Charity vs. Gov't welfare

butterjam

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?

brianlux

I favor government funded social services though will admit to a certain a mount of frustration over the ineffiencies of some of those systems. I believe the government is there to help us (that's their job) and if we elected people who viewed their job as such, these systems would be more useful.

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

fife

311jj wrote:

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?

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.

CH156378

this thread reminds me of a question i have been meaning to ask the pro-life crowd.
does being pro-life mean you have adopted children? if you're pro life can you be against gay couples adopting children?

brianlux

CH156378 wrote:

this thread reminds me of a question i have been meaning to ask the pro-life crowd.
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...

catefrances

brianlux wrote:

CH156378 wrote:

this thread reminds me of a question i have been meaning to ask the pro-life crowd.
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...

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?

brianlux

catefrances wrote:

brianlux wrote:

CH156378 wrote:

this thread reminds me of a question i have been meaning to ask the pro-life crowd.
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...

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?

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.

catefrances

brianlux wrote:

catefrances wrote:

brianlux wrote:

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...

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?

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.

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.

usamamasan1

I am for charitbale contributions and low taxes.
woot

brianlux

catefrances wrote:

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.

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.

catefrances

brianlux wrote:

catefrances wrote:

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.

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.

grandCHILD. theres only one of her and her mother assures me there will only ever be one.

CH156378

is this the death panel they were talking about?
because if it is, i support it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43972446/ns ... alth_care/

Prince Of Dorkness

Oh good.

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.

redrock

Couldn't have said it better than brianlux.

know1

There is no question in my mind that private (or non-government) charities do a much better job of managing their resources and have lower waste. There are exceptions, of course, but I'm talking in general.

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.

VINNY GOOMBA

I prefer private charity over government welfare. I like having a choice in where my money goes and that it is being spent on its intended purpose, and I would like to think that everyone else does too. My largest and best donation goes to my church-run food pantry, both time and money. 400 local families get fed pretty well every weekend, as well as free clothing, toiletries, toys throughout the year, and even moreso at Christmas and Thanksgiving.

Go Beavers

know1 wrote:

There is no question in my mind that private (or non-government) charities do a much better job of managing their resources and have lower waste. There are exceptions, of course, but I'm talking in general.

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.

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.

chadwick

i don't have a dime to give to anyone. at the moment three different hospitals and three different specialized clinics in said hospitals are on my ass for thousands and thousands of dollars. who the hell do i give money too? i don't have any to give and my credit is shot.

thank you, chadwick. you're a sick dick.
sincerely,
dr. kiss my fanny

Go Beavers

chadwick wrote:

i don't have a dime to give to anyone. at the moment three different hospitals and three different specialized clinics in said hospitals are on my ass for thousands and thousands of dollars. who the hell do i give money too? i don't have any to give and my credit is shot.

thank you, chadwick. you're a sick dick.
sincerely,
dr. kiss my fanny

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.

Jason P

Didn't healthcare reform get passed a year ago? Has anyone noticed any changes?

Prince Of Dorkness

Jason P wrote:

Didn't healthcare reform get passed a year ago? Has anyone noticed any changes?

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: