Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Customer paid for groceries with food stamps, walked into parking lot and... « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 39 40 41 42

danlowe748

****
Starter

Posts : 355
Offline
#600 : March 28, 2013, 07:36:56 AM






CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#601 : March 28, 2013, 10:22:47 AM

CBW made a statement that flies in the face of reality and then tried to back it up by passing off an advocacy piece as FACT. 

What statement are you referring to, Vinny?

Proof of that tactic is the COMPLETELY NONSENSE that follows, like  CBW saying, apparently, that a donation to St. Vincent de Paul's is NOT a religious donation? 

It's not a religious donation, you imbecile. The chart that your butt buddy posted a few pages ago that divided what percentage of charitable donations go towards what intended purpose stated that over a 3rd of charitable donations go towards "Religion". It didn't state that it went towards "charities started by religious people", it said that it went towards "Religion", as in the purpose of the donation was to fund a religious institution, i.e. a church, mosque, or synagogue. This is the amount of money that people put into those little baskets that get passed around that they then write off on their taxes. As you yourself pointed out, St Vincent de Paul is not a church. It is an organization that provides direct aid. Giving to that organization isn't a donation given for the purpose of religion, you nitwit, it is a donation given for the purposes of funding a social program.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#602 : March 28, 2013, 10:23:11 AM

So instead of dissecting what each and every church does, splitting them into meaningless statistics, maybe you should just look at what the sum benefit is.

If someone is going to make the claim that churches provide aid in larger degree and in a more efficient manor than the government, then someone should be asked to provide evidence that supports such a claim. I'm not saying that you made that claim, spartan, but some here have.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#603 : March 28, 2013, 10:23:25 AM

Just out of curiosity, how much money out of your wallet do you think goes to pay for food stamps? I'll give you a hint. The average person probably loses more in the cushion's of their couch in a given week.

Last year the program cost $78 billion. That is a lot of cushions.

But ....but.....comrade said.......reading comprehension....... and 10 dollars !!! lol

My bad. I was using the old figures. If that program costs 78 billion a year then that means the burden has risen significantly. It now costs the average taxpayer $16.90 a year to fund the food stamp program. Approximately 33 cents a week. You might be able to buy that DVD from Wal-Mart afterall, just so long as you stay away from the new releases.


I must have learned math from the old Conservative math teachers and not learned this new Liberal math.

$78,000,000,000 program cost

divided by 118,000,000 tax payers who actually paid taxes (because if you paid zero taxes or got a return larger than what you paid in, you have NO BURDEN)

equals $661/yr NOT $16.90. And $661/yr = $12.71/wk



Now here is the math that bugs me.  The program costs $78 billion. There are 42 million recipients (this includes dependent children, etc. ) getting an average of $125/ mo. well $42m*$105*12 (month per yr) equals $63 billion.

Where is the other $15 billion going???????


There is a lot of variables that you are not factoring in that I don't really have the time to get into right now, but suffice it to say, you are shortchanging a relatively large number of working class families by suggesting that they pay zero or negative taxes.

Also, I'd be interested in seeing how many private non-profits either you or the idiot smurf can find that spend lower than a 19% of their income on overhead. If the typical non-profit can manage to spend 75% of it's income on services, it is considered to be "highly efficient" by charity watch dog organizations. 60% gets you a "satisfactory" ranking. By comparison, the federal food assistance program's 81% efficiency rating is either as efficient or more efficient than the majority of privately ran social service programs.


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#604 : March 28, 2013, 11:23:50 AM

Just out of curiosity, how much money out of your wallet do you think goes to pay for food stamps? I'll give you a hint. The average person probably loses more in the cushion's of their couch in a given week.

Last year the program cost $78 billion. That is a lot of cushions.

But ....but.....comrade said.......reading comprehension....... and 10 dollars !!! lol

My bad. I was using the old figures. If that program costs 78 billion a year then that means the burden has risen significantly. It now costs the average taxpayer $16.90 a year to fund the food stamp program. Approximately 33 cents a week. You might be able to buy that DVD from Wal-Mart afterall, just so long as you stay away from the new releases.


I must have learned math from the old Conservative math teachers and not learned this new Liberal math.

$78,000,000,000 program cost

divided by 118,000,000 tax payers who actually paid taxes (because if you paid zero taxes or got a return larger than what you paid in, you have NO BURDEN)

equals $661/yr NOT $16.90. And $661/yr = $12.71/wk



Now here is the math that bugs me.  The program costs $78 billion. There are 42 million recipients (this includes dependent children, etc. ) getting an average of $125/ mo. well $42m*$105*12 (month per yr) equals $63 billion.

Where is the other $15 billion going???????


There is a lot of variables that you are not factoring in that I don't really have the time to get into right now, but suffice it to say, you are shortchanging a relatively large number of working class families by suggesting that they pay zero or negative taxes.


Well even if I use the total number of people that filed returns- 142 million, that is still $549/yr which is a Loooooong way from $16.90.



