Why is Charity better at helping the poor than the State aiding them with Welfare ?

[aid632007]

Why is Charity better at helping the poor than the State aiding them with Welfare ? Also What does Gerald R. Ford mean when he said this what does this quote mean.

These words were spoken by Gerald Ford in an address to Congress on August 12, 1974. He reiterated them as part of his closing remarks of the Republican National Convention of 1996, held in San Diego, California.

The full context of the quote (from the convention) is as such:

What is it, in a few words, that all Republicans believe? We believe - along with millions of Democrats and Independents - that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

http://everything2.com/title/A+government+big+enough+to+give+you+everything+you +want+is+a+government+big+enough+to+take+from+you+ everything+you+have

[bwlibertyman]

Because it's voluntary.

[aid632007]

Why is it better if it is voluntary ?

[Jordan]

Because it will actually police waste, fraud, and abuse.

It's funny that one of the ways that healthcare reform was going to save us money was because we were finally going to crack down on "waste, fraud, and abuse" of the system. Not like we couldn't have done it before the bill was passed and realized the X billions of dollars in savings.

Another thing I find funny is that the government touts its own effectiveness at distributing money. They say they have medicare administrative costs of 3 cents per dollar or something like that.

It's pretty easy to boast 3% administrative costs when you A) write checks all day B) do absolutely zero vetting of the people who are filing claims. So, even when government claims efficiency, its usually just because it's paying too much in the first place. I'd much prefer a charity distributing $1 billion in claims with admin costs of $200 million compared to a government agency spilling out $3 billion with administrative costs of $10 million.

[wormyguy]

Ayn Rand thought that it was just as bad . . .

[bwlibertyman]

Why should people be "forced" to help out their fellow man? From a personal/moral standpoint charity is better. From an efficiency standpoint charity is still better. Just because government funds something won't make it efficient. Charities are controlled by the market. The government can pump all the money into giving people potatoes but the government doesn't know when those potatoes are too much. Charities will and do. Charities can allocate resources more effectively.

[pcosmar]

Why is it better if it is voluntary ?

:confused:
Why?
Because it is not theft if it is voluntary. Taking money at gunpoint (or threat of gunpoint) it theft.

I Know.(professional qualification)
I robbed banks. That was theft, and I did time for it.

Voluntary giving is GIVING.
Tax is TAKEN.

it is a very simple concept really.
:cool:

[Sola_Fide]

Yep^^^


Charity is not theft. Taxes are. Theft is evil. Charity is good. /end thread.

[Annihilia]

:confused:
Why?
Because it is not theft if it is voluntary. Taking money at gunpoint (or threat of gunpoint) it theft.

I Know.(professional qualification)
I robbed banks. That was theft, and I did time for it.

Voluntary giving is GIVING.
Tax is TAKEN.

it is a very simple concept really.
:cool:

It is so simple, but sometimes even that argument is hard for people to grasp (for some reason).

Stated another way, you just have to get in the habit of 'universalizing' morality. If it is wrong for an individual to commit murder and theft for the stated goal of helping others, is it ok for two people? One hundred people? What if it's thousands of people and they call themselves 'the government' and wear fancy costumes? Nothing changes, it's still wrong.

[sailingaway]

And as an economic matter, it costs less. The work is mostly done by volunteers who work for free. You don't have to pay for the state, nor state accountants nor follow state mandates. YOu can do what works and modify it easily if facts on the ground dictate. AND it is voluntary.

But purely as an efficiency issue, it is better, as well.

[Matt Collins]

The answer to your question can be fonud at the following links:


http://www.server.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_list.php?Category=21
http://www.server.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_list.php?Category=36
http://www.server.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_list.php?Category=46

[Stary Hickory]

Well because Charities provide a valuable service. They let people who value being charitable easily contribute without having to personally engage in structuring distribution or managing the program.

In a free market even charitable organizations must compete for patronage. This makes them more honest and efficient(if they are not they will see donations dry up).

The government uses FORCE to FORCE patronage and therefore there is no check on inefficiency and corruption. This is why private charities are always superior. People who operate charities are providing a service to those who donate.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Taxes are taken, but in a rather insidious way that hides the violence behind it. If you think your taxes are too high, and don't want to pay all of them, nobody comes to your house with a gun...right away. They will eventually. Morally, taking from others by force is wrong even if there is an understandable or "humanitarian" motive behind it.

Charity is much more efficient and less corrupt than government aid. Consider that the funds spent on Clinton's new embassy palace in England would finance multiple new shelters or food pantries in every major U.S. city.

[james1906]

Charities are affected by the free market. Charities are in competition with each other for money, donations, volunteers, etc. This means running it effectively and having a mission people believe in. If a charity is not viewed as legitimate by the public, it will fail or contract.

[johngr]

Who cares about the poor?

As Ron Paul says, if you subsidise [hyper-fecund low IQ people] you're going to get more of [them].

[phill4paul]

Who cares about the poor?

Individuals with a sense of morality/caring/giving. Certainly, not states that care more about domination/subjugation/dependence.

[Sola_Fide]

Who cares about the poor?

As Ron Paul says, if you subsidise [hyper-fecund low IQ people] you're going to get more of [them].



Huh?

[phill4paul]

Huh?

Seconded.

[Bruno]

Why are you here, OP?

[phill4paul]

Why are you here, OP?
aid632007

aid

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

6/3/2007

YouTube - Democratic Presidential Debate Barack Obama I 6/3/2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ngsbqNPpnA)

:D

[RM918]

Huh?

He's a very unique fellow. It's best not to take what he says sometimes too seriously.

Anyway, it's more effective because the people who actually want to give money are the ones voluntarily handing it over. With welfare, people are being forced to give to government bureaucrats who have no interest or motivation in actually giving to people who need or deserve assistance.

[Matt Collins]

Who cares about the poor?

As Ron Paul says, if you subsidise [hyper-fecund low IQ people] you're going to get more of [them].
I don't think Ron has ever said that before :rolleyes:

[Humanae Libertas]

I'm all for charities.

Unlike government welfare (where just about everyone can get a check), private charities will at least have the right to give their money to whomever they want and discriminate if they please to. We'll have less leeches on assistance compared to govt. welfare.

[Brian4Liberty]

And as an economic matter, it costs less. The work is mostly done by volunteers who work for free. You don't have to pay for the state, nor state accountants nor follow state mandates. You can do what works and modify it easily if facts on the ground dictate. AND it is voluntary.

But purely as an efficiency issue, it is better, as well.

All of that.

Plus charity is decentralized, less prone to institutional corruption and theft. Locals will be more knowledgeable about local needs. Less likely to have a huge bureaucracy that saps the funds and does everything it can to grow the system purely for the benefit of the bureaucracy, not the needy. Welfare is demotivational, charity tends to be motivational.

[noxagol]

A charity is better because it must convince people to give money to it, rather than being able to force people to give them money. They must convince people that their cause is worthy and that the money that is being donated will be used for the cause stated. Charities that do a lot of good will be more likely to receive money than those that do not. This motivates charities to be a better charity.

Government on the other hand, does not have any of these incentives and in fact has incentive to do poorly and then blame it on lack of funding which gives them more funding.

[akforme]

My main issue is dependency. Government welfare is not about helping the poor or it wouldn't be getting worse. It's about making people dependent on the state. How do you get more power in any situation? Make people more dependent on what you have. It's a basic game of control.

My other issue is the strawman argument that being for higher taxes makes you more charitable, when in fact I think it makes you less... "oh just tax me more so I don't have to deal with it"

I also like what Penn said, if you want help I'll gladly help, but that won't include being ok with holding a gun to somebody's head to pay for it.

[rich34]

Getting money from the government encourages lazyness and teaches people they don't have to work, or be self sufficent. Getting money from a charity is not welfare, you understand that if your able to work you work.

[Indy Vidual]

Yep^^^


Charity is not theft. Taxes are. Theft is evil. Charity is good. /end thread.

+1776
&
10 food stamps.

[jake]

- no government waste
- better allocation - people will see needs, and donate. the government donates based on political favors, for example
- voluntary