 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1... 13 14 15 16 17 ...30  Previous Next
|
|
TEST: What's your political preference? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting Astrakan:
Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
World governments: $79.51 billion
American people: $71.2 billion
As lmoelleb pointed out, these figures don't take population into account. The only fair way to make comparisons like these are to do it by capita.
KM
You do the math:
US Population @300 million
World population @6 billion
per capita for U.S. - $237
per capita forthe rest of the world - $13.25 Amazing you end up look like you give more than everything else when you manage to wash out the contributions of everyone else by grouping them with the populations of the countries receiving the contributions.  Compare with your equals instead of being amazed how generous you are compared to North Korea. Try doing the math against Sweden, Norway, Denmark, or the Netherlands. | | | Regards
Lars | | | | Last edited: by lmoelleb |
| | Registered: March 23, 2007 |  Posts: 317 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think I've done something very bad in starting the discussion down this path.  It's worth pointing out that the various statistics that you pull up about something like charity are inevitably going to have flaws. The first chart I linked to was 'aid to developing countries', which is of course a small part of charity and totally ignores internal giving. It also ignore the more meaningful conditions attached a mechanisms through which they are given (e.g. holding interest on third-world debt). The point I was trying to make was that to say the US was generous and everyone else wasn't, and that the social structures of non-US-style countries were proven failures, was hogwash! I think I fluffed it. Stuart | | | This is a sig... ... ... yay...
Don't understand? Maybe DVDProfilerWiki.org does! |
| | Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with Ken (the kdh1949 one  ): it's not (or should not be) about who gives the most and who comes second. It's not a race, for crying out loud! So I would suggest we stop hitting each other over the head with statistics (I presume we've all taken the course "how to lie with statistics", so we could go on forever...). Stuart rightly points out how this discussion started. And that, in turn, resulted from taking an - in itself - innocent test. Let's not get carried away here... |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lmoelleb: Quote:
It's quite simple. The wellfare states have freely chosen to become wellfare states and would have it no other way. So basically we have voluntarely chosen to contribute to contribute our aid through the tax system. So some how involuntary taxes somehow turn into voluntary charitable donations. Just how does that work. Just exactly how much say do you have to say about where your "voluntary" taxes are being spent? Comparing "government charitable" spending to individual charitable spending is ludicrous. Governments rarely make "charitable donations" without hefty strings attached. There are certainly exceptions, but not many. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting lmoelleb:
Quote:
It's quite simple. The wellfare states have freely chosen to become wellfare states and would have it no other way. So basically we have voluntarely chosen to contribute to contribute our aid through the tax system.
So some how involuntary taxes somehow turn into voluntary charitable donations. Just how does that work.
Sorry, I should probably not have tried to write it smarter than my English skills allowed, let me try to put it clearer: The system we have is what we prefer to have. It is not enforce on us any more or less than your system is enforced on you. Quote:
Just exactly how much say do you have to say about where your "voluntary" taxes are being spent?
I ahve as much as I want. From discussions with US friends I know enough about how far apart the understanding of each others system are to make any point of trying to explain why we prefer it this way. I do not understand how you could possible prefer it to be the way it is in the states, but I do understand that this is what you prefer, so can't we just leave it at both of us having it the way we want, and both of us thinking the other is weird (we could discuss for a few thousand pages, but I think we would end up same place anyway).  Quote:
Comparing "government charitable" spending to individual charitable spending is ludicrous. Governments rarely make "charitable donations" without hefty strings attached. There are certainly exceptions, but not many. It is correct this is a huge problem when you try to compare the numbers (not to mention it's a problem the help is given that way in the first place). But ignoring the number completely obviously makes no more sense when comparing than including the bilateral share without considering the "strings" at all. This is why you will find a number of models trying to calculate things like "quality of aid" etc. | | | Regards
Lars | | | | Last edited: by lmoelleb |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | I truly am just trying to understand.
Here in the U.S., taxes are not voluntary. Once they are paid, we have absolutely no say whatsoever in how they are spent. If the government decides to spend every dime on the military, there is no way for me to object (until the next election, for all the good that does).
You seem to be saying in your responses that you do have a way to influence how your tax money is spent in Denmark. I am very interested to know how that works. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
I truly am just trying to understand.
Here in the U.S., taxes are not voluntary. Once they are paid, we have absolutely no say whatsoever in how they are spent. If the government decides to spend every dime on the military, there is no way for me to object (until the next election, for all the good that does).
You seem to be saying in your responses that you do have a way to influence how your tax money is spent in the UK. I am very interested to know how that works. Hmm, I can't claim I am an expert on the UK - I'm a Danish citizen but have lived the last 10 years in the Netherlands.  No, taxes aren't voluntary and this is not what I am trying to say. I am just saying that we are generally speaking not unhappy with paying the high taxes - if we where unhappy with it we would have changed the system - we do voluntary keep the high tax system in place though our democratic votes. I can't say for sure what the difference is, but I have the feeling the main diffence is how we see the state (or federal state in your case). As far as I it appears to me looking at it from the outside many Americans see the federal state as an institution that tries to control you (in this very example by desiding how many of your money they give in charity and who they give it to). Personally I primarely see the state as the institution that guaranties my wellbeing. I expect it to provide education, I expect it to help me if I get sick, I expect it to provide me with safety (police, military, etc), and I expect it to help me if I can't make a living from working for any reason (for example when I get old). It is primarely my service organization. Sure it isn't perfect (far from it), but that is what it is here to do. Why there is this difference is hard to say. I can think of some things that might be contributing factors - obviously this is just my observations on how it appears and I hope you don't take offense if I make some wrong assumptions: 1) The size of the country. Our governments simply seems "closer". And it is when you consider how many votes it takes for a seat in parliament. 2) History. Denmark never had a war of independence. Basically our government/parliament representing the people took the power away from the king/church. As an outside observer I get the impression that the former status of being a colony run by a state that people did not feel represented them makes Americans generally more sceptic towards any (federal) state power. There is probably more to it than that. It's hart to say, but it is important to know the difference is there. And remember in the end the European and American systems are basically identical. Sure we can discuss "huge" differences - but they are only "huge" because they are the only things that is different between to almost identical systems. If we put the American and various European systems up against things like communism, anarchy, (non-constitutional) monarchy, etc I suspect we would see them as identical systems tuned slightly differently. | | | Regards
Lars |
| | Registered: March 28, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,299 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lmoelleb: Quote:
As far as I it appears to me looking at it from the outside many Americans see the federal state as an institution that tries to control you (in this very example by desiding how many of your money they give in charity and who they give it to). Personally I primarely see the state as the institution that guaranties my wellbeing. I expect it to provide education, I expect it to help me if I get sick, I expect it to provide me with safety (police, military, etc), and I expect it to help me if I can't make a living from working for any reason (for example when I get old). It is primarely my service organization. Sure it isn't perfect (far from it), but that is what it is here to do. In a post filled with well-articulated thoughts, this one in particular stands out as being very similar to how I tend to see it myself and I think it provides some great insights into how different people may view their government. Well done. KM | | | Tags, tags, bo bags, banana fana fo fags, mi my mo mags, TAGS!
Dolly's not alone. You can also clone profiles.
You've got questions? You've got answers? Take the DVD Profiler Wiki for a spin. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lmoelleb: Quote:
It's quite simple. The wellfare states have freely chosen to become wellfare states and would have it no other way. So basically we have voluntarely chosen to contribute to contribute our aid through the tax system. You have chosen to do it personally. It doesn't really matter how much you contribute either way - both are voluntary, both ways are fine... And the quote you had stated "American citizens give more, but the government does so much less that the country as a whole looks miserly". How much clearer can it be? It seems that it is not clear enough as you are still misreading it. It says that the country 'looks' miserly, not 'is' miserly. There is a HUGE difference between what the sentence actually says and what you think it says.  Quote:
If person A gives $10 to charity directly and $2 though tax, while B gives $2 directly and $15 though tax, then B has obviously given $17 while A has given $12. Basically you are trying to claim person A is giving most. Sorry, that is just not making any sense.
That is not what I am trying to claim, that is something you came up with, so please don't put words in my mouth. My analogy would be, person A gives $10 to charity directly and $5 through taxes, while person B gives $10 through taxes and $5 directly, they have both given $15. Quote:
Again - "given by individuals". So basically you are saying "If we ignore the largest part of the contributions made by the British and Canadians, we do well - even though we also ignore the smallest part we give. How can that in any way be a meaningfull comparison? I am not saying anything of the kind. I am saying, and the article backs me up, that "the American people are actually no less generous than those of other developed countries." For some reason, you seem hell bent on proving that isn't true. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lmoelleb: Quote:
Again - "given by individuals". So basically you are saying "If we ignore the largest part of the contributions made by the British and Canadians, we do well - even though we also ignore the smallest part we give. How can that in any way be a meaningfull comparison? I have gone back and re-read the report given by "The Index of Global Philanthropy", that I linked to earlier. Something I just noticed upon the second read...America is ranked very low because the GNI charts ONLY look at government foreign aid. They do not look at private contributions. That means the numbers you are looking at, and want to use, are the ones that are ignoring the largest part of what Americans give while, at the same time counting, the largest part that you give. So tell me, how is that, in any way, a meaningful comparison? Again, I am not saying America gives more. But, please, don't tell me that they give less. That simply isn't true. As a whole, they probably give about the same as anybody else. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | Fred Thompson (R)
Mitt Romney (R)
Rudy Giuliani (R)
Mike Huckabee (R)
John McCain (R)
Hillary Clinton (D)
Barack Obama (D)
John Edwards (D)
A very interesting discussion! I personally prefer Rudy best -- the issues I disagree with him on are the least important to me and I think he's got the best record of success as a leader. |
| | Registered: March 28, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,299 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
That means the numbers you are looking at, and want to use, are the ones that are ignoring the largest part of what Americans give while, at the same time counting, the largest part that you give. So tell me, how is that, in any way, a meaningful comparison? Not trying to stir anything, but how do you know that the bolded part is true? Was that already covered elsewhere? Do we know that individual contributions of other countries (Denmark, Netherlands, whatever) doesn't also dwarf that of its governments? KM | | | Tags, tags, bo bags, banana fana fo fags, mi my mo mags, TAGS!
Dolly's not alone. You can also clone profiles.
You've got questions? You've got answers? Take the DVD Profiler Wiki for a spin. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Astrakan: Quote:
Not trying to stir anything, but how do you know that the bolded part is true? Was that already covered elsewhere? Do we know that individual contributions of other countries (Denmark, Netherlands, whatever) doesn't also dwarf that of its governments?
KM That was in direct response to lmoelleb's posts and examples. He felt I was ignoring the largest part of UK and Canadian contributions AND ignoring the smallest part of the US contributions. In both cases, those contributions were government spending. The fairest measurement, at least for me, is to take all the factors into consideration. The Center for Global Development did just that. They compared the 21 richest nations, measuring a broad range of factors and policies. On their scale, the Netherlands looks the best, Japan looks the worst, and the US ranks right in the middle...and I am fine with that. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lmoelleb: Quote:
1) The size of the country. Our governments simply seems "closer". And it is when you consider how many votes it takes for a seat in parliament.
2) History. Denmark never had a war of independence. Basically our government/parliament representing the people took the power away from the king/church. As an outside observer I get the impression that the former status of being a colony run by a state that people did not feel represented them makes Americans generally more sceptic towards any (federal) state power. The history is what points out the difference between you and us. Unlike Denmark, the way our representatives took power away from the king/church WAS through the Revolution. It seems that King George and the British Pariliament weren't too anxious to let us have that representation. But they were quite willing to make us pay taxes. Most people came to the colonies and later the US to get away from the control of the central governemts they experienced in their home countries. We have grown up with a distrust of the central government because of what happened through history. I don't disagree with what you say you expect from your government: Quote:
guaranties my wellbeing. I expect it to provide education, I expect it to help me if I get sick, I expect it to provide me with safety (police, military, etc), and I expect it to help me if I can't make a living from working for any reason (for example when I get old). It is primarely my service organization. Our approach is SLIGHTLY Different: We consider education to be a local responsibility, not a federal one (or at least we USED to). This has something to do with the difference in size between the US and Denmark, I think. We started out with the Puritan ethic that people should EARN what they get, not just be given it. That's why we don't look to the government to help if we get sick. That's what we have insurance for. What happens to us is that our elected representatives tend to behave differently once they've been elected than what they SAID they were going to do when campaigning. Some of believe that our leaders think that every dollar earned belongs to the government and that THEY decide how much of it we can keep. That's not how it was supposed to work when we declared independence in 1776. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well said, Ken, well said.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting lmoelleb:
Quote:
It's quite simple. The wellfare states have freely chosen to become wellfare states and would have it no other way. So basically we have voluntarely chosen to contribute to contribute our aid through the tax system. You have chosen to do it personally. It doesn't really matter how much you contribute either way - both are voluntary, both ways are fine... And the quote you had stated "American citizens give more, but the government does so much less that the country as a whole looks miserly". How much clearer can it be?
It seems that it is not clear enough as you are still misreading it. It says that the country 'looks' miserly, not 'is' miserly. There is a HUGE difference between what the sentence actually says and what you think it says.
Fair enough, I see it can be read both ways. It's just like a DVD Profiler rule.  Quote:
Quote:
If person A gives $10 to charity directly and $2 though tax, while B gives $2 directly and $15 though tax, then B has obviously given $17 while A has given $12. Basically you are trying to claim person A is giving most. Sorry, that is just not making any sense.
That is not what I am trying to claim, that is something you came up with, so please don't put words in my mouth. My analogy would be, person A gives $10 to charity directly and $5 through taxes, while person B gives $10 through taxes and $5 directly, they have both given $15.
Of course. I just got the impression you where trying to say the part payed though the taxes could be ignored. Quote:
Quote:
Again - "given by individuals". So basically you are saying "If we ignore the largest part of the contributions made by the British and Canadians, we do well - even though we also ignore the smallest part we give. How can that in any way be a meaningfull comparison?
I am not saying anything of the kind. I am saying, and the article backs me up, that "the American people are actually no less generous than those of other developed countries." For some reason, you seem hell bent on proving that isn't true. No I am not. I am just getting the impression you where trying to say people in the US gives more than anyone else. We simply misunderstood each other. | | | Regards
Lars | | | | Last edited: by lmoelleb |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1... 13 14 15 16 17 ...30 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |