Started By
Message
re: Poverty Tourism or genuine Mission Trip?
Posted on 6/28/16 at 2:03 pm to Ag Zwin
Posted on 6/28/16 at 2:03 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
But, you just added a sprawling layer of bureaucracy to administer this, one that will soak up even more of the resources. All of this just to move money from the right pocket to the left pocket?
Am I missing something?
Not added to. Replaced, with one much smaller agency with far fewer responsibilities and less ability to grow.
0
Posted on 6/28/16 at 2:05 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
ow. You're hard to pin down. I don't mean that as an insult. I have to get back to work, but it would take me a while to figure where you are politically. You don't fit into the defined boxes, but you have thought things out. I'm not sure how much we agree yet, but I salute your effort to dig into it and not rely on the categories the media feeds us.
Am I the first moderate you've encountered?
We used to rule the country.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 2:09 pm to DanMullins4Life
quote:
But your solution here, on the surface, is to remove the tax-exempt status so that more money is essentially funneled into the programs that you described above as riddled with fraud, corruption, and inefficiency.
Certainly not more, just instead of taxpayer money. This would seem to be more fair since religious organizations are getting a tax free ride.
However, my other idea is to feed the tax money back to religious organizations so they can administer welfare programs locally.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 2:11 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Kentucker
I want to meet you and drink beer with you.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 2:14 pm to MSU5
Well, it'd have to be tea or a coke for me. Never acquired the taste for alcohol. Don't know why.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 2:16 pm to Kentucker
Well, I consider myself moderate, but doesn't everybody?
It's just that earlier in the thread, you sounded pretty hostile toward religious organizations, and that is a lefty red flag for me. As I said, I am no fan of the Republican party being the "God Party", but at least it is not hostile to religion. (I could go on for a while about how corrupting it for political gain IS hostile, but...)
Now, you sound like a small-government Reaganite, i.e., "Government IS the problem."
PICK A SIDE AND FEED MY SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS!!!
It's just that earlier in the thread, you sounded pretty hostile toward religious organizations, and that is a lefty red flag for me. As I said, I am no fan of the Republican party being the "God Party", but at least it is not hostile to religion. (I could go on for a while about how corrupting it for political gain IS hostile, but...)
Now, you sound like a small-government Reaganite, i.e., "Government IS the problem."
PICK A SIDE AND FEED MY SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS!!!
Posted on 6/28/16 at 2:17 pm to Kentucker
Are you a Milton Friedman guy?
Posted on 6/28/16 at 2:18 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Well, it'd have to be tea or a coke for me. Never acquired the taste for alcohol. Don't know why.
Well, I was with MSU5 until you said that. Now, I just don't even know who you are anymore.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 2:45 pm to Kentucker
I can only anecdotally base this response on the Baptist church that my elderly mother attends.
Of course.
quote:
Does the typical Baptist church provide local services that include shelter for the homelessThey typically are sponsors of these facilities and provide funds and staffing., food for the hungryYes, medical services for the ill When there were doctors in the congregation, yes, counseling for the mentally injured yes, legal aid for the abused wife and children Shelter. Legal aid? No clue. , cars for those who need to work They offer a driving service, safe spaces for runaway children I'm pretty sure that's not even legal. It requires a call to DHR., education for their communities yes, orphanages for unwanted children They sponsor a home of orphaned and abandoned children, but orphanages are phenomenally expensive and have been almost completely phased out by the foster system etc.?
quote:
Do they provide any services at all to those who aren't interested in being Baptists?
Of course.
This post was edited on 6/28/16 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 6/28/16 at 2:49 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Certainly not more, just instead of taxpayer money. This would seem to be more fair since religious organizations are getting a tax free ride. However, my other idea is to feed the tax money back to religious organizations so they can administer welfare programs locally.
Wait, are you saying that you want to remove the current bloated government welfare programs which are based upon the current laws of taxation in favor of replacing them with a smaller agency that is somehow immune to the same corruption, fraud, and inefficiency that affects the current government welfare programs?
How would you transition this enormous burden of welfare that has been coddled and developed over decades(Post-FDR) to this much smaller agency that presides over religious organizations only? Do you think that the growth and size of the existing government welfare programs are wholly independent of the welfare needs of this nation? I'm assuming that you believe that the amount from taxation of religious organizations would be able to successfully cover the welfare costs that the existing government welfare programs are attempting to cover?
Let's imagine that this unicorn agency works as described without growing, immune to corruption, and that the taxation system on religious organizations is able to handle the costs.
Now that we have moved domestic welfare/aid to the religious organizations only; what happens if the trajectory that you subscribe to comes true and religion/religious organizations shrink to a size where their impact on this increasingly growing problem of poverty(because sans a mass culling event, the population is steadily increasing) is non-existent.
Do we re-install the government welfare programs? Seems like a great deal of restructuring to simply return to where we were before.
With your other idea, it seems like you're just doing a lot of work to move the money from the church's left hand to its right hand and you're still not mitigating the risks of corruption(as evident in the lavish mansions and lifestyles of megachurch preachers).
I understand your concern with the abuse of the tax exemption status of religious organizations(I think any rational and sincere religious person is also sympathetic to this concern) and I do think that there should be some regulatory measures taken to ensure that the abuse is minimized. However, I don't see how your solutions could be realistically applied.
This post was edited on 6/28/16 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 6/28/16 at 3:32 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Does the typical Baptist church provide local services that include shelter for the homeless, food for the hungry, medical services for the ill, counseling for the mentally injured, legal aid for the abused wife and children, cars for those who need to work, safe spaces for runaway children, education for their communities, orphanages for unwanted children, etc.?
Yes, they do
My ou obviously don't know much about the organization you are questioning
This post was edited on 6/28/16 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 6/28/16 at 3:53 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
Well, I consider myself moderate, but doesn't everybody?
Do you think, in general, that political decisions should benefit the most people possible?
Do you accept that some issues, such as civil rights, are not political?
Do you eschew "equality" in favor of "equal opportunity?"
Do you favor a government that exists only to perform those functions that the private sector cannot or will not, but that are essential for the safety and economy of the nation?
Do you favor term limits for politicians?
If you agree with some or all of these tenets, and others not listed, it could be that you're a moderate.
quote:
It's just that earlier in the thread, you sounded pretty hostile toward religious organizations
I am hostile to religion only when it invades government or when it receives special treatment by government, as with what I currently see as abdication of its role in society.
quote:
PICK A SIDE AND FEED MY SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS!!!
Sides are for battles and wars. Civil discussion and decision making are the hallmarks of moderation.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 3:57 pm to MSU5
quote:
Are you a Milton Friedman guy?
The only label I wear is moderate. Milton Friedman was an intelligent and wise man.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 4:02 pm to Evolved Simian
quote:
I can only anecdotally base this response on the Baptist church that my elderly mother attends.
As mentioned by Ag Zwin, the good get thrown in with the bad too often. Religious influence in America, in my opinion, has gone off the tracks laid down for it by the Founders.
So has government, obviously, and to go forward we need to change the relationship between the two.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 4:30 pm to DanMullins4Life
quote:
Wait, are you saying that you want to remove the current bloated government welfare programs which are based upon the current laws of taxation in favor of replacing them with a smaller agency that is somehow immune to the same corruption, fraud, and inefficiency that affects the current government welfare programs?
I didn't use the word immune. That's a term of absolutism.
Smaller agencies can more easily be monitored for effiency, fraud and corruption.
quote:
How would you transition this enormous burden of welfare that has been coddled and developed over decades(Post-FDR) to this much smaller agency that presides over religious organizations only?
How did the present situation come to be? Gradually.
How should changes be made? Gradually.
quote:
Do you think that the growth and size of the existing government welfare programs are wholly independent of the welfare needs of this nation?
Who determines "welfare needs?" It shouldn't be government, especially the federal government. If government is involved at all, it should be the local entity, whose influence has faded to a negligible status nationwide.
quote:
I'm assuming that you believe that the amount from taxation of religious organizations would be able to successfully cover the welfare costs that the existing government welfare programs are attempting to cover?
The word assume has "arse," "u" and "me" in it. Ultimately one of us has to be the arse so...
quote:
Now that we have moved domestic welfare/aid to the religious organizations only; what happens if the trajectory that you subscribe to comes true and religion/religious organizations shrink to a size where their impact on this increasingly growing problem of poverty(because sans a mass culling event, the population is steadily increasing) is non-existent.
The main advantage of moving welfare to religious organizations is that the function becomes local and decreases in size. Social functions such as this are more efficient when they're close to the problems. And, of course, smaller size restricts the opportunity for fraud and corruption.
I actually think it would stimulate more respect and enthusiasm for religion. Instead of seeming clubbish and private, it would be community oriented and inviting.
quote:
With your other idea, it seems like you're just doing a lot of work to move the money from the church's left hand to its right hand and you're still not mitigating the risks of corruption(as evident in the lavish mansions and lifestyles of megachurch preachers).
Megachurch preachers are rolling in the dough because they can. If their organizations were taxed and if they were required to provide welfare to their communities with the money, their roles as spokesmen for God would be modified to one requiring them to be stewards of an organization charged with helping people. If they could do that effectively and then still command their flocks to fund their outlandish lifestyles, more power to them.
quote:
However, I don't see how your solutions could be realistically applied.
