thoughts on charity

[Azazello1313]

ezra klein

 

I come not to praise charity. I come to politicize it. Or at least make it more aware of the political world around it.

...

Too often, people think of the work of charities as at odds with, or simply separate from the work of government. Consider, however, the politically engaged nonprofits that dot not just Washington but also many state capitols and international cities. These are charities that are in the business of making government work better.

 

At their best, they act as force multipliers. If you donate money to a food bank, it can provide only as much food as your money can buy. If you donate it to a nonprofit that specializes in food policy issues, it can persuade legislators to pass a new program - or reform an existing one - that can do much more than any single food bank.

 

you agree with that?

[Clubfoothead]

The point of this isn't to polarize philanthropy or to warn anyone away from traditional charities. There's room - and need - for an array of approaches. But at the end of the day, the government is the central player in many of these spheres, with the scale and power to make changes that other actors simply can't contemplate. Charities that work to make the government's policies better have a unique ability to take small investments and turn them into tremendous outcomes. If you're looking for bang for your philanthropic buck, they're the place to start.

 

I think I agree with that.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Depends on the specifics, but yes I believe that it actually possible for the government to do good and help people. I know that makes the rabid individualistic tea party types go apopoleptic with cries of socialism, but I think its sort of self defeating to not take some at least minor advantage of our governmental structure to help people.

[Azazello1313]

needless to say, I really strongly disagree with the sentiment. I agree with the following characterization: "giving his money to support a think tank whose employees are somewhere around the 95th percentile of the income distribution, in the hope that they will help tilt the rent-seeking in Washington in a direction that he likes."

 

in other words, the most effective form of charity is hiring the best lobbyists.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Azazello1313

[TimC]

Ridiulous statement. There is only one entity on the planet that has conned more people out of more money than the Government

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

The problem with liberals is they think government can do everything. The problem with conservatives is they think the government can do nothing and demonize it to death. Where are those of us who want a government that is efficient and effective supposed to go?

[bpwallace49]

. Where are those of us who want a government that is efficient and effective supposed to go?

 

Canada?

Edited November 24, 2010 by bpwallace49

[bpwallace49]

That's the problem with charity - at least some of it: It's pro-cyclical. In good times, when people are flush, donations flood in. In bad times, they dry up. That isn't an argument against donating to charity, of course. If anything, it's an argument for increasing donations during recessions. But it's a reason to be realistic about the limits of private philanthropy as a stand-in for a stronger safety net.

 

I think I agree with that as well.

 

I dont agree with the lobbyists=where you should donate money approach, but without a reliable safety net, charities will never be able to meet the need when it is needed most, because it is reliant on the whims of the fiscally flush. In theory, gubment programs should provide a RELIABLE safety net in good times and bad . . . which is the point of a safety net, right?

[Ursa Majoris]

in other words, the most effective form of charity is hiring the best lobbyists.

Business takes that view, why not charities?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Business takes that view, why not charities?

 

Same reason it's OK for Wall Street to own Congress, but unions are the devil.