity, and it amounts to more than half of the presented numbers for overseas aid. Here's the break-up for 2004 when $71bn was donated overseas:

# International giving by US foundations: $3.4 billion
# Charitable giving by US businesses: $4.9 billion
# American NGOs: $9.7
# Religious overseas ministries: $4.5
# US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.7 billion
# Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $47 billion.

Charities aimed at "fixing problems at home" are in my view less relevant, since they usually just cover for potholes in the system; as an example, the govt here cuts down on the public mental health institutions and suddenly we have a few thousand homeless that need charity. Recently they've discovered that some of the mental patients they threw back on the streets were crazy and would actually kill people, so perhaps there is a trend shift coming. In the US, many of those charities aren't acts of charity as much as patriotism, like the donations to police and firefighters after September 11:th, or war veterans.

All in all, if you factor in all aspects of overseas charities, the US ends up on a joint 19:th place in the world, together with Greece and Spain (2002 numbers). Rather depressing considering that we are talking about "the richest country in the world".

[Magrus]

@ Silur, That would be in large part because the government tells the people that all of these actions involving "military support" is our country doing it's part in helping the world from "bad people". Those guns and soldiers are Americanized foreign aid.

[Silur]

@ Silur, That would be in large part because the government tells the people that all of these actions involving "military support" is our country doing it's part in helping the world from "bad people". Those guns and soldiers are Americanized foreign aid.

Interesting thing that, since most of the time, those "bad people" aren't that much of a problem to the local population. I know, I shouldn't bring up Saddam (he's turning out to be as much a discussion-killer as Hitler...), but people in Iraq were for the most part better off with Saddam - even the one's not members of the Baath party - and this comes from a fairly reliable source - the Iraqui people. But who cares what they think, democracy is so much better. They just don't understand what's good for them. I'm with Kofi Annan on this one.

Speaking of guns... I saw that the US government has granted the military US$ 13bn to build a new boat. One aircraft carrier.

[Magrus]

Interesting thing that, since most of the time, those "bad people" aren't that much of a problem to the local population. I know, I shouldn't bring up Saddam (he's turning out to be as much a discussion-killer as Hitler...), but people in Iraq were for the most part better off with Saddam - even the one's not members of the Baath party - and this comes from a fairly reliable source - the Iraqui people. But who cares what they think, democracy is so much better. They just don't understand what's good for them. I'm with Kofi Annan on this one.

Speaking of guns... I saw that the US government has granted the military US$ 13bn to build a new boat. One aircraft carrier.

Yep, which is why I want to run my own itsy bitsy little country. I don't need any more than a mile or two of square land. I'll even share it with the squirrels and raccoons! But that's illegal in this country.

Yeah. I know. I posted this before a long time ago, but you can see our national priorities for the cost of the war effort compared to say, children's health care, or public education. Makes me proud to be an American.
Cost of war

The alternative to spending all that money on the war would be they could have hired over 6 million public school teachers for a year. Break that down to a 12 year program so one generation of kids can go to high school, and that is about 504,100 extra teachers spread out across the country. With a population of roughly 298,444,215 (courtesy of http://www.cia.gov research from July 2006), this could seriously improve the general education level of the whole country.

I don't have the information needed to go into real factual detail, as my brief searches for a detailed workup of population by age groups would cost me money I don't have. However, if you figure that the people in the school age (5-18 years old) account for 25% of the current population, that leaves you with roughly 7,461,053 people of age that are in school currently. I believe the current average of Teacher:Student ratio is 1:30. That amount alone, not including the current teachers already on the payroll would be able to break the Teacher:Student ratio down to roughly 1:14, meaning each student would be given roughly x2 as much time and effort on the part of the teacher in an individual way, for the whole of their 12 year schooling program (1-12). Granted this is only for one batch of kids from 1st-12th grade. However, it really makes you think, the amount of money spent on 5 years of war could have at least tripled the education possibilities and quality for an entire generation of students.

[fable]

You cannot help twisting your knife, can you...

Depends. You can't help repeatedly stating inaccuracies, can you?

