Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With several generations knowing nothing other then government entitlement as a way of life, private charities along with state/local
agencies could do a much better job seeing the help get's to those
who truly need it and curb the abuse and waste
It's time to get back to the basic's when people know and appreciate
the difference between a hand up rather then a hand out
Here is a example of today's mentality while the honest that are truly needy are over looked.
It would be more manageable with less bureaucracy and more flexibility. Every state would be free to craft its own system and states would (theoretically and hopefully) learn from their own successes and mistakes and those of other states. It would also allow states to consider cost of living in relation to income to determine eligibility. Someone in TX can get by on a lot less than someone in CA or NY.
In a country as big as ours, a one-size-fits-all solution doesn't really work for an issue like this.
Exactly! Local control is always best. It makes no sense that the SNAP (Food Stamps) program is Federally run with Federal income guidelines when cost of living is so different from place to place.
It also makes no sense that JP Morgan issues ACCESS cards nationwide and profits off every Food Stamp transaction across the country, but that's another story.
Before I had my kids, I used to run nonprofit agencies. Now I raise money for them, help them do strategic planning, marketing, run special events, etc.
There are lots of problems with replacing government programs with nonprofits. First--when you're raising private dollars, the type of work that is most POPULAR and noncontroversial tends to get the money (education programs, collegiate sports, hospitals, boy scouts, etc.) instead of programs that are the most needed. An example is sexual assault/domestic violence. Before the OJ Simpson case, DV shelters and rape crisis programs were considered distasteful--only "bad" women were hurt, and the groups ran on a wing and a prayer, often staffed by highly dedicated but haphazardly trained volunteers. After the Simpson case and the broad public attention that came with it, private funding improved, but it wasn't until federal block grants became available for law enforcement, health care workers and nonprofits that many communities were able to offer professional quality and critically needed services in those areas. There was no difference in the issue--it just become more popular, but the federal money made all the difference. If AIDS research had been only privately funded in the 80s, we still wouldn't understand it or have treatments.
Another issue is location and need. The very poorest communities usually have the greatest need, but also the least ability to raise funding. Federal programs and dollars make sure that needs are met in those areas.
I think there's a strong place for both--federal and state programs as well as nonprofits. Federal money is critical for essential services, and work in impoverished areas. Without federal support, most areas have haphazard services at best. Nonprofits are the icing on the cake--they can pick up where the feds leave off, and fill niches in need. Both are important, and both work best when they work together. For example, my church runs a foodbank--it SUPPLEMENTS the public assistance provided to needy families by the feds, but there's no way that we could come close to replacing it--people would starve.
Do you really think that God's people would let people starve? Here at Christmas, our local Salvation Army has done an excellent job of providing for those who have little to nothing. The Red Kettle campaign is on track to meet the goal that they set. Is that not the case everywhere? Don't Christians remember the real reason for the season is that Jesus was sent to teach us to take care of one another?
If the government quit collecting tax money for charitable purposes, I think a good percentage of it would find its way into the coffers of true charities, where administrative costs are much less. We won't know unless we try.
Government "charity" has nothing to do with real charity.
All it means is the forced confiscation of productive members who work and the redistribution of it to those who don't work. Forced charity isn't charity at all, it's Communism.
Charities can also be discriminatory on whom they help. For instance; a Christian, Muslim, or any other faith based charity could choose to help only those of that faith and no one else. You can see where I'm going with this and the problems that would inevitably arise. Welfare is non discriminatory and serves all who need it. I believe it should not be left up to the states as a previous poster suggested. Again there is too much discretion by individual governors in those states on how much they feel they need to dedicate to the programs. Our current "governor" in Texas is a good example on why it should never be left to the states; he would abolish the entire program if it were up to him. Only a strong federal based welfare system can work successfully.
Before I had my kids, I used to run nonprofit agencies. Now I raise money for them, help them do strategic planning, marketing, run special events, etc.
There are lots of problems with replacing government programs with nonprofits. First--when you're raising private dollars, the type of work that is most POPULAR and noncontroversial tends to get the money (education programs, collegiate sports, hospitals, boy scouts, etc.) instead of programs that are the most needed. An example is sexual assault/domestic violence. Before the OJ Simpson case, DV shelters and rape crisis programs were considered distasteful--only "bad" women were hurt, and the groups ran on a wing and a prayer, often staffed by highly dedicated but haphazardly trained volunteers. After the Simpson case and the broad public attention that came with it, private funding improved, but it wasn't until federal block grants became available for law enforcement, health care workers and nonprofits that many communities were able to offer professional quality and critically needed services in those areas. There was no difference in the issue--it just become more popular, but the federal money made all the difference. If AIDS research had been only privately funded in the 80s, we still wouldn't understand it or have treatments.
Another issue is location and need. The very poorest communities usually have the greatest need, but also the least ability to raise funding. Federal programs and dollars make sure that needs are met in those areas.
I think there's a strong place for both--federal and state programs as well as nonprofits. Federal money is critical for essential services, and work in impoverished areas. Without federal support, most areas have haphazard services at best. Nonprofits are the icing on the cake--they can pick up where the feds leave off, and fill niches in need. Both are important, and both work best when they work together. For example, my church runs a foodbank--it SUPPLEMENTS the public assistance provided to needy families by the feds, but there's no way that we could come close to replacing it--people would starve.
Excellent post. I meant to add something to that effect to my original post, but I couldn't quite find the words (taking a quick break from some last minute Christmas shopping).
You are right - so many charities out there and people tend to donate to the more "attractive" charities, rather than those that collect for homeless ex-drug addicts, or any other demographic that society considers "deadbeats".
Private charities certainly have a place though and they are definitely effective at helping people at grass roots level. They are not immune to fraud or wastage themselves though. They should also not be considered as a blanket solution to tackle the very complex issues of poverty and social exclusion.
Is it me or does anyone else notice that whenever some folks talk about parasites/welfare recipients the face they present is always black or hispanic?
Yes local control is certainly the answer in this case. It could be minimally coordinated with some federal and private aid. All private won't work. People that is private charity, all over the world tend to be much more giving to peoples outside of their own society than within.
But how about foreign aid having some official percentage being turned over to the private sector. It really does happen with regard to Israel and other middle eastern countries. "Would you like to see the North Koreans eating better. Donate here."
Do you really think that God's people would let people starve? Here at Christmas, our local Salvation Army has done an excellent job of providing for those who have little to nothing. The Red Kettle campaign is on track to meet the goal that they set. Is that not the case everywhere? Don't Christians remember the real reason for the season is that Jesus was sent to teach us to take care of one another?
If the government quit collecting tax money for charitable purposes, I think a good percentage of it would find its way into the coffers of true charities, where administrative costs are much less. We won't know unless we try.
I'm a little more cynical when it comes to people and their intentions, I'm afraid.
Your last paragraph may stand true for some, but let's be honest, if the government ceased all welfare tomorrow and slashed taxes, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people would pocket the extra money, rather than donate it to charity. It's human nature. Unfortunately, the government has to regulate human greed, to some extent.
Many rich people do donate large sums of their money to various charities though because they are of a good moral standing. Others don't give a damn.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
