4 ms·
Funny how the sub-text of this article is so clearly the pro-government bias of the reporter. "After all, we know that the only real way to effect social chang
by cpr 15y ago
Funny how the sub-text of this article is so clearly the pro-government bias of the reporter.
"After all, we know that the only real way to effect social change is through government action" could summarize its message.
Which is doubly funny considering how the first part of the article is outlining just how people are working outside of government to actually get things done.
- patio11 15y agoThe NYT prefers that the super-rich were a source of dumb money to fund enlightened government policies informed less by special interests and more by the proper custodians of our democratic heritage, journalists. Snark aside, the NYT is a great crusading liberal paper. All four of those final words are important all of the time.
- MaxGabriel 15y agoThe paragraph below really shows it, too. The premise is that money spent lobbying the government is an 'investment' that returns social services--but it ignores that the government first has to tax consumers to buy those social services in the first place, and the undesired effects of e.g. minimum wage laws. "A coming study by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, which advocates giving that aids the poor, looked at 100 social welfare organizations in 13 states. The groups spent about $230 million on advocacy and organizing for minimum wage laws, expanding tax credits for the working poor, and other programs. Those efforts, the study found, produced more than $26 billion in direct and indirect benefits to individuals, a “return on investment” of about 115 to one."