Private Charity

[Lief 🗽]

No, of course. It amazes me that some conservatives believe that private charity can and will do everything the government does to help the vulnerable among us.

[bullmoose88]

The word private...in private charity is unnecessary...its implied by the word charity...

[Ban my account ffs!]

Charity does a good job of helping people in disaster situations.

As far as ongoing problems, charity isn't always the best option.  It should be encouraged, but should not be the only option for those in need of help.

[Jake]

One problem with charity, donations are tied directly to how publicized it is and how many people "feel bad" about the problem. In that way, it's unable to attack problems that may be low profile or unpopular. There is certainly a place for charity, but only should be relied upon in extreme situations (Katrina, Indonesia '04, etc.). Everyday problems should be tackled by the government who should be able to better identify need and address that need with funding.

[Padfoot]

In general I think charity usually gives a higher quality of help but it is very limited in the quantity of help it can afford/manage to give.  Therefore, a certain level of government involvement is unfortunately necessary.  I find it laughable that so many conservatives believe that eliminating the taxes needed to fund Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, ect. would inevitably result in higher amounts of charitable giving.  Its one of the most ridiculous claims made by conservatives especially since it is so often contradicted by their own greed.

[Person Man]

In general I think charity usually gives a higher quality of help but it is very limited in the quantity of help it can afford/manage to give.  Therefore, a certain level of government involvement is unfortunately necessary.  I find it laughable that so many conservatives believe that eliminating the taxes needed to fund Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, ect. would inevitably result in higher amounts of charitable giving.  Its one of the most ridiculous claims made by conservatives especially since it is so often contradicted by their own greed.

Generally, yes. However, there is some publicized evidence that those who talk the talk, walk the walk. On the other hand, private charity may be discriminatory and may even do worse to combat underlying problems. Welfare reform, not selling welfare programs, is the solution. We must work to reduce the need of safety nets, but understand that we must be able to keep the man alive while we are teaching the man to fish.

[John Dibble]

As has been said, charity often provides better relief but the scale that it can be applied at is inconsistent and depends on how much people are giving.

[Person Man]

As has been said, charity often provides better relief but the scale that it can be applied at is inconsistent and depends on how much people are giving.

I am also concerned about national unity. Would selling over our infilstructure to sectarian groups hurt our national unity?

[John Dibble]

As has been said, charity often provides better relief but the scale that it can be applied at is inconsistent and depends on how much people are giving.

I am also concerned about national unity. Would selling over our infilstructure to sectarian groups hurt our national unity?

I never said anything about selling any infrastructure - private charities rely on their own home grown infrastructure, and I think the quality of their services would decline if they were burdened by the clumsy government infrastructure.

[Person Man]

What I thought you said is that government obligations should be contracted out. Personally, I'm not bought by "clumsy infilstructure" arguments for either side- both public and corporate/NGO infilstructures can be bureaucratic nightmares and both can do a hell of a job. However, I am concerned about national unity and universal participation in our society.

[John Dibble]

What I thought you said is that government obligations should be contracted out.

Again, when did I say that? You might be thinking of someone else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those are things you'll never get in any decent democracy. Unity won't happen on most major issues so long as we have the right to free thought, and universal participation won't happen unless it's forced because all humans have some degree of self-interest.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Government giving out money = taking money from me and waste
Private chairty = no waste and only what you want to give

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why must people insist on a choice between the two? They complement each other perfectly well.

[Person Man]

What I thought you said is that government obligations should be contracted out.

Again, when did I say that? You might be thinking of someone else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those are things you'll never get in any decent democracy. Unity won't happen on most major issues so long as we have the right to free thought, and universal participation won't happen unless it's forced because all humans have some degree of self-interest.

Well, we aren't killing eachother in the streets and all swear allegance to the stars and stripes?

Why must people insist on a choice between the two? They complement each other perfectly well.

That's a good thought.

Government giving out money = taking money from me and waste
Private chairty = no waste and only what you want to give

How does the government "waste" money. Charities are at least as wasteful.