Occupy Wall Street Protests not working? What do you think?

[HappySqurriel]

richardhutnik said:

osamanobama said:

richardhutnik said:

osamanobama said:

lordmandeep said:
Jesus if you look at his messages would be considered a liberal in today's world.

About do all Human beings have the right to a house, a job, food and water.

Imo if people did not have to work to get such things, many in society would simply not work.
So the Govt had a big hand in causing the housing crisis as it wanted to give poor people mostly blacks and Latinos homes. Frankly, a lot of those people should have not gotten mortgages as they did not have enough income or steady income to support a household + mortgage.

actually Jesus wasnt very fond of government, as it was/is corrupt. and he often criticized polititians and especially tax collectors.

Jesus was very much for giving to the needy. the Key word is GIVING, not forcefully taking (stealing) of property and handing to another person.

Jesus wanted to people to give out of the goodness of their hearts, not because they had to or were forced to by government. involuntary giving, isnt giving at all, and completed defeats the purpose of what Jesus wanted us to do. 

What I do notice is there is a tendency by some to shift helping the poor from the poor to those who are giving, as if it is some sort of benchmark of virtue that they are awesome, rather than people in need being helped.  Not sure Jesus would approve of this shift.  Isn't the idea of helping people to help people, not have some sort of "I'm more virtuous than you, because I did more"?

What is the point of doing anything if people aren't helped?

not quite sure what you are trying to say. 

perhaps i have bad reading comprehension in ths case, or you sentance structure is very poor, but i cant decipher what you are trying to say.

but my point was, that Jesus would be/ was against people/government taking your property and handing it to others that they deem deserve it, and he was very much for YOU personally, GIVING because you were moved to do so, and you felt in your heart to give, and that you, yourself choose the recipient of this gift.

sure you can feel good about yourself for giving, but if your only giving to make yourself feel better (or your getting your property forcefully taken from you), your giving for the wrong reasons.

I am referring to what is seen in books like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216

The book argues that conservatives give more.  While that is an interesting study, when the focus is on who gives more, rather than on the best way to help the poor, then the focus is wrong.

As far as what Jesus said, Jesus said when you give, don't make noise about it, drawing attention to yourself, which is what happens when the conversation shifts from the best way to help the poor, to who gives more.

 

http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf

“[Government] income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, 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. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

“In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients. Charity Navigator, the newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by various criteria and supply that information to the public on their web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent. The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample was only 10.3 percent.”

One thing that is (of course) missing from these statistics that also slants to charities' advantage is the additional costs that governments spend beyond administrative costs. Locally, the food-bank accepts monetary donations and the vast majority of this money goes to buying food but (unlike the food-stamp program in the United States) this food is purchased at or near cost from large companies who want to support the food bank.

When you combine the lower administrative costs and the lower cost of food (due to corporate involvement) for every dollar spent the food bank probably feeds 2 to 4 times as many people as the government.

Something I haven't seen any studies on, which (once again) may tip the scale even further towards charities is the level of abuse in the systems. For some reason the general public tends to have no problem with people collecting benefits from the government even if they shouldn't qualify, but if someone does the same thing to a (well respected) charity. I could be wrong but I suspect the difference is the belief by many/most people that the government has nearly unlimited financial resources.

 

 

All in all, charities help people FAR more than the government does on a dollar to dollar basis