Laurie asked the other day about my paying extra taxes or not accepting funding. (ie live by my "lower the debt" value) I answered that I don't intentionally pay extra or turn down benefits, however I also don't go looking for loop holes or go looking for programs. If this costs me a few or more hundred dollars a year, I am ok with it.
Another thing we have taken up doing is giving to charities that are partnering with Public agencies. So I enjoyed reading that one of my local favorites (PRISM) and some others have been working with RAS to support the needs of local students. RAS Weekend Snack Pack Initiative
Since this started at ZLE, I had heard rumors about some of the specific examples and had a vague understanding that it was happening. However it was good to see that it caught on and is growing. If you think social services and the charities have these kid's backs, you are sorely mistaken. Please do anything you can to support these kids and the program. In the idealistic world, public schools should just have to teach. In the real world, they do so much more!!!
Another good option for helping our local Students and Teachers is the Seven Dreams Education Foundation. I have always found it frustrating that most Parents seem to limit their giving to fund raisers that "will help their child". Is it truly giving if you are getting direct benefit? So our family started giving to 7 Dreams so that other schools and students could benefit from my families good fortune.
Any other good examples you would like to share?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Laudable programs, certainly, because the need is certainly real. I applaud you for participating and I've been looking for one of these "instruments for kids" programs locally, myself. I prefer to give to strictly private charities, however, since I already pay enough to taxes to MORE than eliminate the problems. I hate having to pay twice for the same benefit. What I hate more is "partnering" with somebody (government, so there is no confusion) that won't hold up their end of the effort.
J. Ewing
"I already pay enough to taxes to MORE than eliminate the problems."
What is your rationale for believing this? It is an interesting statement, especially since the "size of the problem" is somewhat unclear.
An interesting link with lots of data on Kids... Child Stats After a quick look, it seems things are getting better for most kids.
It has been my impression that that the poverty rate for children is growing.
Graph of the Day: Minnesota’s Student Poverty Rising
It seems many organizations help
feed kids in the summer. Cutting $16.5 billion from nutrition assistance programs sounds like a bad idea to me.
What is my rationale? My oft-cited but admittedly approximate figure of $19,000 per person (including children) spent by the federal government alone on means-tested welfare alone every year. Even WITHOUT what these people may earn on their own, plus what the states provide, every last one of the "poor" should be upper middle class, well able to buy their own lunches, breakfasts, band instruments and a dang nice night on the town every so often. So if we still have poor people, it is because the gummint threw the money down a rathole someplace and the poor didn't get it. Let me keep that tax money, and I'll see that it actually does some good.
J. Ewing
Please share your source or rationale regarding the $19,000/person figure.
No. Prove me wrong. It isn't readily available, but a little math should get you there.
about - $19,000 per person (including children) spent by the federal government alone on means-tested welfare alone every year
Here is perhaps a more accurate number - Welfare spending amounts to $9,040 per year for each lower-income American. If converted to cash and simply given to the recipients (Heritage Foundation)
Great citation, Laurie, thank you. I think it says all the things I have been saying, that if welfare were received as a check, families would be at 200% of the poverty level, so why do we still have poor people? Something is radically wrong with the system.
But I'm confused. The figure I usually hear for the number of people in poverty is 45 million (about 1 in 6) or thereabouts. Simple math says that's $20,600 per person, or over $61,000 for my example of a family of three. That's above median income for the nation. So why do we still have poor people?
J. Ewing
Laurie,
That was very nice and professional of you to find a Conservative source and post it. My guess is that it is still high given the Heritage Foundation's agenda.
J,
Very confusing comments & questions... Though I am sure you trying to make a point.
I do try. My point is that government spends enough money trying to eliminate poverty that poverty should be thoroughly eliminated. Why isn't it? IS it because government has taken the wrong approach? Hint: YES!
J.
Post a Comment