Hunger and Homelessness

iluvatar5150 · Jan 4, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
That's not an accurate assessment...

That's like disingenuously snarking "Hey this one house on the street had their basement flood...wait I thought we were in a drought??"

Two things can be true at the same time.

You can have some poor people who are obese because the only thing they can afford to buy (to feed 4 people) are cheap things like Tostino's pizza rolls and pop tarts 5 days a week, and then some people who are so poor they can't even afford the pizza rolls.

But even what you were saying was 100% true. Let's pretend that the entirety of the extremely poor community had kids that were going hungry because "mommy needs crack and lottery scratch offs", should the kid be punished for that?

This is one particular area where I think the pro-life community needs to figuratively and literally put their money where their mouth is.

They'll frame it in a way that attempts to talk a drug-addicted low-income woman that she shouldn't have an abortion and to put faith in private charity to help her, and then when she needs the help, tell her "no, because you're a drug addict who's spending what money you do have on something we don't approve of"

The pro-life community (largely, I realize that there are some who are quite charitable) needs to come up with an answer to this question if they wish to have their cause make it more than 10 years, because the list of red states voting pro-choice (when presented as an a la carte option) is growing.

The pro-lifers have no idea how anything works. Complaining that charity ought to cover it belies a gross ignorance of the magnitude of the problems.

rjs330 said:
At some point the question has to be asked, "Why isn't it enough?" We have charities galore, we have 75% of our budget going to welfare programs. We've been giving a lot of money for 50 years now, increasing it every cycle, "Why isn't it enough?"

What's the causes behind it and what do we need to do differently if what we are doing currently isn't working?

What we need to do differently is distribute wealth differently. I can't seem to find the paper at the moment, but a few years ago, I read about a simulation showing that, even in a perfectly fair system, imperfections in market pricing (i.e. people charging a little less than they could or paying a little more than they have to) will naturally lead to an oligopoly. It doesn't predict which few entities will wind up with most of the money, just that somebody eventually will. If you want to prevent that, you need to implement measures that actively counteract it.

Arcangl86 said:
Rocks did the biggest one. Another example I can think of off the top of my head is the Estate Tax which only effects about 2500 people a year but is treated as an existential threat to the American way of life, especially for farmers.

There are ways to restructure the estate tax so that it protects farms and other valuable-but-illiquid businesses from being shuttered while still also not giving away huge benefits to the already-wealthy. The fact that inheritance resets an investment's cost basis is wild.

Reasonably Sane said:
I'm retired and living on SS plus a couple hundred a month from an old pension plan. Because my retirement plan was to have a low cost of living, rather than a lot of money saved up, I am living the most free life I've known since puberty.

We own our own home free and clear and have zero debt. We moved to a low tax (for retired people) state, and our monthly cost of living is roughly 1/3 our monthly SS checks. Our property taxes on 32 beautiful acres, a new shop building and a home are roughly the price of a large pizza every month. We pay zero income tax. That last sentence is huge. The freedom that brings is hard to describe, but it's almost tangible. We don't worry about food, but if we did, we'd just expand the garden and buy more chickens.

I don't know what state you live in or how their structure their budget, but property taxes that low aren't enough to cover the services provided to your property. Congraulations, your mom may not have accepted a welfare check, but you're benefiting from a government subsidy somewhere, even if it's not obvious to you.

RoBo1988 · Jan 4, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
Voluntarily over-contributing money to the government just sends it to a slush fund, where it can be used for anything and everything. FBI budget, a new tank, road construction, furnishing a senator's office, etc. A proper appropriations bill (with associated tax increases) designates a purpose for the money being collected. I much prefer the latter.

I agree with you.
The poster was saying that the government makes a better charity. If that was truly the case, then why would you want a refund?,

The area around Washington DC, is not one of the richest areas in the country , because they are so charitable.

RocksInMyHead · Jan 4, 2024

RoBo1988 said:
I agree with you.
The poster was saying that the government makes a better charity.

The government makes a better "charity" because they have the ability to build "charitable" activities (like welfare) into laws and appropriate the funds needed for them directly, rather than relying on the largesse of donors. Furthermore, the government is not inhibited by religious or moral compunctions when it comes to who gets "charitable" aid - so long as someone meets the legal requirements, they get the aid. No picking and choosing, or restricting aid from certain groups based on religion, identity, race, or politics.

That doesn't mean that handing over money to them indiscriminately is a good idea though - while they do a better job at charity than many actual charities, they are explicitly not a charity.

