# Can government social programs be replaced with a charitable mandate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2013, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949 "2013-04-28T21:02:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/81 "2013-04-29T19:09:57Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > If relying on private charity was such a great system for thousands of years as the OP claims, then why did government start spending on social causes in the first place? Do you believe in self regulating industry, or a self regulating criminal justice system? This is what government Charity is. It is the domestication of the masses, the honey barrel in the woods, in it’s current form it is dependancy and enslavement for the benefit of the politically wealthy. Why support slavery? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/82 "2013-04-29T20:27:05Z")
First, what is “a honey barrel in the woods?” Second, the statement that social programs create slavery is absurd, offensive, and a little bit racist… Which are the same terms I’d use to describe the Von Mises Institute, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/83 "2013-04-29T20:50:28Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > First, what is “a honey barrel in the woods?” > > Second, the statement that social programs create slavery is absurd, offensive, and a little bit racist… Which are the same terms I’d use to describe the Von Mises Institute, by the way. Bow hunters stick a barrel of honey in the wood chained to a tree. They leave it out there to a few weeks and keep it stocked. This brings the bears in so they can be shot when there head is in the barrel. The Barrel in the woods is bait, control. You can not be free if you are chained by the addictions that control you. You are a slave controlled by those with political capital. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/84 "2013-04-29T20:57:16Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > Bow hunters stick a barrel of honey in the wood chained to a tree. They leave it out there to a few weeks and keep it stocked. This brings the bears in so they can be shot when there head is in the barrel. The Barrel in the woods is bait, control. You can not be free if you are chained by the addictions that control you. You are a slave controlled by those with political capital. Why am I hearing this in Morpheus’ voice? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/85 "2013-04-29T21:20:30Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > Bow hunters stick a barrel of honey in the wood chained to a tree. They leave it out there to a few weeks and keep it stocked. This brings the bears in so they can be shot when there head is in the barrel. The Barrel in the woods is bait, control. You can not be free if you are chained by the addictions that control you. You are a slave controlled by those with political capital. You clearly don’t know what slavery is. I’m sure those starving to death because food banks were not as popular a charity as the investigation of murders of hot blondes who look good in bikinis (solicitation material being garage-wall ready) will be grateful that they aren’t slaves. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/86 "2013-04-29T21:25:21Z")
I think you would make more people change their minds on this issue if you stopped associating receipt of assistance as being slavery. Clearly you need a more inflammatory comparison than just calling these Americans “slaves.” Perhaps they are Holocaust victims, aborted babies, meth heads, and molested children. I think people are more apt to embrace libertarianism once they understand that government is like a Nazi abortionist rapist drug pusher. You really have to grab people’s attention! More exciting arguments always carry the day. And please see my question about the 30% figure. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/87 "2013-04-29T21:49:49Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > Do you believe in self regulating industry, or a self regulating criminal justice system? This is what government Charity is. It is the domestication of the masses, the honey barrel in the woods, in it’s current form it is dependancy and enslavement for the benefit of the politically wealthy. Why support slavery? This is a mistake libertarians make. They act like government is some alien thing that is done to us. But we are the government. It’s just a tool we use to do the things we want to do. Don’t tell us we can’t build a house just because you’re afraid of hammers. ---
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/88 "2013-04-29T22:18:56Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Robert Woodson stated: “on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor.” > > The Michael Tanner paper you provided states, “Yet this year the federal government will spend more than $668 billion on at least 126 different programs to fight poverty.” > > Is it your belief that of the $668 billion spent by the US government on poverty programs, that only $200 billion will actually reach the poor, and the rest is basically non-productive overhead? When you pay prevailing wages, continually have sensitivity and diversity training at tax payer expense, endless meetings, fantastic benefits, a gold star early retirement package, excessive paperwork, and a weak accountability system; the little things begin to add up. The 70% 30% split is most certainly a sexy number and others have estimated it at 80% 20% split. While these numbers may be disconcerting, You should be more concerned with how efficiency aids in effectiveness. If a government charity is only 30% efficient and a private charity is 90% efficient then the government charity will have to be 300% more effective than the private charity for it to break even on overall effectiveness. Have you heard the saying “Diversity is our strength” A charitable mandate brings diversity to realm of noble cause that we support as a society while maintaining a specific level of funding that we are able to afford. When you put so many eggs in the government basket you are increasing your risk of major unrecoverable failure. ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/89 "2013-04-29T22:36:28Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > …continually have sensitivity and diversity training at tax payer expense… How much taxpayer money is spent per year to give this training to government employees? 1% of the federal budget? 10%? Use actual numbers. Many companies and charities use the same training, often from the same vendors. Show how they negotiate better rates than the government. Use actual numbers. Also, planning on answering this one? > [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > By “stripped of their assets and made dependent upon the system” you mean all of their assets, right? Because if it was just some of their assets, they wouldn’t be dependent on charity. > > So, if someone fails to pay what amounts to a 10% tax, you advocate a penalty equal to all of their assets. > > House, car, bank account, family business, the fridge with all of the food in it, clothes, insulin, oxygen bottles, wedding ring, the retirement nest egg that took a lifetime to build. All gone in a puff of confiscatory smoke. > > For underpaying on a the functional equivalent of a tax bill. Not for murder, or grand theft, or arson, or producing chemical weapons in the garage. Nor for failing to pay federal income tax, or FICA, or state taxes. Only for your special pet tax. > > That’s one important tax, there. ---
**Author:** ![AdamF](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/adamf/32/6246_2.png) [@AdamF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AdamF)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/90 "2013-04-29T23:23:40Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > The 70% 30% split is most certainly a sexy number and others have estimated it at 80% 20% split. I have been trying to find an actual study that was responsible for those numbers. So far, I have only found references to the work of Tanner. Do you happen to have his actual data? I have been unable to lay my hands on his book, nor any other study that looked into the efficiency of government run welfare system. However, there is a relevant comparison in health care insurance systems. This [study](http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/courses/econ/classes/NEJMsa022033.pdf)compared private and public insurance schemes in the US and Canada. Their results for administrative overhead: Private insurance: 11.7% in the US / 13.2% in Canada Medicaid: 6.8% Medicare: 3.6% Canada’s provincial plans: 1.3% I think that clearly shows that government programs achieve efficiency of scale and are not nearly as inefficient as you believe. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/91 "2013-04-29T23:23:42Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > The 70% 30% split is most certainly a sexy number and others have estimated it at 80% 20% split. While these numbers may be disconcerting, You should be more concerned with how efficiency aids in effectiveness. If a government charity is only 30% efficient and a private charity is 90% efficient then the government charity will have to be 300% more effective than the private charity for it to break even on overall effectiveness. You are assuming that those “sexy” numbers are true. I can’t find any single thing to make me believe that those analyses are anything but 100% bullshit. The EITC provided [$62 billion](http://www.eitc.irs.gov/central/eitcstats/) in benefits to taxpayers last year. The total budget for the IRS is [$13 billion](http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/budget-in-brief-fy2013.pdf), and that includes the cost of administering the whole tax code. It is patently unbelievable to believe that overhead costs make up 70-80% of anti-poverty programs when this one program alone provides many times more funds to poor people than it costs to administer the tax code for every individual and business in the country. When you add to this the well-established fact that Medicaid overhead costs are somewhere around the 2-5% range ([cite](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/)), then it is impossible to make that ridiculous conclusion that administrative costs are so high when the two largest government poverty programs cost relatively little to run. That, my freedom loving friend, is how you cite an argument. ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/92 "2013-04-30T03:16:15Z")
The rhetorical trick in the 70% number, fwiw, is that the money goes to bureaucracy or “others serving the poor.” But that counts many things that we don’t think of as bureaucracy. For example, Medicare and Medicaid are benefits in kind, rather than cash transfers. Boom: all of that money now counts as going to people “serving the poor,” rather than to the poor themselves. After all, those doctors and nurses aren’t poor, right? We’re wasting money by giving it to them! ---
**Author:** ![pjnlsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e8c25b/32.png) [@pjnlsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pjnlsn)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/93 "2013-04-30T04:08:04Z")
Certainly they can. But if you mean, will it be the same? It’s highly unlikely no, unless human nature radically shifts overnight. ---
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/94 "2013-04-30T04:14:07Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Can you find the actual part of the Woodson study that shows how he reached the calculation that only 30% of tax dollars intended for welfare actually reach the intended recipients? All I can find are libertarian publications referring to that conclusion, but not any discussion of how that conclusion was reached. I have sent a letter to Robert L. Woodson and to Michael Tanner concerning the evidence of this matter. I am wait to see if they will get back to us. Here is a link to a youtube video of Robert L. Woodson of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise so that you can see what he look like. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player\_embedded&v=WoL0Nv03UYc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WoL0Nv03UYc) ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/95 "2013-04-30T07:10:12Z")
> [@AdamF](#): > > I have been trying to find an actual study that was responsible for those numbers. So far, I have only found references to the work of Tanner. Do you happen to have his actual data? I have been unable to lay my hands on his book, nor any other study that looked into the efficiency of government run welfare system. > > However, there is a relevant comparison in health care insurance systems. This [study](http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/courses/econ/classes/NEJMsa022033.pdf)compared private and public insurance schemes in the US and Canada. Their results for administrative overhead: > Private insurance: 11.7% in the US / 13.2% in Canada > Medicaid: 6.8% > Medicare: 3.6% > Canada’s provincial plans: 1.3% > > I think that clearly shows that government programs achieve efficiency of scale and are not nearly as inefficient as you believe. There is more to overhead than just how much is paid the administrative staff. You have to count fraud as well, plus whatever money was appropriated to buy votes for the plan, if any. ---
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/96 "2013-04-30T15:04:31Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > By “stripped of their assets and made dependent upon the system” you mean all of their assets, right? Because if it was just some of their assets, they wouldn’t be dependent on charity. > > So, if someone fails to pay what amounts to a 10% tax, you advocate a penalty equal to all of their assets. > > House, car, bank account, family business, the fridge with all of the food in it, clothes, insulin, oxygen bottles, wedding ring, the retirement nest egg that took a lifetime to build. All gone in a puff of confiscatory smoke. > > For underpaying on a the functional equivalent of a tax bill. Not for murder, or grand theft, or arson, or producing chemical weapons in the garage. Nor for failing to pay federal income tax, or FICA, or state taxes. Only for your special pet tax. > > That’s one important tax, there. When the government confiscates stuff they usually just take major assets, not photo albums, laptops, clothes, or wedding rings. This measure remain poetically just with respect to the crime and if you are self-centered and materialist your self-centeredness and materialism will be a curse unto you. The measure is built to be strong because as another poster pointed out, peoples live are at stake. The truth is you don’t really own your stuff or your body. First God owns it and then the government. Try stealing in the Kingdom of Saud and see how many hands you come back with. You are a steward of the stuff in your possession so steward well lest you be fired. ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/97 "2013-04-30T16:35:47Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > When the government confiscates stuff they usually just take major assets, not photo albums, laptops, clothes, or wedding rings. It is irrelevant how the government “usually” does things. You are proposing a new, unusual law and penalties for disobedience of it. If your proposed penalty is to be limited to certain classes of assets, it is your responsibility to state that instead of using vague and hyperbolic language. We cannot read your mind. You have previously said that violators will be stripped of their assets and made dependent on charity. That sounds like confiscation of essentially all property. Define your terms or GTFO. > [@Joshuagenes](#): > > This measure remain poetically just with respect to the crime and if you are self-centered and materialist your self-centeredness and materialism will be a curse unto you. In your opinion, then, it is government’s job to restrain sef-centeredness and materialism. But only to that level that you prefer, right? Why do you get to calibrate the personal philosphy and temperment of the inhabitants of an entire nation, many of whom do not agree with you? > [@Joshuagenes](#): > > The measure is built to be strong because as