DTF.com.au - Why do conservatives favor "individual charity" over government regulated social services?

Why do conservatives favor "individual charity" over government regulated social services?

I am absolutely puzzled by this difference between the right and left here in America. If enough people actually practiced charity on an individual level, then this would not even be an issue. However, individual charity is not practiced enough to help keep low-income households above water. In addition, the very wealthy and the very poor don't live near each other. The rich are mostly concentrated in wealthy +$250,000 neighborhoods, while the poor lives in low-income communities. How often do you see lawyers and businessmen who make +$250,000/year going to impoverished communities to donate 1/2 of their yearly salary to money to schools and soup kitchens? This being said, why is it that right-wingers continue to insist on individual charity over social programs funded by progressive taxation? Social programs funded by progressive taxation are needed since people are more inclined to buy things for themselves than to help people who are in desperate need due to unfortunate circumstances. And what makes you think that there was enough individual charity during the 60's? There was still a tremendous level of poverty during the 60's (especially amongst minorities). What makes you think that all people receiving government services don't know how to be self reliant? Families with severely autistic children are absolutely overwhelmed with the financial burden of supporting children with autism. The only reason why most of those children have services is due to government funded social services (which are funded by taxing the rich). If my family was that blessed that I could do that type of charity, then I would. But my father is physically disabled and my brother suffers from autism. All of their services are paid for by the government. Churches are good for small things like food banks, but not large things like social security disability. Ty L, I understand how economics work. I fully understand the implications of the equality vs efficiency curve. I understand that some efficiency would be sacrificed, but it's necessary to promote more equality.

Public Comments

Its called "skimming". The goverment dole is a sick and perverse dependency system. I give the gov't money, and they distribute what's left, how they see fit, after their take. They don't make the person EARN the welfare they receive. I'd prefer the person work for the free food and shelter they get. But many of those lowlifes think they're too good to work. They'll use a ton of excuses and just sit around procreating. Non-of this behavior would be tolerated on private charity. And, that is why private charity trumps government charity.
They like to indoctrinate the recipient.
enough people did practice charity. The Churches and the people were taking care of each other just fine. It wasn't until the late 60's when the government enacted all sorts of stupid legislation that forced people to start doing these things that people and the churches pulled back. Once people were forced to do it, no one wanted to anymore. human nature Do some history its all there
The difference is as vast as giving them a bowl of chili to complete support
because welfare is immoral would YOU live in a housing project? No of course you wouldn't so why subject others to that sort of abuse? People need to be broken from hand outs, and become self reliant. Stop being so weak, spineless and soft !
Because the politicians cannot be trusted with tax dollars.
Progressive taxation is stealing. The people that are voting for candidates that raise taxes are often paying little or no taxes because they get tax returns. They can demand anything and have their government steal it for them.
Of course you do not, because you do not give to charity. Although I choose to give to the Humane Society (and I am a conservative). It is my choice were I want my money to go. I do it on my own, and nobody needs to ask me to do it. Maybe if sheepish liberals would actually put their own money were their mouth is, we wouldn't need so many social programs.
The problem is that government has a tendency to spend too much without clear oversight. I would rather contribute of my own free will than have money I have worked for taken from me. In my view when what you work for is taken without your permission that's called theft. And if you are so eager to contribute to government programs that do little or nothing to solve the problems the tax forms have a space where you can give extra money. Make use of it.
Largely because that government regulated social security is waste. It encourages pathological behavior. Which is better, to just hand people sustenance, or to build the means by which they can create their own sustenance? More important government regulated social services is violence. It is armed aggression by the state against the people who do the most to improve society. Most important is that the government's meddling actually transfers wealth from the poor and lower classes to the very rich. It actually hurts the poor.
"Which of us...is to do the hard and dirty work for the rest----and for what pay? Who is to do the pleasant and clean work, and for what pay?" ...John Ruskin I'd bet you'd would be singing a different tune if it were your money everybody wants a piece of...
Because when people ACTUALLY need help, conservatives (mostly those connected to churches etc) will be there to help. It has always been that way. Before FEMA ever thought about Katrina, people had already raised more than a million dollars and arranged for food and water to be shipped down there from here. We did the same thing during the Fargo ND flood. More than half the volunteers who did all that sandbagging came from churches outside the area. The government spends more to give money than they actually give. Look at the mess that FEMA made of New Orleans. This is typical government red tape and bureaucracy. Frankly, the people do a better job by far.
it is my money to give as i choose. that is about the gist of it.
If I earn the money...then I decide where to spend the money... Not Government!
Conservatives and religious zealots absolutely HATE poor people.
You know nothing of Economics And clearly everyone disagrees with you
One reason is because I want to give my time and money to a charity that means something to me, personally instead of being told "of course you can give to charity A, right after you give to charity B". What happens if after I give to charity A, I don't have enough money left to give to charity B? And what happens if charity A is something I don't believe in (like funding abortion)?
Poverty has remained consistent in percentage of population (12-18%) since the 1900's. Of course, there are highs and lows. Carnegie donated large sums of money to help build libraries around the USA. Bill and Melinda Gates give away their pay. Even the Clinton's donated some years 40% of the income (compare that to the 5% Obama gave). The difference is individuals can focus on causes, or even set up a foundation. Carnegie required communities to raise a portion of the finds for a community library before he gave them the money. Giving money with no strings attached, many people just squander away the 'free cash' and do not appreciate the help. You mention autistic kids and families needing the help. OK. But that is far different than giving away $370 a month in a government check to a poor family with a child who is on SSI for (ADHD, or ODD), all the while the family is already receiving free health care, free counseling, and free schooling for the child. Then what is the $370 a month for ??? Or the single mom popping out baby 5 in the projects? with no incentive t better herself?
because i think wealthy people feel that they earned that money, and they don't want the gov't to take it from them against their will and redistribute it. they would rather give from the goodness of their own heart, which as you pointed out they don't do enough. but if you allow the gov't to take wealth from people that they feel they worked hard to earn then what incentive does that give people to work hard, if their hard earned money will just be taken away and redistributed to people who don't work as hard, or maybe don't even work at all. there is a possibility that under that type of system, that more and more people will just take the easy way out and work less and less and receive gov't assistance. soon there will be no-one working hard to take money from, and the money will run out. i think people should just stop being so greedy and cut their salaries a bit and give a raise to the people working under them, or maybe lower the fees they charge their customers a bit. but people are by nature selfish, and won't do anything unless it somehow benefits themselves, even if its just to make them feel good, or look good to others.
The best way to answer your question is to look at President Johnson's "War on Poverty" he started in the 60s. At the time those living under the poverty level was about 16%. Here we are, 40 years and trillions of $ later and the number of people living under the poverty level is - 16%. In the process we also destroyed the black family, created generations of people living on the dole all their lives, never once even looking for work but collecting money for popping out children without benefit of marriage, all in all screwing up royally. Trust the Government. If there is a way to do it wrong, they will find it.
I am shocked at the one sided selfishness of this debate. There are answers to the problem that would eliminate income tax altogether for rich or poor and provide health care to all citizens for free. Even the 'rich' people would get free medical care. I can't imagine anyone here who cares to hear it though so I won't waste my time. You don't deserve to learn how to stop paying taxes. I am glad I am getting old and will certainly die before the next civil war destroys these United States. I love my country but the crime and dissent that causes the rich to hate the poor are perpetuated by the uncharitable attitude I see here. Today I finally understand why other countries hate us. I am not religious but I believe in right and wrong; good and evil. I have only one simple definition of sin too. It is doing something to harm other people and not giving help if you can. Draw from that what you will but you people disgust me and your greed offends me. Why don't you just get it over with and exterminate the poor, the handicapped, the sick and the old now since they don't fit in to your Nazi, fascist ideals.
Individual charity creates a bond between individuals & a degree of accountability from the receiver. When the receiver actually sees that another person has to go without something to help them they appreciate what is given to them. When it comes from the government they only see that they weren't given all they want.