Why we need public charities - not public administration

Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 2 weeks ago to Government
23 comments | Share | Flag

$900 MILLION? Heck, let me in on that action!

In the past, this is what charities would take care of. Now you can argue about charities all you want but the fact is that people do need help so the question is simply: do you want people to individually choose to donate to these activities or are you going to force people via the sword of government to fund things like this and put it into the hands of people like this?
SOURCE URL: https://www.theblaze.com/news/nyc-mayor-de-blasios-wife-spent-900-billion-in-taxpayer-money-with-no-record-of-how-it-was-used

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Charity is no longer charity if its not freely given ecercising ones own choices. Taxing or forcing people to give to something they wouldn't choose to is theft.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
      There are a few honest charities left, but most have been driven out of action by the government. The rest are Charities-In-Name-Only such as the Clinton Foundation. These aren't really charities but merely corporations operating under the same rules for tax reasons.

      What started the demise of the true charitable organization? Your friend the Seventeenth Amendment. It is back-door speech control.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Charity must be a strictly personal choice. No matter how noble the goal is the use of violence to coerce participants is always wrong and destructive any moral or noble attempts.
    Charity from any group that can use violence to acquire the property it wants to disburse is nothing but theft.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    I volunteer three nights a week at our community, volunteer-run homeless shelter. Our little town has been snowed in for the past 6 weeks and there are people in need of a hot meal and a warm place to sleep. It is completely volunteer driven. A small church has donated part of it's space and many merchants have donated cots, sleeping bags, blankets and warm clothing. Even our town laundromat washes the bedding for us. We used our community Facebook page to put the call out for donations of hot meals and volunteers to man the shifts and everyone is kicking in. This is a temporary need and our little town of 1,500 people have come together to fill that need. We shelter and feed men women and children during this harsh winter. I have bonded with many volunteers and clients and I am filling a much needed void.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Public charities are in need and some actually produce results depending on their goal. Mercury One has many goals and excels on all of them.

    We have seen that most of the really Big Charities, ie, Rockefeller, Carnegie,Clintonian end up doing Nothing but harm...all smoke and mirrors.

    I would put this one in the same category as the latter.
    Reading AJ's comment, I must agree and reiterate: NO GOVERNMENT GRANTS!!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    De Blasthole's wife has explaining to do?
    Like who? Slick Willie's wife?
    Somehow me dino doesn't two-tiered justice system think so.
    Most of us are not Animal Farm members of the more than equal elite like she is.
    On top of that, she's as black as a recent Liar-In-Chief.
    Oh, no! Half the USA will now point and call me dino a racist now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    The rules for recognizing charities need to change. Currently, a charity only needs to spend 5% of donations on the cause declared, which is why the Clinton Foundation got away with only passing along about 7% of its donations to the causes they supposedly support. By contrast, the Salvation Army spends only about 15% on overhead costs, with the 85% going directly to help the needy.

    I believe charity begins at home, and I've spent tens of thousands of dollars helping family in times of serious need. As a result, those family members did not become wards of the state, draining taxpayer dollars. In return, I have been able to rely on those I helped to return the favor, now that I'm a "seasoned citizen" with health issues (mostly damage to a body no longer as athletic as I keep forgetting I'm not). Pride and self worth retained by both sides.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
      Much of this is a result of the imposition of the personal income tax, because the primary reason for declaring one's company as a charity is for "tax exempt" status. IMO, the best way to "recognize" charities is simply to repeal the personal income tax entirely. Then it doesn't matter.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    I used to give to charities. Then, I had a disabled son. Now, I rarely give. When I do it's often real simple, no receipt needed stuff. The last one was a bevy of golf clubs (including a pristine set of Taylormade irons worth hundred$) that I donated to an organization that provides golf activities to adults and children with developmental disabilities. I've bumped into some of the adults who receive help from this group and it always makes me think of my son...always hits me in the heart. I'm getting close to dedicating one night per week to this organization. These people need help and, for the most part, society has abandoned them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
      Thanks for your efforts! I think the best charities are the ones which provide people with enough help to get back on their feet and self-reliant again - or barring that giving them something positive/productive to do with their time.

      I have an uncle a little older than me who has Down's Syndrome. He's been a grocery store clerk (stocking shelves) in the same store for 30 years. He's maxed out his salary (which isn't enough to live on mind you even if he could take care of himself) many years ago, but the point is that he is gainfully employed according to his ability because someone (my grandparents) took the time to get him to work and back every day and a store manager was willing to take a chance.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    About a year ago both FFA and me found an article about international aid.
    Whether gov or private, many/most are remarkably ineffective except for one thing.
    The problem is, they are set up with the spending of money as the objective, so what they do well is spend money.
    There are some examples of charities knowing what they should do, getting the money, spending, measuring and noting results. This does not always work but at least the money flow can be stopped if there is no good outcome.

    Comparing gov v. private- both can have the same failings and both can have good planning. Gov uses money not freely given. With gov schemes the scale is such that an industry develops to administer and perpetuate itself. The really big private foundations (as Old.. says) are much the same.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
      Yes, which is why you should always get their financials and look for the percentage they spend on administration. A decent charity will keep this to about 20% while an excellent one is under 5% (due to the amount of volunteer service). Many run upwards of 50% and these are really tax shelters - not charitable foundations.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        How would you consider 6%? Sounds good?
        Now I should mention that, for the charity I have in mind, the 6% is the amount of funds received that go to those it is intended for.

        Which charity? The one used by an internationally well known family, in a certain nation, which received money, in tranches of millions, from rulers and oligarchs across the globe.
        Then where does the money go? You need to ask?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  mminnick 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    This just points out the need for Public funded Charities to be watched as xlosed;y as the private charities, say like the charity Don Jr. ran for St Jude Children's Childrens Hospital. Shut down as illegal because the signatures were not correctly placed on the documents. Millions of dollars lost to St Judes over signatures and yet acharitable funds from taxpayers resources not accounted for and it slides. I wonder how much money has disappeared from public coffers over the last 20 years. Most likely enough to fund St Judws in perpetuity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Di Blasio's goons will smooth this over.

    What do you expect? Prosecuting the Mayor's black wife?

    There will be plenty of documented "benefit". Mental health is an issue that is a favorite of left wing politicians with no discernible benefit recorded from billions of dollars thrown at it.

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MikePusatera 2 months, 1 week ago
    Being able to choose which charity and how
    Much should obviously be a personal choice. I had posted the idea of diverting a percentage as taxes more of a compromise. A way of moving inefficient govt programs to a private sector. On a side note I do not want to post a website but there is one or two great website that rate charities not on their mission but on their finances to help determine if you want to support them
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MikePusatera 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    We should be allowed to divert a percentage of income tax direct to private charities. This is not as a tax deduction. I think I should have the choice of my tax duty of going to the government or an approved charity of my choice. A lot of this corruption and waste can be used by the people who know what they are doing.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo