Conservatives Say We Should Let Charities Help the Poor in Lieu of the Government

[rhett o rick]

Conservatives attempt to justify their lack of empathy and support for the disadvantaged among us by saying that charities should be helping the poor and not the government. This is a very lame argument.

How would that help the average wage-earner? The only answer the conservatives have is that it would lower taxes. Instead of giving $100 to the poor via taxes, the wage-earner could give $100 to the poor via a charity. The bottom line is that it wont save the wage-earner any money unless he doesn’t donate. The help for the poor will come from the wage-earners either via the government or via charities.

> Furthermore the current fraction of help for the poor that is carried by charities is very small.

“Overall, the U.S. government spends $105 billion annually on food programs to help the hungry, federal figures show.” (1) Compare that to, “Feeding America, the largest food charity in the United States (and one of the largest charities overall), moves $5 billion of food and funding to hungry people each year.” (1)

Another false conservative talking point is that if you eliminated federal funding for food programs, then charities would pick up a larger portion.

“Many {conservative} activists say that if taxes are reduced, private giving will automatically increase. But history shows that's incorrect. For each of the last 40 years, Americans have given away the same proportion of money without change: roughly 2 percent of GDP. Even after the Bush tax cuts in the early part of the century, the rate of giving didn't rise, experts say. “ (1)

If you eliminate federal funding of food programs, people will die.

> Also, what the conservatives ignore is the fact that charities get a high percentage of their revenue from ………..........….. wait for it …………. the federal government.

“Catholic Charities is one of the nation's most extensive social service networks, serving more than 10 million poor adults and children of many faiths across the country. It is made up of local affiliates that answer to local bishops and dioceses, but much of its revenue comes from the government. Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly $2.9 billion a year from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its annual revenue of $4.67 billion.” (2)

Conservatives don’t actually wish the poor would die, they just don’t care if they do.

Sources:

(1) http://articles.philly.com/2013-05-02/news/38960249_1_charity-hunger-special-supplemental-nutrition-program

(2) http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2012/09/12/oreillys-accidental-support-for-planned-parenth/189845

[Scuba]

1. Kick.

[pinto]

2. Good reads.

Thanks for the snags.

[L0oniX]

3. While billionaires party on their yachts the poor will be helping the poor.

Last edited Sun Feb 2, 2014, 03:22 PM - Edit history (1)

...and churches? ...they spend so much tithe money on clergy and buildings that there's little to go for helping the poor. Usually they pick one person or family to help as their pet example of doing righteous works. Of course paying tithes helps to keep them poor too.

[OldHippieChick]

21. I find this not only offensive, but

ill-informed. My small church (250 members) has a food pantry that serves over 500 families every month as well as serving meals at the homeless shelter, sending money to local and overseas missions and providing many bodies to clean-up and repair after our recent floods. Many of our members are also volunteers in other organizations, but w/out the church itself to organize there would not be as much help going to those in need.

As much as we do, however, it is not enough. It is the duty and obligation of every citizen to help one another and we need the organization of the government to accomplish this.

[L0oniX]

31. What ever. Your experiance is not mine. I served a homeless food line for many years.

I find your response to be offensive ...and ignorant of what goes on in many other churches.

[OldHippieChick]

37. Wow

You make a blanket statement about all churches. I give one example of that not being so and you double-down. Sorry if you find it offensive for someone to call you ill-informed. But I also do not believe you can speak for "many churches"

[L0oniX]

47. Wow indeed ...you also can't speak for "many" churches as well however....

with your initial reaction to my post I am glad I don't attend your church.

[OldHippieChick]

49. LOL!

I didn't even presume to speak for many churches - you did. I, too, am glad you don't attend my church.

[CAG]

4. You with all yer statistics and stuff!!!

Repugs have no use for them! (Statistics OR the poor)

It must be nice to live in their comfortable brains when one minute they tout private charities bearing the whole load and the next minute they say the poor shouldn't get dependent on handouts.

[oldhippie]

5. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here ...

How would that help the average wage-earner? The only answer the conservatives have is that it would lower taxes. Instead of giving $100 to the poor via taxes, the wage-earner could give $100 to the poor via a charity. The bottom line is that it wont save the wage-earner any money unless he doesn’t donate. The help for the poor will come from the wage-earners either via the government or via charities.

Are you saying that only wage earners give to charity? That rich people or salaried people or retired people or small businessmen never give to charity? That doesn't sound right. I am not a "wage-earner." Never have been. I spent my whole career as a salaried employee and am now retired. But I give to charity.

[WinkyDink]

7. Though some make distinctions between the two (time, e.g.), wages and salaries are sisters under the

skin.

[oldhippie]

10. Yes, every dictionary I checked makes the distinction ......

OK, even given that wages and salaries are "sisters under the skin" then no self employed businessmen, capitalists, retired people or the independently wealthy ever give to charity? How do you classify Bill and Melinda Gates as to their charitable giving? Or Warren Buffett? I don't think they are "wage-earners", which was what the OP explicitly stated.

[ronnie624]

12. What the OP is saying,

is that it is impossible for charity to replace public revenue as a means of providing for the basic needs of the impoverished. It seems pretty obvious to me.

[rhett o rick]

17. You are correct, I should have said wage-earners and salary-earners.

Thanks for pointing that out. I did not say and am not intimating that the rich dont give to charity. But that's not the point of the OP. That's another discussion.

[WinkyDink]

6. 1. Charity makes them feel good. 2. Charity makes them feel superior. 3. Charity can be withheld.

[marew]

11. Regarding: 3. Charity can be withheld.

Especially if the poor can be forced to endure some religious spiel before receiving assistance!

[jmowreader]

36. Or if the poor individual doesn't meet their criteria for receiving aid

Easy example: Habitat for Humanity. No matter how much you need a home or how many hours you volunteer, you are not eligible to buy a house from Habitat if you have no children. Army Emergency Relief has the same criteria: one of my troops came to Berlin and the Army finance office forgot who he was. Three months of penury later and on the verge of having his car repossessed, he went to AER for a loan to tide him over and was told unless he had children he was only authorized $20 for a haircut and hygiene supplies.

And I really doubt a known gay person would receive aid from the Pentecostals.

[TexasTowelie]

43. You are so correct about point #3.

I saw this recently when an alum from my university pledged $5 million to restart the college football team (yes, it's a charitable contribution even though the charitable value is dubious). At the same time, the university was searching for a new president. The alum that made the pledge did not agree with the Board of Trustees on the selected candidate and withdrew his pledge. Obviously $5 million is a large amount for a small university (1,500 students) and withdrawing the support after the commitments were made was one of the tackiest moves I've seen recently. Obviously, that particular alum is no longer welcome on campus for the power trip that he tried to pull.

[merrily]

74. 4. Charity is a tax deduction, rather than more taxes 5. You don't go to jail for either with-

holding charity or being deceptive about how much you give to charity, 6. Everything you give to your church qualifies as charity in your mind (and qualifies for a deduction), even if no poor person sees a dime of it.

[WinkyDink]

75. Excellent addenda!

[reformist2]

8. Charities were never enough, that's why the progressive movement was born.

Tell them to read a history book. Their free-market capitalism was found to be WHOLLY INADEQUATE for a modern society over ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.

To be blunt, we need to tell them if they truly believe that charity alone can provide for the tens of millions in need, they are idiots.

[northoftheborder]

9. I got up and walked out the last time I heard this refrain from a pulpit.....

.....never to return. This was preached to a mega-church composed of thousands, many of them multi-millionaires.

I had to hear it to believe it. This church does many good works, many charitable deeds, many kind people in there. But, at the same time, there must be many smug rich people hearing those words justifying their attitude of hating taxes, calling "liberals" unflattering names, not really coming to grips with the facts as stated above in this thread. Now, I wish I knew if this church was a paying member to any of the right wing religious PAC's (should have inquired earlier). Any way I can find out without calling the office and asking someone on the staff? Are those contributions public records?

[RoccoR5955]

19. Yes their contributions are public records

If they are a 501(c)3 organization, they should be listed on the Charity Navigator website. Their IRS form 990 can be viewed if you register. Registration is free.

[MNBrewer]

13. If charities were so good at providing social services before the government started doing it

why was it necessary for the government to start in the first place?

