Trump Wants to Take From the Poor and Give to the Wealthy

[98cwitr]

You might want to re-read your history. “Poor laws” go back quite a bit farther than the 20th century, and the federal government was getting involved at least as early as the civil war. Dependencies can be engendered from any assistance program regardless of whether it’s public or private, local or federal, so I don’t understand why you’d make that point. And private charity has repeatedly shown over time that it’s unable to scale up to the size needed to address the magnitude of the problems we face. Additionally, having assistance fractured among many different organizations instead of centrally distributed is a great way to create inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the delivery of those services.



Getting the federal government out of welfare will do nothing but let poor states become even poorer.

I'm familiar with the history, especially around the early 1900s, Prohibition, and the New Deal.

It's not that the scale is insufficient. Just look at the coffers of the Catholic church for an example. There were two problems as to why private charity failed to meet the needs in the 19th century:

1. Logistics: People could not reach the help they needed

2. Conditional aid: Private charities placed regulation on their aid that rendered some, namely those unwilling to work, those with mental disability, and those with drug problems ineligible for aid beyond a cold meal.

Problem #1 is already solved. It's 2019 and we have massive transit options (not to be confused with "mass transit." Problem #2 has been around since Christ's time and before. I'll leave this Scripture to justify my position on the issue:

2 Thessalonians 3:10 [Full Chapter]
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

 

[bekkilyn]

Maybe because it is not more efficient. You’ve certainly made no sound argument it is or would be more efficient.

More problematic, however, is the notion it would be more efficient is an ineluctable notion. You treat your unsubstantiated claim as absolutely true, like 2+2=4, or gravity accelerates objects toward the ground at 9.8 meters per second squared.

Your treatment of the claim of efficiency as absolute truth is a nice ploy, after all no one in their right mind would dare challenge an absolute truth like 2+2=4, or your claim of efficiency. It’s a nice rhetorical trick to claim others are wrong without having to make an argument to support your claim.

Well, your “logic of it” may be wrong, it hasn’t been shown to be right, which is problematic.

2 + 2 is not always equal to 4 but is sometimes equal to 0, and that is truth that can be proven with some degree of knowledge in higher mathematics.

You realize you've spent all this time writing paragraphs upon paragraphs in response to my posts (and one which wasn't even directed at you) when I've already made it more than clear that I'm not interested in having a serious discussion with you?

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm familiar with the history, especially around the early 1900s, Prohibition, and the New Deal.

It's not that the scale is insufficient. Just look at the coffers of the Catholic church for an example.

Yes, it is the scale is insufficient. In the US, the Catholic church's 2012 annual operating budget has been estimated to be about $170 billion, of which about $150 billion is for hospitals and schools. That leaves $20 billion for everything else, including the parishes and charitable work.

In 2018, the federal budget just for SNAP and other food assistance was $68 billion, more than 3x as much.

There were two problems as to why private charity failed to meet the needs in the 19th century:

1. Logistics: People could not reach the help they needed

2. Conditional aid: Private charities placed regulation on their aid that rendered some, namely those unwilling to work, those with mental disability, and those with drug problems ineligible for aid beyond a cold meal.

Problem #1 is already solved. It's 2019 and we have massive transit options (not to be confused with "mass transit." Problem #2 has been around since Christ's time and before. I'll leave this Scripture to justify my position on the issue:

2 Thessalonians 3:10 [Full Chapter]
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

I don't really know what point #2 is supposed to address, except to highlight another way in which I'm correct about the fractured, inconsistent nature of de-centralized charity systems.

 

[98cwitr]

Yes, it is the scale is insufficient. In the US, the Catholic church's 2012 annual operating budget has been estimated to be about $170 billion, of which about $150 billion is for hospitals and schools. That leaves $20 billion for everything else, including the parishes and charitable work.

In 2018, the federal budget just for SNAP and other food assistance was $68 billion, more than 3x as much.

SNAP is overrun, overbudgeted, and unregulated. There's little oversight. In the private charity sector, there's much more of it.

I don't really know what point #2 is supposed to address, except to highlight another way in which I'm correct about the fractured, inconsistent nature of de-centralized charity systems.

Ask yourself this: Why are fraudulent welfare recipients tolerated?

 

[bekkilyn]

SNAP is overrun, overbudgeted, and unregulated. There's little oversight. In the private charity sector, there's much more of it.

However, the solution is not to "fix" it in a manner that does harm to people who actually need the service.

Ask yourself this: Why are fraudulent welfare recipients tolerated?

Because they are a drop in the bucket compared to the people who are in real need of the services. I know many people get angry when they believe there are people getting away with something that we don't feel they deserve, but it's a very small price to pay when many, many more are being helped.

The billionaire plutocrats and big money corporations want us to fight over these scraps hoping that we don't notice who receives most of the welfare in this country, and it's *not* the poor or even middle class.

 

[iluvatar5150]

SNAP is overrun, overbudgeted, and unregulated. There's little oversight. In the private charity sector, there's much more of it.

I don't suppose you have evidence for this, because I don't believe you. I don't believe SNAP is bloated like you say it is and I don't believe the non-profit sector is any better. The link I posted shows that over 92% of SNAP's funding goes directly to food assistance, not administrative overhead. And SNAP fraud accounts for less than 1% of its funding. Having worked for non-profits and having known loads of people who've worked for all sorts of non-profits, I'd be amazed if any but the absolute top performing organizations came anywhere near that level of efficiency.

...and a quick perusal of CharityNavigator's list of top-performing charities shows that I'm right. If you look at their percentage of revenues dedicated towards program expenses, SNAP easily makes the cut, even when you subtract out the 1% that goes towards fraudulent claims.

Charities with Perfect Scores : Charity Navigator

Ask yourself this: Why are fraudulent welfare recipients tolerated?

They aren't tolerated. But it's also only a small problem. Your beliefs are founded on propaganda.
What is FNS Doing to Fight SNAP Fraud? | USDA-FNS

 

[98cwitr]

I don't suppose you have evidence for this, because I don't believe you. I don't believe SNAP is bloated like you say it is and I don't believe the non-profit sector is any better. The link I posted shows that over 92% of SNAP's funding goes directly to food assistance, not administrative overhead. And SNAP fraud accounts for less than 1% of its funding. Having worked for non-profits and having known loads of people who've worked for all sorts of non-profits, I'd be amazed if any but the absolute top performing organizations came anywhere near that level of efficiency.

...and a quick perusal of CharityNavigator's list of top-performing charities shows that I'm right. If you look at their percentage of revenues dedicated towards program expenses, SNAP easily makes the cut, even when you subtract out the 1% that goes towards fraudulent claims.

Charities with Perfect Scores : Charity Navigator



They aren't tolerated. But it's also only a small problem. Your beliefs are founded on propaganda.
What is FNS Doing to Fight SNAP Fraud? | USDA-FNS

"How much did fraud grow? It jumped to $592.7 million in 2016, up a staggering 61% from $367.1 million in 2012, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. (See Table 46 in the report.)"

The Facts About Food Stamp Fraud

That's A LOT of fraud

 

[iluvatar5150]

"How much did fraud grow? It jumped to $592.7 million in 2016, up a staggering 61% from $367.1 million in 2012, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. (See Table 46 in the report.)"

The Facts About Food Stamp Fraud

That's A LOT of fraud

...and as he points out, even that high mark is still under 1% of the total.

And you still haven't demonstrated that a charity would be any better. Note that that fraud includes people selling their food stamps for cash or for items that aren't eligible for food stamps. That doesn't mean they're not eligible; it means they're not using their benefits in the intended manner. Good luck finding a charity with any sort of enforcement mechanism that would be able to root out fraud like that.

 

[98cwitr]

...and as he points out, even that high mark is still under 1% of the total.

And you still haven't demonstrated that a charity would be any better. Note that that fraud includes people selling their food stamps for cash or for items that aren't eligible for food stamps. That doesn't mean they're not eligible; it means they're not using their benefits in the intended manner. Good luck finding a charity with any sort of enforcement mechanism that would be able to root out fraud like that.

"it means they're not using their benefits in the intended manner."

Exactly. Private entities, such as churches, are better equip to determine need, meet that need, and foster an actual relationship with the family in poverty. Government does none of that...it's keeps people in poverty, as it was designed to do: Eradicating systemic poverty | Matthew 25 in the PC(USA): A bold vision and invitation | Presbyterian Mission Agency

Poverty and the Social Welfare State in the United States and Other Nations

 

[iluvatar5150]

"it means they're not using their benefits in the intended manner."

Exactly. Private entities, such as churches, are better equip

You have yet to demonstrate that private entities are better equipped to do anything. You keep making the claim, but you have not shown it to be anything more than unfounded propaganda.

to determine need,

The folks in question misusing their SNAP benefits have met the needs. Unless they misrepresented their income (which I would imagine would put them into a different class of fraud), then they have demonstrated need. They've just chosen to misuse the benefits they've been given.

A homeless guy on the street needs food. Even if he turns around and trades the sandwich you gave him for some heroin, he still needs the sandwich.

meet that need,

This gets back to the issue of scale. Private charity is woefully inadequate. The entire American Red Coss budget is only around $4 billion. United Way's budget is around $230 million, worldwide. That's nothing compared to what the government does.

and foster an actual relationship with the family in poverty.

That's the only point on which private charity might have a chance, but at the same time, the overwhelming majority of churches I've seen are pathetically unqualified to address any sort of issues that would warrant counseling, mental health, or other forms of social work. I've only ever come across a single decent marriage counselor in a church, much less somebody who can tackle something more complicated.

Government does none of that...it's keeps people in poverty, as it was designed to do: Eradicating systemic poverty | Matthew 25 in the PC(USA): A bold vision and invitation | Presbyterian Mission Agency

Poverty and the Social Welfare State in the United States and Other Nations

Those links prove nothing.

 

[98cwitr]

You have yet to demonstrate that private entities are better equipped to do anything. You keep making the claim, but you have not shown it to be anything more than unfounded propaganda.



The folks in question misusing their SNAP benefits have met the needs. Unless they misrepresented their income (which I would imagine would put them into a different class of fraud), then they have demonstrated need. They've just chosen to misuse the benefits they've been given.

A homeless guy on the street needs food. Even if he turns around and trades the sandwich you gave him for some heroin, he still needs the sandwich.



This gets back to the issue of scale. Private charity is woefully inadequate. The entire American Red Coss budget is only around $4 billion. United Way's budget is around $230 million, worldwide. That's nothing compared to what the government does.



That's the only point on which private charity might have a chance, but at the same time, the overwhelming majority of churches I've seen are pathetically unqualified to address any sort of issues that would warrant counseling, mental health, or other forms of social work. I've only ever come across a single decent marriage counselor in a church, much less somebody who can tackle something more complicated.



Those links prove nothing.

Your sentiments underestimate the collective power of the churches in America, as well as the private philanthropy:

Wal-Mart, for instance, gives about $1.75 billion in food aid to charities each year, or twenty-eight times all of the money allotted for charity by the United Methodist Church and almost double what the LDS Church has given in the last twenty-five

How to make $71 billion a year: Tax the churches

How Much Does the Average American Give to Their Church Every Year?

 

[NotreDame]

2 + 2 is not always equal to 4 but is sometimes equal to 0, and that is truth that can be proven with some degree of knowledge in higher mathematics.

You realize you've spent all this time writing paragraphs upon paragraphs in response to my posts (and one which wasn't even directed at you) when I've already made it more than clear that I'm not interested in having a serious discussion with you?

There was never any serious dialogue at all, this includes your initial posts. Your posts were unsubstantiated claims upon unsubstantiated claims, that alone is an impediment to any serious dialogue.

Again, the problem isn’t me, the problem is your ostensible uncomfortability with having your claims challenged and the horror of actually supporting your claims.

The most recent instance of this occurrence was your claim of efficiency. You said nothing and provided nothing to support it. When challenged all you have is vitriol. A part and parcel of the forum is the exchange of ideas and the challenging of those ideas.

 

[NotreDame]

2 + 2 is not always equal to 4 but is sometimes equal to 0, and that is truth that can be proven with some degree of knowledge in higher mathematics.

Yeah, I’m familiar with those fuzzy math riddles of 2+2=5. They rest upon an improper function in one of its steps.

But go ahead, show how 2+2=O. Show your work.

 

[bekkilyn]

Yeah, I’m familiar with those fuzzy math riddles of 2+2=5. They rest upon an improper function in one of its steps.

But go ahead, show how 2+2=O. Show your work.

I assure you the clear result of 0 is entirely unrelated to a fuzzy math riddle (and not even a riddle at all), but as with our so-called "discussion," a different perspective is necessary to see it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Your sentiments underestimate the collective power of the churches in America, as well as the private philanthropy:



How to make $71 billion a year: Tax the churches

How Much Does the Average American Give to Their Church Every Year?

Your second link doesn't give any kind of total - and with the declining rates of church membership, every year would present a lower total than the past, assuming that per capita donation rates remained constant.

Your first link reinforces my point - taxing all of the churches would just about cover SNAP, but that's it. Unless your point is that people ought to stop giving money to churches and start giving to other, better charities...

 

[NotreDame]

I assure you the clear result of 0 is entirely unrelated to a fuzzy math riddle (and not even a riddle at all), but as with our so-called "discussion," a different perspective is necessary to see it.

Yes, one based in reality, and your posts show your view isn’t reality based.

 

[bekkilyn]

Yes, one based in reality, and your posts show your view isn’t reality based.

I see, well good luck then!

 

[NotreDame]

I see, well good luck then!

I do not need luck, even if it is a figure of speech.

 

[Basil the Great]

So you should have no opposition to paying higher taxes for the benefit of poor people.

I guess you suggesting that we have a Robin Hood-in-reverse situation here?

 

[coffee4u]

If we are in agreement with taking from the rich to give to the poor.....we should also be ok with taking from the poor to giving to the rich, shouldn't we? Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the amount of money one possesses, isnt it?

If this is how people think today there is no hope for the world.