American Politics

[hym 358]

 Aside from that, no charity does not work better than what the state does. Far from it. Charities are in fact extremely inefficient given that often the people they provide care for are picked on an emotional basis rather than a rational one. Basically the people with the bigger sob stories are more likely to receive more charity than people who aren't particularly sad but still need some help. On top of that, charities very often make things worse. Sure, they enable people to survive but they don't provide structural solutions to the problems the people they help face. And the patchwork nature of charity often means more insecurity for the people that need help rather than more security. The government on the other hand has a far better oversight of the problems people face, has the power to tackle said problems while simultaneously providing short term relief. Better yet, they can do it in a neutral and impartial manner, meaning that everyone who needs help can get it, rather than only the people with sob stories. 

The purpose of most charities is not to provide structural reform, nor is it to monitor and oversee things.  Their job is to provide relief assistance, and many do it with far greater cost efficiency than the federal government could ever hope to achieve.

Consider food banks, whose general purpose is to provide poor individuals/families with access to free food.  In general, the food is received from personal donations, food drives, and corporate sponsorship.  This gives the food bank a relatively steady supply of food that it pays absolutely nothing to receive.  Before the food gets donated to the intended recipients, it has to go through a repackaging stage to convert bulk food deliveries into family-sized delivery units.  This generally requires human labor to achieve, and so long as the food bank promises to provide breakfast, it's not difficult to get people to donate a Saturday morning to helping prepare food for delivery.  Thus, even a small food bank can prepare literally thousands of pounds of food for delivery, all for the cost of a few dozen donuts, kolaches, and bottles of orange juice.  From there, the food can be delivered to its intended recipients, either for the price of fuel, or the price of fuel plus a few workers.

A typical food bank can receive tens of thousands of pounds of food, entirely for free, process it for distribution for the cost of some cheap breakfast food and drinks, and distribute it to the recipients for the cost of fuel and possibly a few workers.  The federal government, on the other hand, would be paying for the food, the labor to prepare it for delivery, and then the fuel and wages of the workers needed for delivery.  It doesn't take much to see that the food bank would enjoy a massive cost efficiency advantage for its operations versus the federal government.

[Duke87 1,070]

One caveat: this apparent cost efficiency comes in the form of collecting donations and using volunteer labor. People who donate food still need to buy it (which costs them money) and transport it to where it's being donated (which also costs money unless they're going there for some other reason anyway). The volunteer labor then costs people time, which even if it is on a weekend may be said to have value equivalent to their hourly pay+benefits at their regular jobs.

So it's an apples to oranges comparison. The costs to the charity are much lower than the costs to the government agency, but the government agency is accounting for all of the costs of the program while the charity is not.

 

As for the efficiency of charities, it really depends. Some do spend most of their resources directly on their end goal. Other charities spend large portions of the money they raise on fundraising efforts (some examples), thus making themselves quite inefficient.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The purpose of most charities is not to provide structural reform, nor is it to monitor and oversee things.  Their job is to provide relief assistance, and many do it with far greater cost efficiency than the federal government could ever hope to achieve.

Well and there is the problem. Its like applying a patch to a wound that need stitches. It prevents some temporary bloodloss, but you need to keep replacing the patchwork over and over again and the wound doesn´t heal. And can it do it more efficiently than the government? Well, maybe some can, but in general, no not really. Charities are often localized which means there are a lot of overhead costs duplicated on a national level. And it means they can't make use of economies of scale, therefor inefficient. 
And because they are localized in nature it means their effectiveness at collecting donations to continue operating also strongly depends on the environment they operate in. A charity that operates in a poor community will have a harder time getting enough donations to work effectively, and they essentially only redistribute wealth within an area that has little wealth to redistribute. 

Of course, if a charity operates on a national level, their overhead costs explode, as they need to professionalize significantly in order to remain effective. That means they need a bureaucratic structure at the top, staffed by professionals who cost money, etc. Their effectiveness does increase, but you can wonder why you want this, as they are essentially copying structures that already exist within the government. A government could do the same only it would have less overhead costs as a lot of the structures necessary would already exist anyways. Its just adding a task to an already existing agency or department. 

Finally there is the risk that with to many charities around, politicians will start to use them as part of official government policy. Rather than fixing the problem, such as hunger, they instead throw a bag of cash at food banks. Nothing gets solved, people remain hungry, and politicians get to say that they are trying to solve hunger by making use of 'grass root organizations that stand within the community and know best what needs to be done'. Sounds great in an election no? Small government letting local communities decide how to fix their problems? It just ignores that those type of problems are really structural problems that can only be solved at a national level. 

In general, the food is received from personal donations, food drives, and corporate sponsorship.  This gives the food bank a relatively steady supply of food that it pays absolutely nothing to receive.

You call that efficiency? Thats like calling begging efficient. They are completely reliant on the charity of others. And also the federal government who supports food banks with billions of dollars in subsidies. And that charity isn't exactly promoted. Businesses that want to donate to food banks discover they have to pay for the cost of everything. Its literally cheaper to just throw leftover food in the garbage bin than it is to donate to food banks, and if you run a for profit business then donating food to charity becomes a very unattractive proposition. Its how we get to the situation that Americans throw away tons of perfectly good food and yet food banks are having a more difficult time getting enough stock. No, food banks are anything but efficient. 