According to Charity Navigator, total donations reached $260.3 billion in 2005. $199.3 billion (76.5%) was donated by individuals and only $13.7 billion by corporations.

$93.2 billion of that was given directly to religious organizations, for so-called charitable distribution, rather than directly to charities. Given how "charitable" work by ministeries (fully qualified as 501(c)(3), Form 990 organizations under law, sad to say) is so divided among true charitable work and work done at establishing one particular religious denomination in third world countries, I find it surprising that you would consider this total simply as charity. Or perhaps it's not surprising, after all.

Silur also makes a very good point concerning personal remittances. Knowing how seriously you take issues, I'm sure you'll want to check this out, for yourself.

You understood my sarcastic line about write-offs stimulating corporate willingness to share a 'fraction (a tiny amount) of their wealth' too literally, I am afraid. I am against any regulations involving voluntary donations. It is not right to pressure people 'to be generous'. A generous person would give voluntarily. If somebody chooses not to give that is fine too. If somebody gives only after being 'persuaded', it is not a donation, it is extortion.

And if tens of millions die of hunger each year, you can always salve your conscience with the idea that you haven't hurt those poor corporations by forcing them to donate. Saving the industrial might of the US from extortion to feed the poor, to clothe the hungry, to heal the sick: how very Christian of you!

In any case, as I wrote and you ignored: "...any true workable definition of generosity cannot be based upon an actual amount given, but upon a percentage of income, as you note above! That being the case, you can correct your initial statement, and find out for us what perecentage of income, per income group, the US citizen gives in charity each year. That will be a big help in determining just how generous Americans are."

Which leads us naturally to...

I disagree that individuals must give a percentage of their income. It is only applicable to the church tithing which is historically one-tenth.

No one is discussing church tithing, as I'm sure you're aware by now. Nice try, though. We both know comparing the giving of Bill Gates to, say, your giving to charities in any year will make you look like an outrageous piker. Is that fair to you? Of course not. I strongly doubt you're a piker! And it's just as ridiculous to do a dollar-for-dollar comparison between the US and other nations' charitable donations without taking into account comparable resources, such as cash flow and income. This is essential. It is impossible to establish how much a nation, or any economic part of that nation, truly gives out of its pocket, if you don't know how deep those pockets really are. -And that goes for income level within a given country, too. Which I mentioned above, and which you conveniently forgot.

Charity is a good will thingy and it had better stay this way.

No; charity is when a two-month old baby dying in her mother's arms is able to live because they both get enough milk to get by. Charity is when an old woman can be placed in a hospital to die despite the lack of any relatives, because someone will pay to allow her this dignity. Charity was what allowed my mother's mother to continue feeding her family of five during the Great Depression, and kept one of my two aunts from dying. "Goodwill thingies" are abstractions. Charity is blood, crap, and breathing. Charity is recognizing that the dying body in front of yours is also your body. And also the body of whatever savior you claim to follow. I make no claims for understanding the last sentence, but I understand it works for some. I only understand the one before that, having seen enough people die in my own lifetime, and having come close enough to it repeatedly to understand the value of charity, and the vital need, more than ever, now, for complete and total compassion.

Do you really expect the common people to pay for the whole world welfare? While the government spends hundreds of billions on a worthless war and the unscrupulous corporations plunder the natural resources everywhere?
I'd rather change something in that direction than blame common taxpayers for not giving enough to the charities. And what is 'enough' anyway?
What is your vision, fable? Aside from the fact that you hate shoppers.

"Aside from the fact that you hate shoppers." -LOL! There's a small but sad group of people who seem to think that in order to win an argument, they must resort to lying about the person they're arguing with. Even more curiously, they try to do it as an aside, thinking the person they argue with won't notice it. But what's funniest of all is that they don't seem to realize that in this forum, their lies can be tracked. Fortunately, anybody can see this lie for what it really is--and you, for what you really are.

For the rest, let me set you straight on my "vision" for shopping for the holidays.

If all the Americans were to be forced to walk through a mall where they could see those dying from starvation, disease, lack of shelter, and know that the money they had in hand would save a life directly in front of them; and that this mall went on for thousands of miles, and that they couldn't leave until whatever they had planned to give as gifts was entirely spent helping others--why, I would think the world of holiday shopping! And you know what? All those people who go around praising their god, whatever god it may be, on their specially designated religious day of the week...? They might actually get a chance to experience the indwelling of their deity. Having finally realized that in helping one another, they were actually doing the work they claimed to be doing by shipping bibles to the paynim and posting in religious threads, all along. Oh, but that would be extortion! After all, are we our brothers' (and sisters, and sons, and daughters) keepers?

[Lady Dragonfly]

@Fable

Depends. You can't help repeatedly stating inaccuracies, can you?

And why do you call citing Charity Navigator and other sources "repeatedly stating inaccuracies"? Why can't I quote a source I trust without having a label attached?

$93.2 billion of that was given directly to religious organizations, for so-called charitable distribution, rather than directly to charities. Given how "charitable" work by ministeries (fully qualified as 501(c)(3), Form 990 organizations under law, sad to say) is so divided among true charitable work and work done at establishing one particular religious denomination in third world countries, I find it surprising that you would consider this total simply as charity. Or perhaps it's not surprising, after all.

I don't know what you are talking about, actually. Especially when you are saying something about being surprised/not being surprised. I quoted the source. If you have a problem with this particular source, just say that. They say "individuals", I assume they mean individuals. If you have a better, more reliable information, I would believe you. Are you surprised now?

And if tens of millions die of hunger each year, you can always salve your conscience with the idea that you haven't hurt those poor corporations by forcing them to donate. Saving the industrial might of the US from extortion to feed the poor, to clothe the hungry, to heal the sick: how very Christian of you!

Fable, I realize that my English is not as good as it should be. I type in a conversational manner without much regard for rhetorical value or style. But I thought it was clear in the context that I was talking about common people, individuals, not about corporations. I don't care about bloody corporations. They donate money because it benefits themselves as I attempted to show in my posts.
I am talking about taxes common people have to pay. By forcing them to "donate" a certain percentage of their income you impose a new tax. It is unfair. I do not try to compare dollar-to-dollar amount versus percentage. I do not want to compare anything. I believe that individual donations should be voluntary and anonymous.
What does "saving of US industrial might" have to do with that?
I completely agree with DaemonJ when he describes his situation. I agree with Magrus. I agree with Silur when he says that charity is covering the potholes in the system. Why don't you go ahead and accuse them as well? Just for a change of a shooting target.
I give to charities. And don't report my donations on my tax return paper because donation is my good will and my private affair. I don't care about "tax deductible" or what somebody else is doing or thinking.
And since I don't attend any church your shot at "how very Christian" missed the mark also.

Charity is recognizing that the dying body in front of yours is also your body. And also the body of whatever savior you claim to follow.

I don't recall I have ever claimed following any savior. Mark is missed again. I am a medical professional. Please don't teach me compassion. I can teach you.

In the last paragraph you quoted, you disregarded everything except my words about shoppers.

"Aside from the fact that you hate shoppers." -LOL! There's a small but sad group of people who seem to think that in order to win an argument, they must resort to lying about the person they're arguing with. Even more curiously, they try to do it as an aside, thinking the person they argue with won't notice it. But what's funniest of all is that they don't seem to realize that in this forum, their lies can be tracked. Fortunately, anybody can see this lie for what it really is--and you, for what you really are.

Thank you for your kind words. That is a true flame war you are waging now.
I assume you are deeply offended by my remark about shoppers. Would it suffice if I change the wording and say "aside from the fact that you are upset about Christmas shopping and shoppers who 'gorge themselves on enormous blowouts of goods around the holidays'"? Would that be a lie too?
I advise you to take your hasty words about supposed lies back. And the words about "what I really am" as well. I don't think a man (and a super moderator) should resort to personal insults during any informal (or formal) discussion. I beg you to avoid insults in the future and keep a civil tone please.

If all the Americans were to be forced to walk through a mall where they could see those dying from starvation, disease, lack of shelter, and know that the money they had in hand would save a life directly in front of them; and that this mall went on for thousands of miles, and that they couldn't leave until whatever they had planned to give as gifts was entirely spent helping others--why, I would think the world of holiday shopping! And you know what? All those people who go around praising their god, whatever god it may be, on their specially designated religious day of the week...? They might actually get a chance to experience their deity. Having finally realized that in helping one another, they were actually doing the work they claimed to be doing by shipping bibles to the paynim and posting in religious threads, all along. Oh, but that would be extortion! After all, are we our brothers' (and sisters, and sons, and daughters) keepers?

A fine sentiment I share with you. Except when you say "forced". I still think that any demand to donate a fixed percentage of income is a sort of a new tax. It does not matter who demands it: a charitable organization paying $150,000-200,000 salary to its own executive director, a state imposing a new tax to pay for its own blunders and misplaced priorities or a church meticulously tracking parishioners' tax return statements. It is a hold-up just the same.
I am not talking about corporations; I am talking about common hardworking people coping with their own problems, working two jobs to give their children education and a better life. And if they want a Holiday with whatever religious symbols and whatever gifts to each other, so what? They earned it. You cannot cancel a normal life. You want people to feel guilty when they buy their children toys and their family members and friends gifts because there are misery and starvation in this world. You want folks to donate money to the charity instead. Why cannot people donate money AND buy toys? I do just like that, for example. What about you?

[fable]

And why do you call citing Charity Navigator and other sources "repeatedly stating inaccuracies"? Why can't I quote a source I trust without having a label attached?

Who said Charity Navigator was responsible for inaccuracies? I said you were. You're judging the generosity of the US by comparing the dollars it gives to charities, which is a palpably silly idea, since it doesn't take into account a whole range of factors that affect the situation. One might as well claim that a man who gives $1000 a year to charities is more generous than someone who gives $10 a year, without determining that the $1000 donor makes $10 million/year, while the latter makes $20,000 and also puts in time on a neighborhood watch. It is completely inaccurate to stay with a linear dollar figure and nothing else, which is what you do.

I don't know what you are talking about, actually. Especially when you are saying something about being surprised/not being surprised. I quoted the source.

So did I. To put it another way, let me restate my original comment: of the $199.3 billion Charity Navigator states were donated by individuals, $93.2 billion (their number) of that was given to religious organizations, for so-called charitable distribution, rather than directly to charities. In other words, it wasn't given to organizations like the American Cancer Society, the Red Cross, etc, but to churches and other religious institutions for amorphous "charitable work." This includes moneys given to missionaries, to church outposts, to missionary hospitals, etc. The main goal of such organizations is the conversion of non-worshippers in other cultures, and the "charity" is a tool to accomplish this. Thus it's charity with strings attached, and by some accounts, not charity at all.

Fable, I realize that my English is not as good as it should be. I type in a conversational manner without much regard for rhetorical value or style. But I thought it was clear in the context that I was talking about common people, individuals, not about corporations. I don't care about bloody corporations. They donate money because it benefits themselves as I attempted to show in my posts.

Your English is fine, as you well know. You posted as follows:

"You understood my sarcastic line about write-offs stimulating corporate willingness to share a 'fraction (a tiny amount) of their wealth' too literally, I am afraid. I am against any regulations involving voluntary donations."

The first sentence is about corporations. The second one appears to comment and expand upon it, stating that you are opposed to all regulations involving voluntary donations, including those of corporations. Is this a bad summation of what you wrote?

What does "saving of US industrial might" have to do with that?
I completely agree with DaemonJ when he describes his situation. I agree with Magrus. I agree with Silur when he says that charity is covering the potholes in the system. Why don't you go ahead and accuse them as well? Just for a change of a shooting target.

Why should I change targets when your comments above provide such a huge and obvious one?

I give to charities. And don't report my donations on my tax return paper because donation is my good will and my private affair. I don't care about "tax deductible" or what somebody else is doing or thinking.
And since I don't attend any church your shot at "how very Christian" missed the mark also.

