Do more good because their have much bigger budgets? - Maybe. More good per every dollar spent? I doubt it.
Do more good because their have much bigger budgets? - Maybe. More good per every dollar spent? I doubt it.
On the other hand, thrift stores also have an important role for getting used stuff like clothing to people who need it, and charities do some of that.
Then there are various services that charities do, which is a whole different thing and not easily replaced. But some of their funding comes from the government.
Also, when discriminated against by faith based services, you have no recourse. This is unacceptable, and can be monitored and governed more effectively when government provides services.
Btw, you used "professional" word as if it's something good in itself. That's far from truth. Professional bureaucrats, and state officials quite often are directly interested in growing inefficiency because it can be exploited to expand budgets, and staff.
Also, preparedness/trainings are not exclusive feature of gov't system. I know what I'm saying here because I volunteered in private charity (not in US, so American mileage may vary), and I dare to say people who worked there were more competent then relevant state officials, at least target group always preferred them.
Present an argue against what? “Is not!” doesn’t give a lot to work with. “Doubt it” does a fine job of presenting one’s biases, but it is most certainly not an invitation to stimulating discussion, quite the opposite.
Starting point: A produces more good then B.
Me: A can produce more good than B, but not necessary more per dollar spent, and I think it's not the case.
--Here was a place to to try to prove it's more per dollar spent--
You: You are biased!
Me: You are invited to present arguments.
You: You are biased!