Mystery 'Tips for Jesus' tipper identified in NYC

Renae · Dec 19, 2013

soot said:
You know of a private welfare organization that's funneling better than half a trillion dollars a year to the needy?

Even if you combine the charitable help provided by the 50 largest charity organizations in America (The 50 Largest U.S. Charities List - Forbes) the total of their charitable giving doesn't even come close to the help the U.S. government doles out in any given year.

The total expenditures (including charitable assistance but also including overhead) of those 50 organizations come to a hair under $30 billion. The U.S. welfare "budget" is about $550 billion (on the modest side, I've also seen the number placed as high as $1.1 trillion).

Hands down the U.S. government runs the largest charity in the world.

It's not charity, it's bribes for votes with other peoples money.

But what's that got to do with a nice guy giving folks a little something extra for the holidays?

blackjack50 · Dec 19, 2013

MrVicchio said:
It's not charity, it's bribes for votes with other peoples money.

But what's that got to do with a nice guy giving folks a little something extra for the holidays?

Can't have private citizens showing that it is better to teach a man to fish. Disrupting the welfare system. All that jazz.

soot · Dec 19, 2013

stonewall50 said:
So $30 billion is an insignificant amount?

If the "need" is actually for more than $1100 billion?

Yeah, I'd say $30 billion is pretty much as good as useless.

If the need is for $1.1T and voluntary charitable giving amounts to $30B it accounts for just a hair over 2.7% of the yearly need.

That comes to just under 10 days worth of funding for charitable programs.

So if things were left up to private charity the needy would be good for about a week and a half and then they'd lose everything and be living under bridges panhandling for food and selling their children into indentured servitude so that the kids might have some small chance of cobbling together a better life than their parents could hope to provide for them.

Now, I understand that if the government were to do away with its charitable programs the tax rate could (would?) fall, people would be left with more money in their pockets, and then those who are charitably inclined could (would?) make greater charitable contributions.

A couple of questions though...

Would the increased charitable giving of those who are so inclined be sufficient?

Would the giving of those who are charitably inclined make up for the lack of mandatory giving that is currently required (through taxation) of those who are not so inclined?

Remember that we're only assuming that they'd pick up the slack.

And what would happen if another 2008/2009 (or worse) came along again when it looked like, or when the scare-mongering media convinced feeble-minded Americans (most of the population) that, the bottom might really be falling out?

When Americans with money, even good Christian Americans, started pumping their money into gold, guns, MREs, and etc. in preparation for the "end of times" would they still be thinking about making charitable contributions to the need to a sufficient degree, if at all, to meet not only the existing need but the increased need that hard times create?

blackjack50 · Dec 19, 2013

soot said:
If the "need" is actually for more than $1100 billion?

Yeah, I'd say $30 billion is pretty much as good as useless.

If the need is for $1.1T and voluntary charitable giving amounts to $30B it accounts for just a hair over 2.7% of the yearly need.

That comes to just under 10 days worth of funding for charitable programs.

So if things were left up to private charity the needy would be good for about a week and a half and then they'd lose everything and be living under bridges panhandling for food and selling their children into indentured servitude so that the kids might have some small chance of cobbling together a better life than their parents could hope to provide for them.

Now, I understand that if the government were to do away with its charitable programs the tax rate could (would?) fall, people would be left with more money in their pockets, and then those who are charitably inclined could (would?) make greater charitable contributions.

A couple of questions though...

Would the increased charitable giving of those who are so inclined be sufficient?

Would the giving of those who are charitably inclined make up for the lack of mandatory giving that is currently required (through taxation) of those who are not so inclined?

Remember that we're only assuming that they'd pick up the slack.

And what would happen if another 2008/2009 (or worse) came along again when it looked like, or when the scare-mongering media convinced feeble-minded Americans (most of the population) that, the bottom might really be falling out?

When Americans with money, even good Christian Americans, started pumping their money into gold, guns, MREs, and etc. in preparation for the "end of times" would they still be thinking about making charitable contributions to the need to a sufficient degree, if at all, to meet not only the existing need but the increased need that hard times create?

Making a few fun assumptions (1 being that the need is actually $1100 billion...and that the inefficiency in the system and abuse thereof does not account for that need).

But let me ask you. Does all that BS, because that is all it really is regarding government welfare, take away from the fact that this guy was doing a good deed and people started to trash him for doing so? Come on.

And $30 billion isn't useless. It is a huge sum of money.

soot · Dec 19, 2013

MrVicchio said:
It's not charity, it's bribes for votes with other peoples money.

Semantics and hyperbole.

But what's that got to do with a nice guy giving folks a little something extra for the holidays?

It was a response to this:

Mr.Nick said:
I think progressives cant stand the fact that individuals instead of government are helping people.

That’s a pretty stupid statement to make both in general but more importantly in the context of this thread because nobody is really criticizing the fact that this individual helped people.

People poked some fun at the God voodoo but nobody said a disparaging word about the substance of what the guy did.

But on a broader scale it speaks to the wider lunatic fringe conservative notion that the government shouldn’t be helping people at all; that help for the need should be entirely addressed through private charity and philanthropy.

And my argument is that private charity and philanthropy would be wholly insufficient given the scope of the problem and historical precedent.

soot · Dec 19, 2013

stonewall50 said:
Making a few fun assumptions (1 being that the need is actually $1100 billion...and that the inefficiency in the system and abuse thereof does not account for that need).

Sure it's an assumption.

My first statement in that comment was a question.

I don't know what the actual need is, and I agree with you that there's probably some degree of line loss and a greater degree of abuse.

But even if we assume that the need is only $300 billion rather than $1.1 trillion we're still left with a situation where $30 billion only gets us through a couple of months.

Then we have to make assumptions about whether or not private charity and philanthropy would step in and fill the need.

If it does, great.

If it doesn't we've got people dying of starvation on the side of the road in the tens of millions.

I don't know if that's a bet we could or should take.

But let me ask you. Does all that BS, because that is all it really is regarding government welfare, take away from the fact that this guy was doing a good deed and people started to trash him for doing so? Come on.

No, doesn't take away from it at all.

Good on him.

He's a good Christian guy and is to be admired for what he's done.

And $30 billion isn't useless. It is a huge sum of money.

It's a huge sum of money to have in a personal investment portfolio.

It's a pittance on the global, or even national, economy.

Renae · Dec 19, 2013

soot said:
Semantics and hyperbole.

No, reality check.

soot said:
It was a response to this:

That’s a pretty stupid statement to make both in general but more importantly in the context of this thread because nobody is really criticizing the fact that this individual helped people.

People poked some fun at the God voodoo but nobody said a disparaging word about the substance of what the guy did.

But on a broader scale it speaks to the wider lunatic fringe conservative notion that the government shouldn’t be helping people at all; that help for the need should be entirely addressed through private charity and philanthropy.

And my argument is that private charity and philanthropy would be wholly insufficient given the scope of the problem and historical precedent.

The problem is you have this errant belief that conservatism is about not helping people, and this is why you fail miserably. You believe that PEOPLE are pathetic, incapable and REQUIRE assistance that only "Government can bring".

Have you ever stopped to consider that by taking enough money to "deal with the issues" you're really just making things worse?

soot · Dec 19, 2013

MrVicchio said:
The problem is you have this errant belief that conservatism is about not helping people...

I neither believe nor have said any such thing.

I don't think conservatism is about not helping people.

But I don't believe that it is about helping people either.

I believe that there are a minority of people on both/either side of the aisle who will make more than the most uselessly token effort to help people and that the majority couldn't really care less whether or not people get help.

...and this is why you fail miserably.

At what?

You believe that PEOPLE are pathetic, incapable and REQUIRE assistance that only "Government can bring".

I believe that a great many people are pathetic and incapable, yes.

I believe that they could do with assistance, yes.

Though I don't think it's required in moral terms.

I believe it's required if those of us who are able to maintain a decent standard of living don't want to live in what appears to be a third world ****hole.

I believe that only the government will actually provide it because historical precedent indicates that to be the case.

Before government stepped in and assumed the role of helping people most indigent/impoverished/homeless people got no help at all, or so little help as to be practically useless.

If you disagree then prove it to me.

Provide some examples of modern day nations where all public assistance is handled through private charitable/philanthropic means and where the results are something to aspire toward, and then provide examples from American history where Americans reached out and took care of the most pathetic and least capable among the population on a large (national) scale to a degree sufficient to allow them not to live like animals.

I'm certainly not going to trust that people will do it just because some anonymous guy on the Internet claims that that's what conservatives do when every indication is to the exact contrary.

Have you ever stopped to consider that by taking enough money to "deal with the issues" you're really just making things worse?

Worse than things were for the poor prior to 1930?

LMMFAO

katsung47 · Dec 19, 2013

Excon said:
I think you are just jealous that he can tip so well.

Jealous? Never.

was identified by a New York City waiter as Jack Selby, former PayPal vice president.

It reminds me of Emilie Parker's fund raising announcement. Since Police on 12/14/2012 blocked access to Sandy Hook Elementary, I don't think Robbie Parker could know his daughter's death that day and inform his community friend in UTAH to open a donation account in bank and establish a fund raising page in Facebook. It was a pre-planned project. Money oriental is one characteristic of the Feds. They used to use the firm controlled by them.

Original funding page in facebook (the content I copied):

Joined Facebook 12/14/2012
Native of Utah, Emilie Parker was killed in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elem. We are seeking to assist the Parkers by setting up the Emilie Parker Memorial Fund at America First Credit Union in Utah.
Description
Instructions on the Emilie Parker Memorial Account at America First Credit Union (account #5001359). For AFCU members making a transfer, select the Savings as the type of account, and the last name on the account is Parker. For non AFCU members, the AFCU routing number is 324377516. This account has been shared by several Utah media outlets and can be trusted. Thank you.

A PAYPAL account is also available if you use the email brookeprothero@yahoo.com

https://www.facebook.com/EmilieParkerFund/info

Excon · Dec 20, 2013

katsung47 said:
Jealous? Never.

It appears otherwise.

katsung47 · Dec 29, 2013

glen65 said:
No, as I told you on the other board you dumped this on, it says God Bless.
I figured you would have it scattered all over the net.

More study found: the signature of two receipts are from different people while they all use the same stamp of "tips for Jesus". Obviously it's the supvisors of different area were distributing payment to informants for the same organization.

Dezaad · Dec 29, 2013

katsung47 said:
Did you see the signature? He thinks he is God.

You are incredibly dishonest in this post! Others have pointed out the details as to why, but I wanted to make the accusation clearly. This kind of dishonesty is an insult to your fellow users of this forum.

Morton · Dec 29, 2013

Werd.

katsung47 said:
Jealous? Never.

It reminds me of Emilie Parker's fund raising announcement. Since Police on 12/14/2012 blocked access to Sandy Hook Elementary, I don't think Robbie Parker could know his daughter's death that day and inform his community friend in UTAH to open a donation account in bank and establish a fund raising page in Facebook. It was a pre-planned project. Money oriental is one characteristic of the Feds. They used to use the firm controlled by them.

Original funding page in facebook (the content I copied):