Americans Are Stingy

[Aladdin Sane]

In another thread we discussed the incredible amount the United States spends on defense--as much as all other countries combined. It's very politically correct to disparage the U.S. I suspect that's why the following story is rarely discussed.
Where does the American generosity come from? Please discuss.

Sweet Charity
The American people are extraordinarily generous.

Saturday, December 24, 2005 12:01 a.m.

Americans are "stingy." This was the accusation hurled at the U.S. almost exactly one year ago today by Jan Egeland, United Nations Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs, immediately after the Asian tsunami disaster.

Even by U.N. standards, it was a particularly absurd anti-American slur--although it no doubt expresses the view of many foreign elites, who have come to believe that government is the only true source of goodness and charity. In the weeks and months that followed the tsunami, American citizens dug deep into their wallets, donating some $1.78 billion to the relief effort in Asia--dwarfing the contributions of other developed nations. Since October Americans have also contributed $78 million to assist the casualties of the Pakistan earthquake.

And lest there be any doubt that the Good Samaritan ethic is alive and well in America, consider the latest totals of charitable giving to help the New Orleans victims of Hurricane Katrina. The Center for Philanthropy at Indiana University announced last week that the total value of private donations in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has reached $3.12 billion, thus "setting what is believed to be a record for a single disaster and recovery effort." This tsunami of aid dollars was donated in just three and a half months.

More astounding still is that this Gulf Coast aid is only a little more than 1/100th of what Americans donate to charities and churches every year. The quarter trillion dollars a year that Americans provide to sustain the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, the American Cancer Society, their local churches, universities and such is greater than the entire GDP of most countries. Bill and Melinda Gates have given more dollars to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa than have many nations. And all of this comes on top of the $1 trillion in taxes that Americans pay each year to support government income-transfer and benefit programs.

This generosity in money and volunteerism has been a hallmark of American society since its earliest days. Some 150 years ago Alexis de Tocqueville lauded the impulse of Americans (in contrast to Europeans) to set up churches, schools, orphanages, hospitals, homeless shelters and other civic aid organizations throughout the land.

What impels Americans to engage in such kindness to strangers? We suspect that Americans give to private charities because they recognize that these initiatives work best. Bobby Jindal, a Congressman from New Orleans whose own home was badly damaged by flood waters, tells us that "by far the most effective relief efforts have come from private charitable aid organizations. FEMA and other state/local government agencies set up bureaucracies and red tape, while private businesses and charities moved in swiftly to alleviate the human suffering on the ground."

Mr. Jindal tells the story of an elderly woman who dropped off a white envelope at a county sheriff's office in Louisiana filled with eight single dollar bills and a note of apology saying that this was all she could afford to give. Another woman wrote a quarter-million-dollar relief check with only one stipulation: that her generous act remain anonymous.

There is a mythology in the philanthropic world that Americans are motivated to give by the somewhat selfish pursuit of a tax deduction. But a surprisingly large percentage of charitable gifts aren't even itemized on tax forms. Moreover, the Tax Foundation has provided compelling evidence that over the past 50 years--as tax rates on the highest earners have fluctuated from a high of 90% to a low of 28%--American giving has hardly deviated from 2% of personal income. In the 1980s, as tax-rate reductions reduced the value of the charitable tax deduction by about half, the level of charitable giving nearly doubled. This suggests that charitable giving would continue to flourish under a flat-rate tax system with no deduction.

Which brings us back to the charge that Americans are Scrooges in providing international aid. The World Bank recently lectured the U.S. government to double its level of foreign aid. Never mind that the U.S. is now spending tens of billions of dollars in what is nothing if not a massive humanitarian mission to restore civil society and democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. And never mind the humanitarian aid provided by the U.S. military in Pakistan and after the tsunami.

But yes, it's true, that when it comes to funding self-serving bureaucracies that don't produce results--such as much of the U.N. and most other multi-government foreign-aid schemes--Americans are skeptics. For good reason. Study after study has documented that there is no correlation between the amount of foreign assistance a nation receives and its subsequent rate of economic development. Think Africa, which has received hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to little positive effect. This suggests that the optimal amount of U.S. government development aid may be zero.

But at the same time, when it comes to private Good Samaritan undertakings that do alleviate poverty and despair, Americans are second to none, giving three to four times the amount of "official" foreign aid, according to Ian Vasquez of the Cato Institute's Global Liberty Project. That's not stingy. It's smart.

Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

In another thread we discussed the incredible amount the United States spends on defense--as much as all other countries combined. It's very politically correct to disparage the U.S. I suspect that's why the following story is rarely discussed.
Where does the American generosity come from? Please discuss.

On average:

90% Guilt.
10% Love of fellow man.

ratio varies depending on the wealth of the individual. Real poor people give primarily for love, real rich people give primarily due to guilt.

[Elphaba]

TIME magazine's Persons of the Year were the Gates and Bono for their remarkable contributions to ending poverty. There was additional praise for #41 and #42. It was a good read.

[Seaver]

On average:

90% Guilt.
10% Love of fellow man.

Amazing how you can put your political theory into the hearts of those who give.

It wasn't guilt that made me donate $200 to both the tsunami and Pakistani disasters (each) while I had to eat Raman noodles for a few weeks because I couldnt afford anything else. It's not guilt that makes me volunteer every other weekend to Habitat for Humanity.

I'd venture to say that the majority of American who give are doing it out of your miniscule 10%. And that it's the 10% of Americans who give out of guilt or other reasons (tax rebates).

[hammer4all]

Actually, I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. is stingy compared to other western nations even when taking into account our private sector because government aid is so pathetically small.

http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiat...omponents/aid/

There is a really good web page with more details on the subject here:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by hammer4all

Actually, I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. is stingy compared to other western nations even when taking into account our private sector because government aid is so pathetically small.

http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiat...omponents/aid/

There is a really good web page with more details on the subject here:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

I looked at that site, and it seems designed merely as a way to show how supposedly little the US gives. It seemed to measure nothing but gov't aid. And also, they seemed to have a bunch of arbitrary designations about which aid was counted higher than others.

[Cynthetiq]

could be...

I've been less generous these past 7 years after many scandals of people in non-profits like Covenant House here in NYC embezzling and stealing funds to the tune of millions of dollars. Couple that with finding out that some NPOs pay their executives some pretty lofty salaries, I'm not so interested in giving to that kind of machine.

[Poppinjay]

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I looked at that site, and it seems designed merely as a way to show how supposedly little the US gives. It seemed to measure nothing but gov't aid. And also, they seemed to have a bunch of arbitrary designations about which aid was counted higher than others.

Additionally, the CGDEV chart doesn't give stat definitions. They list the USA as giving about 3. 3 what? 3 billion? 3 percent of the budget? I can certainly believe that most western nations outpace the US in terms of percent of budget for foreign aid, just like the US budget is larger than several western nations combined.

The other site makes a big deal about the US tying aid to directives. Here are some oppressive directives we associate with aid:

Use some of the aid to implement earthquake detection devices

Don't oppress women and ethnic minorities

Implement scrubbers in your industrial areas

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Additionally, the CGDEV chart doesn't give stat definitions. They list the USA as giving about 3. 3 what? 3 billion? 3 percent of the budget? I can certainly believe that most western nations outpace the US in terms of percent of budget for foreign aid, just like the US budget is larger than several western nations combined.

The other site makes a big deal about the US tying aid to directives. Here are some oppressive directives we associate with aid:

Use some of the aid to implement earthquake detection devices

Don't oppress women and ethnic minorities

Implement scrubbers in your industrial areas

I took it to be percent of GDP, but I guess it could just as easily have been samarionians, or some other made-up measure of giving

[Seaver]

Hammer, did you even READ that article? They pick and chose which aids can count and by how much.

They didnt count our aid to Russia, to Israel, to Pakistan (how many hundred million dont count all of a sudden from the earthquake relief?), etc.

It's also amazing that those countries that pay a higher % are the exact same ones who get military technology through NATO paid by us.

Easy to make us look stingy when you dont count 90% of our aid, or the aid we give to the "generous" countries above us on the list.

[hammer4all]

Originally Posted by Seaver

Hammer, did you even READ that article? They pick and chose which aids can count and by how much.

Yeah, they actually try to look at the quality of the aid given. How revolutionary.

They didnt count our aid to Russia, to Israel, to Pakistan (how many hundred million dont count all of a sudden from the earthquake relief?), etc.

It's also amazing that those countries that pay a higher % are the exact same ones who get military technology through NATO paid by us.

Easy to make us look stingy when you dont count 90% of our aid, or the aid we give to the "generous" countries above us on the list.

This is why I included the second link. Even when including all the corporate welfare congress dishes out, the U.S. government still only gives .16 percent of GDP, far less then the agreed upon target of .7 percent promised by rich countries at the earth summit in 1992.

[Charlatan]

I'm not going to dispute the number as I don't have the research to counter or suport it at this time...

I will however say that the peice itself displays a certain bent toward a conservative point of view...

It's disparagment of government aid (vs. private charity) is a bit specious.


Besides, the US is stingy remark was, in context, not inacurate. At the time the US official had made the statement (with specific reference to the Tsunami), the US had not even come close to donating the amount they went on to make.

I remember seeing him live and in context.

[Stare At The Sun]

I hate to say this, but I am NOT my brothers keeper.

I feel no obligation to donate, nor should anyone else. If you make that choice, that is fine, but don't bring my morality into question!

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Stare At The Sun

I hate to say this, but I am NOT my brothers keeper.

I feel no obligation to donate, nor should anyone else. If you make that choice, that is fine, but don't bring my morality into question!

The Homer Simpson in me agrees, but the realist in me says that all I have I have because of the work I have done and the generosity of others. If I see others doing hard work, I tend to want to give them as much as I can.

[Stare At The Sun]

Originally Posted by willravel

The Homer Simpson in me agrees, but the realist in me says that all I have I have because of the work I have done and the generosity of others. If I see others doing hard work, I tend to want to give them as much as I can.

It has nothing to do with being lazy. It's the fact that people should not rely on others for acts of charity. Its a matter of principle, not money or effort.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Stare At The Sun

It has nothing to do with being lazy. It's the fact that people should not rely on others for acts of charity. Its a matter of principle, not money or effort.

The Homer Simpson comment was not intended to suggest lazyness, despite the characters obvious lethargy. When Homer comes into contact with a situation dealing with charity, he actively works against it. His princeple is that charity is wrong to force on people, and that people would try to force him into it makes him angry and actively work to it's detriment. Remember when Homer writes down Flanders name in an auction, as a joke (in order to make Flanders pay for something he doesn't want or need), only to find that he bid $50 on a $100 bill, AND THEN Flanders donates it to charity. Homer falls to his knees in frustration. I was trying, and aparently didn't do well, to explain that I also feel that it is wrong to try and guilt charity from people. That's contrary to the nature of giving.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I'm not going to dispute the number as I don't have the research to counter or suport it at this time...

I will however say that the peice itself displays a certain bent toward a conservative point of view...

It's disparagment of government aid (vs. private charity) is a bit specious.

Those damn conservatives, making things all bendy.

I mean heck, all good comes from government right? Only a conservative would think that people would do good things without government intervention!

[MoonDog]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Besides, the US is stingy remark was, in context, not inacurate. At the time the US official had made the statement (with specific reference to the Tsunami), the US had not even come close to donating the amount they went on to make.

I remember seeing him live and in context.

Yes, I remember seeing that as well, and I couldn't help but think to myself that it had been less than a week since the disaster, and while opinion was that the amount of aid needed was going to be HUGE, no one had any idea how much might actually be appropriate to pledge. Once reliable information began to be processed, the US stepped up with pledges above and beyond the $300 million (if I remember correctly) that was originally offered. And, could it be possible that a US official might recognize that the US people could be expected to step up with significant additional dollars in light of such a tragedy?

And don't forget that another reason to give at the governmental level is foreign policy goals. I seem to recall that public opinion surveys in Indonesia and Pakistan after their disasters showed that opinions of the US were generally more favorable.

I also seem to remember an argument floating around that basing giving on a percentage of GDP made it a little tough for the US to keep up, since one of the largest economies in the world would have to give much more in order to keep up with someone like Norway. Is that accurate?

