because it is do as i say not as i do.


besides everyone knows that the government knows are own thoughts better than we do.

Charities are more inefficient as they have greater bureaucracy, but it's not a bad idea on the small scale. The biggest problem would be paying for doctors, nurses and insurance, but if a 'liberal' charity could get them cheap it would be worthwhile.

Religious conservatives tend to have the edge there though because they have ready supplies of indentured labourers such as nun-nurses and missionary-doctors, but if the French Medicins Sans Frontiers can do it there's no good reason American liberals can't.

Excuse me? Wow, what a low opinion you have of those who devote themselves to others.


I highly doubt this - I might buy it if the IRS relied on volunteer tax collectors, & all those people behind the counter at the DMV picking their noses were not on the clock, but you're truly naive beyond words if you think government bureaucracies are more efficient than charitable organizations. I'd venture to say that the only thing the government can do more efficiently than private organizations is national defense (as long as you ignore the procurement process    ).

i think he meant versus a for profit company.

80 to 90% of what you donate to a charity goes into the charities pocket not to help those they say they are going to help. i think it is only 60% for what government does with the money.

You and I are practical people. While of course I agree that anyone who calls a spade a spade should be compelled to use one, I don't see any harm in acknowledging that religious fervour can replace a decent paycheck and tolerable working hours, and that religious fervour is much more common among conservatives than liberals.

It ends up much more expensive when you replace the nursing staff of a nunnery-hospital with non-believers who expect to be adequately paid, as has been experienced in a number of charity hospitals around the world.



Well, think of the bureaucratic manpower requirements. Depending on the money they handle a charity will need a part/full time accountant, a part/full time fundraiser, a CEO and an office manager. The CEO could probably handle fundraising as well if it's a very small charity.

These staff could support anywhere up to around 20 staff, depending on how effective the fundraiser is and how well-organised the accountant and the office manager are.

But mostly that won't be the case because it's bloody hard to get cash out of people for charitable purposes, so those staffers will probably work horrible hours for fairly ordinary pay and they'll support much fewer staff because there just isn't the money to go around.

Big, shiny charities will attract more money but in general they'll be running operations overseas because people are more willing to be charitable to foreign bums than bums they see every day.

Back to our small charity example, now let's extend out those charities so there are enough of them to provide universal healthcare to the extent of, say, the NHS in the UK. Every small doctor's office/charity will have the same core staff, making for an immensely inefficient bureaucracy plagued by wholly unnecessary duplication.

Of course Draginol isn't proposing a private charity NHS, but that's the main reason I see charities as inefficient. There's just so many of them covering the same territory and they rarely take advantage of cost rationalisation through amalgamation, so each is much more inefficient than it needs to be.



Come back to me with the actual figures and I'll believe you. But really if government is inefficient the people have no-one but themselves to blame. What have you done to make your government more accountable? If you haven't done anything, then you don't know how efficient it can be, so that's really a strawman argument.

From daybreak on the East Coast to nightfall in the West, young men with telephone headsets line the cubicles of professional call centers, pleading with a patriotic nation.

"The American Veterans Coalition is dedicated to helping veterans right here in (state calling) who are homeless or in desperate need," reads a script created for a Seattle-area charity run by businessman Robert M. Friend. "The Foundation provides assistance for these veterans in the form of food, shelter, clothing, job search assistance and any other reasonable request.

"Do you think you could support our efforts with a gift of $75?"

Most of the people called will hang up before the pitch is over. But this is a numbers game, and with a relentless telephone campaign, professional fundraisers in 2003 collected almost $1 million for the American Veterans Coalition and three other charities created simultaneously by Friend.

But that dialing came at a staggering cost. Under Friend's deal with the solicitors, fundraisers pocketed 85 cents of every dollar raised. Of the money left over, half was spent on printing and administrative costs, including the rented mailbox that served as the charities' official address. The other half, Friend paid in salaries to himself and his wife.

And money spent on food, shelter or clothing for those desperate veterans?

$0.

WWW Link


here is one that no money goes where it says.

When small cities in North Dakota out give large liberal cities like sanfrancisco what chance do you think the liberal left will ever dig into their own pockets to make a charity to help the uninsured? Liberals forte is giving away money, as long as it's not their money.

I'll kiss your aussie ass on main street.

I believe that just made my day.

~Zoo

Why don't conservatives care about kids after they're out of the birth canal?

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

i will give you what i think the liberal idea of child raising is.


every see the movie antz. the opening scene.

From what I've seen Liberals tend to support causes that are paid for with other people's money, not their own.

If all of the Liberals who profess to support the cause of health insurance for those who can't afford it would put their money (instead of mine) where their mouths are, every single person who wants health insurance in this country would have it.

But then, for many of them, their whole point is "I can't afford health insurance and I think you should pay for it for me."

Why do liberals only care about killing babies before they're out of the birth canal?

Don't you mean why do liberals care about children after birth? 

On what basis do you make that remark?

Because conservatives don't support the federal government being in control of our lives?

As the topic mentions, why not start a charity or support a charity that helps children? Statistically, conservativesly overwhelmingly give more to charities, including ones to support needy children, than liberals.

Liberals seem to define "caring" as being in support of government programs that are paid for by other people.

 

"Don't you mean why do liberals care about children after birth?"

Don't you mean why do liberals need someone else to care for their children?