Kerry in the news

[Matt25]

Lance:

Also what is Scotland doing to help the poor in Africa? I don’t remember seeing that they are sending masive amounts of aid but I could be wrong.

statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?ID=7196
Scotland is part of the UK. The UK gives 0.36% of GDP in foreign aid. The USA gives 0.16%.(globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp) Much of the US aid goes to Israel and Egypt not because they are poor but because they are geo-politically important to US interests.

For information about charitable giving you could visit sciaf.org.uk/ the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund or home.developmentgateway.org/

 

[CatQuilt]

statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?ID=7196
Scotland is part of the UK. The UK gives 0.36% of GDP in foreign aid. The USA gives 0.16%.(globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp) Much of the US aid goes to Israel and Egypt not because they are poor but because they are geo-politically important to US interests.

For information about charitable giving you could visit sciaf.org.uk/ the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund or home.developmentgateway.org/

Aren’t statisitcs great! 0.36% of $1,000 is $3.60 0.16% of $1,000,000 is $1600. What’s the UK’s GDP and what is the US’s?

Everyone (except Socialists) understand that private charities can organize/dsitribute aid more efficiently than government agencies.

 

[dwc]

Here we go again … do people really not realize the statistics deal only with the US government’s giving and don’t account for all the US citizen’s private donations? C’mon, this is old news, hashed and rehashed during the tsunami relief period after that guy from the UN opened his mouth and put his foot in.

Yes, the US government gives less of its GNP to overseas relief than many countries. BUT, the US citizens, of their own free will, donate far more to overseas relief, placing total US giving above any other nations’. Of course, private donations are not attached to our policy objectives in any way. The government could raise taxes to increase its “official” relief spending, but it doesn’t have to — we do it voluntarily.

To me, the fact that US citizens are willing to freely give their own, post tax dollars, to those in need is more impressive than the amount of tax dollars other countries send. I normally wouldn’t compare, but since the gauntlet was thrown down …

 

[Matt25]

dwc:

Yes, the US government gives less of its GNP to overseas relief than many countries. BUT, the US citizens, of their own free will, donate far more to overseas relief, placing total US giving above any other nations’.

What is your source for a per capita comparison of charitable giving between the USA and other countries?

Incidentally in my posting I gave web references for the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund and an NGO. Neither of these are state entities so much of the response to my posting is wholly beside the point.

 

[David_Paul]

Lance:

If he does not believe what we believe…he should become a protestant, Unitarian, Buddhist or Muslim or something with which he can agree.

I vote Buddhist. A safe alternative for everyone. If Teresa would permit it, Old Amish might be better however.

 

[dwc]

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, in 2003, the world’s major countries gave $108.5 billion in combined foreign aid. Of this, the U.S. contributed $37.8 billion, or 35 percent, of the total. The next largest foreign-aid contributor was the Netherlands, which gave $12.2 billion, following two years in which it was actually a net recipient of foreign aid. The claim of stinginess, however, comes from a different calculation — foreign aid as a share of national income. In 2003, U.S. foreign aid came to just 0.34 percent, well below the world leading Dutch at 2.44 percent. Other big contributors are Ireland (1.83 percent), Norway (1.49 percent), and Switzerland (1.09 percent). The U.S. would have to triple foreign aid just to reach the lowest of these contributors.

The first thing one notices when looking at the big foreign-aid contributors is that they all spend very little on national defense. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2002, the Netherlands spent just 1.6 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. Norway spent 2.1 percent, Switzerland spent 1.1 percent, and Ireland spent a piddling 0.7 percent. By contrast, the U.S. spent 3.4 percent — and this was before the Iraq war. It’s easy to be generous with foreign aid when another country is essentially providing your defense for free.

Another thing one notices is that the foreign-aid data are only for “official” (i.e., government) aid. The data are sketchy, but by all accounts Americans are far more generous in terms of charitable contributions than the citizens of any other country. A 1991 study found the United Kingdom to have the second largest percentage of private charitable giving. But in 2003, charitable giving amounted to 8.6 billion pounds, or 0.8 percent of GDP, in the U.K., according to the Charities Aid Foundation, compared to $241 billion, or 2.2 percent of GDP, in the U.S., according to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel.

 

[Matt25]

I still don’t see any figures for per capita giving. The total dollar count doesnt tell us how generous the average 21st Century American is by comparison with other nationals.

 

[Lisa_N]

Matt as a Catholic I understand ‘preferential option for the poor’ but I do not understand how you can possibly hold a secular, US politician to a Catholic doctrine? That was my point, you are comparing apples and oranges.

As Catholics yes we understand the poor are brothers and sisters, children of God and deserving of our compassion and assistance. However in this country when you start talking about basing a political policy on a specific religion’s doctrine you will be in big trouble.

Lisa N

 

[Lance]

cafod.org.uk/resources/worship/church_statements/poverty_statements

----. Christ taught us that our neighbourhood is universal: so loving our neighbour has global dimensions. It demands fair international trading policies, decent treatment of refugees, support for the UN and control of the arms trade. Solidarity with our neighbour is also about the promotion of equality of rights and equality of opportunities; hence we must oppose all forms of discrimination and racism.
*Bishops of England and Wales, *
The Common Good, 1996​

I fail to see how support for the UN, an organization that promotes abortion and birth control, is consistant with Catholic teaching.

 

[dwc]

But in 2003, charitable giving amounted to 8.6 billion pounds, or 0.8 percent of GDP, in the U.K., according to the Charities Aid Foundation, compared to $241 billion, or 2.2 percent of GDP, in the U.S., according to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel.

Not per capita, Matt, but the US charitable giving (ie, voluntary) accounted for a greater percent of GDP than in the UK. In your second post you alleged that the UK gave a greater percent of GDP to foreign aid than did the US, and that what foreign aid the US did give was attached to foreign policy priorities. My point in response was that your numbers failed to take into consideration charitable giving and that when that was taken into account, the US citizens gave more. You asked for stats, I quoted the above … now you insist that only a per capita comparison will do?

It’s not good enough that US citizens, as a group, give a greater percentage of their GDP to charitable giving than do UK citizens? It seems to me that makes my point. But now you insist that only a statement of what the “average” US citizen gives compared to what the “average” UK citizens gives will do? I think not. And even if I found that, you’d move the goal post again.

 

[dwc]

How about this, from globalissues.org:

Side note on private contributions

As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities.

Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show US aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than their government. Private aid/donation has been through charity of individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas — more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion at that time:

• International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
• Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
• American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
• Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
• US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
• Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000
• Source: Dr. Carol Adelman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002.

While Adelman admits that “there are no complete figures for international private giving” she still says that Americans are “clearly the most generous on earth in public — but especially in private — giving”. Hence these numbers and claims may be taken with caution, but even then, these are high numbers.

 

[Matt25]

Lance:

I fail to see how support for the UN, an organization that promotes abortion and birth control, is consistant with Catholic teaching.

John Paul II said ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2US95D.htm

The Holy See, in virtue of its specifically spiritual mission, which makes it concerned for the integral good of every human being, has supported the ideals and goals of the United Nations Organization from the very beginning. Although their respective purposes and operative approaches are obviously different, the Church and the United Nations constantly find wide areas of cooperation on the basis of their common concern for the human family. …

It was precisely outrages against human dignity which led the United Nations Organization to formulate, barely three years after its establishment, that Universal Declaration of Human Rights which remains one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time. In Asia and Africa, in the Americas, in Oceania and Europe, men and women of conviction and courage have appealed to this Declaration in support of their claims for a fuller share in the life of society…

As we face these enormous challenges, how can we fail to acknowledge the role of the United Nations Organization? Fifty years after its founding, the need for such an Organization is even more obvious, but we also have a better understanding, on the basis of experience, that the effectiveness of this great instrument for harmonizing and coordinating international life depends on the international culture and ethic which it supports and expresses. The United Nations Organization needs to rise more and more above the cold status of an administrative institution and to become a moral center where all the nations of the world feel at home and develop a shared awareness of being, as it were, a “family of nations”

 

[Lisa_N]

Matt25:

John Paul II said ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2US95D.htm

The Holy See, in virtue of its specifically spiritual mission, which makes it concerned for the integral good of every human being, has supported the ideals and goals of the United Nations Organization from the very beginning. Although their respective purposes and operative approaches are obviously different, the Church and the United Nations constantly find wide areas of cooperation on the basis of their common concern for the human family. …

As we face these enormous challenges, how can we fail to acknowledge the role of the United Nations Organization? Fifty years after its founding, the need for such an Organization is even more obvious, but we also have a better understanding, on the basis of experience, that the effectiveness of this great instrument for harmonizing and coordinating international life depends on the international culture and ethic which it supports and expresses. The United Nations Organization needs to rise more and more above the cold status of an administrative institution and to become a moral center where all the nations of the world feel at home and develop a shared awareness of being, as it were, a “family of nations”

Matt I agree with the GOALS AND IDEALS of the UN. The problem is that this organization has been singularly ineffective in doing much of anything except producing talking heads and enriching the Annan family. The total failure in the Sudan AFTER we saw Rwanda and said “never again” has convinced me that either we need to start over or at least clean house. I don’t know where I saw it, but there was a proposal for an organization made up of representative governments only…no tin pot despots need apply. Maybe that would work. But the possibility of effectiveness seems doomed with this particular organization. Wish it were not so.

Lisa N

 

[Matt25]

Lisa N:

Matt I agree with the GOALS AND IDEALS of the UN. The problem is that this organization has been singularly ineffective in doing much of anything except producing talking heads and enriching the Annan family.
Lisa N

In a fallen and sinful world all human organisations including the UK, US and UN are flawed instuments. None of them, however are incapable of doing good. The Vatican has always been constructively involved in the UN. Curiously in recent years an informal alliance between the Vatican and some Muslim countries has produced results over the abortion and homosexuality questions which Conservative Christians would strongly approve of.

Anyway Lance was suggesting that support for the UN was incompatable with Catholic teachings. I am counter suggesting that Pope John Paul was certainly a Catholic and certainly supported the UNO, although not uncritically.

It must be acknowledged, however, that the United Nations Organization, even with limitations and delays due in great part to the failures of its members, has made a notable contribution to the promotion of respect for human dignity, the freedom of peoples and the requirements of development, thus preparing the cultural and institutional soil for the building of peace. The activity of national Governments will be greatly encouraged by the realization that the ideals of the United Nations have become widely diffused, particularly through the practical gestures of solidarity and peace made by the many individuals also involved in* Non-Governmental Organizations and in Movements* for human rights.

This represents a significant incentive for a reform which would enable the United Nations Organization to function effectively for the pursuit of its own stated ends, which remain valid: “humanity today is in a new and more difficult phase of its genuine development. It needs a* greater degree of international ordering*”. States must consider this objective as a clear moral and political obligation which calls for prudence and determination. Here I would repeat the words of encouragement which I spoke in 1995: “The United Nations Organization needs to rise more and more above the cold status of an administrative institution and to become a moral centre where all the nations of the world feel at home and develop a shared awareness of being, as it were, a * family of nations*”.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20031216_xxxvii-world-day-for-peace_en.html