Does charity only lead to more dependence?

[Bolas 5]

Sure we all give to various organizations and possibly to people as well as are "forced" through taxes to give to others, but is it really helping others or just leading towards more dependence on charity?

Examples:
* If a person is poor, charities can provide various assistance to survive, but of those, how many actually "turn their life around" to the point where they are no longer dependent vs. the number that need more and more assistance?

* If an entire area is poor due to environmental or political issues (3rd world countries) one can use assistance to survive, but what about the underlying issues?

* If the charity is for something such as finding a cure to a disease, how much less do medical companies budget for research because of the charity doing it? As the charitable contributions increase does the amount budgeted equally decrease or decrease at an accelerated rate?

* If the charity is to help fund a particular thing that taxes paid to the government used to provide (ex: music in schools) how much less is budgeted and how often does that sent precedent that other "optional" groups now have to find their own funding?

* Charities also tend to take the people who should be accountable and responsible "off the hook." Should we really need charities to provide for military, police, rescue, and fire dept. families for those injured or lost in the line of duty? Their respective employers should be held accountable to have enough insurance to reasonably provide such things.

* Charities are often also very specific and tend to fragment their assistance. While it's nice to provide food to the homeless persons pet, wouldn't it be better overall to just provide to the homeless person money directly? Of course once homeless people learn that they get money or food for animals, won't some try and adopt or steal them, making the problem worse? Should a homeless person even have a pet if they can't even provide for themselves?

Not related to dependence, but charities can be sources of fraud and mismanagement as well.

I see large similarities between charity and western medicine. Both tend to generally treat only the symptoms, not cure. Charity is sort of a short term bandaid for long term problems.

We're hitting a double whammy now: during this economic downturn as more are asking for assistance which means less is being provided because less are able to. Combine that with gov't and company budgets they are still taking into assumption a certain level of charity assistance and things are much worse.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[quade 4]

You asked a lot of wide ranging questions, but I'd have to say the answer depends on how the charity is given. It boils down to the old "give a man a fish / teach a man to fish" thing.

The very first thing you have to do is keep the people alive, so on a very basic level in terms of any sort of human disaster recovery, you have to keep them fed and housed. However, once you're moved beyond that basic need, teaching them to recover themselves is the best course.

Money spent teaching anybody the way out of poverty is money very well spent.

This also seems to be the best course of action when it comes to 3rd world or nation building efforts.

The US going in and building anything is kind of stupid. However, if we teach the indigenous people how to do the construction and invest their sweat equity into the project, they have a tendency to not then blow it up.

I can't remember the guy's name, but there has been an effort going on by one particular commander (I believe) in Pakistan that has had amazing results. (I'm sneaking in time at work otherwise I'd look that up.)

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[RonD1120 62]

I was raised with the concept that charity was distributed from the churches and supported by tithes and offerings. In the 60's President Lyndon Johnson introduced the "Great Society" and charity became social services. I believe that is when dependence grew to its present dysfunctional level.

It is said that we have created a population segment that has learned survival through welfare supported unwed mothers. The male children have no father and therefore see no need of taking on that responsibility for themselves. The female children learn that benefits come from having babies. Income is associated with the mailbox not work.

On the other side we have social service entrepreneurs. These people start non-profit organizations which compete for government grant funding and private contributions. If they become established and moderately successful upper management can make a good living. Average non-profit CEO salary is $75 - 100K/year. The larger corporations, United Fund, et.al., have CEO salaries in the $500K range and up.

In order for this system to function there must be a base population to serve. This base population elects the politicians that will generate funding through tax dollar allocations. This same population must exist for the non-profit organizations to survive. It is a symbiotic relationship.

Bottom line answer to your question, IMO, yes, charity=social service creates more dependence on the system and enhances dysfunctional life styles.

The next big thing, I believe, is social service=charity programs for illegal Latinos. California is leading the way. And, we all see how successful they are. What is the answer? I don't know but it seems that American generosity has become a snake eating its tail.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kbordson 8]

Expected charity will lead to dependence.

If something bad happens to someone, they work to rise out of that but only do so with the help of friends/family. THAT does not lead to dependence.

If something bad happens to someone and the FIRST step they take is to demand that someone save them... that is not a positive move.


I just spend a week in a country, doing charity work. The MOST important part of my job while down there was not giving out the cipro, rather it was teaching women about health and hygiene. Knowledge is the one gift that will not increase dependence.

[PLFXpert 0]

Depends on the charity.

I am a royal bitch in that I never give that dollar everyone is asking for me to tack on to my bill at the checkout counter. I write my checks once/year (also in-between if at a specific charitable event I support). I encourage people to research and seek out any charities supporting their desired causes. For example, I support breast-cancer research but I will only donate to X vs. Y because Y tests on animals and I am a sucker for animals (and think the testing is useless).

I do not believe the organizations I support largely financially and also through other means are profiting from my all-inclusive donations. "The proof is in the pudding" as they say. I can see first and foremost where my money is going and what is being done with it (when I donate it voluntarily). I do not agree with all of it, by any means, but if I am liking the majority than that is good enough and I am willing to take the "ehh" with the awesome.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[d_squared431 0]

Knowledge is the one gift that will not increase dependence.

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

Expected charity will lead to dependence.

Well-stated.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Expected charity will lead to dependence.

Well-stated.

Wendy P.

which then leads to expectations of more
which then leads to resentment
which then leads to huge resentment

whether it's the basics or more, it still applies

further, if it's personal - that reaction is well restrained and you might not get to the next, unhealthy, aspects

but if it's anonymous (i.e., 'free' or government provided) the dependence AND the resentment occur very quickly indeed


charity should be personal, not forced, given and taken with understanding, and it should also be very temporary - it's the only way to keep it effective, under control and allow people to retain personal pride and dignity

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

if it's anonymous (i.e., 'free' or government provided) the dependence AND the resentment occur very quickly indeed

I'm afraid that's true. It's even worse when the whole community is in the same situation (such as housing projects). If everyone around you is on welfare, it must be normal, right? It's especially bad for the kids that grow up in a community where no-one is self sufficient. How are they supposed to learn that that is not OK? I'm not opposed to a hand up for those who really need it, but I think the way we do it is often does more harm than good.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[JohnDeere 0]

When i turned 14 i worked for Winn Dixie as a sacker. I did that for 2 years untill i could run the register. I used to get so mad to see someone pay with food stamps all the time and go out to there new cadilac or tahoe. Some people use the system to get what they want instead of using it as a hand up. I grew up in a lower, lower middle class fam. and worked since I was 12 to get the extra things I wanted. To see people use the system like that made me sick! Alot of charity is a waste and taken advantage of. I agree with the poster above that people should look to there local church for help. I think if it was that way then people would not abuse the system as much. And if they tried to its easier to notice at the local level!

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

When i turned 14 i worked for Winn Dixie as a sacker. I did that for 2 years untill i could run the register. I used to get so mad to see someone pay with food stamps all the time and go out to there new cadilac or tahoe. Some people use the system to get what they want instead of using it as a hand up. I grew up in a lower, lower middle class fam. and worked since I was 12 to get the extra things I wanted. To see people use the system like that made me sick! Alot of charity is a waste and taken advantage of. I agree with the poster above that people should look to there local church for help. I think if it was that way then people would not abuse the system as much. And if they tried to its easier to notice at the local level!

My church helps people in need (with no things attached). Most are plain people just passing through who breakdown or need fuel. The panhandlers are in Missoula or Kalispell. Here, your don't wait long before someone stops to help. In winter, it can be a survival situation.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.