…you thought wrong.
His latest rant urges people not to give money to charity, on the grounds that it lets the government “off the hook” of taking care of everything. :rolleyes:
Anything important must be done by the government because people are too stupid to do it themselves? So, he’s a communist. Well, we all know how well that Soviet Union thing came out.
I don’t want to say that Ted Rall doesn’t make any good points in this diatribe, but at a minimum, he might want to work on his consistency. For example:
“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…”
“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.’”
And by the way, who is Ted Rall? I don’t think I got the memo.
Serious question: is this any loonier than the Republican ideal that the government services should be rolled back and private charity step up to fill the gap? I can’t tell for sure from the article, but maybe this is a parody of that idea?
The Republican notion of charities stepping up, as I understand it, is the charities do what they can,* then * the government picks up the shortfall. the aid is still available, only it takes the initial burden off the budget. IOW, after a need is recognized, charities step in first with aid, then the government comes in to pay the rest. Again, that’s how I understand it to be.
Ted is loony all right. But even a blind squirrel gets a acorn on occasion.
http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/2005/09/03/
I do believe that he did have a good point-we’re spending all this money on the war in Iraq, when our own people need it a hell of a lot more.
Why spend billions to kill people rather than millions to help people live?
Plus, why does he draw political cartoons when his ‘art’ is so clumsy and childish?
Ted Rall mocks the tragedy of 9/11 with his “Terror Widows” cartoon. Horrible outrage. What a cad. What a jerk.
…except, as it turns out, that a lot of these widows did make out like bandits following the tragedy. And a lot of donors who sincerely wanted them to get back on their feet took pretty serious offense.
Ted Rall mocks the memory of Pat Tillman by calling him a chump for signing up. Doesn’t he realize the price he paid so that ordinary Americans could live in freedom? What an unspeakable jerk! How dare he mock such a heroic death!
…except that he was killed in Afghanistan, a place the current Administration all but abandoned, by friendly fire so, uh, no, it wasn’t exactly heroic. And we failed to eliminate the Talibain or capture Osama Bin Laden, so what exactly was the point of Afghanistan, anyway? In any case, I doubt you’ll find anyone in the NFL who still thinks that giving up a lucrative contract to get killed in a pointless war is a good move.
And now this! He ridicules private contributions! He thinks the government has an obligation to help its citiznes! The nerve! The gall!
…the freaking unvarnished truth, last I heard. (I work for the federal government, I get paid. American citizens pay taxes to the federal government, they get services, which includes timely disaster relief when needed. It’s pretty simple.) In fairness, though, his real beef seems to be that the people who should’ve been on relief efforts yesterday are…you guessed it…fighting an increasingly pointless war in Iraq.
This is the SDMB. We take things in the proper context and use our damn brains. You’d all do well to remember that.
(Yeah, I guess I’m a loony too. You got a problem with that? 
)
I don’t think you get that this is in response to the Republicans’ trying to spin their own incompetence and cronyism at FEMA as justification for their agenda of gutting (or “privatizing”) vital federal programs including disaster rescue and relief. I’ve heard more than a few suggest that this level of incompetence is nobody’s *fault * - just the nature of government - they call it “bureaucracy”. As if it had nothing to do with the Administration’s corrupt installation of political hacks at FEMA and the skeletonizing of federal budgets. And, they disengenuously claim, the only disaster relief that “worked” were private charities and “faith-based” programs.
This is where the fight over charities comes in. The Republicans are pushing charities, because they want to continue to defund government programs. And they know that particular spin is really hard for their opponents to fight, because nobody wants to harsh on a charity. But uh, even if the charities “worked,” (and I don’t know that they did - there hasn’t been any real coverage on them) on what scale did they “work”? Did the Red Cross airlift people off of rooftops? Was it the Red Cross Guard that secured New Orleans? Bused people out of the superdome? Set up the Astrodome? The needs of the Katrina disaster were and are way out of the league of private charities and obviously required a coordinated (and competent, and fully-funded) federal response.
Have you ever thought of the absoutely insane amount of money America has? More important, the amount that Americans are giving to charity?
There is money. And you know it. (I hope)
uglybeech, I remember watching the news before the hurricane hit. The reports were people were told they would have to plan on being in the Superdome for at least a day. Those in charge sending them to the Superdome told them one day.
I imagine a few (not any fair-minded folks here) people hoping the worst to score some political points, Such is the Pit, I guess
Probably because it’s late but I’m not clear which point you’re arguing.
Actually, I believe the Red Cross is that big, and could have done most of it… if they had been allowed into New Orleans.
The point is absurd.
Yes, the government failed, both in terms of preparation and (more arguably) in current ongoing relief. How does not supporting private attempts to amerliroate the situation help anything?
Why can’t I help the Red Cross now and demand that FEMA do better during the next disaster? Because if the Red Cross steps in less people will die and the importance of FEMA will be diluted? I’m not nearly that callous.
Because Ted Rall is a Leftist. In his view, the government should exist to take our money and dole it out as best benefits society, as determined by the righteous and wise cabal of Leftists who should rule it.
If you support private initiatives and charities, you de facto contribute to the belief that private industry can act as efficiently or as well as the government. It does not matter whether this is correct or not; so long as most people persist in the belief that private charities are worthwhile, we will never achieve the shining City on the Hill that is complete government authority and oversight.
Ergo, if you wish to acheive the true social enlightenment of Leftism and the Beneficient Nanny State, you must stop contributing to charities.
C’mon, duffer. Historically, charities have never done more than slap a band-aid on widespread social ills. I don’t see why the Repubs New Miracle Charities will be any different. The ultimate result will just be further dismantling of the social safety net, which is the real goal of the program. Whether the charities actually help or not is not important to the Bushies.
I think I understand the main point of your argument. All I’m saying is that all the safety nets in place now will never go away. At least not in the sense that people will die by the millions when bad things happen. There will always be money to help people out. The Red Cross and Salvation Army aren’t new organizations. God forbid you ever need them, you will see how much they can actually do for a city when the shit hits the fan.
Thank you, John Corrado, for making the point I tried to make (albeit, with a joke) in post #2.
Charity has been around a long time. Rich/Poor fights over tragedies are also nothing new. It has happened in the past and will again in the future. Private charity gives the people a means to help others.
OT question what’s the 1889 3.7 million worth in todays dollars? (Curious)