too rich?

[downbeatplumb]

I disagree. Charity can make real change; there are a number of them out there today doing just that, and to dismiss them like you just did is quite frankly appalling.

Don't get me wrong there are some charities that do good work. I have a direct debit to oxfam and have a soft spot for medicine sans frontier. But many charities are set up in competition with each other and many are just there so that people have an excuse to leap out of a plane. But for REAL change to occur you need the intervention at a governmental level be it legislation or benefits.

The problem with government is it often sets out to do the right thing, but gets distracted by bureaucracy and its own corruption, creating a flawed system which helps some people, whilst allowing others to just take advantage of it. Look at the welfare system in the UK; plenty of people are helped through it, yes, but plenty others now depend on it, and have no interest in finding work because it is easier (and sometimes more prosperous) to live off the state.

That some people misuse it is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. The process might need improvement but it is madness to suggest that charities would somehow do it better and laughably suggest that they would be less corrupt.
Charities would use their own agendas and prejudices.

Not to mention the amount of money that just gets wasted and forgotten about. You see, governments don't tend to worry about the money they spend, because they know for a fact that they will get roughly the same amount each year...in fact it's written into law that they do.

I work for the government, what you have written is so incorrect that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Government departments spending is very tightly controlled. My department has been told to reduce staffing by 20% to reduce spending and our pay has been frozen this year and will not rise by more than 1% the next two.

Charities on the other hand, do not have a guaranteed supply of income, and so much prove themselves in order to obtain it. A charity that does fuck all will not survive, simply because people won't be encouraged to donate to it. Soup kitchens and other charities which aid the poor are still open because they work.

And I lament the need for soup kitchens in a country like the UK our safety net should be the government.

In the victorian era there was the tradition of the rich people to give money to help the poor.
The result. The poor still starved and froze. Only when a real solution like unemployment benefit came in did the poor people have a relatively decent existence.

One can hardly compare the Victorian era with how things are today. Unemployment benefit is both a good and a bad thing. If you are down on your luck and actively seeking a job, it is a well deserved relief measure. If you are simply lazy or trying to game the system, it isn't solving the problem, but adding to one.
[/quote]

The "charitable" solution was tried and failed harder.

There isn't one perfect solution for all this. It's ridiculous to say that government is the answer when it has failed so much.

I maintain that only government intervention solves problems in the long term. Charities can offer band aid solutions but ultimatly come short because they don't have the resources or influence of a government.