Americans Are Stingy
 

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.

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. :icare:

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. :)

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).

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.

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.

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 :lol:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

They are pros at it.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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? :p ;)

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? :hmm:

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

I thought the claim was that the US was 'stingy'.

Stingy is a term relative to the amount you earn and what you are prepared to give away.
It is not a good way to measure someone's 'stingyness' by comparing what they give to what another gives. It is a measure of one OWN ability to donate or give away.

PS, I'm not saying the USA is stingy, just that to say they are or aren't by comparing what they donate internationally compared to other countries is not the right way to look at it.

There's also wisodm to consider.

The rich man who gives a hundred dollars once a week to the smackhead who sleeps outside his factory door is doing less good work than the guy who give $10 to a single mother and offers to look after her kids for one hour a night so she can go to school.

Remember, foreign policy and not just demand also dictates how much aid goes to other countries. I can guarantee that if a big earthquake hit cuba, a lot more money would come from Canada or UK than from the USA, simply because of policy.

The USA gave less per person than a good chunk of developed nations. So, each person in the USA gave less than each person in a large number of other developed nations, including most of Europe. (USA, Canada, Japan, Austrailia, Kiwiland, Taiwan, Singapore, Europe, Isreal, Russia -- that's a nearly complete list of "developed nations". You could possibly add in South Korea, South Africa, and a few other also-rans.).

This means that the citizens of the USA are not more generious than other developed nations, dispite the original poster's claims to the contrary. In fact, they are less generous.

The USA, as a whole, gave less than the EU. If I remember right, the EU gave (as a whole) about 2 to 5 times more than the USA.

The USA, as a fraction of it's economic wealth (GNP is a decent measure of wealth), gave a very small amount.

Someone could call that "stingy" and not be unreasonable.

I'm not sure myself, but has anyone found out how much of this "offered" aid has been delivered by all these countries. I seem to remember hearing after the big earthquakes hit in (2004? 2003?) many countries pledged aid, but few actually delivered on their promises, especially after the news quit talking about the tragedy 24/7. I'm not saying the other countries haven't given, or that the US is fully paid what they offered, but I do think it's a valid consideration.

Ok Yakk... so the EU gave more than the US.

How many more people do the EU have than the US?

Which poll are you considering using these statistics? Polls in the past have proven to have an OBVIOUS bias considering they dont take into consideration the majority of our foreign support based on biased reasoning. Our economic support of Pakistan being witheld due to their "inhumane treatment" while other countries are allowed to donate to "earthquake relief" and allowed to count (as example on previous stingy threads).

How much money does the EU rely on FROM the US through military NATO aid? How much of this money essentially granted by the US is "donated" by those countries to others in "good faith"?

When you take that into consideration you'd see the playing field much more level, and America is far from "stingy" no matter how much you wish it to be.

That IS a political theory. Love would not cause wealthy people to give their fellow man money, heck I am not wealthy, yet I would not accept charity. If you LOVE your fellow man then you will achnowledge that you should not live life for others in anyway but should live merely for yourself. If ALL men acceppted this then maybe they would propigate a means to surivival on their own instead of relying like a parasite on others.

Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead. Each of these books shows true humanitarian value's to their fullest, also contradicting exactly what you just said very proficently.

If a man who worked and owned all his proceed's was to give all he had except that which he need to survive to anouther, each would come out worse. The one who gained would simply look to take more, (in most case's) while eventualy if not relieved the one upholding such dire help to the needy would eventualy be weighed down by the person who gained.

heh... Ayn Rand submit's the points so much better than me..

Ah yes, base your philosophy on a failed Hollywood screenwriter, who was an athieistic, egotistical writer who was as self righteous and self promotional as they come. Her writings are very predictable, boring, one dimensional and are FICTIONAL. To try to apply her "philosophy" into society is laughable.

While I agree, you do not give a man fish but teach him to fish and thus he becomes self reliant, she took that to extremes that could not, nor would not work in any society, except that of a selfish, self righteous, faceless society that would lead to decadence based on her philosophy that the only value in life is that of the individual's life. It would also lead to decay and a crumbling of society, in that the less fortunate would never advance. Fortunately, it has been man's desire to always question and look for ways to advance..... something that if we followed her philosophy politically and economically would cease to exist. Nor did she ever take into account man's psychological need for a society interdependant on each other.

For any society to move forward, people have to place value on society, help the less fortunate and educate others so that all may advance and that goes against everything Rand ever taught. Nor could she ever truly back up her philosophy, with explanations of how society itself would move forward and advance.

I gave a huge list of per-capita amounts.

In terms of "which political unit gave the most", USA is not on top. The EU is.

In terms of per-capita or fraction of the economy, the USA isn't anywhere near the top of the developed world.

Austrailia, with 20 million people, gave over 1 billion USD. USA, with a population of 300 million people, gave under 2 billion USD.

I can't remember what the result for "per capita giving from the EU" was -- I ran the numbers a while ago.

The EU has under 500 million people. The USA has about 300 million people. The EU gave more than twice as much as the USA did, if I remember right.

The EU and the USA have roughly the same GNP.

67% more people.

What poll? I wasn't using a poll. I do not understand.

Why would you use a poll to determine the total amount of money a nation gave to something like tsunami releif? Aggregate numbers are availiable from various charitible institutions within each nation.

I was only attempting to measure direct tsunami relief.

How much money does the USA rely on from China through mass purchase of USA 30 year government bonds?

I am simply looking at one statement made by the original poster, and disagreeing with it.

Feel free to provide your own numbers. I'd love to see them.

I am simply disagreeing with the claim that the USA's tsunami releaf dwarfs other developed nations. This statement looked to me like a lie.

Lacking the ability to do serious research on the subject, I got most of my numerical information from the wikipedea. If you can find a better source, I'd be happy to hear about it. The wiki happens to agree with mainstream media source values for the USA, Austrailia, Canada and the UK (those being english-language nations for whom I could check the values) and Sweden/Norway (whose unusually high contributions where noted), and Qatar/UAE/Saudi Arabia, so I assumed the rest of the information was reasonably accurate.

NOT POLITICAL THEORY.

You say : "If you LOVE your fellow man then you will achnowledge that you should not live life for others in anyway but should live merely for yourself. If ALL men acceppted this then maybe they would propigate a means to surivival on their own instead of relying like a parasite on others."

Your point assumes giving to "fellow man" and implying the "fellow man" capable and not in need. What about a parents supprot and nurturing of a child? what about societies care of orphanes? What about societies care for the sick? Elderly? Mentally disabled, or those met with tempory needs after disaster? Even in the animal kingdom many species will care for each other in time of need. When animals do it, do you call that a political theory also?

There are a few holes in this point: "If a man who worked and owned all his proceed's was to give all he had except that which he need to survive to anouther, each would come out worse."

Motzart died pennyless, gave all he had, made the world a better place.
Mother Teresa died pennyless, gave all she had, made the world a better place.
When I got divorced I gave my ex-wife everything except what I need it to survive, and I came out better! :D How do you explain that?

Ace I do agree with you on this. It isn't POLITICAL THEORY, taking care of the society and others is the nature of man. Societies that have stopped caring about their advancement and helping each other have died off, look at Rome, as a great example of a society that stopped caring about the people and the ruling class lived for greed.

To add to your list: Thomas Jefferson died pennyless but had given everything he had to better society, setting up libraries, schools, and so on.

People remembered and revered throughout history have not been the rich, in fact they often died pennyless but bettered society at great cost to themselves.

And because the US gave less to an international disaster we're a bad greedy nation?????

We ship more money overseas and into causes than we probably give our own citizens. I have a feeling sad to say more money went to the Tsunami than to NO/and the Gulf area. Which to me is sad because a country must take care of it's own before they can even think of helping another.

