Utah "Wins" War on Poverty by Giving Away Free Houses!

[AmericasLastHope]

Free medical care, now free houses? What's next? Why work or produce anything if you can be given everything for free?

http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-giving-people-homes-1390056183

[kathy88]

I would like a free house.

[Tod]

What is that sound I hear?......



The sound of homeless feet trotting to Utah?

[Ender]

Free medical care, now free houses? What's next? Why work or produce anything if you can be given everything for free?

http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-giving-people-homes-1390056183

Did you read the damned article?

These are "homeless" people who are thrown in jail in other states. It is CHEAPER and more productive to help the homeless with an apartment and a social worker and help them become self sufficient than it is to throw them in jail.

Or maybe Utah should be like Hawaii and have officials walk around and smash the bikes and belongings of the homeless.

The poor will always be among us. How we treat them says more about us than it does them.

[Ender]

What is that sound I hear?......



The sound of homeless feet trotting to Utah?

Utah has always attracted the homeless because of the way they are treated in the state. This would be nothing new.

[LibForestPaul]

. How we treat them says more about us than it does them.

How you treat them says more about you than it does them. Keep we out of this.

[Tod]

How you treat them says more about you than it does them. Keep we out of this.


^thread winner. Robbing other people to do a good deed is a net fail.

[angelatc]

Free public housing. Why did nobody think of the before? What could possibly go wrong?

[Red Green]

It is CHEAPER and more productive to help the homeless with an apartment and a social worker and help them become self sufficient than it is to throw them in jail.



It's even cheaper to let religious / benevolent organizations tend to the needy. And more productive.

[gwax23]

Theres no such thing as a free house

[angelatc]

Theres no such thing as a free house


IN all fairness, they only said it was free to the people they gave them to. They did not imply there were no costs. IN fact, they stated that it cost less to give the people a house than it did to let them live on the street.

[mczerone]

^thread winner. Robbing other people to do a good deed is a net fail.

When they stop robbing other people to do bad deeds, I'll start caring about how they fund their good deeds.

[otherone]

Free public housing. Why did nobody think of the before? What could possibly go wrong?

LOL
I'm just happy it's happening at the state level. For God's sake, PLEASE nobody tell Obama....

[Ender]

It's even cheaper to let religious / benevolent organizations tend to the needy. And more productive.

Agreed- and the LDS church is probably the most benevolent church in the country.

However, I feel this is better than imprisoning people and it is also better for the tax-payers in Utah and a step in the right direction. Don't like it? Go to Maryland and let then arrest you for legal CC.

[AmericasLastHope]

Did you read the damned article?

These are "homeless" people who are thrown in jail in other states. It is CHEAPER and more productive to help the homeless with an apartment and a social worker and help them become self sufficient than it is to throw them in jail.

Or maybe Utah should be like Hawaii and have officials walk around and smash the bikes and belongings of the homeless.

The poor will always be among us. How we treat them says more about us than it does them.

Yes, I read the article. IMO, it doesn't have to be an either/or. The state doesn't "have" to throw them in jail, nor do they "have" to give them a free house. Why can't we allow individuals and churches to take care of the homeless instead of handcuffing individuals when they try to donate to the poor like they did to this guy in Houston the other day?

http://rt.com/usa/texas-police-handcuff-change-homeless-795/

[Ender]

Yes, I read the article. IMO, it doesn't have to be an either/or. The state doesn't "have" to throw them in jail, nor do they "have" to give them a free house. Why can't we allow individuals and churches to take care of the homeless instead of handcuffing individuals when they try to donate to the poor like they did to this guy in Houston the other day?

http://rt.com/usa/texas-police-handcuff-change-homeless-795/

Again- I agree. I just think this is a better step in a better direction.

I am a minister under a VoP and spend my life helping the poor, undereducated, and kids in general.

[gwax23]

IN all fairness, they only said it was free to the people they gave them to. They did not imply there were no costs. IN fact, they stated that it cost less to give the people a house than it did to let them live on the street.


I know. I wasnt trying to be serious. It was a half joke that I was too lazy to add a punchline too.

[jmdrake]

^thread winner. Robbing other people to do a good deed is a net fail.

So....robbing people to put others in jail is so much better? :confused:

[jmdrake]

It's even cheaper to let religious / benevolent organizations tend to the needy. And more productive.

Yeah...but nobody is standing in the way of religious / benevolent organizations doing that. If you want to make a change in a problem, you actually have to do something...well...different. Like...relaxing building standards and/or allowing for tent cities?

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417696-The-Libertarian-Solution-To-End-Homelessness&highlight=libertarian+homelessness

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yes, I read the article. IMO, it doesn't have to be an either/or. The state doesn't "have" to throw them in jail, nor do they "have" to give them a free house. Why can't we allow individuals and churches to take care of the homeless instead of handcuffing individuals when they try to donate to the poor like they did to this guy in Houston the other day?

http://rt.com/usa/texas-police-handcuff-change-homeless-795/

The State is actively blocking charitable activity and avenues for the poor to help themselves, be it through taxation, zoning laws, building restrictions, wage and labor laws, and the State granting itself authority to hand out money, which has a chilling effect on the contributions from the private sector. For churches and charities to thrive again, they'll have to have both more disposable income and not have an expropriating entity competing with them.

[nobody's_hero]

Did you read the damned article?

These are "homeless" people who are thrown in jail in other states. It is CHEAPER and more productive to help the homeless with an apartment and a social worker and help them become self sufficient than it is to throw them in jail.

Or maybe Utah should be like Hawaii and have officials walk around and smash the bikes and belongings of the homeless.

The poor will always be among us. How we treat them says more about us than it does them.

Give a man a fish . . .

I'm not saying that throwing someone in jail teaches them to support themselves, but then again, neither does free housing.

[dannno]

What is that sound I hear?......



The sound of homeless feet trotting to Utah?

Hah, you've obviously never been to Utah..

I think I'd consider living on the streets in California than live in a free house in Utah.

[dannno]

Give a man a fish . . .

I'm not saying that throwing someone in jail teaches them to support themselves, but then again, neither does free housing.

