Quote:
Originally Posted by ERCougar
Despite his absolute ineptitude in utilizing simple equations of motion, I have to agree with Lebowski on this one. Sometimes, the government is the most efficient way of providing charitable services in an equitable fashion. I love the Republican excuse that they want to keep their own money and distribute it themselves to charitable organizations. How many spent their recent tax rebate on charity? How about their tax returns?
|
What a crock. American donate billions upon billions to private charities each year (much of that money coming from the "evil rich"). The numbers are sometimes so large as to be staggering. The organizations they donate to also tend (with exceptions) to be more efficiently run, and the funds are more effectively distributed than gov't could ever hope to be.
I've seen gov't welfare at work. My parents hired a woman who would only work a certain number of hours each week because if she worked more, she'd lose her welfare/unemployment benefits. She bragged about how "smart" she was to work the system. Or for a more concrete example, remember the $2000 debit card debacle after Katrina? Victims were supposed to have spent it on food and housing, and instead they found it was used to buy iPods and designer jeans.
Gov't is one of the worst vehicles for lifting the oppressed, and there's nothing immoral about being opposed to it. And it certainly is not "neighborly."