|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
More "charity"?
#3464104 - 12/08/04 10:59 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Replace social security with this shit? No thanks. Gift horse with rotten teeth It's no fun when you have to go cap in hand to charity for help, says Jane Muir, whose teenage son is severely disabled. You can often end up feeling patronised, humiliated and exploited. It's time, she argues, that charities recognise the error of their ways Wednesday December 8, 2004 It's a funny experience watching BBC Children In Need with your own child in need; usually, I switch it off, as I would like to avoid my son growing up thinking of himself as being "needy". But it is not so funny trying to get hold of the money donated to Children In Need. In fact, I'd say that getting charities to hand over the cash is one of the most humiliating aspects of having a child with a severe disability, and I'd almost rather be sitting on a street corner cap in hand. You can see why some people believe that is where the word "handicap" originated. These days, children who win compensation claims are often given in the region of ?2-3m, possibly more - this being the amount the courts deem necessary to fund the disabled child's needs for life. I am a single parent (many parents do not stay together after the birth of a severely disabled child) on benefits (parents often find it impossible to return to work due to care needs): the onus is on me, as on other families not liable for compensation, to find that ?2-3m myself, come what may. The government funds a certain amount, but by no means all. The statutory bodies - NHS, social services and education - have no ethos to give the best, but only to give the absolutely necessary. Yet children with complex disabilities need more than merely the "necessary" to realise their potential. Who wants, for example, a heavy, awkward powerchair that is impossible to take anywhere or to clean, and that breaks down every few weeks? A recent report by the Family Fund found that "families of severely disabled or seriously ill children are turning to debt to overcome the financial hurdles they face", and "are spending on average almost ?28 a week on loan repayments, while the national average is just over ?3 a week". The sensible thing to do is to go to the charities that exist for that very purpose: to hand out funds to those deemed the most deserving. Which is where the difficulty lies. Do you have any idea what it's like asking charities over and over again for money for your own child? The experience can be very humiliating, and many parents, after one experience, will not apply again. They will forgo the family holiday or take out a loan instead. Helen Cheney, a friend of mine who is the mother of a teenage girl with severe cerebral palsy, says: "We gritted our teeth and applied to a charity for a wheelchair ... They virtually accused us of stealing ... I wouldn't ask for anything again." For every application you make - and so far I have had to make around 20 funding applications for equipment, therapy, care, etc, for my son, who is now 13 - you are expected to reiterate in detail the exact nature of the child's disability. This is painful when you are working so hard to see your child in a positive light and make much of the small things they can do. Even then, evidence has to be provided from GPs, physios, from school, from NHS departments - and just obtaining these can take endless phone calls, letters and nagging of busy departments that haven't really got the time. A charity once asked my GP to provide a letter stating that I was a suitable person to accompany my son on a funded holiday. But worst of all is the means test. The fact that you've been means tested already just to be eligible for state benefits seems to count for nothing. You are required to list your expenditure per week in detail. How much do you spend on food? On clothing? On phone and TV? Household bills? Insurance? Do you have debts or savings? Do you live with anyone else, or do you have other children? Intrusive questions, to say the least. And when you already feel uncomfortable enough being on benefits, they don't do much for your self-esteem. On reflection, the means test is not the worst. The worst is The Attitude. KC is head of a special school in the West Midlands, but I cannot give her name or tell you which school she works in. "I daren't speak out against the charities," she says. "I hate them, but if I was identified we'd risk losing the funding we get for the children. It's often guilt money from rich people or successful companies who expect recognition and gratitude - a special presentation ceremony, speeches, photoshoots, their name all over whatever they provide. If you protest, they might not offer again. It disgusts me, but we have no choice but to go along with it." One of our local charities provided a custom-built orthotic walker my son needed to help prevent hip dislocation. It cost ?2,000 but was meant to last for 10 years or more, into adulthood. After two years, they decided not to follow up the ?500 annual adjustment and service fee any longer. They refused to give me a reason for this, and wouldn't speak to me on the phone or answer my letters on principle, as to do so would cost them money. Nor would they speak to our social worker. Their trustees were anonymous and it seemed we didn't exist, other than as an application form that had been binned. The secretary insinuated that I'd been very lucky getting it in the first place without expecting more. Shades of Oliver Twist. More worrying still, when I rang round other charities to find funding, most said they couldn't fund a piece of equipment not provided by themselves. One big national charity said it would prefer to consider an application from us for a brand new walker -of the same type - which it would then fund for life. So just whose ?2,000 was it willing to chuck into a skip? And who are these trustees of other people's legacies and gifts? KC reckons they may overlap, with certain people turning up on many boards in one city. "They