quote:Threatened cuts to US nutrition programmes will offset all voluntary food donations to the poor this year, according to the authors of a major new report on hunger, who say it is time for charities and church groups to devote more time to political campaigning.
According to a recent government survey, in 2012, due to poverty, an estimated seven million American households struggled to provide enough food. Despite this, a joint committee of Congress is currently meeting to consider welfare cuts of $40bn. An existing $11bn worth of cuts to the food stamps system, known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), began to take effect on 1 November.
On Monday the Bread for the World Institute, a Washington policy group backed by religious charities, published a report entitled Ending Hunger in America. The report proposes a number of responses to the problem, such as measures to promote full employment. The researchers claim that the flurry of voluntary food bank activity which tends to happen around Thanksgiving will be dwarfed by the political impact of cuts, if legislation passed by the House of Representatives is adopted.
“Virtually every church, synagogue and mosque in the country is now gathering up food and distributing, and all of that work that food banks do comes to 5% of the food that needy people get,” said the Bread for the World president, Reverend David Beckmann. “95% comes from school breakfasts, lunches, food stamps and WIC, so Congress can say 'We can cut this programme 5% per cent – no big deal.' But if you cut the national nutrition programmes 5%, you cancel out everything that the charitable system is doing.”
posted
That's because the idea that charity is sufficient to manage 'real poverty concerns' is frequently and aggressively marketed as part and parcel of ideologies that want to get rid of government anti-poverty and anti-hunger systems and/or lower taxes by cutting social programs - there's a long-running fiction that charity matches and accomplishes what government programs do when people are freed from tax burdens
it's always been complete fiction, but there you go.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I had no idea charitable giving was such a small proportion of total aid.
When looking at people's tax deductions for "giving to charity," 1/3 of it tends to be to their churches (the vast majority of which is then spent directly on the church facilities & church members, not charity or outreach - essentially these people get tax deductions for "charitably" donating to themselves), and most of the rest goes to causes and institutions that have little or nothing to do with helping poor people.
posted
I have a real problem with the way these cuts are being framed, here and elsewhere. There were dramatic increases in food aid in 2008-10 (the program expanded by over 50%, or by over $15 billion/year) due to dramatic increases in need because of the recession. These increases are now being rolled back somewhat (only about 10% of the increase is potentially being cut back) as the country continues to recover from the effects of the recession. This is how the increases were initially justified, by saying that they'd be rolled back as the situation improved.
But framing it as "government is cutting food aid dramatically" instead of "temporary increases in food aid are partially ending as the economy improves" is much more likely to evoke strong emotional reactions, so that's what gets the play.
While I applaud the effort to increase aid to the poverty-stricken, I find the tactic both distasteful and ultimately self-defeating, since it provides fodder to conservative claims that the federal government is incapable of trimming social programs, even when the initial plan was to do so. So next time a crisis occurs, Republicans will be even more skeptical about voting for "temporary" benefit increases, because they'll believe they'll simply be cast as heartless b*****ds when it comes time to roll the temporary benefits back.
As to the level of charitable giving, giving by Americans is significantly higher than in Canada or across Europe. The quote above obfuscates a bit by only talking about direct food charity (and even then, I don't really trust the 5% statistic quoted by Rev. Beckman; I'd want to see a more authoritative, less potentially biased source), rather than the significantly higher about of general charity given that likely goes to cover food.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I had no idea charitable giving was such a small proportion of total aid.
When looking at people's tax deductions for "giving to charity," 1/3 of it tends to be to their churches (the vast majority of which is then spent directly on the church facilities & church members, not charity or outreach - essentially these people get tax deductions for "charitably" donating to themselves), and most of the rest goes to causes and institutions that have little or nothing to do with helping poor people.
That's true, although with the caveat that non-trivial portions of charity to churches eventually goes to help the poor. It may not be as high as direct giving to the poor, and certainly some churches are more focused on providing aid and support to the poor than others, but there's some nuance there.
