Faith-based charities ... how about no charities?

[Darth Wong]

I heard someone mention Bush's "faith-based charity initiative" a while ago and it occurred to me to wonder: leaving aside the whole issue of first amendment violations implicit in these charities, why is the government in the business of funding charities at all?

Doesn't the government have its own social programs? And aren't many of these programs seriously underfunded? Why the fuck does the government act like it's got all this extra money to throw at charities?

A charity should be able to raise money on its own, from the public. If it can't do that in sufficient quantity, and has to go to the government to get what is, in effect, mandatory government-enforced charity giving, then why should it even exist?

[Darth Servo]

Doesn't the government have its own social programs? And aren't many of these programs seriously underfunded? Why the fuck does the government act like it's got all this extra money to throw at charities?

Its Bush! As far as he's concerned, the Government DOES have unlimited money to throw around.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The US can spend all this money on silly programmes because the US Federal Mint can just print more money if they need it. Bush sleeps safer at night knowing that.

[Pablo Sanchez]

It has much to do with fear of Socialism. Many Americans (mainly Republicans) are more comfortable when they can dress Socialism up in a funny suit and pretend it's something else. By funnelling the money through a middleman the government can claim that smaller numbers of people are on public assistance than there are in reality.

[sketerpot]

The US can spend all this money on silly programmes because the US Federal Mint can just print more money if they need it. Bush sleeps safer at night knowing that.

IIRC the US government doesn't really make that much money from minting money more cheaply than they sell it---about $3 billion per year (remembered from American Government textbook, and I am fallible). They get a lot more from borrowing. They routinely mount up the deficit more and more, even borrowing money to pay the interest on money they've borrowed. It's one of the largest parts of the federal budget, and we'll have to deal with it in the future, but that's in the future, so it doesn't matter. Nobody seems to notice that Bush is raising taxes for decades to come, but that's the federal debt.

[Lonestar]

Its Bush! As far as he's concerned, the Government DOES have unlimited money to throw around.

Sure, I mean, how hard is it to just print more?

[darthdavid]

The US can spend all this money on silly programmes because the US Federal Mint can just print more money if they need it. Bush sleeps safer at night knowing that.

IIRC the US government doesn't really make that much money from minting money more cheaply than they sell it---about $3 billion per year (remembered from American Government textbook, and I am fallible). They get a lot more from borrowing. They routinely mount up the deficit more and more, even borrowing money to pay the interest on money they've borrowed. It's one of the largest parts of the federal budget, and we'll have to deal with it in the future, but that's in the future, so it doesn't matter. Nobody seems to notice that Bush is raising taxes for decades to come, but that's the federal debt.

You might wanna have your sarcasm dector tuned up...

[Durandal]

The US can spend all this money on silly programmes because the US Federal Mint can just print more money if they need it. Bush sleeps safer at night knowing that.

IIRC the US government doesn't really make that much money from minting money more cheaply than they sell it---about $3 billion per year (remembered from American Government textbook, and I am fallible). They get a lot more from borrowing. They routinely mount up the deficit more and more, even borrowing money to pay the interest on money they've borrowed. It's one of the largest parts of the federal budget, and we'll have to deal with it in the future, but that's in the future, so it doesn't matter. Nobody seems to notice that Bush is raising taxes for decades to come, but that's the federal debt.

You might wanna have your sarcasm dector tuned up...

You might want to stop posting in threads where you've got nothing of substance to add.

[Nathan F]

That's a very good point, Mike. Charities, IMHO, shouldn't be government funded beyond tax exemption. The government has enough social programs as it is (too many, IMHO, but that's a different story), and shouldn't be supplying money to charities.

[Knife]

That's a very good point, Mike. Charities, IMHO, shouldn't be government funded beyond tax exemption. The government has enough social programs as it is (too many, IMHO, but that's a different story), and shouldn't be supplying money to charities.

Why should they be tax exempt?

[Rogue 9]

That's a very good point, Mike. Charities, IMHO, shouldn't be government funded beyond tax exemption. The government has enough social programs as it is (too many, IMHO, but that's a different story), and shouldn't be supplying money to charities.

Why should they be tax exempt?

Erm... Because a charity is by definition a nonprofit organization, and those don't get taxed? The charity's not profiting out of the deal; they give the money away.

[Sir Sirius]

1. In the U.S. funneling money to faith-based charities appears to be an effective method of circumventing the first amendment, handily allowing the administration to suck up to the religionists.

2. For a politician supporting charities is better PR then supporting social programs, even if they both fill the same function (social programs are often seen as wastefull pork spending of a nanny state, charities are associated with being charitable and generous). Particulary true if the charities being supported advocate the religion of a majority of the constituates.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's a very good point, Mike. Charities, IMHO, shouldn't be government funded beyond tax exemption. The government has enough social programs as it is (too many, IMHO, but that's a different story), and shouldn't be supplying money to charities.

Why should they be tax exempt?

Erm... Because a charity is by definition a nonprofit organization, and those don't get taxed? The charity's not profiting out of the deal; they give the money away.

Going from economics class, all they have to do is write off a salary for full-time employees(like the pastor) as a business expense

[haas mark]

The US can spend all this money on silly programmes because the US Federal Mint can just print more money if they need it. Bush sleeps safer at night knowing that.

Of course. Never mind inflation...

[Admiral Valdemar]

The US can spend all this money on silly programmes because the US Federal Mint can just print more money if they need it. Bush sleeps safer at night knowing that.

Of course. Never mind inflation...

Not in Dubya's vocab. The closest match is "inflating" which is what happens to bouncy castles.

[Knife]

That's a very good point, Mike. Charities, IMHO, shouldn't be government funded beyond tax exemption. The government has enough social programs as it is (too many, IMHO, but that's a different story), and shouldn't be supplying money to charities.

Why should they be tax exempt?

Erm... Because a charity is by definition a nonprofit organization, and those don't get taxed? The charity's not profiting out of the deal; they give the money away.

Still not seening why they shoud be exempt in your response. They bring in money, they should be taxed. Any yes, I think churchs should be taxed too.

[Darth Wong]

Why should there be a tax exemption for donations to the Catholic Church "protect a pedophile" fund?

[Howedar]

Because, depending on where you send the money within the Catholic church, it may well go to good use.

[Darth Wong]

Because, depending on where you send the money within the Catholic church, it may well go to good use.

Or it may not, which is the point. It's all tax-exempt regardless of what it is ultimately used for; does this really make sense?

[Knife]

Because, depending on where you send the money within the Catholic church, it may well go to good use.

Or it may not, which is the point. It's all tax-exempt regardless of what it is ultimately used for; does this really make sense?

Agreed, I can see tax write offs for spending the money in poor area's or what not but the blanket 'tax exemption' is absurd.

[HemlockGrey]

I can see tax exemption for charities, although if they're recieving government money there should be frequent audits to make sure that money is really going where its supposed to. Taxing churchs would be a good idea, (how much money do the Mormons have locked up?) but what are the odds of that happening?

[Howedar]

Because, depending on where you send the money within the Catholic church, it may well go to good use.

Or it may not, which is the point. It's all tax-exempt regardless of what it is ultimately used for; does this really make sense?

No, I don't think it does. I don't think churches (any church, not just the Catholic Church) should be considered non-profits.

[MarkIX]

Because, depending on where you send the money within the Catholic church, it may well go to good use.

Or it may not, which is the point. It's all tax-exempt regardless of what it is ultimately used for; does this really make sense?

No, I don't think it does. I don't think churches (any church, not just the Catholic Church) should be considered non-profits.

considering some of them seem to be outright predators I don't think they should be tax exempt, are Televangelists organisations onsidered Churches and therfore "non-profit"?

[Symmetry]

Because, depending on where you send the money within the Catholic church, it may well go to good use.

And it wouldn't go to a good use if you donated it somewhere else, say to a drug company working on a good AIDS vaccine or somebody going after the X Prize?

[Howedar]

Complete strawman. I never said anything about other charities.

Honestly, I wish people could get past their church=bad thing sometimes. I'm not going to say any church is perfect, or even close. But they can do good things.