Upcoming Tax Rebates

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>Nude</p>

<p><em>The difference is not what the money does, but who gets it and why. Having been homeless on more than one occasion, I have experience and perspective that informs my opinion and belief. Is that what you call a meaningful life experience? Donating to a homeless shelter privately means I have a choice in who and what gets funded. I can choose one that provide things homeless people need to get off the streets permanently, if they are willing to do the work, and that have a definite set of expectations of and from those they help. More importantly, I am free to <strong>stop</strong> contributing my money if I feel they are not using it wisely. With government programs there is no such freedom, and the results speak for themselves.</em></p>

<p>I see. It sounds like you are well-informed about what is needed for this segment of the population and which groups provide that. You see how the money is spent/distributed and believe you could do a better job. For all I know, you <strong>could</strong> do a better job. If we all had that knowledge for all segments of the population that needed help, then I could see going to your solution.</p>

<p>The problem with using your solution for the society as a whole is that the vast majority of us know neither of these things for this segment or most other segments, yet we still want to help. And, the vast majority of us do not want to take the time to have to learn about all this. There are people that study poverty, homelessness, whatever for their entire lives and still disagree with other people that study it for their entire lives. How are the rest of us supposed to know where to give our money? We are busy. We have families to be with, groceries to buy, etc. We don't want to have to monitor the groups and make sure they are doing their jobs. So, we make a trade-off. We give the money to our government. In return for this ease, we accept that what we get may be not quite what we want. Essentially, we are delegating responsibility to others.</p>

<p>It's the same as when my boss gives me work to do. A big difference is that you are not required to give money to me in this case. However, since we live in a society, we have to compromise. </p>

<p>I'm not convinced that in my "free" time I could figure out how to distribute the money better than those who are paid to work full-time figuring it out.</p>
 
<p>T!m,</p>

<p>If you fail to perform, your boss is free to fire you. If your sector of the company fails to perform, the owners or CEO are free to close it down or replace the entire division, etc. Delegating responsibility is one thing, provided it is backed by responsible oversight and the one delegating ensures performance of the people given the task. What you want to do is delegate <em>authority,</em> but what you are doing is delegating <em>responsibility</em> and relenquishing the right to hold anyone accountable. If we were getting these results from the FDA, say 47% of the time drugs worked as intended, 24% of the time they were completely ineffective, and the rest of the time they just killed you instantly there would be riots in the streets. If the USDA got these kinds of results, we'd be demanding someone goes to prison. But instead, people either shrug their shoulders or demand even more money be spent or are just plain ignorant of anything amiss. </p>

<p>If the success rate were the same in private efforts as they are in public, I would agree that Federal money spent this way is not a problem. But they aren't, not even close. And until the 5-year limit was insisted upon by Congress in the 90's, it was much worse. 85% employment rates for homeless people are the norm for private charities working with homeless people. That's a huge difference. So either fund them directly at much lower cost with a higer effectiveness rate, or do what they are doing on a federal level. But don't sit back and write out a check to the IRS and say "there, I'm a good person" without holding those you have put in power to deal with issues accountable for results.</p>
 
Nude,



Well, I'm glad that your life experience with being homeless allowed you to be more compassionate to the homeless. Good for you. Now, maybe we'll wait till you have a few more life experiences that will change your mind on a few other things. Perhaps if you lost your health insurance or burned through the life time cap of your insurance due to a chronic disease so that you found yourself in financial ruin, you might think universal health care is not such a bad idea. Maybe if you experienced being a single parent struggling to work in a low paying job, going to night school, and arrange childcare for your children, you might be open to the idea of infrastructure that is supportive of subsidized childcare. Maybe if you were disabled and had to struggle every day to just get around in your wheelchair, you might be more sympathetic to having ramps and lifts in public places.



I think you are saying that you have no problem with welfare, you just want a more efficient system. I think we all do. But to throw out all state welfare because some of them are wasteful is shortsighted. And, really, in the setting of a 13 trillion dollar US economy, 9 billion dollar spent on children and family welfare programs is a drop in the bucket.



Poking around the link you provided above, I found this stat:



Percent of all children exiting foster care who were discharged to a permanent home: 85.9%.



That seems pretty good to me.
 
<p>Nude,</p>

<p>I think one big reason the non-govt groups have a higher "success" rate is that they can turn anyone away they want. The govt can't. The same is true with private vs. public schools and other services of the govt. The govt has to take anyone. Maybe you don't want them to. But then you have to answer the question of what to do with them. Remember, it isn't just irresponsible adults that get affected. Their children are also affected and are powerless to take care of themselves. I don't want to have a country where those that are irresponsible are dumped onto the streets. I would rather "waste" some money putting them in houses so at least their kids aren't having to beg on the streets for food. </p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>The New Colossus </em></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong>A poem by Emma Lazarus</strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,</em></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>With conquering limbs astride from land to land;</em></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand</em></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame</em></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name</em></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand</em></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command</em></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.</em></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she</em></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,</em></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,</em></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.</em></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,</em></strong></p>

<p align="center"><strong><em>I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"</em></strong></p>
 
<republican>Tim, since the Constitution doesn't say that the government should provide a social net to those less fortunate, they are just supposed to rot on the streets. Besides, they had a choice and "decided" to be poor and not better themselves. Any dollar you give them will only be spent on crack.</republican>
 
<p>ocpop,</p>

<p>I was that child waiting for Mom to get home from work only to see her go right back after dinner to hit up her classes at OCC. I've worked two jobs so my (then) girlfriend could stay home with a sick kid. My wife has MS and I still don't think universal coverage would be better than what she currently has. Knowing that her job may one day disappear we have budgeted for her meds, saving more than we pay for our mortgage per year just in case we have to pay the costs of her treament out-of-pocket. Don't you dare try to paint me as some selfish, uncaring person because I think we should pay our own way rather than have awgee, or IR, or even you fork over a portion of your family's income to pay for my wife's $13k/yr drug treatment. We sacrifice vacations, big TVs, fancy dinners out, and even furnishing our house to make ends meet. I found money in a parking lot today, and I felt bad because I know someone had lost what can be the difference between eating and not. I sat in that parking lot for an hour hoping that someone would come back looking for it, but no one did. I have no problem with requiring that businesses make accomodations for people with mobility or other issues, either in the workplace or otherwise, just don't force others to pay for it via taxes.</p>

<p>9 Billion is a drop in the bucket. But multiply that by 60+ years, and factor in that it is but one slice of a $44 Billion pie. It's the attitude, the idea, the belief that just handing over money to the government is going to make everyone's life better that galls me. Even in the face of evidence that it doesn't work, you choose to cherry pick one stat to justify all the waste and effort. What was the average time spent in foster care? What was the average age of placement? How many children were removed from foster care by authorities? How much money was spent on the entire program? Why can they find homes for 86% of foster kids but can't figure out how to find homes for the homeless, especially when everyone in the private sector seems to have much better success?</p>

<p>But let's face it, you don't really care how much is wasted. You want to send the government money so you can consider these problems taken care of and not have to worry about it anymore. You want universal healthcare so you don't have to pay for it directly anymore. You want free childcare so you can have nicer things on your strained income. You want the government to provide the "basics" so you can spend more time buying the extras. By supporting those who promise to give you all that by taxing "the rich", you not only satisfy all your own selfish desires, you get to feel good about doing it, secure in the knowledge that you are progressive in your views, that you care about your fellow man, that you are a good person.</p>
 
<p>T!m,</p>

<p>How many of those huddled masses came here and applied for AFDC benefits? How many of them instead shared rent among families, operated businesses or continued professions that they had learned before they came here? Don't post platitudes as a refutation, that's just silly. The immigrants that come here, then and now, are desperate for freedom and a better life. They weren't/aren't looking for handouts, welfare, or prescription drug coverage. They are/were looking for a job, a new life, a new chance and they were willing to do whatever they could to get it. They were doing this long before the 19th amendment, the New Deal, the War on Poverty or any other semi-socialist slate of programs.</p>

<p>To your point, yes private charities can turn people away. This is primarily how you sort out those who can be helped from those who just want whatever you will give them. "Think of the children", huh? Really? Fine, then take the children away and place them in foster care (85.9% success rate!) so they have a chance to escape their horrid parents who clearly will not go to any lengths to provide for those same children. Then tell the parents to go pound sand in their ass. You are right, the children are innocent victims in all this, so why penalize them for having crappy parents when we can put them in good homes with people who want them and give them a chance to succeed.</p>
 
<i>"<republican>Tim, since the Constitution doesn't say that the government should provide a social net to those less fortunate, they are just supposed to rot on the streets. Besides, they had a choice and "decided" to be poor and not better themselves. Any dollar you give them will only be spent on crack.</republican>"</i><p>


"Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooks<p>


This book is full of the <b>facts</b> regarding who actually gives in this country as opposed to those who denigrate, call names, and accuse. The author is a self-described liberal who wrote it with the intention of showing how selfish the conservative right was/is and what he discovered.
 
Nude,


Okay, let me see if I understand your plan:


1) Govt stops helping the poor.


2) Charities take over this service.


3) Certain charities get lots of donations due to them spending more of their budget on advertising and marketing and being in a better niche. Since many people aren't going to take time to analyze who to give money to, many people will just give it to whoever has the best SuperBowl ad. Other charities disappear since they no longer get govt grants that used to keep them afloat. Load balancing? -- Who needs it!


4) The total amount of money in the system will decrease from what it is today, but that will be a good thing.


5) Charities kick out of their programs anyone who isn't doing the work. The children belonging to any of these people are put in foster care. Who decides when a parent is doing badly enough to have his children taken away? I guess the charity? I'm sure there won't be any legal or moral issues here. A weird side-effect will be that people will want to get into programs that are more lenient on having their children taken away.


6) Who runs the foster care system? Not the govt, cuz they don't help with this kind of stuff anymore. I guess another charity? I hope this charity gets a LOT of donations to handle the influx of all the children.


7) The parents who were kicked out of the charity live on the street, increasing our homeless population. Crime goes up. This in turn brings down property values in the areas they can be found.


8) When economic times are bad, charities bring in less money and can help less people. When this happens, things will spiral down as the safety net contracts. The foster system will grow exponentially as the parents won't be able to find work due to high unemployment.








Sounds great!
 
<em>You want to send the government money so you can consider these problems taken care of and not have to worry about it anymore.


</em>


Yes. This is the same reason I have a job. My boss gives me work and money so that he can consider the problem taken care of and he doesn't have to worry about it anymore. What is wrong with it? If I don't give my money to the govt for this, under your plan, I would be giving it to a charity. Either way, I am giving money to an organization and not doing the work myself. I probably won't check up on the charity any more than I do the govt. Maybe your head explodes at this, but I think most people are this way. We don't all have the time and energy to research all the groups. Heck, how many people don't even bother to vote?
 
Nude,<em>


"You want universal healthcare so you don't have to pay for it directly anymore."


</em>


I have real good insurance and I don't really pay much directly. So this is not the issue for me personally.





I want universal health care so we can reduce all the redundancy in the system. And so that insurance companies can't keep getting away with automatic denial of claims. Maybe if there was only one form to fill out when submitting a claim, doctors wouldn't have to have a staff of people just to fill out paperwork to send to insurance companies. And then fight with those insurance companies to pay the claims. And maybe we could remove the connection of health care with your job so that people wouldn't be stuck working for a lousy boss at a job they hate because they can't afford to change jobs due to needing the insurance -- those pre-existing condition clauses can suck. And maybe we can relieve our corporations of the burden of providing our health insurance, thus making them more competitive in the global marketplace.





Did you know that in 2001, half of all BKs were due to medical reasons? Let's assume that was a peak. It is still a scary number.





Companies move offices out of the US not just because of lower hourly wages, but also because the cost of providing health insurance is so high.





Anyway, these are just some more reasons. I'm sure it won't matter to you, but maybe it will matter to someone else who is, as yet, undecided.
 
<p>T!m,</p>

<p>I'm done. When you begin trying to characterize my criticism of the solution as advocacy of privitization when I have stated from the beginning that I think the government can do better with less if it changed it's focus/solution, it's clear we are no longer debating point/counterpoint but have descended into irrationality. I suggest you go back and read my posts so you can refamiliarize yourself with them, rather than going off on a rant based on an unrealistic extrapolation of what you think I want. Your analogy of your employer = your taxes at work has already been addressed as being silly, yet you return to it without even acknowledging the fallacies within it. You seem bent on trying to convince me that it is ok for you to take money from me to spend it how you see fit without even bothering to check on the results. Then you have the audacity to be offended that I might object to your plan. Mind-boggling. </p>

<p>Enjoy your weekend.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
Nude,


I'm sorry. I really thought you were advocating privatization. The parts of your posts that I remember are you not liking that the government forces you to give money rather than you choosing to. For example, you wrote this:


<em>


Do I really mean we should not help those who've had some bad luck in life? Yes. My donating my money to a homeless shelter is a decision I get to make because it is my money. Involving the Federal government puts you (or your representative) in my place, deciding for me where my money goes. Considering that the problem my money is being used to finance your solution and the problem seems to stubbornly remain, I don't want to waste any more of my money on your solution. If you don't see the difference between having the freedom to help, and being forced to help, then we can just stop exchanging posts because you will never understand</em>





I'm not sure how else to interpret that other than for privatization. There's probably no point in my continuing to say what I think on the matter. So, if you want, feel free to say what you meant by the above (distinct from privatization) and I won't even reply so you don't have to worry about me annoying you.





As for the employer analogy, I didn't see it being addressed as silly. I think that was your interpretation.





I am not at all offended that you object to my plan. Although, I don't recall saying I had a plan. I thought we were just discussing/debating the issues. I'm not offended or angry. I am glad that different people have different opinions. Life would be way too boring and the world would be way too messed up if everyone thought exactly the same things as me. It always hard to have these discussions online because most of us (myself, anyway) are not good at expressing the subtlety, depth, and breadth of our emotions through the written word.<em>


</em>


I hope you also have a good weekend.<em>


</em>
 
I have been away and HAVE NOT READ all the posts. So please excuse my admitted ignorance to the nuances of each oyf your positions. T!M, thanks for clarifying your point about the military. I hope that you can understand my reply in light of what is going on in Berkeley, and the documented harrassment of returning soldiers by some liberal groups.



I think a few points need to be made.



First, government SHOULD NEVER be the answer to all societal ills. It is not equipped to do so. When people call for more efficiency, that isn't some automatic Republican code word for privatization, it is a serious CALL FOR MORE EFFICIENCY. How many of you here have actually worked for a government entity? When performance is literally irrelevant, everyone suffers.



Privatization is no panacea, as the motive is now profit. That's the problem we have with our current healthcare system. Treating chronic illnesses is terribly unprofitable. But there must be some middle ground, because profit IS a motivating factor. When the government becomes God, all hell breaks loose. Just look at King Drew Medical Center.



My point is very, very simple, GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE ANSWER. Government should administer and hold accountable private entities to perform many services. Privatization without accountability leads to abuse and neglect, but simply turning over the reins to government is a terrible and lazy idea.



This is a philosophical point not being clearly articulated. But government is not accountable like private entities, and that leads to waste and inefficiency. Pry open the budget of just about any large government agency and just take a peek at the insane waste that occurs.
 
Wow. This got philosophical fast. I'm just pissed off that I get no rebate (over the AGI), will be soaked by owing 7500 in state and federal taxes in April (just did my taxes), and am in essence, being penalized (that is how I see it) for not getting mortgaged to the hilt with a million dollar home (currently in a modest condo). I plugged in a hypothetical mortgage interest deduction for my hypothetical million dollar home, and got several thousand in a rtax refund...(and would have had the benefit and convenience of living in a nice, large home.) I think that the lesson I'll take away this tax season is "buy a home. buy big." If taxes are little more than an inefficient wealth redistribution scheme, then why haven't I taken the reigns and redistributed the wealth (in the form of a home interest deduction) to allow a much more comfortable lifestyle.



I'm off to buy my home. I'll update everyone on how it goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top