How does putting a person out on the street teach them to support themselves?

[Cleaner44]

Free public housing. Why did nobody think of the before? What could possibly go wrong?

The only thing that could make this better would be if they created multiple houses at once, instead of one by one. Imagine a whole building... or complex of buildings... that could be given away to the poor. Just picture it!

http://motorcitymuckraker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/brewster_1177.jpg

http://media2.wxyz.com//photo/2012/11/15/Detroit_gets_grant_to_demolish_Brewster__95860001_ 20121115194338_320_240.JPG

[dannno]

The only thing that could make this better would be if they created multiple houses at once, instead of one by one. Imagine a whole building... or complex of buildings... that could be given away to the poor. Just picture it!



Actually a lot of them do get apartments, they just don't put them altogether in the same one. They also have a lot less poverty in Utah than big cities. The biggest cause of poverty is the Federal Reserve. If we had freedom then we would probably have a much smaller and more manageable homeless problem and solutions like Utah's may be plausible, of course I'd prefer it were voluntary/market driving it.

[Ender]

Hah, you've obviously never been to Utah..

I think I'd consider living on the streets in California than live in a free house in Utah.

Agreed- it would be much easier to live under a pier at the beach than on the streets in a Utah Winter.

I used to wonder why the homeless liked SLC- I discovered that it was because of the way they are treated. I also used to have homeless guys help me with garage sales etc to raise money for our education programs. They never wanted money, just a few items in the sale that they could use, like bicycle tires, etc.

[Ender]

How you treat them says more about you than it does them. Keep we out of this.

How YOU treat the poor says more about YOU than it does them. Is that better?

[Red Green]

Yeah...but nobody is standing in the way of religious / benevolent organizations doing that. If you want to make a change in a problem, you actually have to do something...well...different. Like...relaxing building standards and/or allowing for tent cities?

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417696-The-Libertarian-Solution-To-End-Homelessness&highlight=libertarian+homelessness

What we have is a "crowding out" problem when the state gets involved. Generally speaking, they'll outspend benevolent organizations and have less rigorous standards. The private organizations, facing limited funds, will direct the needy to the state first in order to try to serve those that 'fall through the cracks'.

Generally speaking when a govt decides to do something, it usually makes sure it has a monopoly. When you tax people to the point of having little disposable income, that dries up charitable giving and people generally think "hey, I pay taxes so I don't have to deal with homeless people" and honestly they have a point. If all the taxes we paid were actually used in an efficient way, nobody would want for anything, but of course that would require a govt of angels and we just don't have that do we?

[Red Green]

How does putting a person out on the street teach them to support themselves?

It does give them incentive to find a way to earn some money to buy shelter. Or build it. Etc.

[dannno]

It does give them incentive to find a way to earn some money to buy shelter. Or build it. Etc.

In theory, but it's hard to get a job without a mailing address because of minimum wage laws. Nobody wants to risk paying a homeless person $8/hour.

[Red Green]

In theory, but it's hard to get a job without a mailing address because of minimum wage laws. Nobody wants to risk paying a homeless person $8/hour.

There are lots of way to earn, and it need not be on the up-and-up. I see a lot of Mexicans standing around Home Depots down here and I'm pretty sure there pay at the end of the day is cash and off the books.

[ClydeCoulter]

It does give them incentive to find a way to earn some money to buy shelter. Or build it. Etc.

You've never been in that catch-22, have you?

[Ender]

You've never been in that catch-22, have you?

Obviously not.

[Cleaner44]

I think it is great to help poor and homeless people. How it is done is the important part.


In eight years, Utah has quietly reduced homelessness by 78 percent, and is on track to end homelessness by 2015.

How did Utah accomplish this? Simple. Utah solved homelessness by giving people homes.

This might be cool, but then again one could take the position that we could end poverty by simply having the government give every American $100,000 salary per year.


In eight years, Utah has quietly reduced poverty by 78 percent, and is on track to end poverty by 2015.

How did Utah accomplish this? Simple. Utah solved poverty by giving people money.

Wealth redistribution by government force is bad.

Humans helping human by volunteering their own time and money is very cool.

The state giving away what they tax from others is not cool. Arguing that this is a more efficient form of wealth redistribution doesn't make it right. Redistribution by force is wrong regardless of the recipient being the homeless, the military industrial complex or investment banks. With that said I mind it least of all when it goes to Americans rather than banks or foreign nations.

[Ender]

I think it is great to help poor and homeless people. How it is done is the important part.



This might be cool, but then again one could take the position that we could end poverty by simply having the government give every American $100,000 salary per year.



Wealth redistribution by government force is bad.

Humans helping human by volunteering their own time and money is very cool.

The state giving away what they tax from others is not cool. Arguing that this is a more efficient form of wealth redistribution doesn't make it right. Redistribution by force is wrong regardless of the recipient being the homeless, the military industrial complex or investment banks. With that said I mind it least of all when it goes to Americans rather than banks or foreign nations.

True, and I'd rather have the homeless and poor helped to eat and have a roof over their head with help to become productive than in prison, which costs several $1000's more per person.

I am completely against gov interference in any part of life from social security to health care to victimless crimes. BUT, if Utah can help its homeless to become productive and healthy, while keeping them out of jail and lessening taxes, I'd say that's a good beginning.

[jmdrake]

What we have is a "crowding out" problem when the state gets involved. Generally speaking, they'll outspend benevolent organizations and have less rigorous standards. The private organizations, facing limited funds, will direct the needy to the state first in order to try to serve those that 'fall through the cracks'.

Generally speaking when a govt decides to do something, it usually makes sure it has a monopoly. When you tax people to the point of having little disposable income, that dries up charitable giving and people generally think "hey, I pay taxes so I don't have to deal with homeless people" and honestly they have a point. If all the taxes we paid were actually used in an efficient way, nobody would want for anything, but of course that would require a govt of angels and we just don't have that do we?

Well Utah can't end the Federal government nor stop the Federal government from "crowding in." One problem with high minded libertarian "solutions", like "If we just cut taxes and get the government out of the way everything will get better" is that there's no way to empirically test and show such a counterintuitive solution would work.

