DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus $ Billions of Small Business Aid went to Churches

https://apnews.com/dab8261c68c93f24c0bfc1876518b3f6

YAY ... our tax payer dollars going to churches. Possibly $3.5 Billion or more to the Catholic Church. Seems that's exactly what the money was intended for right - prop up struggling diocese who had to pay $ Millions in sexual abuse settlements. So happy my contributions could help.

Tax them (Plus say 10 years of back taxes) or completely remove their ability to donate money for political purposes.
Period.

any word on how much other Churches received?

A host of churches have applied. there was a revision to the provisions of the aid that said churches didn't have to employ less than 500 employees (or something like that) ... was on news segment of the radio and then pulled that link when I got back.

Cool because most Churches i know have 6 to 10 employees, and only 1 or two of them are full time employees.

Yes - the report I listened to was specifically talking about the catholic church ... [1] Because it's huge [2] because it is essentially rich (worth $30 Billion?) and [3] because of the massive payouts for sex abuse that some diocese had to hand over ... is it right that they get propped up by our tax dollars that were intended for small business because they (might) be in trouble after those payouts.

last I read, $7.8 Billion

Link?

7.3 Billion to Religious Organizations



Grifters....yuck.

That link isn't working for me. It takes me here: https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/screenwriter-reveals-after-earth-wasnt-meant-be-sci-fi-movie

Oops! Give me a minute. Two different conversations.

https://www.newsweek.com/religious-organ...illions-1515963

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smallbus...ses/ar-BB12ejPh

So, of the 349 billion churches got 7.3 billion. Let's see. thats 2.3%.

I know our church applied for a loan under that program........just because. We qualified as well.

We never took a cent. Wish you could've been at the meeting. You'd have been proud of me, and a few others.

Applied for $50,000. Approved. Our church has 3 full time employees, and 3 part time.

We applied, because there was a dead line. We declined to take any money, because we didn't need it after the fact.

I think that's where the ire is coming with regard to PPP loans as we are finding. Your church had a conscience, where as many with deep pockets fleeced the program and so many true small businesses (mom and pop types) are now out of business because the money had dried up or could not get loans.

"Church of Scientology" ~ Cults got loans while the poor struggle to make rent. smdh

Might want to look into what the PPP was. It was to keep people employed.

I agree, many places that didn't need it, took it. Many employees were upset there place of business took it because they were making more on unemployment plus the $600 extra per week than they made working.


Our church - my church - applied, was approved, then we didn't take the money.

I wish more ppl would make choices like that.

I know what it is, I'm just disgusted that a cult like the Church of Scientology could get a large forgivable loan while many working poor are struggling to make rent. I personally know at least a couple of people who are not applying for unemployment because they are too proud to take a handout, yet all the scammers are getting in and now we find out billions are going to those who have no need whatsoever.

I also know of one guy who is battling his addiction that applied for work and got held up for a failed drug test after being honest in his interview. So the company gave him 30 days to prove he could pee clean and they would still give him a chance. Well covid then hits and he never followed through even though he did stay clean. Then found out a week or so ago he's using again after he applied and got unemployment with that $600 a week extra. Government might as well hand him a loaded gun to kill himself. Meanwhile others to proud to game the system go without. It just all pisses me off.

So do I. I can't control others, though. Cheaters are out there.

I didn't make the decision. 16 of us did. Me, a sales manager from a multi national company, a CFO of a multi national company, a self employed stock trader, a physical therapist, a teacher, another teacher.........our consistory runs the gamut from lowly me, to high dollar professionals. We applied. We were approved. A month later, we declined to accept. But, if needed, we needed to get the app in.

I applaud this move. Churches should always receive increased funding!

I think it would be interesting to hear how the decision to decline was made. What was said on wither side. How the vote fell. That's the stuff I find interesting. The 'people' part of it.

There might be a lesson for folks on how to be a right-minded person. I think that story would be of interest to a lot of posters. I know I'd read it.


.02

Then they should pay taxes if they’re going to get our tax money. Or they can get funding from their parishioners and stay tax exempt.
They shouldn’t get both.

First, I need to correct something. I said 16 of us made the decision. Consistory is like the board of a company. 2 of the consistory members are our pastors. The pastors don't have a vote. On anything. So, 14 of us made the decision.

At the time we applied, the ppp money was going out fast. Out of an abundance of caution, we applied. Were approved, the money earmarked for us.

At our next meeting discussion centered on do we really NEED the money, basically an interest free loan. But, our church is in good financial shape.

Someone mentioned that if we accept the ppp money when we don't really NEED it, we might be taking 50g away from a company that truly DOES need it to pay their employees. It was a great point.

Couple of minutes of discussion, a motion was made to not take the money, it was seconded, and we voted 13-1 to decline the loan.

Receive government money as a business, you are a business. Pay taxes like every other business. Do not take government money as a business, you are a religion and are tax exempt.

Sad to say, but this is just another example of why any idea to have the government control any sort of wealth distribution is a bad idea.

So a better, more efficient and less corrupt option is ....... ?

If people are allowed to perform their duties it might not be an issue.

When you fire the independent Inspector General who was set to oversee the distribution of money is when it becomes a problem and ripe for fleecing.

Proper checks and balances are important.


Trump removes independent watchdog for coronavirus funds, upending oversight panel

The move comes as Trump makes a broad push against inspectors general scrutinizing his actions.

By KYLE CHENEY and CONNOR O’BRIEN
04/07/2020 12:03 PM EDT

President Donald Trump has upended the panel of federal watchdogs overseeing implementation of the $2 trillion coronavirus law, tapping a replacement for the Pentagon official who was supposed to lead the effort.

A panel of inspectors general had named Glenn Fine — the acting Pentagon watchdog — to lead the group charged with monitoring the coronavirus relief effort. But Trump on Monday removed Fine from his post, instead naming the EPA inspector general to serve as the temporary Pentagon watchdog in addition to his other responsibilities.

That decision, which began circulating on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning, effectively removed Fine from his role overseeing the coronavirus relief effort, since the new law permits only current inspectors general to fill the position.

“Mr. Fine is no longer on the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee," Dwrena Allen, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon inspector general’s office, confirmed. She added that Fine will return to his Senate-confirmed post as principal deputy inspector general of the Pentagon.

Fine’s removal is Trump’s latest incursion into the community of independent federal watchdogs — punctuated most dramatically by his late Friday ouster of the intelligence community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, whose handling of a whistleblower report ultimately led to Trump’s impeachment.

Trump has also begun sharply attacking Health and Human Services Inspector General Christi Grimm, following a report from her office that described widespread testing delays and supply issues at the nation’s hospitals.

“Another Fake Dossier!” Trump tweeted, mentioning Grimm’s tenure as inspector general during the Obama administration. He didn’t mention, though, that Grimm has been serving as a federal watchdog since 1999, spanning administrations of both parties.

Trump’s targeting of Atkinson drew an unusual rebuke from Michael Horowitz, the inspector general of the Justice Department who also oversees a council of inspectors general. Horowitz said Atkinson handled the whistleblower matter appropriately and defended the broader IG community.

“The Inspector General Community will continue to conduct aggressive, independent oversight of the agencies that we oversee,” he said in a statement after Atkinson’s ouster. Atkinson, too, issued a lengthy statement Saturday accusing Trump of removing him for following whistleblower laws.

Trump's allies in Congress have mostly ignored his recent moves against inspectors general, though Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.) recently said they'd ask the administration for a fuller explanation about Atkinson's ouster. On Tuedsay, Grassley offered gentle advice to Trump, urging him to consider IG findings as "a TO DO list & not criticism."

"I encourage Pres Trump 2view IGs as helpers 2hold bureaucracy accountable+draining swamp," Grassley tweeted.

Democrats blasted Trump's decision.

"The sudden removal and replacement of Acting Inspector General Fine is part of a disturbing pattern of retaliation by the president against independent overseers fulfilling their statutory and patriotic duties to conduct oversight on behalf of the American people," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a statement.

Senate Minority Leader ripped Trump's "corrupt action" and said he is trying to sideline "honest and independent public servants because they are willing to speak truth to power and because he is so clearly afraid of strong oversight."

And House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said he's received no rationale for replacing Fine, but accused Trump of empowering loyalists over officials with expertise in his administration, calling it an "epidemic of incompetence."

Lawmakers were given notice Tuesday that Trump had designated Sean O’Donnell, the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency, to take over the Pentagon watchdog’s office in addition to his current post. That designation negated Fine’s appointment to the coronavirus oversight panel.

"Yesterday, the President nominated Mr. Jason Abend for the position of DoD Inspector General," Allen said. "The same day, the President also designated Mr. Sean W. O'Donnell, who is the Environmental Protection Agency Inspector General (EPA IG), to serve as the Acting DoD IG in addition to his current duties at the EPA."

Trump's decision to have the EPA inspector general simultaneously monitor the sprawling Department of Defense is also raising alarms among environmental advocates, who worry oversight of EPA could suffer as a result.

"It is going to affect, probably adversely, the IG function of EPA," said Stan Meiburg, a 40-year regional EPA chief and member of the Environmental Protection Network. "DOD is a monster organization and will overwhelm the demands on an EPA IG. How anyone could do both jobs escapes me."

There are indications, though, that O'Donnell isn't afraid to ruffle feathers among Trump appointees. Despite being on the job at EPA for just a few months, O’Donnell has already clashed with Trump officials there several times.

Last week, O’Donnell issued an unusual alert publicly warning that EPA has failed to tell communities about the risks of living near medical sterilization plants and chemical plants that emit a carcinogenic gas. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler demanded the alert be rescinded and said he felt blindsided.

Under O'Donnell, the Office of the Inspector General granted a request from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into how EPA reviews state air quality clean-up plans, a probe stemming from last year’s battle between the Trump administration and California over environmental enforcement. And earlier this month, O'Donnell issued a report showing a long-term enforcement decline at EPA, drawing criticism from agency leadership.

The new coronavirus law includes multiple layers of oversight, the most powerful of which is the panel of inspectors general given wide latitude to probe any aspect of its implementation. Fine was named by fellow inspectors general to lead that panel just last week. Now, his colleagues will be forced to make a new selection.

Fine had been the acting Pentagon watchdog since early 2016 after joining the Defense Department inspector general’s office in 2015 during the Obama administration. He was previously the Justice Department’s inspector general from 2000 to 2011, spanning three administrations of both parties.

Abend, who has been nominated to take over as the permanent Pentagon inspector general, is a senior policy adviser with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

But the Senate is out of session until at least April 20, and a shortened election-year calendar will give the Senate Armed Services Committee precious little time to confirm Abend, meaning O’Donnell may be in for an extended stay at the Pentagon.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/07...ht-panel-171943

I get the whole Trump angle and I don't like him, either. But, wealth distribution? NO!!!!

Honestly do not understand your comment. An independent watchdog was supposed to oversee the allocation of the $2T stimulus package so the process was not corrupted.

The IG was fired to avoid proper oversight, the process was corrupted and fleeced by those in positions of power, both GOP and Dem.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't disagreeing w/your article. I replied because you quoted what Florida said. And in that post, he talked about why wealth distribution was a bad idea. I was replying to that part of entire thing and no matter what the dimwit Trump says..............it can't detract from the plans for wealth distribution being catastrophic for our country. I will NEVER agree to that policy and I can almost guarantee you that most hard-working Americans won't either.

Let me make this a little more personal. Most of you know my wife is Hispanic and lived in the projects w/no hot water. One bathroom on a floor of apartments. Wore actual newspapers on her feet. Guess who she sides with? She believes in hard work and not handouts.

We were talking to one of her black doctor friends the other night and they were telling me how the black people who are educated in their field and who have worked their asses off to succeed, do NOT support wealth distribution.

The opportunities are there for minorities to succeed. We still have to continue to improve those opportunities because they are not equal yet.

However, legislating more handouts is counter-productive for two major reasons:

1. You are alienating the people who have to pay for them and who have worked their asses off for what they have. That leads to resentment against the very same people you are trying to help. That is not a good thing, Milk.

2. More importantly, you are giving impoverished people more of an excuse to accept what we "give" them instead of instilling the values of education and work ethic.

I do NOT believe black people are inferior. I believe they can succeed. I have seen them succeed. Stop telling them they need handouts in order to be equal.

Got it.

When I responded to Florida it was under the premise of the government properly administering the allocation of payments strictly as it pertained to the the CARES Act as it was the topic of conversation.

To your point, wealth (re)distribution is not good whether it flows downward or is pillaged from the top.

I don't know off hand, but your wording is correct "more efficient and less corrupt" because I don't think any option would not be without it's risks.

But when it comes to government deciding who and who doesn't get funds that are allocated, they have proven time and time again to not provide it to those that truly need it, or that it was intended for. And yet we have people who want to give government control of many other things.

There has to be a better way, we just need to quit arguing with each other over the petty crap and united to find a solution to the REAL problems.

Church’s that take our tax dollars should be required to repay any loan with interest. If they don’t they should lose their tax exempt status.

j/c

I feel that wealth distribution is an obscure term that means different things to different people.

In regards to the working poor, I don't believe such a term should exist but it most certainly does. I believe that in this country if you work 40 hours a week you shouldn't be so poor that you qualify for government programs.

When that occurs it's nothing more than corporate welfare. Because when people talk about "hand outs" they always seem to talk about it terms of people and not corporations.

I know Walmart increased their wages to 15$ an hour and I most certainly applaud that move. But what was happening there before that happened is a perfect example of what I mean. I'm guessing it is probably still happening to a lesser extent.

But here is the bottom line of what happens in a corporate welfare situation. A corporation will be making billions in profits. At the same time the American tax payer is spending millions, if not billions in benefits to their employees in SNAP benefits, medicaid to their children and other government programs because they make so little working there they qualify for those programs.

In such a situation the American tax payer is subsidizing billionaires. We are providing the benefits those corporations refuse to. We are providing services to their employees as they line their pockets with billions. That has to change.

everyone who knows anything about the economy understands it is a consumer driven economy. Unless consumers have the money to feed that economy it crumbles. Yet every time it comes to a bailout or tax cuts, they put the bulk of the money in the hands of those who don't spend it. None of this makes any sense.

There's something terribly wrong with such a system. When we have tax cuts as we did last time, big business and corporations in general get two thirds of that money. When we had Covid hit, the actual people get crumbs while business gets the bulk.

I've never actually seen anyone who makes the idea of the redistribution of wealth be some giveaway program for people who do not work. What I have seen proposals be is creating a system by which people who work aren't living in abject poverty. To that extent I agree with it.

Wealth redistribution is the only way to fix a lopsided wealth disparity like we have here. How that wealth is redistributed rather via taxes/credits, government jobs programs, investments in education/infrastructure/MC4A, welfare programs, etc. is what we should be debating if we want to save and strengthen the middle class and working poor. I have not read the details of Biden's plan to bring manufacturing jobs back but I like the idea of his "Buy American" plan investing $700B in American manufacturing jobs. That and infrastructure improvements would do a ton of good for our economy. Small monthly stipends to those in poverty and low income status like a minimum UBI would help reset the balance too.

I have nothing against people having wealth or being rich, but no one man or family needs 10's or 100's of billions. Companies sitting on vast sums of money are also an issue if they do not reinvest in the economy.

Much as with most issues you tend to lean further to the left on it than I do. I say if minimum wage is raised to the point the current working poor no longer make wages that keep them impoverished and investment in creating America manufacturing jobs happens, that's a very good start.

As far as monthly stipends are concerned I would never advocate for that if wages were increased. Wages come out of the pocket of those getting rich off the backs of labor. Stipends come out of the pocket of taxpayers.

Back in the day we would fight over this like cats and dogs. But now that we belong to the same club the rules prohibit it. It's amazing how a single poster can help unite so many moderates and liberals isn't it?

Edit. Nah, I am not stooping to your level.

j/c...

Why stop now? It hasn't stopped you before.