Charity vs. Gov't welfare

By the way...

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?).

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

By the way...

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?).

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.

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

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.

know1 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

know1 wrote:

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.

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.

So you're saying there's a correlation between tax cuts and donations to charities? If so, what is the correlation?

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

know1 wrote:

I mean significantly cutting back on spending for programs in general so people have more disposable income to help other people.

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.

I live in a more optimistic and beautiful world then you, apparently.

You're generalizing my statements and taking them to the extreme to make them seem absurd, but the fact is, people do not like seeing other people suffer and will help out. And it's much easier for them to do so if they have more funds.

The other thing is that I'm speaking for myself here. I manage what little money the government leaves me quite well, have no debt, and feel like giving it to help others is not only something I should do, but something that is good for me as well.