What I Believe...Whether It Offends You or Not.

It merely requires that each individual add their own EFFORT and HARD WORK, which seems to be a hangup for many.

The hang up is when corporate America refuses to accept the natural course.

QED, the entire recession was a response to inbalance in the capitalist system. But did corporate America accept that? No. Instead they said, let's let average Americans leverage future taxes for our debt.

They used politicians and government operators like Hank Paulson, and the Fed (a private institution with a public mandate) to get what they wanted. And then influenced the Senate to change mark to market rules for banks, which will make this situation worse down the road.

Because they refused to deal with their bad debts. Average Americans had to. They declared bankruptcy in waves, foreclosed homes by the millions, but Corporate America essentially did none of that.

Very few real bankruptcies. Mainly managed bankruptcies into some very, very large institutions.

I find it wholly unsettling that about 5 banks now control most of the financial assets in America. And you should too. There is no more "free market", indeed why would the corporations in power promote a free market. They wouldn't.

the financial collapse was orchestrated by the liberal communists.

go to youtube a type democrats in their own words, and watch!

The hang up is when corporate America refuses to accept the natural course.

well thats a nice thought but as you remember that many of the banks that received the bailout did NOT want it (they did not want the government to tell them what they can and can not do), also remember GM and the others that went up to the hill and asked for the money, remember how many Union asses got on tv saying that the country needs to help out the "little 3"? capitalism was ruined with the bailout of those car companies that needed to GO AWAY!!!!

well thats a nice thought but as you remember that many of the banks that received the bailout did NOT want it (they did not want the government to tell them what they can and can not do), also remember GM and the others that went up to the hill and asked for the money, remember how many Union asses got on tv saying that the country needs to help out the "little 3"? capitalism was ruined with the bailout of those car companies that needed to GO AWAY!!!!

Yeah, I mean, I remember AIG screaming not to be bailed out and just handing that 180 billion dollars back.

And I remember the counterparties like Goldman Sachs refusing to accept the TARP money given to AIG to pay to Goldman. Don't you?

Oh wait...

The car companies? You must be joking. That cost 30-40 billion dollars...AIG by itself cost around 180 Billion.

Look at any bank balance sheet. They took the TARP money under their own terms. No bank "had" to take any money at all. They all made that decision. And they allowed and wanted the government management of their mergers.

Washington Mutual to JPMorgan, Meril to BoA, Wachovia to Wellsfargo. All those bankruptcies (that should have happened) were folded into the larger companies not on the free market but by government management of the mergers. At the request of the Larger Banks to avoid costs.

The government never tells the financial world what to do. Where have you been? How is it possible that you believe the government as an entity really operates seperately from Corporate America? Specifically the Financial Sector. The Government is the Financial Sectors largest customer via the Federal Reserve.

When's the last time you saw the Customer running the Bank?

The Government is the Financial Sectors largest customer via the Federal Reserve.

well if you choose to bank with those Mega banks then yes, but I am a credit union member so no the government is NOT a the largest customer. this bank is set up to lend out 45% of total LIQUID assets no more. its called liquidity.

AIG is not a bank they have sub-partners that are banks under the umbrella of AIG but not a bank.

Plus JP DID NOT want to take the money it was forced to them. And under their own terms? what? seriously? If you can remember the hearings on the hill just weeks after the money was handed to them they wanted to give it back as they did not need it. They were Liquid and did not ask nor need the bailout, if my memory serves me correct they paid it back first as well.

And they allowed and wanted the government management of their mergers.

I would really like to know which one if any of the banks wanted that. BoA was handed meril over a weekend yes, but if it was open to public buyout they (the financial institutions) would have let it go and bought off assets not debt.

And the car companies, really? they where going away due to poor union and management. that's all now we (the tax payers) have just prolonged the out come of them going away and will loose 30-40 Billion.

Bravo! Can't wait for Ron's Manifesto #2. I'm with you so far, Sir!

Lincoln said -

1.) You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

2.) You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

3.) You cannot lift the wage earner up by putting the wage payer down.

4.) You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

5.)You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

6.)You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.

7.You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

GG

Ruthy- Spread the word, Lincoln didn't say that.

That Obama went out and apologized for America is really a strawman argument. He's basically apologizing for the unilaterist dip5h1t and his evil henchmen for running around the globe like they owned the place in the early part of this century. Bush/Cheney huckstered the American government under its control then felt the world should lay down the same way.

If it makes you feel better to believe that Obama apologized on behalf of you and I, AND you don't need apologizing for well believe it. Tell it to the invisible man in the sky.

Sgt. Pepper

Ruthy- Spread the word, Lincoln didn't say that.

Facts never seem to get in the way of a some arguments.

I am American

well thats a nice thought but as you remember that many of the banks that received the bailout did NOT want it (they did not want the government to tell them what they can and can not do), also remember GM and the others that went up to the hill and asked for the money, remember how many Union asses got on tv saying that the country needs to help out the "little 3"? capitalism was ruined with the bailout of those car companies that needed to GO AWAY!!!!

Every single bank wanted the bailout money so they could give the paper pushers their annual bonuses for doing nothing but push more paper. What they didn't want and what the republicans tried to give them was money WITHOUT OVERSIGHT.

As for the auto industry. It would have been great to put some 80,000 blue collar workers out of work. Now, that would have been a real smart move. At least the auto industry MAKES SOMETHING TANGIBLE and doesn't push paper to look like they are doing something - anything.

$30,000,000,000 loan to the auto industry is the smartest move congress made.

$750,000,000,000 (or about 15 times a much) for the shell game played by the likes of AIG, J P Morgan, Merill Lynch, etc. was the republican idea for screwing America.

Every single bank wanted the bailout money

show me where they said this please...

"$750,000,000,000 (or about 15 times a much) for the shell game played by the likes of AIG, J P Morgan, Merill Lynch, etc. was the republican idea for screwing America." -- LasVegasRocks

The Republican idea for screwing America? You have selective memory. Actually, more Democrats (both in real numbers and by percentage) in both the House and Senate voted for TARP than did Republicans. Remember the late night, behind-closed-doors negotiations being held by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, desperately trying to get TARP passed? This was a Democratic Congress and George W. Bush bill. They are the ones that were most in favor of it.

House of Representatives vote tally for H.R. 1424 (TARP)

Senate vote tally for H.R. 1424 (TARP)

And by the way, both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voted in favor of TARP as well. Check the link.

Nice try, though.

Ron

The Republican idea for screwing America?

Just the "normal" case of the "victors" writing the history.

Give it a year or two and the FACT that the Dem's have controlled congress since 2006 will be "forgotten".

Just the "normal" case of the "victors" writing the history. -- kazutam

Well said, kaz. Unfortunately for them, their historical revisionism can be checked for accuracy. At least for now.

Jefferson didn't say this, Gerald Ford did. Common misattribution.

Too funny. Did he fall down before or after he said it? <sorry, couldn't resist>

well if you choose to bank with those Mega banks then yes, but I am a credit union member so no the government is NOT a the largest customer. this bank is set up to lend out 45% of total LIQUID assets no more. its called liquidity.

?

What does it matter when the small banks or credit unions control almost nothing? These "mega-banks" will be controlling financial policy in the years to come regardless of where you choose to bank.

And it doesn't change the fact that they are supposedly "free market" entities who were very interested in government action on their behalf.

AIG is not a bank they have sub-partners that are banks under the umbrella of AIG but not a bank.

Again?

Nothing to do with my point whether its a bank or not. They are a "financial institution" who needed over 100 billion dollars to keep from going under. Which they gladly took. And other "banks" were glad to see them take it because it meant they could pay off their derivative defaults.

Like the 12 billion in Cash they paid to Goldman Sachs that came directly from the TARP. But again, I'm sure Goldman refused that money knowing it came from the government...

Oh wait...

Plus JP DID NOT want to take the money it was forced to them. And under their own terms? what? seriously?

How would any money have been "forced" on them. You aware that the governments injection of liquidity into all the banks was entirely voluntary. In exchange for preferred shares, the government provided cash.

Read the financial statements of any of these banks. Not a one of them could have "survived" if not for changes in accounting rules, liquidity injections, Federal Reserve gaurantee, etc.

Why on Earth would they all be raising capital via stock issuance otherwise? Let me run down the list for you:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?Symbol=WFC&lstStatement=CashFlow&stmtView=Qtr

Wells Fargo. Q4 2008. Issued 37 Billion in Stock.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?Symbol=BAC&lstStatement=CashFlow&stmtView=Qtr

Bank of America, Q2 2008 thru Q2 2009 has issued a whooping 158 Billion dollars in Stock. You'll note the market cap (worth) of BoA is 156 Billion Dollars. Talk about dilution of the stock.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?Symbol=JPM&lstStatement=CashFlow&stmtView=Qtr

JP Morgan, issued 64 billion in stock Q3 and Q4 2008.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?Symbol=C&lstStatement=CashFlow&stmtView=Qtr

Citi issued 110 Billion in Stock in Q3 and Q4 2008.

If you believe these banks didn't *need* to be stabilized, didn't want capital injections, or didn't move to get accounting rules changed in their favor, then I have some valuable swamp land to sell you in Florida.

By issuing stock...they were raising capital. Precisely because they were losing billions and billions of dollars in mark downs. But issuing Stock can only get you so far, it majorly diluted their stock values in addition to the cratering that was already happening in the sector.

Indeed, when your stock price goes below $1, issuing stock becomes virtually impossible as a capital raising method.

If you can remember the hearings on the hill just weeks after the money was handed to them they wanted to give it back as they did not need it. They were Liquid and did not ask nor need the bailout, if my memory serves me correct they paid it back first as well.

They borrowed it in Q4 2008 and paid it back in Q2 2009.

I would really like to know which one if any of the banks wanted that. BoA was handed meril over a weekend yes, but if it was open to public buyout they (the financial institutions) would have let it go and bought off assets not debt.

Because if any of these companies had been allowed to truly fail it would have adversely impacted the rest of them.

All you have to do is look at the allowance of Lehman Bros, and Bear Sterns failing. Sure, the free market companies were looking to buy up the assets of the failed...but the negative fall out more than offset any gain from buying them up on the free market.

So yes, that is what they really wanted. Managed aquisition, not free market failure.

And the car companies, really? they where going away due to poor union and management. that's all now we (the tax payers) have just prolonged the out come of them going away and will loose 30-40 Billion.

If you look at Toyota, they've actually faired worse in this whole mess. It's not *just* bad management, bad policies, bad union. And we certainly can't say that now as the Union concessions have been pretty big, and now these unions are paid the same rate as the workers in Honda and Toyota plants.

My argument is the complaint about 30-40 billion dollars? As opposed to the 100s and 100s of billions spent to shore up the financial sector.

I mean, the anger over the Auto Bailouts mystifies me because there's no where near as much over these financial bailouts.

Okay name one third world country that has had a natural disaster that the United States has not sent aid to in the form of either money, volunteers, or food?

I can't think of any.. unless The Republic of Stupidity is a new 3rd world country we forgot about ;)

When you make such a silly claim, it's up to YOU to prove it, not me to disprove it.

My original statment stands...

All you did was gin up a bunch of over-the-top exaggerations.

Nothing to see here... move along... move along...

2.2

LMAO!!!

You're both citizens of the Republic, whether or not you realize it.

Embrace your future, boys... the Republic is a BIG place... there's always room for one, or two more.

BTW, the word is "hypocrite"... thank you for helping me make my point... :-)

Wait until Cap and Trade hit. Carbon credits, funded by or taxes that will hit us, are going to make third world countries rich nations.

People forgot that the U.S. funds many foriegn causes and rights, on top of emergency relief.

Here are some we never hear about.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/05/us/vanderslice.htm

The republic of stupidity is it lonely there where you live? It must be. You still didnt answer my quesiton because you cant. the United States is always the first country to come to the aid of other countries when there is a disaster even if that country doesnt have a good relationship with the United States.

Okay name one third world country that has had a natural disaster that the United States has not sent aid to in the form of either money, volunteers, or food?

There's a lot that we don't do.

In terms of per capita, we're way down the list on giving. When it comes to the portion of our income we're around 20th.

Plus we stopped development programs for 3rd world countries we used to employ all the time in the 50s and 60s.

We had development programs for India (financing the green revolution), China, Taiwan, S. Korea, etc. All of which resulted in a significant rise in living standards. The Marshal Plan which helped rebuild Europe.

We don't have/and did not have such programs for Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, hosts of African countries, etc. Instead of helping those countries, we came in, made a mess, and left. Twice in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan.

In comparison, the amounts we spent for development in Taiwan, S. Korea, amount to 30-40 times the amount we are giving for various African Countries today.

African countries

Billions and Billions (Bush), funneled into African nations and you are more worried that we haven't given enough money for development?

When do you feel the country itself should start doing something,or is it more important to you that we fund other countries more than we fund U.S. Citizens?

the United States is always the first country to come to the aid of other countries when there is a disaster

Do you mean like in Indonesia and the other countires hit by the man made tsunami? Were they sent millions of dollars in cash? And it was distributed to ,not the poor and effected,but the Corporations forcing people from their lands so that they could develop it into resorts.

And while we are at it ...let's not forget to mention New Orleans and all the POOR people displaced ,relocated and abanoned across the country so that the city's demographics could be changed for the elitist agenda.

All public housing was demolished.Public schools closed.Corporate Charter schools opened for the wealthy...etc.

The Shock Doctrine | Naomi Klein

It happened in New Orleans. After the flood, an already divided city turned into a battleground between gated green zones and raging red zones--the result not of water damage but of the "free-market solutions" embraced by the president. The Bush administration refused to allow emergency funds to pay public sector salaries, and the City of New Orleans, which lost its tax base, had to fire three thousand workers in the months after Katrina. Among them were sixteen of the city's planning staff--with shades of "de Baathification," laid off at the precise moment when New Orleans was in desperate need of planners. Instead, millions of public dollars went to outside consultants, many of whom were powerful real estate developers. And of course thousands of teachers were also fired, paving the way for the conversion of dozens of public schools into charter schools, just as Friedman had called for.

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2007/12/shock-doctrine-action-new-orleans

A spanish subtitled short film by Alfonso Cuaron regarding Naomi Klein's research on Disaster Capitalism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvG0gbvZ4tY

After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts.... New Orleans’s residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened…. These events are examples of “the shock doctrine”: using the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters -- to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy. Sometimes, when the first two shocks don’t succeed in wiping out resistance, a third shock is employed: the electrode in the prison cell or the Taser gun on the streets.

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book

Its not our fault that our aid doesnt go to where it is intended. Are we supposed to start wars with all the governments that take the aid from their people? The bottom line is we do provide the aid to the people. And Nicey, we do give alot, and just because you think comparitively we dont give enough, that is your opinion, the bottom line is we do give.

Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4231109320246838401#

Based on breakthrough historical research and four years of on-the-ground reporting in disaster zones, The Shock Doctrine vividly shows how disaster capitalism – the rapid-fire corporate reengineering of societies still reeling from shock – did not begin with September 11, 2001. The book traces its origins back fifty years, to the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman, which produced many of the leading neo-conservative and neo-liberal thinkers whose influence is still profound in Washington today. New, surprising connections are drawn between economic policy, “shock and awe” warfare and covert CIA-funded experiments in electroshock and sensory deprivation in the 1950s, research that helped write the torture manuals used today in Guantanamo Bay.

The Shock Doctrine follows the application of these ideas through our contemporary history, showing in riveting detail how well-known events of the recent past have been deliberate, active theatres for the shock doctrine, among them: Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973, the Falklands War in 1982, the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Asian Financial crisis in 1997 and Hurricane Mitch in 1998.

The Shock Doctrine:Naomi Klein Videos

personally i like this conspiracy theory if that is what it was meant for... that is

the man made tsunami?

Like the guy or hate him, he gave more to Africa than any other president:

When President Bush came to power in 2001, the US spent $1.4bn a year on humanitarian and development aid in Africa. By 2006, the figure had quadrupled to $5.6bn a year. And it is likely to get bigger. The centrepiece of Mr Bush's aid to Africa is the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Pepfar), a five-year, $15bn Aids prevention and treatment programme launched in 2003. His most recent budget proposes doubling the funding to $30bn over the next five years.

For all the work that Bill Clinton has done on Aids prevention through his charitable foundation since he left office, he took little interest in Africa during his presidency. His one and only visit was in 1998, when he apologised for his government’s inaction during the Rwandan genocide. It was also on Mr Clinton's watch that US troops pulled out of Somalia following the Black Hawk Down incident in 1993, leaving the country in the midst of a deadly security vacuum that exists to this day.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/popular-in-africa-bush-has-given-more-aid-than-any-other-us-president-783387.html

BTW, the word is "hypocrite"... thank you for helping me make my point... :-)

I noticed this as well, but thought maybe it was a deliberate shot at Michael Moore's uncanny resemblance to a hippo.  So he's either a bad speller, or he's making a joke.  Either way, I thought it was a little funny.

Okay name one third world country that has had a natural disaster that the United States has not sent aid to in the form of either money, volunteers, or food?

Louisiana--oh wait--they finally sent a few, but the wrong few, of the wrong type and the people were already dead and dying.

The Mennonites and the Rainbow Family managed to make it in to help.

Don't do what? It had every thing to do with Capitalism.What is the basis for the deletion?The Corporation is capitalism manifested.The truth is that the USA is a Corporation ...proven with the direct link to the State of Delaware.

It related how what the article stated about capitalism and how it is an incorporated entity.

Derail?It proved where the problem lies and how we came to this point.

It stands?..it stands that you just suppressed some very relevant information that was on topic.

Others read it and saw what you did.I think this action will hurt your credibility and bring scrutiny and wonder as to why you did this.

How did it derail the article? You deleted the comment. Not the author.

It is plain to me why you did this...now try to explain it to the other readers.Or are you just going to ignore ...I have recourse. You are not the final word...unless you own MSNBC now.Of course the comment was read by those that needed to read it and I'll just write two articles .One based on the comment and the other based on your action.

Or will you, to suppress these actions of mine, "suspend" me or even worse ...BAN me.In a few minutes everyone will know by your inaction or action and they will be able to come to their own conclusions .

Of course you "would" suppress this information contained in the comment. It's just too relevant.People will remember you for these actions...it won't be like it never happened...it fell into the Orwellian black hole? No ,it's perpetually in cyberspace and accessible.

"You", please don't do that again unless you can justify it with something more than a vague statement...for you haven't proven it derailed anything except the agenda of the Corporation.

I would like to hear from the author of this seed what he thinks of on topic,rlevant deletions on his thread.

And I just got the letter...which COH did I violate?

1. Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks. If you see something disrespectful or inappropriate, report it - rather than further inflaming the situation. More +
   1. Adding a personal attack to an otherwise valuable comment or article serves only to render that contribution invalid in its entirety. Such content is subject to moderation.
   2. Harassment and/or intimidation of others on Newsvine will not be tolerated, and patterns of such behavior may result in account cancelation.
2. Newsvine's primary purpose is to provide a place for people to share and discuss topics relating to the news. Self-promotion, seeding links to your own site(s), and advertising are not allowed. More +
   1. Posting full articles (using the "Write Article" feature) that also appear on your blog or web site is acceptable but seeding your own stuff is not.
   2. Do not seed links to any sites you're affiliated with.
   3. Posting links to drive traffic elsewhere for personal or financial gain is prohibited.
3. Headlines should be supported by the information presented in the article/seed, rather than used primarily as a means to draw attention. Chosen news types and tags should be accurate and informative - not used to provoke or make a statement. More +
   1. The ability to categorize content, including clipping, is a privilege that carries with it a responsibility. Inappropriate or malicious use of news types, tags and clipping is prohibited.
   2. Until additional News Types are supported, indicate the nature of your article/seed in the headline, when appropriate, following the form: "[Type]: [Headline]". This standard applies to the following non-exhaustive list of News Types: Satire, Rumor, Poetry, Comic/Illustration, Review
4. As the host of your column, you are expected to foster healthy, open discussions by setting a good example. Be responsible for the content you submit and exercise impartiality when deleting comments and reporting abuse. More +
   1. Plagiarism and copyright infringement will not be tolerated. If you did not write something, do not portray it as your own (use the "blockquote" tag and cite your source by linking to the original content). If you do not have the right to republish the content in question, do not post it to Newsvine.
   2. If a comment contains a personal attack or other gross Code of Honor or User Agreement violation, it may be deleted - regardless of the quality or nature of the rest of the comment. Users are welcome to re-post moderated comments without the offending portion(s).
   3. Do not delete comments based on disagreement; remove only comments that grossly violate the Code of Honor or the User Agreement.
   4. Comments that are grossly off-topic may be deleted. If the majority of the comment is on-topic, then the comment may not be deleted for being off-topic.
5. Acts that run contrary to the spirit and purpose of Newsvine, including attempts to circumvent the Code of Honor & User Agreement, are not allowed. More +
   1. A user's participation at Newsvine is judged as a whole. Recurring counterproductive behavior or negative contributions - even if not specifically addressed in the Code of Honor or the User Agreement - may still warrant removal of that person from the Newsvine Community.

So that's the Code!

Does it just happen to be this one..."negative contributions"?

Negative for who? Other than that it seems that there was no justification for the deletion.

But I am sure that newsvine will leave it deleted...for it is becoming more apparent that actions are becoming more frequent.

And one more thing...."you" tagged this an "opinion" piece.

My comment was not an opinion but facts supported by links and credible sources.It was not inflammatory.Or a COH violation. It was not "no value".It was not advertising. It did not link to any of my many other sites.State of Delaware is a pretty releibale goverment site.law.cornell.edu is also a trusted site. So what is the problem Tyler?

This is pretty damn close to the big "C" word...eeeh?

Billions and Billions (Bush), funneled into African nations and you are more worried that we haven't given enough money for development?

When do you feel the country itself should start doing something,or is it more important to you that we fund other countries more than we fund U.S. Citizens?

http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance

Look at the graph part way down. We are #22 in terms of GNI. Gross National Income.

QED...The US gave around 25 billion dollars, Germany, whose economy is 3.9 times smaller gave around 13 billion dollars. More per person by far.

It's funny mentioned "billions and billions" we give 2-3 billion to Africa Annually.

We just spent 180 Billion Bailing AIG out of its Corporate Greed Policies.

The fact is, we, and everyone else has committed to foreign aid for a reason. And we are supposed to be committing a larger % of our GNI (everyone around the world). Because if we develop these countries, they will cease to be continual poverty states. But they cannot escape by themselves.

And they are working. Look up the Mellinum Development Village Program. Plenty of African communities are working very hard.

Compared to Taiwan, or Korea, we were giving 30-40 times more money per person annually than we do in Africa today. Today we give about $2 per person per year.

You're damn right people who face daily starvation are more important to me than knowing if a kid is in air balloon for a publicity stunt. For the money those people just cost the government we could have saved 1000s of children.

Continual Poverty States are difficult to end because they are self-reinforcing. And there's no incentive that will change that from within the countries themselves. We and the international community have brought several countries in the past to the point of self-sufficiency where they no longer needed aid.

And more importantly, they became valuable members of the international economic community.

You have 2 choices. Either A) We help as much as possible and these countries can grow economically or B) Your standard of living can drop so there's will rise because if they are continually poor companies will continue to move operations to lower cost areas.

And Nicey, we do give alot, and just because you think comparitively we dont give enough, that is your opinion, the bottom line is we do give

It's not my opinion. It's a fact that we give less in terms of our GNI.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance

You will find a chart a little ways down on the page that breaks this down. The goal as stated by the UN and accepted by the international community was that industrialized nations would give 0.7% of their GNI.

The USA is at the very bottom of all those nations. Giving 0.18% of our Gross National Income.

Sweden is at the very top with 0.98%. And there was an agreement struck with developing countries as well. That they should give 0.3% (this is countries like Brazil, China, India, Russia, etc) of their GNI.

The USA is at the very bottom of all those nation. Giving 0.18% of our Gross National Income.

You're only citing percentages as that would appear to support your claim... the simple fact of the matter is, in total dollars, the US donated over twice what the next closest donor did... even if it represents a smaller percentage, those extra 12.5 billion dollars probably go a long way... hard to eat a percentage, isn't it?

USA
25,439

Germany
12,994

UK
12,217

You're only citing percentages as that would appear to support your claim... the simple fact of the matter is, in total dollars, the US donated over twice what the next closest donor did... even if it represents a smaller percentage, those extra 12.5 billion dollars probably go a long way... hard to eat a percentage, isn't it?

USA
25,439

Germany
12,994

UK
12,217

I cited both numbers actually.

The only claim I ever made was we gave less per capita. You know, less per person. Less per unit of income.

QED...The US gave around 25 billion dollars, Germany, whose economy is 3.9 times smaller gave around 13 billion dollars. More per person by far.

From 2.22 before my last comment.

My whole point is we give less per person. How many people live in Germany? How many people live in the US?

There's 82.06 million people in Germany, There's 307.713 million people in the US.

Meaning we gave $82.67 per citizen, they gave $158.35 per citizen.

We're not the most generous by any stretch of the imagination. We are the least generous of all the Industrialized countries. It's not a coincidence that we're the only nation among those that really displays a lack of social harmony. The more social cohesion, the more people give. Because they support giving to each other, their own citizens and neighbors, they in turn view it as a responsibility to give more internationally.

Sweden gave a whooping $486.62 per person living in Sweden. And they do that every year.

_____________

And the bottom line conclusion is the same. If we allow there to be 2 billion people living in poverty states who remain impoverished, our standard of living will drop over time.

If we help develop those states, the benefits in the long run will be higher standards of livings here and elsewhere. Because it will no longer make economic sense to relocate jobs to countries that are paying wages more like our own.

You will also create consumers in other countries instead of continually poor people who never buy anything.

even if it represents a smaller percentage, those extra 12.5 billion dollars probably go a long way... hard to eat a percentage, isn't it?

To this I simply say...imagine if we were giving twice what we do now? Instead of spending it on things like doubling our military spending from 2000 to 2008, or bailing out large irresponsible financial companies.

Or if we as citizens could stop viewing each other as not all Americans. The reason those other countries (particular the top ones) give such high % is because they view each other as equals in their countries having social harmony. If we could even do half (0.35%) of what we committed to (0.7%) that would go a long way.

