Skip to main content

View Diary: Ari Fleischer Pulls Back the Curtain, Then Realizes What He's Done (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bloomberg is pissed about this too (2+ / 0-)

    and I understand his point - if Government money isn't there to fund these chaarities and you make it less attractive for private money to be donated - the bottom line is stuff doesn't get funded.

    In other words, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:02:07 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So which side fought for those cuts? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tribecastan, royce, vcmvo2, SilentBrook

      Any cut on it's own can look good or bad.  That Ari is singling out this one is clearly for politics, but there could be other benefits that were gained for this cut. For example, what if the unemployment extension was gained by this concession?  Don't have any idea if it was, just making an example.  

      Ultimately, the point is that Ari is making an all to familiar conservative pointthreat—let me have my way or I'm going to take my ball and go home.

      The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

      by Back In Blue on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:55:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  then bloomberg is dumber than i thought (9+ / 0-)

      why should government fund charities?  or more to the point, if one accepts that government funding charities is how things should be, then one accepts that the government has a part to play in providing for the general welfare.

      so why doesn't he just shut up about charities and have the government spend that money directly on...safety net programs that provide the same things, just without the charity middleman?  

      i'm thrilled ari said this; he just inadvertently made one hell of an argument for protecting the social safety net.  after all, if we can't count on charitable donations to bridge the gap, the government has to step in.

      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

      by Cedwyn on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:55:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why would you want a Government middleman? (0+ / 0-)

        There are plenty of charities and non-profits that more than 90% of contributions go directly to those in need - some are even 100%.  The Government would be lucky to hit 45% - then factor in all the benefits that go along with G-Jobs and your pissing up a rope.

        The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

        by ctexrep on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 12:25:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As a govt employee I am quite annoyed at comment (0+ / 0-)

          Did you just pull that 45% number out of your butt?

          Anyway, it's apples and oranges.

          My agency makes maps and collects water data -- everywhere, not just the areas that will make a profit. And has been collecting data back into the 19th century. Either business or non-profits can't provide the global scope a government program can.

          Charities that pass on 100% of their donations either just do pass-thru to other organizations -- or can do so because they are also funded by non-charitable donations, i.e. Federal, and other government grants, and foundation support.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site