PhotoDude.com

Just imagine how much goodwill could have been spread throughout the Indonesian flood-world if, following the disaster, the U.S. could have stepped up to the plate with an emergency authorization, requested by the President & approved by Congress, for let’s say 120 Billion dollars.

I’m thinking it’s money that would would have been far better spent than trying to secure some meaningless election in Iraq.

Why, I bet there would have been perhaps 188,00 folks willing to do anything for the USofA from that point forward.

“the U.S. could have stepped up to the plate with an emergency authorization, requested by the President & approved by Congress, for let’s say 120 Billion dollars.”

And it’s too late for anything like that to happen, right? You are aware that the last Congress recessed weeks ago, a new one won’t be sworn and formed for a week or so, and in between, you are just flat S.O.L. on any Congressional action on any matter?

You’re also aware that a $120 Billion dollar appropriation [1] would be about 8 times more than the amount we’ve actually spent rebuilding Iraq (meaning, non-military expenditures), and [2], would be roughly $600 out of your pocket in increased government spending?

Should more be done? Yes. Will more be done? Most certainly, as this is a natural disaster that isn’t a 72 hour long phenomenon, recovery will take a very long time. I’d bet there will be funding appropriaions above and beyond the $35 million so far committed, if you can wait for Congress to get sworn in and back to business (did you know that last year $2.4 billion was donated world-wide for disaster relief, and 40% of it came from the US?)

But I’d advise you to not wait for Congress. Take that $600 of your money you’re so willing to spend today, and donate it at any of the four links found in the first paragraph of this article. For example, as I’m writing this, it appears that 84,528 people have given $5,230,122.27 via Amazon and the American Red Cross. But, gee, that’s an average of about $62 per person, about a tenth of what you’re suggesting is appropriate.

Should we go hector each of them for not doing enough as well?

Did you get to the last line of my article? If so, you completely missed the point.

“I’m thinking it’s money that would would have been far better spent than trying to secure some meaningless election in Iraq.”

Yep, missed it completely. Not only that, used it to get in a swipe over the war in Iraq. I guess you’re entitled to that thought, but it’s apples and oranges. Sure, let’s abandon the likely 15 million people … yes, people ... in Iraq who hope for the very first time to have a real chance to vote … so we can use the money on an entirely unrelated tragedy. Let’s penalize them for it. Go tell those millions of Iraqis their election is meaningless, and unworthy of your support.

That’s like saying we should use the money we were going to spend on prescription drugs for senior citizens to pay for tsunami relief, because, well, those old folks aren’t going to be around much longer anyway.

It’s not only cold, it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand, because whatever we give in relief is going to be above and beyond any existing appropriations.

But you’re not alone. As I said in the article, there’s an amazing number of people out there “who still have nothing better to do but criticize those who are trying to help.”

Officers said information was being gathered on how best American resources could be used- including the skills of machinists, masons, carpenters, divers and general laborers like me among the more than 190 crew…

“Everyone is champing at the bit to go out and help,” said XXXXXXX. “Today wasn’t about a paycheck.”

This, from my Son,
aboard USS Thach (FFG-43)
out of San Diego & enroute to HELP.

Reid, you know DAMN well what I meant – as well as I understood what YOU meant. It is YOU who took to swiping at someone for something.

I understood and related to what you posted; there was no ‘swipe’ per se; it was an ‘asking’ (much like YOU do) that wondered what would be the state-of-things if we were not currently mortgaging our future for this ‘Iraqi’-thing.

Let’s say a million, a BILLION Iraqis can now vote and have ‘democracy’ because of the loss of a single American military-life: does that justify it? Does that make it ‘right’?

Over one hundred THOUSAND people have lost thier lives as a result of Nature; my comment was directed toward what could possibly ameliorate or make this ‘right’.

I mean: what the hell does MONEY mean when a mother has lost a Son? We have what I think is social-capital as well as greenback dollars.

As you’ve asked: I’ll stay the %^&% out of the way.

This household has already wrote checks to many organizations that are free & clear of any taint of scandal; you chose to be obtuse to what I originally sent. So I’ll say it again: Imagine what could be done if we were not currently-commited to spending perhaps $2-BILLION on war-efforts.

You will notice that ‘someone’ multiplied the original $35M by ten; I like to think that they read our simple exchange. While I suspect that you will now jump on me about such ‘visions’ of just exactly how a real & true GOD works, the facts remain: those in need are attended to by those who have means.

Ya think God might be Socialist or perhaps Libertarian? Lord KNOWS (HeHe!) that the anger at the money-lenders was expressed in a parable or two.

We also hear that the cheap, the thick, the dense, the so-called intelligent were ALL invited to the Table …. with an eye toward figuring out what might be pleasant to all-concerned.

Reid: this here thing we call life is but a LIFEBOAT!

The original craft sank long ago. All we have these days is the ravings of those who are drinking seawater.

There be the beauty of reading you daily; there be the reason I put up with your sometimes-irrational responses to my honest posts.

Your Faithful Reader

Dan S

“it was an ‘asking’ (much like YOU do) that wondered what would be the state-of-things if we were not currently mortgaging our future for this ‘Iraqi’-thing.”

“this ‘Iraqi’ -thing”? There’s about 25 million people who refer to it as “our future.” You’ve also referred to their election as “meaningless” and unworthy of our support. It seems clear you’d just as soon abandon them to whatever fate. So consider any anger you hear from me to be “referred anger,” transmitted and translated from the other side of the globe.

“What would be?” I’ll tell you “what would be” if we weren’t expending $5 billion per month to support our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our budget deficit for 2004 would be about $390 Billion instead of $450 Billion. To suggest it would “free up money” is to suggest you are blind to our current budget insanity.

So I’ll ask you: what would be the state-of-things if we weren’t mortgaging our future paying out Social Security when we know it will eventually fail? Or does that seem entirely unrelated to tsunami relief?

“There be the beauty of reading you daily; there be the reason I put up with your sometimes-irrational responses to my honest posts.”

If you read daily, then you know my feelings about the debacle in Iraq, how we have failed the Iraqi people, and you would know what my response would be to a further suggestion we pack up our money bags and throw them somewhere else, rather than provide protection for what you call their “meaningless” election.

That’s exactly the reaction you got.

Furthermore, I’d just said I had a gutfull of knee-jerk reactions from the Vatican against Israel, from the UN against “rich Western nation,” and all the other critics who would use this tragedy to get in digs over their pet cause against their pet enemy.

You want to oppose the war? Fine. But please do not duct tape it to every other cause that exists. Like tsunami relief. Because on this site, when I talk about the lack of funding for stem cell research, and you reply “it’s a shame we’re spending all that money in Iraq” ... I’m going to ream you a new one.

Every time.