obama sends money to haiti

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.

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

Main Entry: id·i·o·cy
Pronunciation: \&#712;i-d&#275;-&#601;-s&#275;\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural id·i·o·cies
Date: circa 1529

1usually offensive : extreme mental retardation
2 : something notably stupid or foolish

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 [b]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. [/B]

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.

YouTube video

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