Posted on 06/27/2005 7:17:40 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
That's why we should oversee (at the very least) every penny we as Americans donate. None of this "trusting" corrupt third-world governments who thrive on natural disasters because it allows them to skim a "little" off the top.
Where will the UN be on this one?
"Foreign aid is the process of taking money from poor people in rich countries giving it to rich people in poor countries."
Among other low life attributes stealing is one of Bill Clinton's traits of shame.
It would be far better for the people to fly over the area and drop the money out of airplanes. Then they could pick up the money from the ground and buy what they need. If the money is concentrated and distributed, there is no way to keep the well-connected from stealing it.
Wait, Aid money goes to business and land owners, those that had assets destroyed, so they could rebuild the ecomony. The people that were living in tin shacks before the tsunami are living in tents now. What's wrong with that?
Once again I am vindicated in my not having donated a penny.
So will the African aid
I had actually heard something about this earlier...that those who suffered the most have received little or nothing.
I gave a nominal amount to a fund drive at the office. But that was it. No more donations for overseas relief. We have people in this country still trying to rebuild after last year's hurricane season. I'd rather give to them.
"The people that were living in tin shacks before the tsunami are living in tents now. What's wrong with that?"
Sarcasm?
Those donations are not intended as business loans.
Now really, who didn't see this coming?
Not business loans, grants.
All the money should go to people with no assets prior to the tsunami and let the business and land owners wiped out fend for themselves?
"Not meant as sarcasm"
Odd concept. Ok, the people there were living in squalor, that can't be debated. After the tsunami, they are living in squalor. Now, if you help the businesses and land owners, the people will continue to live in squalor, they did before didn't they?
Or, do you suggest that with the grants, the businesses will suddenly become more benevolent?
If I were to give money to this sham, (obviously I didn't), I'd rather see a poor family get enough to buy a tent upgrade and maybe a few chickens then to see some relatively rich guy stuff his pockets.
It's aid, it should be available to all who were damaged. Unfortunately, in that part of the world, only the rich and politically connected will get the money.... hey wait a minute... that's how it works here!
giving out reconstruction loans is not Oxfam's job. It is the job of World Bank or Asia Development Bank.
Those charity donations are for needy folks.
Well, that's what I was thinking. If you had a business and a beachfront home, should your compensation be the same or less than the guy who lived in a lean-to shelter down on the beach?
Indeed.
At the time, the UN was b*tchin about how stingy we are with our money.
First of all, we were the first ones there, we had three (i think) ships whose sole mission was to desalinize water to make it potable. I think we were pumping out 250,000 gallons of fresh water a day before the UN even organized their meeting to talk about what to do.
Also, we wanted to make sure our money went to the people and not to Kofiesque skimmers who thrive at the expense and sufferring of others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.