One Obozo vacation could feed hundreds of thousands of hungry people too, like he cares.

When you send BILLIONS to a country and steal the majority of it, there is some that still trickles down to make people think they are getting something from it, when in truth, it's peanuts by comparison to the total amount stolen.

I'm sure that private charity does go directly to the people, most of the time. American tax dollars by the time it reaches the needy little is left. Corruption siphons off most if not all. So whats the point of giving it?

the point is those it DOES Help

the point is, the corrupt governments are stealing the wealth(billions) from their own people who are starving.

the question was what is the point of giving


my answer is the point is those it DOES Help


when people pay that dollar for a burger at mcdonalds are they concerned whether it ends up in the pocket of the workers who are struggling or in the pocket of some ready to be fired drug addict, or some greedy administrative thief? no

do any of mcdonalds dollars end up in just thoee situation? yes

when we pay for gas at the pump do we worry where our dollars are going to end up, or is it enough that WE GOT SOMETHING?

that's the underlying point to most people and what they choose to give or spend money on,, what it GIVES THEM

for those who give to charity, it GIVES THEM the sense that they are TRYING to do some good,,,,they cant ENSURE THat it will, but at least they are doing more than griping about whatever that situation is they are trying to help

Many charities actually transfer very little of the money they themselves have received for needy causes. Some of the biggest names have some of the worst records of passing on the loot.

Check them out. You will be surprised.

http://www.ibtimes.com/worst-charities-non-profits-spend-most-their-money-fundraising-1298829

Giving is a wonderful thing. We all feel good when we give to something worthwhile. Where I work the people are by no means rich. But we have can food drives, donations for various groups, March of Dimes, United Way and to a local food bank and we adopt a needy family at Christmas. We even help families who have lost their homes or loved ones. So you could say we try.
But sending our tax dollars to a corrupt dictatorship? no way, doesn't feel good to me. I say give it to the needy here at home.
Now,I see homeless people that I never used to see every day. Pushing carts of cans and junk
to the recycle place for just a few dollars. They do it to survive now. Let's help our own and we'll fell just as good.

Almost 25% of my work goes to charity even though I may qualify as a person in need, but I "KNOW" where my contribution goes so I can feel good about it.

The wealthy give, then write off more than their donation, caring little how the money or gift is spent, or where it goes.... as long as they get their write-off. Like most anything the very wealthy do has an agenda, and has very little to do about feeling good about themselves, only about appearances of, and the prestige of saying they care. Very few would actually dig in their pocket to help an individual in person who is supposed to benefit from their "charities". That would be below them, and there's no write-off for that.

my thought is its great we are in a country where we can help each other

but what about other places which don't have the ability to help EACH OTHER< like we do


who will help them if others don't? I can feel good helping, wherever the cause is

P.J. O'Rourke on Government "Charity"

Charity is one of the great responsibilities of freedom. But, in order for us to be responsible - and therefore free - that responsibility must be personal.

There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money - if a gun is held to his head.

When government quits being something we use only in an emergency and becomes the principal source of aid and assistance in our society, then the size, expense and power of government are greatly increased. The decision that politicians are wiser, kinder and more honest than we are and that they, not we, should control the dispensation of eleemosynary goods and services is, in itself, a diminishment of the individual and proof that we're jerks.

Government charity causes other problems. If responsibility is removed from friends, family and self, social ties are weakened. We don't have to look after our parents; they've got their Social Security check and are down in Atlantic City with it right no w. Parents don't have to look after their kids; Head Start, a high school guidance counselor and AmeriCorps take care of that. Our kids don't have to look after themselves; if they become addicted to drugs, there's methadone, and if they get knocked up, there's always AFDC. The neighbors, meanwhile, aren't going to get involved; if they step outside, they'll be cut down by the 9mm crossfire from the drug wars between the gangs all the other neighbors belong to.

Making charity part of the political system confuses the mission of government. Charity is, by its nature, approximate and imprecise. Are you guiding the old lady across the street or are you just jerking her around? It's hard to know when enough charity has been given. Parents want to give children every material advantage but don't want a pack of spoiled brats. There are no exact rules of charity. But a government in a free society must obey exact rules or that government's power is arbitrary and freedom is lost. This is why government works best when it is given limited and well-defined tasks to perform.

~P.J. O'Rourke

This holds good for international Charity as well!

How true!

I agree also with SS.

In "other" countries, without a nanny state, people help other people all the time. The problem is that the gov'ts of those countries want the control ours has, given to them by stupid voters, but since they don't have the courts or Constitution we have, ensuring our rights (somewhat), they are persecuted and killed for such things. Their gov'ts and the warlords under their control feel if they have enough to help others, they are the ones stealing.

Anyone who believes otherwise has never traveled to a third world country, seen it, lived it, or knows anything about it.

Those countries, most of them, have been the victims of corporate globalization for a long time by the IMF/World Bank and their NATO enablers that are trying to break the US to put us under their control as well.

World charities any more are just another transfer of wealth, usually corporate sponsored, and does very little to actually help anyone as the vast majority of "collections" are siphoned off long before they actually reach any level where help begins!

how long have any of us actually SPENT In 'third world countries'

we can feel however we feel, giving is a good thing,

we can imagine and assume whether it has helped or not,, but not giving certainly doesn't help

I don't get the logic that if we give ANYTHING , NONE OF IT Will help

so therefore we should give nothing ,, and hope that helps?

or is that just a prerequisite to a belief that people are beyond helping because of where they live?

As usual your logic is based purely for argument.

There was nothing said about not giving, but much said about how little it helps thru such programs as corporate charities and the gov't spending habit which makes and keeps people poor and in need in the first place.

the question was what is the point of giving

my answer is the point is those it does help

even assuming that ALL of it doesn't ALWAYS go towards them

well. i guess my answer is..
Look at the picture, it speak for it's self.


this fat a** comes to America, begging for our tax dollars. He has not missed a meal, look at his button on his coat it's about to bust. We know that nothing that we give to them will reach the needy. so we give to his corrupt government to say that we are kind and give to a country in need. Bullshi**, they ride around in Mercedes an look at their people starving? bullsh***.
Mugabe is net worth over a BILLION DOLLARS!
HE has castles in Scotland, Homes in Hong Kong, and all over the world. drives around in million dollar Mercedes Benze. He owns stock in Mercedes Benze.
And they want our tax dollars? F**k them. feed their people themselves.

so, because he is rich, we shouldn't try to do anything to help others in his country who starve or are in need o medical care,,,etc,,,,

ok

No, because he is raping his country, we should not give them a damm dime until the people are given what belongs to them. it is theirs, not his. until they let him steal from them, the will remain in poverty. Sorry, Not our choice, but theirs.

President Obama also said that if you like your current health insurance policy, then you can keep it.

We know how "factual" that latter statement turned out to be.