Oh the Joys of Holiday Charity Work

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
I volunteered some time at the Salvation Army for a friend of mine to help with their "Giving Tree" program.

For those of you that don't know what it is needy families register their names with the SA with a gift(s) their family says they need. Usually it's pretty safe stuff like a toaster oven/microwave, kitchenware, kids clothes, diapers/baby stuff, heaters, winter coats etc. All the things you'd pretty much think poor people would need. Which is great, I'd rather help a charity support such programs than pay more taxes where 8% of the money gets to the end recipient and the other 92% gets eaten by government bureaucracy.

So anyways this is the scene. Designer bags on roughly 40% of the women. A female working with us estimated the bags from $400-1,200. The same percentage if not greater (Say half.) have ostentacious jewelry and diamonds. 60% or more are wearing designer clothes.

There are some truly hardship cases where they had a church member drive them to the pickup because they had no car. They had kids in tow and were generally the ones picking up children's items. Great, glad to help.

At the end of it a guy in his late 50's or so asks for help with his family's things. Super, glad to help. That's the theme of the day. So I take the stuff out front and there's some dumb bitch with nails that make her look like Wolverine that pulls up in a brand new Mercedes M Class (Their SUV.) I politely ask the guy, "So how do you like the "M" class?".

He goes on and on about how nice the car is, how great the dealership is, how he doesn't owe anything on it YADDA YADDA YADDA.

My reply was "Great, glad you enjoy your $50,000 car. I think you can load your own presents now, you certainly don't need anyone's help here from the looks of it."

And people in this country wonder why poverty statistics are viewed with great skepticism.
 
you should try goin to the Jubilee Soup Kitchen off of 5th Ave, there are people there that really do need a hand. I have helped out there a few times and these people arent drivin Bendzs
 
This reminds me of when Ol' Dirty Bastard was gloating about still getting a government assistance check despite his obvious celebrity status. He was so cocky about it that he brought an MTV News crew with him when he cashed the check and he drove his mercedes (or some other luxury car, can't remember for sure) to cash it.
 
Some people take advantage of the system like you said, but there are many others that genuinely don't and struggle to make ends meet. Don't let those people distort your perception about the truly needy.
 
This makes me wonder what the major differences between "urban poor" and "rural poor" are.

Yes, some of them seem to be easily deducible, but I don't want to pass judgment in the absence of data. Perhaps if I read more rural sociology I'd have an idea.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']So, you're pissed off that non-poor people shop at Salvation army? Point being?[/QUOTE]

I remember back when I was about to start college at Penn State, I made a few trips to the salvation army to buy a couch and some miscellaneous furniture. In a way, I was needy since I didn't have a good job yet. Although the couch is long gone, I still have the coffee table and end table. :)
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']So, you're pissed off that non-poor people shop at Salvation army? Point being?[/QUOTE]
I didn't have my coffee this morning when I first read this, so I was initially picturing something like out local freestore/foodbank, rather than what TSA really is. I've seen plenty of posts on this very board about "deals" at Goodwill, which is ostensibly the same place as the Salvation Army. I think mao has a point here; perhaps you're just sullen because you could have volunteered somewhere that actually helps the poor, rather than serves as a place where anyone can buy cheap goods?
 
I think PAD's saying that non-needy families are participating in this 'giving tree' thing. I guess the salvation army should do a better job at determining who's eligible for this charity event, but how? I'm sure the local churches have a general idea, and that's why they help out by driving people to this event like PAD said. But I assume the salvation army doesn't restrict it to church members only, so it's tough to weed out the scum.
 
This speaks more to the greed of some people rather than "OMG!...poor people drive Mercedes". I sure it helps you sleep better.

While the guy in the story was a knucklehead don't assume anything. If someone has a "designer" bag, you probably don't know how they got it. Could be last year's cast-off. I remember while going to school in Boulder, I saw some "poor" people with some decent stuff. It was because the quality of what was given away was high. Then I again, I also saw some lazy ass people my age using food stamps for soda and candy while I was working my ass off to pay for school. Of course, I wasa bright enough to realize that they were a small percentage of the people getting help.

I love the old "If you want me to help you, you have to look like a character in a Dickens story"
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I remember back when I was about to start college at Penn State, I made a few trips to the salvation army to buy a couch and some miscellaneous furniture. In a way, I was needy since I didn't have a good job yet. Although the couch is long gone, I still have the coffee table and end table. :)[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how needy I qualify as, but certainly a large portion of my general clothing rotation comes from Goodwill. Despite being labeled a hipster for reveling in such Tee shirts that say "Better Test Scores" on the front, they're cheap shirts that are higher quality than most designer brand shirts. However, my point is that everyone looks for a deal and Salvation army has a lot of good stuff for very inexpensive (however, I wish they had more men's boots).
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']you should try goin to the Jubilee Soup Kitchen off of 5th Ave, there are people there that really do need a hand. I have helped out there a few times and these people arent drivin Bendzs[/QUOTE]

I did that for church youth group years ago. My dad and I still write checks to them every year. That's why I also give money to the Ligt of Life Mission you know that your money is going to the truly needy. I know exactly what you're talking about.

People, understand this. There's nothing wrong with SHOPPING at the SA or Goodwill. That's how they're bringing in money to continue their charity works.

These people had signed up asking for free new things. They weren't spending any of their money.

So Usickenme, I'm glad you have no problem with someone that laid down $50 large on a Benz claiming needing charity. You're the same kind of sucker, er... voter, that Democrats rely on when they need to rally 'round da poor.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
So Usickenme, I'm glad you have no problem with someone that laid down $50 large on a Benz claiming needing charity. You're the same kind of sucker, er... voter, that Democrats rely on when they need to rally 'round da poor.[/QUOTE]

Didn't say that..but thanks for reading into my post. I would've turn around with the box in hand or at least would've asked WTF? I certainly would not have made some weak comment, slinked away, and then posted about it.

However I do know the difference between the actual poor and the scammers.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']So Usickenme, I'm glad you have no problem with someone that laid down $50 large on a Benz claiming needing charity. You're the same kind of sucker, er... voter, that Democrats rely on when they need to rally 'round da poor.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I was under the assumption that rich people constantly ask for charity in the form of tax breaks...which republicans are happy to oblige. (sometimes in the hopes that it will trickle down).
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Keeping what you earned isn't charity.[/QUOTE]

Charity, noun
1)Provision of help or relief to the poor
Click to expand...
Relieving those poor rich people of high tax burdens.

2)Something given to help the needy
3) An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
Click to expand...
Those poor rich people need all the help they can get to pay their taxes. A tax break is just the help they need.

4) Benevolence or generosity toward others
Click to expand...
The republicans have been very generous and benevolent in their endeavor to help rich people from paying so many taxes.

Anyways, what happened to supporting your government? I thought you and O'Reilly were all about that. I didn't realize you became a Socialist handing out freebies to poor people instead of berating them to 'get a job'. I guess even the staunchest of people can change. I praise your new liberal ways.
 
capitalist_mao

untitled.jpg
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']capitalist_mao

untitled.jpg
[/QUOTE]
:applause:

I guess we learned how to frustrate PAD into posting pictures and namecalling in this thread ;)
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']:applause:

I guess we learned how to frustrate PAD into posting pictures and namecalling in this thread ;)[/QUOTE]

You're so boring. PAD comes up with a marvelous photoshop and all you can do is post 'ol clappy hands?:roll:
 
[quote name='Quillion']You're so boring. PAD comes up with a marvelous photoshop and all you can do is post 'ol clappy hands?:roll:[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I try to keep degenerative namecalling to a minimum in my posts.
 
Hey, Brainiac.

Confiscating earned wealth to get 8% of confiscated funds to end recipients while fueling government bureaucracy with the other 92% in no way can be defined, defended or construed as charity. It's theft pure and simple.

If the government stuck to its mandated (Constitutionally) roles of funding arts/sciences, building roads, regulating commerce, postal services and defense I'd call taxation something other than legalized theft. However since entitlements are 60+% of the federal budget you're taking something from someone that earned it to give it to someone that didn't.

That's theft.

And you're still dumber than dirt.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Hey, Brainiac.

Confiscating earned wealth to get 8% of confiscated funds to end recipients while fueling government bureaucracy with the other 92% in no way can be defined, defended or construed as charity. It's theft pure and simple.[/QUOTE]
Really? Care to cite this 92% funding bureaucracy stat? I'm curious what "bureaucracy" entails.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] If the government stuck to its mandated (Constitutionally) roles of funding arts/sciences, building roads, regulating commerce, postal services and defense I'd call taxation something other than legalized theft. However since entitlements are 60+% of the federal budget you're taking something from someone that earned it to give it to someone that didn't.

That's theft.[/QUOTE]

Really? So, government workers haven't earned any of their pay? The military has earned none of their pay?

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']And you're still dumber than dirt.[/QUOTE]:dunce:
 
I've seen this thing myself - obviously rich, plush people asking for charity while hauling around all sort of expensive things.

Particularly at Thanksgiving a church around here was driving around giving food to needy families. Apparently someone pulled up a huge house, checked the address, determined it was correct, and made a delivery. 2 kids running around in brand new Nikes, a huge LCD TV hanging in the living room, all sorts of electronics, and a mom thanking them after putting down a Louis Vuitton handbag.

It's sad, really. I think this is why I hate charity organizations so much. After the Redcross tsunami debacle (losing over half of the donated millions), I stopped feeling bad about not giving more money. I still donate, but only if I know it helps directly. Child's Play comes to mind. Or just handing some cash to someone on the street.

People take advantage of stuff like this all the time. There have been numerous fruad cases following Katrina, with people being handed thousands in free stuff when they claimed they lost everything. You're always going to have people taking advantage of the situation.

So the best defense is a good offense. And in this case it's me refusing to help out charity organizations who obviously don't give a shit about who they give handouts to. I'm willing to bet we, as CAGs, could get away with it if we wanted. But please don't, there's enough heartless fuckjobs ruining it for people who honestly need it.

Sad, really. The depths humanity will sink to to better themselves and simultaneously fuck their fellow men around.
 
Wait, so PAD is complaining about charities, the supposed solution to the corruption of government assistance. So charities are corrupt and government is corrupt, with republicans in charge no wonder the poor are fucked.

Personally I think they should do their best to limit this. But, at the same time, I can walk into stores and buy designer jeans for 15%-20% of the original price during certain times of the year. I've seen some very nice clothing at goodwill as well, particularly nike stuff. So basically, you can't get rid of the fraud completely because you'll rule out the poor who just know where to look or got lucky. Fraud is a fact of life with these things, the best you can do is minimize it.

There's also the issue of those who had some money but had a rapid loss of money, often due to the lost of a job. A family may have high debt and all of a sudden lose their well paying job, making it so they can't afford to even pay their monthly bills, let alone any extras.
 
PittsburghAfterDark:

You seem to think taxes are a bad thing because they steal money that has been earned fair & square. So I pose this question to you:

Would a complete elimination of all taxes be a good thing? That would amount to everyone keeping "what they've earned", wouldn't it? There would be no public services whatsoever. No upkeep of roads apart from what citizens decided to do for themselves (which would be virtually nothing). No centralized military (though private militia would spring up everywhere). The country would collapse into anarchy.

Now, you can obviously go too far with taxes, but we haven't gone that far yet.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Hey, Brainiac.
to get 8% of confiscated funds to end recipients while fueling government bureaucracy with the other 92%[/QUOTE]


I would like to see this backed up.
 
Several Libertarian groups tackle the issue of government overhead in poverty programs and cite the figure 70% of every tax dollar goes to fuel government bureacracy.

Link 1
Link 2

I figure that's going to be a figure more trustworthy to the nuts on this board as opposed to something like the Cato Institute or Citizens Against Government Waste which both have decidedly conservative agendas and have pegged the total as high as 92% in the past.

[quote name='lithiumdeuteride']PittsburghAfterDark:

You seem to think taxes are a bad thing because they steal money that has been earned fair & square. So I pose this question to you:

Would a complete elimination of all taxes be a good thing? That would amount to everyone keeping "what they've earned", wouldn't it? There would be no public services whatsoever. No upkeep of roads apart from what citizens decided to do for themselves (which would be virtually nothing). No centralized military (though private militia would spring up everywhere). The country would collapse into anarchy.

Now, you can obviously go too far with taxes, but we haven't gone that far yet.[/QUOTE]

If the government stuck to its mandated (Constitutionally) roles of funding arts/sciences, building roads, regulating commerce, postal services and defense I'd call taxation something other than legalized theft. However since entitlements are 60+% of the federal budget you're taking something from someone that earned it to give it to someone that didn't.

Pay attention people! This was merely on the previous page. Would you like to tell me where I advocated no roads, military, no government functions, taxation or spending?

