Why the US is different (and better?)

adouglasmhor

michaels wrote: »

In 2008 the US gave 300bn (about 193bn GBP) or about 2.8 times as much as a proportion of GDP or 3.25 times as much per head.

And snide remarks about motivation rather than appreciation is just the sort of thing I am talking about.

Really http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance



I think you will find that includes corporate and not individual spending. Maybe provide a link to back up your statement.

If you made yourself clearer maybe people would know what you are talking about. Snide remarks? You mean genuine issues with what you are spouting and challenging "facts" you seem to have no intention of backing up. But hey you can’t back up what you are posting with facts, so attack the man instead (ad hominen fallacy) this just proves you can't use logic to refute me.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Is your point about charitable giving or communities setting up schools? The two are completely different issues IMO.

I don't quite understand how community run schools work. Isn't there a danger of them being taken over by a handful of bossy parents? And what happens when their kids grow up and move on- do they still take an active interest?

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

Further, how many of our extremely well paid football stars are giving back in this way - a few charity fund raising events may be but no full time long term commitment to helping the communities that they came from.

Far more than you probably realise. Bob Wilson the ex Arsenal goalkeeper started the Willow Foundation in memory of his daughter who died with a terminal illness 6 days before her 32nd birthday.

Many members of the football fratenity give their time to make a dream come true in the form of a lifetime experience for those who aren't as fortunate as themselves. As an example both Wenger and Ferguson are extremely accomodating and promote active participation from their playing squads.

spadoosh

Bill Gates was clever, motivated and hardworking. He was clever by buying out/pricing out any competition. Motivated because every time he did this it practically doubled his company value and hardworking for the first few years of his business (like most entrepeneurs) and is sitting pretty now!

michaels

I have now posted a link to the figure I googled which I admit I did not check out the accuracy of but as yet have no reason to doubt.

I have no knowledge of the reasons behind Bill Gate's generosity and don't really care either but do know that his foundation is trying to solve some health problems in Africa that the multinational drugs companies have not looked at before as the sufferers do not have the money to justify the research spending.

As far as I know we are not limited on this board to only posting our opinions on issues where we are recognised experts in the field.

My subjective impression is that in the US they are more inclined to aspire to success and look to solve problems whereas in this country we are often quick to suggest reasons why things can not be done.

I may be wrong and welcome your contribution to improving my knowledge and correcting me where this is the case.

For example as Thrug has just pointed out there is a lot of good being done by many footballers and may be it is just unfortunate the the antics of, for example, Marlon King receive more publicity and may be colour peoples' perceptions including my own.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Really http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance



I think you will find that includes corporate and not individual spending. Maybe provide a link to back up your statement.

If you made yourself clearer maybe people would know what you are talking about. Snide remarks? You mean genuine issues with what you are spouting and challenging "facts" you seem to have no intention of backing up. But hey you can’t back up what you are posting with facts, so attack the man instead (ad hominen fallacy) this just proves you can't use logic to refute me.

Generali

adouglasmhor wrote: »

reported for personal attack

Good.

If you don't want to be called a pr 1 ck don't be a pr 1 ck.

adouglasmhor

Try this then Michael, it's a compelling argument thatsuch things are not the best way of doing it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/05/philanthropy-does-not-pay-taxes

And for generalli (who you thanked for calling me a penis but in coarser terms). Try that to my face you cowardly toad.

adouglasmhor

Generali wrote: »

Good.

If you don't want to be called a pr 1 ck don't be a pr 1 ck.

Do people ignore you a lot in the real world or you this obnoxious only hiding behind your keyboard?

silvercar

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Is your point about charitable giving or communities setting up schools? The two are completely different issues IMO.

I don't quite understand how community run schools work. Isn't there a danger of them being taken over by a handful of bossy parents? And what happens when their kids grow up and move on- do they still take an active interest?

They do work because they are set up by a group of can-do parents who are interested in education and put a lot of time and effort into making it work. Bossy, bolshy or whatever, they may initially control the governing body but they employ a good head and motivated teachers, so don't actually do the educating. By the time that their own kids have moved on you are at least 7 years down the line and the school will have a reputation of its own.

Generali

adouglasmhor wrote: »

And for generalli (who you thanked for calling me a penis but in coarser terms). Try that to my face you cowardly toad.

Sure. I suspect you have anger management issues but I'll meet you for a drink next time I'm in the UK or you're in Aus. No probs.