United States Humanitarian Aid

[jreeves]

Where do you think our country rates in the world? Do you think our country does enough?

The idea for this post comes from another thread?

 

[RodISHI]

I believe on one hand we have one of the most generous society of people in the world and on the other hand some of the greediest group of assholes in the world here in the USA who claim they support charity but yet the charity they support is only to their own benefit.

 

[Valerie]

Where do you think our country rates in the world? Do you think our country does enough?

The idea for this post comes from another thread?

I think much of what we do goes unappreciated.

USAID Primer: What We Do and How We Do It

The purpose of this primer is to explain the internal doctrines, strategies, operational procedures, structure, and program mechanisms of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The primer has been prepared primarily for employees of other federal agencies such as the departments of State and Defense, partner organizations, congressional staff, and new USAID employees.

USAID plays a vital role in promoting U.S. national security, foreign policy, and the War on Terrorism. It does so by addressing poverty fueled by lack of economic opportunity, one of the root causes of violence today. As stated in the President’s National Security Strategy, USAID’s work in development joins diplomacy and defense as one of three key pieces of the nation’s foreign policy apparatus. USAID promotes peace and stability by fostering economic growth, protecting human health, providing emergency humanitarian assistance, and enhancing democracy in developing countries. These efforts to improve the lives of millions of people worldwide represent U.S. values and advance U.S. interests for peace and prosperity.

USAID provides assistance in sub- Saharan Africa, Asia and the Near East, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe and Eurasia. With headquarters in Washington, D.C., USAID’s strength is its field offices in many regions of the world. The agency works in 100 developing countries and inclose partnership with private voluntary organizations, indigenous groups, universities, American businesses, international organizations, other governments, trade and professional associations, faith-based organizations, and other U.S. government agencies. USAID has working relationships, through contracts and grant agreements, with more than 3,500 companies and over 300 U.S.-based private voluntary organizations.

U.S. Agency for International Development

 

[jreeves]

I believe on one hand we have one of the most generous society of people in the world and on the other hand some of the greediest group of assholes in the world here in the USA who claim they support charity but yet the charity they support is only to their own benefit.

Not only does our government give billions of dollars around the world.
Private American charities give billions, the reason why I believe we are the most compassionate country in the world.
Appreciating Charity in the Season of Giving - US News and World Report
Americans stand out in the world for their commitment to private charity. Americans don't lead the pack just in terms of total dollars donated but also when giving is measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. In 2005, private giving in the United States was 1.67 percent of GDP, more than twice the next most charitable country, the United Kingdom, which gave away just 0.73 percent of its GDP.


Even though we give tons of help to other countries. The US is demonized as uncaring....

 

[Valerie]

Budget/Performance/Accountability
Overview

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), in collaboration with the Department of State, produces several key planning and reporting documents that define the primary goals and progress of U.S. foreign policy, development and humanitarian assistance. A joint effort ensures that the two organizations focus on achieving common goals, finding economies of scale, and promoting new synergies. Once policy objectives are established, funding resources are aligned to meet them. Execution of the strategic plan is reported in the following performance plans and reports.

USAID: Budget/Performance/Accountability

 

[Valerie]

I believe on one hand we have one of the most generous society of people in the world and on the other hand some of the greediest group of assholes in the world here in the USA who claim they support charity but yet the charity they support is only to their own benefit.

Not only does our government give billions of dollars around the world.
Private American charities give billions, the reason why I believe we are the most compassionate country in the world.
Appreciating Charity in the Season of Giving - US News and World Report
Americans stand out in the world for their commitment to private charity. Americans don't lead the pack just in terms of total dollars donated but also when giving is measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. In 2005, private giving in the United States was 1.67 percent of GDP, more than twice the next most charitable country, the United Kingdom, which gave away just 0.73 percent of its GDP.


Even though we give tons of help to other countries. The US is demonized as uncaring....

I'm with you, jreeves!

Charitable organizations are feeling the effects of the economic downturn, too. A recent news story entitled "Giving season struggles to earn its name" lamented that this year's charitable giving total is unlikely to top last year's total of $306 billion. It will be only the second time in 40 years that charitable giving failed to grow from one year to the next.

Certainly, that's bad news for organizations that depend on private contributions, particularly given that the poor economy will increase demand for many charitable services. Yet there is a very "glass half-full" way of looking at the statistics: Americans' ongoing willingness to give, even as their household wealth shrinks by trillions of dollars, is testimony to the true generosity of our citizens.

 

[RodISHI]

Information from your link, jreeves.

Category 1: Arts and Culture
As noted below in Table 2, we estimate that some $5.2
billion in foundation grants and support in 2007 generated
$51 billion in social and economic benefits, with
an average return of 9.77 on foundation investments in
grants and support for arts and culture. This estimate
3. T he Economic and Social Benefits
and Value of Foundation Activities
Category
Share of Total
Grants and
Support, 2006
Projected Grants
and Support, 2007
Estimated
Return on
Investment
Value of Direct
Benefits
Arts and Culture 0.12 $5,226,392,067 9.77 $51,044,431,513
Education 0.23 $9,660,143,940 5.08 $49,034,044,415
Environment &
Animals
0.06 $2,568,880,545 6.72 $17,258,127,318
Health 0.23 $9,858,394,845 7.60 $74,922,982,437
Human Services 0.14 $5,935,713,580 10.91 $64,730,079,576
International Affairs 0.05 $2,287,649,706 1.00 $2,287,649,706
Public Affairs/
Society Benefit
0.11 $4,582,058,679 22.04 $100,999,672,814
Religion 0.02 $926,409,978 1.00 $926,409,978
Science &
Technology
0.03 $1,235,175,914 4.96 $6,126,867,646
Social Sciences 0.01 $581,238,668 1.00 $581,238,668
Other 0.00 $37,939,837 1.00 $37,939,837
Total 1.00 $42,899,997,759 8.58 $367,949,443,908
Table 2 E stimated Value of the Direct Benefits of Private and Community Foundation Activities, By
Category, 2007
17 Foundation Center. “Highlights of Foundation Giving Trends.” Foundations Today Series, 2007.
18 Ibid.
10 The Social and Economic Value of Private and Community Foundations
is derived by reviewing existing studies of the results
of foundation grants and support over a wide range
of arts programs, estimating returns on investments
(foundation funding) based on those results, classifying
those results according to the sub-categories of
arts-and-culture funding, calculating the return for each
sub-category, calculating a weighted average return on
investment for the arts-and-culture category, and finally
estimating the total benefits based on that return and
total funding for the category in 2007.
Table 3A, below, presents the distribution of arts-andculture
foundation funding across the nine sub-category
classifications of the Foundation Center. Nearly
two-thirds of foundation funding in this area focuses
on support for the performing arts and museums, and
about half of the remaining funding is focused on multipurpose
arts-and-culture programs and arts-and-culture
policy management and information.
The Cultural Alliance of Washington, D.C. has produced
one of the broadest analyses of arts and culture
nonprofit programs, based on a survey of more than
6,000 nonprofits across the 50 states and the District
of Columbia.19 This analysis focuses largely on multipurpose
arts programs and performing arts programs,
and found that these programs produced revenues of
$103 billion, largely from fees and ticket and admission
sales, from outlays of $63 billion. The revenues can be
taken to represent a conservative estimate of the benefits
from the support, since a consumer’s willingness to
pay for a good or service represents a lower bound of
the value that consumer attaches to it. The rate of return
or ROI for the programs included in this survey would
be 1.64:1.
We also analyzed the work of programs such as the
Patricia M. Sitar Center for the Arts.20 The Center
offers arts education classes to all children, regardless
of income, at a charge of $15 per-semester for an
unlimited number of classes. Some 80 percent of those
participating come from low-income families, most of
whom would not be able to send their children to similar
programs that do not receive foundation support and
cost $200 per-semester.21 In this case, the ROI, based
on the benefits generated for the low-income children
is 12.3:1. Similarly, World Arts Focus is a nonprofit organization