However, allowing people to put up tent cities, is something that could be actually accomplished by a local government. Again I give you....

The libertarian solution to ending homelessness (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417696-The-Libertarian-Solution-To-End-Homelessness&highlight=libertarian+homelessness)

[AngryCanadian]

I wonder whats the catch here? :/
Free Houses sound wonderful almost a dream to come true yet whats the catch?

[Seraphim]

This looks like it belongs somewhere in the USSR.


The only thing that could make this better would be if they created multiple houses at once, instead of one by one. Imagine a whole building... or complex of buildings... that could be given away to the poor. Just picture it!

http://motorcitymuckraker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/brewster_1177.jpg

http://media2.wxyz.com//photo/2012/11/15/Detroit_gets_grant_to_demolish_Brewster__95860001_ 20121115194338_320_240.JPG

[Red Green]

You've never been in that catch-22, have you?

In a way, yes I have. I came from a very poor childhood and realized quickly that to not have cash a support system to start out with is indeed a handicap. But people who want it can find a way to overcome. I am reminded of that story of the guy who went through grad school living out of a van. People who want it bad enough will find a way.

[Red Green]

Well Utah can't end the Federal government nor stop the Federal government from "crowding in." One problem with high minded libertarian "solutions", like "If we just cut taxes and get the government out of the way everything will get better" is that there's no way to empirically test and show such a counterintuitive solution would work.

However, allowing people to put up tent cities, is something that could be actually accomplished by a local government. Again I give you....

The libertarian solution to ending homelessness (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417696-The-Libertarian-Solution-To-End-Homelessness&highlight=libertarian+homelessness)

If you believe in that charity is a market, then indeed the libertarian ideal has proven to work time and time again and govt solutions have proved to fail time and time again, so yeah the libertarians have all the proof they need but people find ways to ignore the evidence claiming that "gee, this particular circumstance is SOOO different". Truth be told, it's not. Not in the least. People left to their own devices will find a way that works best for them and as a result, you'll have the best overall outcome.

As for building codes, yeah having gone through some BS with re-zoning down here I can tell you it's just a scheme to collect graft.

[Red Green]

Obviously not.

Wow, we have two sanctimonious pro-govt advocates on the board. Who would have thought!

[Ender]

Wow, we have two sanctimonious pro-govt advocates on the board. Who would have thought!

"'Tis better to be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it."

Stop with the name-calling innuendoes to make yourself feel better.

[Red Green]

"'Tis better to be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it."

Stop with the name-calling innuendoes to make yourself feel better.

Next you'll give me your patented line "it's not all about you!" after trying to make it about me.

BTW stop trying to approve of govt programs to feel better about yourself. It's still stealing ya know.

[Ender]

Next you'll give me your patented line "it's not all about you!" after trying to make it about me.

BTW stop trying to approve of govt programs to feel better about yourself. It's still stealing ya know.

Don't come to Utah- let your state steal much bigger funds from you. Or when you fix that let us all know how you did.

[Red Green]

Don't come to Utah- let your state steal much bigger funds from you. Or when you fix that let us all know how you did.

You couldn't drag me in chains to Utah.

And the state of Utah has not 'solved' any problems. They might have done a less harmful job of f'ing things up than other states in certain areas, but rest assured you can always count on the govt, any govt, to fuck things up.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

And why are these homeless people in jail again? Oh yeah, because sleeping, sitting, loitering, and begging have been criminalized.

The government solution of criminalization begets another brilliant government solution.

[juvanya]

A lot of poor people actually commit crimes in order to end up in jail. I know of people who say jail is the only place they get a decent bed and three meals a day in their life.

Honestly, its a lesser evil solution. I have no problem with it on the road to a free market.

[Ender]

A lot of poor people actually commit crimes in order to end up in jail. I know of people who say jail is the only place they get a decent bed and three meals a day in their life.

Honestly, its a lesser evil solution. I have no problem with it on the road to a free market.

Exactly my sentiments.

Utah is also the most charitable state in America in terms of both money and volunteerism. I believe this is a step in the right direction.

[Mani]

And why are these homeless people in jail again? Oh yeah, because sleeping, sitting, loitering, and begging have been criminalized.

The government solution of criminalization begets another brilliant government solution.



A lot of poor people actually commit crimes in order to end up in jail. I know of people who say jail is the only place they get a decent bed and three meals a day in their life.

Honestly, its a lesser evil solution. I have no problem with it on the road to a free market.




Does sorta sound like a lesser evil thing. Not justifying it at all, and not a fan of using tax payer money to home people. Im also aware there's potential for abuse of the system and the gov't doesn't do things right.

Yet I like the idea of not throwing homeless in jail and criminalizing homelessness. The idea of getting these people off the streets so cops not being able to beat up homeless people or politicians smashing their shit to make a point is a step in the right direction.

And the private charity I donate to, one of the things I liked about it, is the idea of giving homeless people some practical work skills. So besides donating money, they also took in old computers and computer parts and such. At first they housed them and gave them some comforts. Then they worked on giving them some skills whether it be teaching them basic computer skills or things like how to take apart a computer or whatever it may be. And they would mention individuals that would get a job 6 months later and be on their own.

The article mentioned having a social worker assigned to them, I'm not sure what resources this person has, if they have the ability to get these people into workshops or things that can help get these people on their feet to become productive members of society.

I don't know the perfect solution, and this definitely is NOT a perfect solution, but it does seem better than just having them get jailed and beaten by roided cops.

I do think charities are the best way to go, but I also know there is a gap between what the charities can provide and the current need. Yes the economy and the FED have a huge blame in that, but the State of Utah isn't going to be able to fix that. And in a budget sense, if it is cheaper to house them then round them up in jails, it's a small step in the right direction. I'm wondering if UTAH doesn't have a POWERFUL enough Prison industrial complex, that would absolutely despise this decision and fight against it.

Again, not a fan of this and using gov't funds to house people, but seems better than the alternative.

On the negative side, how to avoid this from becoming a rotten crack den or really bad area. Is the social helper going to be the one to help guide these people?

I remember with some of the gov't housing the landlords used to get some cheap gov't pay and they'd let the places rot to shit. THey'd be roach and rodent infested crap holes. Who's maintaining these properties? or is this a situation, the homeless person gets a free residence, and they take care of it on their own after they are given the keys. Will it be a mixed bag? Some people will appreciate the place and take care of it, and some will let it turn to shit. There's a lot of things not included in the article, so we don't know the whole story.

It sounds like even with the warts of this plan, it may still be a net positive. Maybe I'm feeling anything is anything is better than having Kelly Thomas with no place to go being harassed by Police at 2AM and have his faced smashed to hell while he lay dying with concrete full of his blood. I'm sure that whole tragic event was rather costly and no one benefited. I'm not trying to justify this program by saying it would have saved his life, I'm just in one of those mindsets that reducing the homeless people's interaction with police and politicians may be a small net positive amongst other minor benefits earlier mentioned such as some budget savings etc.

I'm teetering on both sides with this one, but leaning it's a small net positive.

[juvanya]

While we are on the subject, here is a short article about the various types of housing available to people before it was all regulated out of existence. They veer a bit towards a statist solution at the end, but the rest of it is great and shows the free market works. Were there even homeless people in the 1910s?

http://www.city-journal.org/article01.php?aid=1529


Consider the dilemma of a homeless man trying to get off the streets of New York. Renting a vacant studio apartment might cost $300 in cash for the first month’s rent. Add a security deposit and an allowance for furniture and equipment, and it would cost nearly $1,000 to move from a city shelter to an apartment. Such a sum is beyond the means of someone with minimal skills and serious personal problems; so too, would be monthly rent payments. Is it surprising, then, that most homeless men opt for drugs or alcohol rather than work? With the chasm separating them from the bottom end of the housing market, they can hardly be blamed for giving up, for resigning themselves to a life of dependency on the street or in a shelter.

...

[Ronin Truth]

Just sign up to become a Mormon and pledge your first born male child and you too can have "free" house.

Plus it gets a non producing taxable asset off the state's balance sheet.

[Red Green]

Exactly my sentiments.

Utah is also the most charitable state in America in terms of both money and volunteerism. I believe this is a step in the right direction.

I think you might be confused by statistics here: is a donation to the LDS church 'charity'?

Churches provide some level of benevolent relief, but they also have other uses for the cash they receive. Strictly speaking, unless an organization has benevolent aid as it's stated primary purpose, I would not consider it 'charity' and as such most donations to churches would fall outside what I would consider a charitable donation.

[Ender]

I think you might be confused by statistics here: is a donation to the LDS church 'charity'?

Churches provide some level of benevolent relief, but they also have other uses for the cash they receive. Strictly speaking, unless an organization has benevolent aid as it's stated primary purpose, I would not consider it 'charity' and as such most donations to churches would fall outside what I would consider a charitable donation.

Sorry but tithes and offerings go to support many community things such as the LDS farms, which feed the poor. The LDS Church has THE best welfare system on the planet and is dedicated to helping the needy. The Church helps supply local food banks etc, so this help isn't just for Mormons.

Latest figures show that Utah ties with NH as #3 in least amount of food stamps given in the state and is in the top 10 of states that have the least amount of people on welfare, percentage wise.

Fast Sunday offerings, which are giving once a month are ENTIRELY for the poor and needy.

[Red Green]

Sorry but tithes and offerings go to support many community things such as the LDS farms, which feed the poor. The LDS Church has THE best welfare system on the planet and is dedicated to helping the needy. The Church helps supply local food banks etc, so this help isn't just for Mormons.

What percentage of the LDS income is spent on benevolent endeavors? I am just pointing out that a donation to a non-profit religious entity is not necessarily what many would consider "charity".




Latest figures show that Utah ties with NH as #3 in least amount of food stamps given in the state and is in the top 10 of states that have the least amount of people on welfare, percentage wise.

Fast Sunday offerings, which are giving once a month are ENTIRELY for the poor and needy.

So despite leading the nation in "charitable" donations, it fails to make #1 in those areas you quote? Something might be amiss... or the two are not as closely related as one might think.

[Red Green]

I did a little research and came up with this article:

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2012/07/business-weeks-erroneous-claim-about-lds-charitable-giving/

While it seeks to clarify a previous article that gave a less-than-stellar review of the LDS church's charitable mission, it still shows there is not much in the way of a clear accounting of the work. Does the LDS do good works? Sure. Are they "THE best welfare system on the planet", as you proclaim? Maybe, but you can't very well tell from looking at the figures provided and it may appear that they fall behind other religious organizations in terms of the total percent spent on the charitable mission.

[Ronin Truth]

Did the Rothschild's Buy the Mormon Church?

September 3, 2010 at 5:38pm

My Dad with one of the wealthiest men, Swiss Billionaire Robert Vincent de Oliverri is the name of a Rothschild convert to the LDS Faith who paid off the Lien (Chase Manhattan Bank/David Rockefeller - Deseret Ranch purchase/debt in Florida) on Temple Square back in 1967 ...(Steve Davis)Startling new claims are coming out about the Rothschild relationship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. According to one Steve Davis, whose father was the highest ranking Mason in Utah, and an employee of the Rothschilds, the Church was suckered into buying $500 million dollars of worthless "swamp land" by two of its Counselors in the early 1960s. Davis claims that the Church lien that resulted gave the Rockefeller family control over all Church assets, including Temple Square through Chase Manhattan Bank.

Apparently, Swiss Billionaire Robert Vincent de Oliverri, the second richest Rothschild in the world at the time, joined the LDS faith after two missionaries knocked on his door. The Illuminati will often join Churches and other organizations to move them into their globalist agenda. In what appears to be a "hand-off" from the Rockefellers to the Rothschilds, Oliverri flew into Salt Lake City and wrote a $500 million dollar check to pay off the Rockefeller lien.

Continued.


http://12160.info/forum/topics/did-the-rothschilds-buy-the

[Philhelm]

Free public housing. Why did nobody think of the before? What could possibly go wrong?

Actually, They already did think of this before. It's called prison.

[Ender]

I did a little research and came up with this article:

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2012/07/business-weeks-erroneous-claim-about-lds-charitable-giving/

While it seeks to clarify a previous article that gave a less-than-stellar review of the LDS church's charitable mission, it still shows there is not much in the way of a clear accounting of the work. Does the LDS do good works? Sure. Are they "THE best welfare system on the planet", as you proclaim? Maybe, but you can't very well tell from looking at the figures provided and it may appear that they fall behind other religious organizations in terms of the total percent spent on the charitable mission.

Well, in about the last 20 years they have spent 1 billion dollars on charitable causes world-wide and are usually among the first responders in disasters. Mormons gave 140,000 volunteer hours in just Hurricane Sandy alone. I believe the LDS are #1 in charitable giving.

And- this thread is about Utah, not the church, so enough.

[Ender]

http://12160.info/forum/topics/did-the-rothschilds-buy-the

Take that to hot topics- it is bullshit.

[Red Green]

Well, in about the last 20 years they have spent 1 billion dollars on charitable causes world-wide and are usually among the first responders in disasters. Mormons gave 140,000 volunteer hours in just Hurricane Sandy alone. I believe the LDS are #1 in charitable giving.

And- this thread is about Utah, not the church, so enough.

You're claim that Utah is "#1 in charitable giving" is what I am expanding on. Again, just clarifying that one person's "charity" is not necessarily another's. And you're the one who seems to be pitching the LDS angle. I am just providing an objective view. Just because you believe "the LDS are #1 in charitable giving" does not make it so.

[Chester Copperpot]

im ok with this.. since its cheaper than prosecuting... at least theyre spending less. its not a libertarian ideal situation of course but i think its better

[jmdrake]

If you believe in that charity is a market, then indeed the libertarian ideal has proven to work time and time again and govt solutions have proved to fail time and time again, so yeah the libertarians have all the proof they need but people find ways to ignore the evidence claiming that "gee, this particular circumstance is SOOO different". Truth be told, it's not. Not in the least. People left to their own devices will find a way that works best for them and as a result, you'll have the best overall outcome.

As for building codes, yeah having gone through some BS with re-zoning down here I can tell you it's just a scheme to collect graft.

You appear to have responded to my post without actually reading it.

Again:

1) Utah cannot prevent the federal government from "crowding in".

2) There has been no case in modern times in the U.S. where the "libertarian solution" has been allowed to be tested large scale (as in state wide). If you have a counter example, please give it rather than just thoughtlessly typing something.

3) I (unlike you) actually posted a small scale libertarian solution. Again http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417696-The-Libertarian-Solution-To-End-Homelessness&highlight=libertarian+homelessness.

So, my point is, you want libertarian change? Actually spend more time talking about libertarians solutions, real solutions, instead of spouting off about hypotheticals.

[Red Green]

More on the "#1 in charitable giving":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/12/insight-mormon-church-mad_n_1769539.html

At least one person who has crunched the numbers claims the Seventh Day Adventist are far more charitable. And the article notes a lack of hospitals and schools, which is something I have noticed. It appears the LDS prefers to take over school boards than build their own schools.

[jmdrake]

What percentage of the LDS income is spent on benevolent endeavors? I am just pointing out that a donation to a non-profit religious entity is not necessarily what many would consider "charity".

So despite leading the nation in "charitable" donations, it fails to make #1 in those areas you quote? Something might be amiss... or the two are not as closely related as one might think.

Ummmm....you realize that you are undercutting your own argument right? No, probably not. In a "free market" based of "charitable giving" some charities will do better than others. Some people will give to the charities that are actually doing the best work and some will give to charities that they think are actually doing the best work. Don't get me wrong. Charity is >>>>>>>>>>>>> government. But just because you may think "Feed the Children" does a better job with the money they get than the LDS doesn't mean that the person who wants to give to charity is in anyway more bound to give to "Feed the Children" than to the LDS. (And note, I'm using Feed the Children as an example. They could be crappy.) Like anything, you will have some "brand loyalty" (church loyalty?) some giving generated by advertising (propaganda?), some giving generated by word of mouth. And some folks will actually do research to decide where they are going to get the most "bang" for their charitable "buck." So while charity is a good think, someone could (should) come up with ways to better inform the "charity consumer."

[Red Green]

You appear to have responded to my post without actually reading it.

Again:

1) Utah cannot prevent the federal government from "crowding in".

OK... I don't see this as an issue to my point, but OK.



2) There has been no case in modern times in the U.S. where the "libertarian solution" has been allowed to be tested large scale (as in state wide). If you have a counter example, please give it rather than just thoughtlessly typing something.

Again, if you have to "test" a market for any given activity before you accept the viability of a market, then what you are saying is the market is suspect whereas govt is not. What my point was you do not need to "test" the market for charity because markets work, as is demonstrated every time they are allowed to flourish and govts fail at everything they do. Charity is no different from coffee or automobiles or TV sets. The market that will create better and cheaper TVs, autos and coffee will do the same with charity. The lack of testing is only a problem for people who fail to acknowledge the superiority of individual action vs political intrusion.



3) I (unlike you) actually posted a small scale libertarian solution. Again http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417696-The-Libertarian-Solution-To-End-Homelessness&highlight=libertarian+homelessness.

So, my point is, you want libertarian change? Actually spend more time talking about libertarians solutions, real solutions, instead of spouting off about hypotheticals.

Because I reject that I have to somehow prove and reprove markets work. I already know markets work. To offer up "tests" is to tacitly proclaim that they might somehow be deficient, which they are not.

[jmdrake]

More on the "#1 in charitable giving":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/12/insight-mormon-church-mad_n_1769539.html

At least one person who has crunched the numbers claims the Seventh Day Adventist are far more charitable. And the article notes a lack of hospitals and schools, which is something I have noticed. It appears the LDS prefers to take over school boards than build their own schools.

I didn't know that about my church. Thanks for sharing.

[jmdrake]

OK... I don't see this as an issue to my point, but OK.

Well my point is that Utah can't do anything about the main reason you are citing for the lack of charitable involvement in homelessness. But Utah can do other things. One thing it could do is allow for more tent cities by cutting local regulations which get in the way. The other thing it could do is what it did, realize that it costs more to keep people in jail than to give them free homes. So...it decided to give them free homes.



Again, if you have to "test" a market for any given activity before you accept the viability of a market, then what you are saying is the market is suspect whereas govt is not. What my point was you do not need to "test" the market for charity because markets work, as is demonstrated every time they are allowed to flourish and govts fail at everything they do. Charity is no different from coffee or automobiles or TV sets. The market that will create better and cheaper TVs, autos and coffee will do the same with charity. The lack of testing is only a problem for people who fail to acknowledge the superiority of individual action vs political intrusion.

But Utah can't get to what you are calling a "free market for charity" for the reason I've already stated. So you can sit around and complain about them not doing something they can't do, undo the federal welfare state, or you can encourage them to actually do something they can, allow for tent cities.

[Red Green]

Ummmm....you realize that you are undercutting your own argument right? No, probably not. In a "free market" based of "charitable giving" some charities will do better than others. Some people will give to the charities that are actually doing the best work and some will give to charities that they think are actually doing the best work.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? How am I undercutting my own argument?



Don't get me wrong. Charity is >>>>>>>>>>>>> government. But just because you may think "Feed the Children" does a better job with the money they get than the LDS doesn't mean that the person who wants to give to charity is in anyway more bound to give to "Feed the Children" than to the LDS. (And note, I'm using Feed the Children as an example. They could be crappy.) Like anything, you will have some "brand loyalty" (church loyalty?) some giving generated by advertising (propaganda?), some giving generated by word of mouth. And some folks will actually do research to decide where they are going to get the most "bang" for their charitable "buck." So while charity is a good think, someone could (should) come up with ways to better inform the "charity consumer."

Um you seem to completely miss whatever point I make.

Let's define "charity". I define this as a benevolent act to aid someone / something in need. You might have another definition, but I think many would agree with my definition. So when you give money to an organization that has a primary purpose of helping say orphans in Iraq, I would say that is definitely charity. If the organization only uses 50% of it's income to the stated purpose, I might be tempted to say it was an inefficient charity, but still a charity nonetheless.

So, is the LDS church a charity? I would say no, because it's primary purpose appears to be spreading the LDS gospel and increasing its membership. That does not meet my definition of charity. Now the LDS church definitely undertakes charitable actions, but you should not count money given to the church as a charitable donation in total. If the church spends say 10% of it's income on charitable actions, then about 10% of what you gave could be considered charity. That was my point: Ender was claiming Utah was #1 in charitable giving and I wanted to clarify that many of us would not consider a tithe to the LDS church to be charity, at least not in total.

[Red Green]

But Utah can't get to what you are calling a "free market for charity" for the reason I've already stated. So you can sit around and complain about them not doing something they can't do, undo the federal welfare state, or you can encourage them to actually do something they can, allow for tent cities.

Actually yes they could. They are not hamstrung by the feds. The feds are going to do what the feds do but Utah can act quite independently with regards to this and stealing money from Utah residents to give away is still stealing.

[Red Green]

I didn't know that about my church. Thanks for sharing.

You guys seem to be rocking it. Good on you.

[jmdrake]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? How am I undercutting my own argument?

Maybe I don't understand your argument. It seems to be "charity will fix the problem." But then you start pointing out one of the problems in charity, namely that "charity consumers" may be motivated by something other than "What will be the best use of my charity dollar?" Note that doesn't destroy your argument. But IMO it certainly undermines it somewhat. The "rational actor" problem is that the "actor" is not always "rational". Or rather the actor's rationale might not fit the ultimate goal of the policy decision.




Um you seem to completely miss whatever point I make.

Let's define "charity". I define this as a benevolent act to aid someone / something in need. You might have another definition, but I think many would agree with my definition. So when you give money to an organization that has a primary purpose of helping say orphans in Iraq, I would say that is definitely charity. If the organization only uses 50% of it's income to the stated purpose, I might be tempted to say it was an inefficient charity, but still a charity nonetheless.


I would agree with that.



So, is the LDS church a charity? I would say no, because it's primary purpose appears to be spreading the LDS gospel and increasing its membership. That does not meet my definition of charity. Now the LDS church definitely undertakes charitable actions, but you should not count money given to the church as a charitable donation in total. If the church spends say 10% of it's income on charitable actions, then about 10% of what you gave could be considered charity. That was my point: Ender was claiming Utah was #1 in charitable giving and I wanted to clarify that many of us would not consider a tithe to the LDS church to be charity, at least not in total.

That doesn't meet your definition of a charity. But if I believed that as people became Mormons they were more likely to be able to take care of themselves then it's still a charity. And that's not an unreasonable belief. I give Mormons credit, for instance, for their insistence that their members store up food and water in case of a disaster. If everybody in the U.S. did that, FEMA wouldn't have much of a reason to exist. From the Seventh-Day Adventist point of view, most Adventists don't smoke or drink or do drugs and kinda/sorta eat healthy. The more people who are convinced they need to do that, the lower the health care costs. Now if I'm not a Mormon, I'm not going to spend my money on spreading the Mormon message even though I think parts of it make people better citizens. On the flipside, maybe you believe in the need for more available birth control. (I'm just using that as an example. I don't care one way or another if you do or not.) If you gave money to some organization that gave away free condoms and birth control pills, why should that not count as a charity even if that isn't what I would spend my money on? Or, lets go foreign policy. I'm against foreign aid. But I have no problem with you or anyone else giving money to Israel or the Palestinians or anyone else. And I count that as "charity" whether I would spend my money that way or not. The idea that each of us can decide what we think is a worthwhile cause is what makes charity "free market." If someone else can pick and choose what really is a "charity" then how can it be free market? :confused:

[Red Green]

That doesn't meet your definition of a charity.

