Comments on: The Shortcomings of Government Charity http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-shortcomings-of-government-charity/ Ideas on Liberty Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:25:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: davidruebush.com » Blog Archive » Government vs. Charity http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-shortcomings-of-government-charity/comment-page-1/#comment-43035 davidruebush.com » Blog Archive » Government vs. Charity Wed, 25 May 2011 03:32:03 +0000 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/uncategorized/the-shortcomings-of-government-charity/#comment-43035 [...] From Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to the 1970’s the federal government continually siphoned funds away from the private sector, while lawmakers and bureaucrats further diminished the ability of civil society to deal with the problem of poverty. As official programs such as the New Deal and the latter Great Society programs of the 1960’s and 1970’s kicked in fully, private charitable organizations saw their coffers shrinking. And what was the return on this investment? The government quickly eradicated all advancements made from the 1950’s through the 1960’s by private charitable groups. Suddenly, continuously, and relentlessly, poverty rates rose and have risen ever since. (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-shortcomings-of-government-charity/) [...] [...] From Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to the 1970’s the federal government continually siphoned funds away from the private sector, while lawmakers and bureaucrats further diminished the ability of civil society to deal with the problem of poverty. As official programs such as the New Deal and the latter Great Society programs of the 1960’s and 1970’s kicked in fully, private charitable organizations saw their coffers shrinking. And what was the return on this investment? The government quickly eradicated all advancements made from the 1950’s through the 1960’s by private charitable groups. Suddenly, continuously, and relentlessly, poverty rates rose and have risen ever since. (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-shortcomings-of-government-charity/) [...]

]]> By: Libertarians and the poor http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-shortcomings-of-government-charity/comment-page-1/#comment-28011 Libertarians and the poor Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:48:46 +0000 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/uncategorized/the-shortcomings-of-government-charity/#comment-28011 [...] Government hurts the poor in ways that people can not see. Author Charles Dickens who grew up under much darker times economically than we have, opposed government help for the poor? Why? He felt it was ineffective.  The author of Hard Times and Oliver Twist felt private charity reformed and changed people, while government charity brought people down. I live in Poland and believe me this is the case. I know there are empirical studies to back this up, but I do not need to look at these studies to know, I just have to look around. [...] [...] Government hurts the poor in ways that people can not see. Author Charles Dickens who grew up under much darker times economically than we have, opposed government help for the poor? Why? He felt it was ineffective.  The author of Hard Times and Oliver Twist felt private charity reformed and changed people, while government charity brought people down. I live in Poland and believe me this is the case. I know there are empirical studies to back this up, but I do not need to look at these studies to know, I just have to look around. [...]

]]> By: Jim http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-shortcomings-of-government-charity/comment-page-1/#comment-200 Jim Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:30:06 +0000 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/uncategorized/the-shortcomings-of-government-charity/#comment-200 Tom, On the contrary, it is your argument which is the weak one. History shows that the benevolent groups have always done a better job than government. The job is not done perfectly, but it is unrealistic to expect perfection in anything. You also overlook that government has no funds of its own but what it can tax(steal) from others for the purpose of "charity". I suggest you read some of the literature mentioned by Mr. Blanchette, as I have. It may open your eyes. Tom,
On the contrary, it is your argument which is the weak one. History shows that the benevolent groups have always done a better job than government. The job is not done perfectly, but it is unrealistic to expect perfection in anything.
You also overlook that government has no funds of its own but what it can tax(steal) from others for the purpose of “charity”.
I suggest you read some of the literature mentioned by Mr. Blanchette, as I have. It may open your eyes.

]]> By: Tom http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-shortcomings-of-government-charity/comment-page-1/#comment-35 Tom Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:22:59 +0000 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/uncategorized/the-shortcomings-of-government-charity/#comment-35 So, the government should not be the instrument of protecting the poor because it is inefficient and does not do a good enough job of reciprocating responsibility of the recipeints. We are instead to trust the private institutions to make sure the all of the poor are taken care of. According to this line of reasoning I am sure that Blanchette would advocate doing away with the SEC, EPA and FDA. Does that also mean that we are to trust these private institutions with our money with no checks and balances? Come on, this is the same old weakly veiled attempt at complaining about paying for services (insert taxes) that they don't think they should have to pay for. If someone is not smart enough to avoid investing in a Ponzi scheme, taking medication that is unsafe or landing a job where they are grossly underpaid, than whose fault is that? What are we to do with all the people who are not taken care of by these benevolent organizations? Check back in the history books that Blanchette so fondly likes to do and find out the number of people who worked hard but still were barely able to feed their families relative to today. Blanchette's argument is so weak and narrowminded it boggles my mind why anyone listens to this claptrap anymore. So, the government should not be the instrument of protecting the poor because it is inefficient and does not do a good enough job of reciprocating responsibility of the recipeints. We are instead to trust the private institutions to make sure the all of the poor are taken care of. According to this line of reasoning I am sure that Blanchette would advocate doing away with the SEC, EPA and FDA. Does that also mean that we are to trust these private institutions with our money with no checks and balances? Come on, this is the same old weakly veiled attempt at complaining about paying for services (insert taxes) that they don’t think they should have to pay for. If someone is not smart enough to avoid investing in a Ponzi scheme, taking medication that is unsafe or landing a job where they are grossly underpaid, than whose fault is that?

What are we to do with all the people who are not taken care of by these benevolent organizations? Check back in the history books that Blanchette so fondly likes to do and find out the number of people who worked hard but still were barely able to feed their families relative to today.

Blanchette’s argument is so weak and narrowminded it boggles my mind why anyone listens to this claptrap anymore.

]]>