Charity Begins at Home Right or Wrong? by johnlance on Blogster

There is an old expression that charity begins at home and I was wondering if that is right or wrong so the following is two sides of the argument.
Right: We have many many needs right here in our own country so why don't we devote all of our charitable money right here in the U.S.?

Wrong: There is suffering all over the world and most prominent of that is Africa. There should be an outpouring of funds to help those in need in those countries in Africa.

Right: Many of the governments of those countries have a great deal of corruption and little if any of the money and aid reaches those who need it. Should we close our hearts because of this?

Wrong: We should not close our hearts and keep giving but try to make sure the monies we give and aid we provide reaches those who are in need.
Right: How can we make sure that those funds and material aid reach the people it has to reach? It is impossible. There is no way we can secure those funds for those who are in need in foreign lands.
Wrong: Stop giving any funds. No way. We have to try our best to contain the aids epidemic in Africa and we must do our best to help as much as we can but we must also remember Katrina, right here in the U.S.
Right: Giving right here in our country is also fraught with pitfalls. Many charities have little to give after deducting all the charges. The very wealthy are only required in their foundations and trusts to give 5% of the income to charity to continue as a foundation and trust and to keep on reinvesting the monies they have to keep the funds going forever. The thinking of the super rich right now is to make sure the funds they give are spent in 10 years. Some are suggesting limits to 50 years at which time the funds should disburse all that remains at that time

5 comments on Charity Begins at Home Right or Wrong?

skyeblue said 1 years ago
This is my take on sending financial or other aid to Africa--Don't send funds that can wind up in the hand of corrupt officials--instead send hydrologists who can dig water wells, agriculturists who can teach low tech improved farming techniques, and health and education workers..that is basic--until health and especially education is improved, everything else is a waste. You might as well funnel funds into a bottomless pit.
johnlance said 1 years ago
I agree with you 100 per cent. Problem is two fold: A) Can't get enough of those kinds of people to go over there and help and B) Many of those countries have such corruption that their government does not want it, that is our people to come in and dig those wells etc.
benedicts said 1 years ago
Charity morphs when you stop and think about it.
johnlance said 1 years ago
Please enlighten me. You used the word morphs and I don't want to guess at what you meant could you explain it to me. I take morphs to mean to turns into something else am I right or wrong?
benedicts said 1 years ago
Right. Charity loses something of its authenticity when we begin to analyze it. Like that widow in the Bible who contributed her mite: if she had begun to think of herself as a more devout person than some other who had done less, her act would lose its meaning in the parable.