🚀 go-pugleaf

Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 

I know a lot of excellent charities, religious and non. In most cases
they're local or regional, but not national. It seems to be an iron law
that the bigger something gets the less efficient it gets and the more
interested in feathering its own nest. Government is just the biggest
organization around, nothing special or particularly evil, just too big for
its own (and our) good.

-- 
Pete