Ras made this point on another thread and then yesterday this op-ed came out. I think it's worth a read, even though I'm not sure where I stand on it. It sure gets you thinking though.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ucru/20050914/cm_ucru/charitiesareforsuckers

By Ted Rall
Tue Sep 13, 8:06 PM ET

Leave Katrina Relief Efforts to Government

NEW YORK--Hurricane Katrina has prompted Americans to donate more than $700 million to charity, reports the Chronicle of Philanthropy. So many suckers, so little foresight.

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. The Katrina disaster, whose total damage estimate has risen from $100 to $125 billion, marks the culmination of Reagan's privatization of despair.

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.

Disaster relief is too important to be left to private fundraisers, with their self-sustaining fundraising expenses, administrative overhead (nine percent for the Red Cross) and their parochial, often religious, agendas. It's also way too expensive. In the final analysis, after the floodwaters have receded and the poor neighborhoods of New Orleans have been razed under eminent domain, major charities will be lucky if they've managed to raise one percent of the total cost of Katrina. Congress, recognizing the reality that only the federal government possesses the means to deal with the calamity, has already allocated $58 billion--over 70 times the amount raised by charities--to flood relief along the Gulf of Mexico. As Bush says, that's only a "down payment."

Cutting a check to the Red Cross isn't just a vote for irresponsible government. It's a drop in the bucket compared to what you'll end up paying for Katrina in increased taxes.

Granted, in terms of popularity of likelihood of success, trying to make a case against giving money to charities compares to lobbying against puppies. The impulse to donate, after all, is rooted in our best human traits. As we watched New Orleanians die of thirst, disease and anarchic violence in the face of Bush Administration disinterest and local government incompetence, millions of us did the only thing we thought we could to do to help: cut a check or click a PayPal button. Tragically, that generosity feeds into the mindset of the sinister ideologues who argue that government shouldn't help people--the very mindset that caused the levee break that turned Katrina into a holocaust and led to official unresponsiveness. And it is already setting the stage for the next avoidable disaster.

It's time to "starve the beast": private charities used by the government to justify the abdication of its duties to its citizens.

That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever read.


Disaster relief is too important to be left to private fundraisers, with their self-sustaining fundraising expenses, administrative overhead (nine percent for the Red Cross) and their parochial, often religious, agendas. It's also way too expensive.

And that's gotta be the dumbest statement ever made on the subject. Self-sustaining fundraising expenses? sounds like political parties. administrative overhead? sounds like federal beurocraices. parochial, often religious agendas? sounds like political cronies who get appointed to administrative positiions for which they have no qualification.

Who was there right away, ready to give relief to the victims of hurricane Katrina? Was it the government? Noooo, it was the Red Cross. Who is bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent on rebuilding the ravished areas? Is it the government? Noooo, it's the Red Cross.

So why does this author think that we should rely on the government to solve our problems? He's already proven WITH HIS OWN ARTICLE that the politicians and beurocrats have other priorities. The logical conclusion of this is that private charities do a better job of responding to disasters, and therefore that's where we should send our donations, not to the government.

Actually I think I agree with the author in principle.

I've been seeing Republicans on this board tell us for years now that the U.S. government shouldn't be responsible for making sure Americans are employed, have even a minimum of health care, or a bottom-line standard of living.

Now you guys are saying that the government should also not be responsible to Americans for national emergencies or disasters.

Then what the hell do we need a government for?

If this government cannot and will not do those things, we need to usher in a government which can and will.

Actually I think I agree with the author in principle.

I've been seeing Republicans on this board tell us for years now that the U.S. government shouldn't be responsible for making sure Americans are employed, have even a minimum of health care, or a bottom-line standard of living.

Now you guys are saying that the government should also not be responsible to Americans for national emergencies or disasters.

Then what the hell do we need a government for?

If this government cannot and will not do those things, we need to usher in a government which can and will.

I ask myself that every day.

The government's sole purpose should be to protect its citizens from violence and coersion. Everything else can be done more effectively and more efficiently by private entities.

Face it: government sucks. Trying to replace a sucky government with another government just doesn't make sense. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.

Actually I think I agree with the author in principle.

I've been seeing Republicans on this board tell us for years now that the U.S. government shouldn't be responsible for making sure Americans are employed, have even a minimum of health care, or a bottom-line standard of living.

Now you guys are saying that the government should also not be responsible to Americans for national emergencies or disasters.

Then what the hell do we need a government for?

If this government cannot and will not do those things, we need to usher in a government which can and will.heh-heh-heh...Spab rocks :nice:

Let me tell you a story about the founder of this great nation, George Washington. This is the story of how the great man died. He went out for a walk on a cold and rainy day, and when he came home, he didn't immediately take off his soggy wet boots. Because of this, he cought pnemonia. His family called a doctor, and the doctor applied a very popular healing technique caled "bleeding". I'm sure you've heard of it. That's where the doctor causes the patient to lose a lot of blood, believing (falsely) that since illness lives in your blood, you'll get better if you get rid of your blood. Of course, that didn't work. George Washinton just got sicker after the procedure. So, the doctor did it AGAIN. Then George got even sicker. So the doctor did it AGAIN. Then, lo and behold, George Washington died. And the doctor was very surprised, because he had applied a very well-known and popular medical techique for making sick people better.

And that's exactly what's happening to America today. Whenever things go wrong, people demand that we make the government bigger, believing (falsely) that the government can solve all of our problems. Then, when our misguided reliance on government causes the situation to get even worse, the people demand AGAIN that we make the government bigger! Then, when the country dies because we wasted all of our money on politicians and beurocrats, the people will be very confused. Because they applied a very well-known and popular treatment for fixing everything that can go wrong with a nation...

I ask myself that every day.

The government's sole purpose should be to protect its citizens from violence and coersion.


HERE is where we disagree. That is not the sole purpose of government, although it is the main purpose of government. The other important purpose of government is the transferring funds to ensure the public good.

Ahem. That's from government class, not my personal rhetoric.


Everything else can be done more effectively and more efficiently by private entities.


I disagree here too. Again, it's commonly known that there are some things for the public good, including some ag interests and utilities that cannot be done by the private sector for less.


Face it: government sucks. Trying to replace a sucky government with another government just doesn't make sense. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.

While that thought is true for some cases, I'd say for others this homily applies best. "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

And that's exactly what's happening to America today. Whenever things go wrong, people demand that we make the government bigger, believing (falsely) that the government can solve all of our problems. Then, when our misguided reliance on government causes the situation to get even worse, the people demand AGAIN that we make the government bigger! Then, when the country dies because we wasted all of our money on politicians and beurocrats, the people will be very confused. Because they applied a very well-known and popular treatment for fixing everything that can go wrong with a nation...


You are paritally correct here.

I think we can have a smaller, more efficient government, but I disagree that cutting 1% of the federal budget for social services to the already under-supported poor is going to help us get there.

Why not quit transferring working class and middle class taxes to the extremely wealthy? That would be considerably more of a help in budget-cutting. Moreso, why not take laws regarding sexuality and so forth and the agencies related completely out of government. Why should our government be in people's bedrooms? Why are we funding private religious groups to preach chastity in public schools? and so on.

In the end the honest people lose. The honest victims and the honest people who donate.

And we wonder why people arent always that charitable and keep to themselves so much....

Actually, the sideline to this is that those charities were already helping the poor in their communities. Now with the Katrina evacuees, there will be absolutely nothing left for the ordinary (and increasing number) of people who have and will continue to suffer from the effects of poverty in Bush's and the GOPs 'Utopia for the Elite'.

So why does this author think that we should rely on the government to solve our problems? He's already proven WITH HIS OWN ARTICLE that the politicians and beurocrats have other priorities. The logical conclusion of this is that private charities do a better job of responding to disasters, and therefore that's where we should send our donations, not to the government.


He's proven that the government is shirking it's responsibility when it comes to the welfare of it's citizens during times of crisis -- and we're basically absolving them of their duties by donating.

Actually, the sideline to this is that those charities were already helping the poor in their communities. Now with the Katrina evacuees, there will be absolutely nothing left for the ordinary (and increasing number) of people who have and will continue to suffer from the effects of poverty in Bush's and the GOPs 'Utopia for the Elite'.Yeah, I've already noticed this at the food pantry I volunteer at. :(

I don't know that the author has really "proven" anything; it's an op-ed piece. However I do think the author has a valid point and I was impressed with the paragraph regarding expenditures related in "Katrina-cost" that addressed government priorities.

While I agree in principle, I do think it is human nature to want to allieviate suffering of others. Wouldn't it be nice if politicians didn't see that "urge to give" as an inherent and exploitable weakness and use it to absolve the federal government of responsibility regarding national crises, so that donations would be "in addition to" instead of "a replacement for".

Perhaps it was the intent of God/karma/fillinyourown that Katrina be so huge that private donations couldn't possibly cover it hence forcing Americans to re-evaluate their own beliefs regarding their own values and the direction of our government's values.

Face it: government sucks. Trying to replace a sucky government with another government just doesn't make sense. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.amen to that.

Ras made this point on another thread and then yesterday this op-ed came out. I think it's worth a read, even though I'm not sure where I stand on it. It sure gets you thinking though.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ucru/20050914/cm_ucru/charitiesareforsuckers

By Ted Rall
Tue Sep 13, 8:06 PM ET

Leave Katrina Relief Efforts to Government

NEW YORK--Hurricane Katrina has prompted Americans to donate more than $700 million to charity, reports the Chronicle of Philanthropy. So many suckers, so little foresight.

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. The Katrina disaster, whose total damage estimate has risen from $100 to $125 billion, marks the culmination of Reagan's privatization of despair.

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.

Disaster relief is too important to be left to private fundraisers, with their self-sustaining fundraising expenses, administrative overhead (nine percent for the Red Cross) and their parochial, often religious, agendas. It's also way too expensive. In the final analysis, after the floodwaters have receded and the poor neighborhoods of New Orleans have been razed under eminent domain, major charities will be lucky if they've managed to raise one percent of the total cost of Katrina. Congress, recognizing the reality that only the federal government possesses the means to deal with the calamity, has already allocated $58 billion--over 70 times the amount raised by charities--to flood relief along the Gulf of Mexico. As Bush says, that's only a "down payment."

Cutting a check to the Red Cross isn't just a vote for irresponsible government. It's a drop in the bucket compared to what you'll end up paying for Katrina in increased taxes.

Granted, in terms of popularity of likelihood of success, trying to make a case against giving money to charities compares to lobbying against puppies. The impulse to donate, after all, is rooted in our best human traits. As we watched New Orleanians die of thirst, disease and anarchic violence in the face of Bush Administration disinterest and local government incompetence, millions of us did the only thing we thought we could to do to help: cut a check or click a PayPal button. Tragically, that generosity feeds into the mindset of the sinister ideologues who argue that government shouldn't help people--the very mindset that caused the levee break that turned Katrina into a holocaust and led to official unresponsiveness. And it is already setting the stage for the next avoidable disaster.

It's time to "starve the beast": private charities used by the government to justify the abdication of its duties to its citizens.

That's a good article, SpabSFW, with some scary information in it... Especially so in light of some politicians here who are making similar noises about private charity... and all for the sake of tax cuts for the rich. :mad:

So spab wants to punish the government by stopping donations to charity so that the government will be forced to collect more taxes?

That's....unique reasoning. Protest the government by forcing them to take more of our money.

I say we stop paying taxes and give it ALL to charity. I guarantee you THAT will get government attention.

lol Ras, are you never happy??? I saw this article and knew I had to post it for you because it was your argument last week.

I knew that's why you posted it, and that's what puzzles me. You think we should keep paying taxes- to the government- but stop giving to charities- in order to punish the government? Why not cut off the direct source of the problem?

I wouldn't say that I recommend that, but I do agree with the general gist of the article which is that government is shirking it's responsibilities and that perhaps we are enabling it to do so by picking up the difference.

It would never work practically however because people would have to be cold enough to make a point to let a huge number of innocent people die and be otherwise winnowed out of society at large. I don't think most of us have the stomach for it, nor do we have any reason to believe it would work, which might make a difference.

Sadly, the government knows this too.

HERE is where we disagree. That is not the sole purpose of government, although it is the main purpose of government. The other important purpose of government is the transferring funds to ensure the public good.

Ahem. That's from government class, not my personal rhetoric.



Well then your teacher was a socialist. Political ideology is a matter of opinion, and just because your teacher is a communist, that doesn't mean you have a right to expect the government to transfer you some funds.

I wouldn't say that I recommend that, but I do agree with the general gist of the article which is that government is shirking it's responsibilities and that perhaps we are enabling it to do so by picking up the difference.


The fallicy with your reasoning is, the government gets its money from YOU. You seem to think that all the government's money should come from the uber-rich. But it doesn't. All taxes are ultimately collected from the middle class. Whether the money goes through the government or the red cross, it's still YOUR money that's being used to relieve the disaster. And it gets spent more effectively by the red cross than it does by the government.

Well then your teacher was a socialist. Political ideology is a matter of opinion, and just because your teacher is a communist, that doesn't mean you have a right to expect the government to transfer you some funds.

LOL no.

It just means I went to college, Feenix. When and if you get around to college government courses, you'll see.

LOL no.

It just means I went to college, Feenix. When and if you get around to college government courses, you'll see.

Yeah, I went to college. But I studied engineering, not liberal arts, so I didn't take any "government" courses. I did take economics courses, though. Maybe that's why I'm a capitalist.

I took econ courses, lots and lots and lots of them. Macro, micro, econ of povrty, international econ, political econ yada yada. That's why I'm a a social democrat. ;)

The thing about transferring money, they take money (ideally from alll of us) and use it on, say, defense. I mean having an armed service isn't free. That in and of itself is a what one would call a transfer payment. The government takes our money and transfers it to soldiers and admin and related costs for the public good of defense. See?

Actually I think I agree with the author in principle.

I've been seeing Republicans on this board tell us for years now that the U.S. government shouldn't be responsible for making sure Americans are employed, have even a minimum of health care, or a bottom-line standard of living.

Now you guys are saying that the government should also not be responsible to Americans for national emergencies or disasters.

Then what the hell do we need a government for?

If this government cannot and will not do those things, we need to usher in a government which can and will.

The federal government was NEVER meant to do any of the things you cite. The states were to be independent entities cooperating in a union, with a weak federal government doing little more than sustaining the military. Without the huge vacuum of the federal government, states would have more resources closer to the problem and would be able to get them there without the red tape we have to deal with now. The federal government cannot be law simply move into a disaster zone and take over operations. It has to work with local authorities.

I took econ courses, lots and lots and lots of them. Macro, micro, econ of povrty, international econ, political econ yada yada. That's why I'm a a social democrat. ;)

The thing about transferring money, they take money (ideally from alll of us) and use it on, say, defense. I mean having an armed service isn't free. That in and of itself is a what one would call a transfer payment. The government takes our money and transfers it to soldiers and admin and related costs for the public good of defense. See?

They are required to maintain defense by the Constitution. That is one of the FEW things the federal government is actually required to do.

Do you understand that it's a transfer payment?

Do you understand that the U.S. Constitution allows for transfer payments for an undefined 'public good'?

Do you understand that it's a transfer payment?

Do you understand that the U.S. Constitution allows for transfer payments for an undefined 'public good'?

Of course it's a transfer payment. All money confiscated from my paycheck and spent outside of my control is a "transfer payment". I also understand that the persons who wrote the words "public good" in the Constitution did not mean it was a blank check for the federal government to attempt to meet every need, as it has been twisted to mean today.

Do you understand that it's a transfer payment?

Do you understand that the U.S. Constitution allows for transfer payments for an undefined 'public good'?
I don't think they do understand, Spab. I am amazed that someone said your teacher was a Communist! :rofl:

You know, I actually understand the rationale behind their stance, and I do think they have this sincere and mistaken impression of what government can and should do. I don't think it's so much funny that they are mistaken, but sometimes you can't help but shake your head.

Before I went to college I knew and cared nothing about econ and I entered into my first course thinking it would be a boring thing I had to plod through to satisfy the requirements for my BBA which was actually slanted for programming. However, once I started the courses, I ended up taking almost all my electives in the econ field or tangently related courses like psychology.

Economics determines almost every single thing about your life that matters. People who haven't studied it have no idea why their lives are difficult; why they might have difficulty getting a job, or why that job doesn't pay them enough to live, or why when they found one that did, it was later outsourced or downsized They don't understand what "the common good" is or why it's remotely useful, nor do they seem to have any grasp of how much they actually benefit from government every single day.

They can't conceive of the concentrated and deliberate effort a group of powerful people will make to profit by corrupting legislation with absolutely zero interest in the good of the country or most of the people in it, because your average American can't look at the legislation and see what it means in the long run. Frankly, it's rather frustrating. Basic macro and political econ ought to be required courses.

The only solution to not wanting to pay taxes in this country is to leave, because to be a U.S. citizen you have to live by the Constitution of the United States. THIS CONSTITUTION:

Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Obviously what is in the interests of the "general welfare" of the U.S. is up to interpretation and through the years, representatives elected by Americans have made those determinations however correct or however flawed. If someone has a problem with current legislation, they are certainly entitled to work or contribute towards electing representatives to change it or even to run for office themselves. However they are NOT entitled to throw over the Constitution the country was founded on, nor are they entitled to break the law by not paying taxes.

Taxes are not coercion or theft. Taxes are payment for services rendered or to be rendered. Not to pay them is theft from the entire people of the United States.

For people who truly want to go live off the land somewhere with no government-sponsored defense, government-sponsored education, clean water, regulation of industry or utilities etc, they need to move to another country. Somalia is a fine example of a country which has no nasty government regulations, laws, or taxes. Knock yourselves out.

It's so simple. You get what you pay for. New Orleans got rooked. That part needs to be sorted out.