I’m not a big Stassell(sp?) fan, mainly due to his style of interviewing. He seems to play the holier than thou card a lot and tends to badger his interviewee too much for my liking.
That said, his report was a fresh reminder that the stingy, money grubbing, capitalist pig, USA is far and away the single largest charitable nation in the world when all moneys are counted, including private/individual donations.
I try to donate till it hurts, but feel like Mr. Broad that it seems harder and harder to find good causes that really make a difference with the money. I like his stance that if the money isn’t making a difference, he pulls funding and puts it somewhere else! He looks at charity as investing, in humanity. I like his style.
What did everyone else get out of the program? I thought it funny that even Stassell seemed to agree that Turners donation to the UN was a bad idea when discussing it with Broad.
I’m not a big Stassell(sp?) fan, mainly due to his style of interviewing. He seems to play the holier than thou card a lot and tends to badger his interviewee too much for my liking.
For a little vicarious indulgence, there’s a video of him interviewing a pro wrestler back in the 80’s where the guy almost knocks his head off for asking if wrestling is fake. Actually, it was pretty brutal and disturbing.
I saw parts of the program last night, didn’t find anything surprising about it. The US government gives huge sums of money but very little percentage-wise of it’s GDP (I think that’s what they used for comparison) respectively. Citizens and private charities on the other hand give more than most other nations. Religious and faith-based charities are responsible for the majority of those funds.
There was a study done by the Chronicle of Philanthropy about 5 years ago that detailed who gave what (outside of government). The group that contributed the greatest percentage of their income was the poorer blacks in Baptist churches, because they were the greatest participants in tithing. Unfortunately, I loaned out my copy of the issue and never got it back, so I don’t have the other statistics from the study. It can be obtained on their website for a fee though.
“In the aftermath of World War II, the US government gave as much as 2 percent of its total gross national product to help countries rebuild. That figure dropped to about 0.5 percent of GNP during most of the 1960s and 1970s, and it fell precipitously during the Reagan administration to its current level of about 0.15 percent of GNP, according to figures compiled by Sachs and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development based in Paris.
While the United States gives the most foreign development aid in terms of dollars, it ranks lowest among wealthy countries in terms of official development assistance as a percentage of gross national income.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States gave $16.2 billion in development aid in 2003, or an amount equal to 0.15 percent of the US gross national income. Norway, with official development assistance of $2 billion, ranked highest, giving 0.92 percent of its 2003 gross national income. France allotted 0.41 percent of its gross national income to development aid in 2003, according to the organization’s figures.
At a global development conference in Monterrey, Mexico, in 2002, the world’s 22 wealthiest countries, including the United States, were instructed by the General Assembly to provide 0.7 percent of GNP. But the target of the so-called Monterrey Protocol has been met by only five countries. They are Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands.
Nathaniel Raymond, communications adviser on humanitarian response for Oxfam America at its Boston headquarters, said that the aid organization’s fund-raising drive in the last five days had raised $3 million for the relief effort in Asia.
In terms of private donations to charity, American citizens and corporations give generously – more than $3 billion a year. But Sachs and other analysts say that amount only slightly changes – from 0.15 percent to 0.18 percent of GNP – the relatively low standing of the United States.
Sarah Kline, head of UK and European Union relations for Oxfam UK, said, ''If you want to compare records, overall the best way to do that is to look at what percentage a country spends as a percentage of its , and in that sense America has always spent less than most of the other developed countries.”
I’m not sure what you are trying to say Ken but as Sphere pointed out, when you add govt. giving to private giving, the US exceeds other countries by a long shot.
I thought the show was fascinating. Although there are some rich guys that give, quite a few do not give much and much of the giving comes from lower middle class to poor. Conservatives give more than liberals. Something like 27 of the highest 28 giving states were red states. Rural Des Moines Iowa outgives rich San Francisco.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say Ken but as Sphere pointed out, when you add govt. giving to private giving, the US exceeds other countries by a long shot.
“In terms of private donations to charity, American citizens and corporations give generously – more than $3 billion a year. But Sachs and other analysts say that amount only slightly changes – from 0.15 percent to 0.18 percent of GNP – the relatively low standing of the United States.”
The US is the wealthiest nation in the world, but gives a smaller fraction of that wealth than most other industrialized countries, often by quite a lot. Sort of like claiming that Wal-Mart might be the leading company in providing health care to its employees because it spends the most (not saying that is true, only as an example), ignoring the fact that it has more employees than anyone else.
As for blue state/red state giving, one could say that if you include federal taxes paid and federal taxes taxes received, the blue states give more…
The US government gives huge sums of money but very little percentage-wise of it’s GDP
This goes for Klehner as well: I find it continually disturbing when people in this country talk about the U.S. government giving or not giving, spending or not spending huge amounts of money for this or that, whatever percentage of its GDP. The U.S. Government in not a profit making outfit, it doesn’t manufacturer, produce or merchandize anything. It collects money from citizens and companies - specifically you and I, and spends it. Furthermore, it does neither very efficiently. Equally so, you and I should have a say in where and how the money is spent, not some broad concept of some government entity located in some far off Emerald City. It is not the governments’ GDP, it is ours.
If people thing we aren’t giving enough, then speak up. The ultimate recourse is through elections of course. In the interim there is writing or emailing elected officials and government departments. But just laying everything off on some governmental beauracracy and then washing our hands of any responsibility is patently false.
Conservatives give more than liberals. Something like 27 of the highest 28 giving states were red states. Rural Des Moines Iowa outgives rich San Francisco.
Did they add giving to a church into this total?
They did make the correlation in the SF vs. Des Moines study that maybe 50% attend church in Des Moines vs. about 15% in SF.
That’s kinda what I was wondering. Sounds like an interesting program, thanks.
Ken, I don’t know where those figures are coming from but Stossel’s research says Amercian giving is over $20 bil.
http://abcnews.go.com/...d=2682100&page=1
As indicated in my first post, the figures were published at the end of 2004. The article itself indicates that the $16bil figure was government foreign aid, and adding in private donations raised it to about $20 bil (.15 to .19% of GDP). I doubt anything has changed in terms of how much of our wealth we give away in the ensuing two years.
i think programs like this are pretty sad actually. Comparing who gives away the most money? Is that something that should be compared and contrasted?
Sort of like when there is some sort of charity where slowtwitch members are able to give to something. You always hear “Ok I donated” or “I am in for x dollars”. Who cares, just donate it and don’t broadcast it to the world. If you need recognition for giving away money, maybe you are doing it for the wrong reasons
Footnote: I don’t mean you personally Hookem, more of a global/general “you”. This is a personal pet peeve of mine.
Stossel irritates me, but I enjoyed watching him rip Fabian Basabe. If you don’t live in NYC, you probably won’t know who he is (or isn’t), but if you read the NYPost online or gawker.com, you’ll find that he’s a “socialite”, which is to say that he’s pretty much a douchebag who inherits money, parties, drinks, crashes his car, and thinks that working is a quaint notion. Just another jackass who thinks that he’s meant for “better things.”
The US government gives huge sums of money but very little percentage-wise of it’s GDP
This goes for Klehner as well: I find it continually disturbing when people in this country talk about the U.S. government giving or not giving, spending or not spending huge amounts of money for this or that, whatever percentage of its GDP.
**
Parkito, I was not making any judgement on how much or what percentage of GDP our government gives away as charity/aid/loan forgiveness, etc., just summarizing the content of the program. (but personally, I believe the sum total does count, and while there is a valid point to be made about the percentages involved, a dollar is a dollar, and we - individually and collectively - give an awful lot, and deserve recognition, not criticism, for it.)
Considerring many of the countries compared are socialist and/or worse, a person with money to give in a place with State Funded Healthcare, Dental Care, and retirement pensions that actually cover some bills would have little to worry about upon giving. I would have another 10K per year in discretionary spending if I didn’t have to pay my premiums! I give above the average percentages, but that would be easily doubled with money for a new bike if I was living, spending, giving under the same financial parameters as some of the other mentioned.
It just seems a little skewed, and Stassell cited very different numbers last night on the personal/individual giving. I didn’t Tivo it, but maybe someone else did.