Afraid not. To quote another of your posts, "But it is perfectly fine, in my opinion, for a black Christian who accepts Jesus as a personal Savior, to personalize him a little bit more. Fortunately, there is no Inquisition to show us the errors of our ways, so everything is cool." (My italics.) Unless of course you want to say that you were joking, and you aren't Christian? As you haven't replied to this point and stated outright what your religious beliefs are, I can only assume I hit that mark dead center.

I don't recall I have ever claimed following any savior. Mark is missed again.
I work with the ill and dying for the last 35 years; I am a medical professional. Please don't teach me compassion. I can teach you.

Very doubtful, in light of your lying below, but it's nice to know my previous comment was on the mark enough to make you sting. Not that I haven't encountered medical professionals before who felt that the money they gave somehow made them better than others of far lower income who could give less, of course.

In the last paragraph you quoted, you disregarded everything except my words about shoppers...
Thank you for your kind words. That is a true flame war you are waging now.

One little word is all that's needed to make up a lie, yes, as you well know. And that's what you did to me when you lied about what I'd written and felt. It's your attempt to make me appear other than I am, your responsibility for the comment and for the results. I've never hated anybody in my life, and would never value humanity so low that I could write off any part of it with such an intense, dismissive emotion as hate.

Your subsequent comments are, of course, ridiculous. Having been proven a liar, you then go on the offensive when you're caught out. An apology on your part might have been expected, had your remark come from someone who truly valued both people and the impact words can have. But no...and the combination of the lie and lack of an apology really removes what little credibility you had left as a conversational partner, in my opinion.

A fine sentiment I share with you. Except when you say "forced". I still think that any demand to donate a fixed percentage of income is a sort of a new tax...
I am not talking about corporations; I am talking about common hardworking people coping with their own problems, working two jobs to give their children education and a better life. And if they want a Holiday with whatever religious symbols and whatever gifts to each other, so what? They earned it. You cannot cancel a normal life. You want people to feel guilty when they buy their children toys and their family members and friends gifts because there are misery and starvation in this world. You want folks to donate money to the charity instead. Why cannot people donate money AND buy toys? I do just like that, for example. What about you?

The National Retail Federation in the US put the total of holiday spending for 2005 at roughly $440 billion. That's compared to approximately $106 billion spent directly on charity in the US for the entire year, even if we allow personal remittances to be included (see Silur, above). That comparison speaks pretty tellingly about how charity rates next to the latest console or doll around the holidays. We don't buy toys. We sink beneath a sea of them.

Let me state my views another way: we have extraordinary power here in the US through our enormous income and what it buys in the form of government, technologies, and influence around the world. And we could use it all to effectively curtail poverty, disease, starvation, even end it in some areas. Only we don't accept the responsibility that comes with that power, and we spend far, far more on holiday toys than we do on charities for the full year.

But if you want religious symbols for the holidays, then I agree: people should go put their money in the hands of the poor, as quickly as possible. Camel, eye, needle, you know.

[Silur]

Speaking of "strings attached", the US is the nation of the world that imposes the most stringent conditions on aid given, for example, aid is only given if the money goes to purchase services and goods from American companies - in effect being clandestine financial support of it's own industies. Interestingly, the US is also the nation that complains the loudest to the WTO whenever some nation supports their industry with tax money - see Hynix for reference.

Also, I found that Israel is listed as one of the key recipients of aid from the US - it amounts to roughly US $525 million per year. Now it is true, there is a humanitarian catastrophe in Israel, but I doubt even one of these dollars make their way in that direction. :speech:

As for personal charity, I view it mostly as the latest version of letters of indulgence. We buy ourselves some relief from our bad conscience in order to be able to ignore the problem the rest of the time. Personal remittance, while I disagree with it being used to boost national figures in order to make people feel better about themselves, is probably the best aid possible since it actually reaches it's intended goal with very little loss. Now all we have to do is get more persons and families in the rich countries to adopt persons or families in the poor countries and start remitting.