obama sends money to haiti

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).

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.

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.

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 Ordo
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.

The opposite is true. Look no further than the events of Katrina. Many private charities and companies were already knee deep in assistance before FEMA even mobilized.

Originally posted by Ordo
If the private group is large (say Red Cross) and has funds available, the government always has more.

This is correct. They can always borrow money at a much faster pace than a private organization can.

Originally posted by Ordo
2. The government is properly equipped.

Sometimes. However, a private aid organization will be equipped with exactly what they intend to help with, making them a better match. Only when the private organization offers assistance for something it is not equipped to assist with, do we see a deficiency.

Not the case for the government: they have proven that they simply cannot compare to the efficiency of a private organization during a disaster.

Sure, there are examples of private organizations failing horribly, but that's the beauty of "private": some do way better than anyone else, and others do worse. Usually, the market takes care of the sh*tty ones.

Originally posted by Ordo
In a disaster such as this, the military is needed to effectivly be an AID army.

Cool. So, you're telling me that the American people should pay for the military, policing, and security of another nation. Gotcha. Where do I sign up? awesome

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

Originally posted by Ordo
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.

You're incorrect on both accounts. Not only do they greatly outnumber the government, they are always there, first, before the government. The reasons are many and vary, but one of the main ones would be the lack of red-tape and/or bureaucracy.

Originally posted by Ordo
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.

Cool, so a military organization that is built to defend, attack, and patrol, is haphazardly mobilized to fit a function it is not even designed to undertake. And do you wonder why there are problems with coordination and timely response? (You shouldn’t wonder why. It’s obvious.)

And, private organizations have all of those items at their disposal...they just don't have air-craft carriers, Apache's, etc.

Originally posted by Ordo
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.

Are you kidding? They still have the same exact "coordination" rules in the sea and in the air. True, that they can get priority traffic for both those modes, but saying they don't have to wait is simply not true. Since they are far more likely to be a day or two behind the private organizations, there will already be people ahead of them anyway. Lol…see what I did there?

Originally posted by Ordo
3. The government can negotiate.

Because no private person/organization can negotiate? 😆 JK, JK.

Do you remember all the private aid given to the people of Myanmar during that debacle? My point exactly. Governments were constantly shafted and private aid was allowed...due to the political friction that even this golden "negation" you spoke of, wouldn't work.

Originally posted by Ordo
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.

This assumes the very much false idea that no private organization has any sort of connection to another nation. In some cases, those connections are MUCH more sound and sturdy than anything the government can establish. Again, Myanmar. An example of negative government "negation" Bush during his entire presidency.

Originally posted by Ordo
That is likely not true for private/nonprofits. If there is already a line, its likely not large enough to accomodate existing aid.

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.

On top of that, if one of the private organizations pisses off the nation or another private organization, it is on that private organization.

Originally posted by Ordo
4. Lastly, the government is more credible.

Incorrect. As fact, the US government is seen as a very corrupt with ulterior motivations, pushy, greedy, PR hungry, etc. etc. etc. Of course, we are not seen “all bad”, but pretty much any idiot knows the US isn't perfect by any stretch.

As fact, private organizations spend much more time making a perfect public image and have far greater control over that image. Credibility is definitely one of the top items a private organization has to establish, in addition to nice PR. The private organization is stream-lined for PR and credibility.

To compare a nicely oiled credibility machine to the large, inefficient, sometimes ineffective, US government , is hardly fair. But, to say the US government has more credibility than a private organization is just wrong, dude.

Originally posted by Ordo
While certain groups liek Red Cross might have a free pass in, smaller groups may be unheard of (missionary groups, etc).

There's nothing wrong with any of those. And, the small group is more likely to get admission than a large army (literal "army" from the US armed forces) of aid workers. Again, we only have to look back at Myanmar to see that.

Originally posted by Ordo
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.

If only it worked that way. Sadly, it doesn't.

In fact, in some places and situations, it's much harder for the military to get in and out of a country than a private citizen: from the individual to the masses.

But, a smaller organization or private individual has a much higher chance of getting in just about anywhere.

So, pretty much all of your points are plainly incorrect, or give the US government too much credit and the private sector almost no credit. In fact, looking over you post, it doesn't appear that you were soundly correct on any of your points.

I didn't proofread any of my post, so lots of it might be VERY messy (I'm on a wireless keyboard at my desk, at work. There's tons of interference with this thing as I have tons of electronics on, at my desk.) Forgive me.

I didn't proofread any of my post, so lots of it might be VERY messy (I'm on a wireless keyboard at my desk, at work. There's tons of interference with this thing as I have tons of electronics on, at my desk.) Forgive me.