Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Perfidious charities, Catholic and Protestant

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
    Have you considered who owns the second largest controlling interest in the New York Times, and why he may have an interest in keeping immigration stories on the back-burner? Never, EVER say "this story would be on the front page of every major paper" in an age of liberal controlled media. They, or their owners, will most certainly be reticent about both reporting and following up on stories that are bad for their paychecks, which is why you're reading it in Vdare and not the NYT.
    It's not often that a post actually makes me laugh out loud. This one did. If there's one thing the mainstream media LOVES reporting on, it's the church and sex abuse. If this accusation about Catholic charities somehow laundering federal funding for refugees to pay for abuse settlements is so unsubstantiated that not even the mainstream media will print it, I think I'm pretty safe in dismissing it as so much fertilizer.

    Furthermore, the idea that charities eligible for federal funding will attempt by any means available to them to secure as much of it as possible will surprise absolutely no one, and publicizing that fact will cause no scandal whatsoever, and certainly do no harm to those in favor of liberalizing our immigration laws. If it's being buried, it's because it's a non-story.

    Leave a comment:


  • Epoetker
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    The title of the article implies that Catholic Charities is laundering federal money intended for refugees to pay for abuse settlements. If true, Catholic Charities would most likely be disqualified from any federal funding whatsoever: this story would be on the front page of every major paper. This blog post is close to 2 years old, and I know of no major paper that has reported on this alleged scandal.

    I ask for an argument and get a bucketful of horse crap.
    Have you considered who owns the second largest controlling interest in the New York Times, and why he may have an interest in keeping immigration stories on the back-burner? Never, EVER say "this story would be on the front page of every major paper" in an age of liberal controlled media. They, or their owners, will most certainly be reticent about both reporting and following up on stories that are bad for their paychecks, which is why you're reading it in Vdare and not the NYT.

    Leave a comment:


  • Epoetker
    replied
    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
    So this scheme depends upon immigrants not escaping poverty? Wouldn't amnesty be counter-productive?
    To the host? Certainly! To the parasites? Not so much. Are you not supposed to be a strong Communist? As Chesterton once said, and you no doubt have heard quoted in different forms previously:

    To-day the rich man knows in his heart that he is a cancer and not an organ of the State. He differs from all other thieves or parasites for this reason: that the brigand who takes by force wishes his victims to be rich. But he who wins by a one-sided contract actually wishes them to be poor. Rob Roy in a cavern, hearing a company approaching, will hope (or if in a pious mood, pray) that they may come laden with gold or goods. But Mr. Rockefeller, in his factory, knows that if those who pass are laden with goods they will pass on. He will therefore (if in a pious mood) pray that they may be destitute, and so be forced to work his factory for him for a starvation wage. It is said (and also, I believe, disputed) that Blucher riding through the richer parts of London exclaimed, "What a city to sack!" But Blucher was a soldier if he was a bandit. The true sweater feels quite otherwise. It is when he drives through the poorest parts of London that he finds the streets paved with gold, being paved with prostrate servants; it is when he sees the grey lean leagues of Bow and Poplar that his soul is uplifted and he knows he is secure. This is not rhetoric, but economics.
    As such, this sort of businessman finds Catholic Charities both an instructor and a bedfellow, and often a suitable tax shelter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    Amnesty gives more of these people a way out of poverty
    Yeah. It'll also impoverish more natives. On the whole poverty will increase while oligarchs reap the benefits. Not to mention that the Catholic church benefits from wealthier Hispanics to add more shekels to the RCC's existing wealth.

    ... and even if it didn't, how would Catholic Charities benefit from having more money to take care of the poor? In order to have a conflict of interest, you kind of have to have an actual interest in the outcome.
    They keep their jobs, can hire more people, can pay themselves more, etc. Charities can be quite lucrative.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
    Ask and ye shall receive:




    "Catholic Charities" is not flouting our laws and empowering the worst immigrants with Catholic money, it's doing it with my money.
    The title of the article implies that Catholic Charities is laundering federal money intended for refugees to pay for abuse settlements. If true, Catholic Charities would most likely be disqualified from any federal funding whatsoever: this story would be on the front page of every major paper. This blog post is close to 2 years old, and I know of no major paper that has reported on this alleged scandal.

    I ask for an argument and get a bucketful of horse crap.

    Leave a comment:


  • Psychic Missile
    replied
    Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
    By importing large numbers of people who don't have the mental or social capacity to get out of poverty, you give the charity assigned to take care of them an infinite justification to demand more funding. Simple, easy to remember.
    So this scheme depends upon immigrants not escaping poverty? Wouldn't amnesty be counter-productive?

    Leave a comment:


  • Epoetker
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    Ever heard of this thing called "low overhead"? Unless you can demonstrate that Catholic Charities, and not just the Baptist organization the article mentions, would use a substantial portion of any new funding to sustain bureaucratic graft, you don't have a leg to stand on. The claim you're making is ultimately an empirical one. Unless you have proof, all you're doing is defaming people who have dedicated substantial talent and treasure to taking care of the poor.
    Ask and ye shall receive:


    On the ground, at the local level, USCCB runs its program through Catholic Charities, a network of affiliates around the country.

    So can we assume that, at the local level, “existing and projected private resources for the provision of reception and placement services” spring up to leverage the government dollars with their own efforts?

    Afraid not! The only thing that multiplies: the need for more taxpayer funding.

    As the July 2012 GAO Report observes:

    One state refugee coordinator noted that local affiliate funding is based on the number of refugees they serve, so affiliates have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease.

    “Affiliate funding” does not mean voluntary donations. This is not charity. The USCCB and its Catholic Charities affiliate assist refugees only when paid by the U.S. government.

    And in many cases, there is no need even to pretend to show that money obtained from government sources was spent on government purposes—like, say, helping refugees.


    For instance, in 2011 USCCB earned $3.7 million from commissions on the interest-free travel loans made by the US government to refugees. USCCB actually hires collection agencies to ensure that refugees repay these loans. There is no requirement to show how any of the money generated from this federal program is spent.

    An example of refugee racket economics: For one of its several refugee programs, USCCB receives from the taxpayer $1,825 for each refugee (including children) that it resettles. Only $1,000 of that $1,825 needs to be shown to have been spent on the individual refugee.

    Of course, considering the challenges of resettlement, both of these might seem to be relatively small amounts—until you realize that the agency’s contractual engagement with the refugee ends 30 to 90 days after arrival. The refugee is eligible for all forms of federal (and often state) welfare 30 days after arrival.

    Even volunteer time and donated items given by local community members turns into money for USCCB. It imputes a dollar value to all volunteer activity and gives the bill to the feds under the misnamed Federal Matching Grant program.


    My question: has the USCCB’s greed have anything to do with the fact that, in addition to an annual report for its federal refugee contracting arm, it must publish an Annual Report on the Implementation of the “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People” [PDF] a catalog of the steps it is taking in the wake of settlements following pederast priest sex scandals?

    Indeed, the latest issue reports that for 2011

    495 new credible allegations of sexual abuse of a minor by a diocesan or eparchial priest or deacon. These allegations were made by 489 individuals against 406 priests or deacons. (395 victims were male, 86 female)

    USCCB has paid out over $2.1 billion related to the abuse settlements since 2004. (Attorneys alone walked off with $361 million. Yes, that’s a problem too, but for another article.)

    The worst may have passed, but USCCB still faces ongoing outlays directly related to the scandal that will be well in excess of $100 million per year. And incidents, involving refugees, continue to occur.[Catholic Charities of Houston worker accused of sexually assaulting refugee boy, Friends of Refugees Blog, August 25, 2011]

    Nevertheless, this is the same organization that went ballistic when it lost a federal contract to aid “victims of labor and sex trafficking” which had brought in 19 million or $6,800 per client over five and a half years. [USCCB seeks answers to why plan to help trafficking victims was denied, by Dennis Sadowski, Catholic News Service, December 13, 2011].

    (Although most publicity is given to the sex trafficking and the minors aided by the fraud-prone anti-trafficking legislation, with its refugee-like privileges and payouts, the large majority of cases involve “labor” trafficking. Only 3.8% of USCCB’s “trafficking” caseload consisted of minors.)

    Is the refugee program helping the Catholic hierarchy keep the red ink at bay—and paying executive salaries well into the six figures at local affiliates around the country wherever Catholic Charities is imposing refugees?
    "Catholic Charities" is not flouting our laws and empowering the worst immigrants with Catholic money, it's doing it with my money.
    Last edited by Epoetker; 08-12-2014, 12:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Epoetker
    replied
    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
    The goal of charity is to remove the need for charity.
    True charity, yes.

    How do you think the charity provided by these organizations encourages desperation instead of cures it?
    By importing large numbers of people who don't have the mental or social capacity to get out of poverty, you give the charity assigned to take care of them an infinite justification to demand more funding. Simple, easy to remember.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    The management and the bureaucracy of a few or many charity organizations may have an interest in getting as much money as to spend on themselves as they can get.
    Ever heard of this thing called "low overhead"? Unless you can demonstrate that Catholic Charities, and not just the Baptist organization the article mentions, would use a substantial portion of any new funding to sustain bureaucratic graft, you don't have a leg to stand on. The claim you're making is ultimately an empirical one. Unless you have proof, all you're doing is defaming people who have dedicated substantial talent and treasure to taking care of the poor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    The management and the bureaucracy of a few or many charity organizations may have an interest in getting as much money as to spend on themselves as they can get.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    amnesty = more poor people = more government charity money to help take care of them
    Amnesty gives more of these people a way out of poverty... and even if it didn't, how would Catholic Charities benefit from having more money to take care of the poor? In order to have a conflict of interest, you kind of have to have an actual interest in the outcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • Psychic Missile
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    amnesty = more poor people = more government charity money to help take care of them
    The goal of charity is to remove the need for charity. How do you think the charity provided by these organizations encourages desperation instead of cures it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    Not only is it necessary to demonstrate a conflict of interest, but to demonstrate that the conflict of interest, rather than anything else, is what leads to Catholic advocacy of amnesty. Neither has yet been demonstrated to my satisfaction.
    amnesty = more poor people = more government charity money to help take care of them

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    I am going to pretend that you're just intelligent enough to see conflicts of interest. Maybe you are not thinking hard enough. Come on, a bit more effort might do the job.

    Let me see, what would charities look like, if no government were pouring out money? No bureaucracy would be involved. You do realize that bureaucracies tend to grow their budgets and spending? And we don't have charities competing for government funding. If we did have government funding, that means charities jump through hoops for bureaucrats' favors.

    I have to confess so far I can't think of a concrete example of charity managers having conflicts of interest. When I find an example, I'll post here again.
    Not only is it necessary to demonstrate a conflict of interest, but to demonstrate that the conflict of interest, rather than anything else, is what leads to Catholic advocacy of amnesty. Neither has yet been demonstrated to my satisfaction.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    Pretend I'm stupid (shouldn't be hard for you) and connect the dots a bit more. Why does Catholic Charities receiving government money result in a conflict of interest?
    I am going to pretend that you're just intelligent enough to see conflicts of interest. Maybe you are not thinking hard enough. Come on, a bit more effort might do the job.

    Let me see, what would charities look like, if no government were pouring out money? No bureaucracy would be involved. You do realize that bureaucracies tend to grow their budgets and spending? And we don't have charities competing for government funding. If we did have government funding, that means charities jump through hoops for bureaucrats' favors.

    I have to confess so far I can't think of a concrete example of charity managers having conflicts of interest. When I find an example, I'll post here again.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
16 responses
136 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
354 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
112 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
197 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
84 responses
361 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X