warpedskydiver 0 #1 June 19, 2006 Charitable Giving in U.S. Nears New High Monday, June 19, 2006 5:01 AM EDT The Associated Press By VINNEE TONG Listen to Audio NEW YORK (AP) — The urgent needs created by three major natural disasters — the tsunami in Asia, earthquake in Pakistan and hurricanes Rita, Katrina and Wilma — drove American philanthropy to its highest level since the end of the technology boom, a new study showed. The report released Monday by the Giving USA foundation estimates that in 2005 Americans gave $260.28 billion, a rise of 6.1 percent, which approaches the inflation-adjusted high of $260.53 billion that was reached in 2000. About half of the overall increase of $15 billion went directly to aid victims of the disasters. The rest of the increase, meanwhile, may still be traced to the disasters since they may have raised public awareness of other charities. "When there is a very significant need, when people are clearly aware of that need, they will respond," the chairman of Giving USA, Richard Jolly, said. "Were it not for the disasters, what we would have expected is more of a flat number. With the staggering need generated by the disasters, it's very in keeping with what has happened in the past — the American public stepped forward and provided additional support." The three natural disasters generated about $7.37 billion, which was 2.8 percent of total giving. Of that amount, individuals contributed $5.83 billion, or 79 percent, while corporations added $1.38 billion, or 19 percent. Excluding disaster relief, the report indicates that there still would have been a rise in gifts from both individuals and corporations. In the 41 years that Giving USA has tracked philanthropy, giving has increased with the wealth of the nation. Since 1965, total contributions have been between 1.7 percent and 2.3 percent of gross domestic product. The highest level was reached at the end of the technology boom in 2000. For 2005, it was estimated to be 2.1 percent of GDP. Disaster relief may have "crowded out" giving to other recipients of international aid. Without the $1.14 billion in relief contributions, giving to this sector fell to $5.25 billion, a decline of 1.9 percent, or an inflation-adjusted drop of 5.1 percent. As is usual, individual giving was the largest source of donations, accounting for an estimated $199 billion, or 76.5 percent of the total. For 2005, it was estimated to rise by 6.4 percent, or 2.9 percent adjusted for inflation. Total corporate giving grew by 22.5 percent to an estimated $13.77 billion, and accounted for about 5.3 percent of overall gifts. That is slightly higher than the 40-year average of 5 percent. Another recent report, from the Foundation Center, also shows an expected rise in corporate giving. Earlier this month, the center released a report showing an increase in philanthropy by corporate foundations, a subsector that has doubled in size from 1987 to 2004. That study predicts that nearly 2,600 corporate foundations gave $3.6 billion in 2005, a rise of 5.8 percent. The study noted that the growth rate was slower than for other types of foundations. The director of research at the Foundation Center, Steven Lawrence, said he expected a more modest increase in 2006 over last year. While a majority of those who responded to the survey predicted a rise, the number who expect a decrease had also gone up, an indication that the rate of growth is likely to slow. One area of gifts that declined in 2005, according to the Giving USA report, were bequests. The report estimates that they fell by 5.5 percent, a drop that is mainly attributed to a decline in the number of deaths in 2004 and an expected decline for 2005. For the first time since 1998, contributions slated for arts, culture and humanity groups fell. Jolly said the drop could be due to the fact that a few museums had completed major campaigns the year before so were less active in 2005, or that the decline in bequests translated to a decline in arts giving. The chief executive of Zeum, a nonprofit children's museum in San Francisco, said the fundraising climate for arts organizations has indeed grown more difficult in recent years. CEO Adrienne Pon said that Zeum, founded in 1998, has seen its fortunes rise and fall with those of technology companies. Apple Computer Inc. is one of its most prominent supporters and has donated state-of-the-art equipment to the center, where children can create animation, visual art and live performances. "When we initially opened, we had tremendous support from dot-com era companies," Pon said. "That was in 1998. Then we started to see in 2000 to 2001, that dropped, and in the last year or two, we've seen a resurgence." Pon said the majority of Zeum's funding comes from foundations, such as the Seattle-based Marguerite Casey Foundation, and companies such as UPS. The Giving USA report was researched and written at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. It has been tracking philanthropic giving since 1965, and in that period, has seen a rise of 185 percent, most of which has been since 1996. Quote those of you who hate the US so much should read this then ask yourself, what have you or your own country done to help others? I think many of you have tried to help but how does it compare? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #2 June 19, 2006 QuoteCharitable Giving in U.S. Nears New High Monday, June 19, 2006 5:01 AM EDT The Associated Press By VINNEE TONG Quote those of you who hate the US so much should read this then ask yourself, what have you or your own country done to help others? I think many of you have tried to help but how does it compare? Without wishing to denigrate Americas efforts in philantrophy, what the article is saying is that Americans are ALMOST giving more than they used to. I seem to remember that the level of American donations, both governmental and private were discussed at the time, with America's per-capita donations in both rerspects being less than those of other countries. More disturbingly... Why choose this particular article or area to proclaim that "America is BEST!" when it doesn't say that in any way? By all means be proud of your philanthrophy, but is the associated arrogance and accusation neccessary? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #3 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteCharitable Giving in U.S. Nears New High Monday, June 19, 2006 5:01 AM EDT The Associated Press By VINNEE TONG Quote those of you who hate the US so much should read this then ask yourself, what have you or your own country done to help others? I think many of you have tried to help but how does it compare? Without wishing to denigrate Americas efforts in philantrophy, what the article is saying is that Americans are ALMOST giving more than they used to. I seem to remember that the level of American donations, both governmental and private were discussed at the time, with America's per-capita donations in both rerspects being less than those of other countries. More disturbingly... Why choose this particular article or area to proclaim that "America is BEST!" when it doesn't say that in any way? By all means be proud of your philanthrophy, but is the associated arrogance and accusation neccessary? Mike. Yes, per capita the USA gives less than many industrialized nations - that is true. This is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #4 June 19, 2006 QuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #5 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union. Yeah, only those damn communist states have taxes and social programs. Your intended message was transparent to those who understand your agenda. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #6 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union.Eminent domain comes to mindI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #7 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union.Eminent domain comes to mind I agree. Another liberal interpetation by the SCOTUS designed to confiscate assets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #8 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union. Yeah, only those damn communist states have taxes and social programs. Your intended message was transparent to those who understand your agenda. In this case it was to point out that forced confiscation of assets is wrong and is usually done by dictatorial, repressive governments. Not surprising that you find it acceptable. Also not surprising you attack the person, not the message. But then again we understand your agenda too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #9 June 19, 2006 QuoteAlso not surprising you attack the person, not the message. But then again we understand your agenda too. When I say 'your agenda' I mean the right wingers. As far as eminent domain goes, had you actually asked me, I would tell you that I detest the recent rulings respecting eminent domain. In all but the most extreme circumstances, I don' t like it. But as your post was about charitable giving, my brain did not make the leap somehow to eminent domain. As far as confiscation goes, I see a distinct differences between taxes used to cultivate a sustainable society and the taking of someone's home to make way for business interests. People the world over have understood for centuries that taxes are necessary, and if handled responsibly, help create a better society for all residents. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't expect roads, a military, education for your kids, police, or many other beneficial services. You can move to a desert island, pay no taxes, and be perfectly happy in your straw hut. Zipp0 -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #10 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteAlso not surprising you attack the person, not the message. But then again we understand your agenda too. When I say 'your agenda' I mean the right wingers. As far as eminent domain goes, had you actually asked me, I would tell you that I detest the recent rulings respecting eminent domain. In all but the most extreme circumstances, I don' t like it. But as your post was about charitable giving, my brain did not make the leap somehow to eminent domain. As far as confiscation goes, I see a distinct differences between taxes used to cultivate a sustainable society and the taking of someone's home to make way for business interests. People the world over have understood for centuries that taxes are necessary, and if handled responsibly, help create a better society for all residents. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't expect roads, a military, education for your kids, police, or many other beneficial services. You can move to a desert island, pay no taxes, and be perfectly happy in your straw hut. Zipp0 Please tell me which of my views line up with what you consider "right wingers." Include my views on abortion, guns, religion etc. My post wasn't just about charitable giving. It was about the impropriety of confiscation of people assets, whether it be money to use for charitable purposes or property to increase tax revenues. I have never disageed with the use of tax money to build necessary infrastructure. What I do disagree with is forced charitable giving, which you don't seem to have a problem with. Where do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #11 June 19, 2006 QuoteWhere do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Uh, hell no! I'd be inside with as much firepower as I could muster. To me, your home is sacred. I guess maybe it depends what you consider charitable. Would you consider welfare charitable? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #12 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhere do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Uh, hell no! I'd be inside with as much firepower as I could muster. To me, your home is sacred. I guess maybe it depends what you consider charitable. Would you consider welfare charitable? I have no problem with helping someone out in dire circumstances. What I do object to is when it becomes a way of life. When a person becomes so dependent on support, that they lose the motivation to become self-reliant. Why do you think someone in need of financial assistance won't walk down the street, knock on doors and for a hand-out, but is OK with the govt. doing it for them? edited to add. I'm still waiting for your proof of my "right wing" agenda. Agenda being defined as a myriad of agreements with the "right wing", whatever you think that is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #13 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhere do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Uh, hell no! I'd be inside with as much firepower as I could muster. To me, your home is sacred. I guess maybe it depends what you consider charitable. Would you consider welfare charitable? I have no problem with helping someone out in dire circumstances. What I do object to is when it becomes a way of life. When a person becomes so dependent on support, that they lose the motivation to become self-reliant. Why do you think someone in need of financial assistance won't walk down the street, knock on doors and for a hand-out, but is OK with the govt. doing it for them? edited to add. I'm still waiting for your proof of my "right wing" agenda. Agenda being defined as a myriad of agreements with the "right wing", whatever you think that is. I agree with you on welfare mostly, but for a few it is the only way they can survive. Those who can work and earn a livavle wage should do so. Maybe you aren't a total right-winger, but you seem to lean in that direction. I have no proof, and don't give a shit enough to read throughyour previous posts, but I just remember you responding like a right winger on several issues. So, I guess you're voting for Hillary? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #14 June 19, 2006 QuoteZipp0 & miked10270: per capita the USA gives less than many industrialized nations - that is true. Think again. An Exceptional Nation Is it a coincidence one of the world's freest, most entrepreneurial, and most religious nations is also the world's most philanthropic nation? Americans donate like no other people, whether you look at total donations, per capita giving, size of gifts, or types of giving. And as our wealth increases, so does our generosity. Two writers for England's Economist magazine just wrote a book about America's differences from the rest of the world, and one important difference they note is the way Americans give. After noting that we give far larger proportions of our income to charity, they write, "Crucially, Americans much prefer to give away their money themselves, rather than let their government do it.... This tradition of philanthropy encouraged America to tackle its social problems without building a European-style welfare state, and to embrace modernity without abandoning its traditions of voluntarism, decentralization and experiment." Similarly, American philanthropist Daniel Rose observed last year that the French "are bemused to learn that American private charitable contributions this year will exceed $200 billion, equal to about 10 percent of the total federal budget; that some 70 percent of U.S. households make charitable cash contributions; and that over half of all U.S. adults will volunteer an estimated 20 billion hours in charitable activities." Nor, Rose adds, are the French alone in their astonishment: "A recent German study reports that on a per capita basis, American citizens contribute to charity nearly seven times as much as their German counterparts and that about six times as many Americans as Germans do volunteer work." In short, American philanthropy is extraordinary by any world standard, and the reason is that America herself is exceptional...Source: Philanthropy Magazine Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #15 June 19, 2006 I find myself in agreement with JR. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #16 June 19, 2006 Here's some without the fluff or arrogance: Private US contributions worldwide dwarf that of the rest of the world. On top of that, the US is the top contributor to the UN budget at 22%. How's that?! btw: GO USA!!So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #17 June 19, 2006 You're simply the best .... lalalala... better than all the rest .....lalalala... Tina Turner Her show several years ago near to my home town was wonderful! dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #18 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteZipp0 & miked10270: per capita the USA gives less than many industrialized nations - that is true. Think again. An Exceptional Nation Is it a coincidence one of the world's freest, most entrepreneurial, and most religious nations is also the world's most philanthropic nation? Americans donate like no other people, whether you look at total donations, per capita giving, size of gifts, or types of giving. And as our wealth increases, so does our generosity. Two writers for England's Economist magazine just wrote a book about America's differences from the rest of the world, and one important difference they note is the way Americans give. After noting that we give far larger proportions of our income to charity, they write, "Crucially, Americans much prefer to give away their money themselves, rather than let their government do it.... This tradition of philanthropy encouraged America to tackle its social problems without building a European-style welfare state, and to embrace modernity without abandoning its traditions of voluntarism, decentralization and experiment." Similarly, American philanthropist Daniel Rose observed last year that the French "are bemused to learn that American private charitable contributions this year will exceed $200 billion, equal to about 10 percent of the total federal budget; that some 70 percent of U.S. households make charitable cash contributions; and that over half of all U.S. adults will volunteer an estimated 20 billion hours in charitable activities." Nor, Rose adds, are the French alone in their astonishment: "A recent German study reports that on a per capita basis, American citizens contribute to charity nearly seven times as much as their German counterparts and that about six times as many Americans as Germans do volunteer work." In short, American philanthropy is extraordinary by any world standard, and the reason is that America herself is exceptional...Source: Philanthropy Magazine Ow, thats gotta hurt!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #19 June 19, 2006 QuoteHere's some without the fluff or arrogance: Private US contributions worldwide dwarf that of the rest of the world. On top of that, the US is the top contributor to the UN budget at 22%. How's that?! Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... btw: GO USA!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #20 June 19, 2006 QuoteOw, thats gotta hurt! Can't have it both ways. It either helps, or it causes even worse dependence. If our normal assumption at the individual level also applies at the nation level, then the US is fostering a world wide dependent welfare state totally relying on our good will. On an individual level, you find the people develop and entitlement attitude, but want more and more, eventually trying to force additional "charity" through blackmail tactics and public/media pressure. The individual also starts to seriously resent their 'benefactor' despite his original good intentions, and despite their original need. Eventually, every single set back and woe for the receiver gets blamed, rightly or not, on their 'sponsor'. Thank goodness this doesn't happen at the national level also. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #21 June 19, 2006 Quote Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... Oh yeah, a story stating that Americans are generous really hurts! But also, I have read many stories citing other stats that say the opposite. What it comes down to is it's much easier to quantify government aid than private charity. For instance, is all that money getting to the recipient, or is a high percentage paying admin costs of the respective charities? Some charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. And really, the thread was going in the direction of welfare/social programs paid for by taxes vs. paying for these kinds of things with charitable gifts. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #22 June 19, 2006 >It either helps, or it causes even worse dependence. Depends on how it's used. Consider using $1000 to dig a well, or buy $1000 worth of corn for an impoverished country. The well might last 100 years, and help them grow their _own_ corn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #23 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuote Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... Oh yeah, a story stating that Americans are generous really hurts! But also, I have read many stories citing other stats that say the opposite. What it comes down to is it's much easier to quantify government aid than private charity. For instance, is all that money getting to the recipient, or is a high percentage paying admin costs of the respective charities? Some charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. And really, the thread was going in the direction of welfare/social programs paid for by taxes vs. paying for these kinds of things with charitable gifts. It would be interesting to compare the overhead associated with charities, compared with the overhead associated with welfare paid for by taxes. I have become very selective about what I donate to after some of the 90% overhead "charities" have been exposed. In addition it may be worth mentioning that not all charitable donations go to "good works". A big donation to the local symphony orchestra or opera counts, but doesn't feed and clothe the poor. Then there are the big donations to colleges that, perchance, shortly thereafter admit your unqualified idiot grandson under a legacy program.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #24 June 19, 2006 QuoteSome charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. Like the (giving and receiving) governments and the UN? I like Kallend's last comments, it would be nice to see those stats on charitable orgs (including governement) to help with my choices when making non-government-forced donations. And those stats would have to come from an independent org, not just what those groups self-profess ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #25 June 19, 2006 Quote>It either helps, or it causes even worse dependence. Depends on how it's used. Consider using $1000 to dig a well, or buy $1000 worth of corn for an impoverished country. The well might last 100 years, and help them grow their _own_ corn. what? you work for the army purchasing corp? For a LOT less, you can LOAN the village a shovel ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
miked10270 0 #2 June 19, 2006 QuoteCharitable Giving in U.S. Nears New High Monday, June 19, 2006 5:01 AM EDT The Associated Press By VINNEE TONG Quote those of you who hate the US so much should read this then ask yourself, what have you or your own country done to help others? I think many of you have tried to help but how does it compare? Without wishing to denigrate Americas efforts in philantrophy, what the article is saying is that Americans are ALMOST giving more than they used to. I seem to remember that the level of American donations, both governmental and private were discussed at the time, with America's per-capita donations in both rerspects being less than those of other countries. More disturbingly... Why choose this particular article or area to proclaim that "America is BEST!" when it doesn't say that in any way? By all means be proud of your philanthrophy, but is the associated arrogance and accusation neccessary? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #3 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteCharitable Giving in U.S. Nears New High Monday, June 19, 2006 5:01 AM EDT The Associated Press By VINNEE TONG Quote those of you who hate the US so much should read this then ask yourself, what have you or your own country done to help others? I think many of you have tried to help but how does it compare? Without wishing to denigrate Americas efforts in philantrophy, what the article is saying is that Americans are ALMOST giving more than they used to. I seem to remember that the level of American donations, both governmental and private were discussed at the time, with America's per-capita donations in both rerspects being less than those of other countries. More disturbingly... Why choose this particular article or area to proclaim that "America is BEST!" when it doesn't say that in any way? By all means be proud of your philanthrophy, but is the associated arrogance and accusation neccessary? Mike. Yes, per capita the USA gives less than many industrialized nations - that is true. This is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #4 June 19, 2006 QuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #5 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union. Yeah, only those damn communist states have taxes and social programs. Your intended message was transparent to those who understand your agenda. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #6 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union.Eminent domain comes to mindI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #7 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union.Eminent domain comes to mind I agree. Another liberal interpetation by the SCOTUS designed to confiscate assets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #8 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union. Yeah, only those damn communist states have taxes and social programs. Your intended message was transparent to those who understand your agenda. In this case it was to point out that forced confiscation of assets is wrong and is usually done by dictatorial, repressive governments. Not surprising that you find it acceptable. Also not surprising you attack the person, not the message. But then again we understand your agenda too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #9 June 19, 2006 QuoteAlso not surprising you attack the person, not the message. But then again we understand your agenda too. When I say 'your agenda' I mean the right wingers. As far as eminent domain goes, had you actually asked me, I would tell you that I detest the recent rulings respecting eminent domain. In all but the most extreme circumstances, I don' t like it. But as your post was about charitable giving, my brain did not make the leap somehow to eminent domain. As far as confiscation goes, I see a distinct differences between taxes used to cultivate a sustainable society and the taking of someone's home to make way for business interests. People the world over have understood for centuries that taxes are necessary, and if handled responsibly, help create a better society for all residents. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't expect roads, a military, education for your kids, police, or many other beneficial services. You can move to a desert island, pay no taxes, and be perfectly happy in your straw hut. Zipp0 -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #10 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteAlso not surprising you attack the person, not the message. But then again we understand your agenda too. When I say 'your agenda' I mean the right wingers. As far as eminent domain goes, had you actually asked me, I would tell you that I detest the recent rulings respecting eminent domain. In all but the most extreme circumstances, I don' t like it. But as your post was about charitable giving, my brain did not make the leap somehow to eminent domain. As far as confiscation goes, I see a distinct differences between taxes used to cultivate a sustainable society and the taking of someone's home to make way for business interests. People the world over have understood for centuries that taxes are necessary, and if handled responsibly, help create a better society for all residents. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't expect roads, a military, education for your kids, police, or many other beneficial services. You can move to a desert island, pay no taxes, and be perfectly happy in your straw hut. Zipp0 Please tell me which of my views line up with what you consider "right wingers." Include my views on abortion, guns, religion etc. My post wasn't just about charitable giving. It was about the impropriety of confiscation of people assets, whether it be money to use for charitable purposes or property to increase tax revenues. I have never disageed with the use of tax money to build necessary infrastructure. What I do disagree with is forced charitable giving, which you don't seem to have a problem with. Where do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #11 June 19, 2006 QuoteWhere do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Uh, hell no! I'd be inside with as much firepower as I could muster. To me, your home is sacred. I guess maybe it depends what you consider charitable. Would you consider welfare charitable? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #12 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhere do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Uh, hell no! I'd be inside with as much firepower as I could muster. To me, your home is sacred. I guess maybe it depends what you consider charitable. Would you consider welfare charitable? I have no problem with helping someone out in dire circumstances. What I do object to is when it becomes a way of life. When a person becomes so dependent on support, that they lose the motivation to become self-reliant. Why do you think someone in need of financial assistance won't walk down the street, knock on doors and for a hand-out, but is OK with the govt. doing it for them? edited to add. I'm still waiting for your proof of my "right wing" agenda. Agenda being defined as a myriad of agreements with the "right wing", whatever you think that is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #13 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhere do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Uh, hell no! I'd be inside with as much firepower as I could muster. To me, your home is sacred. I guess maybe it depends what you consider charitable. Would you consider welfare charitable? I have no problem with helping someone out in dire circumstances. What I do object to is when it becomes a way of life. When a person becomes so dependent on support, that they lose the motivation to become self-reliant. Why do you think someone in need of financial assistance won't walk down the street, knock on doors and for a hand-out, but is OK with the govt. doing it for them? edited to add. I'm still waiting for your proof of my "right wing" agenda. Agenda being defined as a myriad of agreements with the "right wing", whatever you think that is. I agree with you on welfare mostly, but for a few it is the only way they can survive. Those who can work and earn a livavle wage should do so. Maybe you aren't a total right-winger, but you seem to lean in that direction. I have no proof, and don't give a shit enough to read throughyour previous posts, but I just remember you responding like a right winger on several issues. So, I guess you're voting for Hillary? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #14 June 19, 2006 QuoteZipp0 & miked10270: per capita the USA gives less than many industrialized nations - that is true. Think again. An Exceptional Nation Is it a coincidence one of the world's freest, most entrepreneurial, and most religious nations is also the world's most philanthropic nation? Americans donate like no other people, whether you look at total donations, per capita giving, size of gifts, or types of giving. And as our wealth increases, so does our generosity. Two writers for England's Economist magazine just wrote a book about America's differences from the rest of the world, and one important difference they note is the way Americans give. After noting that we give far larger proportions of our income to charity, they write, "Crucially, Americans much prefer to give away their money themselves, rather than let their government do it.... This tradition of philanthropy encouraged America to tackle its social problems without building a European-style welfare state, and to embrace modernity without abandoning its traditions of voluntarism, decentralization and experiment." Similarly, American philanthropist Daniel Rose observed last year that the French "are bemused to learn that American private charitable contributions this year will exceed $200 billion, equal to about 10 percent of the total federal budget; that some 70 percent of U.S. households make charitable cash contributions; and that over half of all U.S. adults will volunteer an estimated 20 billion hours in charitable activities." Nor, Rose adds, are the French alone in their astonishment: "A recent German study reports that on a per capita basis, American citizens contribute to charity nearly seven times as much as their German counterparts and that about six times as many Americans as Germans do volunteer work." In short, American philanthropy is extraordinary by any world standard, and the reason is that America herself is exceptional...Source: Philanthropy Magazine Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #15 June 19, 2006 I find myself in agreement with JR. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #16 June 19, 2006 Here's some without the fluff or arrogance: Private US contributions worldwide dwarf that of the rest of the world. On top of that, the US is the top contributor to the UN budget at 22%. How's that?! btw: GO USA!!So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #17 June 19, 2006 You're simply the best .... lalalala... better than all the rest .....lalalala... Tina Turner Her show several years ago near to my home town was wonderful! dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #18 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteZipp0 & miked10270: per capita the USA gives less than many industrialized nations - that is true. Think again. An Exceptional Nation Is it a coincidence one of the world's freest, most entrepreneurial, and most religious nations is also the world's most philanthropic nation? Americans donate like no other people, whether you look at total donations, per capita giving, size of gifts, or types of giving. And as our wealth increases, so does our generosity. Two writers for England's Economist magazine just wrote a book about America's differences from the rest of the world, and one important difference they note is the way Americans give. After noting that we give far larger proportions of our income to charity, they write, "Crucially, Americans much prefer to give away their money themselves, rather than let their government do it.... This tradition of philanthropy encouraged America to tackle its social problems without building a European-style welfare state, and to embrace modernity without abandoning its traditions of voluntarism, decentralization and experiment." Similarly, American philanthropist Daniel Rose observed last year that the French "are bemused to learn that American private charitable contributions this year will exceed $200 billion, equal to about 10 percent of the total federal budget; that some 70 percent of U.S. households make charitable cash contributions; and that over half of all U.S. adults will volunteer an estimated 20 billion hours in charitable activities." Nor, Rose adds, are the French alone in their astonishment: "A recent German study reports that on a per capita basis, American citizens contribute to charity nearly seven times as much as their German counterparts and that about six times as many Americans as Germans do volunteer work." In short, American philanthropy is extraordinary by any world standard, and the reason is that America herself is exceptional...Source: Philanthropy Magazine Ow, thats gotta hurt!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #19 June 19, 2006 QuoteHere's some without the fluff or arrogance: Private US contributions worldwide dwarf that of the rest of the world. On top of that, the US is the top contributor to the UN budget at 22%. How's that?! Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... btw: GO USA!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #20 June 19, 2006 QuoteOw, thats gotta hurt! Can't have it both ways. It either helps, or it causes even worse dependence. If our normal assumption at the individual level also applies at the nation level, then the US is fostering a world wide dependent welfare state totally relying on our good will. On an individual level, you find the people develop and entitlement attitude, but want more and more, eventually trying to force additional "charity" through blackmail tactics and public/media pressure. The individual also starts to seriously resent their 'benefactor' despite his original good intentions, and despite their original need. Eventually, every single set back and woe for the receiver gets blamed, rightly or not, on their 'sponsor'. Thank goodness this doesn't happen at the national level also. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #21 June 19, 2006 Quote Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... Oh yeah, a story stating that Americans are generous really hurts! But also, I have read many stories citing other stats that say the opposite. What it comes down to is it's much easier to quantify government aid than private charity. For instance, is all that money getting to the recipient, or is a high percentage paying admin costs of the respective charities? Some charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. And really, the thread was going in the direction of welfare/social programs paid for by taxes vs. paying for these kinds of things with charitable gifts. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #22 June 19, 2006 >It either helps, or it causes even worse dependence. Depends on how it's used. Consider using $1000 to dig a well, or buy $1000 worth of corn for an impoverished country. The well might last 100 years, and help them grow their _own_ corn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #23 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuote Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... Oh yeah, a story stating that Americans are generous really hurts! But also, I have read many stories citing other stats that say the opposite. What it comes down to is it's much easier to quantify government aid than private charity. For instance, is all that money getting to the recipient, or is a high percentage paying admin costs of the respective charities? Some charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. And really, the thread was going in the direction of welfare/social programs paid for by taxes vs. paying for these kinds of things with charitable gifts. It would be interesting to compare the overhead associated with charities, compared with the overhead associated with welfare paid for by taxes. I have become very selective about what I donate to after some of the 90% overhead "charities" have been exposed. In addition it may be worth mentioning that not all charitable donations go to "good works". A big donation to the local symphony orchestra or opera counts, but doesn't feed and clothe the poor. Then there are the big donations to colleges that, perchance, shortly thereafter admit your unqualified idiot grandson under a legacy program.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #24 June 19, 2006 QuoteSome charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. Like the (giving and receiving) governments and the UN? I like Kallend's last comments, it would be nice to see those stats on charitable orgs (including governement) to help with my choices when making non-government-forced donations. And those stats would have to come from an independent org, not just what those groups self-profess ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #25 June 19, 2006 Quote>It either helps, or it causes even worse dependence. Depends on how it's used. Consider using $1000 to dig a well, or buy $1000 worth of corn for an impoverished country. The well might last 100 years, and help them grow their _own_ corn. what? you work for the army purchasing corp? For a LOT less, you can LOAN the village a shovel ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Zipp0 1 #3 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteCharitable Giving in U.S. Nears New High Monday, June 19, 2006 5:01 AM EDT The Associated Press By VINNEE TONG Quote those of you who hate the US so much should read this then ask yourself, what have you or your own country done to help others? I think many of you have tried to help but how does it compare? Without wishing to denigrate Americas efforts in philantrophy, what the article is saying is that Americans are ALMOST giving more than they used to. I seem to remember that the level of American donations, both governmental and private were discussed at the time, with America's per-capita donations in both rerspects being less than those of other countries. More disturbingly... Why choose this particular article or area to proclaim that "America is BEST!" when it doesn't say that in any way? By all means be proud of your philanthrophy, but is the associated arrogance and accusation neccessary? Mike. Yes, per capita the USA gives less than many industrialized nations - that is true. This is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #4 June 19, 2006 QuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #5 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union. Yeah, only those damn communist states have taxes and social programs. Your intended message was transparent to those who understand your agenda. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #6 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union.Eminent domain comes to mindI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #7 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union.Eminent domain comes to mind I agree. Another liberal interpetation by the SCOTUS designed to confiscate assets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #8 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union. Yeah, only those damn communist states have taxes and social programs. Your intended message was transparent to those who understand your agenda. In this case it was to point out that forced confiscation of assets is wrong and is usually done by dictatorial, repressive governments. Not surprising that you find it acceptable. Also not surprising you attack the person, not the message. But then again we understand your agenda too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #9 June 19, 2006 QuoteAlso not surprising you attack the person, not the message. But then again we understand your agenda too. When I say 'your agenda' I mean the right wingers. As far as eminent domain goes, had you actually asked me, I would tell you that I detest the recent rulings respecting eminent domain. In all but the most extreme circumstances, I don' t like it. But as your post was about charitable giving, my brain did not make the leap somehow to eminent domain. As far as confiscation goes, I see a distinct differences between taxes used to cultivate a sustainable society and the taking of someone's home to make way for business interests. People the world over have understood for centuries that taxes are necessary, and if handled responsibly, help create a better society for all residents. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't expect roads, a military, education for your kids, police, or many other beneficial services. You can move to a desert island, pay no taxes, and be perfectly happy in your straw hut. Zipp0 -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #10 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteAlso not surprising you attack the person, not the message. But then again we understand your agenda too. When I say 'your agenda' I mean the right wingers. As far as eminent domain goes, had you actually asked me, I would tell you that I detest the recent rulings respecting eminent domain. In all but the most extreme circumstances, I don' t like it. But as your post was about charitable giving, my brain did not make the leap somehow to eminent domain. As far as confiscation goes, I see a distinct differences between taxes used to cultivate a sustainable society and the taking of someone's home to make way for business interests. People the world over have understood for centuries that taxes are necessary, and if handled responsibly, help create a better society for all residents. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't expect roads, a military, education for your kids, police, or many other beneficial services. You can move to a desert island, pay no taxes, and be perfectly happy in your straw hut. Zipp0 Please tell me which of my views line up with what you consider "right wingers." Include my views on abortion, guns, religion etc. My post wasn't just about charitable giving. It was about the impropriety of confiscation of people assets, whether it be money to use for charitable purposes or property to increase tax revenues. I have never disageed with the use of tax money to build necessary infrastructure. What I do disagree with is forced charitable giving, which you don't seem to have a problem with. Where do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #11 June 19, 2006 QuoteWhere do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Uh, hell no! I'd be inside with as much firepower as I could muster. To me, your home is sacred. I guess maybe it depends what you consider charitable. Would you consider welfare charitable? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #12 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhere do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Uh, hell no! I'd be inside with as much firepower as I could muster. To me, your home is sacred. I guess maybe it depends what you consider charitable. Would you consider welfare charitable? I have no problem with helping someone out in dire circumstances. What I do object to is when it becomes a way of life. When a person becomes so dependent on support, that they lose the motivation to become self-reliant. Why do you think someone in need of financial assistance won't walk down the street, knock on doors and for a hand-out, but is OK with the govt. doing it for them? edited to add. I'm still waiting for your proof of my "right wing" agenda. Agenda being defined as a myriad of agreements with the "right wing", whatever you think that is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #13 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhere do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Uh, hell no! I'd be inside with as much firepower as I could muster. To me, your home is sacred. I guess maybe it depends what you consider charitable. Would you consider welfare charitable? I have no problem with helping someone out in dire circumstances. What I do object to is when it becomes a way of life. When a person becomes so dependent on support, that they lose the motivation to become self-reliant. Why do you think someone in need of financial assistance won't walk down the street, knock on doors and for a hand-out, but is OK with the govt. doing it for them? edited to add. I'm still waiting for your proof of my "right wing" agenda. Agenda being defined as a myriad of agreements with the "right wing", whatever you think that is. I agree with you on welfare mostly, but for a few it is the only way they can survive. Those who can work and earn a livavle wage should do so. Maybe you aren't a total right-winger, but you seem to lean in that direction. I have no proof, and don't give a shit enough to read throughyour previous posts, but I just remember you responding like a right winger on several issues. So, I guess you're voting for Hillary? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #14 June 19, 2006 QuoteZipp0 & miked10270: per capita the USA gives less than many industrialized nations - that is true. Think again. An Exceptional Nation Is it a coincidence one of the world's freest, most entrepreneurial, and most religious nations is also the world's most philanthropic nation? Americans donate like no other people, whether you look at total donations, per capita giving, size of gifts, or types of giving. And as our wealth increases, so does our generosity. Two writers for England's Economist magazine just wrote a book about America's differences from the rest of the world, and one important difference they note is the way Americans give. After noting that we give far larger proportions of our income to charity, they write, "Crucially, Americans much prefer to give away their money themselves, rather than let their government do it.... This tradition of philanthropy encouraged America to tackle its social problems without building a European-style welfare state, and to embrace modernity without abandoning its traditions of voluntarism, decentralization and experiment." Similarly, American philanthropist Daniel Rose observed last year that the French "are bemused to learn that American private charitable contributions this year will exceed $200 billion, equal to about 10 percent of the total federal budget; that some 70 percent of U.S. households make charitable cash contributions; and that over half of all U.S. adults will volunteer an estimated 20 billion hours in charitable activities." Nor, Rose adds, are the French alone in their astonishment: "A recent German study reports that on a per capita basis, American citizens contribute to charity nearly seven times as much as their German counterparts and that about six times as many Americans as Germans do volunteer work." In short, American philanthropy is extraordinary by any world standard, and the reason is that America herself is exceptional...Source: Philanthropy Magazine Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #15 June 19, 2006 I find myself in agreement with JR. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #16 June 19, 2006 Here's some without the fluff or arrogance: Private US contributions worldwide dwarf that of the rest of the world. On top of that, the US is the top contributor to the UN budget at 22%. How's that?! btw: GO USA!!So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #17 June 19, 2006 You're simply the best .... lalalala... better than all the rest .....lalalala... Tina Turner Her show several years ago near to my home town was wonderful! dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #18 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteZipp0 & miked10270: per capita the USA gives less than many industrialized nations - that is true. Think again. An Exceptional Nation Is it a coincidence one of the world's freest, most entrepreneurial, and most religious nations is also the world's most philanthropic nation? Americans donate like no other people, whether you look at total donations, per capita giving, size of gifts, or types of giving. And as our wealth increases, so does our generosity. Two writers for England's Economist magazine just wrote a book about America's differences from the rest of the world, and one important difference they note is the way Americans give. After noting that we give far larger proportions of our income to charity, they write, "Crucially, Americans much prefer to give away their money themselves, rather than let their government do it.... This tradition of philanthropy encouraged America to tackle its social problems without building a European-style welfare state, and to embrace modernity without abandoning its traditions of voluntarism, decentralization and experiment." Similarly, American philanthropist Daniel Rose observed last year that the French "are bemused to learn that American private charitable contributions this year will exceed $200 billion, equal to about 10 percent of the total federal budget; that some 70 percent of U.S. households make charitable cash contributions; and that over half of all U.S. adults will volunteer an estimated 20 billion hours in charitable activities." Nor, Rose adds, are the French alone in their astonishment: "A recent German study reports that on a per capita basis, American citizens contribute to charity nearly seven times as much as their German counterparts and that about six times as many Americans as Germans do volunteer work." In short, American philanthropy is extraordinary by any world standard, and the reason is that America herself is exceptional...Source: Philanthropy Magazine Ow, thats gotta hurt!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #19 June 19, 2006 QuoteHere's some without the fluff or arrogance: Private US contributions worldwide dwarf that of the rest of the world. On top of that, the US is the top contributor to the UN budget at 22%. How's that?! Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... btw: GO USA!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #20 June 19, 2006 QuoteOw, thats gotta hurt! Can't have it both ways. It either helps, or it causes even worse dependence. If our normal assumption at the individual level also applies at the nation level, then the US is fostering a world wide dependent welfare state totally relying on our good will. On an individual level, you find the people develop and entitlement attitude, but want more and more, eventually trying to force additional "charity" through blackmail tactics and public/media pressure. The individual also starts to seriously resent their 'benefactor' despite his original good intentions, and despite their original need. Eventually, every single set back and woe for the receiver gets blamed, rightly or not, on their 'sponsor'. Thank goodness this doesn't happen at the national level also. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #21 June 19, 2006 Quote Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... Oh yeah, a story stating that Americans are generous really hurts! But also, I have read many stories citing other stats that say the opposite. What it comes down to is it's much easier to quantify government aid than private charity. For instance, is all that money getting to the recipient, or is a high percentage paying admin costs of the respective charities? Some charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. And really, the thread was going in the direction of welfare/social programs paid for by taxes vs. paying for these kinds of things with charitable gifts. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #22 June 19, 2006 >It either helps, or it causes even worse dependence. Depends on how it's used. Consider using $1000 to dig a well, or buy $1000 worth of corn for an impoverished country. The well might last 100 years, and help them grow their _own_ corn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #23 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuote Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... Oh yeah, a story stating that Americans are generous really hurts! But also, I have read many stories citing other stats that say the opposite. What it comes down to is it's much easier to quantify government aid than private charity. For instance, is all that money getting to the recipient, or is a high percentage paying admin costs of the respective charities? Some charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. And really, the thread was going in the direction of welfare/social programs paid for by taxes vs. paying for these kinds of things with charitable gifts. It would be interesting to compare the overhead associated with charities, compared with the overhead associated with welfare paid for by taxes. I have become very selective about what I donate to after some of the 90% overhead "charities" have been exposed. In addition it may be worth mentioning that not all charitable donations go to "good works". A big donation to the local symphony orchestra or opera counts, but doesn't feed and clothe the poor. Then there are the big donations to colleges that, perchance, shortly thereafter admit your unqualified idiot grandson under a legacy program.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #24 June 19, 2006 QuoteSome charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. Like the (giving and receiving) governments and the UN? I like Kallend's last comments, it would be nice to see those stats on charitable orgs (including governement) to help with my choices when making non-government-forced donations. And those stats would have to come from an independent org, not just what those groups self-profess ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #25 June 19, 2006 Quote>It either helps, or it causes even worse dependence. Depends on how it's used. Consider using $1000 to dig a well, or buy $1000 worth of corn for an impoverished country. The well might last 100 years, and help them grow their _own_ corn. what? you work for the army purchasing corp? For a LOT less, you can LOAN the village a shovel ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Gravitymaster 0 #4 June 19, 2006 QuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #5 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union. Yeah, only those damn communist states have taxes and social programs. Your intended message was transparent to those who understand your agenda. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #6 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union.Eminent domain comes to mindI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #7 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union.Eminent domain comes to mind I agree. Another liberal interpetation by the SCOTUS designed to confiscate assets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #8 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis is just his way of saying "See, we don't need welfare, or any other social programs, people will donate all the money privately if you ask." Right. Better to have the government force people to give through confiscation of their hard earned assets. That's the way it was done in the old Soviet Union. Yeah, only those damn communist states have taxes and social programs. Your intended message was transparent to those who understand your agenda. In this case it was to point out that forced confiscation of assets is wrong and is usually done by dictatorial, repressive governments. Not surprising that you find it acceptable. Also not surprising you attack the person, not the message. But then again we understand your agenda too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #9 June 19, 2006 QuoteAlso not surprising you attack the person, not the message. But then again we understand your agenda too. When I say 'your agenda' I mean the right wingers. As far as eminent domain goes, had you actually asked me, I would tell you that I detest the recent rulings respecting eminent domain. In all but the most extreme circumstances, I don' t like it. But as your post was about charitable giving, my brain did not make the leap somehow to eminent domain. As far as confiscation goes, I see a distinct differences between taxes used to cultivate a sustainable society and the taking of someone's home to make way for business interests. People the world over have understood for centuries that taxes are necessary, and if handled responsibly, help create a better society for all residents. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't expect roads, a military, education for your kids, police, or many other beneficial services. You can move to a desert island, pay no taxes, and be perfectly happy in your straw hut. Zipp0 -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #10 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteAlso not surprising you attack the person, not the message. But then again we understand your agenda too. When I say 'your agenda' I mean the right wingers. As far as eminent domain goes, had you actually asked me, I would tell you that I detest the recent rulings respecting eminent domain. In all but the most extreme circumstances, I don' t like it. But as your post was about charitable giving, my brain did not make the leap somehow to eminent domain. As far as confiscation goes, I see a distinct differences between taxes used to cultivate a sustainable society and the taking of someone's home to make way for business interests. People the world over have understood for centuries that taxes are necessary, and if handled responsibly, help create a better society for all residents. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't expect roads, a military, education for your kids, police, or many other beneficial services. You can move to a desert island, pay no taxes, and be perfectly happy in your straw hut. Zipp0 Please tell me which of my views line up with what you consider "right wingers." Include my views on abortion, guns, religion etc. My post wasn't just about charitable giving. It was about the impropriety of confiscation of people assets, whether it be money to use for charitable purposes or property to increase tax revenues. I have never disageed with the use of tax money to build necessary infrastructure. What I do disagree with is forced charitable giving, which you don't seem to have a problem with. Where do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #11 June 19, 2006 QuoteWhere do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Uh, hell no! I'd be inside with as much firepower as I could muster. To me, your home is sacred. I guess maybe it depends what you consider charitable. Would you consider welfare charitable? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhere do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Uh, hell no! I'd be inside with as much firepower as I could muster. To me, your home is sacred. I guess maybe it depends what you consider charitable. Would you consider welfare charitable? I have no problem with helping someone out in dire circumstances. What I do object to is when it becomes a way of life. When a person becomes so dependent on support, that they lose the motivation to become self-reliant. Why do you think someone in need of financial assistance won't walk down the street, knock on doors and for a hand-out, but is OK with the govt. doing it for them? edited to add. I'm still waiting for your proof of my "right wing" agenda. Agenda being defined as a myriad of agreements with the "right wing", whatever you think that is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #13 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhere do you draw the line, then? Is it OK with you if the government confiscates your home for charity? Uh, hell no! I'd be inside with as much firepower as I could muster. To me, your home is sacred. I guess maybe it depends what you consider charitable. Would you consider welfare charitable? I have no problem with helping someone out in dire circumstances. What I do object to is when it becomes a way of life. When a person becomes so dependent on support, that they lose the motivation to become self-reliant. Why do you think someone in need of financial assistance won't walk down the street, knock on doors and for a hand-out, but is OK with the govt. doing it for them? edited to add. I'm still waiting for your proof of my "right wing" agenda. Agenda being defined as a myriad of agreements with the "right wing", whatever you think that is. I agree with you on welfare mostly, but for a few it is the only way they can survive. Those who can work and earn a livavle wage should do so. Maybe you aren't a total right-winger, but you seem to lean in that direction. I have no proof, and don't give a shit enough to read throughyour previous posts, but I just remember you responding like a right winger on several issues. So, I guess you're voting for Hillary? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #14 June 19, 2006 QuoteZipp0 & miked10270: per capita the USA gives less than many industrialized nations - that is true. Think again. An Exceptional Nation Is it a coincidence one of the world's freest, most entrepreneurial, and most religious nations is also the world's most philanthropic nation? Americans donate like no other people, whether you look at total donations, per capita giving, size of gifts, or types of giving. And as our wealth increases, so does our generosity. Two writers for England's Economist magazine just wrote a book about America's differences from the rest of the world, and one important difference they note is the way Americans give. After noting that we give far larger proportions of our income to charity, they write, "Crucially, Americans much prefer to give away their money themselves, rather than let their government do it.... This tradition of philanthropy encouraged America to tackle its social problems without building a European-style welfare state, and to embrace modernity without abandoning its traditions of voluntarism, decentralization and experiment." Similarly, American philanthropist Daniel Rose observed last year that the French "are bemused to learn that American private charitable contributions this year will exceed $200 billion, equal to about 10 percent of the total federal budget; that some 70 percent of U.S. households make charitable cash contributions; and that over half of all U.S. adults will volunteer an estimated 20 billion hours in charitable activities." Nor, Rose adds, are the French alone in their astonishment: "A recent German study reports that on a per capita basis, American citizens contribute to charity nearly seven times as much as their German counterparts and that about six times as many Americans as Germans do volunteer work." In short, American philanthropy is extraordinary by any world standard, and the reason is that America herself is exceptional...Source: Philanthropy Magazine Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #15 June 19, 2006 I find myself in agreement with JR. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #16 June 19, 2006 Here's some without the fluff or arrogance: Private US contributions worldwide dwarf that of the rest of the world. On top of that, the US is the top contributor to the UN budget at 22%. How's that?! btw: GO USA!!So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #17 June 19, 2006 You're simply the best .... lalalala... better than all the rest .....lalalala... Tina Turner Her show several years ago near to my home town was wonderful! dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #18 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteZipp0 & miked10270: per capita the USA gives less than many industrialized nations - that is true. Think again. An Exceptional Nation Is it a coincidence one of the world's freest, most entrepreneurial, and most religious nations is also the world's most philanthropic nation? Americans donate like no other people, whether you look at total donations, per capita giving, size of gifts, or types of giving. And as our wealth increases, so does our generosity. Two writers for England's Economist magazine just wrote a book about America's differences from the rest of the world, and one important difference they note is the way Americans give. After noting that we give far larger proportions of our income to charity, they write, "Crucially, Americans much prefer to give away their money themselves, rather than let their government do it.... This tradition of philanthropy encouraged America to tackle its social problems without building a European-style welfare state, and to embrace modernity without abandoning its traditions of voluntarism, decentralization and experiment." Similarly, American philanthropist Daniel Rose observed last year that the French "are bemused to learn that American private charitable contributions this year will exceed $200 billion, equal to about 10 percent of the total federal budget; that some 70 percent of U.S. households make charitable cash contributions; and that over half of all U.S. adults will volunteer an estimated 20 billion hours in charitable activities." Nor, Rose adds, are the French alone in their astonishment: "A recent German study reports that on a per capita basis, American citizens contribute to charity nearly seven times as much as their German counterparts and that about six times as many Americans as Germans do volunteer work." In short, American philanthropy is extraordinary by any world standard, and the reason is that America herself is exceptional...Source: Philanthropy Magazine Ow, thats gotta hurt!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #19 June 19, 2006 QuoteHere's some without the fluff or arrogance: Private US contributions worldwide dwarf that of the rest of the world. On top of that, the US is the top contributor to the UN budget at 22%. How's that?! Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... btw: GO USA!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #20 June 19, 2006 QuoteOw, thats gotta hurt! Can't have it both ways. It either helps, or it causes even worse dependence. If our normal assumption at the individual level also applies at the nation level, then the US is fostering a world wide dependent welfare state totally relying on our good will. On an individual level, you find the people develop and entitlement attitude, but want more and more, eventually trying to force additional "charity" through blackmail tactics and public/media pressure. The individual also starts to seriously resent their 'benefactor' despite his original good intentions, and despite their original need. Eventually, every single set back and woe for the receiver gets blamed, rightly or not, on their 'sponsor'. Thank goodness this doesn't happen at the national level also. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #21 June 19, 2006 Quote Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... Oh yeah, a story stating that Americans are generous really hurts! But also, I have read many stories citing other stats that say the opposite. What it comes down to is it's much easier to quantify government aid than private charity. For instance, is all that money getting to the recipient, or is a high percentage paying admin costs of the respective charities? Some charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. And really, the thread was going in the direction of welfare/social programs paid for by taxes vs. paying for these kinds of things with charitable gifts. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #22 June 19, 2006 >It either helps, or it causes even worse dependence. Depends on how it's used. Consider using $1000 to dig a well, or buy $1000 worth of corn for an impoverished country. The well might last 100 years, and help them grow their _own_ corn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #23 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuote Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... Oh yeah, a story stating that Americans are generous really hurts! But also, I have read many stories citing other stats that say the opposite. What it comes down to is it's much easier to quantify government aid than private charity. For instance, is all that money getting to the recipient, or is a high percentage paying admin costs of the respective charities? Some charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. And really, the thread was going in the direction of welfare/social programs paid for by taxes vs. paying for these kinds of things with charitable gifts. It would be interesting to compare the overhead associated with charities, compared with the overhead associated with welfare paid for by taxes. I have become very selective about what I donate to after some of the 90% overhead "charities" have been exposed. In addition it may be worth mentioning that not all charitable donations go to "good works". A big donation to the local symphony orchestra or opera counts, but doesn't feed and clothe the poor. Then there are the big donations to colleges that, perchance, shortly thereafter admit your unqualified idiot grandson under a legacy program.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #24 June 19, 2006 QuoteSome charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. Like the (giving and receiving) governments and the UN? I like Kallend's last comments, it would be nice to see those stats on charitable orgs (including governement) to help with my choices when making non-government-forced donations. And those stats would have to come from an independent org, not just what those groups self-profess ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #25 June 19, 2006 Quote>It either helps, or it causes even worse dependence. Depends on how it's used. Consider using $1000 to dig a well, or buy $1000 worth of corn for an impoverished country. The well might last 100 years, and help them grow their _own_ corn. what? you work for the army purchasing corp? For a LOT less, you can LOAN the village a shovel ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