And as temporary relief they become less efficient and reliable because they have a hard time stocking up. If you can't rely on food banks to have adequate stock you can't rely on them to provide relief. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

These charities promote indolence to a certain degree.  We are all aware of "welfare families" who live on the dole.  Unfortunately, the religious people have it right: "The poor we will always have with us."

Most of the axiom of teaching a man to fish is just fine, but what do you do with the ineducable; those who, for one reason or another cannot attend school; cannot proceed beyond secondary school?  Some don't have the intellectual equipment to go beyond certain grades, and some have specialized intellectual and physical challenges that make schooling (nearly) impossible.

Reminds me of a story I heard or saw recently.  Albert Einstein died and found that the guard at the Pearly Gates was shift work and he was on the roster.  One day during his shift, a new candidate showed up:

Einstein:  What's your IQ?
Candidate: 180.

They spent a few pleasant hours discussing general relativity.

Einstein:  What's your IQ?
Candidate: 120.

They spent a few hours talking about management strategies and operating organizations.

Einstein:  What's your IQ?
Candidate: 90.
Einstein: And where are you from?
Candidate: Toronto
Einstein:  Do you think the Leafs will ever win the Stanley Cup again?

 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

These charities promote indolence to a certain degree.  We are all aware of "welfare families" who live on the dole.  Unfortunately, the religious people have it right: "The poor we will always have with us."

Most of the axiom of teaching a man to fish is just fine, but what do you do with the ineducable; those who, for one reason or another cannot attend school; cannot proceed beyond secondary school?  Some don't have the intellectual equipment to go beyond certain grades, and some have specialized intellectual and physical challenges that make schooling (nearly) impossible.

Most charities promote indolence far less than TANF. In major cities, charities care about uplifting the poor through assistance, education, support, and inspiration. Once a family starts receiving TANF, they have absolutely no reason to try to earn money legitimately (working a job that reports to the government for tax purposes) because of high marginal tax rate. A single mother who has more children after starting welfare should be scrutinized. If she ever fails a drug test, she should be removed from welfare and her children removed from her. The fact that the problem is so prevalent and the solution rarely realized shows how bad the system is.

I already said that those incapable of work and education should only get the bare necessities from the government and will have to rely on loved ones in order to truly live. The measure of a person is in the impact left by that person. Everyone leaves an impact. Some leave modest impacts that no one remembers, some help the world considerably without recognition, some hurt the world considerably while living luxuriously with fans and enemies (such as by running businesses into the ground, declaring bankruptcy without giving up luxuries, and spreading misinformation or trashy culture on television), and most others earn the recognition they deserve. Under the system of Utilitarianism, those with large negative impacts will no longer be rewarded by the government. Austerity for corrupt corporate executives would be required to declare bankruptcy, banks would start using R bonds (some bondholders in most other businesses lose money and gain ownership of the company, while all bondholders of corporations that were bailed out were shafted), and people who cannot afford medical bills would not receive treatment unless they are at charity hospitals (which are ill equipped for expensive treatments). This last part might seem callous but medical expenses will plummet once health insurance is eliminated. Health Insurance encourages unnecessary procedures, raises costs to hospitals and medical professionals, and collects significantly more money than it pays. The average high school educated worker in the USA will be much better off in a system without health insurance than in the current system of mandated private health insurance. The main reason the bill (the number before insurance pays) most patients see is so expensive (worse than virtually anywhere else in the world) is because of health insurance.

 

--Ocram

 

EDIT: We must all realize that the United States of America has very different conditions than most other nations. We have a large land area with great diversity, particularly in our cities with culture of major cities being very similar whether in the Northwest (Seattle), Southwest (LA), South (Austin), Southeast (Miami), Mid-Atlantic (NYC), Great Lakes (Chicago), or elsewhere. The regional differences are far more subtle than the Urban/Rural divide. We also have fewer mineral resources per capita than Scandinavia. Our history is different from Europe and Asia. Europeans committed many atrocities as imperialists and the early settlers of north America tried to escape that violence. Eventually, the imperial powers got their greedy paws in North America and a great deal atrocities started in the north that were almost as bad as what Spain had been doing the whole time. Enlightenment started with European philosophers but the USA built itself on its principals and flourished. Every single progressive movement from then on started or gained most momentum here before spreading. While Europe and Asia reject immigrants or suffer violence, a vital part of our economy depends on hard-working and/or skilled immigrants. The influence our major cities have on the world are profound and are felt around the world. If the USA reduced its military presence around the world, stopped supplying weapons to non-democratic parties (which means cutting "foreign aid") and opened up trade and legal immigration, we would be better off as well as the world at large.

  Edited July 23, 2015 by OcramSeattle  
update to contrast

[hym 358]

One caveat: this apparent cost efficiency comes in the form of collecting donations and using volunteer labor. People who donate food still need to buy it (which costs them money) and transport it to where it's being donated (which also costs money unless they're going there for some other reason anyway). The volunteer labor then costs people time, which even if it is on a weekend may be said to have value equivalent to their hourly pay+benefits at their regular jobs.

So it's an apples to oranges comparison. The costs to the charity are much lower than the costs to the government agency, but the government agency is accounting for all of the costs of the program while the charity is not.

The comparison was from the perspective of "costs a structure pays to acquire food and distribute it to the intended recipients."  If the structure has to pay to acquire the food, then it is a cost against the efficiency of the structure's operations.  If it doesn't have to bear that cost, then the cost doesn't count against the efficiency of the structure's operations.  (Even if someone else is having to bear that cost.)  Both systems are analyzed by the same criteria: the costs they pay to acquire food and distribute it.

There is a legitimate reason for ignoring costs that are born by outside parties.  For the government to run a food bank, it must assume the entire cost of the operation, and to finance that, it must pass those costs onto the taxpayer.  The entire public benefits from the value derived by the food bank, but the entire taxpaying public bears the costs of that system.  Under a typical food bank, the entire public derives benefit from the value that the system represents, but the entire public does not bear the cost of running that operation.  The cost is born exclusively by those who choose to donate or otherwise be involved in the food bank's operations.  Corporations that donate bear the costs out of their own profit margins, effectively giving customers a rebate on their purchases (in the form of returning some of the purchase price back in the utility those donations represent).  If you are an individual that doesn't donate to the food bank, and doesn't shop at the companies that donate to the food bank, you are getting a spectacular bargain.  You are getting the value that the food bank operations represent, while spending nothing in return for that value.  The federal government can never offer you that.

As for the issue of cost of workers, I did not include the cost of donated time because, IMO, your time is only worth what you are paid for it.  If you're agreeing to work for $0.00/hr, then your time has neither monetary value or cost.

 Well and there is the problem. Its like applying a patch to a wound that need stitches. It prevents some temporary bloodloss, but you need to keep replacing the patchwork over and over again and the wound doesn´t heal. And can it do it more efficiently than the government? Well, maybe some can, but in general, no not really. Charities are often localized which means there are a lot of overhead costs duplicated on a national level. And it means they can't make use of economies of scale, therefor inefficient. 
And because they are localized in nature it means their effectiveness at collecting donations to continue operating also strongly depends on the environment they operate in. A charity that operates in a poor community will have a harder time getting enough donations to work effectively, and they essentially only redistribute wealth within an area that has little wealth to redistribute. 

In the case of food banks, this isn't really true.  As most of them are local operations independent of everyone else, they require no national overhead structure and no such structure exists.  There are the costs to run that singular food bank, and that's it.  Nothing more.  Furthermore, there is no need for economies of scale.  Virtually everything is free or almost free, which is the greatest economy anyone could ask for.  No government economy of scale is going to top that.

As you said, this does create the problem of charities operating in poor areas suffering resource shortages.  While this is not something the federal government would experience in the same way, it is a mistake to say the the federal government's welfare programs do not suffer similar phenomena of unbalanced funding allocation.

Finally there is the risk that with to many charities around, politicians will start to use them as part of official government policy. Rather than fixing the problem, such as hunger, they instead throw a bag of cash at food banks. Nothing gets solved, people remain hungry, and politicians get to say that they are trying to solve hunger by making use of 'grass root organizations that stand within the community and know best what needs to be done'. Sounds great in an election no? Small government letting local communities decide how to fix their problems? It just ignores that those type of problems are really structural problems that can only be solved at a national level. 

That's not really true.  More likely, Democrats aren't going to support donating funds to local charities because they see it as the government's problem, and Republicans aren't going to support donating money to charities because they don't see it as the government's problem.  In reality, neither party is strongly in favor of federal funding of charity organizations.  (A lot of charities aren't in favor of it either.)

Furthermore, the "grassroots organizations" angle isn't really true.  For one, this is primarily a Democratic talking point, so unless you're going to accuse the Democratic party of suddenly becoming the party of small government, this logic doesn't really work.  (The Republican approach to small government isn't typically based on the concept of "grassroots organizations," but rather, the individual.)  Second, most communities are too small and/or inconsequential to be of note to federal officials because the structure of the federal government doesn't take that granular a view of the American landscape.  States can, and many do, take a much more granular view of the communities that they govern, so the local politics approach works better in state elections.

You call that efficiency? Thats like calling begging efficient. They are completely reliant on the charity of others. And also the federal government who supports food banks with billions of dollars in subsidies. And that charity isn't exactly promoted. Businesses that want to donate to food banks discover they have to pay for the cost of everything. Its literally cheaper to just throw leftover food in the garbage bin than it is to donate to food banks, and if you run a for profit business then donating food to charity becomes a very unattractive proposition. Its how we get to the situation that Americans throw away tons of perfectly good food and yet food banks are having a more difficult time getting enough stock. No, food banks are anything but efficient. 

From the perspective of "cost to acquire and deliver X amount of food," it is an incredibly efficient model.  It costs almost nothing.

The federal government's main approach to food donations is to pay for your food at the grocery store, not to support a food bank.  The support that it does provide to food banks primarily comes from federal food purchases as part of price control strategies that were never instituted for the sake of charity.  (The charity is a side effect of the government finding itself with food that it has no use for.)

Businesses that choose to donate aren't exactly blind to the costs that they bear.  They know that they are going to bear the entire cost of the donation, and they know that they are likely never going to get any financial value back from their actions, and yet, they still donate.  Most don't do it for financial benefit, and the finances aren't really a factor so long as the costs aren't unreasonable.

[LexusInfernus 908]

As for the issue of cost of workers, I did not include the cost of donated time because, IMO, your time is only worth what you are paid for it.  If you're agreeing to work for $0.00/hr, then your time has neither monetary value or cost.

Thats a rather simplistic way of looking at it. Your time has monetary value and it has costs. There is the opportunity cost, which also informs the monetary value of your time. Instead of volunteering at a food bank I could be working and earning 20 dollars an hour (for example). My time costs 20 dollars an hour and it is worth 20 dollars an hour. I just chose to eat that cost myself because I believe volunteer work is important and adds value to society and my own life. And thats the point of volunteer work, its not the place I decide to volunteer for that decides how much my time is worth by paying me a wage because its not their choice to make, its mine because Im the volunteer. 

That aside, you severely under appreciate the value of volunteer work if you say that your time is only worth what you are paid for. Volunteer work, especially in a case like a foodbank is taking up the slack where society and the government have either failed or don't care enough to step in. Helping out hungry people, showing basic empathy and humanity to those who are down on their luck, those are good things. Except to people like yourself who argue that essentially its worthless work because you don't get paid and the only way to measure worth is money. If you can't put a price on it, its worthless according to this type of logic, never mind the positive effects on society. 

In the case of food banks, this isn't really true.  As most of them are local operations independent of everyone else, they require no national overhead structure and no such structure exists.  There are the costs to run that singular food bank, and that's it.  Nothing more.  Furthermore, there is no need for economies of scale.  Virtually everything is free or almost free, which is the greatest economy anyone could ask for.  No government economy of scale is going to top that.

As you said, this does create the problem of charities operating in poor areas suffering resource shortages.  While this is not something the federal government would experience in the same way, it is a mistake to say the the federal government's welfare programs do not suffer similar phenomena of unbalanced funding allocation.

No, so they duplicate the local overhead structure for each area they operate in. Thats inefficient. Rather than have one organization run all the food banks in a state or the country, you got one organization for each area a particular food bank serves. It also results in the inefficient distribution of resources because there is no effective coordination. One company could generously donate to a food bank in one area when that food bank is relatively well stocked, while a food bank in the next area is having trouble getting its shelves stocked. And its not free, you say its free because you deliberately ignore the costs. Just because the costs of a charity has shifted the cost burden from the charity to whoever is donating, it doesn't mean its free. As for the economies of scale, well I admit, food banks would gain little from it, given the particular model they operate in. But food banks aren't the only charity in existence. Any charity that doesn't rely on donations of whatever its trying to give to people, but who simply purchase it from monetary donations would have economy of scale benefits. 

And while a government allocation of funds isn't always perfect, a government has an easier time adjusting it, given that they have an information advantage and can see allocation inefficiencies much better than local charities. 

That's not really true.  More likely, Democrats aren't going to support donating funds to local charities because they see it as the government's problem, and Republicans aren't going to support donating money to charities because they don't see it as the government's problem.  In reality, neither party is strongly in favor of federal funding of charity organizations.  (A lot of charities aren't in favor of it either.)

Furthermore, the "grassroots organizations" angle isn't really true.  For one, this is primarily a Democratic talking point, so unless you're going to accuse the Democratic party of suddenly becoming the party of small government, this logic doesn't really work.  (The Republican approach to small government isn't typically based on the concept of "grassroots organizations," but rather, the individual.)  Second, most communities are too small and/or inconsequential to be of note to federal officials because the structure of the federal government doesn't take that granular a view of the American landscape.  States can, and many do, take a much more granular view of the communities that they govern, so the local politics approach works better in state elections.

It doesn't matter who advocates for grass root organizations. The point is that it becomes very attractive to think that charities will fix the problem so politicians can ignore it. That doesn't even mean that the government has to fund it, charities are supposed to fund themselves. At best they will pass a few laws that make it easier for people to donate to charities, like making donations tax free. 

As for who talks about grass root movements, both parties do. The Tea Party is all about how its supposedly a grass roots movement thats 'taking back America from an overbearing Federal government'. The reality is that 'grass root movements' is just a very attractive word for politicians because it suggests authenticity, real Americans doing real things to improve the quality of their community, bottom up democracy, etc. For a civilization that is obsessed with authenticity (its not just the US that has this obsession) and with an increasingly negative view on the whole idea of government, its just a good thing to say for politicians. 

From the perspective of "cost to acquire and deliver X amount of food," it is an incredibly efficient model.  It costs almost nothing.

The federal government's main approach to food donations is to pay for your food at the grocery store, not to support a food bank.  The support that it does provide to food banks primarily comes from federal food purchases as part of price control strategies that were never instituted for the sake of charity.  (The charity is a side effect of the government finding itself with food that it has no use for.)

Businesses that choose to donate aren't exactly blind to the costs that they bear.  They know that they are going to bear the entire cost of the donation, and they know that they are likely never going to get any financial value back from their actions, and yet, they still donate.  Most don't do it for financial benefit, and the finances aren't really a factor so long as the costs aren't unreasonable.

Well like I said, thats only because you deliberately ignore all the costs. 

And business that do donate are large corporations that got tax incentives to donate. You know, charity is tax exempt. But those are large corporations, smaller businesses aren't sure because they might have to pay taxes. In any case it means there is some financial benefit for larger corporations. They have leftover food, its already produced, now all they got to do is send to a food bank. That costs money, sure, but because its tax free, that very much eases the burden. Besides, it makes them look good which has positive effects on their business later down the line. But without the tax breaks, it does become expensive. You have to stock the food, put it in a truck, transport it, etc. That costs money, and its into your profit margin. That puts a severe limit on how much food you can practically donate because you want to make money and you want to have a profit at the end of the day. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

This can never be fixed entirely.  Even if education was free and available to the baccalaureate level, many would not seek to improve their lot.  Some are incapable, some are indifferent.  Education availability has to include an entry into trades as well as to academia/professions. 

Every person, with few exceptions, has some talent or interest that can be developed.  The problem is that our systems are not geared to this idea, and wants to put everyone in a level playing field.  This is patent nonsense.

  Edited July 24, 2015 by A Nonny Moose  
Clarification

[hym 358]

Thats a rather simplistic way of looking at it. Your time has monetary value and it has costs. There is the opportunity cost, which also informs the monetary value of your time. Instead of volunteering at a food bank I could be working and earning 20 dollars an hour (for example). My time costs 20 dollars an hour and it is worth 20 dollars an hour. I just chose to eat that cost myself because I believe volunteer work is important and adds value to society and my own life. And thats the point of volunteer work, its not the place I decide to volunteer for that decides how much my time is worth by paying me a wage because its not their choice to make, its mine because Im the volunteer. 

That aside, you severely under appreciate the value of volunteer work if you say that your time is only worth what you are paid for. Volunteer work, especially in a case like a foodbank is taking up the slack where society and the government have either failed or don't care enough to step in. Helping out hungry people, showing basic empathy and humanity to those who are down on their luck, those are good things. Except to people like yourself who argue that essentially its worthless work because you don't get paid and the only way to measure worth is money. If you can't put a price on it, its worthless according to this type of logic, never mind the positive effects on society. 

That's not what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that, from a financial perspective, time offered for zero pay has zero monetary value or cost.  If I ask you to help me move my couch, and you agree to do so without asking anything in return, your time costs me nothing and has no financial value to you.  It makes no sense for me to account for your time as a real financial cost if you're not asking me to pay for it.  The warm fuzzies you derive from donating your time are an entirely separate matter.

No, so they duplicate the local overhead structure for each area they operate in. Thats inefficient. Rather than have one organization run all the food banks in a state or the country, you got one organization for each area a particular food bank serves. It also results in the inefficient distribution of resources because there is no effective coordination.

In the case of food banks, they are a lot like emergency services in SC4.  They have effective ranges, so the local structure gets duplicated whether they are independently operating food banks or part of a larger network. Most don't need, nor benefit from, any organization above what it takes to directly run that specific food bank, and multiple food banks are capable of acting in coordinated response without ever needing an overhead organizational structure.

And its not free, you say its free because you deliberately ignore the costs. Just because the costs of a charity has shifted the cost burden from the charity to whoever is donating, it doesn't mean its free. 

 I'm not ignoring costs.  I'm recognizing that, from the perspective of the charity, they aren't costs.  If you enter a contest to win a new $30,000 car, and you win the car, we don't say that you just spent $30,000 on a new car.  That would be absurd.  Someone (the entity putting up the car) is spending $30,000 for the contest, but it isn't you.  From your perspective, it's a free car, and for the purposes of analyzing your costs in the transaction, it is perfectly justifiable to ignore the costs borne by the other entity, because again, they aren't your costs.

The government, on the other hand, is never going to win the car, so it will have to pay the $30,000 to receive the car.  As such, it is perfectly reasonable to include that outflow of money against the government's expenditures for obtaining the car.

It doesn't matter who advocates for grass root organizations. The point is that it becomes very attractive to think that charities will fix the problem so politicians can ignore it. That doesn't even mean that the government has to fund it, charities are supposed to fund themselves. At best they will pass a few laws that make it easier for people to donate to charities, like making donations tax free. 

As for who talks about grass root movements, both parties do. The Tea Party is all about how its supposedly a grass roots movement thats 'taking back America from an overbearing Federal government'. The reality is that 'grass root movements' is just a very attractive word for politicians because it suggests authenticity, real Americans doing real things to improve the quality of their community, bottom up democracy, etc. For a civilization that is obsessed with authenticity (its not just the US that has this obsession) and with an increasingly negative view on the whole idea of government, its just a good thing to say for politicians. 

Moment on US law and political theory:

The US already has laws on the books to promote charitable giving through tax deductions.  It's generally tied in as a part of the 501(c) portion of the US tax code.  There isn't a whole lot of room to make the laws more attractive than they already are, and some of those options would likely be fiercely opposed by Democrats because they interfere with the whole "rich should pay their fair share" logic, so realistically, US politicians aren't likely to walk down the "just make it more attractive to donate money and call it a day" path.

As I said earlier, the concept of "grass roots movements" is really a Democratic idea, as it doesn't really fit inside the typical Republican theory on limited government.  The reason you hear people using it is because it is the current buzzword to encourage funding and political activism.  The right side of the political spectrum really only adopted the phrase because it didn't want to seem like a bunch of lame ducks against a resurgent Democratic party, and thus risk losing the war over the political narrative.  It's a political tool to facilitate electoral and legislative victories.  It's not something the Republicans actually believe in.

In truth, it's not something the Democrats actually believe in either.  To better understand what this means, let's go back in time a few decades.  A (relatively) young individual by the name of Karl Rove authors a paper on a theory for how to capture the White House through a campaign of political division and exclusion.  While considered an interesting theory, strategists across the political spectrum generally regard the theory as unworkable in practice.  Fast forward to 2000.  The political world is in chaos as Karl Rove has just delivered the White House to Bush using the exact theory that everyone considered impossible to do in practice.  The Democratic National Committee is in turmoil because they just lost an election that they thought they should have won, because of a guy with a strategy that no one considered credible.  While many on the left end of the political spectrum would denounce Karl Rove as an idiot, DNC strategists did not share this viewpoint.  Instead, they saw him as an incredibly intelligent adversary who had just staged a political coup of sorts and ushered in a new political paradigm for which the Democrats had no response.  If the Democrats didn't want to be potentially shut out of the White House for decades, the DNC needed a way to shift the political landscape back in its favor.

The DNC's answer came in the mid-2000s.  While the US was embroiled in the Iraq insurgency, DNC strategists realized that if you treat the US political landscape as a war zone, then military theories on counter-insurgency, direct action, and associate networks could be adapted to win election campaigns.  All the DNC needed was money, a means to track political actors, and a message to fire up the electorate into a mass of willing foot soldiers for the cause.  The DNC solved the money problem quietly raising millions years in advance of the 2008 election.  It solved the associate network tracking issue by building an entirely new database to track donors, advocates, activists, political adversaries, etc.  And it solved the counter-insurgency and direct action issues by selling the concept of grass roots political activist groups and training said actors how to perform work on the DNC's behalf.  Individually, none of these are particularly revolutionary concepts, but DNC strategists employed them on a scale and integration never before seen in an American presidential election.

So, no, for the most part you won't find Democrats or Republicans passing legislation on the idea of grass roots organizations.    The idea of grass roots movements is not a political philosophy or a theory on the relationship between the government and the people, and they know this.  They may talk it up during an election and while in office, but it is for the sake of appearances.  They understand that grass roots activism is a campaign model.  It is a DNC system for the organization and mobilization of human resources towards a specific or general political goal.  Democrats use the model because it was a major driving factor in winning the White House for Obama in 2008, and Republicans are adopting the model because they find themselves without an alternative campaign strategy (much like the Democrats in 2000).

And business that do donate are large corporations that got tax incentives to donate. You know, charity is tax exempt. But those are large corporations, smaller businesses aren't sure because they might have to pay taxes.

To borrow from the US Small Business Administration: "Small businesses are known for their philanthropic gestures. In fact, surveys suggest that 75 percent of small firms donate to charities each year, averaging a contribution of six percent of their profits."  https://www.sba.gov/blogs/understanding-charitable-giving-tax-deduction-what-can-your-small-business-write

Many US businesses and corporations donate without expectation that they will ever receive back the monetary value of those donations.  They donate because the individuals running the organization are genuinely interested in charitable activity, or they recognize that their involvement fosters positive developments in the communities where they operate.  The great thing about these donations is that they are often borne entirely out of the corporation's pocket, as many companies do not set their prices with consideration for their philanthropic activities.

 

On a completely unrelated note to the above discussion--and possibly more in line with the purpose of the thread--the US State Department and intelligence community are now asking the Department of Justice to open a criminal inquiry concerning Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/politics/criminal-inquiry-is-sought-in-hillary-clinton-email-account.html

  Edited July 24, 2015 by hym  

[LexusInfernus 908]

 That's not what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that, from a financial perspective, time offered for zero pay has zero monetary value or cost.  If I ask you to help me move my couch, and you agree to do so without asking anything in return, your time costs me nothing and has no financial value to you.  It makes no sense for me to account for your time as a real financial cost if you're not asking me to pay for it.  The warm fuzzies you derive from donating your time are an entirely separate matter.

Well that is only true if we do the accounting from your perspective, in which case you are right, it doesn't cost you anything to move your bank. If we account from my perspective, it costs me time, and therefor opportunity costs exist. I eat those costs because I'm just a nice guy and I don't mind helping a friend move his couch, but that doesn't mean its free for everyone. 

 I'm not ignoring costs.  I'm recognizing that, from the perspective of the charity, they aren't costs.  If you enter a contest to win a new $30,000 car, and you win the car, we don't say that you just spent $30,000 on a new car.  That would be absurd.  Someone (the entity putting up the car) is spending $30,000 for the contest, but it isn't you.  From your perspective, it's a free car, and for the purposes of analyzing your costs in the transaction, it is perfectly justifiable to ignore the costs borne by the other entity, because again, they aren't your costs.

The government, on the other hand, is never going to win the car, so it will have to pay the $30,000 to receive the car.  As such, it is perfectly reasonable to include that outflow of money against the government's expenditures for obtaining the car.

Well point taken. Its not costs for the food bank. But we are looking at the effectiveness of charity, in particular food banks, as a system. In which case it no longer suffices to just look at one side of the equation. We need to take the whole system into account and then the costs do show up. Not at the food bank's side but at the suppliers side. And the effectiveness of charity depends entirely on how well the charitable institutions have access to donations. In other words, its sort of irrelevant whether charity looks effective from their side, what matters is if people are willing to give them money or stuff. Their costs matter. And if you look at it from that perspective charity isn't such an efficient model anymore. 

So, no, for the most part you won't find Democrats or Republicans passing legislation on the idea of grass roots organizations.    The idea of grass roots movements is not a political philosophy or a theory on the relationship between the government and the people, and they know this.  They may talk it up during an election and while in office, but it is for the sake of appearances.  They understand that grass roots activism is a campaign model.  It is a DNC system for the organization and mobilization of human resources towards a specific or general political goal.  Democrats use the model because it was a major driving factor in winning the White House for Obama in 2008, and Republicans are adopting the model because they find themselves without an alternative campaign strategy (much like the Democrats in 2000).

Well first, thats what I've been saying, grassroots is a buzzword that both sides use because it sounds good for various reasons. Whether they really promote the idea through legislation, well no, and they don't have to. The nice thing about charity is that its charity. The government doesn't have to set it up, charity will spring up whenever its needed. But that doesn't mean politicians can't exploit its existence. At the one hand charity fulfills a need without the government having to get involved, at the other hand it doesn't cost the government anything. So why not say you support charity because 'buzzwords'. And you can co-opt the existence of charity by simply pointing at it and say 'look we don't need to interfere, charities already do our job for us'. Its the tried method of taking credit for other peoples work, politicians do that often enough. 

To borrow from the US Small Business Administration: "Small businesses are known for their philanthropic gestures. In fact, surveys suggest that 75 percent of small firms donate to charities each year, averaging a contribution of six percent of their profits."  https://www.sba.gov/blogs/understanding-charitable-giving-tax-deduction-what-can-your-small-business-write

Many US businesses and corporations donate without expectation that they will ever receive back the monetary value of those donations.  They donate because the individuals running the organization are genuinely interested in charitable activity, or they recognize that their involvement fosters positive developments in the communities where they operate.  The great thing about these donations is that they are often borne entirely out of the corporation's pocket, as many companies do not set their prices with consideration for their philanthropic activities.

Donating money perhaps, but in case of food banks you don't donate money, you donate food. And the costs of getting that food from your farm to a food bank isn't necessarily tax deductible if you are a small-medium sized business. There is a tax deduction but that one isn't permanent. Just look at John Oliver's latest 'Last Week Tonight' episode, he covers this much better than I can. Its on Youtube in case you don't have HBO. 

[Larks2242 251]

Well tonight is the night of the first debate, Hoping my candidates get a bump, looking forward to what Ted Cruz has to say, him and Paul need more exposure to get their message out.

 

Then hopefully we can drive Trump and that joke of a gov Christy Creme offstage and put the party where it needs to be.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Don't bet on The Donald looking anything other than presidential.  You don't get that rich by being stupid.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Trump wins even if he doesn't get the nomination.  All this publicity is like a big tour for him, and he always comes out financially better off than he was before.  A lot of candidates on both sides are like that.  They all have books or whatever to sell.

[Larks2242 251]

Jeb Bush can go home now, He was absolutely destroyed over immigration by Ted Cruz and then crushed on the topic of common core by Senator Rubio.

 

Looks like Scott Walker has so far emerged as the dark horse, He has been very strong tonight.

Chris Christe and Rand Paul went hard against each other on data collection with Chris saying that there shouldn't be a required warrent because of his history arresting terrorists, while Rand said he wanted to collect less innocent people's data.

Trump just keeps going on bragging about his money and doing little to advance the topics, he has managed to call american leaders stupid, calling Rosie a "fat pig" and refusing to not run as an independent if he is not the nominee. 

[SimCoug 5,976]

Trump has too much history (and ego) to be taken seriously IMHO.  I can see how he is appealing to folks, but I don't think it will last.
(I get it though... people are tired of career politicians, and the Donald is absolutely the antithesis of that)
I didn't feel anybody had a clear cut victory tonight, but Ben Carson was the only one who stood out to me.  He had convincing answers (his response to the race question was brilliant) and his closing segment was the best of any of the other candidates.  Clear, honest and he was humble.

I'm happy that the Republicans are fielding such a large group of candidates... I'm really hope the cream rises to the top. 
I wish the Democrats could field a more robust group... healthy debates are essential to democracy and the current sparse crop is letting us down.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It doesn't matter what the "career politicians" do.  The Donald will run as an independent.  The GOP would never select him when some other tired, old sod will do.

If America is tired of the same old, same old don't be surprised to find The Donald in the Oval Office.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

My opinion on the debate based on how the candidates performed and spoke.

Trump - Totally bombed. Went around in circles and could never make a concise point. Bragged about how rich and corrupt he was. Got booed numerous times. Had my hands over my face every time he talked and broke out in uncontrolled laughter a few times (may have been the whiskey)

Bush - Flopped around. Didn't look good, stumbled over his talking points. A lot of "uhms" and "ahs"

Dr. Carson - Kept looking down at his notes and rarely made articulate points. However I thought his last two answers in the debate concerning race to be very eloquent and well said.

Paul - Performed pretty well, but looked down and smirked a bit too much. Was very good at delivering his points in very short, understandable soundbites.

Rubio - Very strong - look out for this guy. Super sharp, well spoken, and precise.

Christie - Not very presidential looking but he can handle himself quite well. Even though I don't agree with him on anything, he's a good debater.

Huckabee - Have hated this guy's guts since 2008 but I have to admit he did a really good job during the debate. He stayed on message, knows how to turn a phrase, and knows how to push those Republican buttons.

Cruz - I'll admit it, I don't like his face, but he spoke with clarity and you could feel the conviction in his words. He was always on point.

Kasich - Who's this guy? Felt pretty irrelevant. Spoke pretty well but stumbled on the race, gender, sexuality issues.

Scott Walker - I don't know what people see in this guy - I don't see it. He was an ok speaker but he didn't come off as presidential. Nothing makes him really unique, doesn't seem to have any new or interesting ideas.

One of my favorite questions was the 2nd last where they asked the candidates if they talked to God then as they went around they combo-ed it with God and veterans, God and race, God and sexuality. It made me laugh super duper hard.

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Considering all the fooferaw about the separation of the church and state, I think a good solid atheist would make the best candidate.  So that last remark is super irrelevant.

Are there any atheists in the Republican Party's foxholes?  If so, what will ever get them out of the closet?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Considering all the fooferaw about the separation of the church and state, I think a good solid atheist would make the best candidate.  So that last remark is super irrelevant.

Are there any atheists in the Republican Party's foxholes?  If so, what will ever get them out of the closet?

[Duke87 1,070]

I'm sure there are but none of them stand a chance of becoming president. Certainly not on a Republican ticket.

Yes, separation of church and state means all this fuss about candidates' religious beliefs should be irrelevant in a political debate. But unfortunately it matters to a lot of people. To the point where someone who is openly atheist will face a large number of voters who will reject them for that reason alone. It's a free country but a majority of Americans identify as Christian. Any president who does not would alienate a lot of the country.

 

 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

I'm sure there are but none of them stand a chance of becoming president. Certainly not on a Republican ticket.

Yes, separation of church and state means all this fuss about candidates' religious beliefs should be irrelevant in a political debate. But unfortunately it matters to a lot of people. To the point where someone who is openly atheist will face a large number of voters who will reject them for that reason alone. It's a free country but a majority of Americans identify as Christian. Any president who does not would alienate a lot of the country.

Discussion of faith in an American political debate does not contradict the philosophy of separation of church and state. The first amendment, which outlines this separation, says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Meaning the government can't legislate religion, that's it. It doesn't say anything about how politicians apply their faith or whether or not they should have one.

For most heads of state, even out side of the United States, it is important to be seen as having some kind of faith. There are very few openly atheist world leaders. But yes, it is very important for American leaders, especially Republicans, to emphasize their faith.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If I remember correctly, there is a section in Mein Kampf where Hitler states that a ruler must be seen to be staunchly a member of the dominant religious group.  For example, JFK was a practising Roman Catholic and made every effort to attend mass weekly.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

If I remember correctly, there is a section in Mein Kampf where Hitler states that a ruler must be seen to be staunchly a member of the dominant religious group.  For example, JFK was a practising Roman Catholic and made every effort to attend mass weekly.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that JFK only attended mass to keep up appearances?

It was actually pretty controversial for JFK to be Roman Catholic. In fact JFK was the first and only Roman Catholic President of the United States.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

JFK was a politician and he followed the rules.  I used Mein Kampf as an extreme example, but them's the rules.

[Larks2242 251]

I don't think many people would be willing to vote for an atheist, People tend to believe they have no morals and nothing holding them back from doing the wrong thing.

 

Former democrat senator from Arkansas Mark Pryor once said people need god to know not to kill people.

 

While I totally disagree he seems to really believe that.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There is an old war axiom that there are no atheists in foxholes.  At the time it was current it was probably true.

However, belief in a god that routinely kills people and/or subjects them to eternal torture for some minor infraction of his rules really doesn't agree with my ethics.  The idea of being 'saved' is such a bogus thing.  No one, true believer or not, can ever know the mind of a supreme being.  To say so is a deadly sin of presumption meriting the said punishment, in spades.

People have to make up their minds whether all the biblical rules mean anything at all, or is just a set of myths like any history, written by the winners and designed to keep people 'in their place'.

"If God does not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."
               Voltaire.
 

[Larks2242 251]

Looks like Hilliary Clinton may be going to jail, by destroying evidence she has commited a felony, that alone is a 3 year prison sentence.

At best she does go to jail, at worst she is not allowed to run for president, Bernie has surpassed her in recent polls, It looks like the Clinton era is finally over.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/11/hillary-clinton-may-go-to-prison/ 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Lol, those laws only apply to commoners, not royalty. Hilary will not go to prison. This won't stop her from running either.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I hope Bernie Sanders wins the democratic ticket, Hilary Clinton doesn't get chosen as vice president, and Donald Trump runs as a third party. I find this scenario likely and will result in a victory for Bernie Sanders. I want to see how much change he can actually accomplish and if he ever changes his tune when presented with official data, or if the legislative branch blocks his more foolish decisions (if he does ever mess up, which I hope he won't).

 

--Ocram

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

I hope Bernie Sanders wins the democratic ticket, Hilary Clinton doesn't get chosen as vice president, and Donald Trump runs as a third party. I find this scenario likely and will result in a victory for Bernie Sanders. I want to see how much change he can actually accomplish and if he ever changes his tune when presented with official data, or if the legislative branch blocks his more foolish decisions (if he does ever mess up, which I hope he won't).

 

--Ocram

Sanders is definitely more sincere than Hilary but personally don't think his policies are very good. He's just a typical socialist with utopian promises. When people promise you free stuff your B.S. detector should start going off. America doesn't have the money to pay for all this stuff Sanders is promising even if you steal money from rich people. He's essentially trying to buy your vote by saying he's going to take money from other people and give it to you. Governments don't have money, they can only take money from other people. When you mandate a raise of the minimum wage and tax rich corporations the costs of those hikes will affect the consumer and nothing is gained. Companies like Walmart will end up hiring less people. Raising the minimum wage will also hurt smaller business that can't afford it. The reason minimum wage isn't good enough for people is because of inflation and loss of value of the dollar.

Another thing is that while Sanders is better than Hilary he doesn't have presidential charisma. Look at how weak he was with those BLM protesters. He doesn't have the fire and you need a bit of that. Sanders is too "intellectual".