The more social cohesion, the more people give. Because they support giving to each other, their own citizens and neighbors, they in turn view it as a responsibility to give more internationally.

That is a HUGE leap of logic... determination of collectivism vs. individualism cannot be applied at the individual level... yes, you can break down the total amount donated to dollar per person, but that in and of itself cannot be attributed to each individual within that culture.

But I digress... the title of this article is one writer's opinion, and if his opinion is based on total dollars donated, then he is correct in his evaluation.

@ Nicey;

Your postings only deal with government type donations.

Church's, Charities, and other organizations, from here in the U.S., contribute their time and money, on top of what is governmentally given.

Add those up to see an honest total of giving by this United States. All those other private and public organizations that give are always left out of those statistics.

My fathers church had raised 1 mil. dollars and gave personal onsite help for Guatamala and they just got back last week. Spent all the money putting in wells, buying food and repairing houses there.

Those are the kind of folks that need to be added in that false total giving by this country.

How many church's and charities are in this country that give their help and money to other countries?

Add them in, then you get the truth.

Just type in Charitable organizations in the U.S., and you'll spend all day looking them up. 95% of them offer help to foriegn countries.

Add these to the above numbers you have Nicey:

International giving by US foundations: $3.4 billion

Charitable giving by US businesses: $4.9 billion

American NGOs: $9.7

Religious overseas ministries: $4.5

US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.7 billion

Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $47 billion.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance#Sidenoteonprivatecontributions

From that page, an interesting quote that leads to so many other heated debates:

Although Adelman admitted that “there are no complete figures for international private giving” she still claimed that Americans are “clearly the most generous on earth in public—but especially in private—giving”. While her assertions should be taken with caution, the numbers are high.

So again, it seems that the people of the nation...not the government, are the ones with forthright hearts and minds, and it's because of our generosity as individuals that mountains are moved across the globe.

So...next time the government steps up and says they want more from you to give to people that are in need, I would recommend saying back (as I often have), "we are already giving - you have the tax forms, check them yourselves - and we have been giving out of our personal generosity because it's the right thing to do - why don't you guys get with the program already and then maybe we'll think your heart and mind are in the right place."

Add these to the above numbers you have Nicey:

International giving by US foundations: $3.4 billion

Charitable giving by US businesses: $4.9 billion

American NGOs: $9.7

Religious overseas ministries: $4.5

US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.7 billion

Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $47 billion.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance#Sidenoteonprivatecontributions

You might want to note the rest of the figures from other nations private citizens.

Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $47 billion.

In particular, do you know what this one is?

This is the measurement of immigrants sending home money to relatives. It is not private money given by the wealthy.

http://www.globalissues.org/news/2009/01/01/184

It measured 350-650 Billion dollars (2008) was sent back home by immigrants according to the IMF. (That's Global).

However one views remittances -- As development aid, philanthropy, or families taking care of their own, this now dominant resource flow to developing countries is the result of 1) US immigration policies, 2) The myriad of American Bussinesses who employ foreign born workers, 3) American consumption which indirectly pays the wages of immigrant workers

You're anti-immigration right Greg? Let's subtract the 47 Billion in remittances since it wouldn't even exist if not for the immigrant workers being here.

That leaves about 20 billion a year, the same kind of generosity as the government.

http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/

Here's the link that factors in private giving and the measure of effectiveness for all the countries. The US is still extremely low.

Again, the top countries are Sweden, Norway, etc because their citizens simply give more per person privately.

If you look at the chart below this link called: "Quality-adjusted aid and charitable giving/GDP (%)"

You will see the US is again...close to the very bottom in terms of the % of our economy when factoring in private charity and quality of aid.

I'm sorry...the conclusion based on the overall evidence is the citizenry is no more giving than the government and we rank lower globally than just about every other industrialized nation. Our citizens would rather have another Plasma television, and that is because we are simply not united as a people and too interested in our own concerns.

The reason the government goal is very important is because those funds are focused into large access funds. One location where funds can be aquired by developing countries. Rather than the rather dispersed amounts given privately, which are often not focused, not evenly distributed, etc.

So...next time the government steps up and says they want more from you to give to people that are in need, I would recommend saying back (as I often have), "we are already giving - you have the tax forms, check them yourselves - and we have been giving out of our personal generosity because it's the right thing to do - why don't you guys get with the program already and then maybe we'll think your heart and mind are in the right place."

This is not correct. Because when you subtract remittances from immigrant workers, the private US born citizens give no more than the government does.

In fact, if you look at the two rankings:

• Net ODA in 2008 as percent of GNI - 0.18
• Quality-adjusted aid and charitable giving/GDP (%) - 0.07

The government is doing better than the citizens privately.

Especially as some of the "private" measurements include government funds and aren't neccesarily only for the "development" of other countries.

• US Business 2.8 Billion...which may be to invest in their business (not necessarily social benefits) of the developing countries directly.
• American NGOs, 6.6 Billion, and NGOs certainly raise some of their funds from the government
• Religious Ministries 3.4 Billion...which is of course has a motive behind it being conversion
• U.S. Scholarships...1.3 Billion, of which certainly some are from federal grants to colleges.

Add those up to see an honest total of giving by this United States. All those other private and public organizations that give are always left out of those statistics.

http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/

Apples to Apples the US still does not measure up.

