castledoom.com

[Decoy]

I was talking with a friend about this, and a thought struck me. Giving money to most charities could be doing more harm than good. How? For one, it perpetuates a cycle of poverty and begging. As long as we are willing to hand out no strings attached anti-poverty injections, people who mutilate their children so they can beg more efficiently will continue doing so. It's much the same as why communism wouldn't work in previously capitalist society: nobody wants to work for everyone's good when they get the same benefits by relaxing. Of course, most people in poverty can't help it, and have no ways of getting out of the cycle. That's where the 'good' charities like micro-crediting banks come into play.

What's micro-credit? For an overly-simplistic description, it is large international banks lending small sums of practically interest free money to impoverished people. Often there are people accompanying the loans to teach the loan recipients skills with which they can start up a business and thus continue earning money. Give a man a fish... The principle is that by individuals becoming self-supporting the economy might gradually repair, leading to wealth pouring in small amounts to the poor. Parents can pass on skills to their children, and their skills are often in high demand by the community. People who make pots for storing and carrying water, people who make baskets for storing, people who make sturdy furniture... Everyone benefits by one person under this system. And given the scale this could operate on (consider the size of many banks), we will most likely see a decline in poverty within 10 years.

By then though, the yardstick for poverty will have leapt forward in leaps and bounds. Think, the way we live now may be considered below the poverty line in 40 or so years. Here's the fuel to the fire Joe asked for.

[Brf]

The same could be said for any Welfare programs too.... AFDC, Food-Stamps (or WIC as they call it today), free clinics, unemployment insurance, or any type of handout. Such freebies just encourage bums to remain unemployed. We should just end all entitlement programs and force people to work for a living.... While we are at it, end all foreign aid to developing countries.... All that free stuff is just encouraging them to reproduce much faster than their countries can support them.

[Decoy]

My point was that some charities do more harm than good, yet others promote a lasting effect rather than a booster.

Think of the problem like a depressed person. Maybe they'll cope on their own, maybe they'll die on their own. If somebody gives that person some drugs to inject on which will make them happy, so much the better, right? I mean, they are happy, aren't they? The only side effects of the drug are that it's addictive, and that the lows in between the highs are even worse. Every time you give the man drugs, he gets happy. Then pretty soon, he needs more drugs, more urgently than the last time. Eventually, you would have to spend so much to get the man drugs that you put yourself in his position. The smarter alternative is to give the man a stress ball to squeeze whenever he's feeling upset, something that will keep him happy while he has it, and that is up to him to use and look after.

The man wants to fish, not to have fish!

[ExarKun]

My sister is sadly a prime example of this. She has three kids and can barely keep them but she does so she can keep welfare and not have a job. My parents even offered her money to let them adopt the kids and she says no, she doesn't wanna loose the money so she can still not work. It's kinda pathetic.

[NibbyCat]

Brf, WIC is not the same as food-stamps. WIC is through a different program.

We definitely need to rework the program, make it less profitable to remain on welfare. It should be a temporary thing, there's no reason for a healthy person to be a life-long recipient. Even then, there are people who have disabilities, but are still able to hold jobs. I'm sure I've told the story of the bed-ridden man in the iron lung who was an editor for a major science magazine.

~sheepishly wiping the foam from her mouth~

[Brf]

NibbyCat wrote: Brf, WIC is not the same as food-stamps. WIC is through a different program.

Maybe.... but the same effect.... Families are given "coupons" which they can trade in at grocers.

[ExarKun]

"We're in one of the richest countries in the world,
but the minimum wage is lower than it was thirty five years ago.
There are homeless people everywhere.
This homeless guy asked me for money the other day.
I was about to give it to him and then I thought he was going to use it on drugs or alcohol.
And then I thought, that's what I'm going to use it on.
Why am I judging this poor bastard.
People love to judge homeless guys. Like if you give them money they're just going to waste it.
Well, he lives in a box, what do you want him to do? Save it up and buy a wall unit?
Take a little run to the store for a throw rug and a CD rack? He's homeless.
I walked behind this guy the other day.
A homeless guy asked him for money.
He looks right at the homeless guy and says why don't you go get a job you bum.
People always say that to homeless guys like it is so easy.
This homeless guy was wearing his underwear outside his pants.
Outside his pants. I'm guessing his resume isn't all up to date.
I'm predicting some problems during the interview process.
I'm pretty sure even McDonalds has a "underwear goes inside the pants" policy.
Not that they enforce it really strictly, but technically I'm sure it is on the books."