EDIT
By the way, does anyone know what the official estimate of dollars spent by the US providing US military support during tsunami relief was? At one time, I thought I heard an estimate in the hundreds of millions. Quite a large "in-kind" donation, I think.

[macmanmike6100]

The US remains the most generous nation on Earth, and I'm glad that somebody actually brought it up. Beyond our hard cash, there are surely billions of dollars in "in-kind" donations, and those rarely get accounted for in these "global watchdog" organizations, many of whom (like Global Issues dot org) actively disparage the US.

Honestly, I know why my friends donate: it's because they care. I went to USC -- the supposedly University of Spoiled Children -- and through my various jobs have met plenty of people who might be considered "corporate fat cats". The reality is that, from the richest to the poorest Americans in my experience, they give because they care, and they care enough to give frequently.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by Seaver

Amazing how you can put your political theory into the hearts of those who give.

It wasn't guilt that made me donate $200 to both the tsunami and Pakistani disasters (each) while I had to eat Raman noodles for a few weeks because I couldnt afford anything else. It's not guilt that makes me volunteer every other weekend to Habitat for Humanity.

I'd venture to say that the majority of American who give are doing it out of your miniscule 10%. And that it's the 10% of Americans who give out of guilt or other reasons (tax rebates).

You are an exceptionally generous person. Most people are not like you.

If those with real wealth gave because of their love for their fellow man, they would not have real wealth, they would only have what is needed to survive.

This is a truism not a political theory.

[frogza]

My dog thinks I'm stingy the same way many people think that the US is stingy. I give her food, shelter, cover her vet bills, scratch her belly when she sits on my lap but she still seems to think I'm stingy because I don't give her my breakfast, lunch and dinner.

As long as a single person has more than another the label of "stingy" will exist.

[james t kirk]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

could be...

I've been less generous these past 7 years after many scandals of people in non-profits like Covenant House here in NYC embezzling and stealing funds to the tune of millions of dollars. Couple that with finding out that some NPOs pay their executives some pretty lofty salaries, I'm not so interested in giving to that kind of machine.

And don't forget about the all out corruption of the UN.

They are pros at it.

[albania]

Why care if someone thinks you're "stingy" if you're not? Isn't the point of giving unselfishly not being rewarded for it? There is nothing special with what either the people or the government in the US are doing, it's simply an innate aspect of human nature. However, it is also ridiculous to compare how much money we give versus how much money other countries give, it's a matter of choice, you give as much as you wish and you should have the option to give nothing. If you donate to a charity do you first go in and ask what the highest amount donated was, and after you top that amount would you call everyone else "stingy"? I doubt anyone would do that it's simply absurd to think in those terms, so why is it appropriate in this situation?

[MoonDog]

Honestly, when the UN agency that the Norwegian is part of made that comment, my response was the same: People/countries gives as they please, and they have no obligation to give more just because someone says that they have the means to. I was no fam of the United Nations before that comment, and I was less of a fan after I heard it.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I'm not going to dispute the number as I don't have the research to counter or suport it at this time...

I will however say that the peice itself displays a certain bent toward a conservative point of view...

It's disparagment of government aid (vs. private charity) is a bit specious.


Besides, the US is stingy remark was, in context, not inacurate. At the time the US official had made the statement (with specific reference to the Tsunami), the US had not even come close to donating the amount they went on to make.

I remember seeing him live and in context.

The remark was made because the official believed the money would be wasted in bureaucracy and corruption. And with the UN reporting that of the 590 million dollars given for tsunami relief, 1/3 of that money was wasted in "administration costs"

IE..the official was dead on

[MoonDog]

From the Washington Post, December 28, 2004
U.N. official slams U.S. as 'stingy' over aid
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2330-7268r.htm

The Bush administration yesterday pledged $15 million to Asian nations hit by a tsunami that has killed more than 22,500 people, although the United Nations' humanitarian-aid chief called the donation "stingy."

"The United States, at the president's direction, will be a leading partner in one of the most significant relief, rescue and recovery challenges that the world has ever known," said White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy.

But U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland suggested that the United States and other Western nations were being "stingy" with relief funds, saying there would be more available if taxes were raised.

"It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really," the Norwegian-born U.N. official told reporters. "Christmastime should remind many Western countries at least, [of] how rich we have become."

"There are several donors who are less generous than before in a growing world economy," he said, adding that politicians in the United States and Europe "believe that they are really burdening the taxpayers too much, and the taxpayers want to give less. It's not true. They want to give more."

In response to Mr. Egeland's comments, Mr. Duffy pointed out that the United States is "the largest contributor to international relief and aid efforts, not only through the government, but through charitable organizations. The American people are very giving."

Thank GOD Mr. Egeland was able to see into the hearts and souls of all Western peoples and divine that we do, in fact, want higher taxes to support a increase of giving - which I have to assume Mr. Egeland wants either himself or the UN to be the beneficiaries of.

Check out this piece from the Heritage Foundation (I know, not exactly a neutral source!):
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Int...m952.cfm#_ftn2

Congress Should Investigate the United Nations Tsunami Relief Effort
by Nile Gardiner, Ph.D.

This week marks the anniversary of the tsunami disaster which struck large sections of Southeast Asia, South Asia, and East Africa on December 26, 2004. The tsunami claimed some 231,000 lives and displaced 2 million people. The disaster prompted an outpouring of humanitarian help from around the world, with an estimated total of $13.6 billion in aid pledged, including $6.16 billion in government assistance, $2.3 billion from international financial institutions, and $5.1 billion from individuals and companies.[1]

The huge international relief effort is being co-coordinated by the United Nations, and involves an astonishing 39 U.N. agencies, from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO).

When the U.N. took over the tsunami relief operation in early 2005, the world body pledged full transparency, in light of its disastrous handling of the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program. The U.N.’s under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs, Jan Egeland, boasted in an opinion editorial that “only the UN has the universal legitimacy, capacity, and credibility to lead in a truly global humanitarian emergency.”[2] Egeland had earlier criticized the U.S. contribution to the tsunami relief effort as “stingy.”[3]

A recent investigation by the Financial Times, however, has raised serious questions regarding the U.N.’s handling of the tsunami relief effort, in particular the way in which it has spent the first $590 million of its $1.1 billion disaster “flash appeal.” The appeal includes nearly $50 million from the United States.[4] The two-month FT inquiry revealed that “as much as a third of the money raised by the UN for its tsunami response was being swallowed up by salaries and administrative overheads.”[5] In contrast, Oxfam, a British-based private charity, spent just 10 percent of the tsunami aid money it raised on administrative costs.[6]

Egeland rears his head in this piece too, with his comment on the UN being the only agency able to lead in this crisis. If they get exposed with another Oil for Food fiasco...sheesh, I don't think I want to dwell on that.

[Marvelous Marv]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You are an exceptionally generous person. Most people are not like you.

If those with real wealth gave because of their love for their fellow man, they would not have real wealth, they would only have what is needed to survive.

This is a truism not a political theory.

Does that mean that everyone who loves their kids will automatically give them everything, and be left with only what is needed to survive?

Sounds more like another transparent way of saying "everyone who has more than I do is greedy."

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Does that mean that everyone who loves their kids will automatically give them everything, and be left with only what is needed to survive?

Sounds more like another transparent way of saying "everyone who has more than I do is greedy."

I am simply saying most people are greedy. I am not saying greed is good or bad, I am just stating truth. It doesn't matter if they have more or less than me. Mother Teresa types are the exception not the rule.

People give mostly because they feel guilt. Think about it. Why do people give millions to the Red Cross after a disaster? Why didn't they give those millions before the disaster? The answer is guilt. We can ignore the pain, suffering and poverty of people everyday because we don't feel guilt, but when a natural disaster strikes someone else and not us, we feel guilt, and we give.

[Leto]

Originally Posted by macmanmike6100

Honestly, I know why my friends donate: it's because they care. I went to USC -- the supposedly University of Spoiled Children -- .

I had no idea that South Carolinians were spoiled. (go Gamecocks!)

At any rate at first glance, I thought this thread said 'stinky'.



To address motive: I think that doing good makes one feel alive. This may be the reason that people donate. I doubt that guilt is a major component, other wise there would be very few procrastinators.

[Seaver]

Maybe you should make a disclaimer.

