Charity vs. Gov't welfare
butterjam
Posts: 215
A question to all of those who favor more government welfare(Medicare, Social Security, etc.):
Do you donate to charities that provide welfare services(American Red Cross, non-profit hospitals, food banks, etc.)?
If yes, why do you donate to these charities instead of writing a check to the IRS, HHS, etc?
Who does a better job at delivering welfare services, gov't or private charities?
Do you donate to charities that provide welfare services(American Red Cross, non-profit hospitals, food banks, etc.)?
If yes, why do you donate to these charities instead of writing a check to the IRS, HHS, etc?
Who does a better job at delivering welfare services, gov't or private charities?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I donate to environmental organizations and social organizations that support peace, justice, health and human and animal rights. This is my way of tithing.
I don't need to write another check to the IRS. Because my wife and I are small business owners we pay a higher percentage of taxes than others in our income bracket (lower middle income). That's the way the system is set up. I supose this could be viewed as a good reason for me to rant against my government as much a Tea Party members and right-wingers but I'd rather spend that energy supporting candidates who I believe will do the job of helping the people and by contacting my representatives to let them know what I think, both of which I do quite often.
Right now I'd say privately funded organizations are doing a better job of delivering services but the potential for government to do more that way is greater. If we support candidates who see their job as helping people and we believe our government should be by the people, for the people, we can make this happen. Use your energy to this end rather than waste time ranting.
And please do support private organizations that help people. I always look into an organization before I donate to make sure I am sending my money to those I believe will do the most good.
You can do that right here on the PJ forum by going to:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=156048
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
yes i do donate to NGO but i believe that government funding is needed. in my line of work when ever we try to set up a new project, we must make sure that we can be able to sustain that project and many times we can so great ideas fall by the wasteside. by governments assisting in core funding this helps us in creating programs for people.
Also, the hard part is that people usually donate to issues in which they have a connection with. I work with homeless people living with HIV, they have substance use issues and many are gay men and new comers. many have major mental health issues and it is very hard to get people to donate to us cause of stigma. with our core funding from the government we are able to provide services to the many people.
does being pro-life mean you have adopted children? if you're pro life can you be against gay couples adopting children?
If I'm hearing this right, these questions indicate some concern about:
a) over-population issues and
b) gay's right to adopt.
a) If you think about it, being pro-life would include being aware of population issues and adopting after the first, or at the very most your second scratch baby (you know, a baby made from scratch-- not adopted). It would also mean taking resposibility to creat a more sustainable lifestyle, a less polluted world and a world of greater diversity of flora and fauna. Over-population and environmental degradation are both ultimately pro-death.
b) IMO gay's absolutely should have the right to adopt. Some of the best parenting I've seen has been done by gay couples and the kids are wonderful.
But I'm curious to see some more answers to 311jj's questions...
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
if being prolife means being aware of overpopulation issues then why make babies from scratch in the first place? is it an ego thing... a need to propagate your genes for that little taste of immortality? or do we still truly believe that blood is best when it comes to identifying our family line?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well, personally I agree which is why I do not have any scratch babies. I really do believe if you've gotta have one, have one and then adopt if you want more. In today's world, it just makes sense.
I enjoyed getting to spend a lot of time with my five nephews and helping to raise a couple of them for a few years. I have three (now adult) godchildren and have always been ready to step in when needed. I have one step-grandchild and another on the way. I've watched my friends kids grow up. I really don't feel like I've missed out on anything and I have zero guilt about overpopulation. I don't mean to sound smug or condescending, I just wish more people would think about it long and hard before have more kids.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
i had 4 scratch babies... and am now watching my scratchgrandchild grow up. in my country i am not qualified to adopt.... though that is not why i made my own.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
woot
You seem like a very likable person and I'd be willing to bet your kids are as well. I would never tell anyone what you can or can't do as far as having kids go no matter how many you have or have not. If I could encourage you to do one thing, I'd encourage you to teach you grandchildren about overpopulation so they would think hard about how many they want to have. Of course that's none of my business, it's just a thought.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
grandCHILD. theres only one of her and her mother assures me there will only ever be one.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
because if it is, i support it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43972446/ns ... alth_care/
I haven't had a passive-aggressive and very poor attempt at a "Gotchya" question from a conservative in a couple days.
I am in full support of universal health care. Because in the end it will save us all money.
I'm also in full support of social security and medicare.
Yes, I give to charities and in fact I donate a good deal of my time to raising money. I often support a gay homeless youth shelter in Los Angeles. I've thrown fund raisers for them, I've helped with many more fund raisers and I donated my car to them a couple years ago. I also bought them a huge collection of books aimed at gay teenagers and helped kick start a library for them at the shelter.
But just because I choose to help out where I see a need doesn't mean that I don't think the people should help each other out. And the government IS the people.
I would MUCH rather know that my money and time got to the people who actually needed it and not to line the pockets of government bureaucracy. I do not see how anyone could disagree with that.
I don't like to talk about it, but I do give a significant amount of my money to charity and would be able to give significantly more if I wasn't supporting government waste and corruption by being forced to give a large portion of my income in taxes.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm not always so sure that private charities do a better job, or at least I like to question the assumption, because it seems to be based on anecdotal evidence. I was kicking the idea of food banks vs. food stamps. Food stamps spends about 15% in administrative costs. Food banks seems to be in the 5-10% range. I would attribute the lower expenditures are a result of a lot of volunteer hours. Someone could propose that food stamps be eliminated and let the food banks take over (similar things have been presented here). If that happened, your food bank would have say and extra 10,000 clients (or whatever, depending on your area's population). I don't think you would see an equal relationship in the increase in volunteer hours, therefore, the food bank would have to hire more staff, which would then increase administrative costs.
My own personal experience is that I've worked in non-profits and government agencies, and both have a level of inefficiency, but I can't say one is always better than the other. A lot of times, it also depends on the services being provided.
thank you, chadwick. you're a sick dick.
sincerely,
dr. kiss my fanny
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I'll say that most of the people who are against health-care reform/single payer system wont respond to your post because they will sound like giant tools. They would sound like tools because what underlies their argument is that the sick person did something irresponsible to make themselves sick, and/or they didn't improve their skills in order to get a better job that had good health insurance.
Yeah, when I got out of that time machine from 3 years in the future when it actually comes into effect, it was great.
Seriously... do you even TRY to pay attention? :roll:
No. Private Charities do not, in fact, do a better job.
The Red Cross is always in some scandal about over-paid CEOs and mismanaged funds. The Salvation Army has been wrapped up in so many prejudice lawsuits and nobody's really sure where that money goes, either.
And let's not forget all the "charities" that just take money, pay their employees a lot, donate more to politicians and try to help out a few people in their spare time.
If Medicare or Unemployment were run by private charities, we'd all be dead by now.
True social programs (there's a difference between "socialism" and "social programs" and I wish some people would learn what those are) can't be done by private organizations that don't answer to the people. And if everyone msut benefit (ie universal health care) then we're all going to have to put our tax money into it (can you imagine going to the hospital and having to prove that you made a donation to the Red Cross this year before being treated?).
Perhaps you could break it down for me as it appears you have been paying attention.
Maybe the moral of the story with the Red Cross is the same as it is with government, big business, or even huge structured religious institutions like the Catholic Church -- maybe all of these reach a size where they are no longer efficient, and are powerful enough to attract corrupt forces to take them over?
Because you certainly can't argue that money given to the government goes where you think it does any more than these other machines. It has been proven time and time again that the federal government is, in fact, the absolute WORST at managing money. So, why advocate a system that forcefully takes money and gives it to a giant beast that's going to mis-spend it anyway? Why not allow for more choice? Why do people always think that given the opportunity, people would not voluntarily give money to help others and that it must be forced? Even if that was true, is the solution to force people into giving up their money to someone or something that is likely to spend it wrecklessly any more moral, efficient, or correct solution?
I have to admit that I haven't heard of corruption within the Red Cross as you mention it, but I'm glad you did. A quick Google search yielded this:
http://www.counterpunch.org/allen10202005.html
It's a blog, I don't know how true it is, but I skimmed it quickly, and among the stuff mentioned in there despite mismanagement of funds being a major issue, is that The Red Cross is also Quasi-Government at this point. That's news to me. But if it's true, and the Red Cross is NOT doing the job it's supposed to do, it's probably because IT IS QUASI GOVERNMENT. When you merge the regulators with those who are to be regulated, it's always a clusterfuck. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: To blame government soley is not the way to view a problem, nor is it a better solution to solely blame the private entity. But put those together and you always attract people hungry for power and money with the best means of collecting on those things. I tend to emphasize the blame on government more, because without them, private enterprise truly has no power to force anything on the rest of us. Sure they can convince people to bring money their way for their product / charity / whatever else, but they cannot force us to accept what they offer without government. Government has the monopoly use of force in society, and I think we can all think of instances where that monopoly is totally misused for wrong, even if the intentions seem good.
OK, I'll break it down for you honestly...
The health care law comes into effect in 2014. That's why nobody has really seen the effect yet.
There are a very small number of things that have come into effect. Now parents can still include their adult children on their policies to the age of 26. That means that millions more people are covered. Insurance companies are also not allowed to take your money while you're well and then suddenly find a "pre-existing condition" as an excuse to cut you off when you suddenly need care.
That's about all.
Too bad you're still forced to give via taxes.
If we could cut these government programs and rely on private charity, then it would be your CHOICE to contribute and if you found yourself unable, you wouldn't be FORCED to like you are now.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
By "these" government programs, do you mean Medicaid? Private charities wouldn't be able to handle the load if Medicaid was ended.
I mean significantly cutting back on spending for programs in general so people have more disposable income to help other people.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So you're saying there's a correlation between tax cuts and donations to charities? If so, what is the correlation?
And in which Utopian society do YOU live? Cuz I'd love to live in a world where people didn't just take every penny they have plus the $30,000 in credit card debt they managed to get and spend in on Hummers, Big Screen TVs, vacations to Disney Land, water beds, hot tubs, BluRay players, gaming systems, computers, and speed boats.
If you actually think that if we lowered everyone's taxes to zero and gave them all a million bucks that they'd donate it all to charity... you're wrong. And clearly not living in the real world.