I find it pathetic and very sad when other nations turn to us after they have bitched about us for help, then when we give it is not enough.

If people around the world haven't noticed, we in the US have no more to give. We are a nation deeply in debt, our wealth is being decimated and other countries are wanting more from us????? WTF?

I happily give money to others (and I can't truly afford it), but I give it to my neighbors in NO, the Gulf, Muscular Dystrophy, MS, Cancer Society and people on the streets.

Yes, we have to help other nations but we can only do so much, we have given for so long it is time other nations pick up the slack and start realizing that our giving has cost us dearly.

BTW, you point out how much other countries gave for the Tsunami..... how much did they give the US for our hurricanes and the tragedies in our nation? Not that we need other countries help, but there comes a time when we have to cut the cord and help our own people first.

The assertion that Jan Egeland claimed 'Americans are "stingy"' is false. He was speaking the day after the Tsunami disaster, when countries were slow to appreciate the scale of the disaster and correspondingly slow in their relief efforts and donations. He said that countries giving less than 0.2% of GDP were stingy and expressed his belief that 'the people' thought governments should do more.

Perhaps it would be more relevant if the thread concentrated on whether 0.2% is stingy and why the 'liberal' US media would happily spread and 'Anti-Americanism' untruth about an organisation when this claim is traditionally made by the political right.

I donate about .6% of post-tax income and on reflection I think it's stingy because I hardly notice it. If I earned less or had greater outgoings I'm sure I would consider a smaller percentage to be excessive.

This statement is misleading. It is a not-true statement. It is either ignorant or an attempt to lie.

This statement is also misleading and false. It is in response to a post where I made no such statement. By placing it there, it implies I am saying that. Classic straw man -- invent a lie, claim your opponent said it, then prove your opponent is incorrect.

Your feeling is, as far as I am aware, without basis or ground.

By September 28th, the American Red Cross alone had raised 1 billion dollars towards Katrina relief. Notice the sum total of American aid to Tsunami damaged nations was less than 2 billion dollars, from all sources.

The US federal government allocated 51.8$ BILLION dollars to Katrina relief.

Dispite your feeling to the contrary, the US response to Katrina and the US response to the Tsunami are in completely different leagues.

Next, let us examine the amount of human suffering in the two events. Human deaths will serve as a proxy for this value. You wouldn't expect the international humanitarian response to a stubbed toe to be the same as the response to an event that killed 100 people -- the scale of the disaster should be taken into account.

The total deaths in Katrina where about 1,000 to 2,000 (via recall). The total deaths from the Tsunami is about 212,000 (via CNN).

So, saying that the Tsunami was a 100 times larger disaster than Katrina isn't all that unreasonable.

Foreign response:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ricane_Katrina
the foriegn reponse, given the relative sizes of the disasters, is huge compared to the Tsunami. Destroyers, multiple 100s of millions of dollars, disaster relief teams, etc.

Not all the resources offered where accepted by the USA.

Pan, your feelings about this issue are without basis. I would advise looking at the size of the numbers involved.

Ah I believe that man by bettering himself does better society.... but I do concede your points.. The theory's of Ayn Rand do have many holes in them.. Yet I do think that as a political theory her's does benifit individuals very much. As you said. She was egotistical, but then again so am I, alot of people are.

Australia SHOULD be interested in giving more immediate aid to the tsunami-stricken nations, since the disaster happened in their sphere of influence. I believe Australia is a (the?) major power for that portion of the globe, and they would have serious, immediate reasons to work towards mitigating the situation. For example, do they want refugees? What are the trade implications? Would the Indonesian government take advantage of the Aceh situation to quell the rebellion and cause a humanitarian crisis?

Yakk, I am confused with what you have posted, as quoted above. If I follow your line of reasoning correctly, any country should, if faced with an "internal" disaster and an "external" disaster, automatically give more to the disaster that was greater in scope?

For what reason - purely humanitarian? Because I would argue that the "normal" human reaction in such a situation is to do more for that which affects him or her more directly. I'm not sure that you can argue that the tsunami affected the majority of residents in the US more directly than Hurricane Katrina did.

Tell me, what is the economic impact of the tsunami? According to information (albeit old) on the following link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4154277.stm), it seems that reconstruction and economic impact related to the tsunami will cost somewhere under US$20 billion. That figure includes estimates from Indian damage, a burden that India has chosen to shoulder on its own, without foreign aid. Although there was a horrible loss of life, the economies of most of the affected countries were considered to be quite able to rebound with minimal effect.

Now, what is the expected economic impact of Hurricane Katrina on the US? Since you used Wikipedia in your post, I turn to that source here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...ricane_Katrina). Skimming through the entry, we see that it is considered Continuing, other predictions place I don't have the energy (forgive the pun) to delve into what the economic impact of the energy crisis that resulted from the hurricane, but rest assured that we US residents are feeling it even now. I suspect that there was at least a temporary affect on business and industry as a result.

If those numbers and predictions are accurate, then the Hurricane Katrina disaster was not only much more personal for US citizens and donors, but much costlier in terms of overall economic impact. Therefore, one could argue that Katrina was in fact the larger disaster. Of course, that is using a purely monetary scale for measurement, rather than the purely "human death" scale that you chose for your post. Who gets to choose which scale to use? You? The United Nations? The American Red Cross? The International Monetary Fund? Here's some good reasons that the US responded the way it did to Katrina: because our government is obligated to do so, because we have the financial means to do so, and because to do anything less would damage the economic and social fabric of this country.

To get back to the meat of the topic, however, are Americans "stingy"? It is my belief that calling $1.91 billion in total aid "stingy" is insulting, especially when arguments in support of that position are based on a "they make more, so they are obligated to give more" theory. Guess what - we do make more, and we did give more. And, on a global scale, how can we defend ourselves when critics get to pick and choose what aid counts and what aid doesn't count, and whether or not aid tied to results is valid, etc?

This argument is tired, and it is so tired that we here in the States see it in another context: Democrats stating that the wealthy need to be taxed more because "they can afford it", or "they have a moral responsibility". The underlying morality and values for there arguments aren't going to be solved here in a forum debate.

Also, someone needs to explain to me why comparisons based on GDP or per capita are valid? Just because someone puts together a chart using those figures? While it is an interesting statistic that displays "potential" or "capacity" for giving, it does NOT demonstrate ACTUAL giving.

What does demonstrate that? The final totals - which show that the US, and then Australia, gave the most.

It's not like charity is a contest or a race either. While there are foreign policy motivations in government aid, making charitable giving out to be like a contest or race is incredibly cheapening to the whole act.

**edited for spelling yet again! 2 posts - 2 spelling edits

I posted my feelings on Mr. Egeland's statements on how the people in those countries actually want MORE taxes on Page One of this thread. Unfortunately, I think that there is a logical construct that can be made using Egeland's statement. Logic statements were not always my strong point in high school, but let's see what happens...

STATEMENT: If the citizens of any nation give less than 0.2% of GDP to foreign assistance, then they are "stingy". The citizens of the United States give a total of 0.017% of GDP to foreign assistance. THEREFORE, the citizens of the United States are "stingy".

Egeland may not have mentioned the US by name, nor may he have even MEANT to imply that the US was a stingy nation, but by following the logic of his statement, one is left with only one conclusion - in Jan Egeland's personal viewpoint (or perhaps even the UN viewpoint, since he was speaking as a UN official), the US *IS* stingy.

Actual quote is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_egelund)

The media reported this as a senior UN official singling out the US for criticism, which is not what happened, whatever the logic. And whether or not the US gives less than 0.2% is debatable, as you can see from this thread. I don't know how the costs figure as a % of GDP but if funding Israel, NATO and the war "on terror" etc should be included, as some seem to suggest in the thread, then the US may give more than 0.2% in which case there is no problem.

The UN's viewpoint is that 1% of GDP should be donated, in which case about 3 countries are not stingy. Mr Egeland is more forgiving.

As pointed out in the Wikipedia article, Egeland's comments spurred countries into action and he seemed to have been humbled by the response, but it wasn't widely reported and it didn't figure in the article. If only there were a fair and balanced approach in the media then we wouldn't still be having this discussion more than a year on. It really is a storm in a tea cup.

I've always been good at logic and analysis so I'll analyze that. First, you misquote him. He didn't refer to the citizens of any nation except to say that they thought their governments should do more: "People say we should give what we give now or more"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309924/posts
Second, you put words in his mouth that he never even tried to say. Perhaps you should put 'FACT:' before the 0.017% bit, as without that it suggests those are Egeland's words. He didn't single out any country.
So what can we deduce about his views on the citizens of the United States from his statement? Well all he says is that they want the government to give at least as much as they do now. If 0.017% is true then the word 'stingy' can be used to describe Egeland's view of the US government in this case, following the logic you describe.
So to demonise the UN as much as possible the article could have had Egeland asserting "Americans want their government to be less stingy". (I still wouldn't be happy with that as it implies that Egeland thinks his view of stinginess is shared by those Americans who tell him their government should give more, and he's not suggested that in his statement. It also suggests he thinks there is a consensus when he may percieve those views as belonging only to a majority.) This could be twisted into a report on how a UN official is out of touch (I suspect) with the bulk of US public opinion but as such I'm sure it's unlikely to have been published.

It's very hard to make a bad headline out of this and stick to the truth of the statement.

If we are concentrating on stinginess then it is the capacity for giving which is more important than the actual amount given, but there is another factor to consider - the opportunity cost of giving (what the money would be worth to you if you hadn't given it away). If a big earner gives the same amount as a poor person then you may think he is stingy (or the other is generous). But if the big earner has debts to service, kids to feed and elderly parents to care for they might ligitimately feel that to give more than they did would be too costly.

I don't really care how much aid the US gives - it's the trade practices that should be changed if the world's poor are to get a decent chance in life.

Umm, at the most, I will agree that I paraphrased his statement. He did not refer to citizens, as I did in my statement. Look at this direct quote of Egelund, as per your reference site and mine: "Christmastime should remind many Western countries how rich we have become, and if actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy, really." Egelund refers to "Western countries", so not just the US qualifies - but it DOES qualify. Foreign assistance could mean governmentally-provided foreign aid, I suppose, as well as charitable donations. However, who is the ultimate source for the monies provided by the US government for foreign aid - yep - US citizens. How about for charitable aid originating from the US? I'm guessing that it is primarily from US citizens. Hence my inclusion of citizens. But, he very well may NOT have meant the US, since he did not specifically mention any country.

Oops! You are right - I left out the FACT qualifier in my logic. It can be read as if I'm saying that Egelund said that, and he absolutely did not. So, given what I've covered so far, let's change that "logic" statement I wrote to the following:

STATEMENT #1: Many Western countries have become rich. STATEMENT #2: If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I (Jan Egeland) think that is stingy. FACT: The United States gives a total of 0.017% of GDP to foreign assistance. THEREFORE: The United States is stingy.

Well, Mr. Egeland clearly DOES believe that, and to quote "all the populations, in the United States, in the European Union, in Norway which is number one in the world, we want to give more as...as voters as taxpayers." He preceded this statement with one that showed that he believes that politicians do not understand voter positions on the issue. It appears to me that he feels that he knows the charitable intents of the citizens of the US, the EU, and his homeland better than their own politicians do. Without any backup (and I would hardly expect him to be producing any in that setting) I find that to be rather arrogant. If the US media had picked up on that, they may very well have published.