DescentBB

Americans donated a record $306bn (£155bn) to charity last year, despite worries over the state of the US economy, an annual study has found.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7468835.stm


And this number does not include what we give to Governments and Nations in trade incentives. Our country is a wreck we need to curb some of this and invest in our own infrastructure before its to late.

I could use a few million.

OK then I'll take the rest

LOL

NO NO NO!!!!

infrastructure not greasy handouts.

Cuda68 wrote:Our country is a wreck we need to curb some of this and invest in our own infrastructure before its to late.

Where would you curb it?

(I'm interested, because it's often the decent charities, the ones who are actually doing the really good work and saving lives, who get hit the hardest by funding cuts.)

On a personal level - The Arabs would be my first choice, what the heck are we giving them money for. They have tons of money, except for the Afgans and Iraqies that is. We have a moral obligation there. We destroyed them, so we should put them back together.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/ ... 1621.shtml

On a more practical level - A complete evaluation of where the money is going needs to be done and decisions on cut backs can then be made.

The important thing here is that the 300 bil was by private citizens. So much for the \"Americans are crass self centered infidels\"

Figures, yay!
Okay, so let's see... with a population of about 306 million, and GDP of 13.8 trillion, that would mean...
$1000 donated per person
2% of GDP donated.

2% is somewhat worrying though...

woodchip wrote:The important thing here is that the 300 bil was by private citizens.

Exactly. It seems like the point trying to be made in the OP is that the US is using too much of its revenue on foreign aid. But, that's not what the linked article is about. Am I missing something?

If I want to give away some (or ALL) of the money I'm left with after taxes, what business is it of anyone else's?

TIGERassault wrote:Figures, yay!
Okay, so let's see... with a population of about 306 million, and GDP of 13.8 trillion, that would mean...
$1000 donated per person
2% of GDP donated.

2% is somewhat worrying though...

Thats great. Since its such a low number lets do away with it all and invest it in our infrastructure. OR We could stop paying Ireland the 10 million plus we give them every year and then move onto the others that don't need it.

Herculosis wrote:It seems like the point trying to be made in the OP is that the US is using too much of its revenue on foreign aid. But, that's not what the linked article is about.
...If I want to give away some (or ALL) of the money I'm left with after taxes, what business is it of anyone else's?

Good point, I had missed that.

I understand the desire to curb governmental charity, but the $300billion+ mentioned here is private charity.

Also, it should be noted that a huge chunk of that private charitable giving went to organizations within the US.

So now I'm confused. Cuda68, are you asking that private citizens like me who donate within the US curb our donations?

Cuda68 wrote:On a personal level - The Arabs would be my first choice, what the heck are we giving them money for. They have tons of money, except for the Afgans and Iraqies that is. We have a moral obligation there. We destroyed them, so we should put them back together.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/ ... 1621.shtml

On a more practical level - A complete evaluation of where the money is going needs to be done and decisions on cut backs can then be made.

This is exactly what I am saying. The overseas donations need better monitoring. We give away allot of money to countries that don't need it. We have our own poor to educate, house and feed, and the numbers are growing.

You want to control/restrict private overseas donations, then?

I personally think that's a bad, bad idea. For example, what about international crises, like the recent tsunami? Even if you made exceptions for those cases, the private charitable organizations would still have to go through considerable 'red tape' just to be able to help.

The last thing we need are artificial controls on private giving. A much better idea would be a way to find incentives for private organizations to invest more locally.

Foil, you want to allow free and unfettered donations given to questionable charities that support terrorists?

TIGERassault wrote:Figures, yay!
Okay, so let's see... with a population of about 306 million, and GDP of 13.8 trillion, that would mean...
$1000 donated per person
2% of GDP donated.

2% is somewhat worrying though...

Just how much did you give last year?

Foil wrote:You want to control/restrict private overseas donations, then?

I personally think that's a bad, bad idea. For example, what about international crises, like the recent tsunami? Even if you made exceptions for those cases, the private charitable organizations would still have to go through considerable 'red tape' just to be able to help.

The last thing we need are artificial controls on private giving. A much better idea would be a way to find incentives for private organizations to invest more locally.

That's a very, very good thought. Wonder what other idea's are out there?

We need to give more of our charity to foreign nations. We get a much larger return on our charity by giving to those in more need. Giving to us... better streets? Give charity to them... fewer people dying of hunger. Is this even a real comparison? Our gifts go much further when given to those outside of our borders.

Jeff250 wrote:We need to give more of our charity to foreign nations. We get a much larger return on our charity by giving to those in more need. Giving to us... better streets? Give charity to them... fewer people dying of hunger. Is this even a real comparison? Our gifts go much further when given to those outside of our borders.

My argument or view on that is we as a country are in bad shape and the pot is only so big. If we keep going down hill at the pace we are now, how much longer will we be able to fill the pot. Should we not fix or invest in ourselves so in the long run we can go back to giving these amounts sooner vrs it dwindling each year for X amount of years?

But that prompts other question's - How much of this charity stays and goes abroad and how much of that is waste?

I have had a very hard time finding these facts. I have only looked at a few country's who in my mind really don't need it.

Cuda68 wrote:My argument or view on that is we as a country are in bad shape and the pot is only so big. If we keep going down hill at the pace we are now, how much longer will we be able to fill the pot.

Who should charities be giving to to prevent this?

That's one of the question's that prompted me to start this thread. One of the others I hoped to get answered is what is the approx breakdown of what goes overseas and what stay's here?

