What about it makes sense? Craig and his ilk are probably thinking that a lot of black folk are not getting the vaccines so it will help Craig's party to turn away the unvaccinated.
I'd be curious how that pans out - percentages of Trump anti-vaxxers who won't get vaccinated because they don't trust experts for no good reason vs the people in the black community who also won't get vaccinated but for the very understandable reason that black people have been unjust experimented on in the past by those claiming to be acting in the name of science... I wonder who would lose more votes if such a rule were passed.
Of course, the reason for any such rule would be safety and fortunately, we have a work-around for that. Let people vote by mail.
But the GOP has already demonstrated an unwillingness to do anything that would help more black people vote.
What about it doesn't make sense? Should be be allowing hundreds of unvaccinated people to crowd polling places?
"Craig and his ilk are probably thinking that a lot of black folk are not getting the vaccines so it will help Craig's party to turn away the unvaccinated."
What in the hell are you talking about? What on earth makes you think it's appropriate, Christlike, or grace filled, to simply make this sort of shit up with absolutely nothing to support this slander.
Besides, if one watches the mainstream media the only demographic group that isn't getting the jab is white, conservatives.
"I'd be curious how that pans out - percentages of Trump anti-vaxxers who won't get vaccinated because they don't trust experts for no good reason..."
You mean like the numerous women of child bearing age, who are concerned because there has been no significant testing on how the vax affects women's ability to have children? When the experts contradict themselves regularly, do those experts really engender trust?
"vs the people in the black community who also won't get vaccinated but for the very understandable reason that black people have been unjust experimented on in the past by those claiming to be acting in the name of science..."
Interesting, you're suggesting that's it's irrational for the "Trump anti-vaxxers" to question the experts, but rational for the "black community" to question the experts. Are you really suggesting that the vax is some secret plot against the "black community"?
"I wonder who would lose more votes if such a rule were passed. Of course, the reason for any such rule would be safety and fortunately, we have a work-around for that. Let people vote by mail."
Yes, because that was such a spectacular success. Are you really suggesting that you'd force people to vote by mail if they wanted to vote in person?
"But the GOP has already demonstrated an unwillingness to do anything that would help more black people vote. We see."
Craig... "Besides, if one watches the mainstream media the only demographic group that isn't getting the jab is white, conservatives. "
Interestingly, I know that many in the black community are not getting vaccines BECAUSE I listen to the "mainstream media..." (ie, the media).
Also Craig... "What on earth makes you think it's appropriate, Christlike, or grace filled, to simply make this sort of shit up with absolutely nothing to support this slander. "
And he doesn't get the point or understand the irony.
Good Lord... he continues...
"Yes, because that was such a spectacular success."
Um, yeah, it was. THERE WAS NO WIDE SPREAD VOTER FRAUD. It's a big lie by a big con man who is glad to try to scare gullible people into overthrowing a legitimate election. What the hell is wrong with modern Trump-style conservatives? Have you lost all decency and integrity?
Craig...
"Are you really suggesting that you'd force people to vote by mail if they wanted to vote in person?"
Um, no. You can tell by the way I never said that. I said expanding voting by mail AS AN OPTION is one way to reduce crowds at the polls.
Fighting the pandemic is all about reducing exposure to crowds. That is one legitimate option to do that.
You can't be this blinded by petty partisanship that you don't recognize the dozens (hundreds?) of laws that the GOP has been passing to put RESTRICTIONS on voting, restrictions that would likely have the potential to reduce black voter turn out. Black people see it, just listen to them.
Truly, you don't see it?
You don't have a successful, nearly fraud-free election where the GOP loses and have that followed by laws to restrict voting that impacts black people disproportionately and pretend that it's unrelated.
"Um, yeah, it was. THERE WAS NO WIDE SPREAD VOTER FRAUD. It's a big lie by a big con man who is glad to try to scare gullible people into overthrowing a legitimate election. What the hell is wrong with modern Trump-style conservatives?"
I have no idea.
"Have you lost all decency and integrity?"
No. I have been looking at what's happening in AZ and NV among others and realizing that there are definitely questions that should be investigated.
"Um, no. You can tell by the way I never said that. I said expanding voting by mail AS AN OPTION is one way to reduce crowds at the polls. Fighting the pandemic is all about reducing exposure to crowds. That is one legitimate option to do that. What were you saying about slander?"
I was saying that for someone who's spent so much time bitching about slander, that you engage in it quite frequently. Of course, you inability to understand that a question is not slander raises other questions.
