Interesting U.S. foreign aid statistics.

Do you know which countries are the largest beneficiaries of charitable giving for the years of 1999 through 2006 by the United States? You may be surprised. The below statistics are courtesy of the Heritage Foundation ( http://www.heritage.org/ ).

• Number 1 is Iraq. They have received 31.54 billion dollars. An interesting fact is that on United Nations issues Iraq voted on the same side of issues as the United States only 7.9% of the time. I will provide the same statistics below in an abbreviated format.
• Number 2 is Israel. 26.49 Billion. 90.6% of the time voted on the same side of issues as the U.S.
• Number 3 is Egypt. 16.77 Billion. 12.6% of the time voted on the same side of issues as the U.S.
• Number 4 is Afghanistan. 10.62 Billion. 11.0% of the time voted on the same side of issues as the U.S.
• Number 5 is Russia. 8.35 Billion. 23.1% of the time voted on the same side of issues as the U.S.
• Number 6 is Colombia. 6.38 Billion. 19.2% of the time voted on the same side of issues as the U.S.
• Number 7 is Jordan. 5.44 Billion. 14.1% of the time voted on the same side of issues as the U.S.
• Number 8 is Pakistan. 4.39 Billion. 14.1% of the time voted on the same side of issues as the U.S.
• Number 9 is Sudan. 3.11 Billion. 13.5% of the time voted on the same side of issues as the U.S.
• Number 10 is Ethiopia. 3.09 Billion. 18.8% of the time voted on the same side of issues as the U.S.

Total for the top 10 countries. 116.18 Billion. 22.5% of the time voted on the same side of issues as the U.S. The aggregate for countries ranked 21-30. 10.12 Billion. 23.4% of the time voted on the same side of issues as the U.S. Isn’t it interesting that the countries receiving 116.18 billion dollars voted on the same side of issues less than those countries receiving 10.12 billion dollars. Think about it. It appears the United States is giving foreign aid to countries not based on their political bias, but on the needs of their citizens.

Draw your own conclusions and let me know your comments. Datadiver 11-28-2008

Good Words Gone Bad

Green

• In the past this was the color of Kermit, the jolly green giant, and grass in the summer. Now its meaning has changed to represent a movement that grew out of the fertile (remember what you mix with soil to make it fertile) imagination of Al Gore in his quest to blot out failed presidential candidacy. I will give him credit for his hand in creating the largest global scam in history. Of course I am referring to carbon credits. If you are wealthy, and enough of a scoundrel, you can now spend money to sooth your conscience while polluting in whichever way you please. Leave the real work to the little people. The GREEN movement can also be used (and it has been used) to intimidate business by threatening to boycott their products unless they purchase carbon credits. I think they call this extortion.

Gay

• In the past, according to Roget’s International Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases 1922, the synonyms of gay were genteel; well-bred, well-mannered, well-behaved, well-spoken; gentlemanlike, gentlemanly; ladylike; civil, polite…. In the present, according to Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition 1995, the synonyms for gay are; lacking in moral restraint: abandoned, dissipated, dissolute, fast, incontinent, licentious, profligate, rakish, unbridled, unconstrained, uncontrolled, ungoverned,...

I don’t think I need to add any further comments. In the future you may see more "Good Words Gone Bad".

Datadiver

In the spirit of giving.

I have been thinking how I can put into words my thoughts on the comment Barack Obama made about his tax plan.

Quote"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."Unquote

The opposite of selfishness is generosity, not taxes. In both the Christian and Muslim faiths generosity is highly regarded as a virtue. True generosity comes from the heart and is meant to thank to God for all the things he has done for us. The government taking money from my pocket to give to others by no definition can be called a generous act on my part. The government by its very nature cannot be generous. The definition of generosity in Webster’s dictionary is “The trait of being willing to give your money or time”. The government does not have any money other than what it takes from the tax payers. Giving away others money cannot be deemed a generous act.

If each of us were to have less taken from us in taxes, we would have the ability to;

• Give more generously. I know that some do what they can for charities and that other do nothing, however that is a personal choice.
• We could give to charities that reflect our personal values and beliefs. I know that many times the government most definitely does not use my money in ways that reflect my values.

The last point I will make on charitable giving is that we all must be sure that we give to charities that use contributions wisely and spend as little as possible on administrative costs. By selecting such charities we can be sure our contributions will do the most good. I have no confidence that the governments funding of officially sponsored charities (which includes all government welfare programs) would meet my definition of efficient giving.

The American Institute of Philanthropy’s charity rating guide (http://www.charitywatch.org/) provides ratings of charities. Each charity is rated A through F. I urge each of you to visit this website before making future charitable contributions.

Datadiver

Political Haiku

He is black and white He is but an empty suit Great confusion reigns Datadiver

Bailouts

As a person who is on the wrong end of bailouts (a giver, not a receiver) I am quite tired of those who were caught in self created bad situations wining about getting their share from the government trough, First up to bat we have the persons who had no business owing a home agreeing to mortgages they could not afford. You noticed that I used the term “agreeing” as the action of the individual. They are not a victim. They spun their own web in which they are now stuck. Oh, I forgot there are not stuck, they are reaching into my back pocket because they deserve to own a home even if I pay for it. Forget the home mortgage bailout and let home prices adjust themselves to their real value. Second up to bat are the UAW and BIG 3. Bail them out or the world will end. What needs to end is the foolish labor agreement between the BIG 3 and the UAW. For the BIG 3 costs per hour are not competitive in their manufacturing operation. Big surprise, they are losing money. Don’t mistake me, I have no problem with their labor agreements, only that I as a person who was not a party to those agreement is being asked to forcefully contribute to the resolution of the problem. I have always bought cars made in the U.S., yes even in the 70s and 80s, but that could change. I have heard the argument that foreign auto manufacturers are subsidized by their respective governments and that may be true. However, when I purchase a car I expect that I have covered all the details of payment and costs and will not be asked to pay an additional “bailout”. This bailout is the real cause of the “giant sucking sound” that I have heard of for years. Who knows who is next up to bat? Once the trough is open the little pigs will come running. My problem is that it is me they are running over to get to the trough. Datadiver08

The world as it is today. It's Monday. Need I say more. Datadiver

World opinion of the United States

Much has been written lately in the U.S. press concerning how the world looks at the United States. Some say we are a bully, some say we are egotistical, and others say we are not doing enough to help the world (as in we have more than our fair share and should give more to others).

1. My first response is that the U.S. is factually the most generous country that ever existed on the fact of the earth. The Unites States is the largest contributor to the United Nations, which is remarkable since the United Nations has latest not been an actual or verbal supporter of the United States.
2. When there is a disaster anywhere in the world, who is the first to respond with substantial assistance. You guessed it, the United States.
3. Many polls taken in countries around the world show that the dislike of the United States is growing, but when asked if the United States should "take their ball and go home" the resounding answer is no!
4. I will paraphrase former Prime Minister Blair in a statement which was a reply to the question of what he thought about the United States. He stated that he likes to measure a country by how many individuals want to get in verses how many want to get out. This is a rather profound way of looking at things.
5. The idea of placing an extreme emphasis on how the world views the United States most certainly should be tempered by knowing who it is that respond unfavorably. If the countries who respond unfavorably are dictatorships, socialists, communist, or any other 'ists', we as a country should be proud that they don't approve.

Should the United States be concerned about the opinion of other countries of the world? Perhaps interested, but certainly not concerned. I think instead we should be concerned about what is driving our own citizens to have an overwhelming need to be 'liked' by the world.

Datadiver