Their budget cutting is part of a continual pattern to destroy social services....
Let's put our foot down on this.
According to their own web site, only 8% of their funding comes from government grants.
http://www.mowaa.org/yourdollars
It wouldn't be that hard to make up from donations in the private sector. Sorry no outrage here.
Everyone wants something out of the government, we simply cannot afford every single social program, no matter how noble or worth the cause. Solicit private donations rather than expecting the government to borrow money to cover the program. It wasn't that long ago that people depended on their churches for services like MOW.
Anyone else remember when churches provided charity and the government governed, not the other way around?
No perspective Conan.....1.3 billion cut is nothing in this deficit. These are divide a nation and conquer election issues. Let's cut cut cut. Austerity measures don't work. :o
It's not an either/or situation. From public education to meals on wheels, we have a duty to help those that need a hand up. This is not a church duty. There are other organizations like Iron Gate that the church sets up to do the same. This social service is necessary for those who need assistance. This is not a food stamp program...
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 08, 2012, 10:08:03 AM
No perspective Conan.....1.3 billion cut is nothing in this deficit. These are divide a nation and conquer election issues. Let's cut cut cut. Austerity measures don't work. :o
Get your calculator out and start adding up all the billions here and there, grants, the pentagon, White House Admin, Congressional perks, you name it. It adds up into something really significant.
Now, for real perspective, take a look at the financials in the following link- 2009 is the latest they have posted
http://www.mowaa.org/Document.Doc?id=345
MOWAA took in $6 billion, of that, $485 million was government grants. They spent $3.6 billion. They don't need government grants when they are perfectly capable of raising more than enough money on their own.
Quit watching Feartube and research your own facts direct from the source.
Feartube? LOL.... That's not Feartube it's TruthTube. You just hate it that more money goes to help the underclass. You think it's "the Churches duty?" They're too busy building cathedrals and skimming from the plate. I think we should quit allowing tax deductions to churches and save 60 billion a year in the budget. What you say?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/San_Diego_LDS_Temple%2C_twilight.jpg/800px-San_Diego_LDS_Temple%2C_twilight.jpg)
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 08, 2012, 10:27:35 AM
Feartube? LOL.... That's not Feartube it's TruthTube. You just hate it that more money goes to help the underclass. You think it's "the Churches duty?" They're too busy building cathedrals and skimming from the plate. I think we should quit allowing tax deductions to churches and save 60 billion a year in the budget. What you say?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/San_Diego_LDS_Temple%2C_twilight.jpg/800px-San_Diego_LDS_Temple%2C_twilight.jpg)
A
real church is simply a small community (not a way for a pastor to glorify himself via huge monuments to his/her ego and $120K sports cars). Communities used to take care of their own. There's more than enough private resources without pimping the federal government. I suspect Trinity Episcopal's Iron Gate program does just fine without government funding.
Seriously. Please explain why an entity which took in far more than they spent via private donations, membership dues, and convention proceeds needs government money? I simply hate pissing money into rat holes which don't need it or would find it in other areas if the government tit weren't so accessible. What's your solution for the deficit? Keep spending and taxing more?
Romney donates %10 of his income to LDS to void the government handing out help through organizations like MOW his tax liability. And then LDS builds these monstrosities while avoiding MOW. It's a joke how the GOP/Teabaggers refuse to coral the religiousity of taxes. How come you never look at the other side of the coin?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 08, 2012, 10:34:49 AM
I suspect Trinity Episcopal's Iron Gate program does just fine without government funding.
They need funding for crowd control while they feed their guests and litter patrol after they feed their guests.
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 08, 2012, 10:40:53 AM
Romney donates %10 of his income to LDS to void the government handing out help through organizations like MOW his tax liability. And then LDS builds these monstrosities while avoiding MOW. It's a joke how the GOP/Teabaggers refuse to coral the religiousity of taxes. How come you never look at the other side of the coin?