may be solicitors, bankers, accountants - business people with little real understanding of the needs of disabled kids," she suggests. "They 'manage' the money according to preset criteria. The process is institutionalised and impersonal, but it makes them feel good - and they get tax relief." A charity in the home counties foists upon their local special school an annual outing to the nearby wildlife park. Most of the kids have been there so many times they aren't bothered about going again, or have grown out of it. The teacher always politely suggests that the outing could be changed, that they'd love to go down to one of the London museums instead, or perhaps to the theatre. But the charity won't hear of it: it's the wildlife park or nothing. And not only that, the children will be given hats to wear and balloons to hold with the charity's name and logo, and the local press will be invited along to take pictures to mark the generosity of local businesses who "care". A few of the larger charities are waking up to the fact that prevailing attitudes are nothing less than Dickensian, and that families have a right to respect, privacy and sensitivity, just like anyone else. The director of a very small local charity surprised me nine years ago when he turned up at my door bearing a large cardboard box with a computer for my son, then aged four. He set it up himself, provided maintenance and software, and has updated all the hardware at intervals without us even asking. He looks at Alistair's developing writing skills with interest and replaces the frequently broken joystick unquestioningly. No photos, no article in the local press, no presentation ceremony - just straightforward kindness and thoughtfulness. If charities must be large, impersonal and based on application forms, or small and anonymous with no accountability, then what I and other parents like me would really like is feedback questionnaires such as any other company would issue, asking: "How did you find our service, and how can we improve?" I'd like the Charity Commission to issue guidelines on relations between charity and beneficiary. I'd like there to be a central database, or "passport", that confirms my son has cerebral palsy for life and that I'm not lying. I'd like my son to be called a client, or a customer, and to have representative service users included on the boards of trustees. What a nice surprise it was to find that Ruth Owen, chief executive of the dynamic charity Whizz-Kidz, is a wheelchair user herself, and that many of the employees of the Family Fund and Contact a Family are themselves parents of disabled children and are constantly looking at ways of making their service more humane and accessible. Maybe we need to jettison the very concept of charity for people with disabilities, or perhaps we could just start looking in that direction - because elsewhere, I find that I am looking the gift horse in the mouth and finding far too many rotten teeth. http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,1368214,00.html
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Xlea321]
#3464166 - 12/08/04 11:18 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said: Replace social security with this shit? No thanks.
At least charity will not be bankrupt by the time these children grow up. I can't say the same for social security.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
"as on other families not liable for compensation"
Is this a proper use of the word liable? Does the meaning differ between the US and UK?
|
Vvellum
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
|
what charity?
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Xlea321]
#3464930 - 12/08/04 01:59 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So we need to force people to spend their money in a way that we see fit!
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Vvellum]
#3465071 - 12/08/04 02:27 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
what charity?
Boom, there it is...
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Asante
Omnicyclion prophet
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,330
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Xlea321]
#3465434 - 12/08/04 03:37 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
the children will be given hats to wear and balloons to hold with the charity's name and logo, and the local press will be invited along to take pictures
that stood out for me. Damn...
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
Anonymous
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Xlea321]
#3465462 - 12/08/04 03:43 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
do you make charitable contributions?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Xlea321]
#3465594 - 12/08/04 04:08 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'm still trying to figure out logically what's wrong with this. Sounds like there may be some bureaucracy to go through in some cases, but you're kidding yourself if you think there's no bureaucracy in government programs. Other than that, it seems to be a bunch of people whose feelings were hurt. I'm sorry, but a humiliating experience is no reason to ask the government to initiate force on your behalf. I also noticed the article criticized some charities while praising others, so obviously the experiences people have with some charities are better than with others. You don't get to make choices like that when the government is running it.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
i sense a downright hostility towards the very idea of private charity which speaks volumes.
|
z@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Xlea321]
#3465861 - 12/08/04 04:43 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said: The experience can be very humiliating, and many parents, after one experience, will not apply again. They will forgo the family holiday or take out a loan instead.
Wow. Sounds terrible. You mean to tell me that they might have to take out a loan and be expected to pay it back? Or not go on vacation? This sounds so terrible.
-------------------- "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
|
Great_Satan
prophet of God
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 953
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: z@z.com]
#3466098 - 12/08/04 05:14 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So everyone has to learn how to take responsibility for investing their own money. Something I've been doing for a while with great success. I wrote something here already about REITs and bond funds which I'm sure most people here forgot.
|
Vvellum
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
|
I understand how the government sucks, but I fail to see the practicality of private charities to alleviate poverty on a massive level and to help others towards financial indendence/success on such a scale. We have poor people all over the place and we have massive amounts of capital out there, so whats preventing the wonders of private charities to reducing poverty now? Sure, there are many wonderful examples around the world of such, but it's hardly making a dent. I think it's because people generally dont give a fuck about others so much so that those who do help out and develop charity foundations are drowned in a sea of selfishness. I dont think private charity is a viable solution - not yet anyways.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 13 days
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Vvellum]
#3469165 - 12/09/04 06:14 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I understand how the government sucks, but I fail to see the practicality of private charities to alleviate poverty on a massive level and to help others towards financial indendence/success on such a scale.
Exactly. I think it depends on priorities. Some people look at the state of modern society and are appalled by the level of poverty that exists and try to deal with this becomes a primary focus whereas some feel that an intangible concept of the individual being sovereign over all else is more important and that becomes their primary focus.
As you go on to mention, the general level of selfishness that currently exists in society means that private charity has little help of meeting the needs of all those in society who are deserving of assistance. Its almost ironic that those who champion private charity are those who put themselves first...
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: GazzBut]
#3469431 - 12/09/04 08:11 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think it depends on priorities. Some people look at the state of modern society and are appalled by the level of poverty that exists and try to deal with this becomes a primary focus whereas some feel that an intangible concept of the individual being sovereign over all else is more important and that becomes their primary focus.
Income redistribution tends to breed a dependency amongst the non-productive people who are receiving aid. It also penalizes productive people by taking a signifigant amount of their money away from them.
But, if you don't give anything to non-productive people, some bad things can happen too. Some poor people will resort to crime to get what they want, some will be genuinely good people who are in need of help(and they will get none or little), and some people might flat out die because they are sick and poor.
Any path of action will have pros and cons. Life is like that. Things are never clean, easy, and "black and white". While I dislike income redistribution, I realize that being an "anti-income redistribution purist"; or any type of purist for that matter, will interfere with a realistic view of the world.
|
Vvellum
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: GazzBut]
#3469620 - 12/09/04 09:12 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think those who support the total slashing of all social spending in favor of private charities havent stepped foot into a battered woman's shelter or the local animal or homeless shelter or drug addiction clinics that often so strapped for cash they are ineffective and often shutdown. Why hasnt the free-market private charity model worked in these instances? Because people dont give a shit.
Until people do actively support charity, I have no problem with tax dollars funding social services - either private or public run. That is the cost of living in a decent country, in my opinion.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: ]
#3469792 - 12/09/04 10:03 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
i sense a downright hostility towards the very idea of private charity which speaks volumes. So you see no problem with people being treated like this woman describes? That kinda speaks volumes too.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
looner2
ABBA fan
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Xlea321]
#3470017 - 12/09/04 10:54 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
That kinda speaks volumes too.
No, it really doesn't. A private charity is dependent on the funds of individuals. If they feel a charity is not performing its duty, they will instead donate to another charity which has its act together.
-------------------- I am in love with Acidic_Sloth
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: looner2]
#3470064 - 12/09/04 11:05 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
If you are happy charities treat people the way this woman describes then that really does speak volumes.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Autonomous
MysteriousStranger
Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Xlea321]
#3470503 - 12/09/04 12:36 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
What are YOU doing to help others through your own actions and your own wealth?
-------------------- "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Autonomous]
#3471595 - 12/09/04 04:15 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Autonomous said: What are YOU doing to help others through your own actions and your own wealth?
He advocates stealing your hard-earned money so these people can live up to his idea of a good standard of living. Geez, what more can you ask of him?!
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Vvellum
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Autonomous]
#3474046 - 12/09/04 11:36 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I volunteer about 20 hours a week at the local humane society because I love animals (esp. dogs). we have no money and are always just getting by. people are not quite interested in donating or helping out.
|
z@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Vvellum]
#3474176 - 12/10/04 12:03 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bi0 said: I volunteer about 20 hours a week at the local humane society because I love animals (esp. dogs). we have no money and are always just getting by. people are not quite interested in donating or helping out.
I don't want to sound like an asshole, but the humane society is on the very bottom of my donations list. There are places where people are suffering and they have a higher priority than animals. I did get my last 3 dogs from the humane society though.
-------------------- "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
|
Vvellum
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: z@z.com]
#3474199 - 12/10/04 12:07 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
my girlfriend used to work for a Christian battered woman's shelter. Same story, different charity.
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Vvellum]
#3476491 - 12/10/04 02:00 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The perceived benefit of the government giving your pet charity some money are so far outweighed by the negative ramifations on the average persons freedom that it's clear what the right choice is. How far do we go in deciding which charities to have our money stolen from us to fund? What if I like cockroaches as much as you like dogs and cats, would I be allowed to get all the money I needed to build a "charity" for breeding cockroaches? It's just absurd that you'd feel that way. If you truely believe that the cause is that worthy and that the citizenry should accept having their money donated to the cause you should be out pounding on doors and raising money.
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
Vvellum
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: SoopaX]
#3478523 - 12/10/04 07:53 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The negative ramifications and health issues created by thousands of stray cats and dogs roaming city streets outweighs the negative ramifications of tax deductions and minor government funding. Get back to reality. Animal control is an important operation of any decent, first-world city. Where you been?
Quote:
What if I like cockroaches as much as you like dogs and cats, would I be allowed to get all the money I needed to build a "charity" for breeding cockroaches?
How exactly does controling stray animal populations for health and nusance reasons equate to breeding cockroaches for a hobby and demanding government funding?
|
Autonomous
MysteriousStranger
Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Vvellum]
#3478738 - 12/10/04 08:38 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I lived in Koreatown for seven years and the local animal control shut their doors because there never was a problem with strays. Some things fix themselves if you don't enforce silly laws telling people what they can and cannot eat.
-------------------- "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Autonomous]
#3480132 - 12/11/04 01:05 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"You can judge a society on how it treats it's animals" - Gandhi.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Xlea321]
#3480143 - 12/11/04 01:06 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
racist
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Vvellum]
#3482218 - 12/11/04 03:22 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bi0 said: The negative ramifications and health issues created by thousands of stray cats and dogs roaming city streets outweighs the negative ramifications of tax deductions and minor government funding. Get back to reality. Animal control is an important operation of any decent, first-world city. Where you been?
You seem to not understand the point at all. Their are all sorts of wonderful projects that could use more funding. The issue I have is the theft of money isn't the way to do it. If you think that stealing is an acceptable way to fund this place, why not just go rob a bank? Hell, at least they are insured and will get the money back. The purpose or scope of the instutition isn't enough to make me say that I should steal money from others to pay for it.
Quote:
How exactly does controling stray animal populations for health and nusance reasons equate to breeding cockroaches for a hobby and demanding government funding?
A species that has people specifically hired and trained to exterminate it doesn't deserve some form of protection? The cockroaches could go extinct! I'm sure that you realize i'm being facetious to show you how anyone could have some pet cause that truely matters and means alot to them. The point is, the Constitution SPECIFICALLY makes taxation for certain issues and SPECIFICALLY leaves the other issues in the power of the state. If you think that so many people would be in a bad shape if this place shut down, get them to pass a LOCAL law and have just their money taken from them.
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Vvellum]
#3482227 - 12/11/04 03:24 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Think of it in this manner. If the majority of your taxes weren't taken from you to fund programs like this, you'd have much more money available. Instead of the corporate welfare programs (which is something I'm sure you are against) getting huge chunks of money, you'd be left with that money. With this newfound near-fortune, you could put more money into causes that YOU WANT TO.
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
Vvellum
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: SoopaX]
#3482900 - 12/11/04 06:12 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You seem to not understand the point at all. Their are all sorts of wonderful projects that could use more funding. The issue I have is the theft of money isn't the way to do it. If you think that stealing is an acceptable way to fund this place, why not just go rob a bank? Hell, at least they are insured and will get the money back. The purpose or scope of the instutition isn't enough to make me say that I should steal money from others to pay for it.
I was unaware that the HSUS was a federal project...
Quote:
The point is, the Constitution SPECIFICALLY makes taxation for certain issues and SPECIFICALLY leaves the other issues in the power of the state. If you think that so many people would be in a bad shape if this place shut down, get them to pass a LOCAL law and have just their money taken from them.
well, yes - that is what I support. did I say otherwise?
