I agree with tobr - private giving would not meet all the needs. All needs are not being met NOW, even with the government assistance. People go hungry every day, people sleep on park benches, under bridges. People commit suicide and murder their families in despair of their personal problems. If we were meeting those needs, these things would not happen.

No Richard, I don't feel that way. If government programs were run like the Salvation Army runs theirs, they would have a surplus.

If government programs ran on 3% or less overhead, would we adequately meet the needs of beneficiaries? Adds much credence to cutting the fat - no?

Why did many churches get taken by scamsters lately?

Many other people on this forum probably do what I try to do instead: volunteer time and energy at not-for-profits. I love doing that. Also, I work with volunteers that help my organization, and they are gold.

I don't think we know what Salvation Army finances are. Would love to see where you got your statistic. As someone who struggles to work at a non profit (and believes in their cause) I always find it amusing when people object to money going towards staff. Who do you think does the work? I always say that my life as been a donation.

WASHINGTON, D.C.///December 19, 2011///The United States now ranks the highest in terms of charity in a massive global survey that put the nation in fifth place in 2010, according to CAFAmerica, a member organization of the United Kingdom based Charities Aid Foundation International Network of Offices, providing charitable financial services to individuals, global corporations, charities, and foundations.

According to those surveyed, two out of three Americans said they donated money to charity (65 percent), more than two out of five volunteered their time (43 percent) and roughly three out of four helped a stranger (73 percent). The new "World Giving Index (WGI) 2011" report is based on over 150,000 Gallup polling interviews with members of the public in 153 countries. The 2011 report looks at three aspects of giving behavior of individuals in the preceding month, asking if they have donated money to a charity, volunteered time to an organization, or helped a stranger.

"Some people say..." ?
fgs Foxheads, it's the day after Christmas and the sharks are already in the water.
OK sure, let's get rid of Social Security. Go ahead, pander to young people and their natural distrust and disinterest in any program for the elderly. Lie and tell them that SS is a "Ponzi scheme." Go ahead, extrapolate numbers from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and tell people that Medicare will be bankrupt soon so we need to repeal it right away and replace it with the Ryan Republican Voucher plan. Then try to get flip Romney elected so he can help the Republican Tbag Congress repeal health insurance and healthcare reform. That way they can make sure we have 50 million uninsured with many ill and uninsured be given what is essentially a death sentence. Knock twenty-somethings off their parents health insurance and allow health insurance companies to self regulate and decide who they want to cover.

There is waste, fraud and abuse in every government program and in every large corporation or large charitable organization. Churches and religious organizations are loaded with charlatans, wacky televangelists, pedophiles, and weirdos.
There is no regulation whatsoever on them yet they pay no taxes. Yea, let's "dole it out" to them, they have Jesus overseeing them.

The fact is that but for quick action by President Obama and our government following the financial collapse and mortgage foreclosure crisis, we would be in another Great Depression. It's important to remember that we barely averted that so that we do not do anything to upset the gradual recovery or increase the human suffering that has resulted from it.
Meanwhile, we cannot and we will not allow these Reactionary Republican clowns to take advantage of the Recession and weak economic times to fulfill their draconian ideological agendas.

So, Canadians, why do you hate strangers?!?! Hmn? Is it the hockey? Or the swill they call coffee at Tim Hortons? Enquiring minds demand to know.

(note above is sarcasm, a dig at the survey methodology)

Don't you know conservatives can't do anything right, not even give their money away to needy people to suit so many liberals?

The cynicism is astounding, is it not?
What's that about looking a gift horse in the mouth?

Well, I should stop payment on my charity checks this year.
Surely I didn't distribute the money like liberals would want me to. Surely I'm slighting someone. Surely it wasn't enough.

What's a poor girl to do?

Ah, demi - don't hurt them to slight us!

In 2004 Congress said give those gooo charities the money but it's ok for them to discriminate.

.. in 2003, groups dubbed "faith-based" received $1.17 billion in grants from federal agencies, according to documents provided by the White House to the Associated Press.

That's not enough, said H. James Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. An additional $40 billion in federal money is given out by state governments,

On September 22, 2003, the White House announced new rules making $28 billion available to religious charities that proselytize and discriminate in hiring.

The point is the gobmint didn't do a good job but many charities Just ain't charitable now are they!
Some of them support terrorism

It is great that some of you donate to charities. No one is objecting to that. What some of us are concerned about is the large number of those who need help on a daily or weekly basis, not just a couple special times a year, in order to keep on functioning. That is what organized government programs do--provide for all the times that your individual and occasional acts of charity cannot even begin to cover.

Is this really a thread about how wonderful a couple HT individuals are? Or is it about the large number of people out there who need some assistance on a fairly regular basis? In other words, is this thread narcissistically about the "givers" or altruistically about the ones in need of the gifts? I would hope the latter.

Kate

Huckersim is alive and well in the greater world of gifting. Faith-based charities have not been immune from this bit of pathology.

Here's one indicator from a recent report (August 31, 2011):

U.S. ranks low for newborn survival

Babies born in Cuba, Malaysia, Portugal, and the United Kingdom have a better chance of surviving the first month compared to those born in the United States, according to researchers at the World Health Organization and Save the Children.

In a 20 year analysis of newborn death rates around the world, the study published in PLoS Medicine revealed the number of infants who die before they are 4 weeks old account for 41% of child deaths worldwide. Newborn deaths in the United States ranked 41 out of 45 among industrialized countries, on par with Qatar and Croatia.

America's low ranking among modern nations may come as surprise to many who regard the U.S. health care system as the best in the world. Researchers say preterm delivery (delivering before 37 weeks) plays a role in the United State's lower ranking.

"Prenatal care is not all created equal. There are areas of the United States where access to prenatal and preventive care is a real problem. It puts the mother at a disadvantage and contributes to premature births and death rate," says the study's author Dr. Joy Lawn of the non-government organization Save the Children.

The study says the leading causes of newborn death worldwide are preterm delivery, asphyxia and severe infections. More than a half million babies in the United States -- 1 in every 8 -- are born premature each year.

The United States has seen a 26% reduction in newborn deaths since 1990, but that number is lower than the global average.

And another analysis - from the NAACP:

8. Why is there so much economic hardship in a country as wealthy as the U.S.?

Given its wealth, the U.S. had unusually high rates of child poverty and income inequality, even prior to the current economic downturn. These conditions are not inevitable -- they are a function both of the economy and government policy. In the late 1990s, for example, there was a dramatic decline in low-income rates, especially among the least well off families. The economy was strong and federal policy supports for low-wage workers with children -- the Earned Income Tax Credit, public health insurance for children, and child care subsidies -- were greatly expanded. In the current economic downturn, it is expected that the number of poor children will increase by millions.

Other industrialized nations have lower poverty rates because they seek to prevent hardship by providing assistance to all families. These supports include "child allowances" (typically cash supplements), child care assistance, health coverage, paid family leave, and other supports that help offset the cost of raising children.

But the U.S. takes a different policy approach. Our nation does little to assist low-income working families unless they hit rock bottom. And then, such families are eligible only for means-tested benefits that tend to be highly stigmatized; most families who need help receive little or none. (One notable exception is the federal Earned Income Tax Credit.)

At the same time, middle- and especially upper-income families receive numerous government benefits that help them maintain and improve their standard of living -- benefits that are largely unavailable to lower-income families. These include tax-subsidized benefits provided by employers (such as health insurance and retirement accounts), tax breaks for home owners (such as deductions for mortgage interest and tax exclusions for profits from home sales), and other tax preferences that privilege assets over income. Although most people don't think of these tax breaks as government "benefits," they cost the federal treasury nearly three times as much as benefits that go to low- to moderate-income families. In addition, middle- and upper-income families reap the majority of benefits from the child tax credit and the child care and dependent tax credit because neither is fully refundable.

In short, high rates of child poverty and income inequality in the U.S. can be reduced, but effective, widespread, and long-lasting change will require shifts in both national policy and the economy.

This UNICEF report was released in 2001 -Child poverty persistent across industrialised countries:

The chances of moving out of the bottom of the income distribution are better for children in some countries than in others. The USA has the highest figure for persistent low income out of the seven countries surveyed, challenging common perceptions about mobility and opportunity in the world’s leading economy. The research also demonstrates that black children are more likely to be chronically poor in the USA. Forty seven per cent of white children in the poorest fifth of all children at the start of the 1980s were poor again at the start of the 1990s but the figure was as high as 78 per cent for black children.

Thats a lot of really selfish, nasty people.

*

It would be interesting to see a regional take on those type of courtesies.

Ink, you said what I was trying to much more concisely.

I also wonder if the respondents' idea of charitable giving includes donations to the megachurches and televangelists.

So I stopped wasting my time in that regard.
I decided to waste it another way.

So give an old widder woman a little fun, would ya? ;0

Government waste/fraud is a problem, no doubt about it. Could we maybe consider "going" after people like say Defense Contractors ?

I just do not have it in my heart to beat up on those who have so little.

Imagine the local Arpaio types of the country running charitable programs!

