"Taking care of" the poor.

[Raglefant]

My general understanding is that Cons believe it should be done privately via the church or charitable organizations and Libs say it should be done by the government.

Here are my questions:

If Cons are big on personal responsibility, as I gather they are, and the money that goes to deadbeats who are taking advantage of the system drives them nuts and they would prefer it be cut off altogether, AND knowing that there are a lot of ignorant deadbeats out there who are truly incapable of making good decisions and working hard... is it reasonable to believe that without Govt programs, these people would not get help if we relied on organizations to do it, who in turn rely on donations from people who would not give to them if they "wasted" money on those leeches of society?

So what would happen to those people? There would certainly be some who out of necessity pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and did what they needed to survive. But there would also be a lot of people who simply couldn't or wouldn't do it and would die in the streets. Some of those would be children whose parents were incapable of getting it done.

Isn't this the fundamental disagreement between cons and Libs as it pertains to entitlements? I'm not trying to speak for Cons, I'm honestly interested in knowing if they believe those deaths would be alright? If a deadbeat has an opportunity to work hard and sustain themself, but doesn't do it, does he deserve to die in the street, making it "ok" to a certain extent? Opportunity is a tricky word here, as we all theoretically have an opportunity in America, but certainly there are well meaning people, however few, currently on welfare who would die too. Certainly there would be fewer overall resources and some wouldn't get to the more deserving amongst the needy.

It seems as if the notion that someone could have done something to avoid it is enough for some people to be alright with their demise. Libs on the other hand are willing to live with the waste and inevitable abuse of programs for the sake of making sure everyone has at least a safety net of support that should prevent death, although it doesn't always do that.

Is that a fair assessment? Let me know, I'm curious about the difference of opinion on welfare type programs vs charitable orgs.

 

[hexumhawk]

Let them die; why is that so hard?

 

[moral_victory]

Let them die; why is that so hard?

 

[Raglefant]

Let them die; why is that so hard?

Are you serious? I think some feel this way, just not sure if you're one.

 

[The Tradition]

Are you serious? I think some feel this way, just not sure if you're one.

Most people will find a way. For those that don't, there are charities for that.

 

[BondHawk]

Most people will find a way. For those that don't, there are charities for that.

But someone has to fund them. Would only "liberals" contribute to those charities?

 

[The Tradition]

But someone has to fund them. Would only "liberals" contribute to those charities?

We should start by noting that Catholic charity work is extensive and widely considered a crucial part of the nation’s social safety net. By itself, Catholic Charities USA, has more than 2,500 local agencies that serve 10 million people annually, said Mary L. Gautier, a senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, an institute at Georgetown University that studies the church.

And Catholic Charities is supplemented by a panoply of other Catholic-affiliated groups, Gautier said, including "St. Vincent De Paul societies, social justice committees, soup kitchens, food pantries, and other similar programs organized independently by thousands of Catholic parishes each year."

For a variety of reasons, it’s difficult to quantify exactly how big Catholic-backed charity is, but we tried our best to sift the data with the help of the National Center for Charitable Statistics, a project of the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.

The first question we asked is whether the sum of all Catholic-sponsored charity amounts to half of all charitable activity by private groups in the United States. We started with the biggest, Catholic Charities USA, then worked outward.

In 2010, Catholic Charities USA reported expenditures of between $4.2 billion and $4.4 billion, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which publishes an annual list of the 400 biggest charities in the United States, ranked by the amount of donations they receive. This enabled it to rank near the top of the 400 list, behind two major social-services charities -- the United Way and the Salvation Army, neither of which is affiliated with the Catholic church.

Meanwhile, Catholic News Service has noted a few other Catholic organizations that made the Chronicle’s annual 400 list, including Father Flanagan Boys Home and Covenant House. This excludes Catholic universities, which mainly provide higher education; hospitals, which are categorized separately from social services; and groups that focus on overseas work.

Let’s assume that other Catholic groups that didn’t crack the top 400 list spent six times what Catholic Charities USA spent, a multiplier that experts we contacted thought was reasonable. That would make the figure about $26 billion.

Then if you suppose that the 18,000 Catholic parishes spent an average of $200,000 on the needy every year beyond what they contribute to any of these charitable organizations, a number also considered plausible by our experts, that would add another $3.6 billion to the total.

All told, this would equal about $30 billion. So how does that slice compare to the entire pie?

National Center for Charitable Statistics researchers tallied up expenditures by nonprofits in the broad category of "human services," which includes nutrition, employment assistance, legal aid, housing, disaster relief and youth development. In 2010, the most recent year available, they came up with total expenditures of $168 billion in that category.

So by our estimate, Catholic-affiliated charity amounts to 17 percent of the funds spent by nonprofits on social services -- well short of the 50 percent Keating cited. Even doubling this share to create a generous margin of error brings it to 34 percent

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...atholic-church-provide-half-social-services-/

 

[fredjr82]

I think we should let everyone do it their own way. If it gives you peace of mind to do it one way, then do it that way and move on.

For example, I don't donate through a church. I take food items out to HACAP in Hiawatha and let them distribute as they see fit throughout Linn County Food Banks. The wife and I will grab a Salvation Army Angel from a tree and get the wishlist of a couple of kids during Christmas. We'll take a couple of hundred bucks into Toys-R-Us and spread it out to play off some families layaway.

Things like that bring us joy. I would never undermine someone because they gave it differently than I did. As long as the end result is about helping out the less fortunate, then I don't care which avenue one person takes from the next.

 

[hexumhawk]

There is a giant difference between people in real need of care and the dependent state that we have created. Those that need real care I would gladly help any day of the week.

Like others have pointed out, if you cut off that second group they will find a way. How many people do you think would actually starve if the government took away a majority of food stamps. I am going to guess not many.

 

[Raglefant]

Ok, to summarize the question:

If you don't believe in government welfare, and do believe it should be the job of charities to help those in need. AND If going that route resulted in an increase in actual deaths because some people currently surviving from welfare would not get help, for whatever reason... laziness, stupidity, fewer overall resources. Would that be ok?

 

[The Tradition]

Ok, to summarize the question:

If you don't believe in government welfare, and do believe it should be the job of charities to help those in need. AND If going that route resulted in an increase in actual deaths because some people currently surviving from welfare would not get help, for whatever reason... laziness, stupidity, fewer overall resources. Would that be ok?

 

[Raglefant]

It's not an argument. It's a hypothetical question, and a reasonable one. Perhaps you're not someone that believes the poor should be taken care of by charitable organizations, in which case the question isn't for you.

 

[Raglefant]

To clarify, I actually understand this position, I'm just curious to see if I understand it accurately. There is a line we can't afford, for instance, if we gave every person in America $50 per day for food, we could end hunger related death. We'd be fvcked economically. It is not uncaring to not support this measure even though that means we will have hunger deaths, like we do today.

One could draw the line at less welfare than we have today, as I take it most cons would. Perhaps none would propose getting rid of it all together, but I think some have said they would, preferring to rely on charities.

Will anyone share if that's where their line is? It's not a set up, just interesting.

 

[The Tradition]

It's not an argument. It's a hypothetical question, and a reasonable one. Perhaps you're not someone that believes the poor should be taken care of by charitable organizations, in which case the question isn't for you.

You stated that IF we ended welfare and IF people died. That's a strawman. "People die" under the current system.

 

[naturalmwa]

If you think of welfare as just payment to prevent crimes, it suddenly becomes a bargain.

 

[TexMichFan]

I don't think we need to choose one or the other. Both have a need and are helpful.

 

[Raglefant]

You stated that IF we ended welfare and IF people died. That's a strawman. "People die" under the current system.

If we ended welfare and IF MORE people died, would you still support it? ...is a hypothetical question. I'm not even condemning those who would answer yes. We all have a line that we believe is reasonable.

 

[BelemNole]

This guy is proving that it's not impossible to turn around the worst neighborhoods.
100% graduation rate? Wow, I thought those people couldn't do that...

 

[fredjr82]

There is a giant difference between people in real need of care and the dependent state that we have created. Those that need real care I would gladly help any day of the week.

So who gets to decide who is in actual need of help and who is a dependent on the state? I have a feeling your threshold will differ from others. So I think your "I would gladly help any day of the week" is a little premature before you know who's defining the threshold.

 

[The Tradition]

If we ended welfare and IF MORE people died, would you still support it? ...is a hypothetical question. I'm not even condemning those who would answer yes. We all have a line that we believe is reasonable.

How would you know that an increase in people dying was based on the change in how services for the poor are delivered?

 

[Raglefant]

How would you know that an increase in people dying was based on the change in how services for the poor are delivered?

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of a hypothetical question. It's not asinine to think that ending welfare and relying solely on charity MIGHT result in an increase in deaths among the poor previously relying on welfare. Feel free to not answer for any number of reasons, starting with if you don't believe we should end welfare, all the way to you just don't want to. It's honestly not a trick.

 

[The Tradition]

If we ended welfare and if people started dying, I would imagine that some sort of action would be taken, both by charitable organizations and by government, but that wouldn't necessarily mean going back to the way it's done today.

 

[INXS83]

My general understanding is that Cons believe it should be done privately via the church or charitable organizations and Libs say it should be done by the government.

Here are my questions:

If Cons are big on personal responsibility, as I gather they are, and the money that goes to deadbeats who are taking advantage of the system drives them nuts and they would prefer it be cut off altogether, AND knowing that there are a lot of ignorant deadbeats out there who are truly incapable of making good decisions and working hard... is it reasonable to believe that without Govt programs, these people would not get help if we relied on organizations to do it, who in turn rely on donations from people who would not give to them if they "wasted" money on those leeches of society?

So what would happen to those people? There would certainly be some who out of necessity pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and did what they needed to survive. But there would also be a lot of people who simply couldn't or wouldn't do it and would die in the streets. Some of those would be children whose parents were incapable of getting it done.

Isn't this the fundamental disagreement between cons and Libs as it pertains to entitlements? I'm not trying to speak for Cons, I'm honestly interested in knowing if they believe those deaths would be alright? If a deadbeat has an opportunity to work hard and sustain themself, but doesn't do it, does he deserve to die in the street, making it "ok" to a certain extent? Opportunity is a tricky word here, as we all theoretically have an opportunity in America, but certainly there are well meaning people, however few, currently on welfare who would die too. Certainly there would be fewer overall resources and some wouldn't get to the more deserving amongst the needy.

It seems as if the notion that someone could have done something to avoid it is enough for some people to be alright with their demise. Libs on the other hand are willing to live with the waste and inevitable abuse of programs for the sake of making sure everyone has at least a safety net of support that should prevent death, although it doesn't always do that.

Is that a fair assessment? Let me know, I'm curious about the difference of opinion on welfare type programs vs charitable orgs.

I do not buy the statement you made that I put in bold. Most people are capable of some level of work, even if it is clerical, data entry or answering the phones at the local homeless shelter.

What's wrong with requiring 8 hours a week of community service type work for 'non-special' adults (male or female) filing for welfare or other assistance?

How about mandatory IUD's and other forms of safe, effective and long-lasting birth control for those applying for welfare, WIK, EBT or whatever who already have 2 or more children? A friend has a son in med school and tells me there are several cheap and very effective forms of birth control available to the general public that don't require tying fallopian tubes or permanently ending the woman's chances of conceiving again down the road.

We don't have to look too far outside the box if we can bind and gag the civil rights barking, ambulance chasing lawyers a little.

 

[Raglefant]

If we ended welfare and if people started dying, I would imagine that some sort of action would be taken, both by charitable organizations and by government, but that wouldn't necessarily mean going back to the way it's done today.

Agreed. The way it's done today is horrendous. Believe it or not, most Libs don't love and want waste. They prefer to tolerate waste if that's what it takes to make sure those with real need get help.

The only reason I'm even labeled a Lib is that I'm not willing to cut these programs without ensuring those with need are taken care of. I wish the Dems stood for protecting those people in need AND eliminating waste/abuse, but they dont, and a lot of reasonable people feel frustrated because there isn't a party who truly represents their values. I know a lot of Cons who feel the same about the Republican party right now, they feel like they don't have a party.

I don't know if it could ever happen, but it seems like an independent centrist who speaks common sense could succeed right now. We're at war with each other because that's what we're brainwashed to be, but both parties suck big fat donkey (or elephant) balls. That's a lose, lose.

 

[Raglefant]

I do not buy the statement you made that I put in bold. Most people are capable of some level of work, even if it is clerical, data entry or answering the phones at the local homeless shelter.

What's wrong with requiring 8 hours a week of community service type work for 'non-special' adults (male or female) filing for welfare or other assistance?

How about mandatory IUD's and other forms of safe, effective and long-lasting birth control for those applying for welfare, WIK, EBT or whatever who already have 2 or more children? A friend has a son in med school and tells me there are several cheap and very effective forms of birth control available to the general public that don't require tying fallopian tubes or permanently ending the woman's chances of conceiving again down the road.

We don't have to look too far outside the box if we can bind and gag the civil rights barking, ambulance chasing lawyers a little.

I don't there is anything wrong with requirements to receive benefits. I'm for anything that eliminates waste and still helps the people who actually need it. It seems like the proposed requirements are within a govt program, which I believe is necessary. I was curious to see if anyone actually thinks it reasonable to cut a govt safety net and let charities handle it exclusively. Maybe it's a talking point that nobody actually believes realistic, which I would agree with.

 

[theIowaHawk]

This guy is proving that it's not impossible to turn around the worst neighborhoods.
100% graduation rate? Wow, I thought those people couldn't do that...

I'm not sure you are supporting what you think you are supporting. He invested $11 Million dollars in that specific community to see those results. Are you willing to embrace that approach?

Probably the most important part of that entire article:

Young children head for kindergarten primed for learning, or already reading, because of the free day care centers and a prekindergarten program Mr. Rosen provides.

Which is also why it took 21 years and the current grads are doing so well.

 

[RollingBallofButcherKnives]

If you think of welfare as just payment to prevent crimes, it suddenly becomes a bargain.

I agree. If we discontinued welfare, some would buckle down and find a way to work, while others would resort to stealing what they need....ending up in jail and the government would spring for their meals there, except it would just be bread and water

 

[theIowaHawk]

I do not buy the statement you made that I put in bold. Most people are capable of some level of work, even if it is clerical, data entry or answering the phones at the local homeless shelter.

What's wrong with requiring 8 hours a week of community service type work for 'non-special' adults (male or female) filing for welfare or other assistance?

How about mandatory IUD's and other forms of safe, effective and long-lasting birth control for those applying for welfare, WIK, EBT or whatever who already have 2 or more children? A friend has a son in med school and tells me there are several cheap and very effective forms of birth control available to the general public that don't require tying fallopian tubes or permanently ending the woman's chances of conceiving again down the road.

We don't have to look too far outside the box if we can bind and gag the civil rights barking, ambulance chasing lawyers a little.

I enjoy this post. Mandatory stopping of them having children ... and then complains about "ambulance chasing" civil rights barking.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Where do you draw the line of helping someone that doesn't try? Has nothing to do with where the help comes from. The fact the government might provide for all your needs removes any incentive for self sufficiency in some.

Why does a government solution always mean more government employees? Why can't the government help coordinate private funded organizations rather than compete or eliminate them? Case in point, there's no need for a VA hospital system. The VA system can utilize existing private facilities.

 

[Huey Grey]

Most people will find a way. For those that don't, there are charities for that.

You bet they will find a way to make money. Unfortunately that way will probably involve selling drugs or prostitution.

 

[The Tradition]

You bet they will find a way to make money. Unfortunately that way will probably involve selling drugs or prostitution.

Yeah, because no one does that now....

 

[Huey Grey]

Yeah, because no one does that now....

Take tens of millions with no marketable jobs skills off welfare and what do you think will happen? Everybody's going to get a job? Wishful thinking. Crime rates would explode.

 

[theIowaHawk]

This guy is proving that it's not impossible to turn around the worst neighborhoods.
100% graduation rate? Wow, I thought those people couldn't do that...

I'm not sure you are supporting what you think you are supporting. He invested $11 Million dollars in that specific community to see those results. Are you willing to embrace that approach?

Probably the most important part of that entire article:

Young children head for kindergarten primed for learning, or already reading, because of the free day care centers and a prekindergarten program Mr. Rosen provides.

Which is also why it took 21 years and the current grads are doing so well.

I don't want this story to get lost. Free daycare, preschool, and pre-school screening/services should be a much higher priority than it is today. I don't have any studies off hand to point to, but I would wager that every dollar spent at this early stage (and all through high school) is recouped many times over throughout the recipient's lives.

Don't want to give the "lazy deadbeat" parents money? Fine, invest in services that will step in early and continuously through the children's lives. Instead it seems we are trying to cut educational costs.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

I don't want this story to get lost. Free daycare, preschool, and pre-school screening/services should be a much higher priority than it is today. I don't have any studies off hand to point to, but I would wager that every dollar spent at this early stage (and all through high school) is recouped many times over throughout the recipient's lives.

Don't want to give the "lazy deadbeat" parents money? Fine, invest in services that will step in early and continuously through the children's lives. Instead it seems we are trying to cut educational costs.

Bravo. More and better education is the silver bullet.

 

[YellowSnow51]

We pray for them in between rounds of our money fights.

 

[IACub]

We should start by noting that Catholic charity work is extensive and widely considered a crucial part of the nation’s social safety net. By itself, Catholic Charities USA, has more than 2,500 local agencies that serve 10 million people annually, said Mary L. Gautier, a senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, an institute at Georgetown University that studies the church.

And Catholic Charities is supplemented by a panoply of other Catholic-affiliated groups, Gautier said, including "St. Vincent De Paul societies, social justice committees, soup kitchens, food pantries, and other similar programs organized independently by thousands of Catholic parishes each year."

For a variety of reasons, it’s difficult to quantify exactly how big Catholic-backed charity is, but we tried our best to sift the data with the help of the National Center for Charitable Statistics, a project of the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.

The first question we asked is whether the sum of all Catholic-sponsored charity amounts to half of all charitable activity by private groups in the United States. We started with the biggest, Catholic Charities USA, then worked outward.

In 2010, Catholic Charities USA reported expenditures of between $4.2 billion and $4.4 billion, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which publishes an annual list of the 400 biggest charities in the United States, ranked by the amount of donations they receive. This enabled it to rank near the top of the 400 list, behind two major social-services charities -- the United Way and the Salvation Army, neither of which is affiliated with the Catholic church.

Meanwhile, Catholic News Service has noted a few other Catholic organizations that made the Chronicle’s annual 400 list, including Father Flanagan Boys Home and Covenant House. This excludes Catholic universities, which mainly provide higher education; hospitals, which are categorized separately from social services; and groups that focus on overseas work.

Let’s assume that other Catholic groups that didn’t crack the top 400 list spent six times what Catholic Charities USA spent, a multiplier that experts we contacted thought was reasonable. That would make the figure about $26 billion.

Then if you suppose that the 18,000 Catholic parishes spent an average of $200,000 on the needy every year beyond what they contribute to any of these charitable organizations, a number also considered plausible by our experts, that would add another $3.6 billion to the total.

All told, this would equal about $30 billion. So how does that slice compare to the entire pie?

National Center for Charitable Statistics researchers tallied up expenditures by nonprofits in the broad category of "human services," which includes nutrition, employment assistance, legal aid, housing, disaster relief and youth development. In 2010, the most recent year available, they came up with total expenditures of $168 billion in that category.

So by our estimate, Catholic-affiliated charity amounts to 17 percent of the funds spent by nonprofits on social services -- well short of the 50 percent Keating cited. Even doubling this share to create a generous margin of error brings it to 34 percent

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...atholic-church-provide-half-social-services-/

Not everyone enjoys indoctrination with their charity.

 

[theIowaHawk]

We pray for them in between rounds of our money fights.

You are an educator (although at a private school?), are poor/unprivileged/whatever Floridians receiving enough academic/early development support?

Put more plainly, are the kids you suspect will become criminals being supported enough by [government/services/whatever] to overcome that potentiality?

 

[The Tradition]

Not everyone enjoys indoctrination with their charity.

Beggars can't be choosers.

 

[BelemNole]

I'm not sure you are supporting what you think you are supporting. He invested $11 Million dollars in that specific community to see those results. Are you willing to embrace that approach?

Probably the most important part of that entire article:

Young children head for kindergarten primed for learning, or already reading, because of the free day care centers and a prekindergarten program Mr. Rosen provides.

Which is also why it took 21 years and the current grads are doing so well.

How am I confused?
The question was how to fix the issue of the chronically poor. Not how to fix it for free, or on the cheap. This guy is proving that early education plus hope for a better future is an answer. Find me another example with similar results and I'll listen.

 

[bdg8]

It's not only true conservatives that think thus way. Some people are socially more liberal and financially more consevative. That is why lumping everyone is not correct