An editorial on "myths of American politics"

Found this in a newspaper my father was reading. The author makes no pretense of neutrality (and I'd love to see sources for the statistics he quotes in #1), but he makes a few interesting points.)

I'd like to see actual statistics as well but one thing stood out to me was how much Americans think they spend on foreign aid. I see the same amount of politics on that regard in Canada (though we spend far more per capita on foreign aid than does USA). Americans think up to a quarter of their budget is in foreign aid? I guess someone might be that ignorant but a large number of Americans? The United States never really (or any other country for that matter) gave that much to foreign aid. It's a relatively new program run via the UN. The only countries that even comes close to the pledges on foreign aid are in Scandinavia, and those pledges are... 0.7% of GDP. So you can imagine how little the USA must spend when a country like Canada, with 10x less the economic size, can actually outspend the US in foreign aid in many categories.

Canada may be one of the few first-world countries that spends less per capita than the US on foreign aid.

The US spent approximately $59 billion in foreign aid in 2010, and had approximately 311 million people as of the 2010 census. That is roughly $190 per capita in foreign aid.

Canada spent approximately $4.9 billion in 2010 and had an approximate 34 million people. That comes out to approximately $144 per capita.

Both are pretty terrible, btw. Britain spends something like $500+ per capita annually.

Edit: My numbers on US aid are off by $12 billion, so the per capita is closer to $151 per capita, making them roughly equal(ly bad).

edited 8th Aug '11 12:43:07 PM by ForlornDreamer

What are we counting as aid, though?

Shouldn't we be counting whatever is listed as "foreign aid" in each country's budget?

Aren't the definitions derived from international agreements (in other words, UN documents)?

(I would presume both of those correct, but I don't actually know.)

5 is just flat out wrong.

Politicans are "self-serving, corrupt, venal and lazy" by definition. If they weren't, they'd be statesmen or hold an actual job.

A statesman is a politician. And politician is an actual job.

@Deux: First line, [Citation Needed]. Second line, according to your definition. Politician and statesmen are virtually identical, at least according to Merriam-webster's online dictionary. The article is using the first definition on the site.

"a wise, skillful, and respected political leader "

Vs.

"a person engaged in party politics as a profession"

They are not the same.

"a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government"

"one versed in the principles or art of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies"

"And politician is an actual job. "

Only in the sense "thief" is an "actual" job. It's not fictional, but...

That's just a ridiculously extreme point of view. Unless you're a total anarchist, someone has to be running your country. Congressmen are necessary for the American government to function. You might say that the current slew of politicians in power aren't very good but saying all politicians are lazy corrupt sleazebags is just asking for it to get worse because you're not even going to bother to fix the problem.

EDIT: Could I get sources on what you used for total foreign aid given? The numbers are suspicious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Development_Assistance

America hovers around 0.1%, while Canada is 0.3%. I've seen those figures in multiple locations and many news sources. Your figures I've never seen.

edited 8th Aug '11 3:19:09 PM by breadloaf

There are definitely things about politics that encourage corruption, even among people with principles when they got into the business. Not all politicians are the same, though.

@Deux: The "professional politician" rhetoric is mainly an excuse that new leaders use to force out old ones. If they stick around long enough to become old ones as well, they stop using it. (Of course, you can argue that that's a matter of power corrupting, but I see it as a matter of some people choosing to help their country in the most direct way they can.)

I was under the impression that the US government had the lowest national foreign aid percentage in the world but among the highest personal donation rate.

And it makes me wonder what percentage of what we spend is not listed as foreign aid but is actual for the benefit of other countries...

Well, foreign aid makes the calculation difficult when you're talking about personal donations.

Canada's median donation (just charitable donations recorded with tax receipts, not differentiating between foreign and domestic), median is $250 (and the median is $310 in my area, and interestingly, the highest is $500 in nunavut). That's 2009 numbers.

If you use this site, http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/fundraising_individuals_statistics.htm, then with 2010 numbers the total given was $290.89 billion. With roughly 311 million people, then that 935 dollars per capita.

So if those numbers are actually accurate, you could be correct. However, another study which now ranks countries both by quality and quantity of aid, puts Sweden at number one. If you look at, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commitment_to_Development_Index , so despite giving way more money, USA ranks at 11th in terms of what they've actually done to help other countries.

Well that's just a matter of how you spend your money, which the US could work on, true.

But I don't think that having much more private donations than public is necessarily a bad thing.

re: foreign aid

While understandably it's much more difficult to measure, there's also somewhat more indirect spending like sending the military (often the Navy, given geography) to assist in natural disaster relief. Entire carrier battlegroups have been turned around just to respond to disasters that have devastated people, taking the CVBGs away from their intended tasks and spending a whole mess of man-hours (for starters a CVN has 5-6K crew members alone, never mind the escorts) on what's ultimately, from a purely analytical perspective, a secondary (at best) tasking.

Mind you, I'm not saying the US military shouldn't be doing that stuff, nor do I think that the US is paying as much in foreign aid as some think. I just don't buy into the notion, advanced elsewhere, that it's such "small change" that it shouldn't even be looked at as part of tightening the budget.

Yeah, except that's actually factored into the public donations that the United States gives. So if you throw all direct dollars to charitable work, it amounts to 0.20% of GNP, which is basically nothing. Besides, the vast majority of that money is more like "maintaining friendships" than it is about actually aiding poor people. If you cut it, you'll probably be harming some trade ties, so that'll make your economy worse off.

edited 8th Aug '11 6:28:22 PM by breadloaf

@feotakahari

When did I praise them? They're both politicians.

edited 8th Aug '11 6:52:22 PM by deuxhero

^ I'm confused now. My impression is that you aren't an anarchist, so who do you want to lead? (Or are you saying that corruption is a necessary evil?)

edited 8th Aug '11 10:07:31 PM by feotakahari

People who will serve for the sake of their state (senators) and district (House), rather than power. Statesmen.

edited 9th Aug '11 12:42:46 AM by deuxhero

^ Heh, reminds me of that business about always referring to snipers who're on our side as "sharpshooters."

No, Sharpshooters are attached to normal groups with special weapons and training to hit targets outside of the rest of the group's effective range. Completely different.

edited 9th Aug '11 12:50:45 AM by deuxhero

I don't know if I agree with Deuxhero, here.

Yes, politicians should serve the people.

But, to change policy, we must change the politicians.

And we should stop all corporate influence into politics. I'm not saying remove all branded products in the House of Commons, but I'm saying bar political donations. Make all news netrual. AND STOP POLITICAL BUYING!