Hey they could build big warehouses to house them in, and loan them out for labor....seems there was a system like that once before in this country. So why not eh ?

And before the fists start flying :) I am very delighted that Americans give from their hearts and/or for the tax deduction, but privatizing the poor is a bad idea.

Like big business will be any more accountable and/or responsible with our tax dollars .. no I do not think so.

Ran by state or local governments rather than starting out at some huge bureaucracy in Washington and being filtered down through bureaucrat after bureaucrat until there is only 30 cents left out of each dollar to go to those who need it has nothing to do with privatization. Efficiency maybe?

Only?

OhioMom addressed the social safety net which is about the poor and needy.

Outsourcing in the name of savings? Where have I heard that before? And seen stunning failure?

Anyone recall Senator Grassley's investigations into the megachurches/televangelists?

The Humane Society, the Nature Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Foundation.

I go through the kitchen pantry twice a year and get rid of unused canned and bottled food to a local foundation that prepares meals.

I don't volunteer for anything.

That's it! Nothing else!

-Ron-

What about if the ticket is to North Dakota for a possible, maybe, job in the oil fields?

In December?

Actually that comes close to the commentaries on the sin of Sodom. Giving the poor coins that could not be used to purchase anything establishing laws that only Resident of Sodom could live in Sodom & that anyone staying must be reported to the powers that be or we'll EFF you up good!

"Rabbinic legends about Sodom describe an area of unusual natural resources, precious stones, silver and gold. Every path in Sodom, say the sages, was lined with seven rows of fruit trees. Eager to keep their great wealth for themselves, and suspicious of outsiders desires to share in it, the residents of Sodom agreed to overturn the ancient law of hospitality to wayfarers. The legislation later prohibited giving charity to anyone. One legend claims that when a beggar would wander into Sodom, the people would mark their names on their coins and give him a dinar. However, no one would sell him bread. When he perished of hunger, everyone would come and claim his coin. There was once a maiden who secretly carried bread out to a poor person in the street in her water pitcher. After three days passed and the man didn't die, the maiden was discovered. They covered the girl with honey and put her atop the city walls, leaving her there until bees came and ate her. Hers was the cry that came up to God, the cry that inaugurated the angelic visit and its consequences."

Vote your values weapons system or health care, Drones, Hyperbaric munitions of all sizes & shapes, cluster weapons.
It's the public "good" after all.
I think the government does a terrible job with money I've seen what Charity institutions did with it. The charity isntitutions hardly came close to aleviating even a touch of the suffering of the other half in Th US.
Why don't they teach history I can't believe how many times I have to report that in the late 1800's thousands of children lived on the Streets of NYC fending for themselves. This was the golden age of the great Rober Barons The Gilded age of the 400. Teddy Roosevelt worked for the Children s Aid Society. Jacob Reiss wrote How the other Half Lives showing us how good individual Charities are at dividing up the wealth. Out of sight out of mind doesn't apply because the slums of NYC were worse than anything he had ever seen wrote Dickens.
Can't impress probably won't anyway at how good Government was at alleviating some of the misery. It lost it's way the republicans called FDR's programs socialism
I believe in workfare but really it should be fair work first.

Sam Walton took nothing with him.

If I had to end up on an island with "generous" people like you, knowing that you were going to die before me, or end up on an island with a selfish man like Sam Walton, who was going to die before me, but knowing how capable he was at creating wealth, guess who I'd choose.

Most poor people will die broke, leaving nothing for me. Most rich people will die rich and I get it all. Let them keep it and grow it while they're alive.

We don't need to call it charity. Put whatever name on it you want.

Hay

And I'm mighty thankful for that.

"no one need be without food?"

"considered middle income in many European countries?"

I'm not talking about kids whose parents can't afford Wii.

I don't have to go on the internet to understand poverty. You think that if a person isn't begging by the Ganges they are not poor?

My question remains: if Americans are so charitable (and they are ) then why are so many hungry and living in poverty?

In addition, I tend to help many deserving people that are trying to help themselves, yet fall through the cracks and/or are too proud to apply for handouts.

Some of my most valuable donations, are donations of time, guidance and knowledge. Many people looking to save money, find work, become more self sufficient etc simply don't know what options are available to them, or how to apply for, or obtain them.

No MrsK, you cannot just "stop at any church, receive food, clothing and shelter" They are not motels, and they do not provide "our daily bread". Again with the "housing subsidies", here they run them like a "lottery", I applied this year and was not picked. There is such a need in this country that many are turned away from shelters etc.

So that alone is a rather highly questionable research - its the opinion of the people answering the phone, not something like looking at tax returns to see charitable deductions, an analysis of church out reach programs, or monitoring, somehow, kindness to strangers or donating time.

