WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by G lib on 2004-09-16 16:12:11 +0000

Philanthropy and Teresa

Philanthropy: I'm not sure how I feel about it. And I worked in the field for almost 5 years. I am in favor of charity, and by that I mean a person giving money outright to good causes. Otherwise we wouldn't have much culture in the US. (i.e. museums, symphonies, public art, NPR), social service organizations, good libraries, etc. However, there are a few things that are very wrong about foundations like Tereza's. 1. Large philanthropies are a way for the rich and companies to be able to retain control over their excess money and get a tax break from it as an added benefit. Sure, they aren't able to spend the money involved in a large foundation on themselves, but does this really matter? They still control it. 2. There is a ton of power that goes along with involvement in a large foundations. Even though your charity is set up to to 'do good work', ammassed wealth has a lot of political weight in both the public and private sectors. 3. Did you know that board members of foundations can get paid for their participation? Often times they get paid upwards of $10,000 for signing a few checks. 4. Nonprofits are always having to suck up to foundations, compete with each other for small grants, give away free things to potential donors, court them, pretend that the person writing the check is super smart, even if they really are just out of touch with the way that the world works (this is more often the case than not, in my experience). People complain about only 30 cents on the dollar getting to the actual 'starving person' or tuba player when they give to a charity, but this is the reason why. Nonprofits have to spend a lot of their time/resources staying afloat and they do that by getting grants. 5. I (and you are going to kill me for saying this Rich) believe that the government should be paying for much of what philanthropy pays for currently. Yeah, Tereza helps a few kids in Philly get after-school programming, but should really be an optional, an organization that could just go away if it doesn't get a big grant from a foundation, or should be a person's right, paid for by the government, like public schools are today. Imagine this scenario: You are on the board of the Heinz foundation. They pay you 10,000 a year to give away money. The charity you give $10,000 to this year just happens to be the prep school that you send your daughter to in Newton or Wellesley. This is perfectly legal. But is it a waste of resources? YES! If we taxed the rich more, didn't coddle and give kickbacks to them in the name of 'charity', perhaps we would be better prepared to pay for necessary programs for those who need them, and make life just a little more even? (and this after I just made fun of the politik board...)

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-16 16:19:02 +0000

A new voice! Hoo Ray! I am so excited to see someone new! Welcome G(lib). you are SO not stuffy.

Posted by frame609 on 2004-09-16 17:42:04 +0000

The first thing you have to do is convince the rich to part with theier money.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-17 13:07:27 +0000

[quote:746898223a]Yeah, Tereza helps a few kids in Philly get after-school programming, but should really be an optional, an organization that could just go away if it doesn't get a big grant from a foundation, or should be a person's right, paid for by the government, like public schools are today. [/quote:746898223a] But if the public schools are below par and we are still funding them with tax dollars, I personally support vouchers so I as a parent can use my tax dollars to go to a school that I choose. My apologies if I sound like the Grinch here, but if an organization can't stand on its own two feet, why is it the governments job to ensure this?

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-17 14:06:13 +0000

G's point had to due with the availability of after school programming. Not about the problem of failing schools. Structured acfter school activities should be available to children from all economic backgrounds. Having a safe place for kids after school is beneficial to the community, it keeps kids learning and active instead of being babysat by a television and helps to combat crime and drug abuse. I agree that geography is a poor way to organize and fund school districts. Parents should not be held captive by town lines in order to get a good education for their children. A by-product of the geography organization is inflated housing prices (Hello, Brookline). However, vouchers seem to emphasize the monetary aspect of the educational requirements. A parent, recognizing that the school their child is in is inadequate, realizes that in order to improve conditions they find and pay another school. A community benefits from the quality of the education it provides, if parents and the public are absent from the public school, then it's doomed. It's in everyone's interest to have strong public schools and a quality education available to everyone. That's why I want local governments to be involved in ensuring that schools don't fail. I've got thoughts on G's original post too.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-17 15:04:11 +0000

[quote:a07e09fdd8]Having a safe place for kids after school is beneficial to the community, it keeps kids learning and active instead of being babysat by a television and helps to combat crime and drug abuse. [/quote:a07e09fdd8] I completely agree. everyone in my family are big time proponents of Big Brothers / Big Sisters, I also participated in a host of afterschool activities for children in my activities fieldwork at UNH, and have done afterschool care for developmentally delayed children. What about the key argument of having the government fund this though? If washington dc is involved in the above stuff at all, I feel like it should be at a minimal level that would incourage individuals to get involved on their own initiative and for an individuals own personal reward. [quote:a07e09fdd8]However, vouchers seem to emphasize the monetary aspect of the educational requirements. A parent, recognizing that the school their child is in is inadequate, realizes that in order to improve conditions they find and pay another school. A community benefits from the quality of the education it provides, if parents and the public are absent from the public school, then it's doomed[/quote:a07e09fdd8] I want to make sure I understand you correctly here. Are you saying it would be better for me to stick with a school slipping in accredidation factors and be more involved to bring those standards higher instead of just flying out of there to look for a better situation? I definitely see the point of needing to add value to your community to improve your surroundings but If I am working somehow with a group of people (either at work or all those fun 'group projects' you'd get in college and high school labs and stuff) and the people Im working with continually perform below standards. Will I continue to do more than my share to ensure good performance while others are slacking off, or will I seek out another group where my efforts will be more rewarded and respected? I wouldn't necessarily make the above decision based on one incident: everyone deserves a second chance, and many circumstances go into valuing a group or community you're in, but if you stay around and get hosed on a bunch of people who aren't contributing, I'm saying I dont want to wait for the government to fix the problem.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-17 16:10:33 +0000

My Northern New England concept of government must be showing, when I think 'governemt' I think of local control, first, Washington D.C. second. Although, I tend to think that government revenue is best generated at the state and national level, instead of the regressive form of property taxes that can cripple smaller communities. If the ship is sinking, I guess you jump. The voucher thing seems to be a symptom of today's culture of paying someone else to deal with your problems. Parents need to be involved the education of their children. Our society benefits from well-educated members. Letting parents ship kids around doesn't indicate a higher parental involvement in the child's education.

Posted by G lib on 2004-09-17 16:42:01 +0000

Privatization makes a lot of sense for things that aren't viewed as necessary. "Necessary" includes things like Education Preserving one's personal freedoms and physical self (I put police and fire in this category) Food Shelter Healthcare However, there are ways of making organizations that provide 'necessary' things competetive. Charter schools. Even though it's really controversial, tests like MCAS. Competing contracted after-school programs that are competetive based on teacher performance and catering to one group of kids' specific needs. or Community involvement. But back to my original point-- the reason why big brothers & sisters exist is because of big philanthropy. Big grants. And I'm sure they spend 70% of their money on overhead, most of which is spent getting grants. That's not to say it's not a good organization (it's great), I'm just saying that I'm almost convinced that the systems is wrong by allowing this to happen.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-17 18:56:32 +0000

[quote:cda8c8619f]Privatization makes a lot of sense for things that aren't viewed as necessary. "Necessary" includes things like Education Preserving one's personal freedoms and physical self (I put police and fire in this category) Food Shelter Healthcare [/quote:cda8c8619f] Again: I do agree on some minimal level that the government can help out with these, but in my opinion, suggesting all of these issues as problems be solved entirely by government is the antithesis of a [b:cda8c8619f]democratic capitalist society[/b:cda8c8619f]. What do we as Americans all work so hard for? Granted, we need purposeful and meaningful activity to maintain our self worth and incentive to work hard, but another big piece of it is the freedom to go after a buck or two (or a Trillion if you have that much ambition). If the government provides everything for us, what will we do with ourselves? If you have all of your needs guaranteed by the Government what is your incentive to go out and take a risk making a buck?There would be no incentive to work hard and make money. I know I sound like a greedy Gordon Gecko bastard (see Oliver Stone's Wall Street), but we as Americans like to get stuff. I want my own stuff, I want to be able to make my own individual financial decisons (for needs as well as wants)as much as possible, and I dont want the government interfering. Any of you who know me on this board will hopefully attest to the fact that I try to be as generous, loyal, affectionate and enthusiastic towards helping my firends, family and those who are less fortunate than I am, but this is your responsibility as a human, not a governments' . When people make investment decisions and start businesses, they are rewarded for taking risks, if there are no rewards involved, why would anyone take a risk? As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary: (said in my best Artie Lange voice "sorry I dont have an OED up in this piece yet!") [b:cda8c8619f]cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm) n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm) n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. [/b:cda8c8619f]

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-17 19:14:27 +0000

Good thread.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-17 19:31:05 +0000

I don't think anyone is advocating Marxist style socialism here. Even in a democratic capitalistic society, isn't the government an easy way to provide basic services in the society?

Posted by G lib on 2004-09-17 19:32:53 +0000

‘Capitalist’ and ‘socialist’ are ideologies. No country follows any ideology to a ‘t,’ because a. The ideologies were made up by theorists in order to generalize a type of behavior b. In the real world, ideologies never work perfectly The US actually is, politically and practically, a mixture of both capitalism and socialism, and throw in a few other ideologies for spice. Yes, GW, nuance exists. Am I advocating for Marx? After studying him for a year, I emphatically say ‘no’. Am I advocating for all wealth equally distributed among all people, no matter how hard they work? Absolutely not. What I am advocating for is basically what the US is doing now, only just more fair. I want people’s basic needs taken care of. (people don’t actually need very much to survive—Look at P.Chippy’s social security statements and you’ll find out) Luxuries (which many people view as needs) are things people should compete and make trillions of dollars for if they want to afford them. We as a people, need to become better at the fairness part. Getting back to my point, I just don’t believe that government should be telling the trillionaires, “We'd like you to maintain control of your money. We feel bad that we're taxing you too much. SO, if you give it away to organizations that suit you politically or your daughter’s prep school, we will give you an enormous tax break! Isn’t that great?” That juxtaposed with recent immigrant working at the Market Basket in Union Square who has no health insurance drives me nuts. PS Rich, I have a Master's Degree In Library and Information Science. I am more than qualified to look words up in a dictionary. :)

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-17 19:33:32 +0000

[quote:10a54f8f74]Even in a democratic capitalistic society, isn't the government an easy way to provide basic services in the society?[/quote:10a54f8f74] IMHO not the way Kerry is suggesting......

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-17 19:50:15 +0000

One services area of government that Kerry is proposing change to is health care. I've asked previously how Kerry's plan, in you words, "promotes mediocrity". Maybe you could explain what's so wrong with the way Medicaid and Medicare are implemented now, as well. As far as I can tell, the Kerry's plan targets the estimated 25% of the annual U.S. health care expenditure that is wasted on adminstrative tasks. One of the siren calls of the business world is the merger of companies to eliminate waste and redundancy. Why can't this work for health care?

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-17 20:15:21 +0000

[quote:381cc95a87]PS Rich, I have a Master's Degree In Library and Information Science. I am more than qualified to look words up in a dictionary. :) [/quote:381cc95a87] I'm sorry If I patronized you with this. I actually looked them up for my own benefit, and found the definitions interesting. I wasn't inferring you dont have severe skills in the reference dept :)

Posted by G lib on 2004-09-17 20:28:52 +0000

I was hoping for an "oh snap!" But alas... I'd be happy to debate healthcare with you Terry, just not in the philanthropy section. I'm going to call this forum dead, unless Barney_Grove wants to throw his hat in the ring. His better half knows more about the topic than I do, I'm sure some of it has rubbed off on him.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-17 20:32:23 +0000

Ok. fair enough. I won't mention HC again in this thread. I'm just not convinced the government needs to fully fund the other things G(lib) mentioned.

Posted by on 2004-09-18 16:51:37 +0000

What a thread! You guys are smaht. On vouchers: I am all for public schools, but many are in dire straits and nearly all are underfunded. I work in one of the richer public school systems in the state, and the staff is currently stretched very thin. English teachers have 35 students per class. Would you choose those numbers for your child? It's not ideal. Imagine the circumstances in less fortunate communities. Or read about how bad it is in Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools. I am all for private schools too. But not at the expense of public education. So many kids are already getting screwed by a system where 'Leave no Child Behind' means just the opposite, where additional standardized testing (MCAs) does nothing more than tell us what we already knew, and where underperforming schools are blamed for failing without the resources neccessary to succeed. If you feel any sense of responsibilty for the future of this country, if you think that every child deserves a decent education, if you care about children in general and not just your own, then you are in no position to support a voucher and its resulting damage to public schools. OK, done venting in what may be my first and last Politik post.

Posted by burkee on 2004-09-18 16:58:06 +0000

Forgot to log in twice, again...

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-20 15:55:49 +0000

[quote:0ab01364d7]Capitalist’ and ‘socialist’ are ideologies. No country follows any ideology to a ‘t,’ because a. The ideologies were made up by theorists in order to generalize a type of behavior b. In the real world, ideologies never work perfectly The US actually is, politically and practically, a mixture of both capitalism and socialism, and throw in a few other ideologies for spice. Yes, GW, nuance exists. [/quote:0ab01364d7] Nothing exists in a vacuum, I certainly agree. If we are talking about adding more or less of the socialism ingredient to our pot of capitalism, however, my tastes prefer less of it.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-20 17:23:37 +0000

I'll take less socialism in terms of farm subsidies, steel tariffs, protectionism, corporate welfare (which includes defense spending!) and more programs that enable Americans to live a dignified life.

WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

home | about | tracker | comics

tracker / 2004 / 9

Philanthropy and Teresa