Answer: they weren't providing enough. Government intervention is required.

[LittleGirl]

25. +1 eom

[CAG]

27. AHHHH! But the conservative argument is that because "godless liberals" wanted

the masses to become dependent on the government, not God. It becomes part of their whole conspiracy theory of evolutionary teaching, prayer in schools, abortion, etc into one nice tidy piece of propaganda to keep the peons in place.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

64. This is my response to "small-government" fanatics

Government is intervening because it needs to in order to ensure people's health, safety, and, sometimes, even their lives because there are some "bad actors" out there. For instance, if big businesses were truly able to "self-regulate" and keep their workers safe and pay them what they need to pay for them to survive, then government intervention would not be necessary. Likewise, if charities could provide needy people with all of the things that they need to survive, government intervention would not be necessary, etc. but it's a much bigger and complex world than it was a century or two ago. Some people act as though government is intruding on things that it doesn't need to (but just wants to for kicks and giggles I guess) but more often it's more like government is intruding on things that THEY don't want it intruding into because they're doing things that they know that they're not supposed to be doing IMHO.

[on point]

14. It is also part of their attempt to push people into religion

Those are the charities they mean and is part of religious right efforts to take over the country. Same reason they want to defund public schools, so more money can flow to religion

[kentuck]

15. "Would you like to buy a pencil or an apple for your kid?"

"Get outta my face, you bum! I don't need no damn pencils or apples!"

Depression redux.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Low tax rates are bad for charities.

Rich people donate money to charities because of the tax break. Low tax rates = small benefit for charitable giving.

[RainDog]

51. They're also bad for libraries and museums, etc.

Changes in tax laws have had impacts upon donations of collections from the wealthy or well-known. Instead, things are often sold off piecemeal, rather than contained and made available to the public.

[RoccoR5955]

18. And who is supposed to help the charities? n/t

[cstanleytech]

20. A friend of my brothers believes the BS that the churches would do a better job than

the government as well.
I just do not understand how people can delude themselves that things were better in the past with churches providing the sole means of aid.

[JEB]

22. Yeah sure, praise Jeebus.

Now give me some fucking Raman.

[stopbush]

23. 80% of all philanthropic $ in this country go to churches, hospitals & universities.

The problem with "letting charities" do what government does is that charities DON'T do what government does. Charities are dependent on their donors. Donors give to charities that align with their political/religious beliefs. Ergo, charities that are successful (ie: well supported by donors) don't necessarily address the majority of societal problems that government programs address. They address the interests of their donors.

I'd also mention that a large portion of philanthropic giving is targeted at building structures, not funding programs that may be housed in those structures. This is especially true at colleges.

[jmowreader]

38. You forget something about universities

A substantial part of the total donated to a university goes to its sports booster club. Which is one of the ways most states can afford to make the flagship university's football coach the highest paid government employee in the state.

[rhett o rick]

40. When someone donates to a church, is that considered charity? nm

[Tree-Hugger]

24. Real live poor person here

We have received helped from Catholic charities....St. Vincent de Paul. They were stretched thin. Very thin. They have a hard time meeting demand. We also received help from another local charity. Same story. And they limit you to one cash grant per lifetime.

These people wouldn't know charity if it slapped them in the face with an Ayn Rand book. Fuck them all.

I'm bitter.

[Skittles]

60. I sometimes wonder if these conservatives have ever actually known any poor people

I don't understand how people can be so callous

[TheBlackAdder]

26. TRUE Conservatives would follow Puritan John Winthrop's "A Model of Christian Charity" sermon.

The sermon that John Winthrop (a minister and the on again/off again Governor of Boston) spoke to the first set of Puritans on the ship as it was in harbor or just after it set sail is called "A Model of Christian Charity." This is the SAME sermon that Ronald Reagan and others like to 'cite' when referring to America as being the shining "city on the hill." (18:35 into the following clip)

Note: Winthrop NEVER used the word "shining" in his sermon. This is another inaccuracy of those who quote him.



Winthrop mainly uses sections of the bible to justify his claims, leaving out many of the New Testament assertions that Jesus did not like wealthy people. Additionally, Winthrop uses the bible to justify everything except for the first two reasons in the introduction, where he claims that a person's station is life is of divine ordinance... pretty much telling people they are where they are because it's God's will.


===


In any event... Winthrop used this sermon as a control mechanism to prevent the poor from rising up against the wealthy, but also for the wealthy to assist the poor (possibly to prevent such an uprising or because Winthrop was a minister himself).

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/winthmod.html


What Winthrop also said was:


"3ly. The Lawe of nature would give no rules for dealing with enemies, for all are to be considered as friends in the state of innocency, but the Gospell commands loue to an enemy. Proofe. If thine Enemy hunger, feed him; Love your Enemies, doe good to them that hate you. Math. 5. 44.

This lawe of the Gospell propounds likewise a difference of seasons and occasions. There is a time when a christian must sell all and give to the poor, as they did in the Apostles times. There is a time allsoe when christians (though they give not all yet) must give beyond their abillity, as they of Macedonia, Cor. 2, 6. Likewise community of perills calls for extraordinary liberality, and soe doth community in some speciall service for the churche. Lastly, when there is no other means whereby our christian brother may be relieved in his distress, we must help him beyond our ability rather than tempt God in putting him upon help by miraculous or extraordinary meanes."



This not only states that the wealthy has to give back to help the poor, but they are NOT to forsake people who are in need of help, claiming that God will take care of them. How often do we hear that? Further in the writings, it lays out the terms of some of the lending/gifting, whether a person can repay or agrees to repay, etc. But, if the people can't... it has to be given without expectation of repayment.



===


It continues with some clarifications as to whether the donations would harm the household, but more importantly, to give to the point of impacting the family if there is a community emergency "community of perril" -- since all are part of the community.


===


If these are not followed, the New World will be destroyed by God and will be seen as a failed example for other nations to reflect upon over history.


"...the Lord will surely breake out in wrathe against us; be revenged of such a [sinful] people and make us knowe the price of the breache of such a covenant."


"Now the onely way to avoyde this shipwracke, and to provide for our posterity, is to followe the counsell of Micah, to doe justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, wee must be knitt together, in this worke, as one man. Wee must entertaine each other in brotherly [Page 47] affection. Wee must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of other's necessities. Wee must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekeness, gentlenes, patience and liberality. Wee must delight in eache other; make other's conditions our oune; rejoice together, mourne together, labour and suffer together, allwayes haueving before our eyes our commission and community in the worke, as members of the same body. Soe shall wee keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as his oune people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our wayes. Soe that wee shall see much more of his wisdome, power, goodness and truthe, than formerly wee haue been acquainted with. Wee shall finde that the God of Israell is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when hee shall make us a prayse and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "the Lord make it likely that of New England." For wee must consider that wee shall be as a citty upon a hill. The eies of all people are uppon us. Soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our God in this worke wee haue undertaken, and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. Wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of God, and all professors for God's sake. Wee shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into curses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whither wee are a goeing."

[merrily]

66. 1) As I recently posted, "city on a hill" was in the NT before it was in Gov. Winthrop's sermon

before it was in Winthrop's sermon and in JFK's speech announcing he would run for President, but Ronnie gets more credit for the term than Jesus, Winthrop and JFK combined.

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

2) The No True Conservative Scotsman logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

3) "In any event... Winthrop used this sermon as a control mechanism to prevent the poor from rising up against the wealthy,"

To give the puritan Governor (for the King of England) of my adopted state his due, a sermon costs a lot less than New Deal and Great Society programs, which aimed at the same goal.

It's ironic that Winthrop feared the poor, while those who originally conceived of the revolution were relatively well off. "No taxation without representation" was not the primary concern of beggars, poor farmers, etc. And while the representation bit sounds good. I don't think a token rep in Parliament would have prevented the revolution. No taxation at all, maybe. Taxation with a rep, meh.

[TheBlackAdder]

67. However...

1) The Puritans moved to America under the guidance of Winthrops sermon, and if someone wants to go back and say what the founders of America stood for... they need to go way back to the original intent of its settlers. As a pastor, Winthrop touched on the bible as a means to craft his work--often freakishly distorting it to prove points.