Also, I'd be interested in seeing how many private non-profits either you or the idiot smurf can find that spend lower than a 19% of their income on overhead. If the typical non-profit can manage to spend 75% of it's income on services, it is considered to be "highly efficient" by charity watch dog organizations. 60% gets you a "satisfactory" ranking. By comparison, the federal food assistance program's 81% efficiency rating is either as efficient or more efficient than the majority of privately ran social service programs.


But private charities don't take in money then block grant it to states and let the states do 95% of the actual admin and leg work. SNAP is a State by State block grant program where the individual states are supposed to match some of the Fed Funds and the state contribution should be more than enough to cover the administration. That $15 billion is being used to administer payments to just 50 entities!!!


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#605 : March 28, 2013, 12:14:20 PM

The REAL Scam with Food Stamps


All this talk and complaint about Food Stamps completely misses the REAL scam that is perpetrated upon We the Taxpayers. It isn't someone buying lobster or using an Access Card while having money for a BMW, that is all Chump change. The REAL scam is committed by our Federal and State Governments colluding with JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, et. al.

In order for a SNAP recipient to buy food, the merchant grocery store has to be approved by the state to accept EBT and must have a State approved Card reader or POS system which is connected to a State Approved Merchant Service Provider (MSP). Now here is the Scammy part. While there are thousands of MSPs competing for that service, only ONE (JP Morgan Chase in Fl, Ga, Sc, Al, Tn, Ms, La, etc. BoA in Ca, Az, WA, Ore, Id...) can provide this service FREE to the Merchant Grocer.  And only that same one will even provide machines FREE to the Grocer. But NOT free to us tax payers. You see, JPMC receives $265.00 from the State for every "Free Machine" they place (and those Verifone Vx570s can be bought for @ $185 new). Not only that but while the grocer pays $0.00 for each transaction JPMC gets $0.15 of our tax dollars for every transaction. Now there are thousands of MSPs that would love to compete for that business at even $0.05 or $0.06 per transaction but can't because our Benevolent Government has given these "too big to fail" banks a monopoly on that business. And while $0.15 might not sound like much, consider we are talking about over 20 million transactions per month in Florida alone, so JPMC gets $3 million/mo in tax payer dollars just from Florida SNAP transactions and no one can price compete for that business.

Now here is the REAL scammy part. If a MSP wanted to process EBT/SNAP cards for a merchant, the State will allow that MSP to connect to the network, at a cost of $0.20 per transaction!!! So JPMC, BoA, Wells Fargo, et al GET PAID BY THE GOVT. to run these transactions and every other competing MSP has to PAY THE STATE to offer the same services.

Welcome to the "Unfree Market" of Welfare Administration.


olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21173
Online
#606 : March 28, 2013, 12:47:34 PM

I don't think that the government helping people through social programs is a bad thing.   A point about charities and effeciency.  I took a look at Metropolitan Ministries in Tampa through Charity Navigator since they are largely in the business of shelter and food for homeless/less fortunate.   They spend 84%(+/-) of their budget on programs, 4% (+/-) on administration and 11.7% on fundraising.   I don't believe the federal government has to budget any money for fundraising so that may skew some of their effeciency numbers if compared to a reputable charity like Metropolitan Ministries.

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6892
Online
#607 : March 28, 2013, 12:56:53 PM

CBW made a statement that flies in the face of reality and then tried to back it up by passing off an advocacy piece as FACT. 

What statement are you referring to, Vinny?

Proof of that tactic is the COMPLETELY NONSENSE that follows, like  CBW saying, apparently, that a donation to St. Vincent de Paul's is NOT a religious donation? 

It's not a religious donation, you imbecile. The chart that your butt buddy posted a few pages ago that divided what percentage of charitable donations go towards what intended purpose stated that over a 3rd of charitable donations go towards "Religion". It didn't state that it went towards "charities started by religious people", it said that it went towards "Religion", as in the purpose of the donation was to fund a religious institution, i.e. a church, mosque, or synagogue. This is the amount of money that people put into those little baskets that get passed around that they then write off on their taxes. As you yourself pointed out, St Vincent de Paul is not a church. It is an organization that provides direct aid. Giving to that organization isn't a donation given for the purpose of religion, you nitwit, it is a donation given for the purposes of funding a social program.

So the $678million raised is above and beyond what is religiously donated?

Seeing that the Society is under the au**CENSORED**es of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, which is run by a Cardinal, AND we regular have a 2nd collection in church SPECIFICALLY for the Society, and not sure how that helps your argument against religious based charity and social work.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#608 : March 28, 2013, 05:09:14 PM

Well even if I use the total number of people that filed returns- 142 million, that is still $549/yr which is a Loooooong way from $16.90.

Taking the total cost of the program and dividing it by the number of income tax filings ignores the fact that income taxes are not the federal government's only revenue stream. Even the average person with a negative income tax burden does not have a negative overall tax burden, and you are also leaving off taxes collected from business, sales tax, etc.

