So you are content to continue investing in failure?

 

• U.S. poverty rate by year 199-215 | Statista

 

Pretty sure I've already said here that changes need to be made. That doesn't mean turning over a issue of this proportion to an entity that can't handle it any better than it is now, and maybe not at all.

As long as they are getting actual money, you'll never control what they buy.

 

Aren't they getting something similar to a debit card ?

While good in theory, there are lots of problems with that thought. Just having access to healthy choices is a major problem in poor areas. Second, these folks are already operating on a limited budget, and restricting what they can purchase, is a little on the punitive side, regardless of healthy eating goals. And unhealthy choices are almost universally cheaper than healthy ones. Not to mention the confusion that would be added to the checkout process which is a burden on the store, the buyer, and everyone else waiting in line.

 

I agree and that's part of the bigger problem.

 

It's still my belief that these cards shouldn't be used for junk at speedway. I understand that healthy is not cheap but a case of water is less expensive than a 12 pack of Mountain Dew. Any type of meaningful regulation in this area would be a step in the right direction in my opinion.

I agree with that too, but again, how? Which number would be bigger: the dollar amount of fraudulent cases or the dollar amount it would take to find, eliminate, and control the fraud?

 

This is part of the problem. Do we just ignore the fact it may cost a little bit to eliminate the fraud?

 

Sooner or or later you have to take a stand.

I hinted at the solution here :

 

"Where does charity end, and dependence begin? Who is better suited to make this judgement, federal government, or, say The Catholic Church?"

 

In what way is the Catholic Church better equipped?

 

I'm asking this because in our community we have practically led the state in unemployment for 20 years. Some 15 years ago our area churches combined to form an emergency assistance ministry that is supported by donations from some 90+ area churches.

 

This Grace Ministry screens all individuals it helps by asking for all bills from the applicant, evidence of income, and then must go through finance counseling to see where the income can meet the bills. Then aid is determined and given as much as possible.

 

Churches did this because scammers constantly knew when their "six month" help window was up and called churches for assistance. Churches dolled out money without sufficient background checks and work to see who was already helping.

 

All that said, there are still scammers and only so much this ministry can do to help. There is only so much screening they can accomplish. The government has a little more capability in background screening and record keeping than most churches IMO.

I would be in support of scaling up the tax deductions for charitable donations to faith based organizations that target the same population as current government social programs, while at the same time, scaling down taxpayer funding of government programs.

 

So you believe that if there is a bigger tax deduction to such charity more money would arrive into that bucket of aid?

 

I don't know that human nature is that good.

 

It seems we had debtor's prisons and orphanages under that system a couple of centuries ago. No one rushed to fill the coffers of the Community Trust fund then.

Accountability, efficiency and results are all much better in faith based organizations.

 

Except for PTL. :thumb:

 

I read the report but mostly saw the hypothesis of gauging results but no empirical research on numerous ministries across the country that reported positive, accountable results.

 

So if we rely solely on faith based ministries to provide the welfare net, will each one have to have a federal oversight on their efforts? Would there not need to be a standardization of how the ministries were implemented, how the costs were distributed, and how effective the matrix was?

 

If left up to each individual ministry, to care for the populace in the way you are suggesting; I don't see how they can be left to both distribute funds and then measure their failure or success with different testing.

 

Am I missing something here Pioneer?

This is part of the problem. Do we just ignore the fact it may cost a little bit to eliminate the fraud?

 

Sooner or or later you have to take a stand.

 

I have no problem for trying new tactics to eliminate the scam but how does that look? Can we train current welfare structures to pinpoint misuse or do we create an investigative arm whose sole purpose is to hunt for the abusers in the system? In the long run it might pay off but once an independent arm or new off-shoot of the system is grafted in the Hydra of Government rarely lets it go again.

In what way is the Catholic Church better equipped?

 

I'm asking this because in our community we have practically led the state in unemployment for 20 years. Some 15 years ago our area churches combined to form an emergency assistance ministry that is supported by donations from some 90+ area churches.

 

This Grace Ministry screens all individuals it helps by asking for all bills from the applicant, evidence of income, and then must go through finance counseling to see where the income can meet the bills. Then aid is determined and given as much as possible.

 

Churches did this because scammers constantly knew when their "six month" help window was up and called churches for assistance. Churches dolled out money without sufficient background checks and work to see who was already helping.

 

All that said, there are still scammers and only so much this ministry can do to help. There is only so much screening they can accomplish. The government has a little more capability in background screening and record keeping than most churches IMO.

 

At some point, people have to be motivated to migrate to those areas that have better economic opportunity.

This is part of the problem. Do we just ignore the fact it may cost a little bit to eliminate the fraud?

 

Sooner or or later you have to take a stand.

 

It's not simply about the fact that it costs. Of course it costs. If the price tag to weed out the fraud is twice as much as we lose in the current set up, how is that beneficial?

Aren't they getting something similar to a debit card ?

 

Im not sure, maybe. So if that's the case, how do you regulate what is bought? How do you allow milk, bread and veggies, but somehow keep people from buying cigarettes and candy bars?

At some point, people have to be motivated to migrate to those areas that have better economic opportunity.

 

I don't disagree with that point but I'm not sure how that answers my statement.

I don't disagree with that point but I'm not sure how that answers my statement.

 

At some point, aide to the poor needs to be coupled with job placement. Thats a challenge if there are no jobs.

It's not simply about the fact that it costs. Of course it costs. If the price tag to weed out the fraud is twice as much as we lose in the current set up, how is that beneficial?

 

Because that could be a one time cost for twice as much. Once you get the abuse under control, the cost would be less.

 

Ignoring abuse and just letting it slide is why the system is in the shape it is now.

Because that could be a one time cost for twice as much. Once you get the abuse under control, the cost would be less.

 

Ignoring abuse and just letting it slide is why the system is in the shape it is now.

 

No way it's a one-time cost. You keep implying that I want to ignore it and that's simply not the case.