Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Several charities? There are food panties in almost every community in the US, plus a "Hunters For The Hungry" program in most states. Let's not forget that individuals and families practice a lot of what I will call "direct charity" - giving directly to those in need.[/quote]
When is the last time you went to a food pantry? I've volunteered both in California and Nevada and in both states food pantries run out of food quickly and what they have is never enough to meet the food needs of a family, particularly one without a kitchen, cans of green beans are great unless that's all you have to eat. Do me a favor go to a few food banks before you claim they are adequate. The other problem is transportation, many of the poor don't have cars so they are limited to public transportation which limits how much food they can carry with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
People would have a lot more to donate to charitable organizations if they weren't being taxed to death in order to pay for social programs. Businesses could afford to pay more if they weren't being taxed and saddled with ever-increasing compliance costs.
And what evidence do you have of either of those claims? Have wages gone up in states that have reduced the tax burden for businesses? Do you have any proof at all that people donate more to charity when they have more disposable income?
Here are some articles that claim that the opposite happens, charitable giving drops when taxes are lowered:
Many cities/states are moving to a jump to $15 per hour as a minimum wage.
The general arguments for are that we need to move on from the original intent of it being a pay for a second income, high school part time job, low skilled work... and make it a full living wage job where an individual can fully support themselves.
The pros are that it makes every job a full living wage one and will cut back on the need for public assistance, allow anyone to possibly buy a house...
The main cons are that it could cause some forms of inflation sparks, unemploy people as it may force small businesses to raise the costs if goods and services to cover salaries...
How think ye?
I am in my sixties. I was working my first job in college when the minimum wage was $2 per hour. Working both days of each weekend It was enough money to keep me in beer and gasoline. Now everything is up at least 1000% if not more. The minimum wage is currently up about 400% in 45 years. The raise to $15 is overdue. We don't want people living in conditions where collera and TB thrive again. With the raise the demand for public assistance is lessened. The demand for food stamps lessens.
Unfortunately the rich don't give up their money easily. The joke that is called "trickle down economics" needs to be legislated.
Oh jeez Edith, here we go again, "over there in Europe".
Why do you guys always displace Utopia to the collectivocracies "over there" in Europe. They used to do this with the "Workers Paradises" of communism, until it became painfully obvious that Heaven was a beastly sham. The vitamin guys and the herb guys do this also. Always citing some obscure unverifiable and bogus "European" university study "over there in Europe" to fluff up their claims of fountain of youth efficacy for their silly products.
Nordica IS NOT HEAVEN. Because they are not, and cannot be, as long as they trample on their citizens rights with confiscatory taxes and fees to support their nanny state boolchit. On top of which they don't need a defense budget since they are sucking off us as WE PROVIDE THE DETERRENT that keeps them from being swallowed up. So silly... Sweden. Norway. Please!
Tell me about this deterrent that you speak of. Why does the USA need to spend more on the military than the next 7 powers combined. Europe is not in a position to demand that of us. We impose that on ourselves. Workers in Europe have a better living standard because corporate demands on them are limited by law. Placing limits on corporate power and demands by law is superior to what we've got.
Don't have the audacity to tell me to move there. I will stay here and try to improve the American condition.
Several charities? There are food panties in almost every community in the US, plus a "Hunters For The Hungry" program in most states.
Try again. Have you ever been to any of those "food pantries"? I have. In the more affluent cities and towns, they have a good selection. However, in the poorer cities, there is very little in the food pantries.
I used to volunteer for a food pantry in Poulsbo, a little north of where I live now. They had fresh vegetables, dairy, some fruits, meats sometimes, and lots of baked goods. And even there, you were limited to how much a week you could take home.
Now I live in Bremerton and there are 3 places in town to which you can go here if you need to get food. BUT - you can only choose one and you are not allowed to go to either of the other two if the one you choose doesn't have anything.
And believe me, they don't have anything. Canned goods, maybe. Canned vegetables, canned beans, canned whatever (no canned soup, though). Stale bread and moldy potatoes. I saw cream once, and I took that home to make butter. No fresh vegetables like tomatoes or carrots. No meat. No dairy. No baked goods. No fruits.
If people here had to depend on the food pantries to feed them, they'd be screwed.
Are you sure you're ready to eliminate all of the regulations, taxes, tariffs, and relevant case law that has come about since 1926?
If all those regulations, taxes, tariffs, and relevant case law was so bad, we wouldn't have cars today, ya think? Obviously someone decided that making cars is worth all the things you quoted. So why aren't the people in this equation worth the extra wages? Explain to me why people are worth less than the items we're supposed to be buying.
Try again. Have you ever been to any of those "food pantries"? I have. In the more affluent cities and towns, they have a good selection. However, in the poorer cities, there is very little in the food pantries.
I used to volunteer for a food pantry in Poulsbo, a little north of where I live now. They had fresh vegetables, dairy, some fruits, meats sometimes, and lots of baked goods. And even there, you were limited to how much a week you could take home.
Now I live in Bremerton and there are 3 places in town to which you can go here if you need to get food. BUT - you can only choose one and you are not allowed to go to either of the other two if the one you choose doesn't have anything.
And believe me, they don't have anything. Canned goods, maybe. Canned vegetables, canned beans, canned whatever (no canned soup, though). Stale bread and moldy potatoes. I saw cream once, and I took that home to make butter. No fresh vegetables like tomatoes or carrots. No meat. No dairy. No baked goods. No fruits.
If people here had to depend on the food pantries to feed them, they'd be screwed.
That's been my experience in working with poor women. I drove two of them to two food pantries, one had ground coffee and stale bread, the other had canned green beans and oatmeal. I always get a kick out of people who say we should end snap benefits and just send the poor to all these wonderful food banks.
Try again. Have you ever been to any of those "food pantries"? I have. In the more affluent cities and towns, they have a good selection. However, in the poorer cities, there is very little in the food pantries.
Yes. To drop off donations, stock and organize shelves, and distribute food to the recipients.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
If people here had to depend on the food pantries to feed them, they'd be screwed.
Food pantries are not supposed to be long-term sources of food.
The data analyzed in this study was from the mid 1980s, and is irreleant to today's economy, peopel's current financial situations, and the worldviews of both society in general and people specifically.
As if the report itself isn't biased enough in its writing (which is no surprise considering the author), it's based upon analysis from a think tank funded by liberal philanthropic foundations.
The Economist, really? A London-based publication ultimately owned by some of the world's wealthiest elite families, and edited by a Bilderberger who was formerly at the IMF and is married to a key player at CFR.
Last edited by Jeo123; 08-17-2015 at 07:30 AM..
Reason: Merged Posts
Food pantries are not supposed to be long-term sources of food.
We finally agree on something. If they are working, they should get paid enough to buy their food, pay the rent and other bills without assistance, right?
It's not what a person is worth, it's what a person's labor is worth.
That's sad when people are only worth what they earn in dollars. If we hold to that, then rich people are the saints of this country and everyone who is poor may as well be marched off to be shot because they're considered worthless. Is that how we're going to rate people in the future? Not on potential, but on actual earning power? Because if it is, all those who don't have rich parents are doomed from the get-go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.