🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:57:52 -0500, 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.

When I was in trouble Easter Seals gave me a lot of help.  I was also
placed with a government agency for a while that was supposed to be
helping people in my situation and that was a disaster--the people who
were supposed to be "helping" spent more time filling out paperwork to
prove to multiple levels of government that they had helped people
than they did helping people.  Talk to somebody for a half an hour and
they had to then spend an hour filling out forms.  The thing that
pissed me off was that it was the same information on three different
forms for three different agencies (local, state, and federal).  It
could easily have been consolidated but the agencies' security clowns'
heads exploded any time that was suggested.

I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks that government is efficient in
dispensing charity hasn't worked for the government trying to dispense
charity.