If you were to take the average married individual who is making $50,000 a year, their annual tax burden is roughly $3,820. About 2/3rds of that goes towards SSI and Medicare, and another $500 or so goes towards Medicaid and national defense. Most of what's left over goes towards various other expenses, like infrastructure, law enforcement, various grants and subsidies, agriculture, etc. About $190, about 19% of the overall tax burden, goes towards Job and Family Security. These include things like unemployment insurance, housing assistance, funding the EITC, etc. Out of that same category lies the food assistance program. $36.84, about 3.7% of the overall tax burden, goes directly towards food assistance. Admittedly, this is twice as much as I said before, but you also have to keep in mind that the cost of the program has doubled over the course of the last few years as a result of the recession. In boom years, the program has generally cost the average tax payer about $16-$17 annually.

Now obviously, if you make substantially more than $50,000 a year, like say, you have a multiple 7-figure income, then yes, you are going to be paying more than $32.84 annually to fund that program, but it will still be the proportionate 3.7% of your overall tax burden.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/2011-taxreceipt

Also, I'd be interested in seeing how many private non-profits either you or the idiot smurf can find that spend lower than a 19% of their income on overhead. If the typical non-profit can manage to spend 75% of it's income on services, it is considered to be "highly efficient" by charity watch dog organizations. 60% gets you a "satisfactory" ranking. By comparison, the federal food assistance program's 81% efficiency rating is either as efficient or more efficient than the majority of privately ran social service programs.

But private charities don't take in money then block grant it to states and let the states do 95% of the actual admin and leg work. SNAP is a State by State block grant program where the individual states are supposed to match some of the Fed Funds and the state contribution should be more than enough to cover the administration. That $15 billion is being used to administer payments to just 50 entities!!!

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2226

The federal grant to each individual state does help cover a portion of the administrative costs, JG?. About 4.5% of the programs funds go towards assisting states in administrative costs. Also discovered that another 2.5% actually goes towards covering assistance to the US territories, like Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc. About .1% goes to Indian reservations, and .3% goes towards providing monetary assistance to local food banks. So even if you were to ignore the Center on Budget Policies and priorities estimate of a 92% efficiency rating, and just use the numbers that we have been working with where there was a 19.1% gap between assistance and overall budget, when those are factored in, you are still left with a 11.7% administrative cost. You would be hard pressed to find any privately operated non-profit with an 8-12% administrative cost. The SNAP program is actually insanely efficient by comparison.
: March 28, 2013, 05:13:11 PM CBWx2


olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21173
Online
#609 : March 28, 2013, 05:13:07 PM

I pointed out above that Metropolitan Ministries in Tampa operates at about 4% administrative costs

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21173
Online
#610 : March 28, 2013, 05:17:56 PM

By comparison it looks like the Catholic Charities based out of the Diocese in St Pete operates at an almost 10% administrative cost also an almost 90% towards programs/services.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#611 : March 28, 2013, 05:19:57 PM

I pointed out above that Metropolitan Ministries in Tampa operates at about 4% administrative costs

You also pointed out that they spend over 11% of their funds on "fundraising." So 16% of their donations go towards things other than providing direct aid. That's very good for a privately ran non-profit, but still not as good as SNAP.


danlowe748

****
Starter

Posts : 355
Offline
#612 : March 28, 2013, 08:06:35 PM

Military and military pensions are the main expenses of our government.   The rest is peanuts.

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21173
Online
#613 : March 28, 2013, 08:27:46 PM

I pointed out above that Metropolitan Ministries in Tampa operates at about 4% administrative costs

You also pointed out that they spend over 11% of their funds on "fundraising." So 16% of their donations go towards things other than providing direct aid. That's very good for a privately ran non-profit, but still not as good as SNAP.

I thought you were only talking about admin costs, my bad.   But the government wouldn't really have any "fundraising" costs so it isn't a completely fair comparison is it?     

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#614 : March 28, 2013, 08:53:07 PM

I pointed out above that Metropolitan Ministries in Tampa operates at about 4% administrative costs

You also pointed out that they spend over 11% of their funds on "fundraising." So 16% of their donations go towards things other than providing direct aid. That's very good for a privately ran non-profit, but still not as good as SNAP.

I thought you were only talking about admin costs, my bad.   But the government wouldn't really have any "fundraising" costs so it isn't a completely fair comparison is it?   

I used the term "administrative costs", but what I should have said was overhead. That was a mistake on my part. If we are talking about what percentage of tax dollars goes towards direct aid and what percentage goes towards something else, then I think any money given to a private non-profit that goes towards anything other than providing direct aid is pertinent.

My purpose isn't to say that the charity in question is wasting money. Obviously, fundraising is a legitimate and necessary expense. But if the purpose is to suggest that less money goes towards direct aid when funneled through the government than it does when given to a private non-profit, then this particular example doesn't support that assertion. Very few do, in fact. At least in regards to the SNAP program.
: March 28, 2013, 08:56:02 PM CBWx2

Page: 1 ... 39 40 41 42
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Customer paid for groceries with food stamps, walked into parking lot and... « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools