🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 16:43:51 -0700
>>>> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> That is supposed to be the theory. I agree that a lot is skimmed off, and
>>>>> a lot more goes to pay for stuff I may not agree with, but without taxes
>>>>> to pay for roads, bridges, etc. we'd be in a real mess.
>>>> 
>>>> I sometimes wonder, here the best palliative care unit in the
>>>> country was built from local donations.
>>>> 
>>> My personal feeling, based on what I've seen, is that's generally true.
>>> Anything the government "gives" you is so surrounded by pettifogging rules
>>> and restrictions that it's only slightly better than nothing. We should
>>> encourage more private charity and less government.
>> 
>> BS.
>> 
>> Those "charities" are 99% religions.
>> Ie. scam artists, perverts.
>> 
>> Why don't we leave your future security up to them.
>> Me, I'll take my chances with paying taxes and hope that
>> some of the people in office care about the common good.
>
> Tsk, tsk, so cynical. There are a number of charities, religious and
> otherwise, that spend all or nearly all of what they take in for its
> intended purpose (verified by audit). A number of non-religious charities
> such as the Red Cross take a good chop off the top. If you donate for a
> specific cause, for example Irma relief, there's no guarantee that any of
> your contribution actually is used for that. There are websites that
> provide information on charities.

So, you're agreeing with me...
First you say I'm cynical, then make claims about some legitimate
charities without naming names.  Then you identify some not-so-legitimate.

Seems like you believe we should leave helping the helpless up to chance.

As for religious charities, they're all scam artists.  No exceptions.
They'll get you one way or another.

-- 
Dan Espen