"Charities are for Suckers" Food for thought from Ted Rall

[barbaraann]

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.
...
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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050914/cm_ucru/charitiesareforsuckers


I have donated to Katrina Relief through the veterans working with Michael Moore but I do believe our government should at least communicate and guarantee a minimum level of aid to every Katrina victim.

[SmokingJacket]

1. He has a point.

It bothers me that charities that depend on the whims of private giving take on so much of the humanitarian burden. I mean, it makes sense for the Red Cross to go into war-torn, impoverished countries... but it's shameful that they even have a *role* domestically.

Why can't we take care of our own people?

Nevertheless, I'm reluctant to use this as an excuse not to donate. I'd rather lobby for a stronger more effective govt, and until we get that, give what I can to the people who are doing the good work.

[barbaraann]

2. It's bitter food for thought, isn't it?

n/t

[smb]

4. Er, We DO....

Why can't we take care of our own people?

Where do you think the Red Cross gets the money? Sheesh.

[barbaraann]

5. It's not enough.

That's the point.

[SmokingJacket]

7. I meant the collective "we"

"We" as a group, not we as a set of individuals. Why should the kindest, most giving individuals shoulder the entire burden of caring for the storm victims?

While self-aborbed types can just decide they'd rather use the money to take a vay-cay.

We don't have a choice about whether we shoulder the burden for this war, do we? I don't see war-lovers paying more for bombs -- but I see soft-hearted people coughing up WAY more than they can afford to help the storm victims.

All I'm saying is, we a have a collective-payment structure in place for wars, roads, fire, police, etc. Seems like disaster aid should also be among those priorities.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

3. Wow, and I thought I was being a sh*thead for thinking this too

OK, I still may be a sh*thead, but at least I'm not alone.

BTW: I did the "sucker" thing and contributed but I had these thoughts after hearing the RW mantra calling for private donations and wondered about them shirking gov't responsibility.

[mestup]

6. ditto sh* head here, too.

I had the same thoughts, but felt too intimidated to voice them. I encouraged as many people as I could to donate to the Humane Society for the pet relief efforts.

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

8. That's what I have done

given to the humane and other animal related outfits.