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.
I just find it sad that people who claim to care about others feel that allowing corrupt politicians to confiscate other people's money only to have a fraction of it spent on good causes is the best way to help those less fortunate. Yet the same people who feel government is the answer never donate money to the government to further their cause. I can't help but question their ideals... it seems really hypocritical from where I stand.
Thats the thing. They dont have faith that people would pick up the slack. What they refuse to acknowledge is if your taxed to fund something YOU DONT WANT then that tax is simply wrong. On the other hand, in this case, if you WANTED to help the poor you can without the money burning inefficient Govt getting involved. This isn't the same as say a municipal tax that your not fond of but benefits the entire town or society in general because its for everyones use, such as roads & emergency services. This is a tax placed on only the property owners to benefit a tiny specific group that often contributes zero to the tax rolls.
Its simply not an ethical use of taxed funds.
I provide for my own basic level of health & security as everyone should. This is America, its a free country. Your free to starve or free to prosper.
This is where I think we keep missing the point with each other. If we make no provision to people from starving we cannot be confident that we will not be affected personally by poverty related health factors such as TB that can rise and have in the passed been endemic in our own cities and we create a situation where poverty related crime may rise and affect us. There is a certain level.
I believe in a goverment funding source based on laws passed by democratically elected representatives to ensure everyone is both contributing to the general welfare of the community they live in and has a say in how things are worked out through the legislature. If you want the laws changed, you work with your representative, they are responsive and I have worked with my representatives for different issues.
Further to assure that the all areas of need are covered, you need a system.
Under you philosophy everyone could give all their money to PETA and Habitiat for Humanity and nothing to Second Harvest, Red Cross,
etc. We would be left with lots of houses and well cared for pets and no food or medical assistance.
But the focus of this question was to discover how charities would work to ensure these basic services exist globally and we have gone far afield, mainly just attacking the system as it is.
This is where I think we keep missing the point with each other. If we make no provision to people from starving we cannot be confident that we will not be affected personally by poverty related health factors such as TB that can rise and have in the passed been endemic in our own cities and we create a situation where poverty related crime may rise and affect us. There is a certain level.
I believe in a goverment funding source based on laws passed by democratically elected representatives to ensure everyone is both contributing to the general welfare of the community they live in and has a say in how things are worked out through the legislature. If you want the laws changed, you work with your representative, they are responsive and I have worked with my representatives for different issues.
Further to assure that the all areas of need are covered, you need a system.
Under you philosophy everyone could give all their money to PETA and Habitiat for Humanity and nothing to Second Harvest, Red Cross,
etc. We would be left with lots of houses and well cared for pets and no food or medical assistance.
But the focus of this question was to discover how charities would work to ensure these basic services exist globally and we have gone far afield, mainly just attacking the system as it is.
Last I checked, poverty related crime has risen, along with the amount of welfare programs.. I could be wrong, but to argue that we should be providing welfare so that we can cut down on crime, just doesnt wash.
As for your "I believe in government funded sources".. Why? Under what authority?
as for everyone giving all of their money to PETA, and nothing to Red Cross, again, that argument doesnt wash.. There will always be people who give their money to PETA, and people like me who cant stand that organization. Are proposing that those that cant stand PETA just wont give?
Charities, are not unlike businesses in todays society. Only difference is, purpose of why they are established. Charities will need to go to the public and sell why they have a need, and let the public decide. That is not unlike todays society at all.
Habitat for Humanity is a good example. They are a non-profit organization, who goes about getting individuals to donate houses, and building material to build, or rebuild housing for the poor. Is there need for such a thing? Evidence would say that this country has an abundance of $1,000 homes available and a surplus in housing, but yet they still sell people on the idea of donating materials to build more and more housing.
Habitat for Humanity is a good example. They are a non-profit organization, who goes about getting individuals to donate houses, and building material to build, or rebuild housing for the poor. Is there need for such a thing? Evidence would say that this country has an abundance of $1,000 homes available and a surplus in housing, but yet they still sell people on the idea of donating materials to build more and more housing.
The difference with Habitat is - those homes are owned by the reciepent - they are not "given" to them - they are buying them. They must participate in the construction of their home - sweat equity.
The area where Habitat homes are built are often in areas slated for re-development. Or, where a natural diaster has happened - such as Katrina.
I have personally been on several "builds" in the 9th Ward (New Orleans). An area totally and completely devasted by the Hurricane. Others I know have been in Biloxi - same issue. People lost their homes (and everything they owned in many cases) and, as many are aware, their insurance companies would not compensate them or rebuild their homes. Habitat is helping to restore a community - at no cost to taxpayers - and to get residents back into quality decent homes.
Habitat has an outstanding recorded if you check -
Let's face it. No one would donate.
Honestly, do you seriously want to donate to Tiwana making a baby and a half a year? Or, Sending Tito and his 14 brothers to school after his father raped your daughter? No. You won't.
Hence, having welfare and other programs ran by charities will simply not work out. As much as I am against taxing on such things... conservatism, libertarianism, anarchism, and all other low government involvement crap, will never make it. You'd need a perfect society of people who are capable and willing to work and strive for the best. But, until Tiwana and Tito stop existing, we are stuck in this rut.
Let's face it. No one would donate.
Honestly, do you seriously want to donate to Tiwana making a baby and a half a year? Or, Sending Tito and his 14 brothers to school after his father raped your daughter? No. You won't.
Hence, having welfare and other programs ran by charities will simply not work out. As much as I am against taxing on such things... conservatism, libertarianism, anarchism, and all other low government involvement crap, will never make it. You'd need a perfect society of people who are capable and willing to work and strive for the best. But, until Tiwana and Tito stop existing, we are stuck in this rut.
Yes. America is stupid.
Explain how we already donate 1.7% of our GDP while the second most generous nation donates .73%. Explain how 65% of people today already donate to charities.
Explain how we already donate 1.7% of our GDP while the second most generous nation donates .73%. Explain how 65% of people today already donate to charities.
Your answer doesn't wash...
Shall we calculate to see how much we would need to make up for if they didn't use the taxes from our paychecks?
Quote:
[SIZE=2]Total federal welfare spending is projected to grow from $315 billion in 2000 to $412 billion in 2005: an increase of 31 percent. The annual rate of spending increase is projected at 5.5 percent.
Even if we use the $315 billion figure. That is how much we will need to make up for in a year from "donations".
That's over $1000 dollars per person in the united states. Let's chalk up, people.
[/SIZE]
The difference with Habitat is - those homes are owned by the reciepent - they are not "given" to them - they are buying them. They must participate in the construction of their home - sweat equity.
The area where Habitat homes are built are often in areas slated for re-development. Or, where a natural diaster has happened - such as Katrina.
I have personally been on several "builds" in the 9th Ward (New Orleans). An area totally and completely devasted by the Hurricane. Others I know have been in Biloxi - same issue. People lost their homes (and everything they owned in many cases) and, as many are aware, their insurance companies would not compensate them or rebuild their homes. Habitat is helping to restore a community - at no cost to taxpayers - and to get residents back into quality decent homes.
Habitat has an outstanding recorded if you check -
I for one have no hesitancy in supporting them.
yes, I was not criticizing Habitat at all, (I actually donated a house to them once).. The point though is that we dont need housing, there is an abundance of houses though this country vacant, and yet they still continue to be able to convince people to donate to their cause.
Not sure your point, do you actually think that the average individual does not donate $1,000 a year to charity?
No. What I am saying is that if we were to abolish welfare, and private charities take over, then each american would need to donate $1,000 MORE a year to make up for the cost of welfare.
I'm assuming that we will be passing the burden of welfare to the private charities from the government. Hence, why they would need to take up the bill of $315 billion +.
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.