@ Nicey;

Nice research, but can you honestly say, you are more worried about what other nations do, over what we do.

Besides those numbers, there are many hidden monetary funding payouts, that get's funnelled to foreign nations, not added in those figures and are named something else besides foreign aid, and you should know that. You don't like America much, DO YOU! Either that, or your a tree hugger.

It could be labeled anything from human rights aid to to environmental aid.

That figure about "NATIONS HELP", is a dupe, to make us look bad.

You don't like America much, DO YOU! Either that, or your a tree hugger.

It's a love affair. Of course there are plenty of things to like here but that doesn't mean everything is good or the best.

And I think you're missing my overall point. If we (the entire industrialized, plus inbetween countries) help develop other countries to the point of being viable economies, this is beneficial for all.

You turn perma-poverty stricken people into economic producers and consumers. This raises the standard of living for them, which in turn benefits us by reducing the availability of ultra-cheap labor, providing other global conusmers (aside from the US), and enhanced prosperity for more of the globe.

It could be labeled anything from human rights aid to to environmental aid.

That would be under charity as general or what the various NGO/Religious/etc donate to.

What the us gives as a total number for goverment development aid goes to all sorts of things, human rights, environment, social help, etc.

That figure about "NATIONS HELP", is a dupe, to make us look bad.

By any measurable way, private or government lots of other countries simply give more per person. That goes back to many of those countries having a better social harmony than we do.

And I think you're missing my overall point. If we (the entire industrialized, plus inbetween countries) help develop other countries to the point of being viable economies, this is beneficial for all.

I'm not missing your point at all.

It's time the other countries, that have money funnelled in, abuse the funds for personal political gain, start fending for themselves for awhile.

America is hurting right now.

As you have said before Nicey, "AMERICA IS NOT THE WORLDS POLICE STATE"!

Same with money, AMERICA IS NOT THE WORLDS FINANCIAL BAILOUT INSTITUTE", to make up for the other countries failings.

Seems to be a fair argument, would you think?

It's time the other countries, that have money funnelled in, abuse the funds for personal political gain, start fending for themselves for awhile.

That's true. And it's true everywhere. In our own government, in other governments, etc.

I think a more appropriate question is how do we give access to these funds to the people who really need it. And I think the answer is large centered public funds that must be approached with requests for grants by the recieving countries. Not simply given to some other government. But a process for being approved for funds from one central location.

One central fund for agriculture, one for disease, one for infrastructure building, etc.

It's not feasible to ask many of these countries to just stop being poor. They are in poverty traps that will actually worsen if we cut funding. And that will come back on us later.

Poverty traps are self-reinforcing. Just telling someone to stop bad habits (having too many children which all poor countries have extremely high birth rates, provide food, education, etc.) isn't enough.

It's like telling Americans they should have been smarter and not all bought homes and shot their credit to @!$%#e. How many listened? Not enough. Mob mentality.

As you have said before Nicey, "AMERICA IS NOT THE WORLDS POLICE STATE"!

This is something that has often hurt America. At times certainly necessary, but currently a little extreme. Especially in proportion to our budget and income.

Same with money, AMERICA IS NOT THE WORLDS FINANCIAL BAILOUT INSTITUTE", to make up for the other countries failings.

This is something that is not akin to the same "bailouts" we just experienced of our own wealthy companies. It's not a bail out at all. It's an investment in the future.

Not only that, but we are generally repaid large amounts of the government loans made to these countries. India, China, Taiwan, etc all repaying loans.

Seems to be a fair argument, would you think?

It's not all that similar. We're spending something around 700 billion in military spending this year. We're talking about 25 Billion in the government development fund currently. We need to be spending around 90-100 Billion to really be helping.

It's not a give away. We're spending more on a lot of things that are less effective and less needed.

I opposed the "bailout", I opposed the "stimulus", and I oppose "health INSURANCE reform"(because that's what it really is NOT health care reform).

Next time you want your agenda pushed, I suggest you start by urging your party to pick a candidate that can win an election, then win that election. That will greatly increase your odds. Your opinions were not shared by the majority of voters, so your agenda will be placed on the back burner until you can win an election. Welcome to America!

Your opinions were not shared by the majority of voters, so your agenda will be placed on the back burner until you can win an election.

WRONG!!!!

The majority of Americans(around 70%) opposed the bank bailout, the majority of Americans(again around 70%) opposed the "stimulus" plan, currently the majority of Americans(over 50%) oppose this so called "health care reform".

For YOU it may have everything to do with the "party", for most of the rest of us it has to do with the good of this nation.

So if YOU think that the legislators NOT doing what their constituents want them to do is a good thing, well I think come next year you may be in for a bit of a shock, because those clowns(congress) can be voted out also.

The majority of Americans(around 70%) opposed the bank bailout, the majority of Americans(again around 70%) opposed the "stimulus" plan, currently the majority of Americans(over 50%) oppose this so called "health care reform".

Show your proof.

For YOU it may have everything to do with the "party", for most of the rest of us it has to do with the good of this nation.

Sure it does. Does you "concern" write legislation? Does you intent run for office? The I suggest you learn a little more about politics and participate. If you can't win elections, you're not going to get your way, as you are learning now.

So if YOU think that the legislators NOT doing what their constituents want them to do is a good thing, well I think come next year you may be in for a bit of a shock, because those clowns(congress) can be voted out also.

Of course they can be voted out, but will they? How do you know that they weren't doing what their constituents told them to do?

