Private Donations

[Grammatron]

Now I'm not a Libertarian like shanek, but after reading stories about wealthy people giving away great amounts of money to good causes, one has wonder if the government is indeed should be out of the business of caring for the poor.

From the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3416713.stm):
The widow of the man who founded fast-food restaurant chain McDonald's has left $1.5bn (£820m) in her will to the Salvation Army. Joan Kroc's gift is thought to be the biggest ever given to a single charitable organisation. Mrs Kroc left the money on condition that the Salvation Army uses her burger bar fortune to build community sports centres for working class children. She has asked the Salvation Army to build more than 25 centres in the US.


Microsoft founder Bill Gates has given more money at one go - $6bn - but it was spread across many causes.

[Luke T.]

How do you feel about faith-based charities like the Salvation Army getting federal funds to support the community?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luke T.
How do you feel about faith-based charities like the Salvation Army getting federal funds to support the community?

I hate it. I don't think government money should be anywhere near where churches or faith organizations are. Last thing I want to see happen is incidents like, "Want some food? Well first let me tell you about God." happen.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Luke T.
How do you feel about faith-based charities like the Salvation Army getting federal funds to support the community?

Well the good old Sally Army is really trying to move into the 21st century, they will even allow a member to marry a non-member these days!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/902597.stm

...snip...

Under the new guidelines, a requirement that Army officers only marry fellow officers - and only then with the approval of their headquarters - will be abolished.

…snip…

The rule which says an officer whose spouse resigns or is sacked must themselves resign is also to be scrapped, and there will be a review of the Army officers ranking system.

...snip...


I do have to say I can't understand how in a state which apparently has an "inviolate" constitution that is meant to separate State & Religion how a government can give any funds to any religious organisation. (And that includes "tax breaks" etc.)

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Now I'm not a Libertarian like shanek, but after reading stories about wealthy people giving away great amounts of money to good causes, one has wonder if the government is indeed should be out of the business of caring for the poor.
I'm missing your point. Why would these examples of private generosity indicate that the government should not help the rest of the poor? The more the private sector takes care of the poor, the less demand there will be for government assistance.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Darat

(And that includes "tax breaks" etc.)

Ummm, separation of church and state goes both ways.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I hate it. I don't think government money should be anywhere near where churches or faith organizations are. Last thing I want to see happen is incidents like, "Want some food? Well first let me tell you about God." happen.

A person is free to not use a soup kitchen if they don't like religion.

Suppose a faith based organization is the only organization providing a necessary service to an area? Should we let the people starve because they might be exposed to the sight of a crucifix?

[Luke T.]

The problem I have with federal monies going to any social service oriented organization is that the organization in question will lose any motivation for actually solving the problem they are dealing with. To solve the problem means to lose federal funding, and so the problem will be perpetuated forever, if not exaggerated.

Private donations often come from the people who live in the local community. They are more apt to hold the organization accountable, and are more able to see the true extent of the problem being worked on.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luke T.


A person is free to not use a soup kitchen if they don't like religion.

Suppose a faith based organization is the only organization providing a necessary service to an area? Should we let the people starve because they might be exposed to the sight of a crucifix?

The two paragraphs kind of clash with each other, don't you think?

That may be so, but I still don't see why government money is to be spent on those organizations.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I'm missing your point. Why would these examples of private generosity indicate that the government should not help the rest of the poor? The more the private sector takes care of the poor, the less demand there will be for government assistance.

Taxation is one answer; the more government taxes for these purposes the less people would be giving to charities.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Grammatron


The two paragraphs kind of clash with each other, don't you think?

Not at all. In the first, an individual is making the decision for themselves. In the second, you are making it for them. Big difference.

That may be so, but I still don't see why government money is to be spent on those organizations.

I don't see why not.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Not at all. In the first, an individual is making the decision for themselves. In the second, you are making it for them. Big difference.



I don't see why not.

Uhm, separation of church and state?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The problem I have with federal monies going to any social service oriented organization is that the organization in question will lose any motivation for actually solving the problem they are dealing with. To solve the problem means to lose federal funding, and so the problem will be perpetuated forever, if not exaggerated.

So the Police wont fight crime because without crime they get less money??? Doctors dont want to cure cancer? Firefighters like fires??

I dont mind giving money to these types of charities. Have any of you ever dealt with these type of places?? First off, even when you get govt money it is never enough to cure the "problem" and its usually just a portion of the charitys bankroll. Problems like poverty and homeless are as old as time and wont be cured. And if they could, youd be sure the people who work at these charities would be happy.

Go work at a soup kitchen or homelss shelter some time.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Uhm, separation of church and state?

If the state gives money to secular and a wide variety of religious institutions alike for social services, that is not establishing religion.

By excluding faith-based organizations, you are denying some people access to help they need based on your own prejudices.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy


So the Police wont fight crime because without crime they get less money??? Doctors dont want to cure cancer? Firefighters like fires??

It is human nature to exaggerate a situation in which one has a vested interest. And government bureacracies are notorious for administrative waste. Including police departments.


I dont mind giving money to these types of charities. Have any of you ever dealt with these type of places?? First off, even when you get govt money it is never enough to cure the "problem" and its usually just a portion of the charitys bankroll. Problems like poverty and homeless are as old as time and wont be cured. And if they could, youd be sure the people who work at these charities would be happy.

Private charities, yes. They would be very happy.


Go work at a soup kitchen or homelss shelter some time.

I have. I am intimately familiar with how they operate. I think you are confused at my viewpoint on privately funded vs. public tax funded organizations. I much prefer private funding. However, if public money is going to be spent on social services, I do not think faith-based organizations should be excluded from receiving that money. I do not believe it in any way crosses over into establishing religion.

[Tmy]

Luke I agree with alot of what you say.

BUT I dont like relying on private organizations because they can also be inefficent. A big part of their money/time is spent in chasing new money and donations, and not into curing whatever problem. Thats a big waste that you really dont have in a govt organization.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy
Luke I agree with alot of what you say.

BUT I dont like relying on private organizations because they can also be inefficent. A big part of their money/time is spent in chasing new money and donations, and not into curing whatever problem. Thats a big waste that you really dont have in a govt organization.

:id:

[michaellee]

originally posted by Michael Redman

The more the private sector takes care of the poor, the less demand there will be for government assistance.

What does demand have to do with the amount of money the government spends on programs for the poor? Do you have any idea how much money the private sector contributes to "take care of the poor" in the U.S.?

For 2002 alone, the amount given to charitable organizations in the U.S. was $240,920,000,000. Yes, that 241 billion really put a dent in the amount the fed spent on programs for the poor. It wouldn't matter if charitable donations averaged $25,000 per American for any given year, because the government increases the federal budget, especially for programs to not leave out the poor and the children, no matter what the actual situation in real life may be. Heaven forbid if ANY government program's budget is reduced! Then the Democrats would lose their major campaigning platform/attack when running or trying for re-election. Then they will make sure to keep spending more and more of our tax dollars to feed all those starving children. The 240 billion a year donated privately? Thats nothing compared to the amount our politicians can extort and spend all in an effort to feel good about themselves. Robin Hood anyone?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
Luke I agree with alot of what you say.

BUT I dont like relying on private organizations because they can also be inefficent. A big part of their money/time is spent in chasing new money and donations, and not into curing whatever problem. Thats a big waste that you really dont have in a govt organization.

If that is true, at least they won't be wasting my tax dollars. And their performance of getting the job done will determine the likelihood of getting further donations from private donors. So while they may not have to make a profit, they certainly have to produce results.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by michaellee
The 240 billion a year donated privately? Thats nothing compared to the amount our politicians can extort and spend all in an effort to feel good about themselves.Well, to start with, the federal government obviously doesn't spend anywhere near $240 billion on helping the poor.

Back to my actual point, I see no rational arguement presented here that large private donations somehow show that the federal government's efforts to help the poor are somehow not needed or counterproductive.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Grammatron


:id: Now there's a well reasoned argument. :rolleyes:

What TMY says is right. Many charities spend in excess of 80% of their money fundraising. Even a terribly inefficient government program can get more than 20 cents on the dollar actually spent on it's mission.

[Tmy]

Alot of this "govt money for the poor" also helps big business, which in turn stimulates the economy (Republican platform).

For example the Section 8 program than subsidies the rent of poor people. That money doent go to the poor person, it goes to the landlord/management comany. THey can then rent out their apartments, make a profit and build more apartments. so on and so on.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Luke T.


If that is true, at least they won't be wasting my tax dollars. And their performance of getting the job done will determine the likelihood of getting further donations from private donors. So while they may not have to make a profit, they certainly have to produce results.


Doesnt this contradict your statement "It is human nature to exaggerate a situation in which one has a vested interest. "

On one hand your saying people dont want to solve the problem cause theyll lose their funding and on the other hand they have to do a good job to secure funding?

Govt agencies are also under pressure to perform. On a yearly basis they are competing with other govt agencies for funding. If the agency is an embarrasing failure people will get fired and they'll be punished in the next budget. Maybe even eliminated. Their money is not guarenteed.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy
Alot of this "govt money for the poor" also helps big business, which in turn stimulates the economy (Republican platform).

For example the Section 8 program than subsidies the rent of poor people. That money doent go to the poor person, it goes to the landlord/management comany. THey can then rent out their apartments, make a profit and build more apartments. so on and so on.

Section 8 programs don't work out and in recent years many landlords refused it because of the kind of tenants it attracts. Mainly the unemployed people who know how to play the system so they get things for less.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Now there's a well reasoned argument. :rolleyes:

What TMY says is right. Many charities spend in excess of 80% of their money fundraising. Even a terribly inefficient government program can get more than 20 cents on the dollar actually spent on it's mission.

Sorry always wanted to use that thing, forgive me for having a sense of humor.

I would like to see the statistics on those numbers if you don't mind.

[michaellee]

originally posted by Michael Redman
Well, to start with, the federal government obviously doesn't spend anywhere near $240 billion on helping the poor.

Back to my actual point, I see no rational arguement presented here that large private donations somehow show that the federal government's efforts to help the poor are somehow not needed or counterproductive

OK. Let's say the fed spends ONLY 10 billion a year on helping the poor. Is this 10 billion providing something that the privately donated 240 billion is not or cannot provide?