Nothing Modest About Small Charity's Impact

Many conservatives argue that increased government spending on social programs would be better spent if given to independent charity groups. I'm not sure one way or the other. While the government can have a reputation for sluggish bureaucracy, how will these charities be monitored to determine that they are helping everyone equally? I'm still working on an answer to this one.

Here's an interesting story about a charity with a unique niche, they give small amounts of money, nothing over $1000 out to 300 people a month for various emergencies, here's a quote from the article that explores how this relates to the Conservative Right's idea that the poor are better served through charities than government agencies:

Proponents of laissez-faire capitalism often point to organizations like Taylor's when arguing against the need for social safety nets such as welfare and Social Security. It's in our own self-interest to look after one another, the thinking goes, and in the absence of a state-funded social welfare system, we're more likely to come to one another's aid before letting someone slip through the cracks.

The idea that you are better served by your family, friends and church making sure you don't fall through the cracks does seem to be supported in the scriptures. The problem is that America and Canada have become such nations of individuals that no one is connected to the rest of the world in the same way they used to be. Taking this one step farther, our social networks have devolved into many acquaintances, few real friends and family that rarely meets or pools resources.

Like many social problems in our world, if the church at large were doing what it was supposed to be doing, the government would not be forced to take up the slack.

Read the rest of the article here:
"Nothing Modest About Small Charity's Impact"

Thanks,

AC