Nanker Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 I agree that the opportunity to rebuild the country is important, however trying to stave off a "mass exodus..." of immigrants from SFLO, is the worst of our worries. Between the Hatian immigratian in the 80's vs. the "Marielito's" who came at the same time with a carte blanch, "wet foot/dry foot" policy that remains in effect today, I will go with the contribution of the Haitian immigrants vs. what Castro sent to our shores. Nothing against either country or people, however, from personal experience, the Haitian immigrants to this country have been as positive and productive as any other immigrant group in our short history. Let's all support the people of Haiti in whatever way we can during this trying time. Yes!
RkFast Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 How are Rush's comments any different than liberals talking about how Bush cared more about Iraq than New Orleans? Or how he hates black people? "Chocolate City", anyone?
KD in CA Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 I have no problem with the commitment of money, though our government does tend to just throw numbers around without accountability. My question is, who gets the $100 million? From what I've been reading lately, just giving it to the Haitian government as a gesture of aid doesn't particularly mean it will go to help those who need it. Exactly. I'm not sure what $100MM in cash will be used for other than lining the Swiss bank accounts of Haiti powerbrokers. I am totally fine with spending $100MM on providing manpower, equipment and supplies via the US military or other US institutions to help these people out for the next couple of years. Actually the # seems a little low given the scope of the disaster.
keepthefaith Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Exactly. I'm not sure what $100MM in cash will be used for other than lining the Swiss bank accounts of Haiti powerbrokers. I am totally fine with spending $100MM on providing manpower, equipment and supplies via the US military or other US institutions to help these people out for the next couple of years. Actually the # seems a little low given the scope of the disaster. Rest assured, we'll be spending billions in Haiti over the next several years. Helping them now is a must, but my strong hunch is that Obama and co. will see this as more than a sort term relief effort over the long haul.
IDBillzFan Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Exactly. I'm not sure what $100MM in cash will be used for other than lining the Swiss bank accounts of Haiti powerbrokers. I am totally fine with spending $100MM on providing manpower, equipment and supplies via the US military or other US institutions to help these people out for the next couple of years. Actually the # seems a little low given the scope of the disaster. In announcing the financial commitment, Obama made it clear that the number would grow significantly over the coming year. You think this dude knows how to commit money and then stop when he reaches his commitment? Hell, it ain't his money.
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Exactly. I'm not sure what $100MM in cash will be used for other than lining the Swiss bank accounts of Haiti powerbrokers. I am totally fine with spending $100MM on providing manpower, equipment and supplies via the US military or other US institutions to help these people out for the next couple of years. Actually the # seems a little low given the scope of the disaster. Given the rampant corruption and ****ty construction quality in Haiti, $100M probably covers the entire cost of the physical destruction.
John Adams Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Given the rampant corruption and ****ty construction quality in Haiti, $100M probably covers the entire cost of the physical destruction. Trying to get 100M to Haiti--any any tangible form (dozers, excavaters, food, medical) won't happen for months. Yes, the world has the resources to help...but there's no way to get most of those resources there. Even in the US, it takes a day or two to get help to people in need after a disaster (see Katrina, not that it stopped people from blaming Bush for it). In Haiti, there's no way to get them the help they need as fast as they need it and thus, this will get so much worse before it starts getting any better.
IDBillzFan Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Given the rampant corruption and ****ty construction quality in Haiti, $100M probably covers the entire cost of the physical destruction. Billions of dollars given to Haiti, and not one person required to use rebar.
blzrul Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Trying to get 100M to Haiti--any any tangible form (dozers, excavaters, food, medical) won't happen for months. Yes, the world has the resources to help...but there's no way to get most of those resources there. Even in the US, it takes a day or two to get help to people in need after a disaster (see Katrina, not that it stopped people from blaming Bush for it). In Haiti, there's no way to get them the help they need as fast as they need it and thus, this will get so much worse before it starts getting any better. Not much different than the tsunami in that respect. You can get the people and supplies THERE but to deploy them to the point of need unfortunately takes time.
Adam Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 How are Rush's comments any different than liberals talking about how Bush cared more about Iraq than New Orleans? Or how he hates black people? "Chocolate City", anyone? So one side should do the same thing the other side did.......that worked well in third grade too
RkFast Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 So one side should do the same thing the other side did.......that worked well in third grade too Not the point. But good try.
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Not much different than the tsunami in that respect. You can get the people and supplies THERE but to deploy them to the point of need unfortunately takes time. Unless it's New Orleans.
erynthered Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Unless it's New Orleans. I thought the same thing. " But its different!!! " <blzrul>
Chef Jim Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Unless it's New Orleans. But, but, but New Orleans is right down the road.
TheMadCap Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Unless it's New Orleans. hahahahah! That was money!!!!
PastaJoe Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Big difference in responding to a disaster in our own country and a foreign island country. There was a lack of National Guard resources because many of them were in Iraq. You could helicopter troops and supplies into New Orleans without waiting for days if they were available, you can't helicopter to Haiti.
Chef Jim Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Big difference in responding to a disaster in our own country and a foreign island country. There was a lack of National Guard resources because many of them were in Iraq. You could helicopter troops and supplies into New Orleans without waiting for days if they were available, you can't helicopter to Haiti. Because we all know that all the supplies needed are just lined up neatly waiting to be shipped anywhere in the US at the drop of a hat. Don't be stupid PJ, you're better than than.
Magox Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Big difference in responding to a disaster in our own country and a foreign island country. There was a lack of National Guard resources because many of them were in Iraq. You could helicopter troops and supplies into New Orleans without waiting for days if they were available, you can't helicopter to Haiti. The bounds of your hypocrisy knows no limits.
Adam Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Not the point. But good try. Thank you- not too many people give credit for effort anymore Big difference in responding to a disaster in our own country and a foreign island country. There was a lack of National Guard resources because many of them were in Iraq. You could helicopter troops and supplies into New Orleans without waiting for days if they were available, you can't helicopter to Haiti. Where would you have safely landed the helicopter. People in Haiti deserve help just as much as people in New Orleans....and they will be victimized by probably more scams that will eat up donation money.
Recommended Posts