When this thread is all said and done I intend to write my congressman on this subject. But that depends on how foolish this ends up or can good suggestions be tossed out through this excursion.

My sister ended up on public assistance in NJ as she was a single mother with one child and a dead beat husband who vanished. What they did was to offer her a basic collage education, housing, food and transportation. As soon as she graduated she had a few months more assistance to find a job and then she was off it for good. Most people just need the leg up, but that leg up is very hard to find.

Our country should come first. Our people should come first. We may have it far better than most of the world, I agree. But if they want what we have, they can fight for it themselves.

Jeff250, thanks for pointing that out.

I certainly agree that there are needs here, but the last thing we should do is start ignoring the really desperate human needs elsewhere.

Kyouryuu wrote:Our country should come first. Our people should come first.

I've been hearing that sentiment more and more lately. At first it seemed to be a good patriotic thing, but the more I hear it, it's beginning to sound callous and selfish.

Under what moral structure can we say that the need to support 'our infrastructure / economy / etc.' outweighs the need to help others survive?

Foil wrote:Under what moral structure can we say that the need to support 'our infrastructure / economy / etc.' outweighs the need to help others survive?

I think if we could have more confidence that our donations went to giving someone a "leg up" as Cuda68 described instead of filling the pantry of some warlords army or endlessly feeding crumbs to a country full of starving people who will never change their own fatal predicament because they believe having sex with virgins will cure their AIDs symptoms then we wouldn't wonder if our charity was being wasted...

I was just watching a show, where they were finding a huge waste of American medical aid…made me think of this thread.

Foil wrote:Under what moral structure can we say that the need to support 'our infrastructure / economy / etc.' outweighs the need to help others survive?

Morals? You make the decision to support yourself every day. That movie you watched, the game you bought, the computer you own, the electricity you pay for. Unless you're living in a box on the street, you are most likely better off than most of the third world. What does that say about your moral structure?

Makes no sense to me to feed your neighbor while your children go hungry. A person or country should help others out of their abundance, not when their becoming beggars themselves.

Kyouryuu wrote:

Foil wrote:Under what moral structure can we say that the need to support 'our infrastructure / economy / etc.' outweighs the need to help others survive?

Morals? You make the decision to support yourself every day. That movie you watched, the game you bought, the computer you own, the electricity you pay for. Unless you're living in a box on the street, you are most likely better off than most of the third world. What does that say about your moral structure?

Living in a box is exactly what concerns me. The country is on a downward trend and dearly needs to be reversed. More and more people are on unemployment, layoffs all over the place and downsizing is across the board. Every business owner or manager I meet is stressing over his/her bottom line. We send a huge amount of money over seas instead of investing in ourselves. I see no wrong in this when we are in such bad shape. When we are stable or moving forward again we can send money to them. To me its just proper managing of the money.

Everyone is making this so complicated. This thread is about people who already voluntarily give to charity and which charity they should give to. It's not about making anyone, such as \"beggars\" or people with \"starving children,\" give to charity. The question is, if you're going to give to charity, which charity should you give to?

The best charity to give to is going to be the one that delivers the most good per dollar donated. Surely everyone will agree thus far. As I said earlier, we get a much larger return on our charity by giving to those in more need. It's the principle of diminishing returns. The more money someone has, the less good it does to give them more.

I'd suggest the Red Cross. From what I hear, They are already broke =/.

Agreed.

And for the record, the original thread topic is about private charity, which is certainly more effective than the way our government distributes aid.

If you believe that governmental aid should be reformed, I'd agree. Much too much of it goes to filling pockets and is never seen by those who need it most.

However, I heartily disagree about curbing international aid through private organizations (like the Red Cross)... it needs to go to the areas where it is most desperately needed, period.

If you ask me, charities should be focused primarily on giving clean water and food to the people who physically need it; and for people who want to help out with physical labour, building houses for those that don't have any. There's no real way that can go to waste.
And I still think that the military budget would be better spent on Cuda's infrastructure problem than charity.

Although speaking of infrastructure, the whole country would probably be much easier to manage if it weren't for the cities being so bloody damn massive! I mean, look at it: you've got 8 times as much space per person than the UK on average (US: 30/Km^2, UK: 240/Km^2), there is no need for people to be piled into cities with a population density of over 1,000/Km^2; it's outrageous!

Something I heard this morning. With Obama's new tax plan of taxing the rich more and corporations more, do you think private donations will go up or down after Lord Hussein gets his way?

TIGERassault wrote:If you ask me, charities should be focused primarily on giving clean water and food to the people who physically need it; and for people who want to help out with physical labour, building houses for those that don't have any. There's no real way that can go to waste.
And I still think that the military budget would be better spent on Cuda's infrastructure problem than charity.

Although speaking of infrastructure, the whole country would probably be much easier to manage if it weren't for the cities being so bloody damn massive! I mean, look at it: you've got 8 times as much space per person than the UK on average (US: 30/Km^2, UK: 240/Km^2), there is no need for people to be piled into cities with a population density of over 1,000/Km^2; it's outrageous!

You raise good points. Your from outside the country so your perspective is interesting (sometimes )

TIGERassault wrote: Although speaking of infrastructure, the whole country would probably be much easier to manage if it weren't for the cities being so bloody damn massive! I mean, look at it: you've got 8 times as much space per person than the UK on average (US: 30/Km^2, UK: 240/Km^2), there is no need for people to be piled into cities with a population density of over 1,000/Km^2; it's outrageous!

They call that “sprawl”…something to be avoided for sure, and you actually need more infrastructure for a more spread out population.