zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
Hmm let me take a guess where these religious people are donating their money??? Oh yea, their own religion. Religions can't stay afloat without their blind followers donating their own money.
Only state-sponsored (i.e. government) aid or support, but GDP should not be used as a measure of or to characterize personal/private/corporate donations or giving.
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
yea like it or not the euros know we have to underwrite global security. it doesn't matter how much of their gdp they spend on foreign aid, if stuff goes down they have made sure they are unable to respond. not that they are willing to anyways. it isn't much of a moral position.
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 72,839
- 33,896
- 136
How much of that religious "giving" is helping out at the country club, er church? Donating to your church for building upkeep, evangelizing, paying the preacher, paying the utility bills, etc. ain't charity.
It should be based on government revenue rather than GDP.
Also, many European countries tend to give aid to other poorer European countries in the EU or soon to be in the EU. They're essentially giving aid to themselves. That should be factored out.
I also think that you have to factor in historical issues such as colonialism. Countries like the UK should be giving 100% of their government revenue to development aid since they devastated the world for centuries and created the situation of developing nations.
Last edited:
Wrong again.
The Religious Factor
Why do Americans give so much more than Europeans? Recently, François Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research (a Parisian think tank), summarized the differences between Europeans and Americans: The biblical references in politics, the division of the world between good and evil, these are things that [Europeans] simply dont get. In a number of areas, it seems to me that we are no longer part of the same civilization. According to a similar analysis in the New York Times by a former advisor to the late French President François Mitterand, Europe defends a secular vision of the world, whereas the United States has an altogether biblical self-assurance in its transcendent destiny.
It is simply undeniable that Europe and America are drifting apart culturally, and the drift is nowhere more evident than in the area of religious faith. The percentage of the population that has no religion (or never attends a house of worship) is higher in almost every European country than it is in America, and the percentage that goes to church every week is lower in most as well. In many cases, the differences are dramatic. For example, according to the ISSP data from 2002, a British citizen is three times as likely to be completely secular as an American (63 to 19 percent).
This divergence in religiosity may be one explanation for the huge trans-Atlantic charity gap, given what research has found about the way religious behavior affects American giving. For example, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (a survey of about 30,000 Americans in 41 communities nationwide in the year 2000), Americans who attended their house of worship every week or more were 25 percentage points more likely to donate money to charity than secularists (people who never attended, or had no religion), and 23 points more likely to volunteer. Nor is this simply a matter of religious citizens giving to religious causes. Religious people were ten points more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities and 21 points more likely to volunteer for secular causes. The value of the average religious households gifts to charity was more than three times higher than the average secular households.
This clear correlation between secularism and low rates of charity occurs across countries as well. The ISSP data tell us, for example, that 32 percent of Americans attended church regularly in 1998. The same year, 38 percent volunteered for nonreligious charities. Compare this with Germany, where 8 percent attended church and 10 percent volunteered for secular causes. Or Denmark, where 2 percent regularly attended church and 11 percent volunteered.
A precise way to compare religious participation and volunteering across nations is to look at individual citizens in each country. Holding constant the forces that are specific to each nation, as well as important sociodemographic characteristics, the relationship between religion and volunteering is quite large. For example, imagine two people from the same country who are identical with respect to age, sex, education, marital status, and incomebut one is religious while the other is secular. The former will be 17 percentage points more likely than the latter to volunteer during a given year. And the impact of being both European and secular makes the difference explode. For example, take two people who are identical except that one is secular and Spanish while the other is religious and American. The secularist Spaniard will be an amazing 44 percentage points less likely to volunteer than the religious American.
In short, the most straightforward comparisons of giving and volunteering data in the United States and Europe support the stereotype of American generosity. Americans privately give and volunteer far more than Europeans do, and one likely reason for this difference is the dramatic gulf in religious participation we see opening between the United States and most of western Europe.
http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/article.asp?article=1222&paper=1&cat=147
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,580
- 982
- 126
So, what you're saying is that if I want to hold onto more of my money I should be non religious?
Done.
Done.
Your money, do what you want with it.
Too bad the gov't doesn't feel the same way.
You're right. Public services can be paid with happy thoughts and rainbows, why does the government need money?
Privatize the public services. Protecting it's citizenery is a legitimate role of government. About 3/4 of gov't spending is unconstitutional.
Most of what the founding fathers considered legitimate functions of the Federal government are found in Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Last edited:
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 72,839
- 33,896
- 136
Given your posting history, I'm somewhat surprised to find you referencing the Constitution. But now that you have, please back up your bold statement that 3/4 of government spending is unconstitutional.
Really, why are you surprised that I am referencingthe constitution.
3/4 is my ball park estimate. It's probably more, but I was being conservative.
How much of the Federal budget do you think of the is consistent with the constitution?
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/classic.html
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 72,839
- 33,896
- 136
Cut the bullshit. You stated that 3/4 of government spending was unconstitutional. Now back it up.
Privatization isn't always feasible, and often brings its own problems. Take any major industry, and you'll find many similar issues that plague government (corruption, etc).
I don't think any of the founders would be naive enough to not understand that things should be open to revision as the country changes. I'm not sure that it not being listed as a function of government really deems it unconstitutional either.
Of course, all of that is actually moot when you consider that people do have a say in the matter.
Born2bwire
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2005
- 9,840
- 6
- 71
It's called the Constitution. If you aren't going to spell it out with the due respect that it deserves then perhaps you should go back to Kanada with all the other illegal immigrants.
As for your supposed facts from "hoover.com." As if I would listen to some self-proselytizing website by a vacuum company. I don't even know why they would bother but it's probably because their CEO is some born-again Christian that is once again forcing his beliefs on his workforce.
onlyCOpunk
Platinum Member
- May 25, 2003
- 2,532
- 1
- 0
Other countries have more government money allocated to different services. Hence people give less because the know the government already gives a lot.
Hahaha. What are you looking for line items on the Federal budget? There is no constitutional authorization for farm subsidies, bank bailouts, food stamps, etc, etc, etc.
The gov't bloat is unbelievable.
A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter