Deep Frayed Morgues

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:44:41 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Americans are among the most generous in the world.

Why do you feel the need to state something like that, if not just to
convince yourself?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Daniel

"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BDFD723F.2DEC8%[email protected]...
    > in article [email protected], Daniel at
    > [email protected] wrote on 2/01/05 6:46:
    > > Here is the very interesting results about private donations to
charities
    > > compared to the GDP:
    > One is not at all sure how accurate private donation statistics are.
    > A lot of societies are into self-donation and not keen on international
    > aid. But worse, what people say they contribute and what they do are
    > different things.
    > For instance --- from the web
    > "According to an IRS report, there are 626,226 churches and houses of
    > worship in America. Scores of millions of Americans hold membership in
those
    > ministries. In the most recent statistics available, Americans gave $143
    > billion to all non-profit organizations. "
    > This is "internal giving" and what they report on the tax returns.
    > What fraction of the $143,000,000,000 is imaginary one can not be
determine.
    > With regard to tithing----
    > "47% of that amount was given to churches and religious organizations.
That
    > is about $70 billion. But...George Barna of Barna Research reports that
only
    > 17% of the millions of American church members say they practice tithing.
Of
    > that number, Barna says that only 3% actually tithe their total income in
a
    > Biblical manner."
    > On the other hand the statistics on governmental foreign aid programs is
    > in relatively good shape. Even here, however, there is a tendency for
    > nations to give money which has certain geopolitical stings attached.
Israel
    > and Egypt are primary recipients of American aid. The needy nations
    > of Africa are not particularly favored by the USA. France is involved
    > with aiding its former colonies and that kind of aid has some strings
    > attached. Often aid which is "accorded" and makes the media never
    > gets delivered. This is smoke and mirror territory.
    > Next private donations will be lower in nations which have a strong social
    > conscious. Nations like Norway give 10 times more than the US does in per
    > capita terms for foreign aid. Private organizations have a mixed record
    > in efficiency and are not as transparent as those in the public domain.
    > We personally contribute to MSF largely because they have a good media
image
    > not because we really know how well the organization really does.
    > Earl
About MSF, they were among the first foreign rescue teams to reach Thailand.
MSF originated in my country and I can tell you that their reputation is not
stolen.
NGO's are extremely scrutinised by law in France and we had few scandals,
few guys even going to jail for misappropriation of donations. Even the Red
Cross got few things to justify to the audits. MSF never had any trouble,
even not a single gossip.
A friend of mine, a Doctor, spent one year with them in East Africa and the
Balkans after finishing his studies. He came back enthusiastic about their
efficiency and put a MSF donation box in his clinic.
I believe that you money is well given.
Cheers
Daniel

Deep Frayed Morgues

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 07:06:19 GMT, "truth" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >following your argument so it is right to apply
    >pressure on those who can be are stingy ?
    >yes or no ?

Could you write that sentence in a worserer way please?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Ardeedee

Nations are not people.


"truth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > following your argument so it is right to apply
    > pressure on those who can be are stingy ?
    > yes or no ?
    > "ardeedee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > Cheers to the UN man who called the initial aid announcements as
    > > "stingy" - - there were and then the picture changed dramatically.He had
    > > the
    > > guts of his convictions.
    > >
    > >
    > > "Daniel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > >> > > On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:44:41 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >> That's false. Even though they're more wealthy than others,
    > >> > > they're more stingy.
    > >> > > "a Johns Hopkins study shows that the United States lags
    > >> > > behind other countries in terms of private philanthropy"
    > >> > >
    > >> > > http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/508690/
    > >> ===========================================
    > >> Those statistics are misleading for 2 reasons:
    > >> 1 - They mix donating and volunteering. Some people are more prone to
    > >> volunteer than other, depending upon the country they live in. US
people
    > >> feel like donating but not volunteering. So, they can't be called
    > > "stingy".
    > >> Not so much need for volunteering home, not so much will to spend time
    > >> abroad in volunteering, maybe some other reasons. Not stingy.
    > >> 2 - The stat includes underdeveloped countries with low GDP. In those
    > >> countries, you have a huge majority of crass poor people and a tiny
    > > majority
    > >> of crass rich people. Few donations from the crass rich and the % of
GDP
    > >> comes high easily. Meaningless.
    > >>
    > >> I copy the stat data from http://www.jhu.edu/cnp/compdata.html
    > >> I removed the volunteering %, keeping only the cash donation parameter.
    > >> I eliminated the poorest countries.
    > >> Here is the very interesting results about private donations to
charities
    > >> compared to the GDP:
    > >> 1 Israel 1.29% (Yes, the "stingy Jews" rank first)
    > >> 2 U.S.1.01% (Eh, eh, here are the "stingy" Americans...)
    > >> 3 Spain 0.87%
    > >> 4 U.K. 0.62%
    > >> 5 Hungary 0.60%
    > >> 6 Ireland0.55%
    > >> 7 Belgium0.44%
    > >> 8 Sweden0.40%
    > >> 9 Argentina0.38%
    > >> 10 Netherlands 0.37%
    > >> 11 Slovakia0.36%
    > >> 12 Australia0.34%
    > >> 13 France0.28%
    > >> 14 Finland 0.28%
    > >> 15 Poland0.28%
    > >> 16 Norway0.26%
    > >> 17 Czech Rep.0.23%
    > >> 18 South Korea0.18%
    > >> 19 Austria 0.17%
    > >> 20 Japan 0.14%
    > >> 21 Germany0.13%
    > >> 22 Romania0.10%
    > >> 23 Italy0.09%
    > >> Kindly stop those useless slightly racist arguments and rush to your
bank
    > > to
    > >> improve your country %
    > >> Cheers
    > >> Daniel
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >

Ardeedee

But he did make a point.

"James H. Hood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
    > ardeedee <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > Cheers to the UN man who called the initial aid announcements as
    > > "stingy" - - there were and then the picture changed dramatically.He had
    > the
    > > guts of his convictions.
    > The same UN asshole also complained about our tax structure. They aren't
    > going up, nor will they just to please him.

Steve Sundberg

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 17:25:17 +0800, "ardeedee" <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Nations are not people.

Oh, nations are very much so people. No people, no nations.

Padraig Breathnach

"James H. Hood" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Padraig Breathnach <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected].. .
    >> "James H. Hood" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> >news:[email protected] oups.com...
    >> >
    >> >> USA can brag about how much they give, but IN REALITY it remains the
    >> >> STINGIEST of the rich nations...
    >> >
    >> >We'll be supplying most of the hardware, so **** off.
    >> >
    >> And people sometimes wonder why Americans are not universally loved...
    >The love of semi-pro hate-America ****tards is worthless.
Hey! Some of them are real pros.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Go Fig

In article <BDFD723F.2DEC8%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > in article [email protected], Daniel at
    > [email protected] wrote on 2/01/05 6:46:
    >
    > > Here is the very interesting results about private donations to charities
    > > compared to the GDP:
    >
    >
    > One is not at all sure how accurate private donation statistics are.
    > A lot of societies are into self-donation and not keen on international
    > aid. But worse, what people say they contribute and what they do are
    > different things.
    >
    > For instance --- from the web
    >
    > "According to an IRS report, there are 626,226 churches and houses of
    > worship in America. Scores of millions of Americans hold membership in those
    > ministries. In the most recent statistics available, Americans gave $143
    > billion to all non-profit organizations. "
    >
    > This is "internal giving" and what they report on the tax returns.
    > What fraction of the $143,000,000,000 is imaginary one can not be determine.

So the IRS is the sole manner one can determine church appropriations ?

    >
    > With regard to tithing----
    >
    > "47% of that amount was given to churches and religious organizations. That
    > is about $70 billion. But...George Barna of Barna Research reports that only
    > 17% of the millions of American church members say they practice tithing. Of
    > that number, Barna says that only 3% actually tithe their total income in a
    > Biblical manner."
    >
    > On the other hand the statistics on governmental foreign aid programs is
    > in relatively good shape.

Right, only $9bil was skimmed from the Iraq program.

"Open", does this FINALLY mean that BNP will open its books ? How bout
the 54 audits the UN has long since concluded ?



    > Even here, however, there is a tendency for
    > nations to give money which has certain geopolitical stings attached. Israel
    > and Egypt are primary recipients of American aid. The needy nations
    > of Africa are not particularly favored by the USA. France is involved
    > with aiding its former colonies and that kind of aid has some strings
    > attached.

You mean like French nationals (non native) controlling 40% of the
Ivory Coast economy ?

    > Often aid which is "accorded" and makes the media never gets
    > delivered. This is smoke and mirror territory.
    >
    > Next private donations will be lower in nations which have a strong social
    > conscious. Nations like Norway give 10 times more than the US does in per
    > capita terms for foreign aid. Private organizations have a mixed record
    > in efficiency and are not as transparent as those in the public domain.

