Poverty, INC.

[One Brow]

So here's the confusion on my part.

Why is charity from an individual bad, but programs from the government good? Theoretically, both could accomplish the same thing if everybody put in, but one would be wildly more efficient. The hard part would be getting everybody to put in, obviously. I just don't see why they could hate charity but approve of the government programs we have.

Once you account for donated labor, government is of course more efficient, but I have a feeling that's not the one you meant.

I only looked at the clip in the opening post, but one of the private charity ventures they mention is Tom's shoes, which donates a pair of shoes for every pair you buy. the criticism is that all these free shoes tend to keep potentially local shoemakers from establishing a business.

There is really one effective type of donation, that almost always seems to do good most effectively. It's also the one most liberals and conservatives seem loathe to give in place of the alternatives: cash.