Omnibus Appropriation Bill

[Sam Spade]

I respect what you're trying to do Bono, and I hate to say it, but with the results of the recent elections, I think that any hopes of fiscal responsibility and paring down the size and scope of the Atlasia central government have gone down the toilet, so to speak.

[Sam Spade]

I respect what you're trying to do Bono, and I hate to say it, but with the results of the recent elections, I think that any hopes of fiscal responsibility and paring down the size and scope of the Atlasia central government have gone down the toilet, so to speak.

PRESS ON. Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing in the world is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
Calvin Coolidge

I didn't say you should quit, Bono.  I was just expressing an opinion. 

[Sam Spade]

communities are gradually weened off of government aid

Which would be a death sentence to thousands of poverty stricken communities all across Atlasia.

The money that we are spending here is mainly going to enlightened bureaucrats to distribute, rather than the poor.

Besides, giving money to the poor does not encourage them to better themselves.  It encourages them to continue being poor.

Private charitable institutions do a much better job with this type of endeavor.

[Sam Spade]

Besides, giving money to the poor does not encourage them to better themselves.  It encourages them to continue being poor.

I thought that kind of attitude died in the depression

It never died.  It continues to be true. 

What has the Great Society done to impact poverty rates?  Absolutely nothing. 

If we expanded the Great Society, what would it do to poverty rates?  Absolutely nothing, in fact it might increase them, as it would encourage more people to be poor.

[Sam Spade]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By better job do you mean a better job at improving peoples lives (hah!) or do you mean "costs-me-less-money-so-I-can-go-get-myself-a-new-SUV"?

It's a question of efficiency. Private charities, in general, are more efficient with their money than government welfare programs. With both, a certain amount of the money collected, through taxes or voluntarily, will go towards administration and distribution costs rather than actually giving the money(or goods bought with the money) to the receiving end. There's also the matter of how well, the money is distributed, though that's a seperate efficiency issue.

Government welfare is greatly inefficient in terms of administration costs. I can't find an exact number(if someone could, please do) but I have heard it is over 50%. Private charities are more likely to have low overhead costs, like the Salvation Army or the American Kidney Foundation, and distribute much more effectively. Also, since these organizations were founded and are run on charitable intent they are run in such a manner as to be charitable, as opposed to welfare, which is established with charitable/political intent and run by beauracrats that really just don't give a damn - it's just a job to them.

My point exactly.  Thanks for the excellent reply, couldn't have done it better myself.