"When you failed to do it for the least of these here brethren of mine..you failed to do it for me"
--J.C.
Word from the libertarians, eh? Interesting read. I definitely agree that we need to be taxed less so we can give more on our own accord.
Unfortunately I feel that the eurotrash will never understand this concept, especially in light of what Yawn Egghead said the other day....
Great article. The government has no right to give away what it has already stolen.
Spot on!!!
My wife's mother was wanting to donate $500 till we showed her that the government was committed to at least $35 million. She said fine and will now take her $500 to Vietnam and hand out rice and clothing as she does each year.
Check this out,
http://www.trimonline.org/congress/articles/crockett.htm
I will respectfully disagree with this. Sometimes goverments can do things that are much harder for individual groups -- mostly things on a grand scale.
and regardless of whatever pussbrain at the UN has to say about US being stingy -- screw 'em. Personally, I'd be happy to beat every two-faced UN turd with a baseball bat for their arrogance, but the tsunami victims should not suffer for UN stupidity
I hope the government doubles, triples, quadruples the aid just to p/o those tightwads (and help the victims).
So many of my tax dollars are going there and to so many other similar causes I figure they got it coverd. I spend what they leave me on more pressing local issues.
....and you will note that, no matter how much of our money the government gives away, it's NEVER enough, anyway. We taxpaying Americans, whose wealth is gathered and squandered on boondoggle after boondoggle, are just too "greedy" and "stingy." The world takes our money, offers a tip of the hat, and then spits in our faces.</p>
And one more reason why the Libertarian Party cannot even get .5% of the vote. Feh!
I promise that if a poll were taken, the vast majority of taxpayers would agree to have some of their tax dollars go to help the tsunami victims.
If it's not your money, it's not charity.
The Salvation Army South Asia Disaster Fund
While I understand conceptually the case this article makes, I guess I'm just not be that conservative then.
The clear disconect between heart and mind isn't something I'll go along with.
Bingo. It really frosts my niblets; this tadue about the "US" contributing to the relief of other citizens of other nations.
That is what "private" charaties are and should be all about. Giving our "tax" dollars when we have un-solved issues and national debt here at home absolutely makes no sense. More so, like I said, it really bothers me. And it has nothing to do with the "Christian" concept of giving as the second poster tries to assert.
Grrrrrrrrrrrr
The United States has committed $35 million plus 12 ships to this effort (with an operating cost of perhaps $10 million for this operation). This works out to about a nickel a citizen.
A lot of good can be accomplished if things get to the troubled spots NOW, rather than waiting for fundraising to be accomplished. For example, if clean water sources can be established before Cholera becomes rampant, then a lot of lives will be saved.
President Bush has urged Americans to make private donations. I expect the private donations to absolutely dwarf the initial government donation.
The relatively small initial contribution of money from the government means that the money that I personnally donated will go to food and shelter rather than battling an outbreak of diseases.
IOW, Bush is making efficient use of my charitable contribution.
Idiot Libertarians.