Optimal Method of Charity?

So the Christmas season is upon us and for many from thanksgiving through now is the only time of the year they are charitable since this seems to be the time of year that its ok to ask for donations to food banks and for donations to needy families that can't afford food much more a great Christmas. For others charitable giving is a year round habit and possibly increased around this time of the year.

This brings up an interesting point in the realm of politics, and I'm really curious to know what the general public thinks about this issue. Unfortunately this little blog doesn't get nearly the feed back to determine what the general public thinks. None-the-less, I'd like to know what those of you reading this think?

The government collects billions (or is it trillions now?) of tax dollars every year for programs that many likely view as charitable. Here's the problem. The government doesn't set up incentives to lower the cost of operations of various programs and supporting departments. They are given budgets, and if they don't spend it, they loose it the next year and have no hope of asking for a bigger budget either.

On the other hand one, must be ware of charities. Not all are as thrifty as they claim to be. Or they have overhead that's likely as heavy as the governments. Or they could be quasi-governmental in that they operate from government grants. Which adds a 2nd level of overhead to the money given to needy people. However if you research the charity, you'll find some great ones with relatively fixed and low overhead from year to year and the more money they collect, the more good they can do with it.

So I want to know, what's your preferred method of charity? To let the government handle it in spite of low efficiencies, or to do your research and find charities that give most if not all of their money towards the people, animals, or causes in need? I'm sure you can guess my preferred method.

What's More Peaceful than a Dog?

Apparently President Obama is, who might I add was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize before even taking office. Does anyone take these nominations/wins seriously? As Saturday Night Live so eloquently put it last night, he won for "not being Bush." Do you think he would have still won if he hadn't gotten elected? As a message to us that he is the one the Nobel Peace panel thinks should have been elected?

I'd also like to know how a global warming presentation, filled with some lies, is an effort at world peace.

I don't really care who wins the Nobel Peace Prize, it just seems to make a mockery when you give it out because of political ideals rather than peaceful actions. I don't think words are the same thing as actions. Especially since I don't see a drop in the efforts of terrorists around the world.

I do think my species is doing more for world peace than a bunch of speeches. What's more peaceful than a sweet dog? We open up the lines of communication. We soften the hearts of the hard. We bring comfort in pain and suffering. Break down barriers. I hope a dog wins next year.

Oh I also find it interesting that he's giving the prize money to charity. I agree with that decision and think it's the right thing to do in his position. But isn't he in the party that thinks government not charity is the answer to all your problems? Unless the charity he's giving it to turns out to be the government. At least be consistent. Personally I'd prefer to let charities rather than government hand out the majority of the assistance. The overhead is much greater when the government hands out the money.