I'm actually pretty ambivalent on taxing religious institutions. One reason I don't favor it is I'm afraid they might lose much of their ability to function as charities in helping the needy or providing educational services via schools and universities. One reason I'm for it is there are obviously some church leaders who use the church as nothing more than a tax dodge. I'm not sure how you construct a means-based formula for taxing religious institutions. I agree, there's probably a pile of taxable money there, but why does the government spend so damn much that we even need to consider raising that much more revenue?
Have you even bothered to research what humanitarian aid the LDS provides around the world or is it far simpler to follow Bill Maher's rant on this and discount any good which comes from donations to the church or any other charity, for that matter? BFD, the LDS
in their charitable endeavors isn't terribly unlike the Red Cross, United Way, etc. ad nauseum. As a church, they are allowed to spend money on their own facilities for worship and to minister to their flock. Same as the Catholic Church, same as the Baptist Church, same as Islam, same as Judaism.
And I'm sure Kaiser donates 10% or more to his synagogue, gets a hefty tax break and so it goes. Any millionaire or billionaire worth their MBA also has a charitable trust set up to shield income from taxation and to distribute to charities of their own liking.
Every church, temple, and synagogue spends X amount on their monstrosity or building, many spend money on missions and humanitarian relief.
Why the sudden focus on Morons? Oh yeah, election year. ::)
Hmmmm......the government gives money to social organizations that don't really need it so they can USE said organizations as scare tactics to get people's attention. How convenient. Because it is a social issue, the smokescreen works and the attention is directed towards the funding cuts instead of the facts. And you wonder why we are all so sick of this political BS.
Example of those heartless Mormons who don't help with hunger, I'm sure the 570,000 square foot warehouse they just opened in SLC wouldn't be big enough for TTC:
Quote
Mormons open mammoth new storehouse to feed the needy
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
First Published Jan 26 2012 01:04 pm • Last Updated Jan 26 2012 07:56 pm
The LDS Church opened the doors Thursday to its new 570,000-square-foot Bishops' Central Storehouse in west Salt Lake City.
The new storehouse, which sits on a nearly 36-acre site at 5405 W. 300 South, will include administrative offices, bulk/rack storage and refrigeration areas. It also will house support facilities for the church's trucking fleet.
The idea of a bishops' storehouse began in the 19th century, when many Mormons shared their excess goods with other members. Today, these storehouses are established across the globe to distribute food and other commodities to the poor and needy who have been referred to the program by an LDS bishop.
The day-to-day operations of a bishops' storehouse are managed by missionaries, who are full-time volunteers.
The Salt Lake Tribune
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53382726-78/storehouse-lake-salt-bishops.html.csp
I don't have an Irish Setter in this race, I simply don't care for the spread of misinformation and ignorance.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 08, 2012, 10:04:04 AM
Everyone wants something out of the government, we simply cannot afford every single social program, no matter how noble or worth the cause. Solicit private donations rather than expecting the government to borrow money to cover the program. It wasn't that long ago that people depended on their churches for services like MOW.
Anyone else remember when churches provided charity and the government governed, not the other way around?
Actually, no. At least not in my lifetime which spans the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy eras up to present. In fact I see more activity by churches now trying to take up the slack of reduced or eliminated relief and treatment programs than ever before. The mainline religions know their importance and reach out. The evangelicals will reach out too as long as the politics are right and they get plenty of attention.
"Solicitor" jobs designed to beg money from the government and foundations, go begging because it is so difficult to succeed at the position.
MOW is a great program. It likely will withstand funding cuts but it seems no successful program goes unpunished these days.
Quote from: MrsConan on May 08, 2012, 11:52:14 AM
Hmmmm......the government gives money to social organizations that don't really need it so they can USE said organizations as scare tactics to get people's attention. How convenient. Because it is a social issue, the smokescreen works and the attention is directed towards the funding cuts instead of the facts. And you wonder why we are all so sick of this political BS.
Really? You think the government is that cynical and sinister? "....hey, guys, lets set up a smokescreen by giving money to social organizations that don't need it so we can then infiltrate the organization and use it to scare the sheeple. Yeh, that's the ticket."
I don't. If there is a problem, it lies with the process of funding programs, the lobbyists who run Congress, and the sheeple who keep sending the same carnivores back every few years to eat our lunches.
The maneuver that the House budget committee is attempting is to modify "budget sequestration," or more specifically the across the board cuts -- including to the defense budget -- that come as a result of the failure of the Supercommittee. So: the Supercommittee failed to come up with a method of deficit reduction, and according to the Budget Act of 2011, a Supercommittee failure triggers these across the board cuts. These are cuts to everything -- defense, social programs, everything in the federal budget -- to the tune of $1.3T. The GOP in the House is trying to rejigger the automatic cuts to only affect social programs, while completely sparing military budgets. This legislation just left the (GOP-controlled) House budget committee, and is projected to clear the (GOP-controlled) House, but is not projected to see a vote in the Senate. If by some miracle it does and becomes law, Obama has pledged to veto it.
Sadly, it's just another example of the GOP trying to pay off the deficit on the backs of the poor.
Quote from: we vs us on May 08, 2012, 04:39:05 PM
Sadly, it's just another example of the GOP trying to pay off the deficit on the backs of the poor.
God forbid we listen to Tom Coburn and get rid of most or all of the spending in the tax code.
Quote from: we vs us on May 08, 2012, 04:39:05 PM
The maneuver that the House budget committee is attempting is to modify "budget sequestration," or more specifically the across the board cuts -- including to the defense budget -- that come as a result of the failure of the Supercommittee. So: the Supercommittee failed to come up with a method of deficit reduction, and according to the Budget Act of 2011, a Supercommittee failure triggers these across the board cuts. These are cuts to everything -- defense, social programs, everything in the federal budget -- to the tune of $1.3T. The GOP in the House is trying to rejigger the automatic cuts to only affect social programs, while completely sparing military budgets. This legislation just left the (GOP-controlled) House budget committee, and is projected to clear the (GOP-controlled) House, but is not projected to see a vote in the Senate. If by some miracle it does and becomes law, Obama has pledged to veto it.
Sadly, it's just another example of the GOP trying to pay off the deficit on the backs of the poor.
Across the board cuts are really the only way to do it. Everyone's sacred cow gets led to slaughter that way and everyone learns to be a little less dependent on the government. The Pentagon needs to take their cuts too, there will still be plenty of money to maintain a strong national defense.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 08, 2012, 05:22:20 PM
Across the board cuts are really the only way to do it. Everyone's sacred cow gets led to slaughter that way and everyone learns to be a little less dependent on the government. The Pentagon needs to take their cuts too, there will still be plenty of money to maintain a strong national defense.
You use baloney math, Conan. You'd be a terrible administrator. Yea, it's easy to just cut across the board but it's lazy thinking.
You cut inefficiencies and you fund potential. Why do you never address calibrating the tax rules to close off loss of revenue by scam artists and billionaires?
Oh yeah, it's an election year?
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 08, 2012, 06:00:45 PM
You use baloney math, Conan. You'd be a terrible administrator. Yea, it's easy to just cut across the board but it's lazy thinking.
You cut inefficiencies and you fund potential. Why do you never address calibrating the tax rules to close off loss of revenue by scam artists and billionaires?
Oh yeah, it's an election year?
It's funny because I was thinking your idea of imposing taxes on religions was lazy thinking. Raise taxes rather than cut waste- now that's laziness. Glad to see you are on the cutting waste band-wagon.
You still never explained why MOW needs government assistance if they aren't even spending all they take in.
Here's the problem, one man's waste is another Congressman's pork, that's why across the board takes the politics out of it and helps neutralize the lobby cash. What's there to lobby for if everyone gets a 3% cut or whatever it amounts to. Every Congressman has to suffer the consequences.
A two or three percent cut isn't catastrophic to someone on a fixed income. Sure it hurts, but it's not as bad as eventually taking away 25% of benefits because we were too afraid of austerity earlier.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 08, 2012, 06:23:46 PM
You still never explained why MOW needs government assistance if they aren't even spending all they take in.
...
A two or three percent cut isn't catastrophic to someone on a fixed income. Sure it hurts, but it's not as bad as eventually taking away 25% of benefits because we were too afraid of austerity earlier.
In the case of government supporting a group that accepts donations from the public, perhaps it would make sense to make the appropriation contingent upon necessity. We shouldn't really have a program like Meals on Wheels subject to the whim of private donors who could decide to redirect their donations to something more likely to have their name attached should that become fashionable. Your point that they don't actually need the money
at the moment is a good one, and deserves consideration.
Social Security is easily fixed. Eliminate the cap and the problem is pushed out for 30 or more years, and even then the shortfall will be caused by upward adjustments in benefits based on increased collections built into the law. We can fight it out later about how to means test benefits or adjust the benefits formula to compensate. I figure SS benefits ought to be phased out for those with income other than from a 401k or qualified defined benefit pension over $75,000 or so, but that's just my personal opinion. The real problem is Medicare, but even there fixing the underlying health care system will largely solve Medicare's problems.
What we ought to be focusing on is our broken political system. It would be nice if a large enough group of us could agree to put aside our differences on the social and spending issues and work out how to reduce the influence of money in politics, break the stranglehold of the two party system, and force our elected representatives to be more responsive to their constituents rather than their donors. All this other smile is just a side show, since it's nearly impossible to tackle the problems without first addressing our politics.
Quote from: nathanm on May 08, 2012, 06:44:53 PM
In the case of government supporting a group that accepts donations from the public, perhaps it would make sense to make the appropriation contingent upon necessity. We shouldn't really have a program like Meals on Wheels subject to the whim of private donors who could decide to redirect their donations to something more likely to have their name attached should that become fashionable. Your point that they don't actually need the money at the moment is a good one, and deserves consideration.
Social Security is easily fixed. Eliminate the cap and the problem is pushed out for 30 or more years, and even then the shortfall will be caused by upward adjustments in benefits based on increased collections built into the law. We can fight it out later about how to means test benefits or adjust the benefits formula to compensate. I figure SS benefits ought to be phased out for those with income other than from a 401k or qualified defined benefit pension over $75,000 or so, but that's just my personal opinion. The real problem is Medicare, but even there fixing the underlying health care system will largely solve Medicare's problems.
What we ought to be focusing on is our broken political system. It would be nice if a large enough group of us could agree to put aside our differences on the social and spending issues and work out how to reduce the influence of money in politics, break the stranglehold of the two party system, and force our elected representatives to be more responsive to their constituents rather than their donors. All this other smile is just a side show, since it's nearly impossible to tackle the problems without first addressing our politics.
I'll go along with this Nate...but good luck getting past the Plutocrats at the gate.
Conan, there's a huge diff between taxing religion (which I never suggested) and moving their support from the taxpayer to the parishioner.
Your austerity program resembles a parsimonious investment in our country's future.
Here, will this pass your test for government expenditures?
Quote| 5/07/2012 @ 4:18PM |2,673 views
Government Watchdog Says AIG Bailout Could Turn $15.1B Profit For Taxpayers
The Government Accountability Office is out with its latest take on the ultimate cost of the rescue that saved American International Group in 2008 and the watchdog reports that the federal government may actual wind up generating more cash than it put in to the ailing insurer.
To be fair, the AIG bailout was a complex bit of financial footwork between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, and was reorganized more than once over the past three-plus years. But all that considered, the GAO finds that "the amount the federal government ultimately takes in could exceed the total support extended to AIG by more than $15.1 billion."
The GAO's assumptions are based on conditions through March 22, 2012, when the amount of outstanding assistance to AIG was $46.3 billion, composed of Treasury's $35.9 billion equity stake and the $8.3 billion balance owed to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York by Maiden Lane III, a facility created to house a portfolio of collateralized debt obligations.