And they conducted this study in a lot of places that don't exactly have a lot of telephone service. And note that last year, the US was #5, but moved up.

So I'd opine that the survey is a feel-good, useless holiday bromide that has little to do with anything.

MsK and I don't live in the same U.S.

I visit many online sites, and no not just the ones I agree with, to get more of a feel of what is happening in this country.

For some there is no recession, and I say "bless ya", because for others there is a depression.

Just read that our politicians salaries have grown over double since the 70's yet "we the people's" income has gone down.

Poverty should not be increasing in this country, it should be decreasing.

If we want to address fraud I think we need to stop "blaming the poor" for what ails this country and look to a city on the "hill", and a street named "wall", and the banks. Now there is some "real" fraud to discuss.

1/2 penny (2 cents just isn't what it used to be :)

This is just not true! Whereas some churches run soup kitchens, many do not. As some wrote, many are being turned away, due to lack of space, etc. The number of homeless shelters are limited in most cities. I know that some are even being closed down, for lack of funding. This happened in a city I lived in 2 years ago.

And I agree, we need to stop "blaming the poor". Devastating illnesses or natural disasters or unlucky accidents can happen to anyone through no fault of their own. It's not that unusual to go from riches to rags, or to fall from the formerly middle class down to the lower class in today's economy.

Mrskjun, didn't you yourself say you are a "Pollyanna"? We live in the same nation, yet we see such different aspects.

We are number one in giving, and that's just the beginning of American generosity.

While we give freely to charities, don't forget that American taxayers are "hosting" more than 12 million impoverished illegal aliens with absolutely no right to be here. We are paying BILLIONS every year in state and federal taxes for them to receive food and housing assistance, free medical care, and free education for their children. We are giving their children seats in colleges and universities at the expense of our own children. To put it another way, our politicians transfers billions of dollars out of our earnings to foreign nationals who are then "represented" by these traitorous politicians. These are the same politicians who are now trying to make our ballot boxes recepticals for votes cst by people without valid ID.

Are these recipients grateful? Do they appreciate that Americans are doing more for them than their own government and their own people? Do they say thank you? Nope. No matter how generous we are through charities and government programs, they and their progressive advocates never say thank you, and demand more, more, more.

By the way, where is Mexico on that list of charitable givers? Never mind. If Mexico's wealthy were givers, they would be taking care of their own poor. No telling how much money gets passed to Democrat politicians under the table to keep Amereicans on the hook for the welfare of millions of Mexico's underclass. But it has to be considerable, and every penny is money that should be going to Americans.

I don't think there is another government that gives more than the US and the one credit I will give to George Bush is his attention to the AIDS epedemic in Africa.

The US vaccine program saves millions of lives around the globe.

Absolutely spot on.

And there are those that want to raise federal taxes on the 53% of us who DO pay the billions for these illegals' health care, education, and use of our resources.

Since there is so much skepticism about how much others really give and how much good it does, I think it would be interesting for every corporation and every individual and every churfch to skip one year and not make any charitable donations of any kind to anyone or any community.

Let the government do it's usual efficient job it taking care of everyone with our tax dollars.

Then we'd know how much of a difference it would make or not.

Who knows? Maybe I've been wasting my money all along.

Really ?? So we will jump from the "poor" and blame all them illegals that are ruining the country.

Well it seems this conversation can not "rise up like the cream". Me myself I look a little "higher" in this country than some.

And this is why we occupy....

Oh, look, the Occupy Wall Street movement is starting to have an effect. Jealous of those 1%ers, are we???!???!?

*

What do you mean, David?

Mrskjun posted information about our citizens and giving and it turned into a whinefest about how it wasn't enough and skepticism, including several snarky posts from you.

Seems to me the generosity of spirit is lacking from many of you in always complaining that others don't give enough or criticizing what they do for others, how they do for others, why they do for others, and why it isn't enough.

For you.

Poor People May Be Quicker to Be Kind (see link)

Sheesh. Toss this thread out the window.

-Ron-

While Occupiers continue to do their part by sitting outside, unprotected by the elements, the Obamas and Pelosis are selflessly doing their part as well.

Whether it's the Obamas spending 4 million taxpayer dollars on another luxury vacation for themselves, or the Pelosis spending 10 grand per night of their own money that they'll never miss, I for one am grateful for their demonstrations of sacrifice by example. I'm sure hard working Americans everywhere will feel ashamed of their own "greed" once they see what real sacrifice from top Democrats looks like.

BONFIRE !!

Have fun y'all, I am outta here :)

I'm with you, ohiomom.

Soooooo.... MrsK wants to privatize these programs!? Am I missing something?

BTW, the study I linked below says that 30% of the total amount given to private charities goes to meet the needs of the poor.... isn't that the same number MrsKjun used for what our federal govt provides... 30¢ on the dollar?

Here's an interesting blog post on the subject as well.

So, Canadians, why do you hate strangers?!?! Hmn? Is it the hockey? Or the swill they call coffee at Tim Hortons? Enquiring minds demand to know. "

---------------------

I think the problem may be that in Canada we don't have strangers.........just friends we have yet to meet.

PS: If you know what's good for you back off on Timmies........got it!

I agree, we should take care of our own citizens instead of denying them food and shelter and instead giving it to illegal aliens.

Manzannas & Naranjas!

"The income distribution and relative poverty
Although the relative approach theoretically differs largely from the Orshansky definition, crucial variables of both poverty definitions are more similar than often thought. First, the so-called standardization of income in both approaches is very similar. To make incomes comparable among households of different sizes, equivalence scales are used to standardize household income to the level of a single person household. In Europe, the modified OECD equivalence scale is used, which takes the combined value of 1 for the head of household, 0.5 for each additional household member older than 14 years and 0.3 for children. When compared to the US Census poverty lines, which is based on a defined basket of goods, for the most prevalent household types both standardization methods show to be very similar.
Furthermore, the poverty threshold in Western-European countries is not always higher than the Orshansky threshold for a single person family. The actual Orchinsky poverty line for single person households in the US ($9645 in 2004) is very comparable to the relative poverty line in many Western-European countries (Belgium 2004: €9315), while price levels are also similar.[citation needed] The reason why relative poverty measurement causes high poverty levels in the US, as demonstrated by Förster,[21] is caused by distributional effects rather than real differences in well-being among EU-countries and the USA.
The median household income is much higher in the US than in Europe due to the wealth of the middle classes in the US, from which the poverty line is derived. Although the paradigm of relative poverty is most valuable, this comparison of poverty lines show that the higher prevalence of relative poverty levels in the US are not an indicator of a more severe poverty problem but an indicator of larger inequalities between rich middle classes and the low-income households. It is therefore not correct to state that the US income distribution is characterized by a large proportion of households in poverty; it is characterized by relatively large income inequality but also high levels of prosperity of the middle classes.[neutrality is disputed] The 2007 poverty threshold for a three member family is 17,070."
Tax structures in Europe are vastly different than the US & social services also differ.

WIKI

And because Canadians are generally a contented people. Which we are not. And because even if their football team sports the title of "Leafs" (come on - really?) their Hockey team can beat our Hockey teams all to heck and gone. Which we just can't HAVE. 'Cause we must be number 1 in the whole WORLD about everything.

And because Canadians don't have to spend a gazillibillitrillion dollars of their tax dollars on a massive military machine because they have those suckers directly below them who insist upon doing it.

And most of all because Canadians have an excellent health care system which continues to work for the good of every one of it's people which really *isses off a huge percentage of Americans. We keep waiting (and PRAYING for it to fall apart so we can say, "See! Told ya so!"

I've read two threads here so far tonight.

I'm following Ohiomom and Marshall - I'm signing off to read one of my new books.

It's like some nations are continually progressing while the US slowly regresses... and we are so obviously not number one in so many respects that they can hardly be named in one sitting. I gave up thinking we were superior when I reached adulthood and greater understanding of the world around me. That superior-we-are-number-one sort of thinking is for greedheads.

Moving to Florida from NY some 20 years ago, my parents were stranded in a freak snowstorm in the south. I feel badly I don't remember the state, town and church involved, but the people of the area opened their homes and church to house and feed the lost travelers.
My parents were there for 2 days, with their cats.

I don't think they distinguished whether or not the travelers were undocumented aliens.

That is the kind of generosity I am talking about. Those good people may not have had the money to send donations to the Salvation Army or whatever, but they helped stranded strangers settle and eat.

Unfortunately, that wonderful generosity will not help the millions of people now "lost" in our country. Not sure what will. It is true that taking care of the "stranded" is not rich people's or "successful" corporations's jobs. It was not the town's "job" to take care of my stranded parents. But what kind of country are we that this is even an issue? Corporations that raped our economy and were baled out by our federal funds have since given out billions - billions of dollars in bonuses to the very people that took this economy down. And other people - I don't care their status as citizens or unwed mothers there are people in this country who can't pay rent, or care properly for their families, or are cold.

That can't be right.

Is there one person here that thinks giving money to the government is the way to eradicate poverty?

I sure don't know of anyone that thinks that.

We need taxes for roads, infrastructure, education, the military and a whole lotta other things, mrskjun. Sorry, I'm all for raising taxes if we need them. And it has nothing to do with eradicating poverty.

Sometimes I really feel like you think we're stupid.

But, do you think the government does a good job with the tax dollars they receive now?

But you said: We as a people, would like to see poverty eradicated, we never want to see someone go hungry, cold, or be homeless. [...] Some see giving more money to the government to be the way to accomplish this.

And I disagreed that anyone thinks that. Then you said I must be in favor of raising taxes - which implied that I think we should give more money to the government. But my point is that taxes are SO MUCH MORE than just for social safety programs. So yes, I am in favor of raising taxes - or I am in favor of cutting out waste as well - as long was we don't apply the cuts to the programs that people need, the programs that (in my opinion) help keep MORE people from sliding in to poverty.

*

It would take a lot more than that to eradicate poverty.

Some people are going to be poor no matter how honest others are, how ethical they are, how giving. We know that because most people aren't those things--they are caring and giving.

We're always going to have the poor with us, and for reasons other than the above.

*

Yes, we most certainly do need a safety net--one that works efficiently, and reaches the right people, and actually helps people to better their circumstances where they only need that safety net temporarily, if circumstances are not permanent (like mental or physical impairments).

What we have is a bloated, selfish, greedy bureaucratic mess than has only creased the numbers of people dependant on it and done very little to help people out their circumstances.

That's why I support programs that don't throw money at people with no accountability, but programs that mentor and educate and require participation in exchange for help.

THAT is the kind of effort that makes this country the best it can be--not people made out to be victims, tossed just enough money to get by with no help or requirements to better themselves, and an us. vs. them negative attitude.

I agree - these are good programs and we should have more of them. I also agree that safety net programs should be temporary - and that there are "second level" programs for those that need it to get past being on the ground and being on their way to success again. I think these would be the programs with education, mentorship and accountability. This is also a good area for non-government entities to step up - churches and charities and such.

I wish often that we could wipe the slate clean and design these things from scratch. Constantly tweaking and fixing programs is very inefficient.

2. About the Humane Society. Not sure if it matters, but have you all seen ads that claim there is a difference between your local humane society and the national one? Until I saw the ads, I assumed they were related, and that the United States Humane Society sheltered animals and tried to find them homes just like the local Humane Societies do, only on a larger scale. You might want to investigate what your local and the national group focus on, so you can direct your checks to the organization most in tune with your own wishes.

3. Eradicating poverty was the idea behind the Great Society. The goal, we were told, was to end poverty in America with government programs. Needless to say, the scheme worked to take more money from taxpayers, but poverty (surprised?) is still with us. The fact that government continues to import poverty in clear violation of our own immigration laws tells even the dumbest blockhead that ending poverty for Americans isn't the current goal, if it ever was. Look what Democrats and "moderate" Republicans have achieved, using poverty as an excuse for raising taxes and transferring income. They've moved on from helping US citizens, to transferring billions of dollars to millions of illegal aliens. The Mexican government openly operates its own agencies here in the US, helping their citizens meet their needs with US taxpayer money. Not a word from the politicians on either side of the border, nor from Progressives here, about who owns the problem of impoverished Mexicans, and who is responsible for them. Nope. The focus is always on those greedy Americans not doing enough for people the Mexican government wants "helped" but not in Mexico, and not by burdening wealthy Mexicans. We are such suckers.

Could not agree more. It does no one any good to be given money, and other incentives, without some level of contribution on their part. Of course there are circumstances that warrant different levels of help and as a society we need to be ready to help those who truly need short or long term assistance.

The other thing I think is crucial is a fair minimum wage. One that a person can live humbly on and provide for the basics of life.

I know some will argue that it impedes the free market system but before you do, think of this. Why should the American taxpayer, the infamous 53%, subsidize business payrolls with their tax dollars rather than let the business bear that cost as part of their legitimate business expenses?

As I understand it low income earners can claim a tax credit, paid for by the American tax payer, so that businesses can keep wages at below poverty levels. That certainly is not how capitalism works here in Canada.

Worse yet those that claim that legitimates tax credit at the paying taxpayers cost are disparaged for not paying any taxes!

*

I agree wholeheartedly, esh.
As painful as it would be, I think our government from the federal level all the way to local should consider starting from scratch, as much as could be practical without chaos, and providing some sort of continuity.

I loved my involvement with Junior Achievement and felt it did make a different in the ten year olds. There are several organizations in cities in my part of the state that actually mentor at risk youth, single parents, rehabilitated addicts, set them in apartments and homes and donated items furnish the homes--and they're all nice, not junk. Much is purchased new with local donations, and some local benefactors actually pay for college for some of the people if they stay on track and make good grades.

These are the types of help I think people need--someone to believe in and help those that truly do want to make a better life for themselves and extricate themselves from poverty.

Several friends and I have discussed doing something like this for a certain segment of society in the coming years.

It's daunting, however, so much red tape and government involvement and it would be a duplication of effort in many regards. I can't help but think with my organization efforts and determination and enough money and time, it could be more successful than many other efforts. I do have at my disposal a consultant who specializes in these matters.

Who knows, it might happen.

What are some examples of how the government transfers billions of dollars to millions of illegal aliens?

Total raised in 328 shops: $700,000

Total with Stewart's Match: $1,400,000 For organizations benefiting local kids!

Local charities benefiting children under 18 receive funding from Holiday Match. 100% goes to charity - there are no administrative costs.

Hey Demi, I was involved in JA for many years both the traditional High School programme and then later the grade school programme. I started as a mentor to a high school business team and ended up as Chairman of the regional JA board of directors. I much preferred working with the kids but you need an organization as well.

So, all we need to do is re-write our public safety net programs, never mind that they only use a tiny sliver of revenue... and the biggest slice of the pie goes to fund white collar crime and their too-big-to-fail banks and a military machine so big it can't be audited.

The reality is... welfare to the already wealthy costs us way more than welfare to the poor. Perhaps THAT'S where the rewriting of programs should begin, eh?

Nope jodik, no matter how hard you try, not one person has said that.

Several estimate California pays in the billions for illegal immigrants.

Here is a link to changing statistics:

http://immigrationcounters.com/

They've moved on from helping US citizens, to transferring billions of dollars to millions of illegal aliens.

What are some examples of how the government transfers billions of dollars to millions of illegal aliens?

Don't they have to show proof of residency? Or is it the contention of some that millions apply for these things with forged documents and receive benefits while sitting at home doing nothing. I thought they were stealing jobs from Americans, which is it?

Anyone have any idea of how many illegals are working vs collecting welfare?

How about you throw all those legal American business men, who employ illegals at substandard rates in order to line their own pockets, in jail..that will help straighten out the problem.

Welfare - how do they get welfare dollars if they have no proof of citizenship?

Healthcare - how do they get Medicaid if they have no proof of citizenship?

Education - I agree, we probably cover a lot of costs in the public school system. But then you have folks like Rick Perry that says that is the right thing to do.

Food stamps (is that the same as welfare?) - how do they get food stamps if they have no proof of citizenship?

In the meantime, those illegal citizens are contributing in the following ways:

- paying sales tax on everything they buy

- sometimes having payroll taxes deducted which they will never claim from social security because they are not citizens

- buying billions of dollars of goods and services, renting apartments, house, taxicabs, bus fare - all contributing to the health of our local economies

- performing low paying jobs that many legal Americans will not do, thus giving the rest of us goods and services at a lower price than we might have paid.

I am by no means an advocate for illegals, but don't be so naive to think that society doesn't benefit from them just as much as it SUPPOSEDLY pays for them. Unless you have some specific information on HOW they get welfare, healthcare and foodstamps, I think you're just blowing smoke.

In other words, the whole thing of illegals ripping off benefits was proven to be totally bogus.

But that will not stop those who believe that it must be true, because it must be true.

I can just imagine illegal parents going in and registering for food stamps, etc. for their legal kid. To begin with, they'd need to get a social security number, then jump through all the hoops. I doubt it happens very much, what with the risk of being arrested and deported.

Or is it that, unlike the 2nd amendment, it is not absolute. It depends on whether you think that rights guaranteed under the constitution extend to certain individuals and not others.

Who wants to start from scratch in a whole belief system about the ills of America and how they can be repaired? So it's easier to believe what is not true. Generally less stressful and won't keep one up at night.

That is the message that they are making sure is out there, and it would take a long time to find the information such as David provided.

"Is it true that undocumented ,illegal aliens can apply for and get welfare, food stamps etc. etc."

Absolutely yes. In fact, President Obama's aunt was in this country illegally, living in subsidized housing here in Boston. She received food stamps as well. There are many instances of illegals receiving government benefits and subsidies, but she's the most famous (other than our President's uncle, but that's another story, lol)

A "plethora" of websites and you chose that gem. You really need to give Mylab and some of the rest of us more credit than to think that would be a site that could be trusted to provide accurate, unbiased stats. Just open the site and it is clear what it is.

You do like to stir the pot.

Yep. Put yourself in our shoes, Chase. How would it go over in Canada if you had over 12 million, mostly impoverished illegals across Canada, all "entitled" to have "their share" of benefits diverted away from your own citizens?

Does your country allow Mexico or other countries to set up offices in your communities all over your country, to help illegal aliens access services that you have to pay for?

Put yourself in our shoes again. How would you feel about your politicians berating Canadians for not paying enough in taxes to support poor illegal aliens from south of the border? Do you think Canadians might want their politicians to put pressure on the country these people came from in stead of them? Do you think your citizens might have a problem with being forced to foot the bill for millions of people who HAVE a home country where their own wealthy millionaires and billionaires have the resources to take care of them? Please take some time to think how you would feel about your government doing to you what ours is doing to us.

I simply asked if undocumented immigrants could apply for and receive welfare, foodstamps etc. You answered me, twice actually. Personally I'm
suprised that they can apply for and receive benefits. You would think they would be frightened of being caught.

I've said many times that illegal immigration is a huge issue however I believe it will never change until the US gets serious about charging the illegal employers that break the law and comes up with some sort of meaningful seasonal workers programme.

To me the business people that hire people who are in the country illegally are the real criminals.

Not that it matters, but I'd be willing to bet ths vast majority of illegal aliens are working not collecting benefits.

I seriously doubt they can just walk into a medical center and get any treatment without cash in hand.

Nik, do you have any links to back up these claims that over 12 million illegal people have access to all this?

Again, what info do you have to back this up? Some links to official government websites perhaps?

When I was in ITALY I fell on a cobblestone path and lost two teeth and took 15 stitches. Nobody asked me for anything until after I was treated.

Hospitals are required by The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to provide emergency treatment to anyone in need, regardless of citizenship status.

Also, the Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) that the state cannot refuse funding to educate children of illegal aliens.

Illegal aliens who give birth in the U.S. become parents to U.S. citizens, which provides access to a wide range of welfare benefits, such as cash payments, food stamps, Medicaid, free school lunch, head start, childcare credits, public housing, etc. Aliens granted amnesty are likewise eligible for benefits.

Annenberg's FactCheck.org rebuts some of the wild numbers re costs of undocumented immigrants that were circulating in 2009. (Seems as if Lou Dobbs was a fountain of misinformation on this subject.) In the past I have posted to studies that showed that undocumented workers used emergency rooms, clinics, etc. at a lower level than resident aliens and U.S. citizens without health care. In fact, the number of U.S. citizens without health care is many times higher than the estimated number of undocumented workers here - best guess by Pew Research was c. 11 million a few years ago. With the Great Recession, subsequent estimates reflect a decrease in immigrants without papers.

We've been through this volley of suspicious figures before, but one fact remains - uninsured USians put the greatest strain on emergency rooms and other public health facilities. Health resources would be stretched even if there were not one undocumented worker in the country.

Unemployment and rising expenses caused 9 million Americans to lose health insurance during the past two years, according to researchers backed by a group advocating access to health care.

Losses of coverage helped swell the ranks of uninsured adults in the U.S. to 52 million in 2010, according to a study released today by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that says it backs research aimed at expanding and improving care. An additional 73 million adults had difficulties paying for health care and 75 million deferred treatment because they couldn't afford it, researchers said.

I think it does depend if the condition is life threatening. I agree if it is life threatening they treat first and ask questions later.

What I'm talking about is when it comes time to collect the BILL for the treatment.

Chase, I am happy to see you back here, and did not mean to come across as aggressive in any way. I asked my questions the way I did because it seemed to me that you were having trouble believing our policies were so accommodating to illegal aliens. I was hoping that by asking you to put yourself in my shoes, you might better understand why Americans are so upset with their government. We have laws prohibiting what our government is allowing. The feds are getting in the way of state efforts to protect citizens from the things federal illegal immigration laws are supposed to prevent.

No way did I think or mean to imply you are OK with illegal immigration. Your question about the benefits taxpayers provide sounded like skepticism, not approval.

I would still love to hear your thoughts on how Canadians would respond if massive illegal immigration were their problem, and their government refused to enforce Canadian immigration laws.

I hope any less than polite phraseology on my part will be forgiven, as aggression or rudeness was not my intention.

Nik

I suggest: statistical blip.

I've been spending a lot of time in and near hospitals and emergency rooms lately.

And I think the department of immigration would have a little something to say about the legal aspects being enforced. In other words, immigration laws ARE enforced.

How many times do we have to point out this obvious bogeyman... and let you know that it's not hiding under your bed?!