This is why I think people are so damn stupid on this board. They can't even decipher what was written 5 posts ago accurately.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']However since entitlements are 60+% of the federal budget you're taking something from someone that earned it to give it to someone that didn't.[/QUOTE]

The first page you linked (which might as well be "GeoCities," FWIW) said this:

"70% of the Federal welfare budget goes not to the poor but to the bureaucrats."
Click to expand...

Note that this is NOT 70 cents of the ENTIRE federal budget; if you stupid enough to try to claim that 70 cents of every dollar Uncle Sam gets from the people is redirected to the "undeserving poor" in their Mercedes (something else you've not addressed at all), then you need to go back and finish elementary school before coming back to argue here, because even the least familiar with government can tell you that's logically impossible.

IF, on the other hand, you want to use that data *as it is meant*, and tell me this is proof that the bureaucracy is inefficient, well, then I'll tell you two things: (1) I dare you to show me a government division that *lacks* an inefficient bureaucracy, and (2) this has nothing to do with welfare.

Look, PAD...sit down for a moment. If you really think that 70% of ALL government spending is welfare, you don't deserve the ability to post on this thread. You have to bring a certain amount of intellectual knowledge to this board, and thinking that welfare spending is that high is intellectually on par with putting cereal in your shoes before you put them on in the morning. As the great W.C. Fields would have said, "Go 'way kid, ya bother me."
 
Mykey, you need to calm down and have your morning coffee.

Of course I was talking about welfare and entitlement programs. 60%+ of federal spending is on entitlements whether its welfare, SSI, Medicaid/Medicare, food stamps etc.

If 70% of programs costs are tied up in administration it's criminal. No one would rightly donate to a charity that was so inept at getting funds to their end target. That's still, IMHO, a low figure. If you throw in federal funds that are block granted to the states (Like most welfare and health care programs.) that figure can easily jump to 90%.

The point was if government is so criminally inept at helping those in need as opposed to itself why support such programs?

I can't tell you how many times I've gone grocery shopping on a Friday government checks and food stamps arrive and watch people drop $300 on a cart or two of groceries pay for it with government issue EBT cards and wheel it out into a waiting luxury vehicle like a Jaguar or Mercedes. If that $300 represents 30% of end government expenditures that's $1,000 for one person/family for one month.

I'd wager to bet the number of people on this board that pay $1,000 annually in federal taxes is less than 5. Of course since few of you actually earn money, let alone pay substantial taxes by substantial I mean more than $5,000, you don't care. It's not your money you're talking about its "the rich's" money. You can deal completely in the abstract of fiscal policy because you're not footing the bill just like the overwhelming majority of voters.
 
I have a buddy who works in a city doctor's office and he sees this all the time. There are routinely people with the nicest cars, the newest phones, and the most "bling" who cannot pay their bills and cry poverty when he tries to collect. These people are poor because they make poor spending choices, and while they don't deserve to die of TB, it just sucks that the rest of us need to fund the jackass who can't feed his kids because he had to buy that $350 Redskins jacket.

PAD was on a role until he turned this into a partisan debate. I would submit that corporate welfare, for example the unneeded subsidies to agribusiness, are a much bigger problem. Also troubling are the companies that open headquarters in Bermuda tax shelters, yet almost exclusively do all their business in the US. Especially because these companies have recently been signing business with the US Federal government (talk about insult to injury)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/03/back_room_dealing_a_capitol_trend?pg=fullhttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0527-08.htm

And surprise, surprise:

Dismayed that the technology company Accenture had located its headquarters in Bermuda, thereby avoiding paying hundreds of millions of dollars in US taxes, the House Appropriations Committee voted 35-17 this summer to strip the firm of a $10 billion Homeland Security contract.

It was a rare moment of bipartisan agreement and an important victory for those who decry corporate tax loopholes. But it didn't last long. The Rules Committee, the all-powerful gatekeeper of the Republican leadership, prevented the measure from reaching the House floor. In a further show of its power to pick and choose what the full House can vote on, the Rules Committee allowed the House to vote on a ban on future Homeland Security contracts to overseas companies -- but let the $10 billion flow to Accenture, which spent $2 million last year lobbying the government.
Click to expand...

What is it you Republicans say? Oh yes, up-and-down vote, that's all we're asking. Seems fair, right? :)
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Several Libertarian groups tackle the issue of government overhead in poverty programs and cite the figure 70% of every tax dollar goes to fuel government bureacracy.[/QUOTE]


Before I even bother to look at your no doubt moronic links.... 70% would be quite a bit lower than 92% right?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']60%+ of federal spending is on entitlements whether its welfare, SSI, Medicaid/Medicare, food stamps etc.[/QUOTE]

Are you REALLY trying to say that 60 cents of *every* dollar the government gets goes into welfare?

