Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/13/2005 10:46:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 7:06:17 AM EDT by kill-9]
As long as Congress and the President are throwing piles upon piles of OUR money at the problem, I say no. Especially because the recipients who would most deserve it are the ones who thought enough ahead to a) get out, and b) insure anything that they had to leave behind.

www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050908/w090852.html

Congress takes up $52 billion Katrina relief bill; Bush pledges faster aid

02:43 PM EDT Sep 13

WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress rushed to approve $51.8 billion US in emergency aid for victims of hurricane Katrina on Thursday, and President George W. Bush pledged the government would cut red tape to provide $2,000 each in disaster assistance to families.

The president also promised to make sure hurricane victims would continue receiving Medicaid, food stamps and other federal benefits.

Flanked by members of his cabinet, Bush asked for patience on the part of storm victims, and declared a national day of prayer and remembrance for Friday of next week.

He spoke shortly before the House of Representatives voted 410-11 to approve a large instalment of recovery and relief funds. Senate approval was expected later Thursday.

On Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders said they intended to boycott a proposed Republican-led congressional committee that is to investigate the administration's readiness and response to the storm.

"I do not believe that the committee proposed by Speaker Hastert and Senator Frist is in the best interest of the American people," said Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Both he and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said they would not appoint members to the panel as currently contemplated.

Bush said he recognized that many displaced people lacked proper identification or even a change of clothes, and said the government would "cut through the red tape" to ensure that they receive the help they need.

He encouraged evacuees to register with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to receive the immediate $2,000 in assistance and then longer term aid.

"We have much more work to do," the president said. "But the people that have been hurt by this storm know that - need to know that the government is going to be with you for the long haul."

Bush said that more than 400,000 families have registered with FEMA but tens of thousands more people still need to be processed.

"The responsibility of caring for hundreds of thousands of citizens who no longer have homes is going to place many demands on our nation," the president said. "We have many difficult days ahead, especially as we recover those who did not survive the storm."

Bush said the government also would relax requirements so that evacuees relocated far from home could receive state-administered federal benefits, such as Medicaid, welfare, child care, mental health and substance abuse treatment, food stamps, housing, foster care, nutrition for poor, pregnant women, school lunch and unemployment cheques.

He said states that are housing evacuees should "not be penalized for showing compassion" - meaning the government would reimburse them.

The developments unfolded as the Labor Department reported that an estimated 10,000 workers who lost their jobs because of the storm filed for unemployment benefits last week, the first wave of what likely will be hundreds of thousands of such claims.

The storm has uprooted tens of thousands of people, including an estimated half-million residents of New Orleans and its immediate surroundings. Many of them are now in temporary facilities in Texas.

Passage of Bush's call for $51.8 billion in funding was a certainty in Congress, although Reid was critical of the administration's plans for running billions of dollars through the widely criticized Federal Emergency Management Agency.

In addition to afternoon appearance, Bush dispatched Vice-President Dick Cheney to the stricken region, and met with Republican congressional leaders at the White House as he struggled to shed the criticism that has followed him and his administration since the storm struck.
--
ETA: Changed "noble" to "worthwhile" in the subject per Londo's suggestion. Can't change the poll question though...
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 11:11:41 AM EDT
Is it noble ? I dont think its noble but if your in a postion to help someone you should make the effort.

Its always easier to explain why you've done nothing. I can find a million reasons to not do something.

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:02:40 PM EDT
.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:10:48 PM EDT
I donate, but NOT to the Red Cross.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:12:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 9:35:56 PM EDT by jcp84]
Clothes and food, yes. Money, we've already seen the disastrous results of that, so fvck that. There's plenty of money involved in the relief effort, and I've already seen it allocated VERY unwisely, so I choose not to let them use any more of that except whatever comes out of my paycheck.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 1:32:36 PM EDT
I donate because I feel that it is the least that I
can do. That said, I don't judge others based on
whether they give or not.

Charity is not a contest.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:30:22 PM EDT
.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:02:12 AM EDT
The argument against public relief around here is that private generosity will prevail in times of need. Now we have had a huge disaster and people are coming up with excuses why they shouldn't demonstrate private relief? Wonderful.There are plenty of uses for private donations, and every private dollar is one less tax dollar that might ultimately have to be spent.

Why do some of you not want to donate to the Red Cross?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:03:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
The argument against public relief around here is that private generosity will prevail in times of need. Now we have had a huge disaster and people are coming up with excuses why they shouldn't demonstrate private relief? Wonderful.There are plenty of uses for private donations, and every private dollar is one less tax dollar that might ultimately have to be spent.

Why do some of you not want to donate to the Red Cross?



Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:16:06 AM EDT
NO

The question was "Is it noble to voluntarily donate to Katrina relief funds?"

And I said no.

But you can feel noble if you want, I don't care.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:26:58 AM EDT
It pisses me off all these washed up Hollywoood screwballs doing commercials saying that I need to donate money to the effort, how about they donate and leave my middle class ass out of it. I need the money now so as to not become a Refugee later
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:22:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
The argument against public relief around here is that private generosity will prevail in times of need. Now we have had a huge disaster and people are coming up with excuses why they shouldn't demonstrate private relief? Wonderful. There are plenty of uses for private donations, and every private dollar is one less tax dollar that might ultimately have to be spent.



Many, MANY public dollars are going to be thrown at the problem, regardless of how much or how little is raised through private channels. If the government came out and said that only limited funds were going to disaster relief, AND THEY CUT TAXES CORRESPONDINGLY, then I would be the first in line with my checkbook. But as long as the government is taking my money by force to give to these folks, I won't be volunteering more.


Why do some of you not want to donate to the Red Cross?


See the post-9/11 scandal about where Red Cross money ended up (or, rather, did NOT end up).
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:24:37 AM EDT
No. Nobility has nothing to do with it.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:26:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:31:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jack19:
No. Nobility has nothing to do with it.



No? Did I use the wrong term? What would you suggest?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:31:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 6:33:42 AM EDT by Johnny_Reno]
I think a lot of folks here are looking at the New Orleans ninth ward and identifying them as the typical person who is receiving all of the assistance. Keep in mind that Katrina hit Mississippi the hardest, not New Orleans. Of course, New Orleans is going to receive the media coverage because it has dead bodies, floods, incompetent politicians...everything that a journalist could hope for. Unfortunately, this storm affected an area of the country the size of Minnesota.

I survived Ivan and Dennis, partly to previous preparations and partly just because of pure, blind luck-of-the-draw. If Katrina hit 150 miles further east, I could very likely be sitting in very different shoes.

I have a hard time looking at someone who had their home destroyed and lost their jobs (through no fault of their own) and say "sorry Charlie. Sucks to be you."
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:31:55 AM EDT
Many people in South Florida still need help from last year‘s hurricanes. Where's the relief effort for them?

They have been forgotten.

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:40:14 AM EDT
I have zero faith in any organization, public or private, to distribute goods, services and money in a way that isn't going to be wrought with fraud.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:49:32 AM EDT
...only if you want to help people buy Louis Vuitton handbags and get their hair did.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:52:59 AM EDT
Nope
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:53:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
I think a lot of folks here are looking at the New Orleans ninth ward and identifying them as the typical person who is receiving all of the assistance.





Originally Posted By j-fonz:
...only if you want to help people buy Louis Vuitton handbags and get their hair did.





...and you illustrate my point completely.


Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:53:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 6:54:12 AM EDT by Colt_SBR]

Originally Posted By go3:
I have zero faith in any organization, public or private, to distribute goods, services and money in a way that isn't going to be wrought with fraud.



I agree.

Most of the money collected for 9-11 hasn't been used. it sits in their bank accounts and collects interest for the organization.

I'm leery of an organization that only wants $$$$$$$$$$ Cash/Money $$$$$$$$$$$$, not goods. The big wigs of the organization get a very hefty paycheck while the people the money was collected for go hungry and homeless.


Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:53:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By Jack19:
No. Nobility has nothing to do with it.



No? Did I use the wrong term? What would you suggest?




How about- worthwhile
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:55:50 AM EDT
Donations of food items, clothing, toys, etc. is much more palpable to me than Cash.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 7:10:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KnobCreek:
Donations of food items, clothing, toys, etc. is much more palpable to me than Cash.



The big organizations have refused those items. They say distribution is too difficult. The only want cash.

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 7:12:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Colt_SBR:

Originally Posted By KnobCreek:
Donations of food items, clothing, toys, etc. is much more palpable to me than Cash.



The big organizations have refused those items. They say distribution is too difficult. The only want cash.




Oh, so this is supposed to be EASY. Hmmm, that's really surprising
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 7:17:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:
If the government came out and said that only limited funds were going to disaster relief, AND THEY CUT TAXES CORRESPONDINGLY, then I would be the first in line with my checkbook. But as long as the government is taking my money by force to give to these folks, I won't be volunteering more.




If your primary reason for giving is a tax break ( wrong reason for giving in a time of need, but I wont go there), then donate your money to one of the relief organizations that qualifies you for atax deduction. problem solved for you that way. Just itemize and claim the donation.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 7:20:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Colt_SBR:
Many people in South Florida still need help from last year‘s hurricanes. Where's the relief effort for them?

They have been forgotten.



By now theres this years storms to worry about, and there shouldn't be anyone in "immediate" peril from last years storms a year later.People still in trouble from last years storms perhaps should have planned a bit better if they are still having difficulties a year later.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 7:46:40 AM EDT
I don't think so, especially WRT the huge "relief" funds. It is really that noble or helpful to just write a check to someone, and God only knows where that money is really going? We've had endless scandals where charity money is found going everywhere but where it's supposed to, into some executive's pocket, to a dozen unneccesary office helpers since nobody wants to look into a charity's finances too closely, or to people who don't need it, or people who scammed the charity organization and nobody cares.

If I help anybody, I'll directly help people who I personally know to be in trouble that isn't their fault. That money goes entirely to them, not to support some bloated distribution network sending most of it to bums and scammers.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 7:49:46 AM EDT
noble, no.

A good idea, perhaps, depending on the circumstances.

Big "relief" funds? (Red Cross, United Way, etc) no where near "noble" and not even a good idea. See 9/11 and where those organizations used the "relief" money.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 8:13:27 AM EDT
I am in Florida and in Hurricanes path every year

But I do not donate to these "events" because it my money would never reach a single victim!


Donating is what people do to make them feel better about themselves and to somehow shed their guilt.Pisses me off when my grocery store asks at checkout...

checkout lady= "want to donate to the relief fund?"

Me= "NO, I dont"

Her..- "snarl, hmmph"

flame away.


Hell, I give to members here in need more than I do anywhere else. (until I got duped that is)
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 9:01:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Colt_SBR:

Originally Posted By KnobCreek:
Donations of food items, clothing, toys, etc. is much more palpable to me than Cash.



The big organizations have refused those items. They say distribution is too difficult. The only want cash.





Thats just plain not true. GWB said cash is best.

The big orginizations will take any baby things, and non parishable food items.


They have refused used clothing when they were just overwhelmed with crappy rags and not enough man power to seperate the trash from useful stuff.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 9:05:30 AM EDT
I will donate blood, but cash is out of the question. Sadly, recent history has shown that "relief" and "corruption" walk hand in hand.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:03:09 PM EDT
.
Top Top