Quote:
Think of it in this manner. If the majority of your taxes weren't taken from you to fund programs like this, you'd have much more money available. Instead of the corporate welfare programs (which is something I'm sure you are against) getting huge chunks of money, you'd be left with that money. With this newfound near-fortune, you could put more money into causes that YOU WANT TO.
See, I dont think the lack of private donations is entirely due to lack of money. The area of I work in is quite affluent and there is plenty of capital to go around - the area that I work in has it's fair share of millionaires and executives. I think people are just hording, selfish bastards who'd rather not get involved in anything that might disturb their emotional state. If something is wrong in the world, they detect the emotional distress but instead of dealing the source of the problem, they buy themselves a new television or pair of shoes.
do you know anything about the humane society? you seem to think it is some sort of federal program...
well, it isnt - it is a non-profit organization that relies directly on private donations and tax deductions. There might be some federal grants here and there (I am unaware of any), but that is hardly how the HSUS stays afloat. The organization operates [in constant financial crises mode] by way of private donations.
my point is: private charity isnt such a great model, as is all-out federal funding - both for their own reasons.
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Vvellum]
#3482945 - 12/11/04 06:21 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bi0 said: well, yes - that is what I support. did I say otherwise?
I just assumed, go for it if it's local and not prevented by other local or state legislation.
Quote:
See, I dont think the lack of private donations is entirely due to lack of money. The area of I work in is quite affluent and there is plenty of capital to go around - the area that I work in has it's fair share of millionaires and executives. I think people are just hording, selfish bastards who'd rather not get involved in anything that might disturb their emotional state. If something is wrong in the world, they detect the emotional distress but instead of dealing the source of the problem, they buy themselves a new television or pair of shoes.
So if you think that the majority of the people won't donate, how do you anticipate passing the law in your local legislature? If people do want to donate enough to get the law passed, wouldn't that same number of people who would have more money from their taxes be able to donate and save the place? If not, do you just force people to do what you want?
Quote:
well, it isnt - it is a non-profit organization that relies directly on private donations and tax deductions. There might be some federal grants here and there (I am unaware of any), but that is hardly how the HSUS stays afloat. The organization operates [in constant financial crises mode] by way of private donations.
So this entity is already working? Geez, it's not even FAILING and you want to steal money! Would gold dog leashes be the point when you stop wanting to steal money? How about we build a mansion for each ofthe dogs to live in. Wake up bud
Quote:
my point is: private charity isnt such a great model, as is all-out federal funding - both for their own reasons.
Yes, but private charity isn't specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: SoopaX]
#3484930 - 12/12/04 01:14 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
If the majority of your taxes weren't taken from you to fund programs like this, you'd have much more money available. And if you were in an accident tomorrow and couldn't work you'd be in the same desperate position. Should desperatly ill people be constantly humiliated and forced to beg? With this newfound near-fortune, you could put more money into causes that YOU WANT TO. We tried this method before welfare was introduced - it didn't work. That's why we introduced welfare. Unfortunately rich people arn't as "generous" as you seem to believe. I remember the classic scene from a Micheal Moore film when he had to shame some millionaire corporate executive into giving a pitiful 10 grand by offering to give 10 grand himself.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Xlea321]
#3486060 - 12/12/04 12:12 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Unfortunately rich people arn't as "generous" as you seem to believe. I remember the classic scene from a Micheal Moore film when he had to shame some millionaire corporate executive into giving a pitiful 10 grand by offering to give 10 grand himself.
And we all know how accurate Michael Moore's films are.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: More "charity"? [Re: Xlea321]
#3486504 - 12/12/04 02:04 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said: And if you were in an accident tomorrow and couldn't work you'd be in the same desperate position. Should desperatly ill people be constantly humiliated and forced to beg?
No, I wouldn't. Hold on to your chair here, but I have medical benefits. I don't have them through a company, I just pay the 112$ am onth premiums myself. I know that it's shocking that someoen would care for themselves rather than forcing otherst do it, but it works! Quote:
We tried this method before welfare was introduced - it didn't work. That's why we introduced welfare.
Then they can starve or find a job.
Quote:
Unfortunately rich people arn't as "generous" as you seem to believe. I remember the classic scene from a Micheal Moore film when he had to shame some millionaire corporate executive into giving a pitiful 10 grand by offering to give 10 grand himself.
If he can shame him, thats fine. What if Moore pulled out a .45ACP and told the exec if he didnt', he wasgoing to kill him ?Well who cares as long as it's going to a charity that you approve of ,right?
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
|