Local efforts can be more responsive, at least in theory.
But what are the poor to do when they're stuck in some
backwater state where the local government sees no need
for a social safety net?
One of the strong points of federal programs is that they
are consistently applied across the country, or at least
every jurisdiction has the same strings attached to a
On Fri, 8 Feb[masked]:53:31 -0500
Glen <[address removed]> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> "Many atheists may also feel that poverty is a problem
>best addressed by government programs/policies."
> I'm definitely not one of them. I think the federal
>government is generally very inefficient in this realm,
>and in fact has many many misguided programs and policies
>that do more to entrench and perpetuate poverty than
>solve it, while draining the economy. I believe the more
>local the effort, and the more it emphasizes and
>encourages self-sufficiency, the better off everyone is,
>from the taxpayers to the needy. This is not to say that
>private charities are always models of efficiency
>either. I just read a book entitled _Toxic Charity_
>which argues that many private charities and even church
>"missions" are also run in ways that do more harm than
>good in the long run, and how that can be turned around.
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be
>sent to everyone on this mailing list
> This message was sent by Glen ([address removed]) from
>The Cleveland Freethinkers.
> To learn more about Glen, visit his/her member profile:
> Set my mailing list to email me
> As they are sent
> In one daily email
> Don't send me mailing list messages
> Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 |