homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Food Banks (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Food Banks
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000

 - Posted      Profile for Tulfes   Email Tulfes   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Are these necessary or not? I'm confused about this.

On the one hand, we're told that an individual or family can only receive 2 or 3 food parcels per year from a food bank. So how do the food banks actually relieve ongoing food poverty? That's not to say that they do not assist in a crisis. But long term?

Looked at from another angle. Although undoubtedly there is genuine material hardship in the UK, how did people manage before food banks existed?

Is there a political agenda to the recent growth in food banks?

Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014  |  IP: Logged
JeremiahTheProphet
Apprentice
# 18366

 - Posted      Profile for JeremiahTheProphet   Email JeremiahTheProphet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think there has always been poverty and need for all sorts of reasons and food banks are one of the ways Christians have responded to help with this.

It has always been a mission of the Church from the book of Acts onwards to do what it can to help relieve poverty

Posts: 5 | Registered: Mar 2015  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If you want to compare:

SF-Marin Food Bank--"Our Work" page.

FoodPantries.org

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When did food banks "not exist"? Haven't we always had some form of food bank? They would have taken different forms at different times, but even in the 1st c. you have the churches taking up a collections for the poor, for widows and orphans, etc. I think during most eras you would have people who were hungry who would come by the local churches looking for food, and some sort of system for how to respond.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643

 - Posted      Profile for Carex   Email Carex   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:

On the one hand, we're told that an individual or family can only receive 2 or 3 food parcels per year from a food bank...

That's not the case for any food banks I've known. My thought is that they typically distribute food at least weekly to some families in need.

Naturally the benefits will depend on the resources available, the needs of the community and of each individual/family. There could well be specific food banks or situations that would need to implement such limits, but in my experience they wouldn't be the norm for needy families.

Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've occasionally heard of a "2-3 times a year" rule, I think; but IIRC, that was about going directly to the food bank, without going through an agency.

I volunteered at a food bank a few times, through my workplace. Sorted donated food, as part of a team. Fun!

I also had occasion to need their help. They had a deal where you could volunteer for a certain number of hours, and get food to take home. I'm not sure of the details; but I think I volunteered for a few hours and got a bag of food to take home.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pigwidgeon

Ship's Owl
# 10192

 - Posted      Profile for Pigwidgeon   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Our church collects food for a small food bank that was started by another Episcopal parish but has now grown a bit and is inter-denominational. (I'm the one who delivers the weekly collection to them.) They limit the people who receive the food to one food box per month. That's not enough to live on, but it does help to stretch out what they can buy with Food Stamps (now known as "SNAP"), and what they can buy with what little they make.

No questions are asked when someone registers. According to their website, "Most of our clients are working families. They are employed full-time or part-time, and yet still are in need of supplemental food. We also serve people between jobs, those on fixed incomes, seniors, people with disabilities, and homeless clients."

--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf

Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've donated to them, and I've had to use them. I think the rules depend on the food bank. Some are under community-wide organizations, some are run by a few parishes getting together, and some are totally independent.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My local food bank http://www.westseattlefoodbank.org/services/food-distribution/ allows families once a week for food. Certain baby supplies are once or twice a month.
The parent organization Northwest Harvest was started by a group of churches and is a big state wide operation. It includes donations from supermarkets, and farms.

The donations are limited by what's available from donations, but there are a lot of families that depend on it, especially in some of the more depressed counties in the state.

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the Netherlands, families can get one parcel every month.

My parents' church operates a food bank. I don't know exactly how it works, but it's partly a government thing. Part of the food comes from donations from church members, part comes from local supermarkets (left-overs I guess?) and I guess part comes from some kind of government scheme.

The church doesn't select who qualifies for receiving a parcel, the government does.

Or at least I think. I'll ask my father the next time I visit.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The two food banks in my community are basically there to assist in a crisis. What happens, though is if a family of four is on food stamps, they will likely run out of food in 20 days on average. So the food banks end up supplementing the next ten days.

Now, though the Republican congress is talking about slashing the food stamp program even further. Food Banks will then be called on to fill a greater need.

This does not need to happen. Bernie Sanders has said our military spending is more than all the other countries combined. Not sure about that, but roughly 57% of our budget goes to the military. Why not cut out a few unnecessary weapons systems to feed the hungry? There is no need for any child to have to go to bed without a meal today, for for the elderly to eat cat food.

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
According to Wikipedia the data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute lists US military expenditure at 36% of the world total. But, it is almost identical to the combined spending of the next 9 largest military spenders, which is probably where the "military spending is more than all the other countries combined" statement is coming from - that would certainly be more than the combined military spend of the rest of NATO, for example.

It's upto US voters to decide whether 57% of government funding, or 3.8% of GDP is excessive. I would say that I'm appalled by the amount the UK is spending on replacing Trident, which is ultimately just for show as it's a weapon system that will never be used - even when there was an identifiable nuclear-armed enemy it was very unlikely that it would be needed. I'm hoping that enough voters agree with me in May and support the parties that are opposed to that massive expenditure when people are feeling the squeeze of austerity (although, no where near as badly as some other nations).

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I've occasionally heard of a "2-3 times a year" rule, I think; but IIRC, that was about going directly to the food bank, without going through an agency.

That sounds more like it.

Controls exist because otherwise some people re-sell the food they get, and so on.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've heard of reselling, but with food from other programs. What I've heard, though, is that it's generally because the sellers don't have cash benefits, or the benefits are too low. Plus, AIUI, for a long time food stamps didn't cover toilet paper, paper towels, etc. I think the rules have improved, a bit.

Food banks in the US have been in bad shape since the 2008 financial crash, if not before. Lots of individuals couldn't afford to donate any longer--and some even wound up needing food banks themselves. Businesses that formerly donated either had much tighter budgets, or went out of business. The SF Food Bank has put out many appeals, over the last several years, because they just didn't have enough food.

The OP asked whether food banks were needed, or a political ploy. Here in the US, they're needed.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The US does spend a huge amount on military expenditures. It includes programs and bases that the military doesn't want but which are continued because they've located the plants in enough congressional districts that closing them would make it hard for the congressman to get re-elected.

This is currently a big budget fight in Congress between the Republican Fiscal Hawks and the Republican War Hawks. The War Hawks want to exempt military spending from the budget caps that the Fiscal Hawks got in place a few years ago.


There's also a lot of people who don't think that the poor are worthy of subsidy and it's all creeping socialism (and they mean that in a bad way). Oddly enough such people usually are proud to label themselves as Christians.

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Our local food bank is there primarily to help in a crisis, rather than long term. The main issue is people who have lost their benefits for a period of time, having been sanctioned.

I don't know the figures, but this is a rural area. I have been told anecdotally that people who live in X town sign on in Y town, but there is no direct bus from X to Y. They have to catch a bus from X to Z, then Z to Y. If one of the buses fails to turn up, or is late, they can end up with no benefits.

As a result, a food bank has been set up in X.

Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
gog
Shipmate
# 15615

 - Posted      Profile for gog   Author's homepage   Email gog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Many UK foodbanks use a 3 times in a row rule for food parcels; as it is crisis response. Also many UK ones only take people by referral from agencies working with the recipients of the food. Some resource regarding foodbanks here.
Posts: 103 | From: somewhere over the border | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When were there no foodbanks? Well around twenty years ago here in the UK. Not quite true for street drinkers and such there were a few emergency food provisions, but on the whole no food banks. Instead there was a system of state provided emergency grants that sort to get people over short spells of dire financial stringency. The removal of these in the 1990s started the creation of Foodbanks.

What is really interesting was that in those days a dire emergency was often the result of unexpected necessary large expenditure e.g. the buying of protective covers for a bed where I child bedwetted or a new (i.e. new to them) cooker.

The standard today is because the social security has not managed to deal with people's claim in a proper manner or decided to penalise someone for a minor infringement often unavoidable (such as not being able to attend two interviews at the same time).

So Social Security has gone in twenty years from being the people you turned to in these situations to being the people who cause them. The growth in the need and provision in the last five years is staggering.

I want to live again in a society where foodbanks are few and ad hoc affairs that cater for people who really cannot manage money* for some reason. Not where they are an excuse for government not doing its job properly.

Jengie

*as opposed to people who are without money due to circumstances beyond their control.

[ 20. March 2015, 09:23: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000

 - Posted      Profile for Tulfes   Email Tulfes   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well said, Jengie.

Food banks should not be necessary.

An import from the US which is not welcome. We should not be leaving the feeding of people to charity. It is a government responsibility where the need arises.

Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There have been other changes over the last 20-30 years that are relevant.

One is the nature of shops. It used to be that there were small, local food shops and often slightly larger stores and specialists like butchers or fishmongers on the high street. The vast majority of people could easily get to a shop selling food at more or less the same price. Now we have massive edge of town supermarkets, with buying power to push prices down, only accessible to people with cars. And, the local stores have either closed or been forced to raise prices and cut the range of produce to maintain their income. People without a car either have to pay a small fortune for the rare bus to the supermarket and be limited to how much they can carry, or pay the inflated prices for a limited range of food at their local store - if they still have one. Those of us with sufficient income to run a car, and buy large quantities at a time because we have fridges and freezers to store food, benefit from cheap food. Those on limited income, without a car are forced to buy more expensive food at the local store.

Similar poverty premiums exist for other shopping needs - clothing, bedding, furniture etc are all cheaper if you have the income to go to the edge of town superstores. Even more so if we can buy up front, without relying on loans.

Energy prices also penalise the poor. If you have money to maintain direct debit payments you get cheap energy deals, if you have to rely on paying on an ad-hoc basis through prepayment meters and the like you spend a lot more for your electricity and gas.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870

 - Posted      Profile for Sipech   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Is there a political agenda to the recent growth in food banks?

Certainly, but it's subject to an effective gagging order.

My Dad ran a food bank for two years with the Trussell Trust. Part of their operation was to determine the need; not only if it was genuine, but also the causes behind it. The number 1 reason was benefit sanctions. Yet when the Trussell Trust ever mentioned these, they were deemed to be political and hence overstepping the bounds of a charity.

The food bank my dad ran was in South-West Bedfordshire, where the local Conservative MP was also an aide to Iain Duncan Smith. It was little surprise when The Independent reported that that same MP threatened the Trussell Trust with closure.

A similar complaint was made against Oxfam .

Any attempts to cooperate with the DWP failed as the DWP made it a condition of cooperation that any and all data collection be stopped. But the foodbank could not operate effectively without this.

The Conservative attitude to food banks is well summed up by Hélder Câmara:
quote:
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."


--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile

Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Bernie Sanders has said our military spending is more than all the other countries combined. Not sure about that, but roughly 57% of our budget goes to the military.

According to Wikipedia it's about 17% (data from Congressional Budget Office.)

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute puts US military spending at about 37% of the world total.

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Well said, Jengie.

Food banks should not be necessary.

An import from the US which is not welcome. We should not be leaving the feeding of people to charity. It is a government responsibility where the need arises.

I agree. But when government fails to act, we must.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Bernie Sanders has said our military spending is more than all the other countries combined. Not sure about that, but roughly 57% of our budget goes to the military.

According to Wikipedia it's about 17% (data from Congressional Budget Office.)

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute puts US military spending at about 37% of the world total.

The 17% figure comes when you include Social Security in the total budget, which isn't really accurate since in the US it's really more like a self-funded annuity program, despite our legislator's attempts to treat it as a piggy bank. Once you redo the pie chart with actual federal expenditures it looks much more like Sander's figure.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000

 - Posted      Profile for Tulfes   Email Tulfes   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Well said, Jengie.

Food banks should not be necessary.

An import from the US which is not welcome. We should not be leaving the feeding of people to charity. It is a government responsibility where the need arises.

I agree. But when government fails to act, we must.
Agreed.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Although to compare those numbers with other countries you'll need to recognise that a lot of US government expenditure is made at State, or even more local, level. AIUI, a large proportion of expenditure on policing, criminal justice, education, and other programmes never gets anywhere near the Federal budget. If you put all that in the balance then the proportion of funding on military doesn't stand that far from other countries. As a proportion of GDP, the US is behind Russia in military spending, and a long way behind Saudi Arabia.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Although to compare those numbers with other countries you'll need to recognise that a lot of US government expenditure is made at State, or even more local, level. AIUI, a large proportion of expenditure on policing, criminal justice, education, and other programmes never gets anywhere near the Federal budget. If you put all that in the balance then the proportion of funding on military doesn't stand that far from other countries. As a proportion of GDP, the US is behind Russia in military spending, and a long way behind Saudi Arabia.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If we add in the non-federal government spending, wouldn't that increase the proportion of GDP the US spends on the military? If it's already equal to the next 9 countries, how would it now be behind Russia and Saudia Arabia? Or is it that Russia and Saudia Arabia spend so much more on non-federal policing, criminal justice, education, etc that it puts them that much over the US?

In either event, I'm not sure I would want to include local police funding in a discussion of "military spending", at least not for the purposes of this discussion. Although you do have all that excessive gobs of federal money that was spent post-911 on various sorts of military hardware that has now ended up in local police departments, arguably contributing to things like the Ferguson situation.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Trussell Trust ones tend to require referrals from either CAB or the DWP, only allow so many visits a year. Some will also pre-pack parcels whilst others allow their users to select their own items.

Quite a few of the church run food banks run independently of Trussell for that reason. They don’t think that the problems that cause people to need food banks – benefit sanctions, low wages and high outgoings – can be solved with one or two packs of food a year. They want to build relationships with their users and be of more practical help. They also want people to have the dignity of being allowed to choose their own items.

It will be interesting to see how that impacts this election. After helping at ours a few times, there is no way I’ll be voting Tory. Would never vote UKIP anyway! After the comments from the Shadow Social Security Minister about Labour not being the party of the unemployed and her comments about welfare, At the moment, it’s all gone Green.

Given that a lot of our volunteers are elderly, therefore more likely to vote, if that has worked the same way for them, it’s going to be interesting! Without meaning too, this government could have alienated a good part of their voter base in areas that are their traditional heartlands.

I know we need food banks, but the fact that we're returning to an era where they're needed in such a way is just wrong. If you want confirmation that IDS / The Tories have destroyed the welfare state, here it is.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Although to compare those numbers with other countries you'll need to recognise that a lot of US government expenditure is made at State, or even more local, level. AIUI, a large proportion of expenditure on policing, criminal justice, education, and other programmes never gets anywhere near the Federal budget. If you put all that in the balance then the proportion of funding on military doesn't stand that far from other countries. As a proportion of GDP, the US is behind Russia in military spending, and a long way behind Saudi Arabia.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If we add in the non-federal government spending, wouldn't that increase the proportion of GDP the US spends on the military? If it's already equal to the next 9 countries, how would it now be behind Russia and Saudia Arabia? Or is it that Russia and Saudia Arabia spend so much more on non-federal policing, criminal justice, education, etc that it puts them that much over the US?

In either event, I'm not sure I would want to include local police funding in a discussion of "military spending", at least not for the purposes of this discussion. Although you do have all that excessive gobs of federal money that was spent post-911 on various sorts of military hardware that has now ended up in local police departments, arguably contributing to things like the Ferguson situation.

Alan was talking about including non-military non-federal government spending.
In some countries, most expenditure on policing, criminal justice, education, and other programmes comes from the Central Govt, i.e. the equivalent of the federal budget. If the notional central govt budget includes all this stuff, then the total central budget expenditure goes up and so the proportion of it spent on the military is smaller (as you say, very little military spending comes from other levels of govt).
Does that make sense?

--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ah, yes, thanks for the clarification.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's just a complaint about juggling the figures to make a particular point. The "57%" is one way of massaging the figures to make a point (usually that the US spends so much on the military) - as pointed out, because it excludes large parts of federal spending such as the "self-funded annuity program" Social Security budget. I pointed out criminal justice is funded at State level is another example of an expenditure that in many countries comes from central government.

My guess is that if someone attempts to produce a "government expenditure"* that tries to account for the differences in what is and isn't paid for by different governments then my guess would be that US military expenditure as a proportion of "government expenditure" would be more or less the same as everyone else. So, the question of why we spend so much on the military when we have people dependent on food banks is one we all have to answer.

 

* the use of quotations is deliberate, because there are parts of some government expenditures that get covered by private monies in other countries. Health care would be a prime example, how do we accurately compare one country where the majority of health care is paid through private insurance schemes with another where the majority of health care is paid through central/regional government? You need to have a "government expenditure" that either includes private health insurance payments where that is the norm, or excludes state funded health care to compare ... in whichever case you're no longer looking at what the government actually spends.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

My guess is that if someone attempts to produce a "government expenditure"* that tries to account for the differences in what is and isn't paid for by different governments then my guess would be that US military expenditure as a proportion of "government expenditure" would be more or less the same as everyone else.
.

My guess is that it would still be significantly larger than other places. It seems like we've got a lot more of the heavy machinery-- the big ticket items the Pentegon loves so well-- than pretty much anyone else. But that may be the way my perspective has been skewed by the crowd I hang out with and hearing the 57% figure so much.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

My guess is that if someone attempts to produce a "government expenditure"* that tries to account for the differences in what is and isn't paid for by different governments then my guess would be that US military expenditure as a proportion of "government expenditure" would be more or less the same as everyone else.
.

My guess is that it would still be significantly larger than other places. It seems like we've got a lot more of the heavy machinery-- the big ticket items the Pentegon loves so well-- than pretty much anyone else. But that may be the way my perspective has been skewed by the crowd I hang out with and hearing the 57% figure so much.
Yes, I'm sure there are countries that spend a lot less on military, and countries that spend more. I've just looked up UK Treasury figures, and we spend a total of £731 billion across central and local government, £45.6 billion on defence - that's 6.2%.

The wikipedia page you linked to earlier lists the US Federal expenditure as £3,500 billion, with $596 billion on defence (the 17% figure). How much is spent by the States? How much is spent by medical insurance on the health care included in the UK figures? Is it unreasonable to say that between what the States spend and what medical insurance spends that these will be approximately equal to the Federal expenditure? If so, the US spends $596 on defence out of $7,000 billion, 8.5%. Higher than the UK, but not that much higher - and, of course, my guestimate of what the States and health insurance pays may be low.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

The wikipedia page you linked to earlier

fyi: that wasn't me. I don't have any hard figures, just going on the usual "what I've always heard", with all the reliability that goes with that.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry I did not get to respond sooner. The 57% figure I cited deals with discretionary spending. When you include mandatory spending (entitlements like Social Security) and debt repayment, the total military spending hoovers around 19% depending on which source you follow.

The current Republican budget proposal will either kick 11 million people off of food stamps, or reduce the amount given to individual recipients by $55.

Let me speak to that. My brother is completely disabled. He lives on Social Security Disability (which is do to run out in a couple of years if not funded) and food stamps. Last year he got $210 a month on food stamps. This year he is getting only $167 per month due to a cut last year. Let me ask you, do you think you can feed yourself on $167 per month? How about $112 per month next year?

Fortunately my other brother and his family are hunters and farmers so they can keep my disabled brother well stocked with food.

But if a person did not have such resources where do you think they will turn? Food Banks. The cuts will mean a person will get about 15 days a month covered by food stamps. Food Banks cannot cover the difference.

The Republicans claim this will save $128 billion over ten years.

I know a better way to save money. Discontinue the FX Joint Strike Fighter Program. That would save over $1 Trillion dollars in ten years.

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Vintage bumpersticker:

"It will be a great day when schools get all the money they need, and the Pentagon has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Vintage bumpersticker:

"It will be a great day when schools get all the money they need, and the Pentagon has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."

OTOH, people can make local or private arrangements for schools. In fact, until recently all the funding for public schools was local. Would you like a society where people make local or private plans for national defense?

There is a reason why national defense is one of the few duties laid on the federal government by the Constitution.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Vintage bumpersticker:

"It will be a great day when schools get all the money they need, and the Pentagon has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."

OTOH, people can make local or private arrangements for schools. In fact, until recently all the funding for public schools was local.
It's still primarily local in the US. Which is precisely why you have such massive inequalities in education in the US. Rich communities have great schools, meaning the kids of these rich folks are able to go to free public schools, get a good education, and go on to become rich adults. Poor communities have crappy schools, poor families either send their kids to these crappy schools, leaving them ill-equipped to compete with those rich kids, or they have to somehow scrape up the $$ for private schools. It's a significant reason why the income gap is so huge in the US.

It's also a major driver in housing bubbles like the one that preceded the great recession. In California in particular, the huge inequities in funding for local schools means that identical houses that are literally across the street from one another may differ in price by $100K or more, if they straddle a school district line separating a great district from a crappy one.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Bernie Sanders has said our military spending is more than all the other countries combined. Not sure about that, but roughly 57% of our budget goes to the military.

According to Wikipedia it's about 17% (data from Congressional Budget Office.)

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute puts US military spending at about 37% of the world total.

The 17% figure comes when you include Social Security in the total budget, which isn't really accurate since in the US it's really more like a self-funded annuity program, despite our legislator's attempts to treat it as a piggy bank. Once you redo the pie chart with actual federal expenditures it looks much more like Sander's figure.
Thanks for the explanation - but that distinction seems specious at best. By that logic, if we just put a separate line on everybody's paycheck for a military tax, we could say the military was also "self-funded." Social Security was established by the government, is run by the government, and is "self-funded" by taxes (or, indirectly, borrowing), same as everything else.

As for total US government spending (all levels), I found a site which gives this for 2015:
  • Federal gross spending $3.8T (23% GDP)
  • Intergovernmental $-0.6T (-4%)
  • State spending $1.5T (10%)
  • Local direct spending $1.6T (11%)
  • Total spending $6.3T (39%)
Based on total government spending instead of federal spending, the US military would account for 10% instead of 17%. (I'm assuming that all state and local spending is "non-military", which is probably not exactly right - but it won't be higher than 17%, anyway.)

Some international comparisons just use military spending as a fraction of GDP, as Alan suggested (Wikipedia has a sortable list here.) For example, the NATO countries have agreed on a 2% guideline (scroll down here to see the results.)

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, I think subsequent posts by Alan and others explained that well.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079

 - Posted      Profile for justlooking   Author's homepage   Email justlooking   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Well said, Jengie.

Food banks should not be necessary.

An import from the US which is not welcome. We should not be leaving the feeding of people to charity. It is a government responsibility where the need arises.

I agree. But when government fails to act, we must.
The current situation in the UK isn't caused by the government failing to act but is instead a consequence of government action.

This was Jengie's point:
quote:
..... The standard today is because the social security has not managed to deal with people's claim in a proper manner or decided to penalise someone for a minor infringement often unavoidable (such as not being able to attend two interviews at the same time).

So Social Security has gone in twenty years from being the people you turned to in these situations to being the people who cause them. ....

The latest developments which combine all benefits into a 'Universal Credit' could create even more hardship since delays and sanctions may have a greater impact - loss of housing benefit for example.

Changes for lone parent claimants now means that even those who are not required to look for work because of the age of the youngest child can still be required to attend 'work-focused interviews' and training. The number of interviews and training sessions is decided by an assigned 'work coach'. Sanctions in these circumstances will have a direct impact on young children.

The UK government has been very busy with its welfare reforms and can't be accused of failing to act. However one of the consequence of its actions is an increased risk of hardship for some of the most vulnerable.

[ 21. March 2015, 12:49: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Well said, Jengie.

Food banks should not be necessary.

An import from the US which is not welcome. We should not be leaving the feeding of people to charity. It is a government responsibility where the need arises.

I agree. But when government fails to act, we must.
For the last 10 years, two churches in my town jointly opened cold-weather shelters for the homeless. They did so because existing, "official" local shelters were overwhelmed and deaths due to hypothermia in the winter months were rising.

Much publicity, much outcry, the forming of a city commission followed. This winter, after virtually exhausting the resources (to say nothing of the congregational volunteers who staffed the church shelters), the churches decided to permnently end their shelter efforts. In response, the commission released a report ( called a "plan," though after reading it I saw no plans to assist the sheltered folks) which described the scope and nature of the local chronically homeless population. The church shelters are permanently closing down at the end of this month.

IME, where private charity steps in, government is perfectly happy to step out. Cruel as it seems to say so, it may be, over the long haul, a bad idea for private charity to step in, at least without demanding accountability from the government at the same time.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000

 - Posted      Profile for Tulfes   Email Tulfes   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Porridge, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, private charity should not participate in meeting any needs.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Porridge, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, private charity should not participate in meeting any needs.

Not every suggestion is logically run down to its end point.
This bit
quote:
at least without demanding accountability from the government at the same time.
is an important qualifier.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Well said, Jengie.

Food banks should not be necessary.

An import from the US which is not welcome. We should not be leaving the feeding of people to charity. It is a government responsibility where the need arises.

I agree. But when government fails to act, we must.
This is so interesting because in the US, the argument so often runs the other way. When private charity cannot meet the needs, the government needs to act.

The way to obviate this, of course, is to show that there are "unworthy poor" who don't deserve either charity or government help. Although how people can fucking sleep at night believing this and claiming to be Christian, I do not know.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Well said, Jengie.

Food banks should not be necessary.

An import from the US which is not welcome. We should not be leaving the feeding of people to charity. It is a government responsibility where the need arises.

I agree. But when government fails to act, we must.
This is so interesting because in the US, the argument so often runs the other way. When private charity cannot meet the needs, the government needs to act.
Really? The argument I hear most often is the reverse-- that government is "overstepping its bounds" in caring for the poor/ providing a safety net-- and that it is the "job" of churches and non-profits, who can do it so much better.

The reality, of course, is very much what porridge observed-- churches and nonprofits lack the resources to do so effectively.

Your point re the "unworthy" vs. "worthy" poor are on target. When charity is left to churches and nonprofits, the "worthy" poor will be served, but the "unworthy" not so much. I am in charge of our churches bad weather shelter-- which serves a lot of people generally considered the "unworthy" poor-- drug addicts, ex-cons, mentally ill with poor social skills. It is true that many are there thru their own bad choices (of course, the rest of us make bad choices too-- we're just fortunate enough to have someone to bail us out when we do). Our church is pretty committed to serving them. But it's still hard to raise funds for the so-called "unworthy". It's a lot easier to raise funds for the elderly and for kids (we have housing programs for them in our city). The pretty people will always get served first. Even churches with the best of intentions, and a good theology of "serving the least among us" are going to find it hard going to raise funds for people who are surly or unpleasant or aggressive. Which is why government aid is needed.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Your point re the "unworthy" vs. "worthy" poor are on target. When charity is left to churches and nonprofits, the "worthy" poor will be served, but the "unworthy" not so much.

I think this goes for government assistance too. Sometimes it's very clear, as in the nine states that require people receiving food stamps to pass drug tests. Sometimes it's less clear, as in the hoops you have to jump through to receive government assistance, which aren't labelled as a method of excluding people but which functionally mean only the more capable and clear thinking poor people get help.

This is not only immoral, it's stupid.

[ 21. March 2015, 17:26: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Firenze

Ordinary decent pagan
# 619

 - Posted      Profile for Firenze     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As Chesterton remarked, charity to the Deserving is not charity, it is justice.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is so interesting because in the US, the argument so often runs the other way. When private charity cannot meet the needs, the government needs to act.

Really? The argument I hear most often is the reverse-- that government is "overstepping its bounds" in caring for the poor/ providing a safety net-- and that it is the "job" of churches and non-profits, who can do it so much better.
I think you are seeing the same thing I am. The one is the liberal argument, the other the conservative. The former is responding to the latter, saying, "yes, fine, private charity is all well and good, BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH."

quote:
The reality, of course, is very much what porridge observed-- churches and nonprofits lack the resources to do so effectively.
Which is exactly what I thought I was saying.

quote:
The pretty people will always get served first. Even churches with the best of intentions, and a good theology of "serving the least among us" are going to find it hard going to raise funds for people who are surly or unpleasant or aggressive. Which is why government aid is needed.
Agree completely.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools