facebook convo regarding Haiti

[ladyneeva]

It's not just males with no kids jackfaire -- women and even couples without kids get pretty much spit on if they need assistance. As overpopulated as this country is, I think the whole thing should be reversed for a few decades. Throw money at the people who don't have kids for a while.

Anyway, as far as why Haiti gets so much charity while there is next to none directed towards Americans in trouble on an ongoing basis, the Haitian situation is one of limited duration kind of. In a month or two everyone will forget all about Haiti and assume that their donations actually 'fixed' things, and stop sending money. The problems in the US aren't anything that can be fixed with just a couple months of donations, they are things that would require ongoing funding.

Giving up your fancy coffee drink a couple times in a month to donate that money towards a cause that will fade away in a month is one thing, giving up those same two fancy coffee drinks every month for the rest of time to donate towards a cause that will never actually be fixed is quite another.

[crashhelmet]

The hypocrisy that I see is that a large portion of our government and our population are fighting to get rid of these "socialist" programs we have to take care of our people, yet they're jumping on the bandwagon to help out these other countries. It's all politics. Doesn't matter on how grand of a scale, it's all politics.

CH

[protege]

Every single time there is a disaster like the one in Haiti, a bunch of blowhards rant about how "we're only helping them because most of them are black" or "charities are only sending them aid because it's a different country."

I've heard that too. I've also heard that the only reason Haiti is being helped...is because of Obama's skin color. Of course, if skin color really was the case...why isn't anyone helping people in Africa? I mean, with all the civil wars, famines, and other disasters over there, nobody lifts a finger.

I do think that our government has learned a bit since Katrina. However, I have a feeling that when rebuilding Haiti is over...it's going to return to business as usual. That is, our own citizens are going to be ignored. I'm all for helping people out, but not with our current programs. The US welfare program really needs an overhaul. How about we start by making the "lifers" (and by that I don't mean the 85-year-old, disabled people...I mean the 25-year-old trailer trash who stays home and watches Springer all day) on it...and sending their asses to Haiti to help rebuild? Win-win for all of us

[ladyneeva]

Welfare should be treated similarly to the 'ideal' that is often stated for the criminal justice system -- better a guilty man go free than an innocent one be punished. For welfare, better to deal with a few abusers if it means that everyone who actually needs help gets it.

Take something like severe clinical depression. I'm talking the suicidal ideation isn't just for once in a while, it's fifteen or twenty times a DAY level of depression. If you've never been depressed you might not consider that a disability but trust me, it is impossible to hold down even a crummy part time job when you're so depressed you contemplate offing yourself pretty much all day.

So you have no job. No job in this country means no insurance. No insurance means no official diagnosis. Which means you can't qualify for any welfare programs because your disability prevents you from having the means to prove that you're disabled enough to need any help.

Probably not explaining that well, but hopefully you can catch my drift. For all you know, that 24 year old trailer trash might have some kind of invisible disability like that... and is living in a trailer because thats all she can afford... and she watches Springer all day because what else is there to do when you can't leave your house for whatever reason?

[telecom_goddess]

I think people who want to "help Americans first" are underestimating the devastation in Haiti.

Mass starvation is a serious possibility in Haiti; not so in America. Thousands of bodies are being dumped into mass graves; not so in America. Surgeries are routinely being performed without the use of anesthetic and antibiotics; not so in America. And so on....

Really? There is plenty of mass starvation in America with people who are homeless and can't afford to eat, and are unable to get out of that situation. Someone mentioned an infrastructure before that's in place...and it's over worked, understaffed, shelters are overcrowded, everyone's budget is being cut.

Someone can be made homeless inside of a month, and not be able to get out of it if they don't have friends or family to stay with. You don't have an address, you can't get a job without an address, and without a job you can't GAIN an address. It's endless.

I feel bad for the people in Haiti...I really do but damn I gotta agree WE should help OURSELVES and our people before them, or along side them.

[jackfaire]

I almost landed homeless. Lost my home, my job, everything I owned but literally the clothes on my back. Luckily I had just enough money to buy a bus ticket to my mom's and she put me up until I got back on my feet.

[Vagabond]

Here's a serious question.
America does these overseas humanitarian efforts for goodwill, correct? Americans help people out, try to improve our overseas image, or because we are good, decent, caring, giving, philanthropists, right?
How many of those countries would be willing to help America out if a Natural Disaster struck America? Fires, hurricanes, floods, landslides, blizzards and droughts, volcanic eruptions, etc.
I could only think of maybe a small handful of countries that either would help, or would even bother to offer condolences. The ones that pop into my mind are Canada, UK, Australia and sometimes New Zealand... the (primarily) English speaking nations/countries.
True, those are mostly the only nations in a position to help either financially or with other aid.
Maybe there's something to having been apart of the Greater Commonwealth of the United Kingdom at one point in time?

[Rapscallion]

Here's a more serious question. How many people would help out materially or physically if there was no economic payback of any sort?

For example, country A has oodles of food. Country B, near in geographic terms, has a natural disaster (famine, drought - whatever). Under our current system and expectations, people in country A would have efforts to raise money to aid country B - money to buy supplies and get them to B. Why not just look at the situation and send it over without all the fuss and nonsense? Why guilt people into giving and holding huge concerts etc, and why hold flag/button campaigns and the like. Just send it.

Rapscallion

[Lace Neil Singer]

Certain conditions have to be met to qualify for any government assistance in this country. Doesn't matter if your in trouble if you don't meet those.

If your a male with no children that makes more than a certain amount of money and have to choose between food or insurance then you don't qualify for assistance. If your even 100 dollars over the limit it doesn't matter how much debt you have.

Or even a woman with no kids. I don't qualify for help with heating bills and only a minimal contribution to rent. Were I a single mother, I'd be drowned in benefits.

[Vagabond]

Rapscallion,
Good question.
My only (limited, inexperienced) answer would be... Money. Someone's gotta get a kickback somewhere.
The money to pay for the gas to ship the supplies; the money to pay the delivery people to deliver the supplies; the money to pay the people to load up/off-load the supplies.
That is supposing the distributation of such supplies would be free and equal.
That is also supposing the people who made/grew the supplies would voluntarily give the supplies up - what are they going to earn a living on without selling those supplies to someone who is willing to pay for them?

[Rapscallion]

Why would they need a kickback? Why not do it because it's the right thing to do?

Rapscallion

[Vagabond]

I did say my answer was limited and inexperienced.
I do not know if the gas, time and effort is donated.
I do know that there are people out there that will try to make money out of any opportunity to do so.
I, personally, do not believe that all people have that inherent goodness about them. Some do.

Also, by having all those concerts and public awareness campaigns to raise money, they also help to raise awareness of the disaster in question.
And, if you can't donate supplies, gas, time or effort, it does ease some people's guilt over not being able to contribute that way by contributing money.

I don't understand that logic either - alot of good money is when you are starving - can't eat paper or metal. *shrug*

[jackfaire]

Or even a woman with no kids. I don't qualify for help with heating bills and only a minimal contribution to rent. Were I a single mother, I'd be drowned in benefits.

When I "qualify" for rent I technically qualify but am told, "your a man you don't need any help with your rent" I think the system needs to hire people who don't discriminate.

[Boozy]

Really? There is plenty of mass starvation in America with people who are homeless and can't afford to eat, and are unable to get out of that situation.

Do you truly believe that mass starvation is happening in the US?

I think you may be confusing hunger (a chronic issue) with death due to an inability to locate food.

[HYHYBT]

I don't understand that logic either - alot of good money is when you are starving - can't eat paper or metal. *shrug*

No, but money can be used to buy things which you can eat, if any are available. If they're not, it can be used to pay for some to be brought from elsewhere. Whereas if I throw a sack of groceries in a box and mail it to Haiti, what are the chances of it ever doing anyone there any good?