PAD, I will pay for the plane ticket myself to come to Pittsburgh and blow you if it's that high. That's how confident I am that, if you take medicaid out of the equation (and given the proportion of Wal-Mart and other low-wage yet working Americans on Medicaid, I think it's fair to drop it from a discussion about "undeserving" poor, for want of a better phrase), I'd still be astounded if SSI, welfare, and food stamps are even 10% of our annual expenditures.

I hope I'm still misreading you (no, I've not had my coffee, and I just spent two hours in an optometrists' waiting room), because it seem like you're trying to tell me that "entitlement spending" is TWICE the size of military spending (at its maximum, of course, and if we assume that the government spends nothing on anything but welfare and the military).

You seriously can't be that fucking dumb, and I'm just misreading you.
 
Social Security isnt exactly an entitlement. People paid into the system for decades and are getting back more or less what they put in.
 
myke, go here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf

Then scroll down to page 81.

Law enforcement & general government: 3%
Social programs: 21%
Physical, community, and human development: 10%
Net interest on debt: 7%
National defense, veterans, and foreign affairs: 23%
Social security, medicare, and other retirement: 36%

Social programs includes medicaid, food stamps, assistance to needy families, unemployment, assisted housing, and social services. This is a far cry from 60%.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']SSI is not the same as "Social Security."[/QUOTE]

Yeah but he seems to be taken it into account if he gets anywhere near the figure he cites.
 
SSI, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, traditional welfare (AFDC), housing subsidies in the form of Section 8. I'm talking ALL forms of government checks and disbursements to the general population.

Is it all welfare? No. Is it all as generally inefficient? Yes.

I'm not even talking about flat out fraud in the system. I'm saying that for every $100 spent on these government handouts or entitlement, which no matter how you slice it Social Security is, the government is spending 70%+ of every gross tax dollar to administrate that disbursement.

Is 70% far from 92%? I clarified and elaborated on that.

Many anti-poverty programs, including Medicaid/care, are block granted to states. If you're losing 70% within the Federal bureacracy there's state overhead and bureacracy on top of the funds block granted back to the states. Let's say states are half as inefficient as the Feds.

$100 of tax payer money.

$70 goes to federal bureacracy.

$30 goes to the states.

$11 goes to state bureacracy. (Assuming they can distribute money twice as efficient as the federal government.)

$19 gets in the hands of end recipient.

Let's say you live in a notoriously inefficient state like New York, Pennsylvania or California and block granted funds are equally inept as the feds.

$100 in tax payer money.

$70 to the fed bureacracy. (70%)

$30 to the states.

$21 to the state bureacracy (70%)

$9 to the end recipient.

Wallah.... 91% inefficiency from government entitlement and welfare programs.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'm talking ALL forms of government checks and disbursements to the general population.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is that government is grossly inefficient? No shit. What's that have to do with welfare?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Is 70% far from 92%? I clarified and elaborated on that.[/QUOTE]


Throwing in an "IMHO it's higher" is not clarification.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Throwing in an "IMHO it's higher" is not clarification.[/QUOTE]

Dude, look up. Exactly four posts from this one.

Re-read until you gain some kind of knowledge. If that fails, read again. That fails?

Shoot self.

anim_loser.gif
 
It should be noted that while most HMO's have administration costs of 12 and 15% of their budgets, Medicare's operational overhead has never been over 5% and usually floats around 2-3%.

Social Security's overhead costs are less then 1% of it's total operational budget. (estimated .7%)

That doesn't sound inefficient to me.
 
PUD I read your insipid drivel. Nowhere in the garbage you call a post was there any point or factual information whatsoever.
 
[quote name='Msut77']PUD I read your insipid drivel. Nowhere in the garbage you call a post was there any point or factual information whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

Nor do we see anything resembling a factual rebuttal in the flowing insipid drivel from you Slut77. Nowhere in the garbage you call a response do you come up with statistics to refute what I say.

See how that works?

I can be condescending and abrasive as well. :D
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

I can be condescending and abrasive as well. :D[/QUOTE]


you can be? I thought that was just your normal routine...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top