Donation funds, why do we pay them

  • News
  • Thread starter oldunion
  • Start date
178
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

Firstly let me say that im not against donating to good causes or helping those in need, because there are plenty of people who need help right now.

I was at the market just now and saw a slip for donating money to new orleans. I got to thinking that there must be slips like this everywhere in the united states. And then a problem came to mind...why do working citizens, who have serious expenses as it is, get called on to donate money? It has almost gotten to the point where people are expected to pay.

But the problem is why cant the government pay for disasters 100 percent. They have the money, they already have citizens tax money which is supposed to guarantee every person several things that i personally feel were denied to some Katrina victims.

I read in another thread, New Orleans was given like 3 million dollars, and then bumped up to 5 by congress when they needed 11million. Also stated was that the national guard was in iraq. I think this event has illustrated the disaster of the United States government system, which no longer functions for its citizens and has not for an incredibly long time. If people cannot find the direct correlation between the disfunction of events surrounding the disaster in New Orleans with the disaster of the Bush administration, they should no longer be allowed to think for themselves-a wasted brain is a terrible thing.

the louisiana national gaurd was out killing people when they were needed at home, outrageous :confused:
 

Answers and Replies

Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,854
14
Private citizens donating to disaaster relief programs is new to the Bush administration???
 
60
0
That 11 million was only for maintaining the levees themselves. The Army Corp of Engineers also asked for over a hundred million dollars to prepare for disaster in case the levees did breech. That was cut to 40 million.

Since the government isn't doing its job, I guess private citizens are the ones that have to.
 
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,854
14
Since when hasn't government cut funding to programs in the last couple hundred years? And I didn't know my red cross donation was going to the US Military....
 
Art
It would be interesting if it was done the other way around. Tax dollars being spent on good causes at home and wars being fought using only voluntary donations for finance. I suspect there would be a lot fewer wars.
 
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,854
14
Art said:
It would be interesting if it was done the other way around. Tax dollars being spent on good causes at home and wars being fought using only voluntary donations for finance. I suspect there would be a lot fewer wars.
Yes there woudl be. Basically because 1 nation would take the initative and run over every other nation and .... well.. be a privately financed Germany. Of course, privately funded armies have no case studies to support what their actions might be... or do they? o:) o:)

Im sure the OP will be berated by some left-wingers who believe in reduced military funding and small budget deficits and will argue that the budget cuts were Congresses way of helping the little guy by reducing the deficit.
 
38
165
Charity and "donation" fraud is an up and coming industry. Ah yes capitalism at its worst.

MIAMI Jan 5, 2005 — With private donations pouring into charities, law enforcement officials say scam artists claiming to represent tsunami relief organizations are using e-mails and telephone calls to attempt to steal donations and swipe donors' identities.

Several states and consumer watchdog agencies have issued warnings in recent days, noting that an outpouring of generosity for victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami has opened the door for con artists who want to prey upon American philanthropy.

"We don't want someone who is charitable and is supportive of the victims over there to become a victim of identity theft," said Bob Breeden, who heads the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's computer crimes center.
 
russ_watters
Mentor
19,016
5,168
oldunion said:
Firstly let me say that im not against donating to good causes or helping those in need, because there are plenty of people who need help right now.

I was at the market just now and saw a slip for donating money to new orleans. I got to thinking that there must be slips like this everywhere in the united states. And then a problem came to mind...why do working citizens, who have serious expenses as it is, get called on to donate money? It has almost gotten to the point where people are expected to pay.

But the problem is why cant the government pay for disasters 100 percent. They have the money, they already have citizens tax money which is supposed to guarantee every person several things that i personally feel were denied to some Katrina victims.
One way or another, the money is going to come from us. No, the government does not already have the money - its not like there is a $50 billion disaster relief pot just sitting around waiting for the disaster: you and I are going to pay for this next year when we pay our taxes.

Private firms often have different objectives than the government. One member asked about donating money to help animals. That's something the government will do little of. The Red Cross, for another example, will focus on medical needs, whereas the government needs to focus more on rescue, recovery, and law enforcement (at least at first).

But the main thing is that at a time like this, it isn't the quantity of relief available, its the flow. You may have heard that LA and the surrounding states are bringing in 1,400 national guardsmen a day. Why not bring them in all at once? Because mobilizing them takes time - even if they are sitting in a warehouse in their trucks, ready to go. You can't just turn them loose on the city - soon they will become stranded just like the people they are supposed to be helping. They need a supply chain, a chain of command, a purpose. So sending money to the Red Cross, just adds another path for aid to flow into the region. Someone sitting in an office in Washington, writing a $10 billion check will not make a case of water magically appear in NO 30 seconds later. It just doesn't work that way.
 
Last edited:
Art
Pengwuino said:
Yes there woudl be. Basically because 1 nation would take the initative and run over every other nation and .... well.. be a privately financed Germany. Of course, privately funded armies have no case studies to support what their actions might be... or do they? o:) o:)
Although my original post was somewhat tongue in cheek there is actually a long history of privately funded armies and wars. The crusades being one example or in the modern era groups such as the IRA. There are also of course the privately (and secretly) funded armies such as the Contras.
I guess the point I was originally making was I wonder how many of the advocates of the current war in Iraq would support the war if it was funded by only those who supported it and who had to pay for it directly.
It seems perverse that some people believe spending money to save lives in their own land should be voluntary whereas spending money to take lives in another country should be mandatory.
 
russ_watters
Mentor
19,016
5,168
Art said:
I guess the point I was originally making was I wonder how many of the advocates of the current war in Iraq would support the war if it was funded by only those who supported it and who had to pay for it directly.
If we combine that with voluntary funding of all other government programs, I'm all for it! :uhh:
 
Art
russ_watters said:
One way or another, the money is going to come from us. No, the government does not already have the money - its not like there is a $50 billion disaster relief pot just sitting around waiting for the disaster: you and I are going to pay for this next year when we pay our taxes.

Private firms often have different objectives than the government. One member asked about donating money to help animals. That's something the government will do little of. The Red Cross, for another example, will focus on medical needs, whereas the government needs to focus more on rescue, recovery, and law enforcement (at least at first).

But the main thing is that at a time like this, it isn't the quantity of relief available, its the flow. You may have heard that LA and the surrounding states are bringing in 1,400 national guardsmen a day. Why not bring them in all at once? Because mobilizing them takes time - even if they are sitting in a warehouse in their trucks, ready to go. You can't just turn them loose on the city - soon they will become stranded just like the people they are supposed to be helping. They need a supply chain, a chain of command, a purpose. So sending money to the Red Cross, just adds another path for aid to flow into the region. Someone sitting in an office in Washington, writing a $10 billion check will not make a case of water magically appear in NO 30 seconds later. It just doesn't work that way.
If the Russians had realised how slowly the US forces can mobilise in an emergency they'd have invaded and had the place locked down in no time :rofl: In fact if I were Castro I'd be making my invasion plans now. Afterall if you only have to beat 1400 troops a day it would be no problem. :biggrin:
 
217
0
russ_watters said:
If we combine that with voluntary funding of all other government programs, I'm all for it! :uhh:
+1.....................
 
edward said:
Charity and "donation" fraud is an up and coming industry. Ah yes capitalism at its worst.
What the hell does this have to do with capitalism?
 
Art
russ_watters said:
No, the government does not already have the money - its not like there is a $50 billion disaster relief pot just sitting around waiting for the disaster:
Actually they do. It is called the Emergency Reserve Fund and it exists specifically to provide timely financial assistance in response to domestic disasters and emergencies. It requires a 2/3 majority vote in the legislature to release money from this fund (also called the rainy day account) :tongue2:
 
Art
TheStatutoryApe said:
What the hell does this have to do with capitalism?
I think the common thread is greed.
 
38
165
I can only say that when the real America still existed, the military could have had plane loads of c rations on the way to the disaster area in a matter of hours.

During the cold war every military installation had thousands of cartons of C rations (meals in cans) available. We didn't have to wait for orders to come down from FEMA. One quick call from the Pentagon and help was on the way.

The rations are now MRE's and a lot tastier.
However, the military no longer keeps a surplus. The surplus MRE's are auctioned off to the public. They would have been very helpful this week.

FEMA relies on private contractors who must first submit bids. The bids must then be approved and contracts signed. Only then do the contractors start to procure the goods that are needed.

Emergencies and Bureaucracies do not mix. That fact has become evident this week.
 
Art said:
I think the common thread is greed.
That's a common thread for quite a few things.
Charity organizations are socialist in nature.
I'd say this speaks more about socialism than it does capitalism.
 
Evo
Mentor
22,876
2,368
Art said:
Actually they do. It is called the Emergency Reserve Fund and it exists specifically to provide timely financial assistance in response to domestic disasters and emergencies. It requires a 2/3 majority vote in the legislature to release money from this fund (also called the rainy day account) :tongue2:
Actually since Congress is on vacation, Bush requested that money be approved without waiting for the normal vote.

Congress Sending $10.5B in Relief Aid

"Congressional officials said $10 billion in relief aid would go to FEMA, the government's first-line defender in case of natural disasters. The remainder is ticketed for the Pentagon, which has dispatched ships and other assistance to aid in the relief effort.

In a letter to Capitol Hill that accompanied the request, Bush said the situation "requires immediate action by the Congress to ensure that the federal response to this disaster uninterrupted." And he put lawmakers on notice that the $10 billion was only a first installment, with another request expected after a fuller assessment of the storm's impact.

With the Republican-controlled Congress officially on vacation, top leaders said they would pass the relief measure without waiting for lawmakers to return to the Capitol. Instead, they announced the money would be cleared _ by Friday _ without the formality of a vote, as is often the case on non-controversial measures."


"Over half a billion dollars a day is being spent by FEMA," said Cochran, who is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/01/national/w151358D87.DTL [Broken]

I guess the thread OP isn't keeping up with what's happening?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Art
Evo said:
I guess the thread OP isn't keeping up with what's happening?
Or maybe he's a little ahead. Bush has asked his father and Clinton to head a drive to raise private donations to help with the disaster which I presume is why the OP is asking why it isn't 100% funded by the gov't.
 
Evo
Mentor
22,876
2,368
Art said:
Or maybe he's a little ahead. Bush has asked his father and Clinton to head a drive to raise private donations to help with the disaster which I presume is why the OP is asking why it isn't 100% funded by the gov't.
Yes, as they did with the Tsunami relief. Any additional money that comes in from the private sector only adds to what the government does. Why would you expect the US government at this particular time and this particular storm to be the ONLY source of donations? I believe that is unheard of and doesn't even make any sense.
 
Art
Evo said:
Yes, as they did with the Tsunami relief. Any additional money that comes in from the private sector only adds to what the government does. Why would you expect the US government at this particular time and this particular storm to be the ONLY source of donations? I believe that is unheard of and doesn't even make any sense.
I didn't say it should be. :confused:
 
Evo
Mentor
22,876
2,368
Art said:
I didn't say it should be. :confused:
:smile: Ok, you said the OP suggested it.
 
Skyhunter
Anything you give now will slowly get to the victims and will help pay for what is being done now.

Of course if you check FEMA's website they will direct you to faith based charities like Pat Robertsons, Operation Blessing.

russ_watters said:
But the main thing is that at a time like this, it isn't the quantity of relief available, its the flow. You may have heard that LA and the surrounding states are bringing in 1,400 national guardsmen a day. Why not bring them in all at once? Because mobilizing them takes time - even if they are sitting in a warehouse in their trucks, ready to go. You can't just turn them loose on the city - soon they will become stranded just like the people they are supposed to be helping. They need a supply chain, a chain of command, a purpose. So sending money to the Red Cross, just adds another path for aid to flow into the region. Someone sitting in an office in Washington, writing a $10 billion check will not make a case of water magically appear in NO 30 seconds later. It just doesn't work that way.
This was not the worst case scenario, in fact it is far less than what it would have been had the storm not veered east. Also, it was a fast moving storm, so the winds didn't push water into the lake, so in many ways you could say New Orleans was :confused: "lucky". :confused:

So why were they not prepared?

Why was the National guard and FEMA not standing by, prepared for the worst case scenario?

Oh, sorry, I forgot what Bush said, "No one could have imagined the someone would fly an airplane into err, I mean imagine these levees breaking."

Why were millions diverted from civil engineering projects in New Orleans to Iraq?

Why did Bush stay on vacation even after the Nat’l Hurricane Center predicted this catastrophe?

Why did it take 3 days for Bush to take action after Katrina hit?

How do you spell incompetent?....B U S H!
 
Art
TheStatutoryApe said:
That's a common thread for quite a few things.
Charity organizations are socialist in nature.
I'd say this speaks more about socialism than it does capitalism.
More likely just speaks volumes of human nature unfortunately.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Skyhunter
edward said:
I can only say that when the real America still existed, the military could have had plane loads of c rations on the way to the disaster area in a matter of hours.

During the cold war every military installation had thousands of cartons of C rations (meals in cans) available. We didn't have to wait for orders to come down from FEMA. One quick call from the Pentagon and help was on the way.

The rations are now MRE's and a lot tastier.
However, the military no longer keeps a surplus. The surplus MRE's are auctioned off to the public. They would have been very helpful this week.

FEMA relies on private contractors who must first submit bids. The bids must then be approved and contracts signed. Only then do the contractors start to procure the goods that are needed.

Emergencies and Bureaucracies do not mix. That fact has become evident this week.
Now just a minute. Outsourcing is good for the military, it's good for America.

Those C-rations were 10 cents a can, MRE's are like $45 each! These companies are entitled to make a profit don't you know.
 

Related Threads for: Donation funds, why do we pay them

Replies
49
Views
7K
Replies
71
Views
7K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
44
Views
13K
Replies
33
Views
4K
Top