RoBo1988 said:
The area around Washington DC, is not one of the richest areas in the country , because they are so charitable.

No, it's rich because wealthy people gravitate towards centers of power, and the capital of the country is one of the largest centers of power around.

iluvatar5150 · Jan 4, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
The government makes a better "charity" because they have the ability to build "charitable" activities (like welfare) into laws and appropriate the funds needed for them directly, rather than relying on the largesse of donors. Furthermore, the government is not inhibited by religious or moral compunctions when it comes to who gets "charitable" aid - so long as someone meets the legal requirements, they get the aid. No picking and choosing, or restricting aid from certain groups based on religion, identity, race, or politics.

The government also has the ability to scale up far more than any private organization could.

Mayzoo · Jan 4, 2024

Reasonably Sane said:
I believe in the concept, "If you don't work, you don't eat." Yes, there are a lot of hungry people in the US, but there are also a lot of people in the US that don't work and don't look for work. I'd like to see all welfare-like programs abolished. Necessity is the mother of invention. A lot of takers just might surprise themself. FWIW, my wife's first husband died with no life insurance while she was taking care of three children under the age of 8. She worked her butt off to support them and did a better job parenting them than most two parent homes. One son started his own business and is worth millions while another learned a trade to earn a deep six figure income, while the third paid her way through college to get a stem degree and is doing quite well.

In that entire time she took one - ONE - welfare check. It repulsed her. BTW, she had no college and worked a gray collar job (airline reservations).

The only ones in the US that I have pity for regarding hunger are those that do not have the physical ability to work. And they are all red herrings regarding this issue.

What job do you recommend for the age group of birth to say 9? I know older kids can mow yards, shovel snow, rake leaves, paper routes (all but extinct) etc... to buy some food, but the younger do what to earn money for food where you are? Or are you just saying the kids deserve to go hungry because their parents won't/don't/can't work? BTW, does your area offer 9-year-olds who mow lawns healthcare that they can afford?

In these cases, necessity is the mother of petty theft/shoplifting at a very young age leading to bigger things later in their lives.

Mayzoo · Jan 4, 2024

rjs330 said:
God bless you too. I like your ideas and definitely support them. My ideas are very similar. Most people are very willing to help others who are also making some efforts themselves.

There are those who are not willing to do any of that. Both the poor people or those politically left.

One of the things that you didn't mention that I had would add is that the father's should be forced to pay as well. They helped create the child they should be held responsible for paying for them. Their social security number and IDs should attached so that they are required to pay regardless of when they work or where they work. If the kid grows up and the father hasn't paid and gets a job they should be paying the state back for supporting the family for them.

Dead beat dads are as big of a problem if not more so than the mothers.

Some changes absolutely need to be made, but getting the parties to agree to anything seems a hurdle neither is willing to even walk up to, let alone attempt to overcome.

rjs330 · Jan 4, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
Yes, that's another way to put it. The point is that "Just give more money to the government voluntarily!" is a really bad way to solve budgetary issues. If you have budget problems, you either need to cut spending or raise taxes (usually both). The problem is that the only programs that ever seem to get cut are social programs, and certain segments of the population scream bloody murder any time someone suggests a tax increase - even if it wouldn't affect them.

It's a very very rare occurrence that social programs are ever cut. Particularly Federal programs.

RoBo1988 · Jan 4, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
If you have budget problems, you either need to cut spending or raise taxes (usually both).

Good luck with either one of those, let alone both.

John Boehner's Congress tried to hilariously "cut the rate of spending"- still an increase, just not what they wanted; President Obama said that it was "taking a chainsaw to the budget", and the press lapped it up.

rjs330 · Jan 4, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
The government also has the ability to scale up far more than any private organization could.

The government should not be a charity. That's not governments job. That's a charities job. A charity just gives expecting little to nothing in return. Government should be doing things to create opportunities for success. Because success breeds more wealth and more wealth makes a better society as a whole and less of a need for Government handouts.

That's why the welfare system has been a failure. It does little to nothing to create success for people.

RocksInMyHead · Jan 4, 2024

rjs330 said:
It's a very very rare occurrence that social programs are ever cut. Particularly Federal programs.

It's a very very rare occurrence that anything significant is cut from the federal budget (which is a problem). However, our last president was particularly fond of proposing cuts to welfare. See his 2018 budget, his 2019 budget, his 2020 budget, his 2021 budget, his...oh wait, that's all his budgets. Every single budget proposal that Trump made used major cuts to Medicare, Social Security, SNAP, and other welfare programs to pay for tax cuts. And the House Rs have followed his lead under Biden.

The point is that, whenever the government talks about making serious budget cuts - whether to reduce the deficit or to fund a tax cut, the things laid out on the chopping block are almost always social programs. They rarely actually get cut, but the compromise typically ends up that we don't cut the social programs, but the tax cut goes through anyways - which does absolute wonders for the deficit.

RocksInMyHead · Jan 4, 2024

RoBo1988 said:
Good luck with either one of those, let alone both.

Yup, it's an absolutely thankless job - no one wants to be the guy to cut the budget or raise taxes, but someone is going to have to do it eventually. We can't keep upping our spending and cutting taxes forever.

RocksInMyHead · Jan 4, 2024

rjs330 said:
That's why the welfare system has been a failure. It does little to nothing to create success for people.

What evidence do you have for this assertion?

rjs330 · Jan 4, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
don't know what state you live in or how their structure their budget, but property taxes that low aren't enough to cover the services provided to your property. Congraulations, your mom may not have accepted a welfare check, but you're benefiting from a government subsidy somewhere, even if it's not obvious to you.

If the guy owns property and pays taxes on it then they have been successful. It's okay to have a few subsidies if it helps you be successful. If your just taking and not returning you are being a drain on other people. You are doing nothing to return what your fellow citizens are sharing in.

rjs330 · Jan 4, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
What evidence do you have for this assertion?

The welfare system.

Aryeh Jay · Jan 4, 2024

I would make a terrible Congressman, I know how much money is coming in to the household, I know what the Household needs to spend to function, I know what the household would like to get if we can and if I have to borrow, so be it. I pay back what I borrowed and if there is anything left, I save it.

RocksInMyHead · Jan 4, 2024

rjs330 said:
The welfare system.

The welfare system proves...that the welfare system doesn't work? I believe this is what's known as circular reasoning.

Pommer · Jan 4, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
What we need to do differently is distribute wealth differently. I can't seem to find the paper at the moment, but a few years ago, I read about a simulation showing that, even in a perfectly fair system, imperfections in market pricing (i.e. people charging a little less than they could or paying a little more than they have to) will naturally lead to an oligopoly. It doesn't predict which few entities will wind up with most of the money, just that somebody eventually will. If you want to prevent that, you need to implement measures that actively counteract it.

Of course the wealthy’s course is to use “the law” to keep themselves on top of the heap, and when that begins to fail, arm up and dare anyone to come and take it away.
Good times!

iluvatar5150 · Jan 4, 2024

rjs330 said:
The government should not be a charity.

Why not?

rjs330 said:
That's not governments job. That's a charities job.

Says who?

rjs330 said:
A charity just gives expecting little to nothing in return.

As opposed to… a public service or a public good? That’s exactly how many government services operate. Not every road is a toll road, is it?

rjs330 said:
Government should be doing things to create opportunities for success. Because success breeds more wealth and more wealth makes a better society as a whole and less of a need for Government handouts.

So, government isn’t supposed to be a charity but it is supposed to be a startup incubator?

rjs330 said:
That's why the welfare system has been a failure. It does little to nothing to create success for people.

Should I dig up the economic multiplier effects of different forms of government spending that show that payments to low income people like SNAP have the best returns? You are demonstrably wrong.

rjs330 said:
If the guy owns property and pays taxes on it then they have been successful. It's okay to have a few subsidies if it helps you be successful. If your just taking and not returning you are being a drain on other people. You are doing nothing to return what your fellow citizens are sharing in.

He’s retired, pays no income tax, and spends less on property taxes than you would a pizza (his comparison). That’s literally being a drain on other people.

Laodicean60 · Jan 4, 2024

Mayzoo said:
9-year-olds who mow lawns

Man, I made a good chunk of change mowing lawn in my trailer park around that age. I'd go to the store and buy chips and Mr. Pibb and of course fuel.

RoBo1988 · Jan 4, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
Not every road is a toll road, is it?

Sure they are. Every time you fill up, you are paying state and federal taxes.
I pay a handsome sum, for a little sticker to put on my license plate, some states, they pay property taxes on their vehicle each year, based on how new it is. Every 3 years I have to pay to get my driver's license renewed.

Or, maybe the money all goes to the ad agency, who makes the ridiculous "click it or ticket" and "drive sober or get pulled over" commercials.

Hunger and Homelessness

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Replaced by a robot, just like Biden.

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency