obama sends money to haiti

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?

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 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?

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.

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.