Why are you a Republican?

Common f*cking knowledge! This is in every freshman history textbook for US history, 1877-present! You know, that class that everyone in Texas who goes to college is *required to take* before they graduate? I therefore think it is incumbent upon *you* to prove otherwise. Go on, find me some figures on charitable institutions 'throughout history', as Ref put it, which helped out the poor to such an extent that they could conceivably be called 'more efficient than government'.

Dickens. Heard of him? French revolution. Heard of it? Bread riots. Heard of them? *That's* how societies work when they rely on charitable bloody institutions to look after the poor.

Gah. This theory that basic, generally accepted historical facts need to be 'proved' over and over and over again because you guys don't want to listen to them... feh. I'll probably write something much calmer and more evidence-based later on, but my time is currently limited and frankly, you're bloody irritating.

 

Yeah I didn't think you'd have any evidence. Typical Democratic drivel. Quite closed-minded in my opinion. More 1800s anecdotal tales...sigh.

 

Because Strom Thurmond throws the best birthday parties.

 

Yeah I didn't think you'd have any evidence. Typical Democratic drivel. Quite closed-minded in my opinion. More 1800s anecdotal tales...sigh.

As opposed to the formidable amount of evidence you've provided for the opposing viewpoint? Just look at what conditions were like for the poor 100 years ago vs. 50 years ago vs. today. Find anywhere that says conditions for the poor were better then than now. That was the world with low taxes and charities taking care of the needy.

 

Charities are amazingly efficient with money donated to them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63977-2002Dec16.html

The former chief executive of the local United Way, who stepped down in September amid controversy over the charity's management and finances, will continue to receive his $18,750-a-month salary until his employment contract runs out in early 2004.


I know that's where I want my money going when I donate to the United Way...

 

BTW, we had lower taxes this year than last. Look what happened at United Way:

<I>The board's decision comes as United Way is experiencing a financial squeeze caused by plummeting pledges and donations. Last year, its private-sector fund drive ultimately received pledges of about $43 million. As of last week, this year's drive was at $4 million.</I>

Why? Because people donate less during bad economic times. Of course, that's when people need help the most. Looks like a recipe for success to me!

 

I. Am. Not. A. Democrat.

More later, when I have access to my own books.

 

Another note, since you appear to have difficulty with chronology: the French Revolution was in 1789, which in anyone's language is a) not anecdotal and b) not the nineteenth century; and bread riots are a continuous, non-frigging-anecdotal issue throughout the medieval and early modern period - again, not the goddamned nineteenth century - or the '1800s', for the historically challenged among us.

 

Because I believe it's important that we preserve our country clubs. Inclusive doesn't = racist, fyi.

 

My belief is that if given the same amount of money, the private sector can significantly outperform the government in terms on efficiencies and output. The government is wasteful and inefficient. The private sector, although not perfect, is a much better alternative. Many people believe that if the government doesn't feed the poor, nobody will, but I simply do not believe this to be the case. Given the same amount of money, charitable and faith-based organizations can be much more efficient and do a better job than the govt. The way I see it is almost like outsourcing helping the needy to the private sector. As in the business world, the outsourcing provider comes in and does the same task that the company used to do, but they do it more efficiently and save the company money. There is usually an oversight committe within the company to make sure things are running smoothly, so perhaps some sort of small govt oversight committee would be appropriate.

The charities/faith-based organizations would need less money than the government now requires to do the same job, and I'm for efficient spending of the money of the hard-working people of this great country.

Examples of just a few of the great programs charitable organizaitons are undertaking across the US:

With over 60,000 projects in all 50 states, America the Beautiful Fund is helping feed the hungry every day.
http://www.charitiesatwork.org/corp/suc_ac04.htm

The Salvation Army providing shelter for the homeless, care for the aged, and relief during emergencies:
http://www.usc.salvationarmy.org/ww...79F21C7992ED599186256BAD0054DF4E?openDocument

 

I am a weird kind of Republican. I am very right winged in my voting habits. I am a happier camper with Rep's in office. I disagree fundamentally with virtually every stance the dems have. I believe people are not inherently evil. And in this belief I think that the common goodwill of people will provide for those that seek to improve themselves. And I believe that the government should make an effort to help people that are trying or are cursed with disease or sh!tty luck.

