Charities are great, however there simply isn't enough charities to assist all those in need in our country. Have you ever donated time at a food bank? I have, when times are hardest, people donate less.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That would work well in a shit economy....In a good economy organizations like Goodwill, Salvation Army, Red Cross, Shriner's, etcetera, would most likely stockpile funding....They haven't been around as long as they have been by being poor managers.Well, at least you're thinking...I'm impressed....And you know I don't impress easily.LOL, it's funny that you would say the same thing that I was thinking about. What's the motivation for someone whose job depends on a big government program to get people off of that big government program? This is across the board with various programs and the political parties that implement and control them.
Maybe they can give bonuses to case workers who keep their "clients" off of welfare, employed, and paying back their "benefits".
Or how 'bout we double the deductibility for every charitable contribution over $10,000...Then triple it when the contribution exceeds $100,000...Then quadruple it when the contribution exceeds $1,000,000...And on up....???
That would work well in a good economy.
There is no private charity in this country with the reach and financial backing to help as many people as the U.S. Government can and does.
Is welfare necessary? Depends. Would you like a weaker economy and higher crime?
So the answer is
"because Id rather whine about the other guy and assume most people are just lazy fucks, then hold an honest discussion where we exchange ideas about a serious issue"
K thanks for clearing that up.
Well, at least you're thinking...I'm impressed....And you know I don't impress easily.It's not temporary for the bureaucrats....What's their motivation for seeing to it that nobody becomes dependent upon their welfare state opiate?
LOL, it's funny that you would say the same thing that I was thinking about. What's the motivation for someone whose job depends on a big government program to get people off of that big government program? This is across the board with various programs and the political parties that implement and control them.
Maybe they can give bonuses to case workers who keep their "clients" off of welfare, employed, and paying back their "benefits".
Or how 'bout we double the deductibility for every charitable contribution over $10,000...Then triple it when the contribution exceeds $100,000...Then quadruple it when the contribution exceeds $1,000,000...And on up....???
Originally it was a hand up. Quickly became a political tool to ensure voter dependence.
End story.
Bullshit.There is no private charity in this country with the reach and financial backing to help as many people as the U.S. Government can and does.
The federal gubmint has no backing without expropriating from we the people first.
Straw man sophistry.Is welfare necessary? Depends. Would you like a weaker economy and higher crime?
Name a charity that could do it better.
Explain to us what happens when a man loses his job, can't provide for his family and gets no help. What would he do?
Originally it was a hand up. Quickly became a political tool to ensure voter dependence.
End story.
Bullshit.
The federal gubmint has no backing without expropriating from we the people first.
Straw man sophistry.
Name a charity that could do it better.
Explain to us what happens when a man loses his job, can't provide for his family and gets no help. What would he do?
Move in with family.
There's help available
There will always be a precent of people who will be unproductive leeches on society. There is no where in the world you can go where you won't see that. The question of welfare is two fold, those( and it is a majority) who need it for hard times, and those that use it to leech off of.
I do think, some states have better welfare laws than others, that reform is important and we should learn what works and what doesn't and implement accordingly.
As to the second, you can't force people to work or be productive. The options are very limited with these people. We either house them and keep them out of the way, or let them fend for themselves and accept the inevitable spike in crime they create.
Name a charity that could do it better.
Explain to us what happens when a man loses his job, can't provide for his family and gets no help. What would he do?
Move in with family.
There's help available
Laughable.
You all claim people should go to charities and yet none of you can name one that could provide the level of help the U.S. Government does.
The most efficient way to halt a crime epidemic in its tracks is extending the death penalty to all crimes against persons. If that doesn't work well enough, extend it to crimes against persona and/or property.
BUT no appeals - gallows right outside each courtroom.
Generational welfare is what breeds the worst entitlement attitude...there must be incentives not to become dependent on any sort of charity, and it mostly comes from parents and society setting a standard for having a strong work ethic. I do believe in a limited safety net provided by the government.
As to your poll question, it depends on the individual, as everything does.Is government-run welfare really necessary? Probably.
Can private charities do a better job of taking care of the less fortunate? Doubtful
Is it better to give a man a fish to hold him over until he can afford steak, or to teach him how to fish? Why not do both?
Move in with family.
There's help available
Laughable.
You all claim people should go to charities and yet none of you can name one that could provide the level of help the U.S. Government does.
How about, ALL OF THEM COMBINED, as well as any new ones that spring up willing to help?
It's ridiculous to pin the responsibility of helping tens of millions of Americans to just one organization.
I refuse to take part in the poll because it really is to generic. What all of you and your uppity remarks and higher than thou attitudes never ever comment on is the government giving money to corporations. They get hand outs! So this is quite a phoney poll.
But good try.
NOT
Is government-run welfare really necessary?
Can private charities do a better job of taking care of the less fortunate?
Is it better to give a man a fish to hold him over until he can afford steak, or to teach him how to fish?
Laughable.
You all claim people should go to charities and yet none of you can name one that could provide the level of help the U.S. Government does.
How about, ALL OF THEM COMBINED, as well as any new ones that spring up willing to help?
It's ridiculous to pin the responsibility of helping tens of millions of Americans to just one organization.
New ones? Really? So we should do away with welfare and when, if, new charities pop up they can handle the burden?
Well that's rock solid economics.
It was intended as a hand up. A temporary hand up when times got rough but it turned into a way of life. That's where things went wrong. Obama made it worse by taking the provision of working for the hand up out of the equation.
Congress has to step in and make it turn into what was the original idea. Two years of a hand up while folks got back on their feet, but worked or went back to school to make themselves marketable again.
We can't go on subsidizing half the poplulation.
And you remain mired in the hallucination that there needs to be a singular national charity.Name a charity that could do it better.
Explain to us what happens when a man loses his job, can't provide for his family and gets no help. What would he do?
Move in with family.
There's help available
Laughable.
You all claim people should go to charities and yet none of you can name one that could provide the level of help the U.S. Government does.