So you don't believe in God or Christ...

Post Reply New Topic

Population growth actually helps so long as there is economic growth to go along with it. Then the number of employed young people paying into Social Security outnumbers the ones receiving it. But what effect could charity possibly have on that? The people receiving Social Security are getting something they are entitled to (by current law), not something that is a handout. Charity is a handout and it depends on the largesse of the ones handing it out. You don't "qualify" as such. They give it to you out of largesse. And that is very unstable, which is trollcatman's point. It can be yanked at any time without the time consuming effort of getting congress to change a law.

Yeah that's right I was thinking of more seniors, less younger people. When social security was created, they were counting on each new generation to always be larger than the last then science caught up with them. And they didn't anticipate the baby boomers, either. Basically there will be nothing left for people my age and younger once everything is said and done. We are the ones paying into it without the hope of getting anything out of it because people feel so entitled to everything and refuse to scale back so it will just be a huge tax burden for us with nothing later.

Charity is much more than just a hand out. It is actually a good thing, far better than government programs! It helps people connect with each other and creates good feeling. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you cannot donate your time. It helps people feel better connected to one another. When people get too disconnected is when they fail. They cannot accomplish anything together if they forget how to connect with one another.

People want to believe such negative things about charity but one of the big problems with America in particular, at the moment, is this loss of spirit. You CANNOT accomplish anything with others if you do not possess it. Your will to cooperate is gone. You become dark and nihilistic. You are, in a sense, doomed.

I think that far more important than doling out gifts to strangers is being willing to make personal sacrifices for a greater good. How about getting your carbon footprint assessed and scaling it down by giving up your gas guzzler cycling and reheating food?

How many drug users would be willing to give up their fix due to the vast network of crime it funds?

Would you be willing to handwash your clothes to reduce energy consumption?

On a person by person basis this has no real effect but in terms of net influence something like mass numbers of drug users going sober and men boycotting prostitution would be very uncomfortable for criminal empires and would consequently free up resources for benefits and social security programs.

Problem is few people are willing to inconvenience themselves for a cause that doesn't affect them immediately.

You do realize that charitable giving is on the rise, don't you? Even with the decline in religiosity, charities have been getting more individual funding. There was a 3 year drop during the worst of the economic crisis, but it has been on the rise again for a few years with no signs of slowing down:

http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics

I don't have negative beliefs about charity. It can do lots of good things and-as you said upthread- it creates a sense of connection when people do volunteer work together. What I was disputing was your very specific claim that it can reduce the federal deficit. All my posts have been towards disputing that claim. But just because charity can't reduce the federal deficit doesn't mean I think it is a negative thing.

I used to volunteer for a food charity (link upthread). I currently donate to a different food charity. But I have no illusions that this will alleviate the need for food stamps, or even that getting rid of food stamps would help the federal deficit. Just because I don't think charity can reduce the federal deficit doesn't make me a dark nihilist who is against charity. I am for it. I just have a different view of what it can potentially do.

It isn't just about funding. It's about people donating their time and the community spirit. It's a matter of which charities, too. Take for instance, the Red Cross which is a great organization, very helpful, but they aren't really about aiding people who rely on entitlement programs so if 54 million people push buttons on their cell phone and give a dollar to the RC it isn't going to do much for people who exist on extended unemployment benefits.

Also, the chairs cut themselves too large a salary in some cases. We had that problem with a local charity that had declining donations and was in bad shape. The chairs just wanted more and more money and the charity was about sunk.

Well you know, if enough people believe it won't make a difference, it won't. Part of success is a belief in it. I am just doling out answers.

And there seems to be a lot of distraction with scientific evidence blah blah blah. Well let's look at one fact. Years ago there were more Christians willing to make sacrifices in order to be "good" Christians and there was a lot less debt. That's just reality. People who hate religion dislike that idea but it does exist nonetheless. Those two realities existed together in the same time frame, like it or not. I am not here to see religion or lack of it in black and white terms. I am here to point out good and bad equally.

And one thing that holds water, if a hospital is staffed by mostly nuns, it will save money. Of course that's bad news for anyone with a nursing degree but reality is reality. What are you going to do about a huge debt that keeps growing and growing?

One thing that holds water is that there are almost no nuns who have the knowledge, education, or experience to be healthcare providers. Even if it were a remote possibility, what would happen to all those healthcare workers who are suddenly unemployed? Wouldn't that burden the system even more?

I just don't see what religion has to do with charity. I've helped out with plenty of veterans groups around here, as well as with the City food bank. I didn't do any praying or talking about Jesus, and I still feel that I provided valuable service to my community.



There is only "one fact" in there, and that is the fact that there was a lot less debt. I have seen no evidence of a decline in Christian charity. I have seen it become more exclusive in the last 4 years in this city. Required prayers for food at one shelter. People being denied entrance to the church where free community dinners are based on what is on a t-shirt. Tickets for food given out only at the church after services. There have been a few new (secular) groups taking up those being pushed aside for not being religious enough, and I support them when I am able.

You may also want to keep in mind (in terms of correlation/causation) that there was also a lot less credit available to consumers, less years of life expectancy, less college graduates, less literate people, less people in poverty, less millionaires, less billionaires, less Christian fundamentalists, less citizens, less internet tech companies, less nuclear powered aircraft carriers, less silver nanoparticles, less atmospheric CO2, less strains of the ebola virus, less money in existence, less GDP, and less cars on the road. There was more lead being released into the atmosphere, more children/household, more hate crime, more fear of nuclear annihilation, more properly maintained bridges, more polar ice, more Atlantic salmon, more VHS tapes, more tax revenue from the top earners, and more bees. A person could try to tie any (or all) of those things to increased federal debt if they wanted to.

If the economy grows, debt as percentage of GDP goes down. Just keeping the debt the same and growing the economy at say, 1 or 2% a year will make the debt irrelevant after a while. You should look at the debt as an investment. With the added upside that the government can always choose to not pay the bond holders, they did it in Russia (they paid the foreign investors and gave the locals the finger).

sonoghandi - you haven't noticed the decline of nuns working in hospitals?

I live in Calvinist territory so there are no nuns here. I just watched the BBC news and here was yet another horror story of nuns mistreating their wards. I would not trust the Church of Rome to take care of stray dogs.

Ahh no you are attempting to distance yourself from your initial post and and the title of this thread.

Regarding your idea that Charity where ever it is sourced is the buoyancy aid for a governments budget. Where is your evidence, other than spurious correlations (which so far are all demonstrably false in their assumptions) you have non. To a point charity has its place in an explotative economic systme like capitalism, not however as a means of supporting government budgets rather as a means of supporting desperate people.

What we are seeing at the moment is a situation where the laws of capitalism require little or no tax impost upon big business, where money is borrowed with no interest and the working conditions of the masses are trashed. Regarding the almost 0 % lending, where do you think the money is coming from? It is coming out of the public purse the governments are printing money and essentially handing it over to the banks. I am no economist so anyone who is please correct me, but as I understand (obviously very simplified) it this is how the Banks "paid back" the money the government lent them in the bank bailouts. The banks need money, so the government lends it to them, but the government has no money so it borrows it from the banks who it then lends it back to. The banks charge interest on this money they lent to the government so the government could use it to bail them out and hey presto the loan is paid. This is where the money has gone, the public purses of many western governments were raided to bail out the institutions, who are also legally avoiding paying their due taxes, not to mention of course for some time the US was spending $650 million a day in an illegal war.

There will be an increase in both numbers of charitable organisations and donations, but this will not have an effect upon the budget bottom line. Why? Governments all over the world are destroying social safety nets, leaving people destitute. Why are they doing this? The upper echelons of society are demanding in these hard economic times that they keep their luxuries, that they continue to maintain the same level of profit. The only way to do this is to reduce their taxes and the wages of the masses, and the only way to do this is to destroy hard won gains in the lifestyles of the working people.

ANA , you have no evidence for your claims every one here has pointed out the fallacious nature of your arguments, Don't you think it is time to put aside your "common sense" prejudices and started listening to some of the posters, quite a few of whom have a good handle on economics?

Nuns caring for the sick in a hospital not nuns keeping people in institutions. I am sure nuns can handle basic tasks in hospitals no problem. Just train them to run them like they did in the good ole days. Not all of them are bad. Please do not judge them all by a few bad apples. Most of them are very good people who devote their lives to caring for others.

What about nuns caring for the elderly instead of expensive nurses? You honestly do not think it would save money?

Quick question, why this obsession with religious based charity and assistance. It is quite clear that the community is rejecting religion throughout many western countries, yet altruistic behaviour is rebounding after the financial crash. This indicates religion is not needed for the continuation and increase in altruism. Why are you not calling for a general increase in voluntary help, why this obsession with sectarian help?

What do you have against a nun in a hospital? Why would you object?