Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
Sun Feb 2, 2014, 11:31 AM Feb 2014

Conservatives Say We Should Let Charities Help the Poor in Lieu of the Government [View all]

Conservatives attempt to justify their lack of empathy and support for the disadvantaged among us by saying that charities should be helping the poor and not the government. This is a very lame argument.

How would that help the average wage-earner? The only answer the conservatives have is that it would lower taxes. Instead of giving $100 to the poor via taxes, the wage-earner could give $100 to the poor via a charity. The bottom line is that it wont save the wage-earner any money unless he doesn’t donate. The help for the poor will come from the wage-earners either via the government or via charities.

> Furthermore the current fraction of help for the poor that is carried by charities is very small.

“Overall, the U.S. government spends $105 billion annually on food programs to help the hungry, federal figures show.” (1) Compare that to, “Feeding America, the largest food charity in the United States (and one of the largest charities overall), moves $5 billion of food and funding to hungry people each year.” (1)

Another false conservative talking point is that if you eliminated federal funding for food programs, then charities would pick up a larger portion.

“Many {conservative} activists say that if taxes are reduced, private giving will automatically increase. But history shows that's incorrect. For each of the last 40 years, Americans have given away the same proportion of money without change: roughly 2 percent of GDP. Even after the Bush tax cuts in the early part of the century, the rate of giving didn't rise, experts say. “ (1)

If you eliminate federal funding of food programs, people will die.

> Also, what the conservatives ignore is the fact that charities get a high percentage of their revenue from ………..........….. wait for it …………. the federal government.

“Catholic Charities is one of the nation's most extensive social service networks, serving more than 10 million poor adults and children of many faiths across the country. It is made up of local affiliates that answer to local bishops and dioceses, but much of its revenue comes from the government. Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly $2.9 billion a year from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its annual revenue of $4.67 billion.” (2)

Conservatives don’t actually wish the poor would die, they just don’t care if they do.


(1) http://articles.philly.com/2013-05-02/news/38960249_1_charity-hunger-special-supplemental-nutrition-program

(2) http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2012/09/12/oreillys-accidental-support-for-planned-parenth/189845

