[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I also passed the links in the OP to one of my atheists friends in the States and they sent me back this:
“Christians–especially conservative Christians–tend to be anti-social welfare, whereas a lot of atheists are more socially liberal. So, Christians (who lean conservative) go more for private charity, but fight to deny people things like unemployment benefits, low cost or free medical services, homeless shelters, etc. I’ve seen letters to the editor where they actually argue that if the government forces them to fund these things through tax deductions, then it’s not really “charity.” In my view, this is doing it the hard way–because society is best suited to see to its own social needs, and leaving hungry, medically needy or desperate people to the mercy of–well, “mercy,” is not acceptable. They should be guaranteed services, not simply at the mercy of whatever someone does (or does not) wish to give.”[/quote]
Using an tremendously inefficient government is somehow better than much more efficient charitable organizations? Riddle me that…
I think it’s more laziness and a passing of the buck. They recognize the problem, but rather let somebody else deal with it and somehow absurdly justifying paying more taxes.
We, more socially conservative folks do realize that giving people money on a tether keeps them poor and miserable. Programs designed to help, are in turn rife with corruption, inefficient on a good day, and string people along on fixed incomes tacitly controlling everything about their very lives.
I fail to see to good in that.[/quote]
Well a lot of what you said is true about Charitable organizations as well. How many times have you read about charitable donations being embezzled or horribly mismanaged? I’m sure at least a few times if you keep your eyes open for this kind of stuff.
I just googled corrupt charities and on the very first result I found this:
“At one time, the American Cancer Society spent only 26 percent of its national multibillion-dollar budget on actual medical research, allotting the other three-fourths to Ã??Ã?¢??operating expenses.Ã??Ã?¢?? In 2005, the Phoenix New Times reported that the Arizona branch of the organization spent a gasp-inducing 95 percent on overhead costs, leaving cancer victims Ã??Ã?¢??only the crumbs.Ã??Ã?¢?? At the Arizona branch, the nonprofit spends 22 times as much on paying employees, maintaining the offices, and keeping the coffee machine running than on the cancer victims they are supposedly aiming to save.”
This is from a Harvard affiliated website btw.[/quote]
Look at there inefficiencies in general vs. the government. Yes, some do take a rogue turn now and then, but over all there is a lot less waste in privately run charities.
You can see their grades here:
Then:
http://libertariananswers.com/is-private-charity-more-efficient-than-government-welfare/
[/quote]
Oh, its worse than that.
If you really want to know what the poor actually get out of it utility wise you have to ask them how much they would have paid for it.
Now that would be atrocious, methodologically speaking, but still better than government statistics.
The reason is that government can provide things that are actually very low on the priority list of the recipients, the added utility is practically zero, sometimes negative.
Think refrigerators for Eskimos. The Eskimos would have no use for them but any government statistic would clearly show that they received goods in the amount of such and such. Now if you asked the Eskimo, he would probably tell you that he would give you 10 bucks if you hauled the thing of his premises.
