Guys am I missing something here...

All Tom Coburn is against is borrowing the money from the Chinese to give to the Haitians which my grandchildren will have to pay back to the Chinese with interest. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That's the biggest joke I've ever heard. Even with the republicans in charge, there's no way our debt to the Chinese will ever be paid back. We'll just keep adding to it.

Longer, you can take the racism out of it. I would have the same stand if it was Norway. And my grandchildren's money is not my money, and I resent the government putting them over $40,000 in debt before they are even born.

But the racist comments are out of line. You have no idea who I am, or what my experience has been. That was just a cheap shot. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I can't take the racism out of it because I didn't put the racism into it.

How many white people in Norway would you let die of Cholera so that you're grandchildren wouldn't have to pay $500/year in taxes? (assuming they don't pass it on to their grandchildren, just like the Baby Boomers are doing) So far over 300 Haitians have died. Don't you want your grandchildren to be proud of you? In fact, why don't you pay off their $40,000 burden AND help the Haitians? Or does it only matter if Oklahomans are dying of cholera?

I'm not accusing you of being a racist, so please don't accuse me of accusing you of being a racist. If I were accusing you of being a racist, I'd be blunt. The fact that you defended yourself (by attacking me) instead of talking about Coburn has me a little worried though. Maybe you're just xenophobic???

Longer, did you donate a good sum of money directly to the Haitian relief efforts? You seem to desire the government to donate a bunch of our citizens' dollars (whether those individual citizens want to or not). By the way, I did directly contribute - dollars and time. Originally Posted by northdak2003

I prefer to donate to fight Neglected Tropical Diseases. (better bang for the buck...ask Bill Gates)

But what you've done illustrates why it doesn't work. In this case, I'm the 'free rider' and there are no matching funds from your fellow citizens. While donation is 100% voluntary, it is nowhere near 100% successful. Wouldn't you rather be successful? Wouldn't you rather win? And wouldn't you rather PAY LESS by spreading the cost out over the 300 million population of the United States?

One super donor can give $300 million.
Or two super donors can give $150 million.
Or 10 big donors can give $30 million.
Or 100 big donors can give $3 million.
Or 10,000 donors can give $30,000 each.
Or 100,000 donors can give $3,000 each.
Or one million donors can give $300 each.
Or everybody in the United states can give one dollar.

Unless I screwed up my math, it all equals the same amount. The difference is that you're more likely to get full participation with lower donation amounts. ($300 million dollar donors don't grow on trees.)

Please explain why you'd rather pay $3000 or $300 instead of $1. My guess is that your donation amount fell within that range. Are you happy with the results that you're seeing in Haiti? If so, then YOUR type of donation is superior and I'll just shut up.

Wouldn't you have rather had your donation matched 1-for-1 by every American? That's what I'd like.

If we are borrowing money from China to give to the Haitian relief, why not eliminate the middleman and coordinate with our allies to put pressure on the Chinese to give the money to Haiti directly? Apparently, they have this money lying around, otherwise they wouldn't lend it to us in exchange to U.S. Treasuries. Borrowing money in order to give out charity is, as Dave Ramsey would say, stupid!! Regardless of how horrible the tragedy was. Nothing is stopping individuals from donating as much of their own money as they feel inclined to the relief efforts in Haiti or preventing a group of private individuals from holding another fund-raising telethon.

Longer, so just one dollar donated on behalf of each citizen to this worthy cause is no big deal, right? I suspect that without a lot of effort, I could come up with some 24,297 causes that someone deems to be suitable for aid. If the government agrees, then by your reasoning it would be just fine for each of us to pony up $24,297 simply because some 3rd party (i.e., our government) has decided it is appropriate for me to give the money - a fine example of distribution of the wealth. Sorry, I don't believe that is what our country was founded on. Charitable giving is glorious and carries its own rewards. Mandated charity is another term for robbery.

Longer, I 'm going to try something new here; logic. You blamed Tom Coburn for not sending the money to Haiti. Tom Coburn, the Congressman from OK. Tom Coburn, one of 435 Congressmen. Tom Coburn, who all by himself can do nothing. What happened to the other 434 Representatives? Especially the democratic majority? What happened to them Longer and how did Coburn get to be President?

Longer, I 'm going to try something new here; logic. Originally Posted by john_galt

Yes, that would be entirely new territory for you. But the rest of what you wrote wasn't very logical at all, so it looks like you are just back in your old territory with all the other illogical blowhards out there.

Poor? Poverty in our country in no way compares to poverty in the third world. Our "poor" would be considered to be doing well by their standards.

But even if we stopped giving $ abroad, you would bitch about the government helping the poor here. You'd call it socialism and tell them to get a job.

What is so hard to understand (I used small words). Tom Coburn cannot stop aid to Haiti. He is only one Congressman out of 435. So tell me how he was able to accomplish this solo feat? Only a President has that kind of power so Coburn must have been elevated to the highest office in the land. So when did that happen. Ist das klar?

Poor? Poverty in our country in no way compares to poverty in the third world. Our "poor" would be considered to be doing well by their standards.

But even if we stopped giving $ abroad, you would bitch about the government helping the poor here. You'd call it socialism and tell them to get a job. Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

The difference is this Mike, the poor in this country is our responsibility. When did it become the US responsibility to feed the world, there are other wealthy countrys, where are they, I think before we help those who are not our responsibility we should help those that are. You also dont hold a moral monopoly mike, I have donated a lot of money to help those in need, but when we still have not reparied New Orleans and helped those in this country, why should we be the sole country rebuilding hati.

Galt;

Tom Coburn is one of 100 senators not one of 435 congresspersons.

What is so hard to understand (I used small words). Tom Coburn cannot stop aid to Haiti. He is only one Congressman out of 435. So tell me how he was able to accomplish this solo feat? Only a President has that kind of power so Coburn must have been elevated to the highest office in the land. So when did that happen. Ist das klar? Originally Posted by john_galt

First of all JG, you used small words because the level of your vocabulary dictates you can only use small words. Secondly, google Tom Coburn and Haiti and you will find what you need. Apparently you don't have a very good understanding of how the government works if you think only the President has the power to authorize or not authorize spending bills. I wish I could think of a way a Senator could stop a bill from proceeding. Hmmm...nothing comes to mind. Well, I'm off to get a Philly cheesesteak at Dave and Busters. Later JG.

Okay, I got the title wrong. 9:30 is pretty early for me so cut me some slack. The point is still valid. How can one of a hundred Senators stop the president from fulfilling a promise? Anyone, anyone, Bueller, anyone...

Okay, I got the title wrong. 9:30 is pretty early for me so cut me some slack. Originally Posted by john_galt

Never. LOL.

The point is still valid. How can one of a hundred Senators stop the president from fulfilling a promise? Anyone, anyone, Bueller, anyone... Originally Posted by john_galt

Apparently I was being too subtle in my last post. Here is a link to how a Senator may stop a bill allocating money to Haiti.

JG, follow this link