Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Are Charities for Suckers?
Quote | Reply
The American Red Cross leads the post-Katrina sweepstakes, quickly closing in on the $534 million it took in just after 9/11. But Red Cross spokeswoman Sheila Graham told the AP it needs another half billion "to provide emergency relief over the coming weeks for thousands of evacuees who have scattered among 675 of its shelters in 23 states."

Shelley Borysiewicz of Catholic Charities USA, which has raised $7 million thus far, also continues to solicit donations: "We don't want people to lose sight of the fact that this is going to take years of recovery, and we're going to be there to help the people who fall through the cracks."

What "cracks"? Why should New Orleans' dispossessed have to live in private shelters? We live in the United States, not Mali. There's only one reason flood victims aren't getting help from the government: because the government refuses to help them. The Red Cross and its cohorts are letting lazy, incompetent and corrupt politicians off the hook, and so are their donors.

It's ridiculous, but people evidently need to be reminded that the United States is not only the world's wealthiest nation but the wealthiest society that has existed anywhere, ever. The U.S. government can easily pick up the tab for people inconvenienced by bad weather--if helping them is a priority. That goes double for Katrina, a disaster caused by the government's conscious decision to eliminate the $50 million pittance needed to improve New Orleans' levees.

For our leaders the optional war against Iraq is such a priority, which the Congressional Budget Office expects to cost $600 billion by 2010. That's four or five Katrinas right there. (That's also where the levee money went.) Because rich people are always a political priority, their taxes have been slashed by $4 trillion over a decade--the equivalent of 32 Katrinas. So worried are our public servants about the tax burden placed on the rich that they're looking out for rich dead people. This is why they've gutted the estate tax that, at a cost of $75 billion annually, will run half a Katrina a year.

Trickle-down economists beginning with Milton Friedman shout "starve the beast," but while the social programs are put on a diet, the mean and powerful pig out more than ever.

Edited from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050914/cm_ucru/charitiesareforsuckers;_ylt=AkEeax4fciGnZcbgkbZchwMDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
Quote Reply
Re: Are Charities for Suckers? [jkca1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What idiot wrote this article? His estate tax numbers alone are off by about a factor of 30. The section of levee that failed was fully upgraded and complete, not in want of a $50,000,000 "pittance."

This guy obviously believes that government rather than private action is the solution to every ill. Having the government handle only 99% of the bill, 50 billion vs. 500 million, is just not enough for him.

Does he actually think social programs have been put on a diet? If so, it is a diet of force feeding.

The author is ignorant or a liar or both.
Quote Reply