Do people have to be forced to be charitable?

35 posts / 0 new

The basis of the Welfare State is that some people, through no fault of their own, need help or fall through the cracks, so to speak. No argument from me. But why can't these people be taken care of through charity, i.e. voluntarily? You can't say because the money isn't there. Because if it wasn't, raising it by taxes won't make any more money appear. The reason is because you don't think your fellow man will be charitable. You don't trust your fellow man. They must be forced to be charitable. But charity has to come from the heart.

This rationale is also belied by the fact that if people can vote for politicians to institute these welfare programs, then these same people can help out their fellow man. And they will do it more efficiently and more effectively to boot. As talk show host Gene Burns used to say. "What's more effective, giving your neight $10 directly or sending $10 to the federal gov't and having a portion of it send back to your neighbor through welfare.

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 2:33 pm

Comments

In a perfect world.

Who would run these charities? Would they provide these services for free or would they be allowed to take a "cut" from the incoming proceeds? It sounds to me like you are proposing that insurance companies should provide this service for free. If I need a heart transplant then how do you know that and how do you contribute? There are only a few million people in dire need of some kind of health care at this very moment. That should be easy enough to handle through a charitable process. Yeah.

Maybe it would work much easier and smoothly if we all just chipped in a few pennies on every dollar we earn. No wait, that's what we do now. Then we could go on with our lives and not get all caught up in the complexities of trying to give what we feel is an "acceptable" amount of our money to thousands of charities.

Maybe all the doctors and nurses should just work for free! That would be a great way to do it. Then the doctors and nurses could just rely up on charity to pay them what we think is an "acceptable" amount of money.

What do you do for a living Lefty? Why don't you just work for free and rely on charity from others and hope that it's enough money for you to get by on. I'm sure your employer would love that idea. Yes, charity is the way to go.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Who runs charities now? Do some research and contribute to the ones that you feel do a good job and reflect your values? Why would insurance companies run charities? They're a business.

We don't "chip in" right now. We are forced.

Many doctors and nurses do contribute their time to charity.

I never proposed charity taking the place of every job in the economy.

Look at a history of the US before the Welfare State. There were tons of charities, civic organzation, Charity hospitals.etc. It's called Civil Society. They were mostly replaced by the welfare state. Abolish the Welfare State and they'll come back. You trust your fellow man to vote for wise politicians but you don't trust them to help their fellow man directly.

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 2:33 pm
Quote TheFirstLeftist:

Who runs charities now? Do some research and contribute to the ones that you feel do a good job and reflect your values? Why would insurance companies run charities? They're a business.

We don't "chip in" right now. We are forced.

Many doctors and nurses do contribute their time to charity.

I never proposed charity taking the place of every job in the economy.

Look at a history of the US before the Welfare State. There were tons of charities, civic organzation, Charity hospitals.etc. It's called Civil Society. They were mostly replaced by the welfare state. Abolish the Welfare State and they'll come back. You trust your fellow man to vote for wise politicians but you don't trust them to help their fellow man directly.

Yeah, you only propose charity for the poor, lazy slobs of the world. Charity is your magic bullet to be able to "Opt Out". You didn't even understand one part of my post.

There are thousands of charities right now as we speak. Why isn't that enough to take care of everybody now? We have both charities AND government programs for the sick and the poor and yet thousands of people are dying in this country every year for no other reason than the fact that they can't get the health care that they need. Yet you propose to eliminate the government programs and we'll be just fine. Ignorance is bliss.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote TheFirstLeftist:

The basis of the Welfare State is that some people, through no fault of their own, need help or fall through the cracks, so to speak. No argument from me. But why can't these people be taken care of through charity, i.e. voluntarily? You can't say because the money isn't there. Because if it wasn't, raising it by taxes won't make any more money appear. The reason is because you don't think your fellow man will be charitable. You don't trust your fellow man. They must be forced to be charitable. But charity has to come from the heart.

This rationale is also belied by the fact that if people can vote for politicians to institute these welfare programs, then these same people can help out their fellow man. And they will do it more efficiently and more effectively to boot. As talk show host Gene Burns used to say. "What's more effective, giving your neight $10 directly or sending $10 to the federal gov't and having a portion of it send back to your neighbor through welfare.

Simply put: Look at history. The rise of the welfare state came in part because charity did not work. I encourage you to read Michel Foucault on the History of Madness or perhaps Stiker on The History of Disability. When the industrial revolution hit and you started to create these massive urban centers in Europe. What first looked like charity eventually morphed into mass internment and dehumanization "for their own good." In short, charity leaves little room for the affordance of human dignity; relegating all of those who cannot work for themselves as undeserving of equality and worth little more than passive tolerance.

You often seem to frame the idea of the welfare state as a "nanny state" - one that coddles individuals into gluttony and dependency despite the fact that NUMEROUS sociological studies on this topic prove this to be completely false. In reality, the welfare state was designed based on the premise that all people are worthy of a basic norm of livelihood and human dignity regardless of the circumstance of their birth, ascriptive qualities, or perhaps accidents which leave them disabled.

One of the fundamental premises of Libertarianism is a blatant disregard for universal equality and humanity.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:

One of the fundamental premises of Libertarianism is a blatant disregard for universal equality and humanity.

Rationalized selfishness.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

Leftist I want you to honestly reflect on something:

Is it possible that generational poverty and longterm subsistence on welfare has NOTHING to do with the welfare programs and is more the result of a Capitalist economic system that is specifically designed to hold certain classes of individuals down into poverty in an effort to shore up a heirarchical arrangement that benefits a very small number of people who happen to hold the seat of power and money in this country?

Food for thought.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:

Leftist I want you to honestly reflect on something:

Is it possible that generational poverty and longterm subsistence on welfare has NOTHING to do with the welfare programs and is more the result of a Capitalist economic system that is specifically designed to hold certain classes of individuals down into poverty in an effort to shore up a heirarchical arrangement that benefits a very small number of people who happen to hold the seat of power and money in this country?

Food for thought.

Food for thought is worthless for a brain that does not seek nourishment.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Reasons government is better than charity:

1. Rupert Murdoch put Michael Milkin in charge of a charity.

2. Even the most sincere charity has to advertise. Government does not. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=48 to quote: "Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least 75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And 9 out of 10 spend at least 65%." Social Security and Medicare spend 97% of their budget on services.

3. The public stigmatizes those who need charity as lazy, crazy, and alcoholics/junkies. And black. Americans do not like the poor.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States In 2003 15.31% of American families lived on a family income of less than 1 worker at minimum wage. ($15,000 - note that European nations have minimum wages of $18,000 - $23,000) Who can afford to give to charity? The need is simply too great.

doh1304's picture
doh1304
Joined:
Dec. 6, 2010 10:49 am

But a charity actually cares about the people they are helping. The poiticians handing out tax dollars to those in need are simply trying to buy their vote. Sorry to be so cynical, but that is the case way too often.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm
Quote mauiman58:

But a charity actually cares about the people they are helping. The poiticians handing out tax dollars to those in need are simply trying to buy their vote. Sorry to be so cynical, but that is the case way too often.

Uh wrong on both accounts. Charity is not always, and maybe rarely, engaged in because of care for the receiver. For example, most charitable contributions currently given in the US are most likely due to the tax write off. Care for the charity itself is often secondary (although people obviously give to causes they believe in). The point is, they probably would not have done so without the personal incentive of the tax deduction. In previous centuries, the benefit of charitable giving was two fold: First, it exmplified some sort of ego or identity maintenance in the social realm. People who were charitable were viewed as benevolent and/or powerful. People gave to assert a particular social standing, not because they cared about the needy. Second, people gave out of concern for their eternal salvation. It is no mistake that the Bible created the idea of the tithe as a necessary component of eternal salvation. The religious leaders recongized that emploring to people's better natures was not enough to secure their own funding and fullfill their mission obligations in their communities. The tithe is nothing more than a mechanism to link charitable giving to the outcome of your afterlife - your eternal fate.

In other cultures, for example India, there is a entire system of charitble giving based on a type of karmic economy. People give to pay off karmic debts from past lives and to secure better lives after ressurection in the future. Those who give, have more positive karmic energy owed to them. They do so in hopes that they will garner the benefits of their charity in future lives.

There are several systems like this but the fact of the matter is, most of them proved to be not enough to create a sustainable system in modern society. What was good for small agrarian-based communities (charity) was simply not suficient for the complexity, disconnectedness, and population density of industrial urban life. The welfare state was born out of this necessity.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote mauiman58:

But a charity actually cares about the people they are helping. The poiticians handing out tax dollars to those in need are simply trying to buy their vote. Sorry to be so cynical, but that is the case way too often.

