Americans give record $295B to charity

[berreal]

A Republican judge who is nominated for the Appeals Court, a lifetime appt., was asked to respond in writing, one time he had reached out and helped a person in need. One month later he still can't think of one time.

The Bushies are amazed at people helping people. Its not their way. They don't do that. Why would they? If God loved those people, bad things wouldn't happen to them. Jerry Falwell taught them that. Bad things are God's revenge.

And one of the reasons they allow us to live, we defend them against their enemies. Those who would deny them more riches.

So true ...well said!

 

[Dr.Who]

I can imagine. No roads, no airline inspectors, no army, no CIA. The trouble with charitable giving is that people choose what to give, and what to give to,

hardly anyone is suggesting that infrastructure be decreased to permit people to have more money to give to private charity. Most people are suggesting that inefficient welfare programs be eliminated to permit people to give money more efficiently.

Welfare programs are funded by people who have let their elected representatives choose what to give and what to give to. Is this a problem?


I'm not overly impressed with a man worth multi-billions gives money away. Do you have any idea how much money one billion is. You could burn a million every day and not put a dent in it. It makes the donor sound great, and doesn't hurt them even a little.

You are working pretty hard to find things wrong with people being generous aren't you? Btw, a lot of the money is given by people with less than 100,000 dollar incomes.

One other thing. A lot of that money goes to things that taxes should never support. The opera. Your religious orginizations building fund, etc. Give me a break.

You are right - taxes should not support these things. Taxes should also not support a whole lot of stuff it is supporting. So let's just eliminate all the silly things that taxes pay for and stop complaining if rich Aunt Betty wants to make the opera better.

If they want to impress me, let them pay for the total cost of giving medical care, including preventative care, to all the poor children in America. Instead of churches spending millions to fight against two consenting gays/lesbians getting married.

I personally have little interest in impressing you. I do have an interests in seeing various worthy causes (like poor children) get the support they need. The best way we can do that is to let people give to whatever cause they think is best. But as long as Uncle Sam says he will take care of everything then people have little reason to give to the causes that he has claimed as his own.

 

[Dr.Who]

I disagree with the idea that most charities administrative costs are between 10% and 15%. Would you care to provide a link to that claim. I think that claim is way off base, but since it is your claim, I think you should back it up.

You are right about public charity. It is administered at very high cost. Partly because of the necessity of investigating the finicial status of every applicant. I don't think most of us want to accept their word that they truly are in need of our money. Many religious charities do.

The major problem with private charity is that most of them are religious. And they all ready have me giving them my money through taxes I violently object having to give them. Secondly, why do they need my money if they are able to do the job? And third, they make the donee dance to their tune. That is not right. You do have the right to insist that a donee find work, but not that they find religion.

Can you find any documentation at all to back up your claim that any religious charity at all is accepting government money to fund it's religious activities? If they are running a soup kitchen and all the funds go to buy soup then I don't think that is a legitimate complaint. But if they are running a soup kitchen and they are paying the salary of the priest, pastor etc. then that would be a legitimate complaint.

 

[Dr.Who]

Personally, I'll be happy when both the left and right get their hand out of my pocket. The Democrats are willing to take money from me for welfare for the poor, and the Republicans are willing to take money from me for welfare for the rich. Lets keep those businesses sucking on the public. What ever happened to free enterprise?

And now the Republicans want to take my money and give it to their religious organizations. I believe in free enterprise for them too. If the members of your religious organization can't get people to donate enough money to them to save the whole world, what makes you think they should do that.? Maybe they are not fit to succeed. Leave me alone. You, the Democrats and the Republicans are flip sides of the same coin.

I suspect that the democrats believe in corporate welfare just as much as the republicans do. They just like different corporations. Like Unions.

And I agree - if a charity can't get people to donate enough money then maybe their cause is just not that important. And if they can't get people to donate enough money then they certainly don't need to be getting tax money so they can succeed where donations have failed. But I am talking about welfare programs as well as religious organizations.

 

[Dr.Who]

Now back to this ridiculous post!! First American give because they have the means to give ...after all our wealth is no secrect! But one must also look at the lopp-sidedness of the giving!! I'm sure you'll find that those doing much of the giving has more of this wealth! Then you must understand why they give ...can you say tax write-off?

Right. Americans give because they have the means to give. So let them keep more of their money and they will give even more.

I thought liberals were in favor of the wealthy people giving more than the less wealthy people. So here we find out that is exactly what they are doing (voluntarily) and you are complaining about it!

A tax write off is a hugely stupid reason to give. Would any person motivated by money give a dollar so they can save thirty cents, or even fifty, in taxes? No. They give because they would like to make a positive difference in the world - the same as the rest of us.

 

[Dr.Who]

The Bushies are amazed at people helping people. Its not their way. They don't do that. Why would they?

I have never seen any statistics about the relative amount of giving by republicans versus democrats. But the only people I have heard say that "people would not give unless they were forced to (through taxes) are democrats". certainly democrats are amazed at the idea that anyone would give voluntarily.

 

[vyo476]

The "relative amount of giving by Republicans vs. Democrats" is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is a view of charitable donation as latent function vs. manifest function.

When Democrats give (or insist on taxation for welfare/charitable purposes), the manifest function is the helping of others. It's the point.

When Republicans give (by donating to private charities), oftentimes (not all times, that'd be too broad a generalization) the latent function is the helping of others - it's just a byproduct. The manifest function is the good publicity it bestows.

There are certainly some very dedicated philanthropists out there. They're pretty much saintly (Warren Buffet comes to mind). However, the good reputation that goes along with donation to charities has become the manifest function of doing so for most.

In layman's terms, the good name that comes with the good deed is the point these days - not the good deed itself. If we are to simply judge the action and not the motivation, this does not matter. However, the motivation does matter here - because as soon as something that achieves the manifest function of present-day donation comes along, those who partake in it primarily for that reason will stop doing so.

 

[heyjude]

Bush refused to allow the religious organization be prohibited from prostelyzing while handing out welfare. And go to the Salvation Army sometime. Those people have to sit through singing about being washed in a fountain of blood, a sermon, and an alter call before they are allowed access to a bowl of soup. The door to the dining room is through the church.

I am not supporting welfare. Political that is. I am objecting to being forced to pay taxes for faith based initatives. It is my tax money. I don't get to refuse to pay it. And I object to giving my tax money to any one's church. And even if you found one that did not prostelyze, they are using my money for charity, while they use other money for their religion. Isn't that Bush's and the rights reason for opposing giving money to organizations that do abortions. Even if they promise that the tax money won't be used for that, it frees up other money for it.

 

[invest07]

I have a proposal for eliminating government welfare programs and replacing them with private charities, which are 3 times as efficient as the governemnt at getting relief dollars in the hands of the needy:

1. All governments, (the Feds and the locals) should phase out welfare. The tax savings should be used first to reduce budget deficits and then to provide tax reflief to tax payers. The government should maintain an adequate emergency fund that is readily available.

2. Private relief charities could be government chartered to provide for specific needs. Some could be faith based and some secular. The government rules would be minimal so long as the charity carried out their charter. Faith based charities could require reasonable concessions, such as church attecndance. If the needy object then they could seek similar relief at a secular charity.

3. Volunteerism could be encouraged. Court ordered community service hours should require the time to be served at chartereds and could also be offered as an alternative for military service. Certain licensed professionals could be offered community service in lieu of continuing education. Private employers could be encouraged to "adopt" an agency and support their cause.

One of the things that the rousing success of private charities exposes is the hypocricy of liberalism concerning the needy. It is the conservatives and faith based institutions that actually provide relief. Liberals talk about the needy all the time but actually do very little. The needy are strictly a political issue to liberals. For liberals, the answer to every problem is more taxes.

 

[Dr.Who]

The "relative amount of giving by Republicans vs. Democrats" is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is a view of charitable donation as latent function vs. manifest function.

When Democrats give (or insist on taxation for welfare/charitable purposes), the manifest function is the helping of others. It's the point.

When Republicans give (by donating to private charities), oftentimes (not all times, that'd be too broad a generalization) the latent function is the helping of others - it's just a byproduct. The manifest function is the good publicity it bestows.

There are certainly some very dedicated philanthropists out there. They're pretty much saintly (Warren Buffet comes to mind). However, the good reputation that goes along with donation to charities has become the manifest function of doing so for most.

In layman's terms, the good name that comes with the good deed is the point these days - not the good deed itself. If we are to simply judge the action and not the motivation, this does not matter. However, the motivation does matter here - because as soon as something that achieves the manifest function of present-day donation comes along, those who partake in it primarily for that reason will stop doing so.

Are you really of the belief that all democrats have nothing but good motives and republicans have nothing but bad motives?

It is much more reasonable to believe that when most people (democrats and republicans) do good things they do them because they are good things.

Yes there are people (democrats and republicans) who give because of the publicity.

But there are also people (democrats and republicans) who promote the concepts of government intervention because it bestows power to the politicians and those who "in" with the politician.

But these are more the exception than the rule.

 

[Dr.Who]

Bush refused to allow the religious organization be prohibited from prostelyzing while handing out welfare. And go to the Salvation Army sometime. Those people have to sit through singing about being washed in a fountain of blood, a sermon, and an alter call before they are allowed access to a bowl of soup. The door to the dining room is through the church.

I am not supporting welfare. Political that is. I am objecting to being forced to pay taxes for faith based initatives. It is my tax money. I don't get to refuse to pay it. And I object to giving my tax money to any one's church. And even if you found one that did not prostelyze, they are using my money for charity, while they use other money for their religion. Isn't that Bush's and the rights reason for opposing giving money to organizations that do abortions. Even if they promise that the tax money won't be used for that, it frees up other money for it.

After reading your post I decided to do some research. I failed to find an example of the Salvation Army both receiving government funds and at the same time mandating attendance at a service before receiving soup. Do you have any credible sources?