It's much easier to discount and criticize a proposed solution than it is to offer one.
This post was edited on 6/28/16 at 8:24 pm
Posted on 6/28/16 at 4:34 pm to Old Sarge
quote:
Yes, they do
Then why are there government welfare programs?
Posted on 6/28/16 at 4:38 pm to Kentucker
Because the task is greater
Posted on 6/28/16 at 4:40 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Do you think, in general, that political decisions should benefit the most people possible? In general, but the other side has to be considered to, i.e., if an issue benefits 80% by 10 whatevers, but negatively impacts 5% by 100 whatevers, then that may not be a good thing. Not an absolute, though, because there is a such thing as "tyranny by the minority".
Do you accept that some issues, such as civil rights, are not political? I don't see any way to disentangle them in the real world.
Do you eschew "equality" in favor of "equal opportunity?" Depends on who defines "equal opportunity". Does an A&M grad have the same opportunity as a Harvard grad? The opportunity exists for both, but it is easier for one than the other. Does society owe it to the Harvard grad to give him the easier path in life that the the A&M grad has?
Do you favor a government that exists only to perform those functions that the private sector cannot or will not, but that are essential for the safety and economy of the nation? Again, who defines "essential"?
Do you favor term limits for politicians? I do, but my limits are probably higher than most. I believe institutional memory is an asset, and 6-8 years does not really do this. 30 years is way too long, but maybe 12.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 5:16 pm to Kentucker
My church spends a ton of money helping local homeless shelters, pregnancy centers, etc as well as donating food, clothing and man hours to homeless shelters, programs that help single moms, etc. I would guess those that think churches aren't involved in their communities either haven't actually been to a church in a long time, or went to really bad churches. We also go overseas and help schools in poor communities as well as share our faith. The idea is to do what Jesus did, he healed/fed/helped people with their physical needs and also pointed them to spiritual truths. One without the other isn't the real thing.
The reason religious institutions are tax exempt is the same reason ALL non-profit 501c3 institutions don't pay taxes. That's because there's no profit that goes to share holders or owners of a company. Churches pay their expenses to operate and minister and that's it. Of course some mega church pastors have abused that for their own wealth, but that certainly isn't the reality for 99% of the churches out there. Most church staff and pastors make far less than their peers with similar education levels in other fields, they don't do it for wealth that's for sure.
The reason religious institutions are tax exempt is the same reason ALL non-profit 501c3 institutions don't pay taxes. That's because there's no profit that goes to share holders or owners of a company. Churches pay their expenses to operate and minister and that's it. Of course some mega church pastors have abused that for their own wealth, but that certainly isn't the reality for 99% of the churches out there. Most church staff and pastors make far less than their peers with similar education levels in other fields, they don't do it for wealth that's for sure.
Posted on 6/28/16 at 5:50 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
In general, but the other side has to be considered to, i.e., if an issue benefits 80% by 10 whatevers, but negatively impacts 5% by 100 whatevers, then that may not be a good thing. Not an absolute, though, because there is a such thing as "tyranny by the minority".
I used the term "in general" because we can all think of examples that defy the average. You're throwing the wash out because the baby doesn't want a bath.
Also, you seem strongly conditioned to "sides" which implies just two ideas. In moderate decision making, all views are considered and compromise is common.
quote:
I don't see any way to disentangle them in the real world.
That's why the Supreme Court has such a crushing docket. As a society advances, it distinguishes those groups who are harmless from those who represent danger.
Subsequently, it awards full civil rights to the former and closely monitors the latter. Time and again we have seen the "will of the people" suppress the civil rights of harmless groups via the ballot box. There has to be a better way.
quote:
Depends on who defines "equal opportunity". Does an A&M grad have the same opportunity as a Harvard grad? The opportunity exists for both, but it is easier for one than the other. Does society owe it to the Harvard grad to give him the easier path in life that the the A&M grad has?
Equality implies entitlement. "I'm a UK grad so I'm entitled to the same opportunity as an A&M grad who is entitled to the same opportunity as a Harvard grad." That's equality, entitlement. There's no such thing as equality.
Equal opportunity has to be defined from a government, public perspective. The opportunity that is made available to one individual or group must be available to all. That's why I opposed Affirmative Action, for example.
quote:
Again, who defines "essential"?
The people. Our biggest obligation as citizens is to collectively decide what our government is charged with doing. Do we have a military? Police? Roads? A park system? Other things that fall outside the private sector's capabilities of provision?
quote:
do, but my limits are probably higher than most. I believe institutional memory is an asset, and 6-8 years does not really do this. 30 years is way too long, but maybe 12.
That's very reasonable, moderate even.
This post was edited on 6/28/16 at 8:29 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News