"You can't be this blinded by petty partisanship that you don't recognize the dozens (hundreds?) of laws that the GOP has been passing to put RESTRICTIONS on voting, restrictions that would likely have the potential to reduce black voter turn out."
1. You make this broad sweeping claim, but can't actually provide proof of it. 2. The fact that you can't even point to one that is intended or guaranteed to reduce black voter turnout. 3. You do know that your use of "potential" and "likely" undermine your claims, don't you?
"Black people see it, just listen to them."
Ahhhhhhh, the all black people think alike trope. The problem is that I do listen to "black people", and I don't find this monolithic consensus you seem to think exists.
"Truly, you don't see it?"
No, I don;t see what you imagine, but can't prove.
"Impressive, that you don't see the reflection. Less impressive... that you seem to prefer Ayn Rand's blasphemy to either Wendell Berry OR Jesus."
Right off the bat with a lie.
"I have not said that we should not pay attention to how to pay for things. You understand that, right?"
Whatever you say, Dan.
"'m merely saying that putting the financial bottom line as PRIMARY for any business or enterprise is sure to result in sick, troubled and bad business. UN-Impressive that you find this hard to believe or grasp."
In other words, being able to afford to fulfill the primary aspects of one's business or organization is merely an afterthought.
"The thing that so many worldly and conservative business types fail to understand is that the helping organizations, the social workers, the health workers, those who work with those with disabilities... WE WOULD LOVE TO BE OUT OF A JOB. If churches and charitable groups wanted to step up and solve these sorts of problems, GOOD ON THEM. I FULLY support them doing that as long as they don't do it in an ugly religious manner (refusing to serve LGBTQ folk, for example, refusing to help single parent families, etc). PUT me out of a job and I'd say God BLESS you. The thing is, in a capitalist society, there is too little incentive to do this work for the common good to the degree that it is needed. (That may be true for many non-capitalist societies, as well, by the way... I'm just most familiar with what ISN'T working here.) But in the meantime, it is in the interest of society - all of us - for all of us to pay to see these sorts of services implemented. We'd be foolish to cut off our noses to spite our faces."
Which is entirely unrelated to what I said. But incredibly self serving and kind of pompous.
"Yes, I'm very aware that when politicians - primarily conservative so-called "fiscal hawk-types" - fail to adequately fund needed services, that people like me could lose our jobs and the dozens of people I help become more independent and more fully enjoy the human rights so long denied them. That is one very strong reason for you and me and all good people to join together and stop voting for such so-called "fiscal hawk" conservatives and implement better, more humane, more rational policies that fund needed work. The problem then is not Doing Good Work. The problem is those who are opposed to supporting that who cut off their own noses to spite all our faces. Failing to pay for social services will inevitably cost society more so they sure aren't ACTUAL fiscal conservatives or they'd realize that. Or maybe they're just not very bright fiscal conservatives and aren't able to count the costs well. That's distinctly possible."
Again, choosing to NOT reply to what I actually said, ,but instead engage in unrelated, partisan, self aggrandizing, bullshit.
"Nope. Not my role and I don't know and I probably wouldn't be at liberty to say if I did."
If it's a 501c3 organization, it's public record. Is the existence of any endowments or "rainy day" funds also a secret?
"No, Medicaid and OVR don't currently cover the costs to do this work well, and we do it well. That's why we DO some fundraising and grant writing. Does that answer your question?"
Actually, the "No" answered my question quite adequately. The fact the you vaunted "new" paradigm is not economically self sustaining doesn't surprise me at all. How much effort is your organization putting into lobbying various governments for increases in medicaid/etc payments?
"Why do you ask?"
Because I'm trying to understand how this brave new paradigm works, and if it's self supporting. Obviously it's not.
"How does that take away from our bottom line being to do good work well?"
I guess acknowledging that your financial bottom line is critical to "doing your work well" doesn't seem contradictory to you. Of course, taxpayer money usually comes with strings, and is never guaranteed.
"And consider a group like ours. There ARE ways that we can make more money from the existing gov't models, IF mere money were our most important factor. We provide services to people in groups - that's what the insufficient funding from GOP types supports and encourages."
Again with the absurd partisan attacks. "
BUT, it's not the best way or even a good way to do the work we do. We refuse to do bad work that makes us more money."
So, your "good" work is done in a "bad" way because you refuse to place enough emphasis on the financial foundation to to this work in the "best way". You're simply satisfied with a way that isn't "good".
"Why? Because MONEY is not the primary bottom line. Doing good work well is."
Yet, you just acknowledged that more money would allow you to do work in the "best" way, but you're satisfied doing work in a way that isn't "a good way" because you choose to accept less than the "best" way.
"Seriously. Do you disagree with that? To disagree with the notion that any business or enterprises PRIMARY concern should be doing good work well... it just is so sick and un-Christian."
I guess if you want to argue against a straw man, you can.
"I just can't believe you're so tied to a partisan economic line that you'd deny Christ's teachings like that."
I guess I'm glad that you aren't the judge.
"Again, I suspect if you ask most conservative Christians (at least outside the hyper partisan ones) if doing good work well or just dollars should be the bottom line for Christian work, that you'd be on the outside of that group."
Ohhhhhh, the moving goal posts. I've been speaking about ALL businesses/organizations, not just Christian ones. Well done, I knew this would be coming.
"Can't prove it, but it's certainly what my conservative family and church and circles taught me growing up. "Don't be deceived. God will not be mocked. A man will reap whatever he sows." "Do not store up treasures here on earth... for wherever your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Or, if Jesus doesn't grab you, how about these Christian business people... . “People with purpose have energy,” he said. As the son of a preacher, Schoonveld used to presume that the world was divided into kingdom work and market work. “But the greatest commandment is that we love God and our neighbors,” he said. Now, his law firm focuses on the “triple bottom line” of providing great services to clients, having employees who want to work for the firm, and making an impact on the broader environment around them." Amen, fellas from Trinity Christian College, which sounds like a private conservative Christian college."
The above is so filled with assumptions and bullshit, that I see no reason to bother with it, beyond saying that if this law firm wasn't generating enough income, they wouldn't be able to do any of that.
"Do you recognize how ineffectual and impotent you make the church (and I guess everyone) appear by suggesting waiting for everyone to do the right thing and save themselves money by investing in the social services?"
1. I never suggested this in any way, shape or form. 2. I was responding to your claim that your organization was focusing on a new paradigm that leied primarily/exclusively on tax dollars instead of private contribution. I believe that you were trying to get out of "charity". 3. I'm surprised that you are unaware of how much "charity" work is being done, and done well, by all sorts of organizations that came from "The Church".
"But, if you can effect that change in the US population and cause folks to somehow step up and meet the needs, go for it, bubba. I fully support you. Just don't ask us to wait on you."
I guess the fact that US charitable giving set a new record in 2020 just isn't enough for you. Maybe the problem isn't the lack of available funding in the private sector, it's that y'all aren't trying hard enough to get it.
"In reality, the ONLY MEANS for those things to happen is the people making it happen. Without people doing good work, your money can rot in hell."
This statement is so mind mindbogglingly absurd, I have no response. I'll simply point out that it's entirely likely that you get paid to do your "good works". I'd daresay that you would not put as much time, effort, or energy, into these particular "good works", if you weren't getting paid to do so. Maybe we should just have the government give us money, so that we could all devote our time to "good works" without having to earn a living.
"And it may, anyway. Money is A means to help do good work, but it is not THE means to do the work."
No, but it's definitely one of the most important.
"Trump has nothing to do with doing Good Work. He is the antithesis of doing Good Work. That's not "blaming him," it's noting reality. The reality is that he is a shallow, selfish, greedy, arrogant, dishonest, not-very-bright, incredibly corrupt man, business owner and charlatan."
Then why do you spend so much time talking about him?
"The OPPOSITE of "Good Business," UNLESS you count the financial bottom line as THE primary measure (and even then, I doubt it seriously. His wealth is more bluster and scam than an actually sound business model). Trump is just the perfect example of what "$=BL" thinking leads to. He's not the only one."
That's quite a claim, I wonder if you can prove it, or if it's just more partisan bullshit?
"I suspect the same is true for Harvey Weinstein and a great number of other extremely wealthy men. What was it that one guy said once? Oh yeah. It's hard for a rich man to be saved. Says the guy who absolutely did not put the financial bottom line first and foremost."
Who said "It's hard for a rich man to be saved"?
Of course, that presumes you can identify what "saved" means.
1. It looks like 2-3 of the 9 staff are involved in raising and dealing with funding to some degree based on job titles.
"That would depend entirely on how it's raised. We could "help" more people now by congregating groups of folks with disabilities and absolutely make more money to do more of the same... But history and research has shown that this $=BL approach doesn't actually help. But, if the citizens of the US elect fewer so-called "fiscal hawks" (ie, GOP, typically), then policies could be changed to make more money go to do research-based help that truly does help more people, so YES, in that sense, it would. It probably depends upon the strings that are attached. Does that make sense?"
So, the answer to the question is that more money WOULD allow you to help more people (or to help the ones you do help better). Why is that simple reality so hard to acknowledge, and why does it require partisan attacks?
"How many people in your organization work it any of the following areas; Development, Fundraising, Government Relations, Grant Writing, accounting/budgeting?" 1-3 (people wear many hats) out of some 40 or 50 employees (again, not my department, but it's probably something like that)."
Yet, strangely enough, you really could give an answer.
"Medicaid and OVR, I think. I do know that we've received some large endowments over the years as well, but I don't know the specific numbers. Not my department."
1. It's interesting that the very first thing at the homepage of your organization is a fundraising appeal. It's right there in big bold orange and white letters. 2. In 2019, your organization didn't take in enough taxpayer dollars to merit a mention in it's annual report. 3. It appears that the majority of your revenue comes from charging people for services (unless "direct services" means something else). I'd guess that some of that is from charging folks the amount of their medicaid/etc payments. 4. It's interesting that your annual report focuses so strongly on $$$$$
"But again, ALL of this SEEMS to be you thinking that I'm saying "money doesn't matter... we'll just pay with honey and kisses!" Of course, I've never said that. ALL I've noted... well, surely by now, you understand what I've actually been saying. Ah heck: Money is not and should not be THE PRIMARY bottom line for ANY business or endeavor. Doing good work should be. Do you disagree with what I'm actually saying?"
All I'm saying is that if the business/charity doesn't generate enough revenue to sustain itself, then noting of value gets done. You're the one who's assumed that acknowledging this reality is un-Christian/ethical/toward and evil. Maybe the problem is that you're ignorance of how your organization works beyond "my department" is driving this pollyannaish view of reality.
Once again, ALL I'm saying is that doing good work should always be the bottom line. Yes, you have to have the money to do the good work, but doing the good work is the bottom line.
Last time...
Do you seriously disagree with this very simple, very common sense, very basic, very godly idea I'm suggesting?
If not, good. Your rational and moral. If you disagree with it, you are part of the problem.
If ever there was an example of Dan's inability to understand conservatism, this discussion is it. Dan seems to think that a focus on the bottom line is an obsession with conservatives, rather than simple logic and reason, for the reasons Craig's mentioned: nothing gets done when the money runs out. The bottom line is inextricably tied to the quality of work done by any organization. The point is to provide the highest quality products or services at the best possible price, which draws more customers thereby increasing the bottom line. A weak profit percentage indicates a potential problem with the quality or pricing of those products/services.
Charitable organization, and even "social service" organizations also have a great need to monitor the bottom line. "Good work" is reflected in the bottom line here as well as no such non-profit can expect to continue drawing tax dollars or charitable contributions if the work isn't "good", or high quality. Well, that is except from lefties who focus on the superficial promise rather than real results.
"Yes, you have to have the money to do the good work, but doing the good work is the bottom line. Last time... Do you seriously disagree with this very simple, very common sense, very basic, very godly idea I'm suggesting?"
No, because the "good work" never gets done, doesn't get done well, or doesn't reach enough people, if there isn't the financial wherewithal to support it. It's interesting that you call this a "godly" idea. Since God isn't looking for "good works" to begin with, I can understand why you didn't refer to it as a "Godly" idea.
"If not, good. Your rational and moral. If you disagree with it, you are part of the problem."
Begin with a false premise, end with a false premise.
Of course you're correct. After looking at the annual report by Dan's organization, as well as the web site, it seems reasonable to conclude that they are much more focused on the financial bottom line that Dan believes them to be. I haven't dug for their financial filings (if they are a 501c3) which would give me more information about their financial reserves and endowments. However, I'd be shocked if they don't have some financial reserves set aside.
The simple reality is that if there are not adequate financial resources, then NONE of the "good works" get done. Somehow this common sense notion is controversial.
23 comments:
????
What about it makes sense? (Correlation of vaccine and voting?)
What about it makes sense? Craig and his ilk are probably thinking that a lot of black folk are not getting the vaccines so it will help Craig's party to turn away the unvaccinated.
I'd be curious how that pans out - percentages of Trump anti-vaxxers who won't get vaccinated because they don't trust experts for no good reason vs the people in the black community who also won't get vaccinated but for the very understandable reason that black people have been unjust experimented on in the past by those claiming to be acting in the name of science... I wonder who would lose more votes if such a rule were passed.
Of course, the reason for any such rule would be safety and fortunately, we have a work-around for that. Let people vote by mail.
But the GOP has already demonstrated an unwillingness to do anything that would help more black people vote.
We see.
What I saw was that they should have COVID vaccine ID for voting. Was satire about being against voter ID
Glenn,
You may be on to something. Maybe that's why vaccination rates are so low among the black community/
"What about it makes sense?"
What about it doesn't make sense?
Should be be allowing hundreds of unvaccinated people to crowd polling places?
"Craig and his ilk are probably thinking that a lot of black folk are not getting the vaccines so it will help Craig's party to turn away the unvaccinated."
What in the hell are you talking about? What on earth makes you think it's appropriate, Christlike, or grace filled, to simply make this sort of shit up with absolutely nothing to support this slander.
Besides, if one watches the mainstream media the only demographic group that isn't getting the jab is white, conservatives.
"I'd be curious how that pans out - percentages of Trump anti-vaxxers who won't get vaccinated because they don't trust experts for no good reason..."
You mean like the numerous women of child bearing age, who are concerned because there has been no significant testing on how the vax affects women's ability to have children? When the experts contradict themselves regularly, do those experts really engender trust?
"vs the people in the black community who also won't get vaccinated but for the very understandable reason that black people have been unjust experimented on in the past by those claiming to be acting in the name of science..."
Interesting, you're suggesting that's it's irrational for the "Trump anti-vaxxers" to question the experts, but rational for the "black community" to question the experts. Are you really suggesting that the vax is some secret plot against the "black community"?
"I wonder who would lose more votes if such a rule were passed. Of course, the reason for any such rule would be safety and fortunately, we have a work-around for that. Let people vote by mail."
Yes, because that was such a spectacular success. Are you really suggesting that you'd force people to vote by mail if they wanted to vote in person?
"But the GOP has already demonstrated an unwillingness to do anything that would help more black people vote. We see."
Well, this is a lie. So there's that.
Well done Dan.
Dan embracing grace again.
Craig... "Besides, if one watches the mainstream media the only demographic group that isn't getting the jab is white, conservatives. "
Interestingly, I know that many in the black community are not getting vaccines BECAUSE I listen to the "mainstream media..." (ie, the media).
Also Craig... "What on earth makes you think it's appropriate, Christlike, or grace filled, to simply make this sort of shit up with absolutely nothing to support this slander. "
And he doesn't get the point or understand the irony.
Good Lord... he continues...
"Yes, because that was such a spectacular success."
Um, yeah, it was. THERE WAS NO WIDE SPREAD VOTER FRAUD. It's a big lie by a big con man who is glad to try to scare gullible people into overthrowing a legitimate election. What the hell is wrong with modern Trump-style conservatives? Have you lost all decency and integrity?
Craig...
"Are you really suggesting that you'd force people to vote by mail if they wanted to vote in person?"
Um, no. You can tell by the way I never said that. I said expanding voting by mail AS AN OPTION is one way to reduce crowds at the polls.
Fighting the pandemic is all about reducing exposure to crowds. That is one legitimate option to do that.
What were you saying about slander?
Craig... "Well, this is a lie. So there's that."
You can't be this blinded by petty partisanship that you don't recognize the dozens (hundreds?) of laws that the GOP has been passing to put RESTRICTIONS on voting, restrictions that would likely have the potential to reduce black voter turn out. Black people see it, just listen to them.
Truly, you don't see it?
You don't have a successful, nearly fraud-free election where the GOP loses and have that followed by laws to restrict voting that impacts black people disproportionately and pretend that it's unrelated.
We see.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/05/politics/black-voting-rights-suppression-timeline/
We see.
"Um, yeah, it was. THERE WAS NO WIDE SPREAD VOTER FRAUD. It's a big lie by a big con man who is glad to try to scare gullible people into overthrowing a legitimate election. What the hell is wrong with modern Trump-style conservatives?"
I have no idea.
"Have you lost all decency and integrity?"
No. I have been looking at what's happening in AZ and NV among others and realizing that there are definitely questions that should be investigated.
"Um, no. You can tell by the way I never said that. I said expanding voting by mail AS AN OPTION is one way to reduce crowds at the polls. Fighting the pandemic is all about reducing exposure to crowds. That is one legitimate option to do that. What were you saying about slander?"
I was saying that for someone who's spent so much time bitching about slander, that you engage in it quite frequently. Of course, you inability to understand that a question is not slander raises other questions.
"You can't be this blinded by petty partisanship that you don't recognize the dozens (hundreds?) of laws that the GOP has been passing to put RESTRICTIONS on voting, restrictions that would likely have the potential to reduce black voter turn out."
1. You make this broad sweeping claim, but can't actually provide proof of it.
2. The fact that you can't even point to one that is intended or guaranteed to reduce black voter turnout.
3. You do know that your use of "potential" and "likely" undermine your claims, don't you?
"Black people see it, just listen to them."
Ahhhhhhh, the all black people think alike trope. The problem is that I do listen to "black people", and I don't find this monolithic consensus you seem to think exists.
"Truly, you don't see it?"
No, I don;t see what you imagine, but can't prove.
"Impressive, that you don't see the reflection. Less impressive... that you seem to prefer Ayn Rand's blasphemy to either Wendell Berry OR Jesus."
Right off the bat with a lie.
"I have not said that we should not pay attention to how to pay for things. You understand that, right?"
Whatever you say, Dan.
"'m merely saying that putting the financial bottom line as PRIMARY for any business or enterprise is sure to result in sick, troubled and bad business. UN-Impressive that you find this hard to believe or grasp."
In other words, being able to afford to fulfill the primary aspects of one's business or organization is merely an afterthought.
"The thing that so many worldly and conservative business types fail to understand is that the helping organizations, the social workers, the health workers, those who work with those with disabilities... WE WOULD LOVE TO BE OUT OF A JOB. If churches and charitable groups wanted to step up and solve these sorts of problems, GOOD ON THEM. I FULLY support them doing that as long as they don't do it in an ugly religious manner (refusing to serve LGBTQ folk, for example, refusing to help single parent families, etc). PUT me out of a job and I'd say God BLESS you. The thing is, in a capitalist society, there is too little incentive to do this work for the common good to the degree that it is needed. (That may be true for many non-capitalist societies, as well, by the way... I'm just most familiar with what ISN'T working here.) But in the meantime, it is in the interest of society - all of us - for all of us to pay to see these sorts of services implemented. We'd be foolish to cut off our noses to spite our faces."
Which is entirely unrelated to what I said. But incredibly self serving and kind of pompous.
"Yes, I'm very aware that when politicians - primarily conservative so-called "fiscal hawk-types" - fail to adequately fund needed services, that people like me could lose our jobs and the dozens of people I help become more independent and more fully enjoy the human rights so long denied them. That is one very strong reason for you and me and all good people to join together and stop voting for such so-called "fiscal hawk" conservatives and implement better, more humane, more rational policies that fund needed work. The problem then is not Doing Good Work. The problem is those who are opposed to supporting that who cut off their own noses to spite all our faces. Failing to pay for social services will inevitably cost society more so they sure aren't ACTUAL fiscal conservatives or they'd realize that. Or maybe they're just not very bright fiscal conservatives and aren't able to count the costs well. That's distinctly possible."
Again, choosing to NOT reply to what I actually said, ,but instead engage in unrelated, partisan, self aggrandizing, bullshit.
"Nope. Not my role and I don't know and I probably wouldn't be at liberty to say if I did."
If it's a 501c3 organization, it's public record. Is the existence of any endowments or "rainy day" funds also a secret?
"No, Medicaid and OVR don't currently cover the costs to do this work well, and we do it well. That's why we DO some fundraising and grant writing. Does that answer your question?"
Actually, the "No" answered my question quite adequately. The fact the you vaunted "new" paradigm is not economically self sustaining doesn't surprise me at all. How much effort is your organization putting into lobbying various governments for increases in medicaid/etc payments?
"Why do you ask?"
Because I'm trying to understand how this brave new paradigm works, and if it's self supporting. Obviously it's not.
"How does that take away from our bottom line being to do good work well?"
I guess acknowledging that your financial bottom line is critical to "doing your work well" doesn't seem contradictory to you. Of course, taxpayer money usually comes with strings, and is never guaranteed.
"And consider a group like ours. There ARE ways that we can make more money from the existing gov't models, IF mere money were our most important factor. We provide services to people in groups - that's what the insufficient funding from GOP types supports and encourages."
Again with the absurd partisan attacks. "
BUT, it's not the best way or even a good way to do the work we do. We refuse to do bad work that makes us more money."
So, your "good" work is done in a "bad" way because you refuse to place enough emphasis on the financial foundation to to this work in the "best way". You're simply satisfied with a way that isn't "good".
"Why? Because MONEY is not the primary bottom line. Doing good work well is."
Yet, you just acknowledged that more money would allow you to do work in the "best" way, but you're satisfied doing work in a way that isn't "a good way" because you choose to accept less than the "best" way.
"Seriously. Do you disagree with that? To disagree with the notion that any business or enterprises PRIMARY concern should be doing good work well... it just is so sick and un-Christian."
I guess if you want to argue against a straw man, you can.
"I just can't believe you're so tied to a partisan economic line that you'd deny Christ's teachings like that."
I guess I'm glad that you aren't the judge.
"Again, I suspect if you ask most conservative Christians (at least outside the hyper partisan ones) if doing good work well or just dollars should be the bottom line for Christian work, that you'd be on the outside of that group."
Ohhhhhh, the moving goal posts. I've been speaking about ALL businesses/organizations, not just Christian ones. Well done, I knew this would be coming.
"Can't prove it, but it's certainly what my conservative family and church and circles taught me growing up. "Don't be deceived. God will not be mocked. A man will reap whatever he sows." "Do not store up treasures here on earth... for wherever your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Or, if Jesus doesn't grab you, how about these Christian business people... . “People with purpose have energy,” he said. As the son of a preacher, Schoonveld used to presume that the world was divided into kingdom work and market work. “But the greatest commandment is that we love God and our neighbors,” he said. Now, his law firm focuses on the “triple bottom line” of providing great services to clients, having employees who want to work for the firm, and making an impact on the broader environment around them." Amen, fellas from Trinity Christian College, which sounds like a private conservative Christian college."
The above is so filled with assumptions and bullshit, that I see no reason to bother with it, beyond saying that if this law firm wasn't generating enough income, they wouldn't be able to do any of that.
"Do you recognize how ineffectual and impotent you make the church (and I guess everyone) appear by suggesting waiting for everyone to do the right thing and save themselves money by investing in the social services?"
1. I never suggested this in any way, shape or form.
2. I was responding to your claim that your organization was focusing on a new paradigm that leied primarily/exclusively on tax dollars instead of private contribution. I believe that you were trying to get out of "charity".
3. I'm surprised that you are unaware of how much "charity" work is being done, and done well, by all sorts of organizations that came from "The Church".
"But, if you can effect that change in the US population and cause folks to somehow step up and meet the needs, go for it, bubba. I fully support you. Just don't ask us to wait on you."
I guess the fact that US charitable giving set a new record in 2020 just isn't enough for you. Maybe the problem isn't the lack of available funding in the private sector, it's that y'all aren't trying hard enough to get it.
"In reality, the ONLY MEANS for those things to happen is the people making it happen. Without people doing good work, your money can rot in hell."
This statement is so mind mindbogglingly absurd, I have no response. I'll simply point out that it's entirely likely that you get paid to do your "good works". I'd daresay that you would not put as much time, effort, or energy, into these particular "good works", if you weren't getting paid to do so. Maybe we should just have the government give us money, so that we could all devote our time to "good works" without having to earn a living.
"And it may, anyway. Money is A means to help do good work, but it is not THE means to do the work."
No, but it's definitely one of the most important.
"Trump has nothing to do with doing Good Work. He is the antithesis of doing Good Work. That's not "blaming him," it's noting reality. The reality is that he is a shallow, selfish, greedy, arrogant, dishonest, not-very-bright, incredibly corrupt man, business owner and charlatan."
Then why do you spend so much time talking about him?
"The OPPOSITE of "Good Business," UNLESS you count the financial bottom line as THE primary measure (and even then, I doubt it seriously. His wealth is more bluster and scam than an actually sound business model). Trump is just the perfect example of what "$=BL" thinking leads to. He's not the only one."
That's quite a claim, I wonder if you can prove it, or if it's just more partisan bullshit?
"I suspect the same is true for Harvey Weinstein and a great number of other extremely wealthy men. What was it that one guy said once? Oh yeah. It's hard for a rich man to be saved. Says the guy who absolutely did not put the financial bottom line first and foremost."
Who said "It's hard for a rich man to be saved"?
Of course, that presumes you can identify what "saved" means.
"Don't know. Not my department."