that brings artists and low-income communities
together to study the arts, experience performances,
and encourage the preservation of cultural performance
traditions.22 The program provides arts instructions to
adults for $13 per class, compared to $150 for comparable
classes at for-profit institutions, or benefits yielding
a 14.3:1 return on foundation investments.
Government and community organizations also have
studied the economic benefits and effects of arts programs
in their jurisdictions or communities. A study of
community-based arts-and-culture organizations in New
York (both nonprofit and commercial) estimated that their
combined budgets of $5.3 billion produced benefits of
$13.4 billion. This estimate was based on several factors,
such as the number of visitors to different art venues,
ticket sales, the average length of stay at museums or
other cultural venues, and their total expenditures in the
local economy. On average, this suggests an ROI of 2.5:1
for these multi-purpose arts programs. A similar study of
arts-and-culture investments and returns in Denver suggested
$387 million in benefits from $38 million in investments
or an ROI of 10:1; another focusing on Wisconsin
arts-and-culture programs also reported returns of 10:1;
and yet another focused on Columbus Ohio reported
returns of 22:1. In much the same vein, cultural-sector
expenditures in Florida of $1.2 billion produced audience
revenues of $4.5 billion, for a ROI of 3.75:1, or more than
double the return reported for a similar analysis of arts
and culture organizations in Phoenix, Arizona.
Similarly, a lower-bound estimate of the return on support
for museums can be derived from budgets and
revenues from visitors. For example, the Louisiana State
museum generated expenditures by visitors totaling $37
million in 2004-2005, on an operating budget of $5.3
million, or an ROI of approximately 7:1, while a major
museum in New Jersey generated returns of just more
than 3:1. A similar analysis of the Scottsdale Center for
Performing Arts found direct and indirect benefits of
nearly $25 million from an initial investment of $1.6 million,
or 14:1.23 A return of 14:1 also was reported for
some $35 million in funding provided for cultural and
scientific organizations in the Denver metropolitan area
by the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District, including
the Denver Art Museum, the Botanic Gardens, the
Museum of Nature and Science, as well as local organizations
promoting cultural history.
The reported returns were even higher on investments
by the Florida State Division of Historical Resources,
which estimated that some 43 million tourists per-year
visit the state’s 135,000 historic sites and museums, and
spend some $3.7 billion. The state’s annual investments
in those sites and museums total $212 million, suggesting
a rate of return of 17.4:1. In the same area, the
return on grants by the Kalamazoo Historic Preservation
Society to preserve historic buildings has been roughly
12:1. One recipient of those grants, the DKI Building
Preservation Program, received $1.8 million over five
years to help preserve downtown Kalamazoo, and the
grants encouraged investments by program participants
of some $22 million.
A table, Table 3B, listing the studies and reports from
which we derive our estimate of the average weighted
returns on foundation grants to arts and cultural organizations
is on the next page. Note, we use total foundation
grant dollars in this area to calculate these returns,
while a strict analysis of the purely economic rate of
return would include all funds available to arts organizations,
including, but not limited to, foundation support.
Our calculation, however, accurately describes the social
return on foundation investments in this area. Moreover,
support from foundations and individuals account for
most external funds for arts and cultural organizations.24
We calculate that the social return on foundation support
for arts and cultural organizations averages 9.77:1.
On this basis, we estimate that $5.23 billion in private
and community foundation support in this area in 2007
produced returns of $51.04 billion.

I picked out the arts and culture portion as this shows the greatest amount of charity layouts by organizations and foundations.

My question would be who do these benefits benefit the most? Where did those foundations get the money that they donated? Are the Bush's and Clinton's libraries included in this donation that is called giving back to the communities here? I think they are.

It appears that the giving in your link includes giving to charities that really do little to improve the real human condition that are tragedies around the globe at here at home.

I know giving to the modern art museums is a form of charity but that really has no effect on the human condition of people starving around the globe, people that can't afford to take care of their families (the working poor) much less visit a museum or a stadium or the people that cannot afford to visit SF, CA or Philadelphia, PA. or D.C.


Do you think it is accurate to list giving to arts and culture with organizations like Feed the children?

To me all charities do not fit in the humanitarian aid category.

 

[garyd]

You picked the wrong one.

 

[RodISHI]

You picked the wrong one.

No, the corporates did. Stealing from the poor on one end and claiming your a humanitarian on the other end for your personal pet projects does not make a charitable giver a true humanitarian.

 

[Valerie]

You picked the wrong one.

No, the corporates did. Stealing from the poor on one end and claiming your a humanitarian on the other end for your personal pet projects does not make a charitable giver a true humanitarian.

Good point RodISHI.

 

[jreeves]

Information from your link, jreeves.

Category 1: Arts and Culture
As noted below in Table 2, we estimate that some $5.2
billion in foundation grants and support in 2007 generated
$51 billion in social and economic benefits, with
an average return of 9.77 on foundation investments in
grants and support for arts and culture. This estimate
3. T he Economic and Social Benefits
and Value of Foundation Activities
Category
Share of Total
Grants and
Support, 2006
Projected Grants
and Support, 2007
Estimated
Return on
Investment
Value of Direct
Benefits
Arts and Culture 0.12 $5,226,392,067 9.77 $51,044,431,513
Education 0.23 $9,660,143,940 5.08 $49,034,044,415
Environment &
Animals
0.06 $2,568,880,545 6.72 $17,258,127,318
Health 0.23 $9,858,394,845 7.60 $74,922,982,437
Human Services 0.14 $5,935,713,580 10.91 $64,730,079,576
International Affairs 0.05 $2,287,649,706 1.00 $2,287,649,706
Public Affairs/
Society Benefit
0.11 $4,582,058,679 22.04 $100,999,672,814
Religion 0.02 $926,409,978 1.00 $926,409,978
Science &
Technology
0.03 $1,235,175,914 4.96 $6,126,867,646
Social Sciences 0.01 $581,238,668 1.00 $581,238,668
Other 0.00 $37,939,837 1.00 $37,939,837
Total 1.00 $42,899,997,759 8.58 $367,949,443,908
Table 2 E stimated Value of the Direct Benefits of Private and Community Foundation Activities, By
Category, 2007
17 Foundation Center. “Highlights of Foundation Giving Trends.” Foundations Today Series, 2007.
18 Ibid.
10 The Social and Economic Value of Private and Community Foundations
is derived by reviewing existing studies of the results
of foundation grants and support over a wide range
of arts programs, estimating returns on investments
(foundation funding) based on those results, classifying
those results according to the sub-categories of
arts-and-culture funding, calculating the return for each
sub-category, calculating a weighted average return on
investment for the arts-and-culture category, and finally
estimating the total benefits based on that return and
total funding for the category in 2007.
Table 3A, below, presents the distribution of arts-andculture
foundation funding across the nine sub-category
classifications of the Foundation Center. Nearly
two-thirds of foundation funding in this area focuses
on support for the performing arts and museums, and
about half of the remaining funding is focused on multipurpose
arts-and-culture programs and arts-and-culture
policy management and information.
The Cultural Alliance of Washington, D.C. has produced
one of the broadest analyses of arts and culture
nonprofit programs, based on a survey of more than
6,000 nonprofits across the 50 states and the District
of Columbia.19 This analysis focuses largely on multipurpose
arts programs and performing arts programs,
and found that these programs produced revenues of
$103 billion, largely from fees and ticket and admission
sales, from outlays of $63 billion. The revenues can be
taken to represent a conservative estimate of the benefits
from the support, since a consumer’s willingness to
pay for a good or service represents a lower bound of
the value that consumer attaches to it. The rate of return
or ROI for the programs included in this survey would
be 1.64:1.
We also analyzed the work of programs such as the
Patricia M. Sitar Center for the Arts.20 The Center
offers arts education classes to all children, regardless
of income, at a charge of $15 per-semester for an
unlimited number of classes. Some 80 percent of those
participating come from low-income families, most of
whom would not be able to send their children to similar
programs that do not receive foundation support and
cost $200 per-semester.21 In this case, the ROI, based
on the benefits generated for the low-income children
is 12.3:1. Similarly, World Arts Focus is a nonprofit organization
that brings artists and low-income communities
together to study the arts, experience performances,
and encourage the preservation of cultural performance
traditions.22 The program provides arts instructions to
adults for $13 per class, compared to $150 for comparable
classes at for-profit institutions, or benefits yielding
a 14.3:1 return on foundation investments.
Government and community organizations also have
studied the economic benefits and effects of arts programs
in their jurisdictions or communities. A study of
community-based arts-and-culture organizations in New
York (both nonprofit and commercial) estimated that their
combined budgets of $5.3 billion produced benefits of
$13.4 billion. This estimate was based on several factors,
such as the number of visitors to different art venues,
ticket sales, the average length of stay at museums or
other cultural venues, and their total expenditures in the
local economy. On average, this suggests an ROI of 2.5:1
for these multi-purpose arts programs. A similar study of
arts-and-culture investments and returns in Denver suggested
$387 million in benefits from $38 million in investments
or an ROI of 10:1; another focusing on Wisconsin
arts-and-culture programs also reported returns of 10:1;
and yet another focused on Columbus Ohio reported
returns of 22:1. In much the same vein, cultural-sector
expenditures in Florida of $1.2 billion produced audience
revenues of $4.5 billion, for a ROI of 3.75:1, or more than
double the return reported for a similar analysis of arts
and culture organizations in Phoenix, Arizona.
Similarly, a lower-bound estimate of the return on support
for museums can be derived from budgets and
revenues from visitors. For example, the Louisiana State
museum generated expenditures by visitors totaling $37
million in 2004-2005, on an operating budget of $5.3
million, or an ROI of approximately 7:1, while a major
museum in New Jersey generated returns of just more
than 3:1. A similar analysis of the Scottsdale Center for
Performing Arts found direct and indirect benefits of
nearly $25 million from an initial investment of $1.6 million,
or 14:1.23 A return of 14:1 also was reported for
some $35 million in funding provided for cultural and
scientific organizations in the Denver metropolitan area
by the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District, including
the Denver Art Museum, the Botanic Gardens, the
Museum of Nature and Science, as well as local organizations
promoting cultural history.
The reported returns were even higher on investments
by the Florida State Division of Historical Resources,
which estimated that some 43 million tourists per-year
visit the state’s 135,000 historic sites and museums, and
spend some $3.7 billion. The state’s annual investments
in those sites and museums total $212 million, suggesting
a rate of return of 17.4:1. In the same area, the
return on grants by the Kalamazoo Historic Preservation
Society to preserve historic buildings has been roughly
12:1. One recipient of those grants, the DKI Building
Preservation Program, received $1.8 million over five
years to help preserve downtown Kalamazoo, and the
grants encouraged investments by program participants
of some $22 million.
A table, Table 3B, listing the studies and reports from
which we derive our estimate of the average weighted
returns on foundation grants to arts and cultural organizations
is on the next page. Note, we use total foundation
grant dollars in this area to calculate these returns,
while a strict analysis of the purely economic rate of
return would include all funds available to arts organizations,
including, but not limited to, foundation support.
Our calculation, however, accurately describes the social
return on foundation investments in this area. Moreover,
support from foundations and individuals account for
most external funds for arts and cultural organizations.24
We calculate that the social return on foundation support
for arts and cultural organizations averages 9.77:1.
On this basis, we estimate that $5.23 billion in private
and community foundation support in this area in 2007
produced returns of $51.04 billion.

