If your earplugs or blinders weren't available, you may have heard or read the spewing from 18th century minds who favor the workhouse & debtor's prison (not that the contemporary economic system of wage-slavery & easy credit rip-offs is a huge improvement) & decry the "immoral" coercion of taxes, & gov't. assistance for individuals & families (as opposed, of course, to corporate welfare) whining about how wonderful the old days were, when the churches & private charities provided all the help any one could ever possibly need.
Fine, we'll let their fantasy world go undisturbed. But could someone answer these questions for us: What's the deal w/ "charities" for veterans? Are we (via the gov't. & our tax dollars) not "morally" obligated to provide every possible assistance to those who have sacrificed life, body parts, & mental health in the defense of (among others) those who would whine about the gov't. helping people? Are we not even more obligated when these sacrifices have been made in vain, as part of foolish, macho adventures that have not increased our safety, security, or international standing, but only wasted our proverbial blood & treasure?
Just Another Blog™ was astonished that charities for veterans, & their families, were needed at all. Why is even one penny of their needs not provided by all of us? Sadly, knowing a little of the nature of "giving" & non-profit organizations, we were not the least bit surprised by
this:
Eight veterans charities, including some of the nation's largest, gave less than a third of the money raised to the causes they champion[.]
[...]
One group passed along 1 cent for every dollar raised, the report says. Another paid its founder and his wife a combined $540,000 in compensation and benefits last year, a Washington Post analysis of tax filings showed.
Bear in mind,these are not dirty, poor druggies in the inner-city these organizations claim to help, these are people & families who have made the ultimate sacrifice, or the sacrifice of body parts &/or mind, for all of us, or so these outfits will no doubt tell you.
[Typed in whiny "glibertarian" voice]:
It seems to me that it's still an excellent idea to privatize all charity & giving. It's still "immoral" to "coerce" any one, it's much better to donate to someone who's clever enough to get his (& his wife's) needs met, to the tune of several hundred thousand smackers a year, before any funds trickle down to any one who might need a hand (or an arm, or a leg, or a new eye). Although coercing the recipients of giving into some sort of religious establishment may not be such a bad idea. More of your tax dollars to "faith-based initiatives," less to groups that won't make the indigent listen to a sermon (at least) before they get that bologna sandwich with the government cheese. That's called coercing "morality," and it's good coercion. Enough of that & the poor will realize it's their fault they're poor, the veterans will realize it's their own fault they didn't duck fast enough under fire, and all the problems will go away. More of these losers should be
falling on their swords:
[T]he military’s suicide rate is still lower than that of the general population.
After leaving the military, however, veterans appear to be at greater risk for suicide than those who didn’t serve. Earlier this year, researchers at Portland State University in Oregon found male veterans were twice as likely to commit suicide as their civilian counterparts.
We need more of that, and less whining with outstretched hands. Thank you, and God bless the Free Market. [End whiny "glibertarian" voice.]
No comments:
Post a Comment