I think the practices of the dems are filled with good intentions but end up ‘enabling’ people rather than teaching them self reliance. And I do believe that there is a modicum of belief to the fact that by ‘enabling’ destitute people they guarantee future votes thus securing their own positions.

I may disagree with all of you environmentalist whack jobs out there but I am truly glad you are there. The industrial machine would kill all of the baby seals and trees if ya’ll weren’t fighting. I think the balance is good right now.

As an artist I go against the grain on my voting and political views but at least they are honest.

I have faith in my common man and don’t think people would blindly walk around bumping into inanimate objects and cut their fingers off with circular saws without government interference.

That being said I don’t think people kill cops because Cop Killa told them to and I think parents should monitor the viewing and listening habit of their kids, not a box on the tv or label on a CD.

Why are there no Circular Saw horses….just a thought.

 

My belief is that if given the same amount of money, the private sector can significantly outperform the government in terms on efficiencies and output. The government is wasteful and inefficient.

I would agree with this in general - outside of the ridiculous things like directors of charities making hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. However, the problem is that this assumes equal money for both parties. If we cut taxes by $1B, that's not all going to go into charities - maybe $10M might, which means we've lost $990M worth of services that the gov't provided.

Ultimately, I believe that as a society, we have a moral obligation to give people an opportunity to experience a decent life, and efficiency is a secondary concern to actually helping a wide array of people. I guess this should probably actually go in the Why am I a Democrat thread.

 

I believe in Republican fiscal issues but abhor their social stances.

The Hypocrisy of the Family Values party while a ton of them are out cheating on their spouses or have been divorced a billion times.

I find it interesting that Republicans who want less government inteference are also the ones who support breaking into a gay couples house and arresting them for sodomy, or fingerprinting legal citizens in the name of homeland security, or trying to restrict adults access to p*rnography because it's morally wrong, or limiting what you can see on television or in the movies, etc etc etc...

How about its wrong to kill a fetus but bombing an abortion clinic and killing people inside is Ok.

 

the time when Dickens wrote his books, there werent laws preventing many of the things you discussed about. What i think Refman is hinting at is that if the government would decrease taxes, then the average person can give more money to charities. Thus, the government would not have to worry about many social services which would be taken by the charities.

Also, you must look at the cultural change between now and then. The middle class is the pro-dominant class now unlike the time period you talked about.

 

What i think Refman is hinting at is that if the government would decrease taxes, then the average person can give more money to charities.

Out of curiousity, how many people here took their rebate check last year and donated it (or a portion of it) to charity?

 

My wife (also a Republican) and that was when I was working and she was unemployed. Gave $25 to help the families of slain police officers.

 

I could not be rolling my eyes more at this stage in the game. I'm rolling my eyes so much that the emoticon doesn't fully express my feelings of general exasperation. Sheeeeit. Read the whole bloody thread: I was arguing against Ref's point that charitable institutions have been more efficient 'throughout history'. Definition of history: *the past*. Therefore, it is quite conceivable that using examples from 100-200 years ago might actually be *relevant to my point*. Argh!!!

Unt2003 actually makes a reasonable point about the differences between labour laws then and now. However, I think that looking at the Depression, for example, can give us a few hints about how well private charitable institutions work as a nationwide safety net even after the introduction of child labour laws and the eight hour day, for example. Thousands upon thousands of vagrant men and families, unemployed people queuing at soup kitchens, a desperate need for government intervention. As Major said, when times are hard, donations to charities go down. How do you suggest we solve *that* problem?

 

I don't see how one can argue that charitable organizations will take up the slack of shrinking Federal programs and advocate the complete repeal of the estate tax, a great tool for creating and funding charities.

Independent Sector, a consortium of charitable foundations, figures that charities get $15 billion each year from bequests at death - 75 percent of which come from estates worth over $2.5 million that are now subject to the tax.

