lagtight did not start this thread.
.
.
.

- posted by someone who lives in a state where he pays little to no income tax to enjoy government services paid for mostly by liberals

perfect

There is a grain of truth in that, in that predominantly politically conservative regions tend to donate more to charity than predominantly liberal regions.

Though I suspect this partly down to politically conservative regions needing more charity, since conservative policy usually goes hand in hand with a) less tax income for social programs, increasing the need for charities to that effect b) less income for various other programs, increasing consumption charity (you give to charity to gain something back, like new school books for your children's school).

I guess it is comment towards taxation. To be clear, I would never want tax to function like a charity. Not because charities are unimportant, they can often fill gaps in our society. Rather because...

a) Charities might be important, but they are also ineffective, and to answer the inevitable quip: Yes, very ineffective compared to government programs. An exception can be instances of aid in places that is diplomatically difficult for a government to reach (a troubled region within your own borders, people within the borders of a hostile state etc.)
b) Charities are inconsistent. Barring a few gargantuan causes or charity brands, it is hard for to use charity efforts to plan large scale efforts over time.
c) Charities are weak to public image and public perception of important causes. Many charities take huge hits in times of big disasters or seasonal differences. Local soup kitchens closing because some natural disaster in another part of the world took the donors that month is not unheard of.
d) Charities simply do not cover enough. We know this from history when social programs were almost non-existent: Poverty was far more rampant.
e) And maybe most importantly: Charities are very reactive. They focus on issues that have risen, it is very hard to do preventive charity work and is often just a small side-effort whenever a charity does it. But we know preventive programs tend to be wildly more effective per dollar spent.
f) A personal opinion: Charity is often inherently insulting. People should have the right to not starve, have decent health care or access to proper education. I see no point in a state that does not provide these things.

Of course, when conservatives use "charity" in this context, what they mean is your point f) - social welfare programs and nationalised healthcare.

Yes, in some political circles it is established that tax is the most invasive act of government. Letting people starve or remain deprived of opportunity on the other hand, that is merely respecting private enterprise.

But yes, I don't want charity for some single father with children. I want him to have the right to food on the table, health care and opportunity for his kids.

If that makes me an immoral man who supports stealing from people, I can live with that. They can call it theft all they want, I'll call it the bloody right thing to do.

I'll play:

"Conservatives are people collecting SS and disability checks while looking down their nose at their neighbors working 2 jobs and collecting SNAP."

You prefer a guy who paid nothing in taxes and stole from charities to a guy who actually paid his fair share.

I think it’s a social good to keep people sheltered, off the streets, healthy, and away from trouble.

I think enough (as in like basically everyone minus sociopaths and mentally ill) people think the same.

Therefore I think it’s a coordination issue that needs resolution.

I think the government has a role to play in that.

That’s not to say I think government should run everything but I think it’s trivially evident significant amount of taxation and social safety nets can be justified under libertarian logic of providing for a social good which all residents enjoy.

Stop being an apologist. Charity is a conservative principle, largely rooted in religion. Conservatives donate to charity because it's the right thing to do, rather than because it's needed. Of course the charities are going to put that money where it's needed, which is where poor people are. Poor people are mostly Democrats, and are in Democrat areas.

Charity is not a value within wealthy lefist housholds, for the most part.

Charities do far more for the homeless than government has, or will ever do.

I'm pretty sure you don't know what "apologist" means.

Someone else can address the rest of this obvious nonsense.

He's making apologies on why liberals don't donate to charity as much as conservatives do. The implication being it's not as needed in Democratic areas.

Hahahahahhahahahaha

You have a upper class progressive elitist laughing at a former homeless person (multiple times) when the homeless person says where the most helps comes from. You really should look up the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities and other homeless services and compare what the government does. Government only really helps parents with kids when it comes to homelessness.


This right here is why people hate the left. The idea that government is some great salvation and that's bullshit.

I don't think he was, and even if he was, that's not really what that word means or how it's used. Unless you think lagtight is apologising for Christianity? Would be nice, but no.

Do you think charities take more people off the streets than government-subsidised housing (projects) keep off the streets? Or you just conveniently don't count those who are in danger of becoming homeless without government intervention, but are not actually homeless in your calculations?

Yo, Wookie, you're upper class? Sweeeeeet. Hook a brother up with some stakes into the high rollers, eh?

Majority of homeless people are single males.

Oh, you mean just in the US, where conservatives vehemently oppose using the government to help the homeless, rather than governments in general, which can and do combat homelessness much better than the US does? OK. Try being more specific.

Bullshit. San Francisco is doing jack ****.

Hahahahhahaha. That's your rebuttal?

Ah, ok, so the government helping anyone who is not your own demographic doesn't count. Nice demonstration of conservative principles there, very apt.

Government is government. San Francisco has a huge amount of wealth, and is known for being the progressive capital of the world.


Progressives do not know how to help theae people which is just as bad as the "pick yourself up by the boot straps" crowd.

You think they do. The government is incompetent (conservative/liberal/progressive) when it comes to homelessness.

Yeah, and the left still does not value charity, no matter the spin you and others want to use. Stop making and defending excuses for that.

Wouldn't surprise me if large part of the charitable contributions conservatives supposedly make are sending off their paychecks to televangelists to buy next Lear jet. Being simpletons who constantly get scammed by hucksters might be "charity" for tax purposes, but it's not actually helping anyone.

It also goes deeper than that. You've been to low income housing? That subjects these folks to a whole host of other problems, some of which are vices that led to their homelessness issues in the first place.