While those figures are hardly peanuts, they are a far cry from $92.5 billion in March 2011 and $154.7 billion in December 2010. The reductions have been driven by the New York Fed's successful sales of the entire Maiden Lane II portfolio and portions of Maiden Lane III, and repayments on special purpose vehicles that owned businesses AIG has since sold. (See "AIG Turns Lemons Into Lemonade With AIA IPO.")
The GAO's best guess on the result of the AIG rescue was based on a $30.83 closing share price on March 30. Treasury was able to get closer to that with its latest sale of AIG stock over the weekend, selling $5 billion worth of shares at $30.50 apiece. That came after two prior sales went off at $29 a share that seemed to set a ceiling for the Treasury's stake. After the latest sale, Treasury still owns 63% of AIG shares outstanding.
The September 2008 bailout of AIG came just a week after the government declined to rescue Lehman Brothers and let the investment bank fall into bankruptcy while peers either found a dance partner like Merrill Lynch with Bank of America, or became bank holding companies to gain access to Fed lending support, like Goldman Sachs Group and Morgan Stanley.
Shares of AIG stumbled after the offering Monday, but recouped a chunk of early losses to finish down just 3.1% at $31.83.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/05/07/government-watchdog-says-aig-bailout-could-turn-15-1b-profit/
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/05/08/246638.htm
http://money.cnn.com//2012/05/08/news/companies/aig-treasury-bailout/index.htm?section=money_mostpopular
"So, you know, the shot that has been called by the Fed, it's understandable, but very, very disappointing that taxpayers are called upon for another one. " GOV. SARAH PALIN (R), Alaska 2008 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/campaignnews_09-17.html
Austerity sucks. Taxpayers helping each other (bailouts) not so much... :-*
and there's this:
Quote
Report: Bush's $80K phone bill
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76033.html#ixzz1uIOYDklz
George W. Bush may have raked in $15 million from speeches alone in 2010, but he still expensed $1.3 million to taxpayers, including $80,000 in phone bills, ABC News's Jonathan Karl reported in "Spinners and Winners." And Bill Clinton also made it big on the speech circuit — bringing in $10 million — and billed more than $1 million in expenses to taxpayers. Jimmy Carter, meanwhile, received over half a million in expenses, including $15,000 for postage, and taxpayers also paid $830,000 for George H.W. Bush.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) is proposing a bill to end taxpayers' funding expenses for any ex-president who brings in more than $400,000 per year. Under his proposal, presidents would receive a $200,000 annual pension and $200,000 in annual expenses if they make less than that combined, ABC News reported.
"Look, presidents should get a compensation package. They should get a retirement, and they should get some expenses," Chaffetz told Karl. "But if they're going to go out on the trail, and they're going to give speeches, write books and make money, then there comes a point where you say, OK, the taxpayer shouldn't be responsible for also footing the bill for the office expenses, and the telephone, and paper, and the personnel to man those offices."
Meanwhile, American citizens are being asked to take a cut in social services.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 08, 2012, 11:56:05 AM
Actually, no. At least not in my lifetime which spans the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy eras up to present. In fact I see more activity by churches now trying to take up the slack of reduced or eliminated relief and treatment programs than ever before.
I was doing some research for a story on the VA hospital system and found that local people and local ministries are stepping in to support veterans with PTSD. The Army has seen the incidence of traumatic brain injury and PTSD rise enormously, far out of the VA's capacity to deal with it. There are several reasons for this. First, the VA system relies on tracking patient trends when it has to apply for funding. That alone puts them 2-3 years behind the curve. When they have funding, they have to attract and keep medical staff, and they're in competition with every other hospital in the country. Finally, those staffers have to be trained, taking even more time.
Let's be clear -- the Veteran's Administration hospitals are our only form of socialized medicine. The facilities belong to the federal government and the employees are federal workers, yet despite the braying on the right about the evils of socialism, not one politician has proposed doing away with the VA. We owe a considerable debt to our service men and women, one that we do not fully repay at present. They deserve far better treatment, and I defy any politician to insist that we do away with those hospitals and simply give our veterans some form of voucher for medical treatment. We could see a re-enactment of the Bonus March.