YOU dontate because YOU feel guilty.

I donate because I see people in need and have a desire to help.

[splck]

Originally Posted by Seaver

Maybe you should make a disclaimer.

YOU dontate because YOU feel guilty.

I donate because I see people in need and have a desire to help.

I agree with this. I've never donated because I felt guilty. The sense of helping someone is what it's all about.

Does your guilt stem from being catholic ace?

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by splck

I agree with this. I've never donated because I felt guilty. The sense of helping someone is what it's all about.

Does your guilt stem from being catholic ace?

Apologize for not being able to make the point clear.

I, you, anyone - will not let those you love suffer needlessly. We won't let them starve, we will do what we can to make sure they have housing, etc (I understand there are limits and sometimes we may let a loved one learn a lesson but that not my point). If we gave to all man-kind in that fashion there would be no needless suffering, pain and poverty. We don't give that way. I say we give because of guilt. A few, i.e. Mother Teresa, gives because they truly love and care about their fellow man. There is a difference, a big difference.

I guess we can hide our guilt and pretend we give for love, but I am a realist and call them as I see them.

For the people who say they give because of love or whatever, how do explain the difference between a Mother Teresa and what you do? If you donate, lets say 1% of your wealth per year, and Mother Tersesa gives everything including making it her lifes work - you would lead me to believe you are both doing it for love?

Perhaps that "sense of helping somone" is another way to say I no longer feel guilty for having a lot while others have nothing. If I call that giving because of guilt and you call it a "sense of helping someone", I understand.

My son and some neighborhood kids setup a lemonaid stand for the sunami victims. I bought the lemonaid because I was proud of my son and his friends. When I bought the third cup it was because I was subtly informed that Bob bought two cups - GUILT!!! along with good salesmanship. Then at the end of the day when I gave a $10 bill, it was so they would be able to give a round number of $300. This is a real example of how giving works, and it ain't for love of man. When the girl scouts come to my door, I don't have the guts to say no, so I give. Another example of giving because of guilt and not the love of man. Perhaps I am the exception, but I doubt it.

[Seaver]

Perhaps I am the exception, but I doubt it.

Perhaps it's a bad idea to imprint your feelings onto others without asking how/why they do things. I dont volunteer time for Habitat for Humanity because I feel guilty for having an apartment. I didnt give canned food to Katrina, Pakistan, and the Tseunami victims because I felt guilty for not living under a natural disaster (I dont donate to Red Cross, they're a mob front as far as I'm concerned atm).

[rat]

I think fundamentally, that most Americans of a conservative or moderate bent feel that people's lives are in their own hands, to make what they will of them. We also have old feelings of isolationism intrinsic in our teachings throughout our public schooling. When you look to our history lessons, the birth of our nation, our nation's participation in several wars that we let ourselves get drawn into out of greed, there's a sense of "never again."** We're a people who don't like having our emotions, our generosity, our care betrayed. There's a lingering sentiment (though only partially true) that we've bailed too many people out of too many situations since the turn of the 20th century.

At the same time, there's a large portion of the population here that complains about the excess of our government, its spending habits, and our lack of control over where the majority of our tax money is spent. Especially in the last five years, we've seen an overwhelming shift towards an administration that uses foreign aid as a carrot on a stick to let the administration do what it wants in other areas of foreign policy that are detrimental to our fellow men and women of the world. Bush's State of the Union for 03 or 04 talked about 400 billion USD to Africa for AIDS...meanwhile we were waging two separate wars against nations due to the acts of individuals...

Lastly, we're a nation that idealizes the rugged individual who makes its own way in the world, the way our Founders as well as our nation as a whole has done for over two centuries. As thirteen individual colonies, we dared to take the greatest power in the contemporary world into a feat of arms. Why should other nations not dare to be great on their own merits? We have no old colonial loyalties to these nations, we never owned any part of the world (though we did run a few parts, namely South America, over the years), so there's no sense of obligation to make up for past wrongs committed by our nation...

**An aside, my city of Houston, TX is garnering this mentality due to the drastic rise in violent crime and thefts/robberies/burglaries throughout our city since we've taken in the evacuees from New Orleans and the surrounding areas after Hurricane Katrina. The crime rate had been steadily dropping since before 2000, and it has risen over 10% in the last 6 months compared to last year. People who have sheltered those who lost everything have been murdered for money, cars, and valuables by those same evacuees taken in.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by Seaver

Perhaps it's a bad idea to imprint your feelings onto others without asking how/why they do things. I dont volunteer time for Habitat for Humanity because I feel guilty for having an apartment. I didnt give canned food to Katrina, Pakistan, and the Tseunami victims because I felt guilty for not living under a natural disaster (I dont donate to Red Cross, they're a mob front as far as I'm concerned atm).

Have you ever given to others because you felt guilty?

How do you determine how much you give?

How do you determine who you give to?

Do you keep a record of what you give, if so why?

[Yakk]

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

Even by U.N. standards, it was a particularly absurd anti-American slur--although it no doubt expresses the view of many foreign elites, who have come to believe that government is the only true source of goodness and charity. In the weeks and months that followed the tsunami, American citizens dug deep into their wallets, donating some $1.78 billion to the relief effort in Asia--dwarfing the contributions of other developed nations.

AUS: 1.3 billion, .24% of GNP
CAN: 744 million, .098% of GNP
NWY: 265 million, .119% of GNP
NTH: 509 million, .1% of GNP
IRE: 149 million, .08% of GNP
SWE: 231 million, .08% of GNP
GER: 1.07 billion, 0.04% of GNP
UK: 795 million, 0.04% of GNP
USA: 1.98 billion, .017% of GNP

AUS per capita: over 66$
NWY per capita: over 57$
CA per capita: over 22$
etc.
USA per capita: under 7$

The EU gave more than the USA -- if I remember right, by almost a factor of two. By developed nation's standards, the USA wasn't all that high on either a per-capita or a percentage of GNP standard.

[stevo]

Originally Posted by Yakk

AUS: 1.3 billion, .24% of GNP
CAN: 744 million, .098% of GNP
NWY: 265 million, .119% of GNP
NTH: 509 million, .1% of GNP
IRE: 149 million, .08% of GNP
SWE: 231 million, .08% of GNP
GER: 1.07 billion, 0.04% of GNP
UK: 795 million, 0.04% of GNP
USA: 1.98 billion, .017% of GNP

AUS per capita: over 66$
NWY per capita: over 57$
CA per capita: over 22$
etc.
USA per capita: under 7$

The EU gave more than the USA -- if I remember right, by almost a factor of two. By developed nation's standards, the USA wasn't all that high on either a per-capita or a percentage of GNP standard.

You know what? people don't rebuild and live on per-capita or percentage of GNP. they do it by CASH. look at who's #1 in the CASH department and get back to me. "America is stingy because the give the most, but its just not enough" I need a *shakes head in disappointment* smilie.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by stevo

You know what? people don't rebuild and live on per-capita or percentage of GNP. they do it by CASH. look at who's #1 in the CASH department and get back to me. "America is stingy because the give the most, but its just not enough" I need a *shakes head in disappointment* smilie.

Think of it this way. There are two towns. One town is full of slums and low income housing. The other town is full of multi million dollar homes. The first town has a fund raiser for Katrina victims and raises $20k. The second town raises $60k. Who gave more? The second town. Who gave more from what they had? The second town. We're the second town.

[stevo]

Originally Posted by willravel

Think of it this way. There are two towns. One town is full of slums and low income housing. The other town is full of multi million dollar homes. The first town has a fund raiser for Katrina victims and raises $20k. The second town raises $60k. Who gave more? The second town. Who gave more from what they had? The second town. We're the second town.

So we're richer and we gave more. OK

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by willravel

Think of it this way. There are two towns. One town is full of slums and low income housing. The other town is full of multi million dollar homes. The first town has a fund raiser for Katrina victims and raises $20k. The second town raises $60k. Who gave more? The second town. Who gave more from what they had? The second town. We're the second town.

What if everyone in the first town is getting financial assistance from the second town, then who gave more?

We may be the second town, but you have to add up all the assistance we give to others. There is the obvious gift, but then there may be other gifts. The easiest way to "help" others is to write a check and then forget about it.