samsmart
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 10,315
- Reaction score
- 6,470
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I think we will always have some need for government assistance. However, it should be as a last resort and seldom as a permanent entitlement.
Here's the thing. There are some people who can't take care of themselves. Many of these are mentally ill people. And of those, there are the retarded who cannot care for themselves by taking medication, unlike the mentally ill who are afflicted with disorders such as clinical depression or bipolar disorder.
Such people require the care of professional social workers trained and educated in that area of expertise. Such care is required life-long for them. Without tax dollars supporting such social welfare programs for the mentally ill, they will only get support when people think of it. It times of economic recession such as that which is current, those who are mentally ill can lose out on the support provided by social workers. Without such support, those who are mentally ill can get into trouble, especially the law if they don't understand their actions.
While I do agree with you that temporary social programs should not become permanent entitlements, there are some things that are too important to be trusted to charitable organizations, whether they be religious in nature or not.
When people are allowed to keep more of their own money, they are better able to share with those in need. It's not just Christians who are charitable and not all Christians donate to only Christian organizations.
You are right. However, there are some causes that people don't always think about. Like I mentioned before, social programs to give aid to the mentally retarded or the mentally ill.
Also, there are many charitable organizations who act more like businesses than charities. Take, for example, the recent earthquake in Haiti. Many charitable organizations asked for donations for that cause. However, only a drop in a bucket of the millions that were donated actually contributed to any Haitian relief yet.
One reason is because such organizations say "a portion of the proceeds" will go to the cause. The rest of it will go to executives and staff of that organization. I believe that Wyclef Jean was under investigation for taking a salary from a charity for Haiti relief that was about a quarter of a million dollars.
That's why the only charity I give money to is a local charity that primarily gives toys to local kids whose parents can't afford them at Christmas. Nobody in that charity organization takes a salary of any kind - all the staff volunteers their time. This way, more of the money can go to the charitable cause.
This has made me see many charitable organizations as corrupt, which is why I'd prefer government organizations instead. While I know that there is government corruption, I think that can be dealt with better than corruption in private organizations.
One of the saddist things I heard (not sure it passed) But Obama wanted to decrease the deduction that could be taken for charitable giving. It's like he was saying charity isn't a worthy cause, so give me the money and I'll decide who gets it.
I don't want to live in a country where charity isn't a high priority.
Here is the latest story I could find on that subject.
Senate Rejects Obama Plan to Cut Tax Breaks on Charitable Gifts - Bloomberg
However, it's important to note why he did that. He wanted more money to go to health care. He never said that charity isn't a worthy cause or should be a high priority. Rather, it's more like that money should go to help the health of our nation.
And if people only give to charity for the tax deduction, how charitable is that, really?