What a bullshit, excuse for an answer.
1. It looks like 2-3 of the 9 staff are involved in raising and dealing with funding to some degree based on job titles.
"That would depend entirely on how it's raised. We could "help" more people now by congregating groups of folks with disabilities and absolutely make more money to do more of the same... But history and research has shown that this $=BL approach doesn't actually help. But, if the citizens of the US elect fewer so-called "fiscal hawks" (ie, GOP, typically), then policies could be changed to make more money go to do research-based help that truly does help more people, so YES, in that sense, it would. It probably depends upon the strings that are attached. Does that make sense?"
So, the answer to the question is that more money WOULD allow you to help more people (or to help the ones you do help better). Why is that simple reality so hard to acknowledge, and why does it require partisan attacks?
"How many people in your organization work it any of the following areas; Development, Fundraising, Government Relations, Grant Writing, accounting/budgeting?" 1-3 (people wear many hats) out of some 40 or 50 employees (again, not my department, but it's probably something like that)."
Yet, strangely enough, you really could give an answer.
"Medicaid and OVR, I think. I do know that we've received some large endowments over the years as well, but I don't know the specific numbers. Not my department."
1. It's interesting that the very first thing at the homepage of your organization is a fundraising appeal. It's right there in big bold orange and white letters.
2. In 2019, your organization didn't take in enough taxpayer dollars to merit a mention in it's annual report.
3. It appears that the majority of your revenue comes from charging people for services (unless "direct services" means something else). I'd guess that some of that is from charging folks the amount of their medicaid/etc payments.
4. It's interesting that your annual report focuses so strongly on $$$$$
"But again, ALL of this SEEMS to be you thinking that I'm saying "money doesn't matter... we'll just pay with honey and kisses!" Of course, I've never said that. ALL I've noted... well, surely by now, you understand what I've actually been saying. Ah heck: Money is not and should not be THE PRIMARY bottom line for ANY business or endeavor. Doing good work should be. Do you disagree with what I'm actually saying?"
All I'm saying is that if the business/charity doesn't generate enough revenue to sustain itself, then noting of value gets done. You're the one who's assumed that acknowledging this reality is un-Christian/ethical/toward and evil. Maybe the problem is that you're ignorance of how your organization works beyond "my department" is driving this pollyannaish view of reality.
Once again, ALL I'm saying is that doing good work should always be the bottom line. Yes, you have to have the money to do the good work, but doing the good work is the bottom line.
Last time...
Do you seriously disagree with this very simple, very common sense, very basic, very godly idea I'm suggesting?
If not, good. Your rational and moral. If you disagree with it, you are part of the problem.
If ever there was an example of Dan's inability to understand conservatism, this discussion is it. Dan seems to think that a focus on the bottom line is an obsession with conservatives, rather than simple logic and reason, for the reasons Craig's mentioned: nothing gets done when the money runs out. The bottom line is inextricably tied to the quality of work done by any organization. The point is to provide the highest quality products or services at the best possible price, which draws more customers thereby increasing the bottom line. A weak profit percentage indicates a potential problem with the quality or pricing of those products/services.
Charitable organization, and even "social service" organizations also have a great need to monitor the bottom line. "Good work" is reflected in the bottom line here as well as no such non-profit can expect to continue drawing tax dollars or charitable contributions if the work isn't "good", or high quality. Well, that is except from lefties who focus on the superficial promise rather than real results.
"Yes, you have to have the money to do the good work, but doing the good work is the bottom line. Last time... Do you seriously disagree with this very simple, very common sense, very basic, very godly idea I'm suggesting?"
No, because the "good work" never gets done, doesn't get done well, or doesn't reach enough people, if there isn't the financial wherewithal to support it. It's interesting that you call this a "godly" idea. Since God isn't looking for "good works" to begin with, I can understand why you didn't refer to it as a "Godly" idea.
"If not, good. Your rational and moral. If you disagree with it, you are part of the problem."
Begin with a false premise, end with a false premise.
Art,
Of course you're correct. After looking at the annual report by Dan's organization, as well as the web site, it seems reasonable to conclude that they are much more focused on the financial bottom line that Dan believes them to be. I haven't dug for their financial filings (if they are a 501c3) which would give me more information about their financial reserves and endowments. However, I'd be shocked if they don't have some financial reserves set aside.
The simple reality is that if there are not adequate financial resources, then NONE of the "good works" get done. Somehow this common sense notion is controversial.
Post a Comment