another poster pointed out, peoples live are at stake. People’s lives are also at stake when someone sets fire to an occupied building, or sticks up a bank, or drives drunk, or commits a murder. None of these carry a “lose all property” penalty. Why does your special pet tax merit a total confiscation of property, when no other crime does? > [@Joshuagenes](#): > > The truth is you don’t really own your stuff or your body. Cite? The laws of the United States, and a whole lot of philosophers of the last 500 or so years, are pretty clear on both and they disagree with you. > [@Joshuagenes](#): > > First God owns it Cite? You say God owns it. I say God does not own it. Neither of these can be proven. Why do your unprovable religious beliefs get to trump mine and those of everyone else who does not go to the same church as you? > [@Joshuagenes](#): > > and then the government. Cite? You say the government owns it. That does not make it true. > [@Joshuagenes](#): > > Try stealing in the Kingdom of Saud and see how many hands you come back with. The laws of a corrupt theocratic monarchy on the other side of the world are utterly useless as a justification for your proposed law for the US. Or are you making laws for the Saudis also? > [@Joshuagenes](#): > > You are a steward of the stuff in your possession so steward well lest you be fired. But only you get to decide what constitutes good stewardship, right? Or can anybody play “Boss of everyone”? Because I think there are plenty of people not stewarding their luxury cars/kids/internal organs/bank accounts well enough, and they need to lose them. Thank you for pointing out that this is, at its heart, a religiously based argument. There are hundreds of millions of other Americans who do not share your particular hang-ups about materialism, charity, and the role of government. Many of them come to their beliefs through religion, just as you apparently have. Your strong feelings do not, in and of themselves, constitute a persuasive argument for the rest of us to upend the system as it currently is. If you want to talk about your feelings, take it to MPSIMS or The Pit. When come back, bring facts and rational justifications. ---
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/98 "2013-04-30T23:31:21Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > It is irrelevant how the government “usually” does things. You are proposing a new, unusual law and penalties for disobedience of it. If your proposed penalty is to be limited to certain classes of assets, it is your responsibility to state that instead of using vague and hyperbolic language. We cannot read your mind. > > You have previously said that violators will be stripped of their assets and made dependent on charity. That sounds like confiscation of essentially all property. Define your terms or GTFO. Furry Marmot the reason the government usually doesn’t take everything is because it isn’t cost effective to deal with a bunch of little crap. The appointed executor of your estate is usually paid per case and it remain in his interest to get through a lot of cases. But don’t tick him off either lest he take the little stuff too. > [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > In your opinion, then, it is government’s job to restrain sef-centeredness and materialism. But only to that level that you prefer, right? Why do you get to calibrate the personal philosphy and temperment of the inhabitants of an entire nation, many of whom do not agree with you? The only thing the government legislates is morality. That is the primary function of government. Sometimes they legislate good morality and sometimes bad but every decision is a moral one. It is you that is trying to calibrate the personal philosophy and temperament of the inhabitants of an entire nation by making the pay for social programs that only you believe in. I am trying to maximize their freedom to choose while still fulfilling the promises and obligations of politicians. > [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > People’s lives are also at stake when someone sets fire to an occupied building, or sticks up a bank, or drives drunk, or commits a murder. None of these carry a “lose all property” penalty. Why does your special pet tax merit a total confiscation of property, when no other crime does? Yes they do. Have you ever heard of lawsuits? How about jail time? Death penalty? Your assets. Your time. Your body. All gone for failing to do what the government wants. The charitable mandate has a strong enforcement policy because A. after you have made a public example out of a few rich people who cheat the others are less likely to cheat. This reduces overall enforcement costs and increases compliance. B. It is poetically just. There are people and projects depending on the funds that you provide, if that money is not received they are hurting and you need to be put into the position they are so that you can receive the hurt which you have given. > [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > Cite? The laws of the United States, and a whole lot of philosophers of the last 500 or so years, are pretty clear on both and they disagree with you. The laws of the United States that protect us from the government are only as good as the enforcement of the checks against the government. The found fathers split the government into three parts each with the ability to check each other and documents that spell out the order and rights of the people and institution therein by which we are guided. These pieces of paper and checks are only as good as our ability to persuade the government who has guns and crap that they mean anything. In this we attempt to arrest back some control as a people and effectively hold a gun to the governments head as they hold a gun to ours. And with respect to philosophers, they are entitled to their opinion but that doesn’t make it true. > [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > Cite? You say God owns it. I say God does not own it. Neither of these can be proven. Why do your unprovable religious beliefs get to trump mine and those of everyone else who does not go to the same church as you? When insurance companies call something and act of God they are referring to thing beyond our control. I have use “God” in this sense to reference the wind and the wave that can swept you and your stuff away. Get a grip Atheist this is the wrong thread to debate God. > [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > Cite? You say the government owns it. That does not make it true. Clearly you do not know what it means to own something. Ownership is a legal right to control something provided by the forces that be to the degree that they desire. The government is one of those forces that gives this legal right and what they give they can also take. > [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > The laws of a corrupt theocratic monarchy on the other side of the world are utterly useless as a justification for your proposed law for the US. Or are you making laws for the Saudis also? This was just an illustration of the power of government in general. Do you really need a specific American example? Just open the newspaper I am sure you can find someone who has been killed by a cop because the government felt threated as personified by that cop. Do you need Death penalty examples as well? or do you know how to use Google. > [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > But only you get to decide what constitutes good stewardship, right? Or can anybody play “Boss of everyone”? Because I think there are plenty of people not stewarding their luxury cars/kids/internal organs/bank accounts well enough, and they need to lose them. Those who have forced us to give to social programs without choice have already dictated this for us. My proposal attempts to arrest back some of this choice for ourselves. > [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > Thank you for pointing out that this is, at its heart, a religiously based argument. There are hundreds of millions of other Americans who do not share your particular hang-ups about materialism, charity, and the role of government. Many of them come to their beliefs through religion, just as you apparently have. Your strong feelings do not, in and of themselves, constitute a persuasive argument for the rest of us to upend the system as it currently is. If you want to talk about your feelings, take it to MPSIMS or The Pit. > > When come back, bring facts and rational justifications. Here’s a fact smart one, the poverty rate has risen since the advent of the Great Society. I am providing the poverty chart again.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US\_poverty\_rate\_timeline.gif](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif) ---
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/99 "2013-04-30T23:33:34Z")
Here is a response I got from Mike Tanner concerning the 70/30 number > [@](#): > > Mike Tanner > 7:11 AM (9 hours ago) > > to me > I have not seen any recent data on the issue, but have no reason to believe that it is not still truer today. However, It is important to note that the 70 percent figure is not solely government administrative overhead. That figure also includes government payments to the non-poor on behalf of the poor. For example, Medicaid payments go to doctors. Housing subsidies are frequently paid directly to landlords. > > See this for more info: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/bachmanns-claim-that-70-percent-of-food-stamps-go-to-bureaucrats/2013/03/18/3f85d042-8ff5-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239\_blog.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/bachmanns-claim-that-70-percent-of-food-stamps-go-to-bureaucrats/2013/03/18/3f85d042-8ff5-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_blog.html) > > Not strictly on point, but related to your discussion, you might finf these two publications of interest: > > [http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/american-welfare-state-how-we-spend-nearly-$1-trillion-year-fighting-poverty-fail](http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/american-welfare-state-how-we-spend-nearly-$1-trillion-year-fighting-poverty-fail) > > [http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-062es.html](http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-062es.html) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/100 "2013-05-01T00:48:15Z")
> [@](#): > > I have not seen any recent data on the issue, but have no reason to believe that it is not still truer today. I’m sure the OP found this convincing. I don’t think it worked as well for other people. “I don’t have data or evidence. But I believe what I’m saying is true.” Maybe this thread should be moved to the forum that’s appropriate for witnessing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949.md?page=6)