Posted on 03/31/2008 4:55:50 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
If only we were all Norwegians, we'd have the high taxes we need and all the welfare we want. But because America is diverse, we selfishly worry that members of other ethnic groups might benefit from our tax dollars. As a result, our taxes aren't high enough and our welfare spending too low.
That in a nutshell is Eduardo Porter's thesis in his NY Times column of today, Race and the Social Contract. Porter, a graduate of Mexico's UNAM who began his journalism career with the Mexican news agency Notimex, is now a member of the NYT's editorial board.
Porter believes that the US needs to make "big investments in the public good" to deal with the "enormous challenge" of "globalization." But that goal is thwarted by our selfishness that in turn is prompted by our diversity.
The columnist begins by noting that, when it comes to taxes and public spending, we rank toward the bottom among developed countries. Now, you might cheer that fact, but Porter sees it as a bad thing. And he cites a number of studies suggesting that in ethnically homogeneous countries, citizens support higher taxes and public spending levels because they're confident their cohorts will be the beneficiaries. But in the more diverse USA, "racial and ethnic antagonism all too frequently limit" public spending.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Selfish, ethnocentric Americans don’t spend enough on welfare ping to Today show list.
when i was working construction back in the ‘70’s, a guy i worked with had a saying when the bums would try to panhandle money from us.........” Get a job, hippie!!!”...still applies today
Article States, “Americans are not less generous than Europeans. When private charities are included, they probably spend more money for social purposes than Europeans do. But philanthropy allows them to target spending on those they personally believe are deserving, instead of allowing the government to choose.”
Selfish Americans . . .
“And he cites a number of studies suggesting that in ethnically homogeneous countries, citizens support higher taxes and public spending levels because they’re confident their cohorts will be the beneficiaries.”
Hence, my tagline.
What’s so telling is that Porter looks upon Americans’ ability to direct their charitable dollars to people they feel are deserving as a BAD thing! He wants the government in charge of charity.
Is this puke a U.S. citizen? Oh wait, the Slimes doesn’t care.
Mexico is the shining beacon of corruption and despotism. Viva Zapata
Typical leftist who wants to make everyone equally poor by grabbing money from those who work for it and giving it to those whose only work is reaching out their hands to take the money.
Maybe if he returned to Mexico and took all of his compatriots with him we’d be more “homogenous” and would be able to better provide for our own brethren. Thus, Senor Porter should set the example and go back to Mexico.
“he cites a number of studies suggesting that in ethnically homogeneous countries, citizens support higher taxes and public spending levels because they’re confident their cohorts will be the beneficiaries.”
Cohorts? Cohorts? How about lazy? How about ‘on the dole’? How about ‘without ambition’?
Sorry. This drivel doesn’t pass the smell test. The only selfishness I see is those entitlement-minded ‘takers’ who expect the rest of us to give willingly of the fruits of our own labors, so they don’t have to support their own lousy decision making.
“near the bottom” among the developed countries in terms of levels of taxation? Yep, I’d say that’s a good thing. But it could be a lot better with lower taxes, IMO.
These idiots never chase their own arguments to their logical conclusions. And that conclusion is everyone on the dole, no one working, and the whole house of cards collapses.
Of course how else can the sorry a$$ politicos keep their base voters coming back for more. It is a bad thing for career thieves aka politicians.
“But philanthropy allows them to target spending on those they personally believe are deserving, instead of allowing the government to choose.”
HELLLOOOOO! Just what we need, another stinkin’ liberal elitist out and out saying the government knows better what to do with our money that we do. I swear. Hippie duche. These people never get it. Ever.
If African Americans are going to vote as an African-American bloc, educate their children in African-American studies to the exclusion of American history, worship in self-segregated churches, and generally shun association with mainstream society, why should I be going out of my way to support them?
Ditto the Hispanics.
Under any tax scheme you care to postulate, non-Minority Americans are going to wind up paying the lion's share of taxes and under any distribution scheme imaginable, will be recieving far less that a proportional share of government largesse. If our minority populations are going to insist, constantly, on being apart and isolated from non-minority Americans, who pay all the bills, why shouldn't those bill-payers feel less enthusiastic about the whole thing?
I am done with guilt as a motivator, and I suspect a lot of other folks are, too. I give charity through Church, not through government.
“But in the more diverse USA, “racial and ethnic antagonism all too frequently limit” public spending.”
I’m sick to death of these philosophers of victimization spouting this crap. In my entire life, in my travels around this country and around the world, I’ve come to know one thing...the opportunities available to EVERYONE, regardless of race, color, ethnicity, are greater in the US than ANYWHERE I’ve ever been. That was true fifty years ago, and it remains true today.
I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that the incessant arguing over these non-issues comes from those whose agenda is predicated on preserving an ‘us versus them’ mentality, supported by fallacious logic and dependant on examples from history that have no bearing on today’s society.
Accepting personal responsibility for one’s own actions is the proper basis on which to build a sustainable social structure.
How about "near the top" among the developed countries in letting people keep their own money? How about "near the top" among the developed countries in productivity and standard of living (not at all coincidentally, IMHO). How about "near the top" among developed countries for freedom, political stability and individual liberty?
Keep your hand out of my damn pocket, Eduardo. We’re not that kind of friends.
But philanthropy allows them to target spending on those they personally believe are deserving, instead of allowing the government to choose.
Well I'll be .... !!!
I figured there was a reason I only donate to the IRA, but I didn't know what it was.
[If this needs a sarcasm tag .... get help quick]
Don’t you know - we have an obligation to take care of those who won’t take care of themselves!... /sarc
I assume you mean to your individual retirement account, not to the Irish Republican Army!
;^)
Uh .... yeah .... sure .... of course ;-)
Hear! Hear!
Heartily agree.
A socialist Democrat.... sounds like a perfect fit. I presume he's homosexual?
Can’t believe what I read ping.
I doubt that the soldiers who fought the Japanese during WWII might agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.