Mauiman58,

It is difficult to have a discussion with people who think the government is more efficient and caring than the human beings acting voluntarily. If they really cared, they'd put their money where their mouth is. Instead, the show their compassion by having the government stick a gun in people's ribs and tell them to be charitable.

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 2:33 pm
Quote TheFirstLeftist:

Look at a history of the US before the Welfare State. There were tons of charities, civic organzation, Charity hospitals.etc. It's called Civil Society. They were mostly replaced by the welfare state. Abolish the Welfare State and they'll come back. You trust your fellow man to vote for wise politicians but you don't trust them to help their fellow man directly.

Oh yeah, that worked out REAL well in the 1930's:

---

At the time of the Great Depression, formal arrangements for relief of the indigent were sparse and fragmented. In many places, including New York City and Philadelphia, there simply was no “outdoor” relief (the term used to describe aid given to people who were not institutionalized). Even where public relief agencies existed, what little was actually given was usually provided by private charities. But niggardly aid and fragmented administration did not signify an underdeveloped institution. To the contrary, a national relief system did exist. Despite the diversity of administrative auspices, the norms that guided the giving of relief were everywhere quite similar. The dole was anathema to the American spirit of work and self-sufficiency. Therefore, it should be dispensed to as few as possible and made as harsh as possible to discourage reliance upon it. Accordingly, very little was given, and then only to a handful of the aged and crippled, widowed and orphaned to “deserving” people who clearly were not able to work.

These practices were not only a reflection of harshly individualistic American attitudes. They were also a reflection of American economic realities. Work and self-reliance meant grueling toil at low wages for many people. So long as that was so, the dole could not be dispensed permissively for fear some would choose it over work. Thus, most of the poor were simply excluded from aid, ensuring that they had no alternative but to search for whatever work they could find at whatever wage was offered. And if they found no work, then they would have to survive by whatever means they could.

But this much could have been achieved without any relief arrangements at all; the threat of starvation was sufficient. The more important function of the relief system was accomplished, not by refusing relief, but by degrading and making outcasts of those few who did get aid. At the time of the Great Depression the main legal arrangement for the care of the destitute was incarceration in almshouses or workhouses. In some places the care of paupers was still contracted to the lowest bidder, and destitute orphans were indentured to those who would feed them in exchange for whatever labor they could perform. The constitutions of fourteen states denied the franchise to paupers (Brown, 9-10; Woodroofe, 154). By such practices the relief system created a clearly demarcated and degraded class, a class of pariahs whose numbers were small but whose fate loomed large in the lives of those who lived close to indigence, warning them always of a life even worse than hard work and severe poverty.

---

Read more: http://libcom.org/history/1930-1939-unemployed-workers-movement

Cubey's picture
Cubey
Joined:
Aug. 24, 2010 11:32 pm

Etymlogy of "Welfare State"

The German term (Sozialstaat, "social state") has been used since 1870 to describe state support programs being developed by the German Sozialpolitiker—"Social Politicians" and implemented through Bismarck's conservative reforms.[5]

Despite early attempts to use an equivalent phrase in English,[6] the term was uncommon until William Temple popularized it during the Second World War, contrasting wartime Britain's welfare state with the "warfare state" of Nazi Germany.[7]

The Italian term "social state" (Stato sociale) has the same origin.[citation needed] The Swedish welfare state is called Folkhemmet (literally; the folk home) and goes back to the 1936 compromise between the Trade unions and big companies. It is a mixed economy, built on strong unions and a strong system of Social security and universal health care. The term "Wohlfahrtsstaat", a direct translation from English, is used in Germany to describe Sweden. In Spanish and many other languages, an analogous term is used: estado del bienestar; translated literally: "state of well-being". In Portuguese, two similar phrases exist: estado do bem-estar social, which means "state of social well-being", and estado de providência, which means "providing state", as in the state should provide citizens their demands in order to achieve people's well-being. In Brazil, it is referred to as previdência social, translated as social providence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

[/quote]

Mauiman58,

It is difficult to have a discussion with people who think the government is more efficient and caring than the human beings acting voluntarily. If they really cared, they'd put their money where their mouth is. Instead, the show their compassion by having the government stick a gun in people's ribs and tell them to be charitable.

[/quote]

Could not agree with you more. I do get tired of those who claim that conservatives lack compassion. Yet to a progressive, compassion is often defined as "we pass legislation to make sure that others (the rich) give away their money to the poor".

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm
Quote mauiman58:

Mauiman58,

It is difficult to have a discussion with people who think the government is more efficient and caring than the human beings acting voluntarily. If they really cared, they'd put their money where their mouth is. Instead, the show their compassion by having the government stick a gun in people's ribs and tell them to be charitable.

Could not agree with you more. I do get tired of those who claim that conservatives lack compassion. Yet to a progressive, compassion is often defined as "we pass legislation to make sure that others (the rich) give away their money to the poor".

It's also ironic that all of the deficits and debt gets paid for with inflation, which is a transfers of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy elite. Their hero FDR, who was not a traitor to his class, gave the commercial banks the privilege to create money out of thin air to help his Wall Street buddies. They may counter, and correctly so, that all of the wars have let to deficits and debt. But most of the wars were started by and/or supported by liberal/progressive Democrats. Wilson- WWI, FDR-WWII, Truman-Korea, Vietnam -LBJ. The late 20th century, early 21st century wars have be more "bipartisan". Kucinich on the left and Buchanan on the Right are the most notable dissenters on their respective sides.

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 2:33 pm

If the GOP wasn't so deliberately stingy, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Steven.PBarrett
Joined:
Nov. 1, 2010 10:01 am
Quote mauiman58:

Mauiman58,

It is difficult to have a discussion with people who think the government is more efficient and caring than the human beings acting voluntarily. If they really cared, they'd put their money where their mouth is. Instead, the show their compassion by having the government stick a gun in people's ribs and tell them to be charitable.

[/quote]

Could not agree with you more. I do get tired of those who claim that conservatives lack compassion. Yet to a progressive, compassion is often defined as "we pass legislation to make sure that others (the rich) give away their money to the poor".

[/quote]

OK then, let me ask you maui, if given the choice to allow thousands of children die every year or requiring that all tax paying citizens pool together in order to save them, what would you choose. History shows us that charity and our present system combined doesn't work so please don't go there. Just answer the simple question.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote TheFirstLeftist:
Quote mauiman58:

But a charity actually cares about the people they are helping. The poiticians handing out tax dollars to those in need are simply trying to buy their vote. Sorry to be so cynical, but that is the case way too often.

Mauiman58,

It is difficult to have a discussion with people who think the government is more efficient and caring than the human beings acting voluntarily. If they really cared, they'd put their money where their mouth is. Instead, the show their compassion by having the government stick a gun in people's ribs and tell them to be charitable.

The only difficulty here is that I have provided you with actual historical fact and it disconfirms your dogmatic idiocy and you can not bring yourself to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote mauiman58:

But a charity actually cares about the people they are helping. The poiticians handing out tax dollars to those in need are simply trying to buy their vote. Sorry to be so cynical, but that is the case way too often.

Why are we all arguing the same points and subjects over and over? Mauiman, you made this exact point before.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote TheFirstLeftist:
Quote mauiman58:

But a charity actually cares about the people they are helping. The poiticians handing out tax dollars to those in need are simply trying to buy their vote. Sorry to be so cynical, but that is the case way too often.

Mauiman58,

It is difficult to have a discussion with people who think the government is more efficient and caring than the human beings acting voluntarily. If they really cared, they'd put their money where their mouth is. Instead, the show their compassion by having the government stick a gun in people's ribs and tell them to be charitable.

The only difficulty here is that I have provided you with actual historical fact and it disconfirms your dogmatic idiocy and you can not bring yourself to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

At any one time, there is only so much wealth in a society. How does taxing the people, sending it to Washington, taking a cut out for the middle-class bureaucrats that produce nothing, and returning a fraction of it to those in need, superior than me helping out someone in my community directly?

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 2:33 pm
Quote chilidog:

Etymlogy of "Welfare State"

The German term (Sozialstaat, "social state") has been used since 1870 to describe state support programs being developed by the German Sozialpolitiker—"Social Politicians" and implemented through Bismarck's conservative reforms.[5]

Despite early attempts to use an equivalent phrase in English,[6] the term was uncommon until William Temple popularized it during the Second World War, contrasting wartime Britain's welfare state with the "warfare state" of Nazi Germany.[7]

The Italian term "social state" (Stato sociale) has the same origin.[citation needed] The Swedish welfare state is called Folkhemmet (literally; the folk home) and goes back to the 1936 compromise between the Trade unions and big companies. It is a mixed economy, built on strong unions and a strong system of Social security and universal health care. The term "Wohlfahrtsstaat", a direct translation from English, is used in Germany to describe Sweden. In Spanish and many other languages, an analogous term is used: estado del bienestar; translated literally: "state of well-being". In Portuguese, two similar phrases exist: estado do bem-estar social, which means "state of social well-being", and estado de providência, which means "providing state", as in the state should provide citizens their demands in order to achieve people's well-being. In Brazil, it is referred to as previdência social, translated as social providence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

uh.... who gives a shit?

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote TheFirstLeftist:
Quote ah2:
Quote TheFirstLeftist:
Quote mauiman58:

But a charity actually cares about the people they are helping. The poiticians handing out tax dollars to those in need are simply trying to buy their vote. Sorry to be so cynical, but that is the case way too often.

Mauiman58,

It is difficult to have a discussion with people who think the government is more efficient and caring than the human beings acting voluntarily. If they really cared, they'd put their money where their mouth is. Instead, the show their compassion by having the government stick a gun in people's ribs and tell them to be charitable.

The only difficulty here is that I have provided you with actual historical fact and it disconfirms your dogmatic idiocy and you can not bring yourself to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

At any one time, there is only so much wealth in a society. How does taxing the people, sending it to Washington, taking a cut out for the middle-class bureaucrats that produce nothing, and returning a fraction of it to those in need, superior than me helping out someone in my community directly?

Why do you consistently ignore the information I have already given you. Maybe you should read my posts again. Maybe you should read the sources I gave you. Let you in on a little secret - my background is, in part, in policy analysis and my research field of interest is disability issues. I know just a little about this... The history here is not on your side. Your ignorance of it is not a justification for your ideas.

The reason it works better for the poor and disabled is because charity has NEVER been sufficient enough to grant them the dignity of a livelihood worthy of a human being. The closest we have ever gotten to achieving that is through welfare policies. We BARELY get there as it is - a large portion of disabled individuals live in poverty. Prior to that it was mass internment in camps, prisons, hospitals, and almshouses for the poor. As in, they were isolated so they didn't inconvenience us all by being visable on the street or, dare I say, infect the general population with their disease (even poverty was considered a social infliction with a probable biological cause). Prior to that, christian charity was the rule of the day - and here I am talking about during the medieval period. While I don't generally encourage using Hollywood as a source for real information, you can get a general idea of what that was like in various well researched historical fictions in film - generally pretty shitty. Livestock typically lived better because they were considered of more value. Prior to that? Expellation from the community. And if you were born disabled, you were "exposed" which means you were taken out of town, and dropped in a shallow hole and left to die.

Wake up. Read more. Assume less. Read more social research. Read more history.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

The only reason charities aren't holding a gun to your head is that the government has been delegated that responsibility. It is absurd to talk about charity as though it were simply a type of act involving two individuals. Charity is a social concept originating in pre-secular society and which has been replaced by welfare. I find it hard to believe that First Leftist would think there was anyone on this board who would look to the period of time previous to the New Deal as comparing favorably to that afterwards. The periods of depression in the late nineteenth century were a time in the US when people died of starvation. People don't think of this as a country where that has ever happened because of the wealth and prosperity which socialism has brought us.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote chilidog:

Etymlogy of "Welfare State"

In Spanish and many other languages, an analogous term is used: estado del bienestar; translated literally: "state of well-being". In Portuguese, two similar phrases exist: estado do bem-estar social, which means "state of social well-being", and estado de providência, which means "providing state", as in the state should provide citizens their demands in order to achieve people's well-being. In Brazil, it is referred to as previdência social, translated as social providence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

uh.... who gives a shit?

I was attempting to provide some background for the term "Welfare State."

I was just assuming that anytime someone on the right uses that term, it's to conjure up images of welfare queens driving Cadillacs.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If forced by a "free" market system to go to work in a job that I don't especially like, then I would insist in my political decisions in help for people, even in some respects those who are not financially indigent but who are in need of some basic form of gurantee or assurance against the instability and vagaries of the economic system that we have. If someone doesn't like it, then they are certainly free to move to a country that they would like better, such as Somalia.

Robindell's picture
Robindell
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Mauiman likes the up close and personal, but he sees a lot of the big scale social welfare as corrupted and impersonal, not really caring about the people. He does not get the connection between doing local work where neighbors meet real people and serve directly and the political conscience to create systems to support the kind of personal work he advocates.

I think of the very worthy Habitat for Humanity who introduce lots of people to the need for affordable housing and give them the opportunity to work with those who will live in the home in building them. It has a human touch and personal involvement that neither a political vote for affordable housing nor the negotiations to set the terms of the contracts and hiring; but if you want to deal with the housing problem, you have to do the latter. If all Habitat does is give "liberals" a chance to feel good instead of getting involved in political advocacy to solve homelessness, it is not worth very much.

In other words, there really is not a choice between charity and government programs to solve big human social problems. Charities can do great things for special needs, and they can meet some of the gaps in the social safety net. They can also give people a human connection to people in need that can transform the heart, and then the mind.

But, there are lots of problems with charities and turf or partisan ideological divides. If there is no over arching vision and strategy to do more than maintain the charity industry, private charity can become a business plan rather than a movement toward justice. At the gross level, we have the anti-abortion pregnancy centers run by religious private parties making public services for patients these private centers will not serve close or suffer. Culture wars and other incivilities can come out of these tax-exempt charities.

The idea that government officials do not care about the people they serve is also tainted. I think routine and institutional cultures can become impersonal to the clients, but this is no special problem with government. It is also the case that when the means to help are scarce, there is a temptation to find some reason in the person in need not to respond rather than to admit the moral need and be impotent to meet it. There is administrative pressure to conserve resources. You don't get rewarded for going any extra miles. In other words, badly funded social service programs are likely to have problems and not be fun to encounter. Try funding them and see what happens.

I have met a lot of people working in human services whose motivation and persistence amazes me. They do the best they can for their clients with the meager means available, and they help their clients most by letting them know that it is not their, the client's, fault. It is their problem, but the fault lies in a social system that does not do what it ought to do. To say that these workers do not care about their clients while charities do is wrong, and a cheap shot. Mauiman, grow up and get over it.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

drc2, you mis quote me. The people who work in social services do actually care about the people they are serving. They do tremendous work! It's the politicians who gererously give away OPM (other people's money) that are just buying votes. Again, sorry to be so cynical about our POLITICIANS, but I sorry I happen to think that anyone who sees it differently needs to buy my prime swampland in Florida.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm
Quote TheFirstLeftist:...The reason is because you don't think your fellow man will be charitable. You don't trust your fellow man.

It's not a matter of trust. It is individually irrational to give so little to help people. That is why the government needs to take a small amount from each, and give it to the poor.

Secondly, government has traditionally been engaged in charity ever since the Romans handed out bread or the Churches gave food to the poor, or the state poor houses in the early part of ths nation's history.

Quote TheFirstLeftist:...As talk show host Gene Burns used to say. "What's more effective, giving your neight $10 directly or sending $10 to the federal gov't and having a portion of it send back to your neighbor through welfare.

The responses to your original post that I have just read show you are ill informed. The quote from Burns proves this as well. Why on earth would you think this self-professed libertarian is an expert on social programs, charity and welfare?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Hmmmm....you want to know why charities no longer give the support they used to? It all boils down to the New Deal and F.D.R. And that man had no real interest in helping people. The New Deal was a political ploy to buy votes as the Democrats were trying to change their image. As taxes went up to pay for these programs, charitable giving went down as the taxpayers had less money in their pockets to expend.

As I have found in various communities across the country, liberals are the first one to espouse views of "helping the community" online and in print, but it is conservatives that actually donate the money and time. From college town to union town, it remains the same. I have worked the soup line, homeless shelters, and worked on homes for Habitat and it's always the same.

In truth, liberals (or should I say progressives?) are good at talking but when it comes down to brass tacks/rubber hits the road work, they are no where to be found. Pick up a hammer or write a check...not for the organizer but for the organized.

BM77's picture
BM77
Joined:
Jul. 4, 2012 12:52 pm

The only thing conservatives are better at is appointing themselves who is "worthy" of help and who isn't. Once a corporation pulls out of an area, it yanks its philanthropic funding. For a conservative, social work is a ruse to temporarilly house non-union labor. Most people actually doing social service work either professionally or as a volunteer are leftists and liberals. They are the ones trying to get more people who live in poverty to vote. Conservatives want to perpetuate a sense of guilt on people they "help" so that they will not question authority, ie social engineering.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Charity is the disease of capitalism because in most cases charity is easily avoidable. For instance, many feel that they are entitled to cheap imports at the expense of their fellow Americans jobs. Doing so creates the need for welfare and charity. And not having some form of nation health insurance creates the need for charity too.

It's sad that those that create the need for charity pat themselves on the back for giving to the mess they help create. To boot, they give themselves a tax deduction for it too!

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii160/emal2me/A%20political%202/Charity.jpg

Dano45's picture
Dano45
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes, they do have to be "forced" to go beyond the personal gratification of helping some individual and really address the human needs of a society. "Charity" out to be the spirit that leads them to vote for generous funding for government programs to help the people they have met as individuals.

The question has the same answer as "if men were angels, we would need no government." If direct human responses to need were meeting the need and leading to a compassionate participation in power, we would gladly vote for the taxes to support the programs people in trouble need. There would be no lack of resources making social workers into monitors and unable to give what they know people need. Working with inadequate resources is a hell of a lot harder than being a bankster.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote BM77:

Hmmmm....you want to know why charities no longer give the support they used to? It all boils down to the New Deal and F.D.R. And that man had no real interest in helping people. The New Deal was a political ploy to buy votes as the Democrats were trying to change their image. As taxes went up to pay for these programs, charitable giving went down as the taxpayers had less money in their pockets to expend.

It's easy to prove you wrong - since 1980 we had an experiment in lowering taxes. Guess what, we still have lots of homeless people and those without adequate care. We even did welare reform during the Clinton Administration that the conservatives promised would elliminate the incentives to stay on welfare.

That didn't work either.

You guys simply have no knowledge of social programs, welfare or policy. Never read any books. Never took any classes. You just take the garbage from FOX news or the CATO institute and that's that.
[/quote]

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

A bunch of fragmented churches and non-profit organizations are not efficient. That criticism toward government is ridiculous. Government agencies often have low administrative costs, and when there is an equivalent basis of comparison in the private sector, such as Medicare administrative expenses versus those of private, for-profit health insurance companies, the government comes out as ahead as being much more cost-efficient.

Dr. Econ above I think hit the nail on the head when he said that these guys "have no knowledge" of what they are talking about. Those who put forth this type of argument have never studied any serious sociological or social work-related books and articles on the subject of poverty or welfare policy. The whole thing is talked about on an abstract level, removed from reality.

There are people in America who believe they are superior to other people and that leads to a nihilistic philosophy.

Furthermore, Torys never supported the American Revolution, the War for Independence, the creation of the U.S. Constitution, and believe that the United States should be ruled by British royality, be it the King, Queen, or Prince of England. Conservatives believed that then, and they believe it now, because they cannot abide change.

Several years ago, a summer heat wave in Chicago, not as severe as the one that has just occurred in much of the East and Midwest, resulted in the deaths of about a hundred people, most if not all of whom were senior citizens living alone. Since then, the city has taken action and set up a program to check on seniors living alone when there is severe heat, and to make sure that designated cooling centers are available throughout the city. Conservatives would complain that a social welfare program to check on the well-being of seniors costs money that should not be spent. Better to let the old geezers die of the heat, they would say. A book written by an academic resulted from the tragic episode of the heat-related deaths. Private charities did not respond in such a way to prevent these deaths from having occurred. The city, however, took action to try and prevent this from happening again when there is extreme heat.

There are many private, not-for-profit organizations receive some or even a majority of their funding from government. Employees of my local "community chest" agency, who are familiar with issues such as homelessness and so forth, would strongly disagree that private charities are in any way financally strong enough to help people. Organizations funded entirely through charity are more likely to help with one-time needs or less expensive, basic needs, such as paying someone's electric bill on a one-time basis, or distributing donated food to people through a food pantry, or allowing them to receive used clothing.

Robindell's picture
Robindell
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system