You use a lot of assumption to make your points. Do you have any facts? I'm not here to debate opinion.

I'm not here to debate opinion.

Yet you started this with the OPINION that I had some sort of political agenda.

YOURS is quite clear. Since you don't wish to debate "opinions" don't bother.

I have no regard for your "opinion" either, but I will fight to the death for your right to express it.

Yet you started this with the OPINION that I had some sort of political agenda.

Did you already forget what you posted? I want what you are smoking!

These are YOUR words, voicing your political agenda:

I agree it is NOW time to quit being the silent majority and let these loud mouths know that we are getting sick and tired of paying for the entire world much less those in our country who are too lazy to pull their own weight.

I opposed the "bailout", I opposed the "stimulus", and I oppose "health INSURANCE reform"(because that's what it really is NOT health care reform).

I suppose this is where you argue that YOUR agenda isn't really an agenda, because somehow you are different from all other human beings. Right?

YOURS is quite clear. Since you don't wish to debate "opinions" don't bother.

Yes, I have a political agenda that I would like to see advanced, that's kind of why I vote. Maybe you have other reasons, but mine is purely political.Since you don't want to concern yourself with facts, don't bother.

I have no regard for your "opinion" either, but I will fight to the death for your right to express it.

You don't have to fight me for that right, for several reason, of which you are seemingly unaware:

A) I'm not in a position to take away your right to voice your opinion with any means other than kidnapping or murder, which I do not partake in.

B) I have no desire to stifle any free speech, since I make a living based on free speech, and I am an American who loves my right to free speech. You're assumption that I am trying to deny you anything is just fanatasy based on paranoid delusions.

C) I feel that you can voice your opinion all day long, yet when you provide no facts for your argument, you're just whining publicly for attention's sake, I guess.

Again, if you want to debate, I suggest you use facts. If you just want to whine so people read what you have to say, have at it.

here are a few polls that validates kazutams statement

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/federal_bailout/february_2009/54_say_no_to_all_bailouts

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/03/news/economy/automakers_poll/?postversion=2008120313

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS250306Feb-2009+PRN20090209

My respect for you has just gone up considerably as a result of your amicable response.

Why?

Its an event in these type of communities, that happens every week.

It is one person's opinion, not an event.

Its not just an opinion. This goes on in HOA's and community managed properties all the time.

I have decided to air out my views on a variety of topics, at the risk of possibly alienating a few

Its an opinion, not an event. This talk may happen at communities, but the author isn't alluding to a community or event where such talk has taken place. He is directing his views and this message towards the Newsvine community.

Completely my mistake and I apologize.

No problem. As long as you caught the mistake. Thanks.

PNB:

Unfortunately, most who are raging against the movie have not seen (and will not see) it. They are merely spouting off the talking points presented by those in the news who oppose it.

I haven't seen it yet, either, so I can't say one thing or another. But if Moore's main point is pro-capitalism / anti-corporatism, I'm in total agreement with said point.

Agreed. Back in the day you could work to gain experience, and if you liked the industry and were good at it, you could hope to open your own successful business. These days, whatever business you're in, there's a corporate giant monopolizing the market due to their increased buying power. Howard Cunningham from Happy Days would have had his hardware store crushed by Home Depot, filed for bankruptcy and taken a job as a stockboy for $7/hour in order to retire.

I think most people understand that very well because the government already has, including freedom and dignity.

Michael Moore is Possibly the Biggest Windbag in America

Maybe one of the biggest, right up there with Limbaugh and Beck.

Maybe one of the biggest, right up there with Limbaugh and Beck.

don't forget Obama, they are to him "Just Words".

easy for you to say. As a parent of a MR child I resent her condition being another word for something bad or within her control-talk about typical? wow.

And as for saying this is something leftist or how bad it is getting? Most people would find calling somebody mentally retarded as an insult as rude, impolite, mean spirited, and when I was a kid you could end up with Lifeboy in the mouth for spewing stuff like that. People who have low IQs can't help it and don't need your help to be held up for ridicule. Too PC, well it was impolite before the term PC was invented.

what? You compared the mentally retarded to being an elitist @!$%# as if both were bad choices. You are just trying to excuse rude , mean spirited behavior. not cutting it. In fact comments like yours are part of the dumbing down, and degradation of any civility we have left in this country. Being naively polite was one of our better qualities as a nation. We were nice. Now we are just crude, rude and lewd. and you betcha damn proud of it. Sad that you think it is ok and can't just say, sorry I shouldn't have used that comparison. Stupid elitiist morons=mentally retarded. These kids struggle to be taken seriously their whole lives, and Forrest Gump was right--"stupid is as stupid does". You could easily edit that out--but then you don't care who you offend (even if they can't help their disability?)

This article is his opinion, and everyone has a choice to accept it as such, or just go on about your business. That is what NV is all about for everyone, I think. Read the Headline of the article...

Ron - It takes courage to state your opinion on anything on the vine, way to go. No one can make you change your opinion except yourself. This goes for everyone else, as well, I believe.

I couldn't agree w/ Ruthy more! God forbid someone have an opinion these days... stick by it man...

Wait... did I just say that... that I agreed w/ Ruthy on something?! Well... Newsvine continually surprises me...

No problem.

However the meaning of the 7 points listed remain the same.

Well, one could argue the quote loses its significance. The people who started the rumor probably thought so as well.