Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100116/ts_alt_afp/haitiquakeaidusobamabushclinton_20100116173918

yeah the president can always send me to other countries to help out. but they always forget which country they were elected in. as in how come they cant ever send money to families here who are poor or and that have no homes or cant afford hospitals.

yes i know its nice to help out others. but we do it to much to everyone else and we never get anything in return except for a thank you.

when was the last time a country sent us money for katrina or something big happening here ?

I understand your feelings, it is strange that politicians will often deny such aid to those who need it most in the home country and are so quick to send out to foreigners. Can't tell you the reasoning mate confuses me just as much as it confuses you.

Say where the hell is Obama getting this money anyways?

Originally posted by Liberator

Say where the hell is Obama getting this money anyways? damn good question

I have stated on more than one occasion that I thing the U.S. should stop all foreign aid until we have fixed all of our problems at home.

Having said that, we should create a safe "medium" for the citizens to be able to make voluntary contributions, on their own.


In fact, that's not such a bad idea. The Government could create a foreign aid system, for countires that experience emergencies, and it would be completely voluntary and untouchable by other programs. The interest could be used for education and healthcare, but ONLY the interest. WEEE!



Originally posted by Liberator
Say where the hell is Obama getting this money anyways?


China and Japan.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have stated on more than one occasion that I thing the U.S. should stop all foreign aid until we have fixed all of our problems at home.

China and Japan.





i agree our problems should come 1st since this is our country. not saying our problems are more important than other contries im saying as in if another country has a problem and they are paying to help out with situations over there before helping the U.S. i would respect that.

i dont understand why we help out others so much and still the rest of the world pretty much hates us and despises us even after we help out.


and my guess the money is coming from is our taxes

A bunch of countries are sending money to Haiti right now. It's the right thing to do.

The US would be despised a hundred times more if the richest country in the world refused to help out in a circumstance like this.

Giving international aid in the event of a disaster is ethically and diplomatically advantageous, and comparing one-off disaster relief to ongoing social problems at home is a false comparison and a poor reason not to help out.

Amazing that this is questioned, really. As BF says, it is simply the right thing to do.

And not that this really changes that basic point... but as it happened, dozens of countries gave the US aid after Katrina. The UK donated millions of dollars worth of food, for example, and Russia had a ton of help ready almost immediately. Massive aid packages came from the likes of Canada, China and Australia, and smaller efforts were made the world over.

I understand the ethical side of it, and I wholeheartedly agree with the aid it's just I wonder sometimes if they forget about the poor and deprived in their own countries too.

Originally posted by Liberator
Say where the hell is Obama getting this money anyways?
Taxes

Originally posted by chomperx9
i agree our problems should come 1st since this is our country. not saying our problems are more important than other contries im saying as in if another country has a problem and they are paying to help out with situations over there before helping the U.S. i would respect that.

i dont understand why we help out others so much and still the rest of the world pretty much hates us and despises us even after we help out.


and my guess the money is coming from is our taxes


We are despised because we mettle by attaching quid pro quos to the money we give. The US almost NEVER gives foreign aid out of kindness.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The US would be despised a hundred times more if the richest country in the world refused to help out in a circumstance like this.

That's not true at all. Humans can be altruistic and benevolent in a time of crisis...when the crisis happens to others. The CITIZENS of the US have proven time and time again that we are willing to step up to the plate to help others in times of need. I know, odd that US citizens could care about others like that...but still not pass some sort of decent social healthcare reform.

What would actually happen if the US cut off all foriegn aid for disasters: the people would step up to the plate, as they have been doing for a while. Cept, we might even do it better.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Giving international aid in the event of a disaster is ethically and diplomatically advantageous, and comparing one-off disaster relief to ongoing social problems at home is a false comparison and a poor reason not to help out.

I agree with almost everything except for your last statement there.


Giving taxpayer money to a another nation is the same exact thing as giving taxpayer money to another nation. The difference is the reason.

Also, the taxpayer did not have a say. While most people would be more than happy to not only send money, but also volunteer to go assist (My company routinely sends employees all over the world during disasters, to help in the recovery processes...but, we weren't sending anyone, physically, this time...however, we did massive amounts of work with Katrina.); the taxpayer still did not get a choice. Also, many churches do well to aid in these horrible events, too.

I can, however, say that that money might one day be needed here. I could be directly impacted by something that happens here, in my own country, and that money was needed. For instance: healthcare.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
Amazing that this is questioned, really. As BF says, it is simply the right thing to do.

Helping peole in a time of need is not being questioned: it's where the help is coming from, that is questioned.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And not that this really changes that basic point... but as it happened, dozens of countries gave the US aid after Katrina. The UK donated millions of dollars worth of food, for example, and Russia had a ton of help ready almost immediately. Massive aid packages came from the likes of Canada, China and Australia, and smaller efforts were made the world over.

That's great. I'm all for what I'd like to call, selfless acts of righteousness. But, how much of that food came from the states (not to be confused with the United "States", and how much was from private organizations?

I don't think anyone, nor should they, be arguing against helping others when help is GREATLY needed.




Let me put it a different way: I don't want to be forced to do good; I want to do it of my own volition. I have no-problem with a state-run fund that collected funds on a voluntary basis, only. That would be awesome and would probably be successful with the right backing.




Now, having said that, I think we should be doing everything we can to help. That's why I contacted my employer to see if we were sending people directly to help in Haiti.

You aren't being forced to do good, though. No one is.

Originally posted by BackFire
You aren't being forced to do good, though. No one is.

Indirectly, I am. What if I don't want to? What if I'd rather be selfish and spend that money on my...I dunno....children for their healthcare?

Obivously, my thoughts on the matter are absurdly libertarian.

You're free to be selfish with your own money. They aren't using your money. Your kids aren't losing healthcare because the government is sending some money for disaster relief.

Originally posted by BackFire
You're free to be selfish with your own money.

Which includes how taxes are spent.

Originally posted by BackFire
They aren't using your money.

Technically, they are using "our" money.

Originally posted by BackFire
Your kids aren't losing healthcare because the government is sending some money for disaster relief.

How do you know?

And, yes, my kids are definitely losing money for healthcare if any amount of government money is spent on something other than healthcare.





But, that's missing the point. I'd rather directly help with my money, time, and help garner support from others, than to have my money taken and given away for something I didn't approve. Since I'm a voter, I do have a say and I can approve or disapprove what is done with that money....even if that say is small, it's still my right...and yours.

They are using their money. Once you give your money to the government through taxes is ceases to be yours. It is theirs. You no longer have control of it. It becomes collective, and so is spent as the representatives of our country deem fit. Obviously, and rightfully so, most said representatives felt some should be sent to aid a devastated and poor country, as has most of the rest of the civilized world. As it should be.

Originally posted by BackFire
They are using their money. Once you give your money to the government through taxes is ceases to be yours. It is theirs. You no longer have control of it. It becomes collective, and so is spent as the representatives of our country deem fit. Obviously, and rightfully so, most said representatives felt some should be sent to aid a devastated and poor country, as has most of the rest of the civilized world. As it should be. their money that came from us in the 1st place that we earned.

Originally posted by BackFire
They are using their money. Once you give your money to the government through taxes is ceases to be yours. It is theirs. You no longer have control of it. It becomes collective, and so is spent as the representatives of our country deem fit. Obviously, and rightfully so, most said representatives felt some should be sent to aid a devastated and poor country, as has most of the rest of the civilized world. As it should be.


No, they are using "our" money. The government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.


And, I do have indirect control of it. Sometimes, it can even be direct if I'm influential enough.


Also, our government sending money to the people is not "right" or "wrong", as that is just an argument of moral relativism.

I think we'd be MORE right in allowing the people to directly involve themselves in foreign aid.

He's also sending troops to help establish order. But god knows if this was Bush every left wing nut job would be screaming OMGz INVANSION!!!!!

Politics aside...Helping Haiti is a good thing.

Honestly, dadude, you sre trying to give it a veil of responsibility, but your aregument just amounts to pure selfishness that does you great discredit. Also claiming that the same effect would be had if there was no Government programme because private hands would help out is staggeringly naive and a deeply unintelligent position. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that is not true. And the reason you cannot compare one-off relief to ongoing social problems is the scale. The money going to Haiti will do bugger all to solve massive social problems in the US. It does, however, fulfill the US's very right and necessary international social and moral obligations, which is part of being a state and part of being part of responsible, moral humanity. In the end, all your argument does here is lower my opinion of you. It is an extremely poor view to hold. If you honestly disapprove of US money being spent on disaaster relief such as this, then dress it up as a political view all you like- but it just makes you a bad person.

The aid I mentioned from other countriess was entirely state aid, btw.

I wont donate a dollar as I feel most charities are scams or take out too much of the donation for their own personal expenses.

Shit the red cross CEO makes over half a million dollars a year.

edit: Plus Obama donating money is pretty much like me donating it anyway.

Originally posted by KidRock
I wont donate a dollar as I feel most charities are scams or take out too much of the donation for their own personal expenses.

Shit the red cross CEO makes over half a million dollars a year.

edit: Plus Obama donating money is pretty much like me donating it anyway. technically we are already donating money. the money that is being given to them is from our taxes. but of course it goes to helping out other countries in need and not people in our nation that cant afford health care or homes or clothing. of course MR change was supposed to take care of the health care situation make sure everyone has health insurance but that will never happen because lots of the time they wont accept you if your over weight or have any type of medical condition. of course the people who need it the most dont qualify for it.

if oprah wants to donate money thats fine but using money that comes from us towards another nation before supporting our nation i dont agree to.

Originally posted by chomperx9
technically we are already donating money. the money that is being given to them is from our taxes. but of course it goes to helping out other countries in need and not people in our nation that cant afford health care or homes or clothing. of course MR change was supposed to take care of the health care situation make sure everyone has health insurance but that will never happen because lots of the time they wont accept you if your over weight or have any type of medical condition. of course the people who need it the most dont qualify for it.

if oprah wants to donate money thats fine but using money that comes from us towards another nation before supporting our nation i dont agree to.

Racist

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Honestly, dadude, you sre trying to give it a veil of responsibility, but your aregument just amounts to pure selfishness that does you great discredit. Also claiming that the same effect would be had if there was no Government programme because private hands would help out is staggeringly naive and a deeply unintelligent position. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that is not true. And the reason you cannot compare one-off relief to ongoing social problems is the scale. The money going to Haiti will do bugger all to solve massive social problems in the US. It does, however, fulfill the US's very right and necessary international social and moral obligations, which is part of being a state and part of being part of responsible, moral humanity. In the end, all your argument does here is lower my opinion of you. It is an extremely poor view to hold. If you honestly disapprove of US money being spent on disaaster relief such as this, then dress it up as a political view all you like- but it just makes you a bad person.

The aid I mentioned from other countriess was entirely state aid, btw.

Your post does nothing but ignore pretty much everything I've said.


Also, it is a deeply naive and astoundingly ignorant position thinking that the government can handle charity better than a nicely run private organization.


And, your post does not lower my opinion of you, at all.

Also, it is highly unlikely that you tried to actually go to Haiti to assist as I did.


So, if you're done being self-righteous, why don't you actually read my posts on the topic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, they are using "our" money. The government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.


And, I do have indirect control of it. Sometimes, it can even be direct if I'm influential enough.


Also, our government sending money to the people is not "right" or "wrong", as that is just an argument of moral relativism.

I think we'd be MORE right in allowing the people to directly involve themselves in foreign aid.

You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the government sending money is somehow stopping people from directly involving themselves. As if it's an either/or option. One has nothing to do with the other.

All you have control of is voting for what person you want deciding where the money goes, and you're shit out of luck because every politician worth his weight in shit is going to back sending money to Haiti in a time like this.

I'm extremely glad that your position is that of the minority and holds no bearing on the actual flow of events, for if our country decided to withhold money from Haiti on the basis that a few people want to celebrate their right to be selfish and cruel, I would be greatly ashamed of this country. And it would simply cause the rest of the world to look down upon us, and they'd be right to do so.

all the moral righteousness in here is making me gag.

<3 you all

Originally posted by BackFire
You are creating a false dilemma by implying that the government sending money is somehow stopping people from directly involving themselves. As if it's an either/or option. One has nothing to do with the other.

Cool. I'm glad you're being mature about it and trying to have an adult discussion.

To address your point, I am not creating a false-dilemma. I don't have to as they already exist...and it spades.

Originally posted by BackFire
All you have control of is voting for what person you want deciding where the money goes, and you're shit out of luck because every politician worth his weight in shit is going to back sending money to Haiti in a time like this.

No, that's not it. I also have the option to lobby, run for office, work in the press, or create private organizations.

And, you are 100% correct with that last statement. As every single human should. However, where the money comes from is what I am questioning. The money should come voluntarily from the people, and, indirectly, the government is acting on behalf of the people. I'm cool with that, especially if you strongly support your representatives. I prefer that the money come directly from the people, though, and not indirectly from the people via the government. You know this already, so I'll stop wasting your time with that.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm extremely glad that your position is that of the minority and holds no bearing on the actual flow of events, for if our country decided to withhold money from Haiti on the basis that a few people want to celebrate their right to be selfish and cruel, I would be greatly ashamed of this country. And it would simply cause the rest of the world to look down upon us, and they'd be right to do so.

So, giving and encouraging the people to directly give foreign aid is somehow selfish and cruel? I really don't understand that. And, if some people don't want to give foreign aid, regardless of you thinking it is selfish and cruel, they should have that right.

And, that paragraph hints at you having an underlying cynicism about Americans, in general, being selfish and cruel? Correct me if I'm wrong with that. If you did believe that, I would agree with you on some level.

Also, I feel that you are incorrectly painting my perspective. You make it seem as though I want all charity, state or otherwise, to stop. That's not the case, at all.

My preference is for the aid to come directly from the people, not the government. That's foreign aid but in the way I prefer it.

I could have sworn I said it already in a previous post, but I'm glad the US stepped up to the plate and gave foreign aid to Haiti. Lord knows I could have tried harder...but...I can't miss work too much or it will start affecting my family, which I have a more direct responsibility for: legally, ethically, morally, and spiritually.



I really don't see how this can be discussed further. I'm all for private charity with very little government involvement (beyond regulation), and you're all for government run charity with very little private involvement? (not sure about your opinion on it, but you're arguing against my opinion on it, so you obviously want government to have a large role in charity.)



Edit - Give me your opinoin on this charity thing: should the government be the sole provider of foreign charity and relief during events like this, or should it come from the people?

What about a transitional period where the government fills in the gaps?

Finally, why don't you like the idea of a private charity that is regulated by the government, but not run by it?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
all the moral righteousness in here is making me gag.

<3 you all

No no, I agree. You're right.

DDM, why do you act like the government sending money is somehow stopping people from donating to private organizations? Millions have already been raised by private organizations to help the Haiti people. The money that the government is sending is simply on top of the money that private organizations are donating. Again, it's not an either/or scenario, and to pretend that it is is factually a false dilemma. You've said that this is happening several times, but you have failed to produce evidence or reasoning to back it up. So how does Obama sending 100 million dollars hinder people giving to private organizations?

You say I'm for government run with little private involvement. No, I'm for both, as need be. And the need here is so great that both are necessary.

When Countries decide to Back Other Countries Financially


There is usually something to be Gained.

A collapsed state on the periphery of U.S. territorial waters and North Atlantic international waters is a threat to the U.S. and The Rest of the countries in the region.

Foreign Aid used this way isn't a gift. Its Insurance.

Because right now the Haitians must be thinking of nothing else but how to kill Americans. Obviously.

Originally posted by Liberator
I understand your feelings, it is strange that politicians will often deny such aid to those who need it most in the home country and are so quick to send out to foreigners. Can't tell you the reasoning mate confuses me just as much as it confuses you.

Say where the hell is Obama getting this money anyways?



Simple he's printing it. Like he did last year. Which will cause the dollars value to plummet. Which is what cause things like food, gas, etc. to rise.

I hate Obama

Originally posted by Kovacs86
Because right now the Haitians must be thinking of nothing else but how to kill Americans. Obviously.

You're thinking of Life insurance.

Originally posted by BackFire
if our country decided to withhold money from Haiti on the basis that a few people want to celebrate their right to be selfish and cruel, I would be greatly ashamed of this country. And it would simply cause the rest of the world to look down upon us, and they'd be right to do so.

Obama would be an idiot not to send aid, indeed anyone in his position would have basically no choice but to do so. Sure it's as much a political move as it is a moral one but as President he needs political capital to do his job.

Originally posted by WhiskeyGirl
Simple he's printing it.

I'm sure the US isn't sending Haiti cash.

There is truth when people feel skeptical about donating money to organizations out there since there are scammers roaming around. Also, the primary question should not be who is sending help....but is the help getting there in first place? Certainly order and law will be require FIRST before the help is distributed.

Originally posted by BackFire
Millions have already been raised by private organizations to help the Haiti people.

Exactly.

Originally posted by BackFire
The money that the government is sending is simply on top of the money that private organizations are donating.

I know this.


I'd prefer it come completely from the people, though.


Originally posted by BackFire
Again, it's not an either/or scenario, and to pretend that it is is factually a false dilemma.

For me, it is.

Right now, we do both. I feel that the government doing the work is causing some people to not put forth more effort. I've already explained why I think the government doing it can actually be wrong.


Originally posted by BackFire
You've said that this is happening several times, but you have failed to produce evidence or reasoning to back it up.

I seriously have no clue as to what you're talking about.


Originally posted by BackFire
So how does Obama sending 100 million dollars hinder people giving to private organizations?

OH! I think I see now.

It gives a false sense and prevents people from taking the initiative.

If the government wasn't the one giving the aid, to begin with, the people would step up and get things done, possibly on a larger scale and more swiftly. Especially if some of the "disaster charities" were run quite smoothly.

I believe the private organizations are better are handling money (on the whole), than the government.

Originally posted by BackFire
You say I'm for government run with little private involvement. No, I'm for both, as need be. And the need here is so great that both are necessary.

You kind of messed that up.

It's, "You say I'm for government run disaster charities, with a little private involvment." In other words, 80% gov, 20% private...right?

And, I think I agree with you, for the most part. I'd just prefer that it be 80% private, 20% gov. On top of that, the 20% done is through some sort of volunatry program that can't be touched by other departments.





I'm ALL for helping people in time of need. I always try and volunteer my time for post-tornado, earthquake, and hurricane disasters. I help run the charity at my college for the holidays for needy families. Etc. etc. I'm one of the last people you'll ever need to worry about doing his part to help his fellow man. Our disconnect is not the "righteousness" of either of our intentions, is my distrust for the government throwing $100 million around. The fact that money will be lost and not accounted for, BECAUSE it came from the government, makes me sad a little bit. When I hear on the news that the US is giving X amount of money to Y country for aid, I groan a little bit.





http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/






Also, I think you lack a little faith in the average American person. Defnitely correct me if I'm wrong.


But, did you know that charitable donations went up during this recession? That's AWESOME, IMO. It tells me that Americans will help out during times of need. We just need to encourage and foster that more...and lighten our government's foreign aid burden.

It's topics like this that truly bring out the idiocy in people.

Backfire summed it up in one sentence.

Originally posted by BackFire
A bunch of countries are sending money to Haiti right now. It's the right thing to do.

You want to argue this? Then let me just quote the definition of idiocy



Think about this for a second: Take wherever you live, and have some natural disaster kill 50,000+ (With predictions of of over 100,000+) and destroy your entire city/capital. Would you want help? If you say no, you're going to fall into the category of the quote above.

Every country is having issues right now, and are always having issues. The point is that even in these times of problems for everyone....everyone still finds the time to help a country in desperate need because it is the right thing to do.

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine
It's topics like this that truly bring out the idiocy in people.

Backfire summed it up in one sentence.



You want to argue this? Then let me just quote the definition of idiocy



Think about this for a second: Take wherever you live, and have some natural disaster kill 50,000+ (With predictions of of over 100,000+) and destroy your entire city/capital. Would you want help? If you say no, you're going to fall into the category of the quote above.

Every country is having issues right now, and are always having issues. The point is that even in these times of problems for everyone....everyone still finds the time to help a country in desperate need because it is the right thing to do.


If I were president, I would have started a disaster relief fund that is completely independent of the other departments, and is/can be donated to by citizens. I would have disaster relief plans drawn up (contingency planning) to create the most expeditious assistance as possible.

The moment I got news of the first quake, I would have mobilized assistance preparations and coordinated with the Haitian and the Dominican Republic infrastructures. This would be dictated by the contingency plan. Initial assistance could have been deployed with caution with full assistance being applied when the after-shocks had diminished enough to make a full-fledged effort.

It would be my hope that eventually, that voluntary relief program I created would get enough participation that it could be expanded to a web of trusted relief programs with voluntary chairs and coordinators. Obviously, contingency planning would be done to adequately incorporate this web of trusted programs and there would be requirements that need to be met in order to participate. The government's involvement would be solely one of regulation and financial security to the funding. Volunteers would run it almost completely with the "council" releasing funds during times of emergency. All activities and finances would be completely transparent to the public.

The most important elements of the above:

1. Diminishing the direct financial involvement of the government in disaster relief.

2. A thorough contingency plan.

3. Voluntary participation across the board.

4. A regulatory position for the government.

These non-profit foreign and disaster aid organizations, of course, would be tax-free.




Here's where my planning would fail: the American people could be too selfish to actually make reasonable cash-flow to the fund.

Here's where it could succeed:

1. broad recognition of the "good" charities.

2. Stability and assurance of making donations.

3. Contingency planning to maximize response time to get aid to the places it needs to be, the fastest way possible.

4. Transparency for even the everday citizen to track the activities.

5. Almost complete dependency on the citizen for funding, and not the government.

6. It could function as a channel by which larger "aid" can be given by huge charity organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.




My hope would be to system like that. With project management, thorough contingency planning, a sharp focus of volunteerism, and little government involvement.

Originally posted by chomperx9
when was the last time a country sent us money for katrina or something big happening here ?

Uh....that was during Katrina.

Usually though, when I donate to charity, I donate to charities that help the poorest people (Haiti) in my neighborhood, and not the richest (USA).

But I know exaclty what you're saying. Everytime I see the CEO of Goldman, I really just want to open my wallet and start handing him cash, just to keep things even with the dollar I gave the homeless guy to buy a burger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27LDh7BBK_4&feature=player_embedded

I like how it ties these two threads nicely together, and therefore will post it in both of them.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=523410&pagenumber=1

Originally posted by Ordo
Uh....that was during Katrina.

Usually though, when I donate to charity, I donate to charities that help the poorest people (Haiti) in my neighborhood, and not the richest (USA).

not the richest ? just because someone lives in the united states that doesnt makes them rich. theres some people in our country who are in a worse position than haiti. most of the time its because of health care. and you dont get the proper health care unless you got insurance and not only affording health insurance is a problem its qualifying for it. the people who need it the most dont qualify. i hate health insurance companies more than anything else.

Originally posted by chomperx9
not the richest ? just because someone lives in the united states that doesnt makes them rich. theres some people in our country who are in a worse position than haiti. most of the time its because of health care. and you dont get the proper health care unless you got insurance and not only affording health insurance is a problem its qualifying for it. the people who need it the most dont qualify. i hate health insurance companies more than anything else.

There are poor people everywhere. That poverty in the US is not properly addressed is not a question of international giving, but a question of the competance of the US government. Healthcare is irrelevant to this discussion.

You complained about nations not giving to the US, the richest nation on earth. 1. Some have. 2. See I was using people as analogies for nations. The point that I tried to make was a nation would not give money to a nation that has an excess of it. You give it to the little nation that one of the poorest in our world.

Originally posted by Ordo
That poverty in the US is not properly addressed is not a question of international giving, but a question of the competance of the US government.

Bingo.

Originally posted by Ordo
Healthcare is irrelevant to this discussion.

It is not. When the US has thousands of people dying each year, that could have been spared death with a better healthcare system, it is extremely relevant. One of the fixes for the problem is quite literally, money. That is by far not the only solution: it is part of it.

But, for those people, creating a fund just for those people and giving them $100 million would certainly get them through.



How much would it cost, anually, to get healthcare to 10,000 people that need it most (and could actually make it if they just had more money)?





No humans need to die...but, as Lil B has intelligently pointed out, some dude sits on billions while another dude freezes in the street (partially beacuse the dude has his billions)

Originally posted by Ordo
There are poor people everywhere. That poverty in the US is not properly addressed is not a question of international giving, but a question of the competance of the US government. Healthcare is irrelevant to this discussion.

You complained about nations not giving to the US, the richest nation on earth. 1. Some have. 2. See I was using people as analogies for nations. The point that I tried to make was a nation would not give money to a nation that has an excess of it. You give it to the little nation that one of the poorest in our world. im complaining about our nation not supporting our nation 1st before others. you missed my point

Originally posted by dadudemon

No humans need to die...but, as Lil B has intelligently pointed out, some dude sits on billions while another dude freezes in the street (partially beacuse the dude has his billions)

Wait, how do you figure that?

Originally posted by chomperx9
im complaining about our nation not supporting our nation 1st before others. you missed my point

I didn't. I'm with ya, duuude!

Originally posted by chomperx9
im complaining about our nation not supporting our nation 1st before others. you missed my point

If Ron Paul had won, this wouldn't be happening, borders would have been closed, US would be an isolated paradise with near zero crime, poverty, homelessness and unemployment, word.

Originally posted by Robtard
If Ron Paul had won, this wouldn't be happening, borders would have been closed, US would be an isolated paradise with near zero crime, poverty, homelessness and unemployment, word.

I know you jest, but, no, none of that would have happened if he did get elected because there'd be too much opposition by lots and lots of stupid people. He wouldn't be able to do anything unless it coincided with the stupid agendas of the Republicans or the Dems.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is not.

Healthcare is irrelevant to the question of the equity international giving. To the degree that our AID helps support healthcare in other countries, we support our own. We're not paying for Haitians to have halth insurance.

If the question is about "could our money be better spent?" Sure. However, I (and do remind Chomper too) was addressing this pearl:

Originally posted by chomperx9
yes i know its nice to help out others. but we do it to much to everyone else and we never get anything in return except for a thank you.

when was the last time a country sent us money for katrina or something big happening here ?

Originally posted by chomperx9
im complaining about our nation not supporting our nation 1st before others. you missed my point

No, I simply addressed the part I quoted above.

Originally posted by Ordo
Healthcare is irrelevant to the question of the equity international giving. To the degree that our AID helps support healthcare in other countries, we support our own. We're not paying for Haitians to have halth insurance.

If the question is about "could our money be better spent?" Sure. However, I (and do remind Chomper too) was addressing this pearl:





No, I simply addressed the part I quoted above. alright i wasnt aware that we ever got any support for katrina thats good we got some help for a change. and yes its always good to give back. back i still say we should worry about our problems 1st before others. no matter who is richer. a persons life is a persons life

can it be possible that we actually have more people in poverty in our country than hati because of our large population compared to there small one

There is a difference between having 10 million people in poverty in teh US, spread out with some decent infrastrcuture (homless shelters, food banks, free healthcare) than a country of 10 million people in poverty.

Where would you ratehr be? Thats what I thought.

Is the US Army sending soldiers?

Originally posted by Liberator
Is the US Army sending soldiers?

Obama has said they will, for the purpose of maintaining order.

Originally posted by Ordo
Healthcare is irrelevant to the question of the equity international giving.

No it is not. That money will be used for ....drum roll please....HEALTHCARE! Sure, it wilil be used for lots of other things, but healthcare will be a major drain on the financial aid.

Originally posted by Ordo
To the degree that our AID helps support healthcare in other countries, we support our own.

I'm confused. I don't understand what you're trying to say, here. It's probably because I'm trying to make it make sense, in context, so I can argue against it.


If I take it at face value, we can say that you really have no way of proving what you just said. It's and odd and unrelated comparison, to say the least. Logically, we could conclude that, no, we give greater monetary aid to our healthcare than any other country in the world. Even the amount of money spent by the government, per person, on healthcare, is greater than the second per capita spending natiom France, by almost $1000. But that's another argument.


Originally posted by Ordo
We're not paying for Haitians to have halth insurance.

Strawman. We are not talking about health insurance, we are talking about healthcare.

Originally posted by Ordo
If the question is about "could our money be better spent?" Sure.

You see, this is where you and I agree. Obviously, it would be STUIPD to think the US government shouldn't provide aid to Haiti. My piece is about how we could do it better and how we need to shy away from too much government aid.



Originally posted by chomperx9
i still say we should worry about our problems 1st before others. no matter who is richer. a persons life is a persons life

I agree.


This is not the United States of the World. This is the United States of America. Our government has a greater priority to save lives, domesitcally, than foriegn. I also think, on the same token, that those citizens in the US also have a moral obligation to help not only their fellow citizens, but their fellow humans, all over the world.

Now, if the money sent to aid Haiti came from all of those politicians and federal employees' own pockets, I would think that our government is the most honest, most awesomest, government, in the world. Surely they could come up with $100 million dollars? 313

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it is not. That money will be used for ....drum roll please....HEALTHCARE! Sure, it wilil be used for lots of other things, but healthcare will be a major drain on the financial aid.

I doubt it. If you could prove that the government would randomly allocate aid money to providing health insurance or services...you'd have a point. It seems the model in Washington is more that if its not allocated, its not spent. Healthcare is too politically charged a topic to simply "shift funds."

We can even take the Obama administration, one that WOULD want to shift funds to helathcare as an example. We cancelled the F-22 project, but those funds were not transferred anywhere. Its simply money saved. When there is a budget surplus (hypothetically...say like in a department)...rarely do they say "We've budgeted the money here, so lets just spend it there.) It would make sense that there are budget rules prohibiting that.

TARP is the exception here, but by in large, if there was political will to spend money on healthcare, we would have just printed it and spent it already. Apples and Oranges.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm confused. I don't understand what you're trying to say, here. It's probably because I'm trying to make it make sense, in context, so I can argue against it.

The health services being provided to Haiti (water, food, immunizations) are already provided to a good number of people by the USG or nonprofits. Organizations like Doctors without Borders, etc that are there also have comperable groups in the US working to provide services to the poor.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If I take it at face value, we can say that you really have no way of proving what you just said. It's and odd and unrelated comparison, to say the least. Logically, we could conclude that, no, we give greater monetary aid to our healthcare than any other country in the world. Even the amount of money spent by the government, per person, on healthcare, is greater than the second per capita spending natiom France, by almost $1000. But that's another argument.

Yes. Our healthcare system sucks. I'm aware. However, like with TARP, paying 100 million in the most expensive heathcare market in the world is going to get you precious little. The problem is the system, not that the USG isn't spending enough.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Strawman. We are not talking about health insurance, we are talking about healthcare.

Ok. Then see above.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You see, this is where you and I agree. Obviously, it would be STUIPD to think the US government shouldn't provide aid to Haiti. My piece is about how we could do it better and how we need to shy away from too much government aid.

It depends on where you place your priorities and what your long term goals are.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree.

I disagree. A life is a life is an oversimplification. Differnt lives are different. While every life is valued the same, each person is valued differently.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is not the United States of the World. This is the United States of America. Our government has a greater priority to save lives, domesitcally, than foriegn.

Would 100M save the same number of lives here? Are 2 americans worth 50 Haitians. How do you balance that? Self-righteousness and isolationsism are reactionary and simple emotions. They dont capture the complexity of the situation.

And whats the difference if the American people give the money, or the government on behalf of the American people? Its still your money.

Originally posted by Ordo
I doubt it. If you could prove that the government would randomly allocate aid money to providing health insurance or services...you'd have a point. It seems the model in Washington is more that if its not allocated, its not spent. Healthcare is too politically charged a topic to simply "shift funds."

We can even take the Obama administration, one that WOULD want to shift funds to helathcare as an example. We cancelled the F-22 project, but those funds were not transferred anywhere. Its simply money saved. When there is a budget surplus (hypothetically...say like in a department)...rarely do they say "We've budgeted the money here, so lets just spend it there.) It would make sense that there are budget rules prohibiting that.

TARP is the exception here, but by in large, if there was political will to spend money on healthcare, we would have just printed it and spent it already. Apples and Oranges.



The health services being provided to Haiti (water, food, immunizations) are already provided to a good number of people by the USG or nonprofits. Organizations like Doctors without Borders, etc that are there also have comperable groups in the US working to provide services to the poor.



Yes. Our healthcare system sucks. I'm aware. However, like with TARP, paying 100 million in the most expensive heathcare market in the world is going to get you precious little. The problem is the system, not that the USG isn't spending enough.



Ok. Then see above.



It depends on where you place your priorities and what your long term goals are.



I disagree. A life is a life is an oversimplification. Differnt lives are different. While every life is valued the same, each person is valued differently.



Would 100M save the same number of lives here? Are 2 americans worth 50 Haitians. How do you balance that? Self-righteousness and isolationsism are reactionary and simple emotions. They dont capture the complexity of the situation.

And whats the difference if the American people give the money, or the government on behalf of the American people? Its still your money.



K.

Originally posted by Ordo
I doubt it. If you could prove that the government would randomly allocate aid money to providing health insurance or services...you'd have a point. It seems the model in Washington is more that if its not allocated, its not spent. Healthcare is too politically charged a topic to simply "shift funds."

We can even take the Obama administration, one that WOULD want to shift funds to helathcare as an example. We cancelled the F-22 project, but those funds were not transferred anywhere. Its simply money saved. When there is a budget surplus (hypothetically...say like in a department)...rarely do they say "We've budgeted the money here, so lets just spend it there.) It would make sense that there are budget rules prohibiting that.

TARP is the exception here, but by in large, if there was political will to spend money on healthcare, we would have just printed it and spent it already. Apples and Oranges.

After reading your post, I see that this point is unrelated as you thought "healthcare" = "health insurance"





Originally posted by Ordo
The health services being provided to Haiti (water, food, immunizations) are already provided to a good number of people by the USG or nonprofits. Organizations like Doctors without Borders, etc that are there also have comperable groups in the US working to provide services to the poor.

I'm aware of this already. However, you seem to be jumping all over the place and it's hard to keep what you're saying, in context. Your below reply is more in context...so I'll reply to that.


Originally posted by Ordo
Yes. Our healthcare system sucks. I'm aware. However, like with TARP, paying 100 million in the most expensive heathcare market in the world is going to get you precious little. The problem is the system, not that the USG isn't spending enough.

While I agree that $100 million will go much further than it does in America, where's this arbitrary moral line you've drawn in the sand on how much we should do for our own, and how much we should do for other nations? (Strictly from a governing perspective. If you want to talk about the people, I feel that the people should get to send their money wherever and whomever they want.)



Originally posted by Ordo
It depends on where you place your priorities and what your long term goals are.

Priority is in privately driven charity and volunteerism.

Long term goals:

1. To increase the efficiency of disaster aid.

2. To increase the mobility of disaster aid and reocvery efforts.

3. To place more control in the hands of the people when it comes to charity.

4. Decrease government foreign aid to total less than 30% of of all US originating aid.

5. Possibly increase the incentives to be charitable.



Originally posted by Ordo
I disagree. A life is a life is an oversimplification. Differnt lives are different. While every life is valued the same, each person is valued differently.


That sounds like a lot of word messes and word semantics, to me.

Also, I was saying "I agree" to this, "i still say we should worry about our problems 1st before others. no matter who is richer." more so than I was to the " a person's life is a person's life."

Which, he is aboslutely correct in saying that.

He said, "a mandarin orange is a mandarin orange."

How can he be wrong, man. HOW CAN HE BE WRONG!!!!!






Originally posted by Ordo
Would 100M save the same number of lives here? Are 2 americans worth 50 Haitians. How do you balance that? Self-righteousness and isolationsism are reactionary and simple emotions. They dont capture the complexity of the situation.

"While I agree that $100 million will go much further than it does in America, where's this arbitrary moral line you've drawn in the sand on how much we should do for our own, and how much we should do for other nations? (Strictly from a governing perspective. If you want to talk about the people, I feel that the people should get to send their money wherever and whomever they want.)"


To answer your question in terms that it should NOT even be considered in...

The American government has a very high priority to saving American lives on a much larger level than saving foreign lives on an almost absolute level. It's a question of morals...and, get this, it is relative. (lol)

Originally posted by Ordo
And whats the difference if the American people give the money, or the government on behalf of the American people? Its still your money.

There's a huge difference. That's what I've been talking about for 2 damn pages.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's a huge difference. That's what I've been talking about for 2 damn pages.

Lets focus on this then. if you'd like to return to a previous point, let me know.

1. The government is faster, they can singlehandledly release precollected money at a much faster pace than it would take private groups to release it. If the private group is large (say Red Cross) and has funds available, the government always has more.

2. The government is properly equipped. In a disaster such as this, the military is needed to effectivly be an AID army. Private groups and nonprofits may have a lot of workers, but they dont have that many, and certainly not the power to order them to a specific location immediately. In addition to manpower, the government has the resouces of all branches of the military (transportation over land, air, and sea) at its immediate disposal. Its resources are much more expansive and it doesnt haave to wait to cooborate with other private industries (airlines, etc) to deliver supplies, rescue, etc.

3. The government can negotiate. If all aid per contry is under one roof, there can be one single representative to coordinate everyhting. There are already prexisting lines of communications between the USG and the government of a foreign nation. That is likely not true for private/nonprofits. If there is already a line, its likely not large enough to accomodate existing aid.

4. Lastly, the government is more credible. While certain groups liek Red Cross might have a free pass in, smaller groups may be unheard of (missionary groups, etc). The foreign government has to verify their credentials and get them working in with everyone else. The USG comes with instant organizational credibility and all services are under one roof.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Also, there are such things as militias and/or private military organizations, you know.

That's incorrect: very strongly incorrect. Not only are there many more lines, but also some of those lines can be stronger than the one established by the government.


facepalm

and now the US is inviting the citizens of haiti to come to the states living off of our taxes. what do you say to that ?

who cares. highly doubt you wont be able to buy what you want next week because of the 2 dollars youre losing in taxes to help them.

Originally posted by chomperx9
and now the US is inviting the citizens of haiti to come to the states living off of our taxes. what do you say to that ?

I honestly don't like the idea, even though it's clearly meant to be temporary. Haiti probably needs able bodied people more than the US does anyway.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
who cares. highly doubt you wont be able to buy what you want next week because of the 2 dollars youre losing in taxes to help them.

Two dollars here, two dollars there pretty soon it's be four dollars. Can you understand the level of personal loss involved in that? FOUR DOLLARS! And for what, to help save a few thousand people? Those aren't the sorts of values America wants to project.

If only Ron Paul had been made God King President, Blackwater would have sponsored trips to take pot shots at the Hatians and we might be making money off of this.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I honestly don't like the idea, even though it's clearly meant to be temporary. Haiti probably needs able bodied people more than the US does anyway.



Two dollars here, two dollars there pretty soon it's be four dollars. Can you understand the level of personal loss involved in that? FOUR DOLLARS! And for what, to help save a few thousand people? Those aren't the sorts of values America wants to project.

If only Ron Paul had been made God King President, Blackwater would have sponsored trips to take pot shots at the Hatians and we might be making money off of this. at times like this i dont believe the word temporary. i bet you a 100 bucks they are gonna stay here permenant

Originally posted by chomperx9
at times like this i dont believe the word temporary. i bet you a 100 bucks they are gonna stay here permenant

Why? It's not as though Haitians will particularly want to stay in a country with fewer jobs opportunities than their own, where they're not fluent in the language and every other person they meet will hate them for being black, French-speaking, poor or foreign.

Rebuilding an capital city is big money, Haitians will want to participate in that for the jobs and obvious emotional reasons.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why? It's not as though Haitians will particularly want to stay in a country with fewer jobs opportunities than their own, where they're not fluent in the language and every other person they meet will hate them for being black, French-speaking, poor or foreign.

Rebuilding an capital city is big money, Haitians will want to participate in that for the jobs and obvious emotional reasons. many others that come here they want to stay for good. we get 100s of river jumpers a day.

they should send em to france since they speak french. or canada maybe

Originally posted by chomperx9
many others that come here they want to stay for good. we get 100s of river jumpers a day.

They generally think there will be work. For Haitains there will soon be more work in their own country than there is here.

I still don't think the US should be spending money to bring them to the US and support them. Help rebuild the country, fine, but picking up their population is overkill.

Originally posted by chomperx9
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100116/ts_alt_afp/haitiquakeaidusobamabushclinton_20100116173918

yeah the president can always send me to other countries to help out. but they always forget which country they were elected in. as in how come they cant ever send money to families here who are poor or and that have no homes or cant afford hospitals.

yes i know its nice to help out others. but we do it to much to everyone else and we never get anything in return except for a thank you.

when was the last time a country sent us money for katrina or something big happening here ?


A generous heart doesn't ask these questions. If you need any reminding of how much people care about one another or how much other countries appreciate America, just think back to the worlds response towards America after 9/11.

Many countries aid and support America. Other countries can't help America with it's poverty and economy because that's the responsibilities of each countries government. As for Katrina...,that's entirely different matter. America did not need the help of other countries to clean that mess up. We (our government) didn't step up to task.

In other news, (it's not new...but still important), Obama and co are pushing efforts to get some help (donations) from private industry/people to assist in Haiti. Man o' man, do I love eating my words when it comes to something like this. I couldn't have asked for something better than this, other than a permanent and untouchable fund (untouchable for anything other than disaster aid). This is just great. I gained a new respect for Obama after reading this. I'm glad he's working to encourage the private sector to assist, instead of pledging more government money to Haiti.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/world/americas/17prexy.html?hp

edit

Originally posted by kangyu
edit im guessing thats your homepage

Originally posted by dadudemon
In other news, (it's not new...but still important), Obama and co are pushing efforts to get some help (donations) from private industry/people to assist in Haiti. Man o' man, do I love eating my words when it comes to something like this. I couldn't have asked for something better than this, other than a permanent and untouchable fund (untouchable for anything other than disaster aid). This is just great. I gained a new respect for Obama after reading this. I'm glad he's working to encourage the private sector to assist, instead of pledging more government money to Haiti.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/world/americas/17prexy.html?hp

There is no more government money.

Originally posted by chomperx9
they should send em to... canada maybe Don't give them any ideas.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Don't give them any ideas.

we've already said we are taking in refugees and families

Originally posted by inimalist
we've already said we are taking in refugees and families take em all

Originally posted by Liberator

Say where the hell is Obama getting this money anyways?

Foreign Debt, Private Donations, Taxes,Profits if any from gvt owned corporations...seems we just can't stop spending money lately

Originally posted by WhiskeyGirl
Simple he's printing it. Like he did last year. Which will cause the dollars value to plummet. Which is what cause things like food, gas, etc. to rise.

I hate Obama

No the central bank is and we are just borrowing it

Originally posted by inimalist
we've already said we are taking in refugees and families Aw. Awwwww. Dammit.

if it makes you feel better, we will almost certainly only be inviting those who are educated and have work experience (re: those who could help rebuild Haiti) to stay.

Thats how much we love to help people

Originally posted by inimalist
if it makes you feel better, we will almost certainly only be inviting those who are educated and have work experience (re: those who could help rebuild Haiti) to stay.

Thats how much we love to help people 1/4 million immigrants a year can't all be skilled. So Wow! Those Haitians must have the largest skilled population in the Third World ever!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
1/4 million immigrants a year can't all be skilled.

Well if you only let in skilled workers . . .

Then we'd all be very happy.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
1/4 million immigrants a year can't all be skilled. So Wow! Those Haitians must have the largest skilled population in the Third World ever!

we have fairly high standards for immigration, all things considered.

we even have a record of rounding up chuches full of refugees and sending them back to Africa.

How old are you? I don't ask for a critical reason, just if you are over 18, it might be cool to look up the immigration standards and see if you would qualify. I didn't until I was 21-22 and had held down full time world (thus had employable skills) for 2+ years, and because I had more than basic french at the time .

EDIT: and again, all things considered, 250 000 people isn't a whole lot, considering our size and all. Not to mention the fact that citizens are having fewer children and many wont work at wages competitive in a global market, we could use their labour. All things considered, they want to give our government tax money to spend on our asses.

I can't believe some people are arguing that he shouldn't be sending money.

does it just make your excessively humanitarian probably liberal morally driven heart quake in terror?

Originally posted by Rain Dog
I can't believe some people are arguing that he shouldn't be sending money.

Is it really that hard to believe?

It'd be like you being down on your luck in a real bad way, and me being many times over, in debt compared to my annual salary, and I literally had to borrow money to pay my current bills, but then I give you money anyway: money that I did not have to give, when some of my family members needed help as well.



I'd prefer that the foreign aid come from the people and the people to be encouraged to give. Obama did just that, of which I am proud.

I'd be singing a different tune if there were hardly any domestic problems and we had money to spare. If that were the case, I'd be really pissed that we did not use our funds to help other nations that needed it much more.

Originally posted by Rain Dog
I can't believe some people are arguing that he shouldn't be sending money. sending money from donations is one thing. sending money from our taxes is another.

i respect donations being made 100% its your choice and your money if you decide to send no one elses. its an option and of course millions of people are gonna offer to help.

so theres no need for the president to be sending our money when they are getting donations from all over the world.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
does it just make your excessively humanitarian probably liberal morally driven heart quake in terror?

Not terror, no. Apt use of the word quake by the way, have you been saving that one for an occasion like this?

I'd say it's not a nice reflection on the personalities of the people complaining about it, though. It's really about time people stopped only caring for those in their own country.

Yes we're all aware that there's problems in every single country that need to be dealt with, but can any of them compare to hundreds of thousands dieing suddenly in a natural disaster? Of course they can't. You should thank your lucky stars you were born into a country with the wealth to be able to help others. You could have lost everything in an instant, instead you have the lovely power to scoff at those who have.

Originally posted by chomperx9
sending money from donations is one thing. sending money from our taxes is another.

i respect donations being made 100% its your choice and your money if you decide to send no one elses. its an option and of course millions of people are gonna offer to help.

so theres no need for the president to be sending our money when they are getting donations from all over the world.

If it wasn't given, you'd lose the amount on tourism alone within a year, I reckon.

Also, no need? Do you have any idea of its scale?

Originally posted by chomperx9
sending money from donations is one thing. sending money from our taxes is another.

i respect donations being made 100% its your choice and your money if you decide to send no one elses. its an option and of course millions of people are gonna offer to help.

so theres no need for the president to be sending our money when they are getting donations from all over the world.

I'm fine with money being sent by the US government...for now. But I do want some change on how foreign aid is done. Obviously, we can't leave the Haitians high and dry, but after this disaster starts to see dawn, I don't see why we couldn't rein in some of our foreign aid to help (only a small portion) with our money problems.

Originally posted by Rain Dog
Not terror, no. Apt use of the word quake by the way, have you been saving that one for an occasion like this?

I'd say it's not a nice reflection on the personalities of the people complaining about it, though. It's really about time people stopped only caring for those in their own country.

Yes we're all aware that there's problems in every single country that need to be dealt with, but can any of them compare to hundreds of thousands dieing suddenly in a natural disaster? Of course they can't. You should thank your lucky stars you were born into a country with the wealth to be able to help others. You could have lost everything in an instant, instead you have the lovely power to scoff at those who have.



If it wasn't given, you'd lose the amount on tourism alone within a year, I reckon.

Also, no need? Do you have any idea of its scale? its already been confirmed that many studios and celebrities have donated money as well. and theres more and more donations being made every day

Originally posted by chomperx9
its already been confirmed that many studios and celebrities have donated money as well. and theres more and more donations being made every day

Of course more and more are being given every day, you clown. I was never trying to say they weren't. Donations given by countries can be put into action much more quickly. Obama didn't go over there with a briefcase full of cash and lay it on the floor.

Originally posted by Rain Dog
but can any of them compare to hundreds of thousands dieing suddenly in a natural disaster? Of course they can't. You should thank your lucky stars you were born into a country with the wealth to be able to help others. You could have lost everything in an instant, instead you have the lovely power to scoff at those who have

Hundreds of thousands dead is just horrible. Just terrible.

Haiti did not need $100 million dollars...they needed tens of thousands of rescue workers, doctors, medics, etc. etc. etc. On top of this, they needed very fast deployments of relief aid, and assistance with policing from looters.

What Haiti needed the most, about 48 hours out from the original 7.0, was not money...but simply some actual help. Throwing money at the problem does not pull people from the rubble. IMO, it was borderline disrespectful to throw that much money at the disaster so soon. It was like throwing a wad of hundreds at a homeless cripple that needed a meal and a place to stay overnight...

Just sad, really. All that loss of life.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hundreds of thousands dead is just horrible. Just terrible.

Haiti did not need $100 million dollars...t


Haiti did not get $100 million dollars...

Haiti is going to get aid.

U.S. Businesses and Aid Workers are the ones who are going to get the $100 million dollars.

Example Bottled Water going to Haiti.

Haiti aren't getting the Money for that Water.
That Money is going to Reccession Hit U.S. business which have product to move and salaries to pay.

Example 2

Rescue Workers on the Ground in Haiti.

Obama isn't giving Haiti money to feed them and pay their overtime and pay out life insurance if they die there.

Don't take my word for it ddm run an eye on first quater profits which will be posted by private businesses involved in the relief effort.



keep an eye on movement in the construction sector.

Originally posted by shiv
Haiti did not get $100 million dollars...

Haiti is going to get aid.

U.S. Businesses and Aid Workers are the ones who are going to get the $100 million dollars.

Example Bottled Water going to Haiti.

Haiti aren't getting the Money for that Water.
That Money is going to Reccession Hit U.S. business which have product to move and salaries to pay.

Example 2

Rescue Workers on the Ground in Haiti.

Obama isn't giving Haiti money to feed them and pay their overtime and pay out life insurance if they die there.

Don't take my word for it ddm run an eye on first quater profits which will be posted by private businesses involved in the relief effort.



keep an eye on movement in the construction sector.

That's not what I meant when I said Haiti is getting $100 million dollars.

However, I searched and searched and could not find a reference to what you are talking about.

When Obama said that the US would pledge $100 million in aid, I assumed it meant we would be writing checks for the rebuilding and aid expenses, up to $100 million. I did not read anywhere that we would be doing slight "bailout" relief by paying US businesses to provide goods, either. I don't really like that idea, if that's the case. Isn't that a tad underhanded of the Obama administration?

Welcome to World Economics.

Originally posted by shiv
Welcome to World Economics.


welcome to POWER

Haiti sucks.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Haiti sucks. under stand the US has seen as worst ......

new orleans flood after math, people killing each other over food military had to be called in and they was still killing each other.(have family there)
Miami basicaly after any hurricane , people resort to stealing and voilence.
the new york black out in the 1900s, violence skyrocketed

What is the ratio of whites to blacks in those cases?

/trollface

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Haiti sucks.

the comments made by some of the people on that video are horrific

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
the comments made by some of the people on that video are horrific one of those comments was true about any american setting foot there before the earthquake we wouldnt be coming back in one piece. thats why im not so down with giving them 100 million $

Originally posted by chomperx9
one of those comments was true about any american setting foot there before the earthquake we wouldnt be coming back in one piece. thats why im not so down with giving them 100 million $

That's not true.

Originally posted by Rain Dog
That's not true. your right i should have put any white american wouldnt come back in one piece

Originally posted by chomperx9
your right i should have put any white american wouldnt come back in one piece

It's still a load of complete bollocks.

Originally posted by Rain Dog
It's still a load of complete bollocks. so you would feal 100% secure visiting there a month ago ?

Originally posted by chomperx9
so you would feal 100% secure visiting there a month ago ?

Maybe not 100% secure, as it is the poorest country in the western hemisphere, but I've visited a lot of poor countries before.

I certainly wouldn't go there expecting not to come back in one piece. That really is a ridiculous thing to think. Have you ever been outside of the U.S?

Originally posted by chomperx9
your right i should have put any white american wouldnt come back in one piece White Canadians though, we get privileges.

Originally posted by Rain Dog
Maybe not 100% secure, as it is the poorest country in the western hemisphere, but I've visited a lot of poor countries before.

I certainly wouldn't go there expecting not to come back in one piece. That really is a ridiculous thing to think. Have you ever been outside of the U.S? ive been to mexico many times so yes. i know you thinking im one of those thats paranoid of going to foreign countries and il get shot 1st thing. no im not. it just depends on the country and what ive heard about the people there.

ok yeah maybe the not coming back in one piece thing was a little sarcastic but still you got a good chance of getting killed there for money and ive heard they even kill eachother there just for food.

they kill you for wearing blue or red where i live and i live in the usa... so obviously pettiness isnt restricted to foreign countries.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
they kill you for wearing blue or red where i live and i live in the usa... so obviously pettiness isnt restricted to foreign countries. where is this so i know not to go there cause i wear blue jeans every day

inglewood california (basically l.a.)

The comments on that video are prety f/cked up.

There was a comment about negros don't wait in line in NYC. IDK. Rosa Parks wouldn't have received Global recognition if she'd waited in Line.


Something which the ITN camera Crew could not capture in those scenes; most of the adults jostling for supplies have dependents: children, siblings -little brothers/sisters- and old folks who haven't eaten, desperate for them to bring back some food. Psychologically its damaging. To come back with nothing day after day. I wonder what that woman wanted those boxes for. Perhaps as proof to demonstrate she really did go for supplies but there was nothing there or perhaps she wanted something to put her possessions in, which kinda makes sense but is still rather sad to see.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0125/1224263036790.html

And if there is one thing to do in a situation like this it's preserving ones culture's silly prejudices in favour of survival.

In conclusion, Haiti sucks and was better off under white rulers.

Discuss.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
In conclusion, Haiti sucks and was better off under white rulers.

Discuss.

Agreed. If they recant on their devil worship I might consider buy a few of them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Agreed. If they recant on their devil worship I might consider buy a few of them.

Indeed. That'd be awesome if I got one that could selectively erase memories and negate abilities.