79 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kick. Scuba Feb 2014 #1
Good reads. pinto Feb 2014 #2
While billionaires party on their yachts the poor will be helping the poor. L0oniX Feb 2014 #3
I find this not only offensive, but OldHippieChick Feb 2014 #21
What ever. Your experiance is not mine. I served a homeless food line for many years. L0oniX Feb 2014 #31
Wow OldHippieChick Feb 2014 #37
Wow indeed ...you also can't speak for "many" churches as well however.... L0oniX Feb 2014 #47
LOL! OldHippieChick Feb 2014 #49
You with all yer statistics and stuff!!! CAG Feb 2014 #4
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here ... oldhippie Feb 2014 #5
Though some make distinctions between the two (time, e.g.), wages and salaries are sisters under the WinkyDink Feb 2014 #7
Yes, every dictionary I checked makes the distinction ...... oldhippie Feb 2014 #10
What the OP is saying, ronnie624 Feb 2014 #12
You are correct, I should have said wage-earners and salary-earners. rhett o rick Feb 2014 #17
1. Charity makes them feel good. 2. Charity makes them feel superior. 3. Charity can be withheld. WinkyDink Feb 2014 #6
Regarding: 3. Charity can be withheld. marew Feb 2014 #11
Or if the poor individual doesn't meet their criteria for receiving aid jmowreader Feb 2014 #36
You are so correct about point #3. TexasTowelie Feb 2014 #43
4. Charity is a tax deduction, rather than more taxes 5. You don't go to jail for either with- merrily Jan 2015 #74
Excellent addenda! WinkyDink Jan 2015 #75
Charities were never enough, that's why the progressive movement was born. reformist2 Feb 2014 #8
I got up and walked out the last time I heard this refrain from a pulpit..... northoftheborder Feb 2014 #9
Yes their contributions are public records RoccoR5955 Feb 2014 #19
If charities were so good at providing social services before the government started doing it MNBrewer Feb 2014 #13
+1 eom LittleGirl Feb 2014 #25
AHHHH! But the conservative argument is that because "godless liberals" wanted CAG Feb 2014 #27
This is my response to "small-government" fanatics Proud Liberal Dem Feb 2014 #64
It is also part of their attempt to push people into religion on point Feb 2014 #14
"Would you like to buy a pencil or an apple for your kid?" kentuck Feb 2014 #15
Low tax rates are bad for charities. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2014 #16
They're also bad for libraries and museums, etc. RainDog Feb 2014 #51
And who is supposed to help the charities? n/t RoccoR5955 Feb 2014 #18
A friend of my brothers believes the BS that the churches would do a better job than cstanleytech Feb 2014 #20
Yeah sure, praise Jeebus. JEB Feb 2014 #22
80% of all philanthropic $ in this country go to churches, hospitals & universities. stopbush Feb 2014 #23
You forget something about universities jmowreader Feb 2014 #38
When someone donates to a church, is that considered charity? nm rhett o rick Feb 2014 #40
Real live poor person here Tree-Hugger Feb 2014 #24
I sometimes wonder if these conservatives have ever actually known any poor people Skittles Feb 2014 #60
TRUE Conservatives would follow Puritan John Winthrop's "A Model of Christian Charity" sermon. TheBlackAdder Feb 2014 #26
1) As I recently posted, "city on a hill" was in the NT before it was in Gov. Winthrop's sermon merrily Jan 2015 #66
However... TheBlackAdder Jan 2015 #67
Did the Puritans really move to America under guidance of Winthrop's sermon? merrily Jan 2015 #68
They were escaping religious persecution, and operated as a religious collective. TheBlackAdder Jan 2015 #69
No, you didn't object to Reagan getting credit. I did. merrily Jan 2015 #70
You did. You win a Gold Star. I objected on other posts, here and elsewhere. Congrats. TheBlackAdder Jan 2015 #71
Um, you raised the issue of your not objecting to Reagan's getting credit, not I. merrily Jan 2015 #72
I used to hear that a lot and now I don't hear it much at all. factsarenotfair Feb 2014 #28
yup... progressoid Feb 2014 #33
The Tea Party wants to actually PUNISH the poor. factsarenotfair Feb 2014 #35
One feel good Thanksgiving dinner a year does not quite hack it. Downwinder Feb 2014 #29
As the "Marquis de Sade" says about charity. . . DinahMoeHum Feb 2014 #30
Does anyone remember the exchange between Sister Simone Campbell from Nuns on the Bus okaawhatever Feb 2014 #32
You mean Pope Frank can't fix it? progressoid Feb 2014 #34
Yeah, because we know churches can handle it... awoke_in_2003 Feb 2014 #39
Charities can and do really great work on a MICRO level Hippo_Tron Feb 2014 #41
That's the keyword - MICRO VS MACRO` procon Jan 2015 #78
"Conservatives donít actually wish the poor would die, they just donít care if they do." Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2014 #42
The government's duty is to promote the general welfare... gulliver Feb 2014 #44
How disingenuous: government should not help the poor, but keep lavishing gifts, subsidies, and indepat Feb 2014 #45
What they really mean is they want organized religion to facilitate the transaction Major Nikon Feb 2014 #46
Thanks for this! 20score Feb 2014 #48
K&R. n/t Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #50
Conservatism is a debased philosophy RainDog Feb 2014 #52
Better yet... Turbineguy Feb 2014 #53
Good point. When a corporation needs a subsidy send them to their favorite charity. nm rhett o rick Feb 2014 #54
Conservatives are wrong? Gee, I'm shocked. Kicked and recommended! Enthusiast Feb 2014 #55
We already do. Orsino Feb 2014 #56
Hello, conservatives? Brigid Feb 2014 #57
Recommend..Aren't they truly disgusting.. KoKo Feb 2014 #58
They lack empathy. nm rhett o rick Feb 2014 #62
Except they mostly won't, unless they get government funding. El_Johns Feb 2014 #59
Prior to state welfare this didn't work gerogie2 Feb 2014 #61
I volunteer at a foodbank and we only give out enough per month to last for 3 days. rhett o rick Feb 2014 #65
If this idea actually worked F4lconF16 Feb 2014 #63
How do we know that conservatives don't actually wish the poor would die? merrily Jan 2015 #73
I am sure there are conservatives that wish the poor would die, but I think a lot of rhett o rick Jan 2015 #79
Scam to route money via churches and allow charities to take a cut on point Jan 2015 #76
I fully support the role of charities in helping those in need....... RationalMan Jan 2015 #77
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Conservatives Say We Shou...