2) Ahhh... the "No true Scotsman" claim. Rarely I see this on liberal websites. It's mostly a conservative tool. True conservatives walk in lock step with Lord Reagan, and like most of their positions that seems to waffle on a daily or hourly basis, based on the edict of foreigner Murdoch's press, here we have the original conservative intent of America--once sanctioned by Lord Ronnie. So, in today's standards, there is a defined True Conservative, which is defined by the myth of President Reagan, all others are just Cafeteria Conservatives. I'm surprised that I would even have to raise that point, but appearently you've taken offense to it for some odd reason.

3) Winthrop knew that, in order to prevent an uprising of the poor (which there were considerably more of), there needed to be control mechanisms in place to provide relief. But, the original intent was also to perform wealth redistribution to create a more harmonic society.

[merrily]

68. Did the Puritans really move to America under guidance of Winthrop's sermon?

We know he gave a sermon while on a ship with pilgrims coming to these shores. We don't know what effect it had on the Puritans, who had already decided to come here before they heard the sermon. (I don't think they decided to move to America in 1630, but to a colony of England.)

And why assume either (a) that Puritans were unfamiliar with the Bible or (b) that Puritans who were familiar with the Bible would put more stock in Winthop's sermon than in the words of Jesus?

But, what does the "original intent" of the Pilgrims matter anyway? We operate under the Constitution.

2) Ahhh... the "No true Scotsman" claim. Rarely I see this on liberal websites. It's mostly a conservative tool.

How odd. I've seen only Democrats posting it, And I really don't know if this is a liberal website. ("Democrat" and "liberal" are far from synonyms.)

The one I tend to associate with citation by conservative posters is Godwin's fake law. But isn't who posts it really irrelevant to whether it is a legitimate logical fallacy or not?

But, the original intent was also to perform wealth redistribution to create a more harmonic society.

Was it really? So, when Winthrop got to be Governor of Massachusetts, there was redistribution of wealth? (Actually, I don't know how many of the Pilgrims were wealthy, do you?)

BTW, what's your point in relation to my post, which was about Reagan getting more credit for saying "city on a hill" than Jesus, JFK and Winthrop combined? And the rest of my post went off a direct quote from your post and said only that a sermon was cheaper than the New Deal and Great Society programs. I'm lost as to how your reply relates to those two things.

[TheBlackAdder]

69. They were escaping religious persecution, and operated as a religious collective.

Winthrop was an on-again off-again governor and leader of the people.

While some people read the bible, back then printed material was scarce, so most people took direction from their pastor. While most people who had a bible did read it over and over, the interpretations of the text were mostly guided by clergy.

===

Did income redistribution occur? Perhaps initially, until greed and power took hold. As the colony became more resilient, it probably dropped off quickly. Apparently, if you've read his work, there were people Winthrop considered wealthy--those who owned land, workers, businesses, etc, compared to those who pulled the yoke.

===

I did not object to Reagan getting credit, the rest is questionable.

[merrily]

70. No, you didn't object to Reagan getting credit. I did.

If you thought the rest of my first post was questionable, you probablyshould have addressed instead of going on about historical things that seem to have had nothing to do with my post to you.

Winthrop was an on-again off-again governor and leader of the people.

Yes I know. And?

While some people read the bible, back then printed material was scarce, so most people took direction from their pastor.

I think you are assuming both that Puritans did not know their Bibles very, very well and that they took direction from their pastor. Not owning your own Bible is not that much of an obstacle to committing the Sermon on the Mount to memory. And it's certainly both highly memorable and highly understandable.

Listening to sermon when your only other choice is drowning in the Atlantic is one thing. The wealthy, including wealthy Winthrop, agreeing to re-distribute their wealth because Winthrop preached a sermon on their way to the US is quite another. I don't think they did the latter at all, even Winthrop

But, let's assume they somehow tacitly agreed to that by listening to a sermon. What's your point?

Did income redistribution occur? Perhaps initially, until greed and power took hold. As the colony became more resilient, it probably dropped off quickly. Apparently, if you've read his work, there were people Winthrop considered wealthy--those who owned land, workers, businesses, etc, compared to those who pulled the yoke.

IOW, you don't know at all. Neither do I, but my guess would be no. For one thing, Winthrop was wealthly back in England, not only "considered" wealthy in the New World. And, land grants from the King increased his wealth soon after he got here. For another, he was indeed the King's Governor. For another, if Winthrop had even re-distributed a significant portion of his own wealth, we'd probably hear about that more than we hear that he preached a sermon containing the words "city on a hill." For another, Winthrop was no egalitarian when it came to rights. So, I doubt he was egalitarian when it came to his money. In all, I think a lot of his sermon was more a rich politician talking to people he feared might rise up than anything else, something Americans know a thing or two about.

However, again, I don't see the connection between your replies to me and what I actually posted to you.

[TheBlackAdder]

71. You did. You win a Gold Star. I objected on other posts, here and elsewhere. Congrats.

I'm sorry you don't see it.

[merrily]

72. Um, you raised the issue of your not objecting to Reagan's getting credit, not I.

I was not the least bit concerned about whether you objected or not. Could care less. That was not the point of any of my posts. You raised it, so I replied to it That's how I thought a message board reply was supposed to work.

But, apparently, you would rather go on about things that I did not raise than address anything I did raise. Next time, I'll know that.

[factsarenotfair]

28. I used to hear that a lot and now I don't hear it much at all.

Conservatives don't even need to pretend they care now, it seems to me.

[progressoid]

33. yup...

[factsarenotfair]

35. The Tea Party wants to actually PUNISH the poor.

I think they're SADISTS.

[Downwinder]

29. One feel good Thanksgiving dinner a year does not quite hack it.

[DinahMoeHum]

30. As the "Marquis de Sade" says about charity. . .

. . .in the play Marat/Sade

"Compassion is the property of the privileged classes.
When the pitier lowers himself to give to a beggar
he throbs with contempt.
To protect his riches he pretends to be moved
and his gift to the beggar amounts to no more than a kick."

- Peter Weiss (playwright) Marat/Sade

[okaawhatever]

32. Does anyone remember the exchange between Sister Simone Campbell from Nuns on the Bus

and Paul Ryan during Congressional testimony? I couldn't find the question and answer portion online, but she and others testified about the need keep levels of SNAP and TANF where they are, Paul Ryan asked about whether charities and churches were better suited to hand that out. (Paul was trying to get his neo-con vision supported, lolz) One of the sisters told Paul that charities were not equipped and each church in America would have to donate something like 20k per year to make up the difference. That includes the churches with 50-100 congregants.
It was a thing of beauty to watch Paul's ridiculous economic philosophy shot down by one of his own.

[progressoid]

34. You mean Pope Frank can't fix it?

[awoke_in_2003]

39. Yeah, because we know churches can handle it...

Nothing but legal money laundering organizations.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Charities can and do really great work on a MICRO level

Governments are necessary to fix problems on a bigger level. This isn't fucking rocket science. Canada and Western Europe take care of their citizens. There's no reason we can't do that too.

[procon]

78. That's the keyword - MICRO VS MACRO`

There's a broad range of services provided by the government that is equally available to anyone regardless of of race, color, creed, ethnicity, sex, marital status, disability, religious or political affiliation, age, etc. Whether its healthcare, retraining, education, food and housing, childcare, the services are uniformly available no matter where people live, from a big city, to scattered farms in the heartland, or a native fishing village in Alaska.

Charities are local. If you live in a city and/or have transportation, maybe you can get some basic assistance like a meal or a bed. With sketchy funding streams, charities have an extremely limited ability to help. No single charity has the staff or resources to provide ALL the services on a 24/7 schedule. Too many charities come with unwanted agendas that get heaped on those who need help and that often adds another burden to their heavy load.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. "Conservatives don’t actually wish the poor would die, they just don’t care if they do."

Lately, Conservatives CHEERED over the idea of poor people dying.

It's all about zero taxes and zero government and every man for himself and survival of the richest.

[gulliver]

44. The government's duty is to promote the general welfare...

...and to obey the will of the people. The government would be derelict in its duties if it didn't seek to maximize the potential of all of its citizens. So far, the democracy has concluded that it wants both charity and government.