The main point, but nothing to substantiate it.

jay
Sun Jan 02, 2005
mailto:[email protected]



    > We personally contribute to MSF largely because they have a good media image
    > not because we really know how well the organization really does.
    >
    > Earl
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Deep Frayed Morgues

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 23:28:52 GMT, "LDL" <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >In one newspaper the PR of China gave only USD $2.5 Million and they are a
    >super power.

Communist countries don't have the mentality to show generosity when
it comes to aid. The west is organised enough to be able to 'give' aid
to a country which then magically comes back to the west somehow, with
a bit of interest added.

It's only a matter of time before countries like China start doing
this.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Gummo

"Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:010120051844413452%[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, * US * wrote:

    > Do you have a bigotry to governmental direct aid, the kind that is most
    > often misappropriated to the pockets of warlords,

A common part of US foreign policy.

Gummo

Deep Frayed Morgues

A lousy choice of words if ever I heard them. Who 'expected' this last
one?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 12:10:27 +0800, "ardeedee" <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Read around you - when was the last one in the Indian Ocean - I used the
    >word "expected"?
    >"Gummo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> "ardeedee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >> tsunamis are not expected to recur in a 100 years.
    >> Where'd you get that information?
    >> Gummo

Gummo

"ardeedee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > You snipped off my reply completely and you just say that I am wrong - why
    > and what is your take then?

My point about the budgets of two failed movies provided the perspective.

Gummo

Gummo

"LDL" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    >I am wondering just how much the Islamic countries are putting into the
    >relief.

How many billions has the USA put into ridding Iraq of Saddam supposedly for
the benefit of Iraqis? Compare that to the paltry sum given over to a
region that lost at least 150,000 people in a matter of seconds, with many
more to follow.

Gummo

Gummo

"ardeedee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Read around you - when was the last one in the Indian Ocean - I used the
    > word "expected"?

The word 'expected', in relation to tsunamis, became obsolete on 27 December
2004 - unless accompanied by the word 'not'.

Gummo

Daniel

"Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:020120050240286297%[email protected]...
    > In article <BDFD723F.2DEC8%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
(snipped)
    > > in article [email protected], Daniel at
    > > [email protected] wrote on 2/01/05 6:46:
    > >
    > You mean like French nationals (non native) controlling 40% of the
    > Ivory Coast economy ?
================================================
Good they are.
Any one reading a bit the International news can easily understand that the
African people there are not really ready to a full democraty and a full
free market system.
They need more time, more education, it will come but still it is a bit
early.
Since France, thanks to Charles de Gaulle, get out of its former colonies,
those colonies have been a burden.
Aid, preferential loan programs, name it. A financial burden and not a small
one.
Without those French who ARE native (4 generations, more or less the same
than most of the Chinese immigrants in Thailand), their economy would be a
total rubbish today and they would be starving more.
For your information, nationals of Ivory Coast are fighting to work in
French managed companies. Safer, better payed, less abuses, etc...
Not ready, give them time and thansk to the guys who had the gutts to stay
there.
The greed? Not really. No one make a fortune in this country. A good life,
maybe, nothing more.

And what's about the British "non native" (4 generations or more) of
Zimbabwe who were controlling the agriculture? Do you think that shifting
from big semi-industrial plantations to a puzzle of small pop and mom
farming is good?

Concerning the "strings", there is only one as far as French aid is
concerned: A certain percentage of the goods purchased through this aid must
be French.

Small example in Vietnam: The railway tunnel of Hai Van pass, built by the
French in the 30's, needed heavy refurbishment to accomodate new standards
in width and more traffic.
France gave to Vietnam the required money.
String: 50% of the related purchase must be from French suppliers and
contractors.
So what?
Why French tax payer money should be used in Vietnam to purchase non-French
and non-Vietnamese goods?
Vietnam got its tunnel revamped FOC.
Some French and Vietnamese Companies got contracts out of it, no one else.
So what?

If France or the USA or any other Western Country donate money to, say,
India to rebuilt in the aftermath of the tsunami disaster, they will
obviously ask for their building materials and building contractors industry
to be involved.

So what?
Sometimes I really wonder.
Cheers
Daniel






    > > Often aid which is "accorded" and makes the media never gets
    > > delivered. This is smoke and mirror territory.
    > >
    > > Next private donations will be lower in nations which have a strong
social
    > > conscious. Nations like Norway give 10 times more than the US does in
per
    > > capita terms for foreign aid. Private organizations have a mixed record
    > > in efficiency and are not as transparent as those in the public domain.
    > The main point, but nothing to substantiate it.
    > jay
    > Sun Jan 02, 2005
    > mailto:[email protected]
    > > We personally contribute to MSF largely because they have a good media
image
    > > not because we really know how well the organization really does.
    > >
    > > Earl
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >