Right wing zombie talking point: Eliminate social programs and private charities will replace them!

[ck4829]

"Let's get rid of social programs, but don't worry, private charities will pick up the slack."

How many times does this way of thinking need to have it's head chopped off only for it to rise back up again before it doesn't get back up?

"Let's close down all the mental hospitals, but don't worry, all the private hospitals will open up clinics and such for all the schizophrenics and bipolar people to get their medication."

"Hey California, let's shut down the energy regulators, but don't worry, Enron has promised us it wouldn't do anything corrupt."

"Hey all these regulations are hurting businesses, but don't worry, they will police themselves."

"Let's get rid of Social Security, but don't worry, you can put it all on the stock market."

Back to the original point, though. What exactly is stopping private groups from performing acts of charity now? Churches get tax exemption, there's no estate tax right now, companies like those in big oil are making record profits. Do they really go "I WANT to create a charity, but oh no, the government is giving out welfare, so I can't do it now, maybe later. Sigh..."?

If I had a couple hundred million dollars around, I'd do something to give back to the community, but then again I'm an evil, left-wing, socialist, Marxist, Stalinist, sociologist, communist, pedestrian, liberal; so that's just me.

[Dappleganger]

1. What's stopping them right now is record-lows in charitable giving.

Too many churches have very high overheads due to expensive buildings, highly-paid ministers, etc. When the giving drops the charitable ministries are the first to suffer in the church.

[Cirque du So-What]

3. Record-low giving at a time of record-high earnings on the part of the most wealthy

Another myth shot to hell. Greed begets greed, so as their earnings surpass all semblance of human decency, they're even less likely to contribute back to society.

[Dappleganger]

10. Very true.

The rich just keep holding onto theirs as tightly as their greedy fingers can manage.

[Taverner]

2. I get the feeling Republifucks play a game: who can be the bigger asshole

"Hey - why don't we pay teachers in monopoly money?"

"I can one up you - let's just poke them with pointy sticks on pay day!"

"I have a better idea - why don't we make them go through a gauntlet of people with pointy sticks just to get to class!"

[xchrom]

4. When there were no government programs

Charities didn't 'pick up the slack' --
what's changed?

[jwirr]

5. We need to count my daughter's home congregation out! They cannot

afford her bills let alone the other special needs person in the church. And that does not include all the elderly or the poorer members. The churches ought to wise up fast and condemn this idea immediately as unworkable.

[prolesunited]

6. Public programs were created BECAUSE

charities and churches didn't pick up the slack. We had people living in abject poverty, dying and starving. It's not like the federal government moved in and took over well-funded, excellently run private programs. It moved is to benefit the general welfare of this county.

The argument for private charity is two-fold: First, assholes can keep more money for themselves. Secondly, private charities can be select in helping the "deserving" people only. How many times have you heard about programs helping the ghetto baby mamas or illegals (many simply Hispanic, but one of us). Private charities would let donors define the deserving recipients and I'm sure they won't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The right hates federal programs because they help too many people that are not like them.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. Because Victorian England is the perfect model! We can all be Oliver Twists!

workhouses, poorhouses, child labor, what's not to love?

Idiots saying garbage like this need to be forced to read Charles Dickens. Maybe an abridged dumbed down Classics Illustrated type of thing could be produced for them. (The original Classics Illustrated were great! Almost better than Cliff Notes)

[WinkyDink]

9. I LOVED the CI "Oliver Twist"! Very "dark", expertly drawn, no holds barred.

I can still "see" the murder of Nancy, 50 years later.

[WinkyDink]

8. Too bad "social programs" for too many = opera, ballet, museums. NTTAWWT, but it's a good way NOT to

help the truly needy while still feeling "charitable", with a concomitant tax write-off.

[RC]

11. You forgot Baseball stadiums.

They bring jobs to the area, don'chakno?
High paying, part time, minimum wage jobs.
Our circuses are more important than your bread.

[Scuba]

13. +1,000

[Enthusiast]

12. This is why I hate the RW.

I've heard them make this insane claim many times-that private charities will take up the slack. I don't understand why they are complaining, they aren't even paying for social security. Sometimes I think they just want to see people suffering.

[Starry Messenger]

14. Let's get rid of public education

Bill Gates and Eli Broad will save us. :sarcasm: It's everywhere these days.

[OutNow]

15. Oh yeah, charities will go the job.

So when my asshat RW BIL says close down the welfare system and let charities do the job I ask him how much he donates every year to all charities, not just the social welfare programs.

ZERO. That's right, nothing. Not even a coin in the Salvation Army bucket at Christmas. Meanwhile, like most of the folks on DU, we pay our taxes and donate as much as we are able to social programs and wish it could be 10X more.

[patrice]

16. Yayuh! Then a bunch of us can be professional saints and there can be more

tax deductions to pay everyone off for doing the "right" thing.

More folks giving their old clothes that have body-odor and used underwear and claiming most of it's retail value in tax deductions, that's just what charity needs. Afterall, the poor didn't earn the new stuff.

[eppur_se_muova]

17. For centuries, private charities (mostly religious) were all there was.

Pick whatever era of history you want to look at, and try to argue that it worked better, based on the quality of life that it led to. It just doesn't work.

Things were NEVER as good as they have been in the 20th century, post FDR.