Don't Donate to Katrina Victims
You can file this in the "I never looked at it from that point of view" file. Charities are for suckers. The article argues it's supposed to be the government's job to support those less fortunate, as that is one of the purposes of collecting taxes, and shouldn't be up to the collection of private donations.
Government has been shirking its basic responsibilities since the '80s, when Ronald Reagan sold us his belief that the sick, poor and unlucky should no longer count on "big government" to help them, but should rather live and die at the whim of contributors to private charities....
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...
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.
It's kind of a cold-hearted view. When people are in trouble, it's human nature to want to help. It does sound that the government has a plan now, although some would argue it's a bit late.
This post was brought to you by Consumerism Commentary. More comments (8) may be found here.
Will you take this pledge? Can you assert that you will give 10% of your income over $100,000 to charity -- any charity? This is what hundreds of people have done, and I'd imagine many more will, at ten over one hundred. Read
There are an increasing amount of Katrina-related donation scams out there. Please, please educate yourself before giving. If you are not already familiar with the organization to which you choose to give, a certain amount of due diligence should be done. Read
A new report by the Giving USA Foundation announces that charitable giving incerased 5 percent to almost $250 billion in 2004, and that doesn't even take most of the tsunami relief into account. Read
This is the social-ist viewpoint. Lets let the government take over everything, they are better at it right? If you want that world, Europe is already most of the way there.
I would argue the opposite. If the government wasn't already taking so much of the private money under the promise of using it to help people and then flushing 80% of it down the toilet, the outpouring of private donations would dwarf what they are now. How much of the 200 billion that the government is planning to spend do you think is going to get wasted?
Here is a good test for who you think does a better job. If you were going to give 100 dollars to the relief effort would you sooner give it to a private organization that is down there or add it to the relief packages that the government is currently passing. Lets all donate some extra money to push that 200 billion dollar relief package from the government to 300 billion. Anyone want to sign up for that? Count me out.
It's stuff like this that really bothers me:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/British_Katrina_aid_to_be_b_0920.html
HUNDREDS of tons of British food aid shipped to America for starving Hurricane Katrina survivors is to be burned, Britain's Daily Mirror reported Monday
If that story is true, its so ironic because we complain about how our food aid to dictator controlled countries are intercepted by the warlords and powerful tyrannts and never reach the people.
That is so evil. We would never try to steal the food from the starving people. Instead we tie it up in red tape to protect the people and then destroy it.
Different means, different motives, same result.
What is the road to hell paved with again? Government paperwork maybe? :)
A government that is primarily responsible for taking care of everybody has a name: communism. Russia & China tried that. It doesn't work. Now they're starting to do things the free market way...
JC
I disagree with this 100%. Government is inefficient at best, wasteful at worst, at spending money. I should know... I'm a federal employee. I believe that most people with money give to charities not for the tax incentives-- but b/c it makes them feel good OR makes them look good as a PR move. Either way, if wealthy individuals are making more money, they will donate more money AND it will get to those who need it faster. Sorry to get into religion here, but I believe the Bible tells me to give to people in need, not governments. This guy is a communist. Last time I checked, that has failed...
Less taxes, more charitable contributions like D-Man said. I'm new here, so if you guys don't like links on your site, my apologies...
www.fairtax.org
