USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
- Status
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
That doesn't include private donations, one of the largest portions of the nation's giving. This list is a farce without it.
Think of all the corporate gifts, religious charities, Red Cross, etc. That's got to be some serious bank. I'd be shocked if it's less than $100 billion.
That doesn't include private donations, one of the largest portions of the nation's giving. This list is a farce without it.
Think of all the corporate gifts, religious charities, Red Cross, etc. That's got to be some serious bank. I'd be shocked if it's less than $100 billion.
Last edited:
Foxton
Banned
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
I was right. An extra $295 BILLION was given privately by Americans in 2006. Even if you use 2010's GNI for the US, that's 2.24%.
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers
I was right. An extra $295 BILLION was given privately by Americans in 2006. Even if you use 2010's GNI for the US, that's 2.24%.
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
So I wasn't sure about that previous source because I had never heard of them. So, I tried to verify it. Turns out the USA Today picked this figure up as well:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm
And then there's this:
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/News/2009/docs/GivingReaches300billion_06102009.pdf
Which says we hit $307.65 billion in charitable gifts in 2008 and $314 billion in 2007.
In fact, if you take the $314 billion in 2007, that's larger than the GNI for all but 27 countries.
So I wasn't sure about that previous source because I had never heard of them. So, I tried to verify it. Turns out the USA Today picked this figure up as well:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm
And then there's this:
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/News/2009/docs/GivingReaches300billion_06102009.pdf
Which says we hit $307.65 billion in charitable gifts in 2008 and $314 billion in 2007.
In fact, if you take the $314 billion in 2007, that's larger than the GNI for all but 27 countries.
Last edited:
Twitch Boy
Defacing this tagline is a MAX foul
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Oh, I see what you meant. True on all counts. It would also stop the random police brutality stories from popping up and rallying the protesters.
It's a matter of who makes the first monumentally stupid move, I fear. Someone's going to end up dead soon enough. If a photogenic white blonde Harvard girl dies after a nightstick enema, Wall Street is hosed.
Oh, I see what you meant. True on all counts. It would also stop the random police brutality stories from popping up and rallying the protesters.
It's a matter of who makes the first monumentally stupid move, I fear. Someone's going to end up dead soon enough. If a photogenic white blonde Harvard girl dies after a nightstick enema, Wall Street is hosed.
Foxton
Banned
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Also that wikipedia article lists figures that go through a specific organization for tracking donations that meet their criteria. So their numbers may be misleading or more accurate depending on what criteria is used.
I have a hard time taking any data seriously from the author of that trash book "Who Really Cares". Which is why I asked what counts as charitable donation? (Figured something from him would pop up) Because for that guy tithing and any money people drop in the collection plate was the same as giving to an actual charity.
Also that wikipedia article lists figures that go through a specific organization for tracking donations that meet their criteria. So their numbers may be misleading or more accurate depending on what criteria is used.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Eh - in any case, the original point (that a list of "most charitable countries" which only counts charitable works by the government does not tell the whole story) stands.
Foxton
Banned
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
So where's the data comparing the private donations for those other countries?
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
I'm curious to know exactly how charitable the people on this board are that are raising a fuss about how selfish our country (supposedly) is. And no, "I don't have enough money to contribute to anything" is no excuse; if you're not pulling in very much money, you can still donate your time (as opposed to... oh, I don't know... posting a bunch of whiny crap on here perhaps?).
/carmudgeon
I'm curious to know exactly how charitable the people on this board are that are raising a fuss about how selfish our country (supposedly) is. And no, "I don't have enough money to contribute to anything" is no excuse; if you're not pulling in very much money, you can still donate your time (as opposed to... oh, I don't know... posting a bunch of whiny crap on here perhaps?).
/carmudgeon
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
I think this is where the myth comes from; people figure if it's not sponsored by the government, it's somehow not a "real" charity. Of course if you average out bleeding heart liberals with tea partiers (who philosophically, would rather give away their house to a neighbor who needs it than pay another 1% in property tax to a government-run charity) with baby boomers and everyone else, then on average we want our government to be less "generous", not more so. But giving by Americans to groups like Oxfam and Red Cross, privately, is what funds those groups.