That is a little bit from a comedian I like, I thought it had some ties into this. Funny yet poigent.

[JuntaJoe]

Nibby is right. WIC (Women, Infants, Children) is an additional food program over and above food stamps. It's about giving special coupons to mothers of very young children to get extra dairy products. It's also a case of corporate welfare for dairy farmers. Back when milk prices had dropped through the floor, some brainiac figured to save both the dairy farmers and donate to the "poor, pitiful, starving toddlers" of America all in one stroke.

Now with milk prices so high, it has become a "cash cow" (pardon the pun) for dairy farmers.


Anyway, as a Randist type person, I see zero need for any automatic charity run by the government. If a person wishes to make a private donation then they can do with their money as they want. Automatic payment from my taxes is forced charity and it isn't charity at all. It's a socialistic power play and downright theft for class warfare purposes. It's usually a wasteful bureaucratic boondoggle to boot. I could go on all day about this, but a lot of you know my firm stance already.

I am in favor of careful capitalization investment to increase the ability of lower income groups to learn to fend for themselves. Small business investment and skill training in critically understaffed job sectors is a great idea if you put enough restrictions on it to keep the wasteful leeches out. This increases the overall tax base and lowers the need for social welfare. It also generates new markets, goods, and consumers. It can be done right if lawmakers quit trying to fill everything with pork.

[estio]

Charity? The purpose of charity is to make the person donating the money feel better. The recipient is secondary.

Of course no one will tell you that's why they do it, but I bet in almost all cases that is the real reason. And I'm ok with that.

As long as an individual chooses to do something with their money, let them.

My problem is the govt welfare programs. Supposedly they were going to end poverty decades ago. We know how well that worked. If we want to save our country we need to end all welfare and social programs as soon as possible.

Let charities do the work they once did and let the riff raff change their ways or starve to death.

I think the proper term is... not my problem :lol:

[JuntaJoe]

Now don't go tossing individual instances back in my face, but do yourself a favor sometime when a person mentions the government needs to help a certain group.

Ask them how much they donated personally. If they fumble then ask how much general charity they gave the year before.


It ha been my experience that the least of the givers whine the most. And that matters not what economic class they come from. You will find this extremely prevalent in middle class lefties.

Now I can fathom the reason poor lefties don't give, whether I agree or not. The rich lefties like to use their money as leverage like the rich righties, but the lefties like to couch that usage as overt charity to score even more points. So the rich righty donates to the symphony instead of the soup kitchen. It's all a self indulgent handout.

So you find the charity of the middle class to be truer to the roots of the giving. Middle class lefties scream for more government programs while middle class righties just give of their own free will.

Yeah, I give some charity. It's for personal reasons that make me feel good. The Red Cross services our troops and steps in natural disasters at the moment money is of little value and it's more about skills, communication, and manpower. And I give blood through them. Trust me, on an operating table, you will care more about blood than money. But I fully know that I give for my own good feelings. The Red Cross did some nice things for my friends when I was in the service and I'm helping them slowly recover that expense. They also give essentially free airfreight for soldier donations overseas too.

That is what charity is all about. A personal gift because you want that charitable organization to prosper. It's all about me in the giving. That soldier in Iraq might not know where that big bag of clean white socks came from, but he's sure glad to get them. I remember that feeling and I want other soldiers to have the same.

My younger sis and husband are flaming liberals who despise my politics. But they never bring them up anymore. Once I learned that bit of news I began asking my liberal acquaintences about their charity giving. They all seemed to vaguely bluster a bit much. The righties were modest, but specific. And then I laid in wait for my sis to start another rantfest about my "inhuman" politics. I had my tax form handy with the numbers too. Yep, I found out they don't give a damn dime. Her husband even began to mumble that's what taxes are for. My older sister, who was also there and kind of middle-road type, stiffed him and said now wouldn't be a wise time for that argument! Within the hour I had buried them too deep. My politics are never a conversation topic now and they never attempted another "conversion" again. :lol:

So go forth and ask the question. There will always be exceptions, so don't accuse until they demure. But just keep asking and you will find the pattern to ring true consistantly. Lefties want charity to come from Uncle Sam and not their wallet.

[Eddy]

Ok, I'll give a different perspective. I'm virtually a socialist when it comes to money. (Joe? Estio? You guys ok?)

Honestly though, I think charity is an endless black hole. It is a waste of money. Name one disease that was cured by charity. Name one starving country that was permanently changed with charity. Name one social problem that was solved by charity. You can't.

Charity is just a way for middle class people to feel like they are making a difference when in fact they aren't doing anything at all. Personally, I haven't given a dime in years because I know that charity is meaningless. I could go on and on about the corporate scum that run most charity drives, but I won't. I will ask one thing though. Why do charities ask you to give until it hurts, but then pay the CEOs and executives large salaries? If they believe in the cause, then why don't they live on say 25K a year so that the charity gets more money?

[Brf]

Eddy wrote: Name one disease that was cured by charity.


Polio was cured by March of Dimes.

[Maus]

Name one country that was permanently changed by charity? Oh I dunno, how about The United States of America?

In 1944, Public Law 346, the "Servicemen's Readjustment Act" went onto the books. Nowadays called the "GI Bill", it was a 12-year government handout giving ex-soldiers freebie tuition, supplies and living expenses for college. Roughly 2.5 million slackers sucked on this public teat, and what did we get in return? Federal-handout apologists like to whine about the dang near one million scientists, engineers, doctors and teachers that resulted, making the U.S. a science and industry leader for the next 60 years.

[JuntaJoe]

That wasn't charity, Maus. That was a government program.

We are drawing a line here between private and public programs.


But I'll admit that is one government program that did work.

I think I know the reason too. Like the SBA program, the recipients were vetted as those who would use the handout to better themselves rather than to simply absorb it and move no further down the road to self-sufficiency. One doesn't slog though the Pacific jungles with a rifle without getting a sense of doing better things with their life.

[estio]

I don't think the GI bill should fall under charity or even govt hand outs. It was a payback. The men who risked their lives earned their rewards.

I believe all charity has to be local. The larger the group, the more wasted overhead and the less control over results. When you give a bum a buck, he gets a buck. When you give a foundation a buck to help save bums, they spend it discussing how to help the bum.

Many people look at free marketeers as greedy money hungry pigs but many successful people spend their fortunes on side projects that they really love. There is more to life when you realize money isn't the end, but rather just a means. That is why people try to help each other and support their communities.

But it is voluntary!

[JuntaJoe]

I don't agree, estio, that the GI Bill was payback.

Why?

Because we are used to it now, but back then serving your country didn't include those benefits.

Imagine if the government decided today that all vets get a free house of their choice within a certain cost bracket based on local property values. We could end up buying tons of Manhattan 2 bedroom apartments at a half million a pop. It would be fair if the kid joined up and showed prior residence in Manhattan.

The GI Bill was a great plan, but it was still a huge bonus back then. Only the rich and smart went to college. Colleges all over the country were forced to triple in size overnight. That came at taxpayer expense essentially. What if I told you that the government insists on tripling the size of all of our universities again tomorrow?

Even today, the promise of free healthcare has made the VA one of the largest recipients of government spending. We spend far less on NASA, education, foriegn aid, and even welfare......combined! Look at next years national budget pie and see how much veterans really cost.

I'm not going to knock the old GI Bill or even the new one. It's a sound investment that pays itself back quite well with increased tax revenues from higher income brackets the vets obtain.

But let's call a spade a spade, ok?

Patriotism and a paycheck should really be the only reward for a professional volunteer military. If the recruiting is low then up the paycheck in line with a living wage.