Why don't liberals start more charities?

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?

the sign over the abortion clinic should read..... OVER 20 MILLION KILLED AND STILL COUNTING!

What do you base this on?

What evidence do you have that liberals are dispropotionately more "caring" about children after they are born?

Here are facts that we know:

• People who actually have children tend to be conservatives.
• Charities are supported disproportionately by conservatives.
• Women who give up having a career in order to stay home and care for their children tend to be conservatives.

These are facts that we know of.

Let me add more to this though: Elsewhere it was calculated that the # of children to American citizens who don't qualify for Medicaid and whose parents make less than $75,000 a year is less than 1 million. Probably closer to 500,000.

If the so-called "Caring" liberals set up a single charity that had say $500 million (that is, if the 100 million or so people woh identify themselves as liberals gave $5 each to) then each of these children could receive $500 a year to pay for catastrophic health insurance (i.e. not very good insurance but better than nothing).  If the "caring" liberals could spare $20 each, then they could provide $2 billion.

But "caring" to liberals really means having ME pay thousands of dollars to take care of other people's children while they pay little to nothing but act morally superior.

if their are born. and not killed by said liberals before birth!!!!!!!!!!

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

Republicans are just as much behind the nanny state as Dem's are.  They think they know better than the average American on many issues.  A few that pop into my head immediately are - prayer in school - Texas just passed a law allowing prayer at school functions.  That is definately not on the Democrat agenda.  The sex toys ban in Alabama - the conservative Supreme Court won't hear the case.  So much for consenting adults.  This is a law that over 90% of Alabamans think is stupid but daddy knows best and daddy is the government.  Emminent domain abuse - Emminent domain was not meant for football stadiums.  Warrantless wiretaps.  Red light cameras. 

Reply By: MasonMPosted: Saturday, October 06, 2007 From what I've seen Liberals tend to support causes that are paid for with other people's money, not their own

Liberals pay taxes too.  There is no option on the tax return of I am liberal please let the conservative pay for these programs. 

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

Here's a newsflash, liberals pay taxes too. 

Let me add more to this though: Elsewhere it was calculated that the # of children to American citizens who don't qualify for Medicaid and whose parents make less than $75,000 a year is less than 1 million. Probably closer to 500,000.

Where in the world did you get that statistic?  Out of 260 million Americans there are only between 500,000 and 1 million children whose parents make less than $75,000 and don't qualify for Medicaid?  That doesn't even pass the smell test.  I know that fact is inaccurate.  Schip currently has 6.6 million children enrolled. 

"Currently, SCHIP serves about 6.6 million children.   To qualify, a child must be ineligible for Medicaid and have a family income below 200 percent of the poverty benchmark -- $34,340 for a family of three."  

I agree religious freedom is not on the Democrat agenda.

Note that the law in question ALLOWS prayer at school functions. As an atheist, I could care less about what magical super being people want to talk to.  I don't see how a law that lifts the ban on religious freedom as being a bad thing.

I don't know anything about this case so I can't comment.

As for Emminent domain, I agree that it's awful. However, it doesn't have anythign to do with political parties. Democrats tend to be much more inclined to support it than conservatives.

But "caring" to liberals really means having ME pay thousands of dollars to take care of other people's children while they pay little to nothing but act morally superior.

The caring liberals pay taxes too.  A point I have to make over and over because the conservatives seem to think that they are the only ones who pay taxes.  It is in your best interest and our country's best interest to have healthy children. 

Those kids who are recieving no or poor quality medical care are going to school with your kids.  If they cannot afford to go to the doctor and get diagnosed and prescribed antibiotics, they will still be at school spreading strep throat or another contagious illness until it progresses to the point where the parent has to make an emergency room visit that your tax dollars may pay for which costs ten times the cost of a visit to a doctors office. 

Those sick kids parents are missing more work if they have to stay home while their child's illness runs its course instead of getting a diagnosis and medication. 

Those same parents might lose their jobs because of missing work to be with their sick kids and then they have to go on welfare. 

More people claim bankruptcy because of medical expenses than any other reason.  Does the credit card company just casually swallow that loss?  No they charge their other customers higher fees to offset those losses. 

This veto was not about fiscal responsibility and it was not about only helping the poor.  The Republican Congress passed and Bush signed into law a Medicare drug bill estimated to cost 1.2 trillion over ten years.  And the middle class qualifies for that program.  So helping seniors pay for their medication is a priority over children recieving insurance and quality medical care.  I'm thinking this is because the seniors can vote and those big campaign contributors, drug companies, supported it. 

I agree religious freedom is not on the Democrat agenda. Note that the law in question ALLOWS prayer at school functions. As an atheist, I could care less about what magical super being people want to talk to. I don't see how a law that lifts the ban on religious freedom as being a bad thing.

It's not about religous freedom.  It's about Christianity.  Wait until a Muslim or Budist tries to offer a prayer then it will become clear what it's about.  It was about a valedictorian being allowed to proselytize at a graduation ceremony. 

Conservatives pay a lot more in taxes than liberals.

For example, in the 2004 election, those making more than $200k per year voted for Bush by a ratio of 7 to 3. 

That same group pays 75% of the taxes.

So you are correct in the sense that liberals do pay taxes but conservatives are the ones paying the lion's share of the taxes by far.

So it is a fair statement to say that conservatives are the ones who actually pay for liberal "Caring". 

Add to that the fact that conservatves are also the ones who support private charities the most and the argument becomes pretty irrefutable.

The fact is: When it comes to actually helping people, conservatives aren't just a little bit more "Caring", they are a LOOOOT more caring.

Liberals "care" by holding political beliefs that requires no sacrifice on their part. Their beliefs are hollow because they do not follow up their beliefs with meaningful action.

 

No, my kids will come home with illnesses because the kids at school who are sick do have health insurance but can't stay home because there's no one at home to take care of them because both parents have to work in order to pay for the "compassionate" policies of liberals.

I think most people who have children know this already (i.e. as to why sick kids are at school).