I picked out the arts and culture portion as this shows the greatest amount of charity layouts by organizations and foundations.

My question would be who do these benefits benefit the most? Where did those foundations get the money that they donated? Are the Bush's and Clinton's libraries included in this donation that is called giving back to the communities here? I think they are.

It appears that the giving in your link includes giving to charities that really do little to improve the real human condition that are tragedies around the globe at here at home.

I know giving to the modern art museums is a form of charity but that really has no effect on the human condition of people starving around the globe, people that can't afford to take care of their families (the working poor) much less visit a museum or a stadium or the people that cannot afford to visit SF, CA or Philadelphia, PA. or D.C.


Do you think it is accurate to list giving to arts and culture with organizations like Feed the children?

To me all charities do not fit in the humanitarian aid category.

Here's a listing of all governmental giving to humanitarian aid. Now tell me how we rank?

 

[garyd]

And exactly what are they supposed to have stolen from the poor?

 

[jreeves]

You picked the wrong one.

No, the corporates did. Stealing from the poor on one end and claiming your a humanitarian on the other end for your personal pet projects does not make a charitable giver a true humanitarian.

http://www.usaid.gov/policy/coordination/stratplan_fy07-12.pdf
As stated in the National Security Strategy of 2006, “We will work to bolster threatened states, provide
relief in times of crisis, and build capacity in developing states to increase their progress.” A nation’s
ability to build and sustain a democratic and well-governed state that responds to the needs of its citizens
is diminished or absent when affected by conflict or natural disaster. Conflicts, disasters, and human rights abuses
threaten people’s lives and health, displace people, divide families, destabilize societies, and erode living standards.
All countries face some risk of humanitarian emergency. An estimated 37 million people around the world are currently
uprooted from their homes, 820 million do not have enough food to eat, and millions more are affected by conflict and
disasters where they live. Humanitarian assistance responds to their needs, and transforms affected countries by forging
a path toward recovery, growth, and stability.
On behalf of the American people, the U.S. Government leads the international community in responding to the needs of
refugees, internally displaced persons, victims of conflict and disasters, and vulnerable migrants. For many Americans,
humanitarian assistance is the hallmark of U.S. foreign policy engagement and a demonstration of American compassion.
The U.S. Government directly supports more than one-quarter of the cost of humanitarian activities undertaken by the UN
and Red Cross organizations, and provides strong support to other NGOs. The United States is also a leader in the
promotion of legal, orderly, and humane migration, building on our history and values as a country of immigration.
The goal of humanitarian assistance is to save lives, alleviate suffering, and minimize the economic costs of conflict, disasters,and displacement. It requires urgent responses to rapid-onset emergencies, and concerted efforts to address hunger and
protracted crisis situations, and build capacity to prevent and mitigate the effects of conflict and disasters. Humanitarian
assistance is also the genesis of the transition to longterm
political, economic, and social investments that
can eliminate the root causes of conflict and
displacement. The United States leads the international
community in providing humanitarian assistance that is
done on the basis of need alone and according to the
principles of universality, impartiality, and humandignity.[/U]

 

[RodISHI]

That is a better link for actual humanitarian causes.

I think the USA could improve and become more efficient a far as humanitarian efforts are concerned. That would of course entail taking away from some of the richest members of our society that use and abuse the system for their own personal gain.

 

[jreeves]

That is a better link for actual humanitarian causes.

I think the USA could improve and become more efficient a far as humanitarian efforts are concerned. That would of course entail taking away from some of the richest members of our society that use and abuse the system for their own personal gain.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, maybe you could explain what you mean further. If what you are getting at is that people in the US give based on their personal preference, does that really matter?

 

[RodISHI]

That is a better link for actual humanitarian causes.

I think the USA could improve and become more efficient a far as humanitarian efforts are concerned. That would of course entail taking away from some of the richest members of our society that use and abuse the system for their own personal gain.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, maybe you could explain what you mean further. If what you are getting at is that people in the US give based on their personal preference, does that really matter?

Meaning we could better improve how money is spent here in the US. In that we could do more good in helping our own and even other nations when hard times hit.

I have a problem with corporates that use the tax base as their own little personal kitty to tap into any time they feel like it for their own personal pet projects and then call giving to those same pet projects charity.

It bugs me to no end that we have allowed corporates to take over so many private farms and then suck taxpayer funds up for programs like crop reduction once they own and control the land. If you gained control over thousands of acres to put it in a set aside program that the taxpayer pays for your nothing more than a leech on society. We'd serve humanity better to pay for crops and store the food or help starving nations than pay some rich prick to let the usable crop land set idle. It bothers me that a mom and pop farmer is taxed into oblivion when the rich drive the cost of land up so high that the mom and pop cannot afford to pay their taxes. When the assessor revalues the mom and pops property because some rich sucker buys in next to them. The rich guy has an extra buck to get rid of and he decided he would create his own little get away hunting preserve and let the taxpayer to foot part of the bill.

These same greed mongers call for people to be responsible for themselves when they are the ones stacking the deck with their lobbyist and payoffs.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_Arena_(Des_Moines)

Nicholas Johnson, Values Fund May Not Be So Valuable for Taxpayers

Political Friendster - Rate Connection - Iowa Values Fund connected to Tom Vilsack

Wells Fargo & Co., which received $25 billion in taxpayer


How Much Will a Wells-Wachovia Deal Cost Taxpayers? -- Seeking Alpha

 

[Xenophon]

The nation has no money yet we give it away.

What's wrong with this picture?

 

[garyd]

Again what did they steal from the ppor who pay no taxes...

 

[jreeves]

That is a better link for actual humanitarian causes.

I think the USA could improve and become more efficient a far as humanitarian efforts are concerned. That would of course entail taking away from some of the richest members of our society that use and abuse the system for their own personal gain.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, maybe you could explain what you mean further. If what you are getting at is that people in the US give based on their personal preference, does that really matter?

Meaning we could better improve how money is spent here in the US. In that we could do more good in helping our own and even other nations when hard times hit.

I have a problem with corporates that use the tax base as their own little personal kitty to tap into any time they feel like it for their own personal pet projects and then call giving to those same pet projects charity.

It bugs me to no end that we have allowed corporates to take over so many private farms and then suck taxpayer funds up for programs like crop reduction once they own and control the land. If you gained control over thousands of acres to put it in a set aside program that the taxpayer pays for your nothing more than a leech on society. We'd serve humanity better to pay for crops and store the food or help starving nations than pay some rich prick to let the usable crop land set idle. It bothers me that a mom and pop farmer is taxed into oblivion when the rich drive the cost of land up so high that the mom and pop cannot afford to pay their taxes. When the assessor revalues the mom and pops property because some rich sucker buys in next to them. The rich guy has an extra buck to get rid of and he decided he would create his own little get away hunting preserve and let the taxpayer to foot part of the bill.

These same greed mongers call for people to be responsible for themselves when they are the ones stacking the deck with their lobbyist and payoffs.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_Arena_(Des_Moines)

Nicholas Johnson, Values Fund May Not Be So Valuable for Taxpayers

Political Friendster - Rate Connection - Iowa Values Fund connected to Tom Vilsack

Wells Fargo & Co., which received $25 billion in taxpayer


How Much Will a Wells-Wachovia Deal Cost Taxpayers? -- Seeking Alpha

Agreed but I don't think that has much to do with US as a nation being the most compassionate nation on earth?

 

[jreeves]

The nation has no money yet we give it away.

What's wrong with this picture?

It is kind of crazy, our government borrows money from China to provide humanitarian help to others...