No it doesn't and my point to Ender was you can't take stats on tax-deductible gifting and conclude it's all "charity". I think more people than not would agree with my position on this.



But if I believed that as people became Mormons they were more likely to be able to take care of themselves then it's still a charity.

Really? So the middle class people in the UK they manage to convert to Mormonism, that's charity in your mind? Sorry, I don't buy it. I go back to my original definition of charity and proselytizing is not a benevolent act in my mind.



And that's not an unreasonable belief. I give Mormons credit, for instance, for their insistence that their members store up food and water in case of a disaster. If everybody in the U.S. did that, FEMA wouldn't have much of a reason to exist.

Don't kid yourself: the govt never let lack of need get in the way of them proclaiming themselves "needed".



From the Seventh-Day Adventist point of view, most Adventists don't smoke or drink or do drugs and kinda/sorta eat healthy. The more people who are convinced they need to do that, the lower the health care costs. Now if I'm not a Mormon, I'm not going to spend my money on spreading the Mormon message even though I think parts of it make people better citizens. On the flipside, maybe you believe in the need for more available birth control. (I'm just using that as an example. I don't care one way or another if you do or not.) If you gave money to some organization that gave away free condoms and birth control pills, why should that not count as a charity even if that isn't what I would spend my money on? Or, lets go foreign policy. I'm against foreign aid. But I have no problem with you or anyone else giving money to Israel or the Palestinians or anyone else. And I count that as "charity" whether I would spend my money that way or not. The idea that each of us can decide what we think is a worthwhile cause is what makes charity "free market." If someone else can pick and choose what really is a "charity" then how can it be free market? :confused:

You can consider charity whatever you want to consider it. And you're certainly free to give money to what you believe are worthy causes. I am just clarifying a "statistic" that Ender threw out. I personally don't consider gifts to churches to be charitable unless the gifts are ultimately used for benevolent acts and I don't consider building a new temple or creating a visitor center a benevolent act. Neither do I consider proselytizing a benevolent act of charity.

[jmdrake]

No it doesn't and my point to Ender was you can't take stats on tax-deductible gifting and conclude it's all "charity". I think more people than not would agree with my position on this.

Right. But you would agree, or at least I hope you would, that you can't impose your definition of charity on anyone else even if more people than not agree with you.



Really? So the middle class people in the UK they manage to convert to Mormonism, that's charity in your mind? Sorry, I don't buy it. I go back to my original defin\ition of charity and proselytizing is not a benevolent act in my mind.


You didn't really respond to what I wrote. If the middle class people in the UK, and Mormons reach more than just the middle class, started storing up their own food and water in case of a disaster would that be a good thing or a bad thing in your mind?



Don't kid yourself: the govt never let lack of need get in the way of them proclaiming themselves "needed".


I didn't say the government wouldn't proclaim themselves "needed". I'm saying they would have less of an excuse to do so. They can proclaim all the want. The question is, would most people still believe FEMA was necessary if every time there was a disaster, neighbors on the ground had already basically taken care of themselves once FEMA rolled in? Maybe. Maybe not. When we had the flood in Nashville a few years back most people got the help they needed without a big federal government presence rolling in. Oh it was there. It just wasn't as visible.

That said, one of the sad truths is that many existing charities are letting themselves get rolled into FEMA. Alas my own church now encourages FEMA training. In the old days our disaster response teams were whole independent of the government. Now the higher ups feel a need to "coordinate" with FEMA. FEMA is becoming, if it has not already become, a single point of failure. Anyways, I'm getting off track.


You can consider charity whatever you want to consider it. And you're certainly free to give money to what you believe are worthy causes. I am just clarifying a "statistic" that Ender threw out. I personally don't consider gifts to churches to be charitable unless the gifts are ultimately used for benevolent acts and I don't consider building a new temple or creating a visitor center a benevolent act. Neither do I consider proselytizing a benevolent act of charity.

Again, this comes down to "you consider". Tell me this. Do you consider donations to help fund a new symphony "charitable?" How about to fund some new statue honoring some national hero? Most people I know would consider that charity. Certainly under the IRS definition it counts as a "charitable contribution." I'm not sure how that's any different from a new visitor center or new temple. And, if you believe that someone is blessed by becoming a member of your church, then giving to that cause is indeed charity which simply means "love". Most religious people believe that their church holds a path (if not the path) for having ultimate happiness. Since the word "charity" simply means "love" is it "love" to not provide the means for others to reach ultimate happiness? Charity is clearly in the eye of the beholder. In other words "free market". ;)

[Ender]

No it doesn't and my point to Ender was you can't take stats on tax-deductible gifting and conclude it's all "charity". I think more people than not would agree with my position on this.



Really? So the middle class people in the UK they manage to convert to Mormonism, that's charity in your mind? Sorry, I don't buy it. I go back to my original definition of charity and proselytizing is not a benevolent act in my mind.



Don't kid yourself: the govt never let lack of need get in the way of them proclaiming themselves "needed".



You can consider charity whatever you want to consider it. And you're certainly free to give money to what you believe are worthy causes. I am just clarifying a "statistic" that Ender threw out. I personally don't consider gifts to churches to be charitable unless the gifts are ultimately used for benevolent acts and I don't consider building a new temple or creating a visitor center a benevolent act. Neither do I consider proselytizing a benevolent act of charity.

It was not a "statistic I just threw out"; here is just a few of the 100's of links:


1. Utah

Charitable donation per taxpayer: $2,388
> Taxpayers who donate to charity: 33.4% (4th highest)
> Average income per taxpayer: $52,027 (21st highest)
> Pct. of households earning $200,000 or more: 2.8% (23rd highest)

According to the IRS, at least a third of Utah residents donated to charity in 2009 — the fourth highest in the country. Utah is by no means the wealthiest state as income per taxpayer is just $52,027, the 21st highest in the country. Only 2.8% of residents make $200,000 or more. Nevertheless, the average taxpayer donated a remarkable $2,388 per person to charity in 2009, $600, or roughly 40% more than the next highest state.

Read more: America’s Most (and Least) Charitable States - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2011/12/15/americas-most-and-least-charitable-states/#ixzz2r9x8n7Io
Follow us: @247wallst on Twitter | 247wallst on Facebook

1. Utah
The Mormon tradition of tithing is a primary reason residents of this state well outpace those in every other place in America. The typical household claimed charitable contributions totaling 10.6 percent of discretionary income. That’s nearly 3.5 percentage points ahead of the number for its nearest rival. Utah is also the hands-down winner when it comes to the rate of volunteering. Forty-five percent of its residents volunteered in 2008. (Nebraska, at 40 percent, ranked No. 2.) The state is home to Salt Lake City, which tops the rankings of the 50 biggest metropolitan areas in terms of generosity.

http://philanthropy.com/article/Sharing-the-Wealth-How-the/133605/

1. Utah
The Mormon tradition of tithing is a main reason the state outpaced every other place in America. The typical Utah household claimed charitable contributions totaling 10.6% of discretionary income in 2008—well ahead of no. 2 Mississippi. Salt Lake City was the most generous urban area among the country’s 50 largest. Utah also claimed top spot for volunteering, with a 45% rate among residents in 2008.

http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2013/09/03/top-10-most-generous-states?page=11

5 Top Giving States
1. Utah

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/generous-states-charities-lean-republican/story?id=17030246



Also, every single individual church in the LDS org has a welfare program. The $1+ billion I quoted elsewhere is for overseas disasters ONLY.

AND- I am not LDS, but I work along side them and know personally of the help that is given to members and non-members alike. I have seen many people helped with food, rent, utilities and finding a good job.

THAT is charity in my POV.

[Red Green]

Ender, I was not disputing your statistics, just expanding on them. The IRS considers a gift to a church a tax-deductible donation. That's all well and good, but in my mind that is something different than true charity. As I discussed earlier I don't consider proselytizing a charitable act. Also, volunteer work within the church might be volunteer work (i.e. unpaid), but again I differentiate between proselytizing and say working at a soup kitchen or collecting donations for the needy. While the stats you provide might make Utah look good on the surface, I suggest the prominence of the LDS church skews that statistic in a way that people might want to consider when comparing a state like Utah to say New Hampshire.

[Ender]

Ender, I was not disputing your statistics, just expanding on them. The IRS considers a gift to a church a tax-deductible donation. That's all well and good, but in my mind that is something different than true charity. As I discussed earlier I don't consider proselytizing a charitable act. Also, volunteer work within the church might be volunteer work (i.e. unpaid), but again I differentiate between proselytizing and say working at a soup kitchen or collecting donations for the needy. While the stats you provide might make Utah look good on the surface, I suggest the prominence of the LDS church skews that statistic in a way that people might want to consider when comparing a state like Utah to say New Hampshire.

Well, I'm a transplanted Californian, currently in Utah. (And been to almost all the states, except the most northern New England area.)

The Utahans I know are incredibly charitable- something that was not even close in California. Just the food available for the poor is incredible. That's my Experience and I am happy to see Utah take a positive approach toward the homeless problem, rather than jailing them and throwing away their few possessions.

An example in local charity: the LDS Church donated $13 million in cash and 3,000 tons of emergency supplies in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. And thousands of Latter-day Saints provided more than 42,000 days of service to victims, regardless of their religious views or affiliation.


President Reagan's remarks:

Addressing some 17,000 rain-soaked citizens packed together in the park, Reagan continued his praise for the Church’s initiative in caring for its own members. “You know that I’ve talked for a long time about Americans doing for themselves, about the private initiative, about citizens’ groups doing so many things that government thinks only it can do. And I have just toured a cannery—part of the program of the Latter-day Saints for meeting the needs of their people when they have to have help.”

He then commented on the fact that volunteer Church members do everything necessary for growing, harvesting, preserving, and storing commodities for later distribution to people in need. He pointed out that those who make the welfare program possible also “work at the same time to help the needy among them become self-supportive,” caring for them until they are able to care for themselves.

In his concluding remarks about the welfare system of the Church, President Reagan stated enthusiastically: “It’s an idea that once characterized our nation. It’s an idea that should be reborn nation-wide. It holds the key to renewal of America in the years ahead

So, I'll work on the state I am currently in- let me know how your state's going.

[Red Green]

Well, I'm a transplanted Californian, currently in Utah. (And been to almost all the states, except the most northern New England area.)

The Utahans I know are incredibly charitable- something that was not even close in California. Just the food available for the poor is incredible. That's my Experience and I am happy to see Utah take a positive approach toward the homeless problem, rather than jailing them and throwing away their few possessions.

An example in local charity: the LDS Church donated $13 million in cash and 3,000 tons of emergency supplies in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. And thousands of Latter-day Saints provided more than 42,000 days of service to victims, regardless of their religious views or affiliation.

[/B]

So, I'll work on the state I am currently in- let me know how your state's going.

My state govt sucks (so does your BTW) but the people are a mixed bag like everywhere. I have always found Americans to be charitable people, sometimes to a fault.

[jmdrake]

Ender, I was not disputing your statistics, just expanding on them. The IRS considers a gift to a church a tax-deductible donation. That's all well and good, but in my mind that is something different than true charity. As I discussed earlier I don't consider proselytizing a charitable act. Also, volunteer work within the church might be volunteer work (i.e. unpaid), but again I differentiate between proselytizing and say working at a soup kitchen or collecting donations for the needy. While the stats you provide might make Utah look good on the surface, I suggest the prominence of the LDS church skews that statistic in a way that people might want to consider when comparing a state like Utah to say New Hampshire.

Well one possible solution to the problem of homelessness is to try to encourage churches to spend more of the money they get from donations on the problem.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc

[juvanya]

Well one possible solution to the problem of homelessness is to try to encourage churches to spend more of the money they get from donations on the problem.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc

Yea, itd be nice if Pope Franky put his money where his mouth is.

[Red Green]

I think Pope Francis is putting the Church of Rome back on the right track as far as its mission goes, but I don't think one need sell the Vatican to accomplish that.