NationStates Jolt Archive

You might be wondering why charities are asking for help for such a rich country - the simple answer is that the US Government haven't helped as much as they should have, so charities have had to take on the burden.

Money you donate to charities will NOT be handed over to the US Government - it will be used BY THE CHARITIES THEMSELVES to help people by providing food, water, and other assistance.

If you are able to, PLEASE donate to either World Vision ( http://www.worldvision.org/ ), the American Red Cross ( http://www.redcross.org ), the Southern Baptist Convention ( http://www.sbc.net - the info page about the hurricane and the donate button is on this page http://www.namb.net/site/c.9qKILUOzEpH/b.224451/k.F902/Hurricane_Katrina_Disaster_Relief_Update__Donations.htm ) or donate to one of a variety of organisations (including animal welfare organisations) involved in the relief effort at this website: http://www.networkforgood.org/topics/animal_environ/hurricanes/

If you're wondering why you should donate, look at this log to gain an idea of the situation... or even try fasting for a day or two - however bad you feel from it, it's nothing compared to what the hurrican victims have had to go through (and are still going through in a lot of cases): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4210650.stm

If you can't afford to donate yet, please donate as soon as you can afford to.

PLEASE BE CAREFUL TO AVOID GIVING TO FALSE CHARITIES (there are websites popping up, according to the FBI, that are asking for money supposedly to help victims of the disaster but are actually pocketing it) - PLEASE ONLY GIVE TO A WELL-KNOWN CHARITY.

Thanks for reading this and thanks for helping.

You might be wondering why charities are asking for help for such a rich country - the simple answer is that the US Government haven't helped as much as they should have, so charities have had to take on the burden.
Okay, I just have to point out that if giving billions of dollars isn't as much as the government should be doing, then you're a Bush-hating liberal. Just sayin'.

Okay, I just have to point out that if giving billions of dollars isn't as much as the government should be doing, then you're a Bush-hating liberal. Just sayin'.
I agree.

Asking a liberal how much we should give is like asking how high is up. :(

Usually it's liberals who get shit for throwing money at problems. Interesting to see the other side defend themselves against the same criticism.

I agree.

Asking a liberal how much we should give is like asking how high is up. :(
And if you ask a conservative how much money we should give to the military to go off and kill people, the answer is how high is up :rolleyes:.

I'd rather spend money helping people then killing people. :(

You might be wondering why charities are asking for help for such a rich country - the simple answer is that the US Government haven't helped as much as they should have, so charities have had to take on the burden.
Im not surprised at all.

Im not surprised at all.

Sigh

For personal reasons I prefer not to donate to the Red Cross. I have donated to the Salvation Army. If you would care to do so http://www1.salvationarmy.org/

You might be wondering why charities are asking for help for such a rich country - the simple answer is that the US Government haven't helped as much as they should have, so charities have had to take on the burden.

What you are saying is a distortion of the facts and truth. You could have solicited for charities, which I agree with, without politicizing it.

US Government haven't helped as much as they should have

And you base this assumption on WHAT EVIDENCE ? Or should you be ignored as being another ignorant reactionary radical assmuch ?

And you base this assumption on WHAT EVIDENCE ? Or should you be ignored as being another ignorant reactionary assmuch ?
Erm... The proper term would be "ignorant radical assmuch".

I forgot radical ! I could have added liberal but I did not want to assume too much. reactionary seemed appropriate and radical is an assumption but a stretch just from reading a few lines . LOL

I forgot radical ! I could have added liberal but I did not want to assume too much. reactionary seemed appropriate and radical is an assumption but a stretch just from reading a few lines . LOL


Reactionary defines an extremist to the right end of the political spectrum. Radical defines an extremist on the left end.

Well the government shouldn't be total and force it on EVERYONE with tax increases or budget cuts. Some people don't deserve to be governmentally funded for stupid things.

Usually it's liberals who get shit for throwing money at problems. Interesting to see the other side defend themselves against the same criticism.
The difference must be too subtle for you to see. The liberals get criticized for throwing good money after bad. Spending more billions on welfare and education in hopes to improve things, while things keep getting worse is an excellent example of these vain attempts to solve problems with more money.

The billions that are being thrown at disaster relief actually do some good. And unlike liberal causes, more money does do more good.

I'd rather spend money helping people then killing people. :(

So you want to help them before you kill them? :D

You might be wondering why charities are asking for help for such a rich country - the simple answer is that the US Government haven't helped as much as they should have, so charities have had to take on the burden.

Money you donate to charities will NOT be handed over to the US Government - it will be used BY THE CHARITIES THEMSELVES to help people by providing food, water, and other assistance.


As you say yourself.. charities ask for money to provide SERVICES...charities act as supplemental support to government efforts. Charities "TAKE ON THE BURDEN" no matter the wealth or power of the nation. The first and only purpose of a charity it so save lives.

Your first premise only serves to add political partisanship to an otherwise humanitarian effort. You should be ashamed of yourself defiling an effort to save lives with your divisive words.

As you say yourself.. charities ask for money to provide SERVICES...charities act as supplemental support to government efforts. Charities "TAKE ON THE BURDEN" no matter the wealth or power of the nation. The first and only purpose of a charity it so save lives.

Your first premise only serves to add political partisanship to an otherwise humanitarian effort. You should be ashamed of yourself defiling an effort to save lives with your divisive words.

Yes that is true, and also is that the government is also giving the 'burden' of the charites to be easier, but we are in war basically and an event like this is just not good for th government to react to.

Yes that is true, and also is that the government is also giving the 'burden' of the charites to be easier, but we are in war basically and an event like this is just not good for th government to react to.

War did not impeed FEMA last year through the Florida Hurricanes, or stop congress from appropriating relief funds for the Tsunami victims. There is little evidence that the Iraq war was the reason why it took so long for assistance to be provided. But rather poor planing and excution on both STATE and FEDERAL agencies!

Why does everything have to focus on politics? The only reason I mentioned something political in my post (the bit about the US gov not helping people as much as they should) was because too many people in other countries (such as the one I live in, England) don't want to donate because they think "why should I give to a rich country that has the money to deal with things itss self" or something similar, not realising that the donations are going to charities who are helping on the ground because of the slow response of the US government.

Whatever you say about the US doing what they should have, the fact remains they were too slow and didn't help enough - which is why so many people were dying, being shot, caught up in violence, having to sleep next to dead bodies, being raped, etc.

I was simply trying to explain why people should donate even though the US government is rich.

I apologise if I offended anyone.

I was simply trying to explain why people should donate even though the US government is rich.

I apologise if I offended anyone.
How can the government be rich, when it's only income is through the tax revenue it demands in order to support the various tax expenditures it's citizens demand? It should be a zero-sum gain for the government, shouldn't it? That isn't what I'd call rich. More like most of us, the pay is already spent before we earn it.

And if you ask a conservative how much money we should give to the military to go off and kill people, the answer is how high is up :rolleyes:.

I'd rather spend money helping people then killing people. :(

The aim when you spend money on the military is that you'll help your people die less by making the enemy die more. So, you're actually spending money to help and kill at the same time. Thus, you would rather spend money helping people than helping people while killing evil people. :)

But really, what's new? Charities have always been a big part of relief efforts in the United States because they're loaded. The government financial advisors probably expect a certain amount of aid from third parties in an event like this and plan on spending less and being covered by said third parties, or so I would hope. Why use only government money if charities want to pitch in? Seems like a waste. As long as the money gets there, who cares whether it's from the government or the people?

How can the government be rich, when it's only income is through the tax revenue it demands in order to support the various tax expenditures it's citizens demand? It should be a zero-sum gain for the government, shouldn't it? That isn't what I'd call rich. More like most of us, the pay is already spent before we earn it.

It's rich because it has more Federal money available (for disasters such as this) per capita than most other countries - ins't it something like the third richest country in the world?

And the government's income isn't just through tax - it's also through tourism and, judging from the fact that Bush won an election twice, probably from large corporations too.

Anyway I don't want to play politics. If there was one thing Bush said that was right, it's that there'll be plenty of time for politics later. For now, please help these people in whatever way you can. If you live close enough and can't donate (or even if you can), please volunteer to help. The Red Cross would probably be a good point of first contact about volunteering.

If you can donate, I'm not suggesting in any way that you only donate to certain charities - in my original post, I put a link to a website working on behalf of many charities. But please be careful not to donate to people pretending to help when they actually just want the money themselves, or fake charities.

In whatever way you can, whether you can do it now or can't do it till later, please help these people.

Thanks.

If you still don't want to help, please take a look at this: http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_09.08.05/op/editorial.html