Here's a good breakdown I found on charitable giving in the US:
<edit>Actually now I see your "vast majority" statement. Do you have a link to a breakdown of churches uses of charitable giving?</edit>
<edit>This doesn't really answer my question about the relative disposition of charity within churches, but it suggests that overall about 1/3 of charitable giving in the US goes directly to services to help the poor*:
That's about $100 billion annually (note the stats in the article are for 2005, when total giving was about $225 billion; we're much more generous today, with 2012's total being about $313 billion). So by my calculation, total US charitable giving to the poor is about 75x the proposed cuts from the SNAP program (which, again, are in response to an improving economic picture). That includes lots of non-food support, like educational grants, healthcare, clothing, housing assistance and more, but it paints a somewhat different picture of how much charitable support for the poor is actually occurring.</edit>
*It's not clear from the article, and I haven't looked up the underlying Indiana study, if the "Religious benevolences to the poor" category attempts to capture money given to churches that eventually makes its way to the poor, or if it only includes direct religious gifts to the poor, like donations to the Salvation Army or other religiously-affiliated poverty-focused charities. If the latter, than the 33% estimate could be somewhat lower than the actual amount of charitable giving that goes to aid the poor.
posted
After rereading the Guardian article, I see they're talking about an additional $40 billion (over 10 years), on top of the $11 billion (again, over a decade) already going into effect. If those additional cuts occurred it would be rolling back nearly a third of the overall post-recession increase, instead of just 10% as I stated above. A $5 billion/year cut in food aid would still be, by my rough approximation, less than 1/20 of total charitable giving that goes directly to the poor in the US. It seems unlikely to me that food-focused charitable giving is less than 5% of total charitable giving to the poor, but if so it would support Rev. Beckman's statement that the proposed cuts to food aid are as much as all food-focused charitable giving to the poor.
And, again, I'm generally in favor of increased private and public giving to the poor. I'm just not in favor of dissembling tactics by special interest groups (even one's whose hearts are ostensibly in the right place) and purposefully biased reporting by media outlets.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you might be misrepresenting how government food aid works.
The increases in aid aren't because the government increased the amount each person is allotted, it increased because the total number of people in need increased when the economy tanked. But if you cut benefits like they're discussing, it means people are getting far less per capita then they were getting before. It's not the same thing as waiting for people to get jobs to allow the amount we spend to decrease naturally as the economy improves, it's forcing people to survive with less to make it look like things are better than they really are.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: <edit>Actually now I see your "vast majority" statement. Do you have a link to a breakdown of churches uses of charitable giving?</edit> [/QB]
Non-profits, by law, have to publicly report their numbers. Except churches. Here is some survey data on church budgets, from which you can see (first table) the total spent on programs after facilities/administration/etc. is a whopping 14% - and most of THAT is spent on their own church members. Charity going to the community at large might be about 4% of their budgets.
Compare that to real charities: The Red Cross, which people frequently complain wastes a lot of money on administration and overhead, spends 90% of its budget on programs. Direct Relief International spends 98.7% on programs. Directly to the subject of helping the poor, my local food bank spends 91% and the local homeless shelter spends 84%.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
The flaw in this was obvious the second I read your sentence, and sure enough the article itself points it out:
quote: America is out in front, but the extra percentage point of its GDP that individuals deposit in rattling tins hardly reflects the much lighter taxes they pay. Most in Europe already show solidarity by financing reasonably comprehensive welfare states.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think you might be misrepresenting how government food aid works.
The increases in aid aren't because the government increased the amount each person is allotted, it increased because the total number of people in need increased when the economy tanked. But if you cut benefits like they're discussing, it means people are getting far less per capita then they were getting before. It's not the same thing as waiting for people to get jobs to allow the amount we spend to decrease naturally as the economy improves, it's forcing people to survive with less to make it look like things are better than they really are.
It's entirely possible that I'm misunderstanding how the funds are administered. I had thought that the growth in spending was due partially to an upward definition of the requirements to qualify. I can't find a source for that now, though. If it really is that there's been a constant (w.r.t. inflation) income threshold throughout the crisis and just a massive and persistent increase in need then I'll shame-facedly retract (most of) my righteous outrage.
That said, it's surprising to me that unemployment could drop as much as it has without having an impact on the number of qualifying families. The number of participating households in 2011 and 2012 increased at 2-3x the rate of overall population growth, even as unemployment was decreasing from 9.5% down to less than 8%. Perhaps it's the effect of those who've become discouraged and stopped looking for work?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The flaw in this was obvious the second I read your sentence, and sure enough the article itself points it out:
quote: America is out in front, but the extra percentage point of its GDP that individuals deposit in rattling tins hardly reflects the much lighter taxes they pay. Most in Europe already show solidarity by financing reasonably comprehensive welfare states.
I'm not sure how that's a flaw so much as additional information. People in the US give significantly more to charity. People in Europe give that much, plus more, in taxes. Compulsory giving in the form of higher taxes probably decrease Europeans (and Canadians) interest in free-will giving to charities <edit>but definitely provides more food, clothes, housing, etc. to the poor</edit>.
Speaking of taxes, poverty, and inequality, this is an interesting post about the redistributive structures of the tax codes of several OECD countries:
The US total tax burden (which I believe includes state, local, social security, medicare, income, and corporate taxes) is about 30% of GDP. Canada's is about 5% more, Germany and the Netherlands about 5% more than that, and so on. Sweden's tax revenues are about 55% of GDP. The weight of those taxes, however, falls predominantly on the middle class. In fact the US system, because of it's relatively light reliance on a sales tax, is much more progressive, in terms of who bears the tax burden.
posted
Just so your aware, federal aid to the lower gives back a returning profit on every dollar spent. Direct infrastructure tends to be about 50 cents on the dollar returned, SNAP and other food aids iirc is about 30 cents on every dollar.
Tax cuts cost money, so it is fiscally responsible to increase aid (as opposed to further economically damaging austerity measures) as it would improve economic growth.
edit: The middle class probably receive the most overall benefits from the welfare state, for example, I as lower middle class get a mostly free University education where I maybe only have to pay back 4000$ at the end.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's entirely possible that I'm misunderstanding how the funds are administered. I had thought that the growth in spending was due partially to an upward definition of the requirements to qualify. I can't find a source for that now, though. If it really is that there's been a constant (w.r.t. inflation) income threshold throughout the crisis and just a massive and persistent increase in need then I'll shame-facedly retract (most of) my righteous outrage. [/QB]
I agree this is the crux of the issue and would like to know what the real explanation is.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, a little digging indicates that SNAP benefits were in fact increased by ARRA, temporarily. Benefits were boosted in 2009 with a sunset put on the increase set to expire when inflation adjusted benefits matched ARRA-boosted payouts. In other words, when inflation increased SNAP payouts to the same level that ARRA artificially raised it to, it would be at where it would normally be anyway and would simply continue on as it always has.
That date was expected to happen sometime in 2014 because food cost inflation has been lower than expected. But Republicans managed to force Democrats to sign two separate bills that moved up the date from inflation equalization to a hard date, in this case, October 31. So when October 31 rolled around, additional benefits over and above what ARRA mandated ended and they returned to their normal inflation-adjusted amount. Doing so saved $5 billion a year.
So yes, there was a small jolt of extra spending. But I don't see anything that talks about changes in eligibility requirements. The changes didn't make it so people who couldn't get benefits before could get them now, it made it so that people who normally get them or were already eligible could get a little bit more money per month.
The vast majority of increased spending has come as a result of more people being out of work and signing up for the program, not from an increase in benefits or eligibility.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Alright, a little digging indicates that SNAP benefits were in fact increased by ARRA, temporarily. Benefits were boosted in 2009 with a sunset put on the increase set to expire when inflation adjusted benefits matched ARRA-boosted payouts. In other words, when inflation increased SNAP payouts to the same level that ARRA artificially raised it to, it would be at where it would normally be anyway and would simply continue on as it always has.
That date was expected to happen sometime in 2014 because food cost inflation has been lower than expected. But Republicans managed to force Democrats to sign two separate bills that moved up the date from inflation equalization to a hard date, in this case, October 31. So when October 31 rolled around, additional benefits over and above what ARRA mandated ended and they returned to their normal inflation-adjusted amount. Doing so saved $5 billion a year.
So yes, there was a small jolt of extra spending. But I don't see anything that talks about changes in eligibility requirements. The changes didn't make it so people who couldn't get benefits before could get them now, it made it so that people who normally get them or were already eligible could get a little bit more money per month.
The vast majority of increased spending has come as a result of more people being out of work and signing up for the program, not from an increase in benefits or eligibility.
So, is that $5 billion a year the same $5 billion a year mentioned in the OP? Or are the Republicans looking to cut an additional $5 billion/year?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not even sure why it matters, you have an absurd number of people living close to or under the poverty line, and helping them helps reduce drag on the economy; any cuts are bad when there should be increases.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Alright, a little digging indicates that SNAP benefits were in fact increased by ARRA, temporarily. Benefits were boosted in 2009 with a sunset put on the increase set to expire when inflation adjusted benefits matched ARRA-boosted payouts. In other words, when inflation increased SNAP payouts to the same level that ARRA artificially raised it to, it would be at where it would normally be anyway and would simply continue on as it always has.
That date was expected to happen sometime in 2014 because food cost inflation has been lower than expected. But Republicans managed to force Democrats to sign two separate bills that moved up the date from inflation equalization to a hard date, in this case, October 31. So when October 31 rolled around, additional benefits over and above what ARRA mandated ended and they returned to their normal inflation-adjusted amount. Doing so saved $5 billion a year.
So yes, there was a small jolt of extra spending. But I don't see anything that talks about changes in eligibility requirements. The changes didn't make it so people who couldn't get benefits before could get them now, it made it so that people who normally get them or were already eligible could get a little bit more money per month.
The vast majority of increased spending has come as a result of more people being out of work and signing up for the program, not from an increase in benefits or eligibility.
So, is that $5 billion a year the same $5 billion a year mentioned in the OP? Or are the Republicans looking to cut an additional $5 billion/year?
The figure mentioned in the OP is $11 billion. I'm not sure what that refers to, but if I had to guess, it's the adjusted cost of savings assuming SNAP inflation benefits would equalize some time in FY2015. I think the additional forty billion they want to cut is over ten years, so it it would essentially double the cuts they just made.
Republicans are trying to make you think these cuts will help return benefits to where they were before the recession, but benefit levels returned to pre recession levels on November 1. In reality, another four billion a year in cuts is a hefty slice into pre-recession level SNAP benefits.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Alright, a little digging indicates that SNAP benefits were in fact increased by ARRA, temporarily. Benefits were boosted in 2009 with a sunset put on the increase set to expire when inflation adjusted benefits matched ARRA-boosted payouts. In other words, when inflation increased SNAP payouts to the same level that ARRA artificially raised it to, it would be at where it would normally be anyway and would simply continue on as it always has.
That date was expected to happen sometime in 2014 because food cost inflation has been lower than expected. But Republicans managed to force Democrats to sign two separate bills that moved up the date from inflation equalization to a hard date, in this case, October 31. So when October 31 rolled around, additional benefits over and above what ARRA mandated ended and they returned to their normal inflation-adjusted amount. Doing so saved $5 billion a year.
So yes, there was a small jolt of extra spending. But I don't see anything that talks about changes in eligibility requirements. The changes didn't make it so people who couldn't get benefits before could get them now, it made it so that people who normally get them or were already eligible could get a little bit more money per month.
The vast majority of increased spending has come as a result of more people being out of work and signing up for the program, not from an increase in benefits or eligibility.
So, is that $5 billion a year the same $5 billion a year mentioned in the OP? Or are the Republicans looking to cut an additional $5 billion/year?
The figure mentioned in the OP is $11 billion. I'm not sure what that refers to, but if I had to guess, it's the adjusted cost of savings assuming SNAP inflation benefits would equalize some time in FY2015. I think the additional forty billion they want to cut is over ten years, so it it would essentially double the cuts they just made.
Republicans are trying to make you think these cuts will help return benefits to where they were before the recession, but benefit levels returned to pre recession levels on November 1. In reality, another four billion a year in cuts is a hefty slice into pre-recession level SNAP benefits.
Based on quick Googling, it seems like the $11 billion is total from 2014 to 2016, although good information is surprisingly hard to come by. Most of the articles are light on content and heavy on umbrage.
Do you have a link to the breakdown you summarized in your post above?
<edit>Here's a link to an analysis by the Democratic-partisan CBPP.
It does seem to verify that the $11 billion dollars in cuts are the cost of ending the temporary increase at an earlier date than was anticipated. It also mentions that the President and Congress used the $11 billion to pay for other things, like funding transfers to state governments to pay for Medicaid and local school districts, and other hunger-related aid efforts.
The move by House Republicans to cut an additional $4 billion/year has virtually no likelihood of actually being enacted. Rather, it's a craven move by House Republicans to demagogue about supposed abuse of the system.
Given all this, here's my personal final take on the situation: Democrats belly-aching about the $11 billion in cuts after 1) agreeing to them and 2) spending the money on other priorities are being extremely disingenuous. That these 'cuts' are just rolling back temporary increases that unexpectedly lasted longer than anticipated just adds a layer of bad faith bargaining*. Also, the large majority of House Republicans like to take pointless symbolic actions to show their general disdain for the poor, and their conviction that they are undeserving of any support. I imagine such craven political moves help with a certain class of Republican voter, but I think it's one of the ugliest, most ignoble traits of current Republican leadership.</edit>
*Caveat: as I've waded through the miasma of pieces about this, I haven't seen any quotes from actual Democratic lawmakers demogoguing on this issue. It seems to be largely constrained to interest groups and media outlets. So my 'bad faith bargaining' annoyance only extends to those parties, who are deliberately obfuscating details in order to mislead the public.
posted
This also only shows charities that provide food. Most charities provide more than that.
Many churches for example help struggling families with not only food but help with their electricity, water, and gas bills, as well as mortgage payments. Life saving medical care is also provided at times.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
The flaw in this was obvious the second I read your sentence, and sure enough the article itself points it out:
quote: America is out in front, but the extra percentage point of its GDP that individuals deposit in rattling tins hardly reflects the much lighter taxes they pay. Most in Europe already show solidarity by financing reasonably comprehensive welfare states.
Here's a thought! I don't give to charity. I pay taxes in a country that understands that getting people fed is a necessity. Nobody comes to my door and tells me that kids are starving, because they aren't. I'm ok if that comes out of my paycheck- at least it doesn't go to building some awful church in my neighborhood. Atheism for the win on this one.
The US produces more than twice its nutritional needs, and we still can't get this together. We subsidize growers, so why can't we do this?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's a thought! I don't give to charity. I pay taxes in a country that understands that getting people fed is a necessity.
You should probably still give to charity.
I see what he's saying though. He's willing to pay far more in taxes to a government that does the bulk of what we rely on charities to do in America. They don't need soup kitchens, etc, because it's taken care of.
I think that's a perfectly respectable view to hold and I don't think he should feel morally compelled to give any more.
Part of the interesting divide in perspectives there is between a country who believes that securing basic necessities of life is optional to the point where people must be compelled to give extra vs. a nation that believes such a thing isn't optional, it's a right that everyone MUST contribute too, and thus the pool of charity services is much smaller because the need is smaller.
Personally I prefer that way.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Part of the interesting divide in perspectives there is between a country who believes that securing basic necessities of life is optional to the point where people must be compelled to give extra vs. a nation that believes such a thing isn't optional, it's a right that everyone MUST contribute too, and thus the pool of charity services is much smaller because the need is smaller.[/QB]
It's also worth noting this fact:
Charity for the poor is needed most during an economic recession, as those living on the edge of poverty find themselves falling into it, and those already in poverty find themselves in ever more dire straits.
But what (to no surprise) actually happens during a recession? Charity decreases. Not because people are jerks, but because people have less to give. Private charity simply isn't enough.
Governments, on the other hand, have the ability to use deficit spending to continue to fund (or even expand) social safety nets in times of need.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's a thought! I don't give to charity. I pay taxes in a country that understands that getting people fed is a necessity.
You should probably still give to charity.
I ask you in all seriousness, why you think I should give to an organization that isn't required to disclose its overhead, its costs, or its financial situation in its entirety, over an organization that is required to do all of these things?
This has *always* been my approach. I will vote for social reform, I will not give to churches. They are almost universally corrupted by money.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only way I'd be likely to give money to a church is if I handed it to Pope Francis personally.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's a thought! I don't give to charity. I pay taxes in a country that understands that getting people fed is a necessity.
You should probably still give to charity.
I ask you in all seriousness, why you think I should give to an organization that isn't required to disclose its overhead, its costs, or its financial situation in its entirety, over an organization that is required to do all of these things?
This has *always* been my approach. I will vote for social reform, I will not give to churches. They are almost universally corrupted by money.
Since you're not religious, I don't know why you'd give to a church anyway. But I would like to point out that many churches and denominations do disclose all of that information. I would not be a member of a church or denomination that didn't.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's a thought! I don't give to charity. I pay taxes in a country that understands that getting people fed is a necessity.
You should probably still give to charity.
I ask you in all seriousness, why you think I should give to an organization that isn't required to disclose its overhead, its costs, or its financial situation in its entirety, over an organization that is required to do all of these things?
This has *always* been my approach. I will vote for social reform, I will not give to churches. They are almost universally corrupted by money.
Definitely don't give to a church! But you should do both: pay your taxes and give to international charity.
The reason is that your taxes only help people in your country. The foreign poor also need your help, and indeed, some of them need it much more.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not the case. My tax money also goes to foreign aid.
My point is, I am really just against most forms of charity on ethical terms. I think for a lot of the above stated reasons, it doesn't work. It is subject to some perverse economic incentives that badly affect its ability to cope with demand, and it empowers secular and religious organizations to pursue their own moral, social agendas using money that is not their own.
I am not a communist, but I believe that the only organization in which I have a chance at real say (however small) is in government. I also believe that organizations that work outside of the government also necessarily work to justify their own existence. This is an ethical problem for a charity, in general, and introduces its own set of perverse incentives. So I don't support charities in any form. I am a charitable person: I don't refuse to help people, but I don't believe that there are many organizations capable of using my money to do more good than they do ultimate harm.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm kind of with Orincoro on that one. And I say this as someone who tithes and who has worked for non-profits and/or churches most of my adult life. Voluntary charity is a hideously inefficient way to make sure that people's basic needs are met.
Edit: I don't agree with the last bit, I think that many/most do more good than they do harm. But tax-supported government aid is much more efficient.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone voluntarily donate additional money to the same programs they're paying taxes for? I believe in paying taxes. Always have. But I would never feel satisfied with myself with giving back only what I have to, at the hazard of breaking the law. I say this as someone whose in a priveledged financial situation.
At the same time, many people don't take the time to research or to carefully pick what charity they're giving to. I'm flashing back that Kony video that hit the internet a couple years ago.
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Can someone voluntarily donate additional money to the same programs they're paying taxes for? I believe in paying taxes. Always have. But I would never feel satisfied with myself with giving back only what I have to, at the hazard of breaking the law. I say this as someone whose in a privileged financial situation.
The issue in this is that giving any more than your legal obligation clearly delineates the difference between an ethical right (doing the right thing), and a moral righteousness: (being a good person). This is why I support government backed aid programs and social welfare: doing the right thing does not confer special status or righteousness, but "being a good person," is in itself an entirely different sort of act.
I will vote for social reform, and I will pay my obligation up to that requirement. Any more, and I am placing myself and my moral goodness above that of others, upon whom I don't place that same onus. Charity, in my view, tells the poor that they need the rich, whereas social welfare tells the poor that the rich need them.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember that the government would not have gotten into the business of feeding the hungry, etc. if it were a problem that charities had been successful in handling. Despite millenia of church requests to feed the poor, cloth the naked, house the homeless, etc there were still way more in need than there was charity being offered. The government took over and has done a much better job.
Who is the more selfish, the charitable person who is upset that their money goes to taxes which feed the hungry, but doesn't give them a sense of righteousness, or the starving child who enjoys the food that the government gives them, but who doesn't give a darn about your sense of righteousness.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will vote for social reform, and I will pay my obligation up to that requirement. Any more, and I am placing myself and my moral goodness above that of others, upon whom I don't place that same onus. Charity, in my view, tells the poor that they need the rich, whereas social welfare tells the poor that the rich need them.
If not sending the poor the wrong kind of message is more important to you than saving additional lives, I guess you're making the right decision.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a lot less rich than the government is. The message, either way, is that they need someone, and it's their choice whether or not to accept assistance, from one source or the other. Not trying to be self righteous, and not everyone has the same incentives/obligation/ to be charitable to others anyway. I was born lucky in terms of finances, and I actually get financial aid for college because California classifies me as an independant, even though my Dad would support me. I just feel like I have to give some of my luck away. Because I'm an asshole.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Remember that the government would not have gotten into the business of feeding the hungry, etc. if it were a problem that charities had been successful in handling. Despite millenia of church requests to feed the poor, cloth the naked, house the homeless, etc there were still way more in need than there was charity being offered. The government took over and has done a much better job.
Thisthisthis. I am so tired of the "if the government would stop feeding them there would be no more poor people" argument. It is so demonstrably not true.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Remember that the government would not have gotten into the business of feeding the hungry, etc. if it were a problem that charities had been successful in handling. Despite millenia of church requests to feed the poor, cloth the naked, house the homeless, etc there were still way more in need than there was charity being offered. The government took over and has done a much better job.
Thisthisthis. I am so tired of the "if the government would stop feeding them there would be no more poor people" argument. It is so demonstrably not true.
Actually, if they starved to death, we WOULD have less poor people, wouldn't we?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well that hasn't happened yet either, has it? Clearly, we keep making more poor people.
It hasn't..... but neither has throwing money at the problem. The government had to step in because charities weren't effective enough in helping the poor. The government however is spending an unprecedented level of money on assistance, and it still isn't making a real difference in lowering the amount of poor. Dependence breeds dependence.
I still think that the biggest problem we have in dealing with the poor is more cultural than monetary.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who said it would? Food supplies are a safety net that gaurantee people a minumum quality of life, some of which don't have the skillsets or resources to succeed in a system of winners and losers.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The government however is spending an unprecedented level of money on assistance, and it still isn't making a real difference in lowering the amount of poor.
This would be damning if it were true. But it is just not true.
I see why the concentricity of the logic appeals to you, and why you believed it when someone else said it. But it is not true.
quote: Dependence breeds dependence.
A tired canard if ever there was one. The conflation of "assistance" with "dependence," is a weasely way of saying that those in need of help, are no different from those who refuse to help themselves. Even when there is a substantial difference.
The laid-off factory worker who can't pay his rent and feed his kids is not looking to be dependent. He may be looking for assistance. These are not the same things. If assistance means the space necessary to pursue job training in another field, with a reasonable belief that one will find gainful employment, the majority of people will take it. That is in people's nature. Just as it is in yours.
If something happened tomorrow that wiped out your savings Geraine, and left you jobless and unable to pay your rent, would you turn down assistance from the government? Knowing you, I would say you have pride in your ability to be a provider. So I'm sure you would take that money, pay the rent, and get trained to do another job. Am I wrong? Would that money be bad for you? Would you prefer to be put out on the street in that situation?
Now ask yourself: why are other people different from you? Are you that much better than them?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The government however is spending an unprecedented level of money on assistance, and it still isn't making a real difference in lowering the amount of poor.
This would be damning if it were true. But it is just not true.
I think you're both up in the night. Government assistance wouldn't EVER have the effect of decreasing the number of poor. This holds true for both the working poor and jobless.
So, let's split "assistance" into two categories: investment and subsistence. - Investment would be educational grants, small business loans, and the like. - Subsistence would include programs to feed and house the poor, etc.
Investment assistance wouldn't affect the poor to any great degree. Education won't create jobs -- it only allows people to (better) qualify for an existing employment pool. As for small business, over the long-term the market is a zero-sum game . . . portions of the market will reallocate to accommodate (successful) small business; but unless there's a change to foreign trade balance, there is no appreciable change to the overall market. Just a shuffling of existing capital and market capitalization.
Subsistence assistance is just going to keep people from going hungry for another day. It's not going to create jobs. The poor will still be poor. They just might not be both poor and hungry. At least in the short term.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: [qb] [QUOTE] Dependence breeds dependence.
A tired canard if ever there was one. The conflation of "assistance" with "dependence," is a weasely way of saying that those in need of help, are no different from those who refuse to help themselves. Even when there is a substantial difference.
The laid-off factory worker who can't pay his rent and feed his kids is not looking to be dependent. He may be looking for assistance. These are not the same things. If assistance means the space necessary to pursue job training in another field, with a reasonable belief that one will find gainful employment, the majority of people will take it. That is in people's nature. Just as it is in yours.
If something happened tomorrow that wiped out your savings Geraine, and left you jobless and unable to pay your rent, would you turn down assistance from the government? Knowing you, I would say you have pride in your ability to be a provider. So I'm sure you would take that money, pay the rent, and get trained to do another job. Am I wrong? Would that money be bad for you? Would you prefer to be put out on the street in that situation?
Now ask yourself: why are other people different from you? Are you that much better than them?
Straw man.
Orinco's argument: If there is a short-term increase in the unemployed, there is not necessarily a correlation between increased assistance and dependence.
Geraine's actual statement: Increased assistance creates increased dependence. This seems to infer that the increase is specifically in regard to the population of people already living on the dole. It is an entirely logical supposition that (with this class of person) some level of increased assistance would have a causal relationship with (at least) some level of increased dependence.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's not a straw man. Rather Geraine's argument is a straw man. Me redefining the terms (properly, and with justification), does not a straw man make.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: It is an entirely logical supposition that (with this class of person) some level of increased assistance would have a causal relationship with (at least) some level of increased dependence.
Sorry, no. The argument against the specific subset of instances was being applied to the argument against assistance in general, without regard to variety or circumstance, much less to the actual proportional figures. This is at best lazy, and at worse highly disingenuous.
In point of fact, the overwhelming majority of government assistance does not constitute "dependence" on government subsidy, and the overwhelming majority of recipients of government assistance are not dependent upon it for their living or survival, and increases in government assistance in the near-term are *not* correlated with increased dependence on subsidy. This has ever been the case. The entire economic basis of the earned-income tax credit is founded upon these basic facts. If it didn't work, they wouldn't keep doing it.
Geraine likes to ignore that fact, because it doesn't fit the logic he wants to believe.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to just wait until I hear Geraine's explanation about what the biggest problem with dealing with the poor is, what 'cultural issue' is at fault.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'd like to just wait until I hear Geraine's explanation about what the biggest problem with dealing with the poor is, what 'cultural issue' is at fault.
My point is that perpetual poverty is more than just money. There is monetary aspects as well, but social and cultural capital is just as important. We have spoken on Hatrack before about how hard it is for kids in poor neighborhoods to get a good education, get a good job, etc. Money is only part of the solution.
Children that grow up relying not on their parents but on the money the government gives their parents sets a bad example for the child. The child is more likely to repeat the cycle than get out of it.
Money is certainly one aspect, but things like good education, nutrition, and jobs are just as crucial in helping people get out of the cycle of poverty. There is a culture of poverty that exists.
Money isn't the only solution.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
