So charities have poor administration and government has poor administration, in both cases your talking about a large sum of money going to “administration”.
I’m sorry you have so little faith in your fellow man both poor(To find ways to provide for themselves) and wealthy(to be charitable when necessary).
That being said I admit the poverty problem is greatly increased by the fact that Government by law denies anyone the opportunity to work unless they can be productive enough to merit minimum wage & benefits. That is where our real unemployment problem began.
That does not however mean we can afford to give way the hard earned fruits of other people’s labor to folks who have labored not. Nor does it mean that we can afford to allow politicians to pick and choose who “is in need of money”. That is the root of the political patronage system.(voting yourself other people’s money.)
Looks like we agree on at least two things.
1. “political patronage system”. I absolutely agree that a lot of vote “buying” goes on thru these programs.
2. “I’m sorry you have so little faith in your fellow man”. You are correct, I am the ultimate cynic in most if not all areas of my life. Most of that cynicism is due to dealing with government programs and charitible programs and those that partake of each. Abuse is rampant in both. Of course there are good people on both ends.
I salute your optimism. (I’m not being sarcastic at the moment).
If the government programs were cut and sent back to the charities, the charities would be flooded. No amount of private donation could support the need.
As I originally posted...this country should not be one that has a lot of homeless starving people living under bridges. I simply don’t find that acceptable. Does the system need to be changed...you bet!
I believe that one can often predict the way in which a general task will generally be performed, well or badly, by examining the incentives of people charged with performing it. If those who do a task one way will be rewarded more highly than those doing it another way, people will be more likely to do the task the first way, even if the second way would be better.
If a private charity gives $100 to someone who doesn't need it, that charity will immediately have $100 less to give to people who do need it. If the charity runs out of money, it may put out an appeal for public support, but if it has wasted much of its money, it may have trouble getting people to donate more. By contrast, if a public welfare agency gives $100 to someone who doesn't need it, that will generally not reduce the amount of money it will have available to give to others. If anything, the increased demand for its services will be used as justification for a bigger budget.
Given the differences in incentives faced by private and public agencies, it should hardly be surprising that they behave very differently.