[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-...
Charitable giving for health, education, and human services accounts for only 33% of all charitable giving in the U.S. How much of that goes to programs designed to address poverty is debatable.
Source: http://www.alysterling.com/documents/GUSA2012ExecutiveSummar...
Who actually do quite a bit of good with it:
"We should start by noting that Catholic charity work is extensive and widely considered a crucial part of the nation’s social safety net. By itself, Catholic Charities USA, has more than 2,500 local agencies that serve 10 million people annually, said Mary L. Gautier, a senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, an institute at Georgetown University that studies the church."
"Meanwhile, Catholic News Service has noted a few other Catholic organizations that made the Chronicle’s annual 400 list, including Father Flanagan Boys Home and Covenant House. This excludes Catholic universities, which mainly provide higher education; hospitals, which are categorized separately from social services; and groups that focus on overseas work."
source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/...
Considering they put out close to 4 billion every year in charity, it's hard to argue they don't help the impoverished.
I'm not sure where I said religious charities don't help people. They most certainly help members of their respective congregations. But they also can do a lot of harm, like you know, oppressing people by opposing same sex marriage, or pretty much anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs.
Since we're focusing on catholics, what good is done by denying all of your employee's spouses insurance coverage, just so you don't have to extend the benefit to people in same sex marriages? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03...
>>>>> They most certainly help members of their respective congregations.
You missed this part of the article:
"In 2010, Catholic Charities USA reported expenditures of between $4.2 billion and $4.4 billion, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which publishes an annual list of the 400 biggest charities in the United States,"
I'm pretty sure NONE of that is going directly back to congregation members. It's charity, which means it's earmarked for other people who need it more than the church does. I spare you the biblical quotes, but that's why they do it, it's part of their religion and belief system.
>>> But they also can do a lot of harm, like you know, oppressing people by opposing same sex marriage, or pretty much anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs.
>>> Since we're focusing on catholics, what good is done by denying all of your employee's spouses insurance coverage, just so you don't have to extend the benefit to people in same sex marriages? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03....
Unreal.
I'm not going to take your bait troll, but nice try.
I'm not trolling. I think religous charities do a lot of good, but I think they also can do a lot of harm. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that private charity will solve everything when the majority of that charity goes to religious Charities who have a track record of oppressing those with different beliefs.
For what its worth, not supporting is not always the same as opposing. Religious charities have stepped in in many cases well before any government agency has and they usually offer their help without "clauses" and "rules" that come with other forms of assistance.
'My source counts charities as religious if they identify their cause as being for "Religious Activities" or "Religious Media and Broadcasting"' A small fraction of that would be the 400 million dollars spent lobbying by religious groups every year, you know lobbying to restrict women's rights and against same sex marriage.
After browsing the PDF, it seems to not account for many things. No idea why you think it is 'well refuted'. E.g. It does not account for higher taxes, which are funneled to help the poor. It also seems to count everything binary, either you helped or you did not. No mention is given as to how much time/money you actually donated - and to whom.
Additionally, weighing all three things (giving money/helping strangers/volunteering time) the same is rather odd. The us is #10 at giving money. And this does not even include taxes! Way to fight poverty.
If it weren't for the dubious 'helping a stranger' the US would not be anywhere.
Pah.
There's no way that you can assess a how well a society helps its poor simply by looking at one metric (like charitable giving) alone. It's just silly, on the face of it.
Can you provide some sort of proof of causation for your theory?
(The other thing I've wondered about is how much of the US's charitable donations are simply tax fraud).
'The taxable income of the donor is reduced by 300 USD. If the donor's income was in the 35% income tax bracket both before and after the deduction, the donor's tax liability (amount of taxes owed to the government) is reduced by 105 USD.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_contribution_deducti...