Wring wrote:
Maybe there just isn’t enough cash, Wring. And maybe that’s at least partly because $2 trillion dollars of it is in Washington. I don’t have everything I need, either. But I don’t see how that obligates you.
well, then you’re into the Libertarian ground only, where one is only responsible for themselves. so, even tho we all benefit from schools in a generalized sense, unless you either specifically benefit or specifically choose to support the school, you shouldn’t be required to support the schools either. And that’s a different arguement.
I’m not interested in arguing the basic libertarian POV gig. You’d commented that there was something specifically inherently wrong w/governmental funds supporting private non profit enterprises, and I questioned that.
If it falls down to the basic Lib POV, I ain’t interested in going any further. So, if you have some other specific gripe, have at it.
That’s a pretty vague anecdote there, Lib, especially considering how hard you came down on Degrance earlier in the thread for the exact same thing. Got a cite for that? And, while you’re at it, how about one that explains how cash strapped charities would be better off without government money?
My father was an officer in the Salvation Army for over thirty years. Till I was eighteen my family lived and breathed everything about the Army. Sure we had a decent house to live in and a decent car to drive in addition to the one we owned ourselves.
Do you want to know how much money we had when he retired? 700 bucks, a car and few pieces of furniture, and 54 dollars a month pension. That’s it. And it wasn’t from bad financial planning either because in his “retirement” he was still able to work and invest enough to provide for my mother when he died.
My father worked his ass off and gave everything he had and he got nowhere near rich from it. There are thousands more in the Army just like him.
I can’t say that there is absolutly no corruption in the Salvation Army. Anywhere you find humans you will find corruption. But you will be hard pressed to find an organization who helps those humans more.
You are a fool.
The Salvation Army is the UK’s primary provider of social services after the government. It has the resources, donations and funding support behind it to maintain large projects giving help to thousands. But it’s still difficult for me personally to see it in anything other than a less than glowing light.
An ex-partner of mine was a drugs detox worker at one of their hostels, in an environment where it was impossible for him to be ‘out’ as it could have possibly invalidated his contract: although their employees do not have to be Christian, his contract stated that he was expected to ‘have a lifestyle that does not go against the Salvation Army’s core belief structure’. As a homelessness worker in a city where the biggest hostel is run by the SA, I know many of the workers there personally and liase with them on a day-to-day basis. They complain of the ‘unspoken rule’ within the SA, that in order to get promoted within the group, a worker should be seen to be highly active within their programs of worship - your career best proceeds through piety rather than professional results within your field. Many of the residents at my place of work have also been residents with the SA: 100% of the people I have spoken with would rather sleep rough than go back there. They’re not mad keen on our place either, but at least here they are treated with respect and as adults who have the freedom to choose, rather than having to pay rent for a room somewhere where ‘God is forced down your throat 24/7’. The SA detox unit in my city will not even provide an on-site qualified drugs nurse (which they could manage the resources for, if they chose to); their argument being that as the residents are detoxing, they should not have illegal drugs on the premises, so why make a provision for that scenario? So they bury their heads in the sand rather than facing facts and maybe saving a few lives. Most if not all hostels will suffer drugs OD and have to cope with them, but a detox unit where all of the residents have heavy dependencies? Hire the damn nurse!
This country couldn’t cope without the SA; we rely on their services heavily, but also support them heavily. Many housing projects here started through religious organisations, the one I work for included, but most of them have moved on and seperated from their churches to function as businesses. The majority of industry workers and homeless communities in this country would have much more respect for the SA and its projects if it was to do the same.
—Apos - neither you nor Lib has taken the offer to actually see what level of cash donations such charities receive—
The problem right there is that it’s assuming that nothing would change if finances worked differently. Sure, if the government put less money into non-profits, and nothing else at all changed, the non-profits would have less money. But the reality is that people respond to incentives, and the world does react to changes: there would certainly not be absolutely less money by the exact amounts of the government spending cuts: not even necessarily less money at all (though I agree that it would be very unlikely to have more money, though it’s worth it to admit the capacity for that to happen). But regardless of what you might posit as the resultant level of funding, you CANNOT reasonably argue that the level of cash donations would remain the same if the government stopped funding non-profits. So we can’t just look at the current level of funding and conclude that we know how things would be if it wasn’t there.
It is also simply wrong to talk about funding of non-profits in the sense of more or less. If there is a right level of government funding for non-profits, considering both where the money comes from and where it goes, we should figure out what we think that is. It can’t be absolute, and it can’t just reflexively be “more!” just because there is always some degree of need for it. To wit:
—I reiterate - until you can convince me that private cash donations will fund these types of programs at the rate that they’re needed (each of the above that I’ve commented on have turned needy people away, due to a lack of funds, so even w/governmental support, there’s still a need), you’ll not have my support to take away funding.—
Of course there will always be need, even with very high levels of funding. But that’s not really the point: if the fact alone that there is need in one place justifies government intervention to fullest extent of the problem, then our government is ridiculously too small and timid, and our taxes are abysmally low. I’m not arguing that there isn’t a need, or even that levels of funding now are anywhere near enough to meet that need. But that’s a very different issue from a) whether that need is the only thing that should determine public funding (I don’t think so, and I doubt you really do either) and b) the justification of the various ways we try to fill that need. As I’ve already outlined, I don’t think it makes much sense to give a majority portion of my “social obligation” taxes to other Americans: not when there are far more needy people in other countries. If I had any say in where my money went, I’d definately fix that: but I don’t and I can’t.
Working in the non-profit world myself (right now with a homelessness org in New York), I’m well aware of that need even domestically, and I feel and act on an obligation to fulfill that need as best I can, because I really do think it’s worthwhile. But what I feel and do is a very different ball of wax from what I think it’s right to make other people do, and how I think the non-profit world should work in the context of government intervention.
But you’ve also sort of missed my point. I wasn’t necessarily even talking about government’s simple reducing funding. I don’t think that will happen, and I’m not even entirely decided on a position in that score. My main interest with the SA here is that it not both get government money AND be free of the obligations we generally place on the use of that public money. I think that the SA should be free to run their organization the way they want, and funders to choose to donate to them based on their estimation of SA’s strategy and performance. But that applies to government donations as well: and I don’t think government funding, which is, after all, taken from gay people too, should go to organizations that don’t allow gay people to work there: that’s not a strategy I think the government should support. Likewise, I’m not sure why the SA should want support when strings come attached. Obviously their solution is to get the strings removed.
My position on that is: I agree with the strings being there. Whether the SA wants, as is it’s decision, to accept the strings to do their work along with the money, or not, is their choice. They shouldn’t be forced to accept the strings. Personally, I would love to see them accept the strings in service of what I see as the greater of good of providing the best services they can to the populations they serve. They don’t see it that way. I don’t want to force them to see it my way.
Lib refers to government frivolity crippling charities. I certainly agree that this is a problem. But it’s not as clear cut as that. Governments, in making demands with their money, have different obligations than non-profits: that’s one of the reasons why one might prefer one to the other in various situations. It doesn’t necessarily make the government’s obsessions and “strings-attached” wrong, though in practice they very often are wrong. But there is no reason why non-profits should be forced to take on all the obligations of governments: if that were the case, then they serve no purpose: they might as well be government run in the first place. Their private control, which is largely a factor of their funding, gives them flexibility that is very valuable.
—well, then you’re into the Libertarian ground only, where one is only responsible for themselves.—
No no: the libertarian ground is not “every man for themselves is best” but rather that we shouldn’t use coercion to force responsibilities on those that don’t choose to undertake them willingly. I am responsible for many more people than myself: but that’s because I chose that responsibility: and other people, seeing that, have a right to judge me on whatever criteria they deem important based on my taking on those responsibilities.
Obviously, lots of things might be worse (or better) if we didn’t coerce people. There is no reason why we couldn’t place a head tax on people (which would be a highly efficient way of taxing) and take huge portions of their income in the name of tripling funding to orgs like SA. I don’t doubt that would improve a lot of people’s lives. But that improvement doesn’t necessarily justify the coercion. If we provisionally accept the idea of SOME coercion (which certainly seems practical), we need to at least discuss how much.
Further, if we’ve settled on a figure for how much I should be obligated to give, we then need to discuss whether I should have more individual control over where my own money goes. My arguement here is much like my case against giving to the United Way, instead of directly to the charities that you think are the best. Though it’s much more complicated than that, given the potential for misallocations due to trivial factors like publicity (witness the 9/11 aid glut far out of proportion to the comparative need of other causes) that even donors would second guess if they only knew what other people were doing.
Miller wrote:
Looks like you have me confused with someone in your imagination. I came down on Degrance, not for providing no cite, but for mangling the facts with a capricious paraphrase that provided his personal spin. I didn’t ask him to produce the ad; I asked him what the ad really said.
Apos - I thought I explained before - it has been my personal experience (running a non profit program which gets governmental support), that one of the specific necessary requirements in receiving and utilizing said monies is adhereance to EOE standards. Currently, sexual orientation is not one of those standards. So, if your complaint is that the SA is accepting the $$ w/o accepting the standards, then I believe you are mistaken.
again - when we ran a work experience program w/placements inside the SA, it was a specific requirement that the $$ was NOT used to support the church related activities -to the extent that they could not be required to clean the chapel, but could be required to clean the public restrooms for example.
And I demonstrated, by example why I believe that w/o governmental support, these types of services would simply go away (the youth homeless program referred to above- no, it’s not absolutely necessary to have specific shelters for youth, or for families vs. the traditional male and female shelters, but as a professional in the general human service biz, I see a definate advantage to having the others available and fear for the day when we are forced to seperate a family, having the young teen male housed w/the general male population etc. etc etc.). So, it’s back to you Apos to demonstrate why you think that private donations would fill the void should governmental support be withdrawn.
I resent the fact that the SA is the target of such bullshit!! I know their help was GREATLY appriciated during the flood of 2002.I Know because I was one of the thousands they helped…Several
hot meats and cleaning supplies were needed and they were there when they were needed!!.NOT ONE DOLLAR came out of my pocket but you can bet when I see them asking for donations I will be more than happy to do so!! How ,where,and why they use these donations are justified as long as they continue to help the people in need…Who knows OMNIPRESENT there may be a day you will be in need of them…I bet your views will change then.
Just to come back on topic for a bit here, shall we set up a betting pool when Omnipresent will release this earthshattering evidence?
Who’ll give me good odds?
But it is covered by non-discrimination laws in various cities. They want the right to ignore those laws.
B Williams, yes, I’m sure that the SA was of great help in your time of need. There are many disasters throughout the world where the SA and many like them reach out and help. And I applaud that action.
However, my bitch about the SA in particular is that, while doing so, they cover up many devious actions with government protection and funds that comes from everyone’s pocket indirectly. No one is privy to it. All anyone sees is the poor guy near San Antonio, TX in chest high water with a SA blanket round around him and a donut and coffee in hand.
Yes, they help and do good but, they “broadcast” a very christian-like attitude and beat they’re chest with it but then act very non-christian-like at times. I ask, which is it? I wasn’t aware that you can turn christianity on and off.
Skip, I’ll say this, I’m under a gag order of sorts but, in truth, most, if not all of what I have to say is derived from eyewitness. You’re not going to find this info in a newspaper or website or posting on your supermarket bulletin board. So, as a naysayer, you wouldn’t believe me anyway.
But, I throw this out and see how you feel; as an tax paying American who’s been beaten over the head about political correctness in the past 10 years or so, wouldn’t you feel the tiniest bit uncomfortable when an organization is offorded the benefits of tax free operation as well as other benefits when the organization adverstises job openings and which the little added line at the end of the job description says “Must be christian to apply”?
What happened to equal opportunity employer? What happened to it being “illegal” to descrimated against race, creed, color, gender, marrital status. That’s what they’re doing in this case.
Would it be ok for me to operate a goverment sanctioned non-profit orginization that says under job description postings “Must be Black to apply”? Does this make sense?
They claim equal opportunity employer (as I’m sure thay HAVE to say that in order to enjoy Goverment benefits) but then turn around and descriminate.
So, go ahead and donate to them because you feel they do some good for those who are unfortunate but, understand that all that glitters is not gold. If it doesn’t bother you that they practice this deceit, then go ahead and donate. People boycott corporations for a LOT less.
Apples and oranges, my friend.
The Salvation Army is a Christian organization. They have the right to hire whomever they want, and that includes restricting their candidates to Christians. Would you want your synagogue to hire a Christian as its spiritual leader, or your church to hire a Jew? Same thing.
That said, the SA is a wonderful organization. Many, many people I know are alive and sober because of them. Although I don’t contribute to many Christian organizations on principle, being Jewish myself, I have no problem donating to the SA, precisely because they do such good work.
Sounds like you’ve got a case of sour grapes.
Robin
You know Omni, the Catholic Church isn’t taxed either. It also “is offorded the benefits of tax free operation”. Do you have a problem with them insisting that all their priests and other paid employees are Christian? Must the federal government insist that they hire a number of Jewish Catholic Priests?
Are we seriously supposed to insist that all non-profits be wholly secular?
They are a Christian organization. A Christian church may advertise for a director of religious education, and specify that the applicants must be Christian. You cannot force a synagogue to hire a kitchen supervisor that isn’t Jewish.
Your example of racial discrimination is not a good analogy - there, the race of the applicant bears no rational relationship to the performance of their job duties. In the cases I mention above, the religion of the applicant is relevant to the job they’re performing.
- Rick
You knw, this has the makings of a great 1950s exploitation movie
Trumpets of Shame!!!
NOW, IT CAN BE REVEALED!! The shocking, true story of the Salvation Army, the sleaziest racket ever to hit the sordid streets! Ripped from secret eyewitness testimony the newspapers dare not print!!
SEE Major Barbara, the broad whose angelic face hides an animal lust…FOR MEN!!
HEAR the the satanic orchestra that hypnotizes the man on the street to surrender his earthly goods!!
SHUDDER at the carnal circus that masquerades as an army of light!
DO YOU DARE to enter this hellish world? SEE
Trumpets of Shame!!!
Now playing at a drive-in near you.
PLease. The issue was raised that they want it ‘both ways’, accepting $$ from sources, then ignoring the regs. If you can demonstrate a case wherein the SA is receiving funds from a city which has such non-discrimination laws, AND still having the same hiring prinicpals, you have a case. I suggest that by operating in a city but NOT receiving funds from them, that they are not ‘having it both ways’. They are a private non profit. post the specific city statute, I suspect that you’ll see that it refers to public entities, and/or entities receiving city funds.
Gobear, honey, that was awesome! You should be a Hollywood copywriter.
Robin
You still didn’t tell about the PARTY’S!