[indepat]

45. How disingenuous: government should not help the poor, but keep lavishing gifts, subsidies, and

largess upon large corporations and the uber-wealthy via low minimum wages, the tax code, et al. How fuc*ing special. What a fu*king right-wing-soused society our nation has evolved into.

[Major Nikon]

46. What they really mean is they want organized religion to facilitate the transaction

...so they can take their cut off the top.

[20score]

48. Thanks for this!

[Egalitarian Thug]

50. K&R. n/t

[RainDog]

52. Conservatism is a debased philosophy

that has been brain dead for many decades. It's on life support because of the corporate media and because some people in this nation are too powerful because of their money (i.e. the Koch brothers.)

The Koch brothers provide the best example of why inheritance should be heavily taxed after a certain amount, and why the wealthy should be heavily taxed over a certain amount.

[Turbineguy]

53. Better yet...

Let charities help those poor corporations.

[rhett o rick]

54. Good point. When a corporation needs a subsidy send them to their favorite charity. nm

[Enthusiast]

55. Conservatives are wrong? Gee, I'm shocked. Kicked and recommended!

Greedy fucks, one and all.

[Orsino]

56. We already do.

And we are already aware of how well that process works.

[Brigid]

57. Hello, conservatives?

The nineteenth century called. It wants its failed policies back.

[KoKo]

58. Recommend..Aren't they truly disgusting..

[rhett o rick]

62. They lack empathy. nm

[El_Johns]

59. Except they mostly won't, unless they get government funding.

Those religious groups just *love* government money when they're the ones getting it.

[gerogie2]

61. Prior to state welfare this didn't work

What charities used to do is give someone a train ticket somewhere else. In the 1930's Churches Started soup kitchens, but local, state and federal governments had to step in because many of the soup kitchens were basically serving soup so watered down it was not nutritious.

The area I live in has a Metro Area wide Food Bank where you can get a two or three loaves of bread, some grains and six eggs. You can only go to them once a month, they have a computer system to keep track of who gets food. The food will only last a family for about a week. If it wasn't for food stamps and the free lunch program many families in my area would starve.

The number of people that would turn to food banks would explode, if food stamps were discontinued and they couldn't handle it.

[rhett o rick]

65. I volunteer at a foodbank and we only give out enough per month to last for 3 days.

That is their main "basket". They are allowed to come in daily and take some produce and bread if we have extra. I dont know what people will do w/o foodstamps.

[F4lconF16]

63. If this idea actually worked

we wouldn't have billionaires in this country. k&r.

[merrily]

73. How do we know that conservatives don't actually wish the poor would die?

What happens to people without shelter from the elements, or without fuel to heat the shelter they might have, maybe even nwithout proper clothing for their climate, without decent nutrition, etc.? They die, right? Is this a mystery to conservatives?

So, how do we know that conservatives don't actually wish what they know their doctrines inevitably lead to? After all, the very poor can't even buy goods or pay rent. So, what purpose do they serve the wealthy? Only to take, which the wealthy don't want. And what the wealthy don't want, conservatives don't want.

[rhett o rick]

79. I am sure there are conservatives that wish the poor would die, but I think a lot of

them put their fingers in their ears, shut their eyes and sing, "Don't tell me what happens to children if you cut off foodstamps."

I believe that the majority believe that if poor people die, it's just God's way.

[on point]

76. Scam to route money via churches and allow charities to take a cut

[RationalMan]

77. I fully support the role of charities in helping those in need.......

My church operates a food kitchen that is open for lunch Monday through Friday but not on the weekends. We have a number of other ministries from medical trips to Central America to outreach in Africa, etc.

But in no way could you rely on charities alone to meet the needs of the poor and otherwise needy. For one they lack the financial, logistical and other resources to meet those needs. They, like my church, focus on local needs but that reaches only a very limited population. Secondly their funding sources are subject to wide swings. The contributions to my church dropped nearly 35% at the worst of the great recession. That had a big impact on our food ministry when we could only support 3 days a week.

I see charities filling a very personal and local need but I do not see them satisfying the needs of the homeless, hungry, sick, unemployed, etc. Only government has the resources, logistics, etc. to meet that need.