The GOP is focused like a laser beam on getting people to donate to private organizations like the Red Cross. Do they do this out of a sense of civic engagement, feeling that these organizations are the ones that can help us in times of need? Sort of. They also push the Red Cross, etc. because they are in the midst of a concerted long-term campaign to kill the government (or, drown it in the bathtub) and they will try anything they can to stop people from looking to our government as a source of help — ever.
And they will do anything to stop us from fairly taxing the super rich in order to maintain the status quo. Paris Hilton and her ilk must be allowed to dive into their money bins without any sense of responsibility while the middle and lower classes foot the bill. It’s the con way.
Neocon…
No, the conservative view point is that private donations should be a supplement to government, not an alternative. And the meme is not that government is competent, but that it cannot be all powerful or omnicient.
It’s easy enough to argue with folks if you are allowed to assign your own fanciful versions of their positions, eh?
Cons always like to push private donations as an alternative to government coordination- certainly the two should work together.
However, the reason for the limited welfare state that we have is that there is not enough charity to go around. Even if there was, we still need government to help coordinate their efforts, and to make sure that everyone had access to help (for example, helping Jews that are snubbed by certain Christian Charities).
The con meme seems to be the government (them) is incompetent, so you’re on your own. The wealthy can take care of themselves, and the poor, well, you should have been born to different parents I guess. We’ll pick up your body in a few weeks when we get to it.
Ahem, not that government is incompetent…
You are one hateful fat man, Oliver.
’stop us from fairly taxing the super rich’
Who’s “us” and who are the “super rich”. Last campaign the super rich were those households with incomes above $200,000. Surely a lot to some people, but hardly enough to pay bills and put two kids through college at once. Hardly seems super rich, i.e.
And as far as “us” is concerned, Republicans control the taxing entity, Congress. So we conservatives and Republicans are “us”. Have you, then, finaally seen the light and come over to the side of responsibility and personal accountability? Welcome aboard if so. You will get your “Eat the Poor” and Euthanize the Homeless” bumberstickers along with your autographed picture of Karl Rove (it ages but he doesn’t) in the mail shortly.
Dugger
Sorry for the double postage…
As a conservative, I take full responsibility for my mistake.
Dugger,
I have a question. Have you ever served in the military with a Hield Smith from New Orleans/Metarie?
Once again the progressive canard about the rich not paying their fair share of taxes rears its ugly head.
Let s look at the FACTS, not feel good lies (once again):
The top 1% of taxpayers pay 34% of all income tax.
The top 5% pay 53% of all income tax.
The BOTTOM 50% pay a whopping 3.5% of all income tax.
The top 1% pays 10 TIMES the amount the bottom 50% pays.
How much is enough to slake the thirst of the redistributionists?
Oliver, you truly are ignorant. If you pull up the legislation that created FEMA, you’ll find that there are two private organizations that are explicitly referenced as being responsible for disaster recovery: The Salvation Army and the Red Cross.
That is why the “neocons” (which apparently includes Clinton & HW Bush?) are pushing for donations to the private charities.
St Wendeler
WW,
No. My time was in Georgia, Ohio and Texas. A lot of trips to Florida (Hurlburt), Pentagon, and Ft Bragg/Pope.
Dugger
RiR, there’s one FACT that you keep leaving out of this tiresome little rant. We all know what it is. Why are you pretending?
loopy: the reason for the limited welfare state that we have is that there is not enough charity to go around.
1) You’ll never know that if government doesn’t keep its nose out of other people’s business.
2) Perhaps there would be more “charity to go around” if the were more money to go around, i.e., less taxes — period.
3) Wm F. Buckley rightfully pointed out years ago that the government “piggy backs” on existing social welfare programs, be they secular NGO’s, religious, or city or state – run. The program was already there — all they need are funds, not bureaucratic interference. regional administrators, a central administrative office, and all the other crap that means less help, and more taxes; less help, and more invasion of privacy.