The consortium's board of directors says that "repeal of the estate tax would eliminate a strong incentive to give through an individual's estate. It would remove an incentive for the wealthiest Americans ... to make charitable bequests."

In 1997, some 19,000 estates with a gross size of $600,000 to $1 million contributed about $91 million to charities.

But just 329 estates in the $20 million or more category gave away nearly $7.5 billion.

Altogether, nearly 43,000 estates listed nearly $10 billion in charitable deductions in 1997.

Repeal of the Estate Tax would reduce charitable contributions by $5 billion or more per year.

The other question is can charitable organizations assume the functions and burdens that would be placed on them should the Federal government reduce social services. Currently, 89% of households contribute to charities and average a little over $1,600 per year in direct donations, in-kind donations, and volunteer services. There's not a lot of room for improvement between 89% and 100%, so any increases in charitable giving would have to come from increases in giving by those who already give.

From The Century Foundation:

Charitable nonprofit organizations now account for about 7 percent of national income and about 6 percent of total U.S. employment. Their revenues and expenditures are considerable ($350 billion a year), equivalent to about one-seventh the combined spending of federal, state, and local government. As recently as the mid-1950s, charitable organizations raised 70 percent of their income from private donations. Now, only about 9 percent of their revenue comes from individual, corporate, and foundation gifts and donations. Thirty-seven percent comes from government grants and contracts and 54 percent from dues, fees, and other charges. Significantly, then, they get more than half of their revenue from paying clients. Government funding as a share of total revenues accounts for 36 percent in health services, 17 percent in education, 42 percent in social and legal services, and 11 percent in the arts.

If, by using tax cuts, you took away the amount that government funds, that's a heck of a lot of funding to make up through additional individual donations. If you take it away via spending cuts, it becomes near impossible.

Again, from The Century Foundation:

The critical question is, will donations increase enough to fill the void left by the federal cutbacks? The evidence strongly indicates that they will not...

The most optimistic estimates are that contributions might be able to make up for 5 percent of the federal cuts. Other estimates range as low as 1 to 2 percent. Even if donation levels were to rise substantially, only a modest share of the gain would likely be channeled to assist the most disadvantaged groups. Higher giving rates typically benefit higher education, culture, and the arts more than social services.

It is simply not realistic to believe that the cuts in federal funding can be made up by charitable giving by corporations and foundations. For example, the total assets (not the income from endowments) of America's 34,000 foundations add up to only about 10 percent of current government expenditures for social welfare and related domestic programs....

Most of the donations that charities raise go to support community churches and synagogues, Y's, museums, public radio and television, universities, and parochial schools--the services that donors themselves use--and these funds are largely unavailable for helping the neediest.

If the federal cutbacks are as drastic as the legislative proposals would indicate, what can charitable organizations do? They can try to increase their donations and enlist more volunteers. They can turn to state and local governments to seek more contract funds from the newly transferred block grant programs. They can try to produce more revenue from service fees charged to clients who can afford more, thus making greater use of cross-subsidies among clients to benefit the poorer ones. They can try to reduce costs through greater efficiency, lower administrative costs, reduced staffing, and lower salaries and benefits. Some efficiency gains may be realized through mergers of existing agencies. An active donors' forum, umbrella organization, or community trust board can help to allocate contributions to sectors where they are most needed in center cities and rural areas of poverty. But, as pointed out, these steps will have only small impact in the face of large-scale federal cutbacks.

The conclusion seems inescapable: Charitable nonprofit organizations lack the resources to sustain the nation's poorest residents even at minimal safety-net levels. They do not transfer substantial cash payments to low-income people except purely for maintenance needs during local emergencies. Nor can they carry out such large-scale services as sustaining mentally and physically handicapped people. The type of direct bonding with the needy and the handicapped envisioned in the conservative agenda is probably not feasible in the short run even if its virtues could be established. The intensity of personal attention required would be too costly if provided by nonprofit professional staffs, whereas voluntary activity is certainly not at a level, nor could it be beefed up enough in the short run, to cope with even current needs.