No….

Their GOVERNMENTS take care of their own people – yet their homeless rates are comparable to ours. How did that happen? Our PRIVATE charities do more than most governments. And, as Dr. J. pointed out, puts 'Merica at #2 on Earth.

You'll just have to learn to deal with that, Mr. Socialist.

So, anyone receiving retirement income is an “entitlement receiver”?
I'll be a “government entitlement receiver” once I retire.
Does that mean public sector retirees are “corporate entitlement receivers”?

Thanks for proving my point that you are, indeed, MENTALLY CHALLENGED.

A provocative statistic, AD. It certainly makes a mockery of DQ's claim, but…well…he's used to that.

Would be interesting to hear some thoughtful reaction from the left.

And that is compared to the same category of contributions from other countries.

But fair enough. I'm willing to concede that Americans are not the most generous. My main objection is to your use of the words “barely willing”. You've cited that some children go without food (although it is more accurately worded “have their eating patterns disrupted”, but either way is not good). But showing that the outcome leaves a lot to be desired does not imply that Americans are “barely willing”. When I see all of the economic programs that exist for the poor, “barely willing” seems like a stretch. There are so many programs to help the poor that according to some economists, the effective marginal tax rate for someone trying to get of poverty (let's say, raise their income from 20,000 to 40,000 a year) is approaching or exceeds 100%. (Due to time I'm not able to provide a link for that but I can later if you dispute it).

I think it just comes down to how you define “barely willing”, which clearly you define much more liberally than I. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

'BTW, when it comes to poverty don't listen to the Heritage Foundation, there has never been a bigger bunch of lying propagandist walking on the face of this earth.”

I trust any source as long as they can back up their assertions, even if the organization itself is biased. The article is referencing government reports and makes reasonable conclusions based on them. The degree to which I appeal to authority (or lack of authority) depends on the degree to which I have the ability to analyze the arguments for myself (ie. global warming is an issue that I appeal to authority).

. You've got to include private donations as well, in which (according to DQ's link) the US ranks #2.

And when you read DQ's link, you get to observe that while we are the number 2 private giver and that when our private giving is combined with our government giving we barely make it to number 15…

Even with this broader measure (and using the larger estimate of U.S. private assistance without making a similar adjustment for other countries), the United States ranks, at best, 15th among the top donors.

Nothing to brag about!!!

Only answering in kind. Being generous actually, considering how I was treated.

Not only are the Europeans more generous, they take care of their own people. Unlike `Merica

Father Time, you're only looking at government spending. Denmark is a more socialized country than ours, and their government writes a larger fraction of their checks. You've got to include private donations as well, in which (according to DQ's link) the US ranks #2.

And geez, lighten up on the name-calling.

In that case, doesn't that somewhat discredit your claim that “we are barely willing to feed, clothe and educate the poor in our own country”?

Not at all… My guess and I haven't gone through the numbers is that most charitable contributions end up going to religious institutions (where do you think all the money to build and maintain all those churches come from?), cultural institutions (NPR, PBS, Local Museum, Opera, etc…) or high end educational institutions ( Harvard Endowment). Most of these organizations pursue worthy goals, but feeding, clothing, caring and educating the poor is not their primary mission, with the exception of a few honorable religious organizations.

From Kathy's article:

The nation's economic crisis has catapulted the number of Americans who lack enough food to the highest level since the government has been keeping track, according to a new federal report, which shows that nearly 50 million people – including almost one child in four– struggled last year to get enough to eat.

Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance

Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year — one every 12 minutes — in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

The numbers speak for themselves, it's not that we unable to fix these problems, it's that we are unwilling to do so.

BTW, when it comes to poverty don't listen to the Heritage Foundation, there has never been a bigger bunch of lying propagandist walking on the face of this earth.

PS. They are also funded through Charity…

Your tax-deductible donation today to The Heritage Foundation will support our work as we strive to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish.

And people who give to “The Heritage Foundation” are probably not giving to help the poor and the less fortunate. And that giving was counted amongst the Charitable Giving in the USA article.

Ah. I see. Thanks for clarifying that. I should have seen that myself.

In that case, doesn't that somewhat discredit your claim that “we are barely willing to feed, clothe and educate the poor in our own country”? I admit we have problems (as the original post points out) but that statement seems like quite an exhaggeration. The vast majority of the poor in our country are able to access enough food and clothing (education is a different story and I would probably agree with you that the poor don't have enough access to it, but that's not because of an unwillingness to through a lot of money at the problem) and other necessities and non-necessities: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713…

PER CAPITA, Denmark is the most generous of the donor countries.
Meaning they give more per person than of any other nation on earth.
THEY are truly a generous people.

America…..not so much.

duh

I was talking about the citizens of America, not the government.

Who do you think the government is if not the expression of the will of the people of the United States.

I didn't realize that we were talking about government hand outs to other countries.

What do think foreign aid is? Who besides Government has the ability to put that scale of resources together? And before you reply “Private Charities”, go through the papers and look at how many charity scandals there has been in the last couple of decades involving prominent televangelist raising aid money for Central America, Haiti and Africa.

With that said, IMO, our Constitution does not allow for foreign aid in the first place. That's the reason I mentioned foreign aid in the first place. I believe we should do away with ALL of it, until our economic house is in order.

A) Once you remove the military component out of our Foreign Aid, there is very little money there.
B) You have to decide what the purpose of Foreign Aid is:
1) Is it there to primarily advance the interest of the US,
or is it there to supply humanitarian relief to people suffering a tragedy (Drought, Tsunami, War, Disease, etc..)

I have no more reason to believe those numbers than I have to believe yours, but I'm curious if you know any reason for the discrepancy.

You're comparing apple and oranges, the number I am talking about is foreign aid whether it's through the government or through private charity (Feed the Children, Oxfam, etc) versus the number your article is discussing which is all Charities whether they are giving to feed the poor in the US or Overseas, the gifts to local Medical institutions (Hospitals, Research centers, etc ) the gifts to the local Art organization (Museum, Theater, Opera, etc) and the gifts to educational institutions (Harvard, State Colleges, etc).

I was talking about the citizens of America, not the government. I didn't realize that we were talking about government hand outs to other countries. And you keep referencing the “economic powerhouses” of Norway, Denmark, etc. Yes, France has some economic clout, but the rest are just moles on the butt of world economics.

With that said, IMO, our Constitution does not allow for foreign aid in the first place. That's the reason I mentioned foreign aid in the first place. I believe we should do away with ALL of it, until our economic house is in order.

But this gets away from my MAIN point that Father_Time is, indeed, MENTALLY CHALLENGED.

And America is the stingiest place on earth? We are the MOST GENEROUS place on earth. In no other country do they spend what we spend on humanitarian aid from the government, and private aid from the citizens to other nations.
Once again…. MENTALLY CHALLENGED.

ROTFLMAO…
Think Again: U.S. Foreign Aid

When U.S. foreign aid is measured on other scales, however, a different picture emerges. For example, the United States provided about $51 per citizen in official development assistance in 2002–03. That ranks it in 16th place among other major donors, behind Norway ($381 per citizen), the Netherlands ($203 per citizen), France ($96 per citizen), and the United Kingdom ($89 per citizen), among others. When aid is measured as a share of national income, the United States ranks dead last at 0.15 percent. Top givers include Norway (0.92), Denmark (0.84), Belgium (0.60), and Germany (0.28).

Moreover, foreign aid constitutes only a small share of the U.S. federal budget—much smaller than most Americans think. Surveys show that most Americans believe the federal government devotes 15 to 20 percent of the country’s expenditures to aid. The actual figure is far less than 1 percent; that’s less than one fourth of the budget share of 1965.
…
Combining public and private donations puts total U.S. development assistance in the range of $35 billion per year, or about 0.32 percent of U.S. income. In other words, for every $3 of income, the United States provides about one cent in development assistance. Even with this broader measure (and using the larger estimate of U.S. private assistance without making a similar adjustment for other countries), the United States ranks, at best, 15th among the top donors.

Considering that we are barely willing to feed, clothe and educate the poor in our own country, what in heaven's name would lead you to believe that the US would give a rats' ass about starving children in other countries?

(and another gem…)

“Per capita, we are one of the stingiest nations on earth.”

I am now convinced that you merely comment on TMV to get a rise out of people.
You do not strike me as a serious debater or someone who actually cares about issues we discuss.
Why?

Because you can't possibly be that mentally challenged.

Am I to believe that you want me and my comrades to give up our retirement? You know…. The one that we EARNED! Would you be willing to take Social Security away from senior citizens as well?
Like I said…… MENTALLY CHALLENGED.

And America is the stingiest place on earth? We are the MOST GENEROUS place on earth. In no other country do they spend what we spend on humanitarian aid from the government, and private aid from the citizens to other nations.
Once again…. MENTALLY CHALLENGED.

Ha! I thougth it went without saying that I kept the thing in a freezer. Otherwise, i could have drunk it from a straw after a few hours.

I experienced that, even coming back (to California, a most-modern part of the USA) from Europe.

Not only modernity, but size (fully apart from lefty stereotyping and malevolent-mythmaking) was an issue. Not just that things we consider trivial like drinking fountains are everywhere (the first thing I did when getting back to Oakland's airport was to use the drinking fountain!), but as I've written before, “Motel 6 is a palace.”

I'd also (for other, philosophical reasons) insist we work through clean-water and rural (and urban) electrification improvement programs (and niftier things we can afford to do now that we are highly developed, such as energy-efficiency programs like insulation retrofitting in structures) on the USA (such as in the ARC region, the Mississippi Delta country, etc., where we still need electricity and running water for everyone) before we “experiment” on others, elsewhere. (Which, elsewhere, should include revisiting and pursuit of additional measures that benefit us as well as “them,” such as a double-track Pan-American railroad as well as modern highway system.)