I think this is where the myth comes from; people figure if it's not sponsored by the government, it's somehow not a "real" charity. Of course if you average out bleeding heart liberals with tea partiers (who philosophically, would rather give away their house to a neighbor who needs it than pay another 1% in property tax to a government-run charity) with baby boomers and everyone else, then on average we want our government to be less "generous", not more so. But giving by Americans to groups like Oxfam and Red Cross, privately, is what funds those groups.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Social media is more difficult since every person has a camera and an outlet, but it's only a matter of time until the overlords just release photo-shopped atrocities and ride the 24 hour news cycle to public outrage.
When you have infinite money and you own the media outlets, it's really not that hard to suppress a revolt against your own privilege.
Well, the traditional solution is for big bidness to dress an agent provocateur up as a protestor and put some nice cop with a young family in the hospital. Then the right-wing bloids can provide the war.
Social media is more difficult since every person has a camera and an outlet, but it's only a matter of time until the overlords just release photo-shopped atrocities and ride the 24 hour news cycle to public outrage.
When you have infinite money and you own the media outlets, it's really not that hard to suppress a revolt against your own privilege.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
I used to volunteer at my old high school and give rather generously to the American Red Cross. That all changed three years ago. Now charity begins at home.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
You might be correct, but I really hope you are wrong. Not so much in that I don't believe "big business" is more than capable of doing said things but in that when a movement like this really takes root it usually takes more than a photo shopped picture and a 24 hour news cycle to destroy it.
I believe people don't protest this wide spread for this long simply on a whim. They do it because they are mad and/or desperate. If that is the case then it will take more than one news cycle to get rid of the protesters. They key is how mad and desperate are the masses. The longer the economy stays in the tank the worse for big business and the Government this will become.
You might be correct, but I really hope you are wrong. Not so much in that I don't believe "big business" is more than capable of doing said things but in that when a movement like this really takes root it usually takes more than a photo shopped picture and a 24 hour news cycle to destroy it.
I believe people don't protest this wide spread for this long simply on a whim. They do it because they are mad and/or desperate. If that is the case then it will take more than one news cycle to get rid of the protesters. They key is how mad and desperate are the masses. The longer the economy stays in the tank the worse for big business and the Government this will become.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Well, if you were really cynical imagine if ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FNC, as well as all corporate-owned print and telecomm media and all their various affiliates and appendages simply decided to stop covering the story. How long can a public protest survive with no coverage in a socially-atomized age in which the vast majority of people only experience the world through a screen?
Well, if you were really cynical imagine if ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FNC, as well as all corporate-owned print and telecomm media and all their various affiliates and appendages simply decided to stop covering the story. How long can a public protest survive with no coverage in a socially-atomized age in which the vast majority of people only experience the world through a screen?
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
I too had suspicions about the original source, which is why I posted a few other sources including IUPUI and the USA Today. Feel free to ignore those I suppose.
I too had suspicions about the original source, which is why I posted a few other sources including IUPUI and the USA Today. Feel free to ignore those I suppose.
Last edited:
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
If we were just talking about some protesters in NYC, sure, but this has grown into a movement with demonstrations in every major city. And we live in the Internet era with YouTube, Twitter and other forms of mass communication. Lack of media coverage didn't exactly hurt in Egypt, Libya or Tunisia. Even when the government turned off the cell phone networks and the Internet, they still found a way.
If we were just talking about some protesters in NYC, sure, but this has grown into a movement with demonstrations in every major city. And we live in the Internet era with YouTube, Twitter and other forms of mass communication. Lack of media coverage didn't exactly hurt in Egypt, Libya or Tunisia. Even when the government turned off the cell phone networks and the Internet, they still found a way.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
They are covering the story??? I guess I had not noticed that. But to be fair I haven't watched a main stream news broadcast in years and I certainly haven't seen any real coverage on any of the main stream news site that I frequent.
I think it matters less and less how much the news media covers a story. There is this new thing called social networking that I believe is gaining more and more power as a societal change mechanism. Now maybe if the big business shuts down the internet then their devious plan might work.
They are covering the story??? I guess I had not noticed that. But to be fair I haven't watched a main stream news broadcast in years and I certainly haven't seen any real coverage on any of the main stream news site that I frequent.
I think it matters less and less how much the news media covers a story. There is this new thing called social networking that I believe is gaining more and more power as a societal change mechanism. Now maybe if the big business shuts down the internet then their devious plan might work.
- Status