The Democrat Party is part of the problem.
Register them as pure independents with NO affiliation. That also just might increase voter participation every two years. As it is now people are so put off by what passes for politics in this country we are lucky to get 50% REGISTERED voter participation in presidential elections.
People like you make me want to go home.Tom, I'm starting to think you are getting really desperate at directing traffic to your own sites.
People like you make me want to go home.
Well, I'm sorry but both those links basically go to sites that are run by you.
Of course. Where do you think I put the articles I write?
I agree to an extent. But in any society, there will be people unable to care for themselves. Sometimes resulting from their own bad choices, but sometimes just bad luck. A civilized, humane nation will provide at least a basic social safety net. I don't want to live in Dickensian London. Voluntary charity alone cannot do the job in a populous, diverse, urbanized, industrialized, and technology-dependent society. Some systematic enterprise, funded collectively, will be necessary. You can argue that this is not Constitutionally a responsibility of the federal government. But there is no Constitutional prohibition on the states providing this.
It seems to me that the more detached the giver is from the recipient, the easier the system becomes to game. If I'm handing over my own personal cash to help someone I consider worthy, I'll be quick to stop the flow of money if I find them drunk and abusive, or find they've taken the money I gave them for food and bought cigarettes with it. If a bureaucrat in a panelled office in a major city is approving someone else's money being given out, they might talk tough but they lack the immediate interest in making sure it's being given to someone who deserves it.
Which is why I think private charities are superior. The government can't decide who is a freeloader and who isn't. The individual is in the best position to make that choice. Unfortunately though, most people are....greedy. Most will only give so much as long as it doesn't impact their quality of life. Some government programs are necessary.
I too prefer private charities. Unfortunately there are not enough.
One obvious question is whether there needs to be a specific "charity" as an established body to do charitable work.
If we are aware of someone in our own community in need, and we can help meet their need, we can always step in and do something without deferring to some external thing we call "a charity".
Not only that but if we are acting in a personal capacity we may be able to do it in a way that gives the recipient a greater sense of personal worth than just giving them free stuff. If we just give them free money it can easily come across as a message of "you're struggling, I sympathise, here's some cash" which might help them in the here and now but doesn't necessarily help them in the longer term. If we can find something they can do to earn the money, the relationship shifts from giver/receiver (which might even start to look like master/servant over time) to employer/worker.
For example, if you've got a single mother with a teenage son in the area, does it work to pay the son to wash your car, mow your lawn, pull weeds from your vegetable patch etc? That teaches the son the value of work, gives the family some extra money but in a way where they've earned it rather than just been handed it for nothing, and avoids creating the sense of being indebted to the giver. It could even encourage the son to figure which of the tasks he finds most enjoyable/lucrative/rewarding with a view to maybe going into business providing that service to others.