• musclemecca bodybuilding forums does not sell or endorse any bodybuilding gear, products or supplements.
    Musclemecca has no affiliation with advertisers; they simply purchase advertising space here. If you have questions go to their site and ask them directly.
    Advertisers are responsible for the content in their forums.
    DO NOT SELL ILLEGAL PRODUCTS ON OUR FORUM

Obama promises $100 million to Haiti

Tech

Tech

Ron Paul FTW
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
10,334
Points
38
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/14/haiti.earthquake/index.html?hpt=T1

President Obama on Thursday promised $100 million in immediate American relief aid to Haiti -- an amount he said would grow in the year ahead.


Hooray for forced charity!

Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.
 
Big04pimpin

Big04pimpin

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
1,743
Points
38
your avatar pic makes me happy.



This thread does not.
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,608
Points
38
That's an awesome quote Tech, props for it.
 
smcfay

smcfay

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
644
Points
16
This post is a shame, many other contries are doing what they can to help Haiti . Folks like yourself cant seem to shake the fact that this has been done several times in the past for global disasters...instead you just look for anther insensitive remark to make about you dislike of the current president. If you don't like him just make a post saying so but don't include HAITI, have some respect for the dead, wounded and homeless
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
491
Points
16
Agreed, while the quote is good, there should be no condemnation of the idea of aiding Haiti. These are people absolutely have no means of helping themselves in this situation. The fact that americans have privately donated more than 4 million to this disaster relief in the past few days indicates there is strong public support for initiatives.

This government made the right decision.
 
Tech

Tech

Ron Paul FTW
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
10,334
Points
38
There is nothing wrong with charity. I'm all for individuals donating money to relief efforts. Charity should be an individuals choice. However, when the government gives away tax money without your permission, they take away your freedom to choose.
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
491
Points
16
There is nothing wrong with charity. I'm all for individuals donating money to relief efforts. Charity should be an individuals choice. However, when the government gives away tax money without your permission, they take away your freedom to choose.

Have they done it without your permission? Perhaps in the singular you they have. But we don't live in a singular society. We live as countries of people, not individuals. And I am willing to bet that a majority of americans would support this action. Compared to the amount of money spent on the wars by the US this is nothing, this money is actually helping people.
 
Line

Line

Chaos reigns.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
9,716
Points
38
A majority of Americans would support this action because it would help them sleep better at night...falling asleep in homeless shelters isn't easy.
 
Tech

Tech

Ron Paul FTW
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
10,334
Points
38
Have they done it without your permission? Perhaps in the singular you they have. But we don't live in a singular society. We live as countries of people, not individuals. And I am willing to bet that a majority of americans would support this action. Compared to the amount of money spent on the wars by the US this is nothing, this money is actually helping people.
There are good reasons why the US Constitution does not allow our government to send taxpayer money overseas as foreign aid. One of the best is that coerced “charity” is not charity at all, but rather it is theft. If someone picks your pocket and donates the money to a good cause it does not negate the original act of theft.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst050106.htm

Again, I think charity is a great thing. But let the charity come from the people, not the government. Let the people decide how their money should be spent.
 
Braaq

Braaq

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
6,569
Points
38
There are good reasons why the US Constitution does not allow our government to send taxpayer money overseas as foreign aid. One of the best is that coerced “charity” is not charity at all, but rather it is theft. If someone picks your pocket and donates the money to a good cause it does not negate the original act of theft.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst050106.htm

Again, I think charity is a great thing. But let the charity come from the people, not the government. Let the people decide how their money should be spent.

I agree with this. Let it be independent donations and the government can help with humanitarian aid. We are broke and can't fix the world. Especially since most of the world resents us unless they need our help :bitelip:
 

MuscleMecca Crew

Mecca Staff
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,608
Points
38
This post is a shame, many other contries are doing what they can to help Haiti . Folks like yourself cant seem to shake the fact that this has been done several times in the past for global disasters...instead you just look for anther insensitive remark to make about you dislike of the current president. If you don't like him just make a post saying so but don't include HAITI, have some respect for the dead, wounded and homeless

I donated $100 to the Red Cross out of my own pocket for this. How much did you personally donate? I can't say for sure, but the odds, most people don't donate much, though they easily could. Yet, at the same time, they support making others donate, hoping someone does, so long as they don't have to take the hit themselves.

I can't prove how much people criticizing Tech have donated personally, but I'd strongly bet that one or both of smcfay and Ryeland haven't reached into their own pockets and helped. Only you guys know the answer to this. Maybe they have, but the odds are they haven't.
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
491
Points
16
I donated $100 to the Red Cross out of my own pocket for this. How much did you personally donate? I can't say for sure, but the odds, most people don't donate much, though they easily could. Yet, at the same time, they support making others donate, hoping someone does, so long as they don't have to take the hit themselves.

I can't prove how much people criticizing Tech have donated personally, but I'd strongly bet that one or both of smcfay and Ryeland haven't reached into their own pockets and helped. Only you guys know the answer to this. Maybe they have, but the odds are they haven't.

I have donated, not much, as much as i could spare, but then again I am beyond broke.

If i had more i would donate more. I am glad to see some of my tax dollars going to this. Its another way for me to help.
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
491
Points
16
There are good reasons why the US Constitution does not allow our government to send taxpayer money overseas as foreign aid. One of the best is that coerced “charity” is not charity at all, but rather it is theft. If someone picks your pocket and donates the money to a good cause it does not negate the original act of theft.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst050106.htm

Again, I think charity is a great thing. But let the charity come from the people, not the government. Let the people decide how their money should be spent.

Supposedly the government represents the people. If you feel they don't represent you, you have bigger problems then mismanaged funds.

Also, this dogged clinging to the constitution that was written over 200 years ago is not always the best idea. The American constitution was/is a great document with some fantastic ideas. However the world has changed a lot since its creation. No society should endevour to remain static. We are very interlinked in modern times.

And as an example of why the US should donate, after Katrina, the international community offered up $854 Million to help the people afflicted. Not all of this was accepted or spent. But it was offered. Funds and aid from other countries were accepted and used to help survivors. Braaq, for a world that resents you, nearly a billion dollars of donations were offered in a time of need.

Its easy to talk about making the world a better place. To do it is another task entirely. Gestures and interventions like this bring the world together instead of tearing it apart. As an added bonus it can only serve to help the perception of america abroad.
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,608
Points
38
Supposedly the government represents the people. If you feel they don't represent you, you have bigger problems then mismanaged funds.

Also, this dogged clinging to the constitution that was written over 200 years ago is not always the best idea. The American constitution was/is a great document with some fantastic ideas. However the world has changed a lot since its creation. No society should endevour to remain static. We are very interlinked in modern times.

And as an example of why the US should donate, after Katrina, the international community offered up $854 Million to help the people afflicted. Not all of this was accepted or spent. But it was offered. Funds and aid from other countries were accepted and used to help survivors. Braaq, for a world that resents you, nearly a billion dollars of donations were offered in a time of need.

Its easy to talk about making the world a better place. To do it is another task entirely. Gestures and interventions like this bring the world together instead of tearing it apart. As an added bonus it can only serve to help the perception of america abroad.

The constitution is the law, if people don't like the law, then change it with amendments. It is a very, very dangerous thing when government acts outside the rule of law, and the results are rarely good, usually disastrous.

Katrina is 'Exhibit A' when it comes to showing how ineffective government spending is.



 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
491
Points
16
The constitution is the law, if people don't like the law, then change it with amendments. It is a very, very dangerous thing when government acts outside the rule of law, and the results are rarely good, usually disastrous.

Katrina is 'Exhibit A' when it comes to showing how ineffective government spending is.




I am well aware of how inefficient government spending can be when it comes to disaster relief. You will get no argument from me that the response to Katrina was horrifying. So much aid was turned down and a great deal was mismanaged.

I also agree that it is dangerous for the government to act outside of the law.

However, like I said, I imagine a majority of the american public would support this money going to Haiti. It then becomes the question of which supersedes which, the law or the will of the people whom that law is supposed to serve.

You have made some very good points in this debate. I can see what you mean with forced donations, and it could lead to a slippery slope. However for this case, I don't see how you can condemn the administration for stepping in to help a group of people who are incapable of helping themselves.
 
Tech

Tech

Ron Paul FTW
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
10,334
Points
38
Also, this dogged clinging to the constitution that was written over 200 years ago is not always the best idea. The American constitution was/is a great document with some fantastic ideas. However the world has changed a lot since its creation. No society should endevour to remain static. We are very interlinked in modern times.
ugh.

The US Constitution is the greatest political document ever written in the history of the world.
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
491
Points
16
ugh.

The US Constitution is the greatest political document ever written in the history of the world.

The universal declaration of human rights comes to mind as being greater.
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,608
Points
38
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-01-15.asp

U.S. Government Compassion for Haitians
by Jacob G. Hornberger

With President Obama’s promise to help the Haitian people, Americans are once again confronted with a basic moral question: When the U.S. government gives money away to people in need, who are the good, compassionate, caring people in this process?

Is the president the caring person? After all, he’s the one issuing the order that assistance be given.

How about the people who work for the IRS? Without them, Obama wouldn’t have any money to send to the Haitians.

How about the members of Congress? They’re the ones who authorize the IRS to collect income taxes from people.

How about us, the taxpayers? Isn’t it our money that the IRS forcibly takes from us and puts at the disposal of the president?

How about the voters? Well, at the very least those who voted for President Obama?

How about all Americans, including babies and children who don’t yet pay taxes and vote? Shouldn’t everyone get some moral or religious credit for living in a country where the government takes money from one group of people and gives it to another group of people?

Actually, the money that the U.S. government sends to Haiti does not reflect any goodness, caring, or compassion on the part of anyone. If President Obama wants to help people out, he can send his own money. The same holds true for the members of Congress. And the employees of the IRS. And everyone else.

Suppose I walk into a big corporate convention with a gun. I hold everyone up, and the take is $100,000. I leave the meeting and immediately buy food, supplies, and medicine, which I then send to Haiti. I don’t keep any of the money for myself.

Aren’t I a good, caring, compassionate person? Haven’t I just helped out the people of Haiti? Don’t those convention people from whom I took the money fall into the same category? It’s their money, after all, that I’ve used to help others.

So, what’s the difference between what I have done and what President Obama is doing? The only difference is that his actions are legal (well, except that the Constitution doesn’t authorize him to send U.S. taxpayer money to Haiti or any other country) and mine are not. I will be arrested as common thief and he will be extolled as a fantastic humanitarian saint. But what we have done is no different in principle — we have both forcibly taken money that belongs to others and given it to people in need.

The truth is that charity means nothing in the eyes of God or in terms of moral and ethical principles when the money comes from the government. It only has meaning when it comes from the voluntary and willing heart of the individual. That’s why the only assistance that is genuine, in a moral and religious sense, is that which comes from the private sector — that is, assistance that comes from the voluntary choices of individuals deciding on what to do with their own money.

But what if people refuse to donate to people in need? That is their right. That is what freedom is all about. If people are not free to say no, then they cannot be considered free. By the way, that’s what free will is all about also. While the Lord exhorts us to love our neighbor, He also gives us the freedom to make that choice. He does not force us to do the right thing.

America’s Founding Fathers had it right: no income tax and no socialistic welfare state. Leave people free to keep everything they earn and then decide for themselves what to do with their own money — donate, invest, lend, save, hoard, or spend it. It is that philosophy of economic freedom that we need to restore to our nation. Not only would it produce the massive amounts of capital that raise people’s wealth and standard of living, it would also provide people with much more money by which to help others.
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
491
Points
16
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-01-15.asp

U.S. Government Compassion for Haitians
by Jacob G. Hornberger

With President Obama’s promise to help the Haitian people, Americans are once again confronted with a basic moral question: When the U.S. government gives money away to people in need, who are the good, compassionate, caring people in this process?

Is the president the caring person? After all, he’s the one issuing the order that assistance be given.

How about the people who work for the IRS? Without them, Obama wouldn’t have any money to send to the Haitians.

How about the members of Congress? They’re the ones who authorize the IRS to collect income taxes from people.

How about us, the taxpayers? Isn’t it our money that the IRS forcibly takes from us and puts at the disposal of the president?

How about the voters? Well, at the very least those who voted for President Obama?

How about all Americans, including babies and children who don’t yet pay taxes and vote? Shouldn’t everyone get some moral or religious credit for living in a country where the government takes money from one group of people and gives it to another group of people?

Actually, the money that the U.S. government sends to Haiti does not reflect any goodness, caring, or compassion on the part of anyone. If President Obama wants to help people out, he can send his own money. The same holds true for the members of Congress. And the employees of the IRS. And everyone else.

Suppose I walk into a big corporate convention with a gun. I hold everyone up, and the take is $100,000. I leave the meeting and immediately buy food, supplies, and medicine, which I then send to Haiti. I don’t keep any of the money for myself.

Aren’t I a good, caring, compassionate person? Haven’t I just helped out the people of Haiti? Don’t those convention people from whom I took the money fall into the same category? It’s their money, after all, that I’ve used to help others.

So, what’s the difference between what I have done and what President Obama is doing? The only difference is that his actions are legal (well, except that the Constitution doesn’t authorize him to send U.S. taxpayer money to Haiti or any other country) and mine are not. I will be arrested as common thief and he will be extolled as a fantastic humanitarian saint. But what we have done is no different in principle — we have both forcibly taken money that belongs to others and given it to people in need.

The truth is that charity means nothing in the eyes of God or in terms of moral and ethical principles when the money comes from the government. It only has meaning when it comes from the voluntary and willing heart of the individual. That’s why the only assistance that is genuine, in a moral and religious sense, is that which comes from the private sector — that is, assistance that comes from the voluntary choices of individuals deciding on what to do with their own money.

But what if people refuse to donate to people in need? That is their right. That is what freedom is all about. If people are not free to say no, then they cannot be considered free. By the way, that’s what free will is all about also. While the Lord exhorts us to love our neighbor, He also gives us the freedom to make that choice. He does not force us to do the right thing.

America’s Founding Fathers had it right: no income tax and no socialistic welfare state. Leave people free to keep everything they earn and then decide for themselves what to do with their own money — donate, invest, lend, save, hoard, or spend it. It is that philosophy of economic freedom that we need to restore to our nation. Not only would it produce the massive amounts of capital that raise people’s wealth and standard of living, it would also provide people with much more money by which to help others.

This is a good article, well written, raises some good points. However it denies the fact that ultimately the state is given is given power by its population. Congress is elected by the people, to represent the people. Whether or not you believe they do actually represent the people is an opinion you can reflect at the ballot box.

But like I have said, the beliefs this article have espoused would have worked two centuries ago when it was possible to live off the grid. Today we are all so specialized in our professions that the things we use to live are maintained largely by others. Roads, electrical infrastructure, agriculture are things most of us have no idea how to maintain. Using taxes to pay for these things is important because the average person has no idea what it takes to have these services in place. The average lawyer, CEO, doctor has no idea how to maintain the things he needs to do his work. And by not respecting the value of something you aren't very likely to pay for it.

I am not saying the government always manages funds right. With the far more varied and extensive technologies and knowledge we have now compared to then it is impossible for any one person to understand it all. So by charging the government with creating organizations to oversee things (DMV, INS, ATF) it is possible to maintain order and make more organized strides at improving things.

Making donations via the government can be truly charitable if the people support it. I support sending some of my tax dollars to Haiti, which makes it true charity. The state is given power by the consent of the people, this is true of every democratic (yes i know, the states is a representative republic, not a democracy) society.

One of the sacrifices we make by living in a democratic society is to the rule of the majority. Every decision made by the government may not be something you agree with, but thats the power you consent to by living in a country.

Though you may mistrust the government and disagree with what they have chose to spend this money on, a great deal of americans would fully support this, making it a truly charitable donation, made by a group of people working together.

The Government is people too. Like all people they make mistakes, sometimes big ones, but they are still people. Supposedly chosen by you to make the big decisions.
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,608
Points
38
This is a good article, well written, raises some good points. However it denies the fact that ultimately the state is given is given power by its population. Congress is elected by the people, to represent the people. Whether or not you believe they do actually represent the people is an opinion you can reflect at the ballot box.

But like I have said, the beliefs this article have espoused would have worked two centuries ago when it was possible to live off the grid. Today we are all so specialized in our professions that the things we use to live are maintained largely by others. Roads, electrical infrastructure, agriculture are things most of us have no idea how to maintain. Using taxes to pay for these things is important because the average person has no idea what it takes to have these services in place. The average lawyer, CEO, doctor has no idea how to maintain the things he needs to do his work. And by not respecting the value of something you aren't very likely to pay for it.

I am not saying the government always manages funds right. With the far more varied and extensive technologies and knowledge we have now compared to then it is impossible for any one person to understand it all. So by charging the government with creating organizations to oversee things (DMV, INS, ATF) it is possible to maintain order and make more organized strides at improving things.

Making donations via the government can be truly charitable if the people support it. I support sending some of my tax dollars to Haiti, which makes it true charity. The state is given power by the consent of the people, this is true of every democratic (yes i know, the states is a representative republic, not a democracy) society.

One of the sacrifices we make by living in a democratic society is to the rule of the majority. Every decision made by the government may not be something you agree with, but thats the power you consent to by living in a country.

Though you may mistrust the government and disagree with what they have chose to spend this money on, a great deal of americans would fully support this, making it a truly charitable donation, made by a group of people working together.

The Government is people too. Like all people they make mistakes, sometimes big ones, but they are still people. Supposedly chosen by you to make the big decisions.

Can we please have a discussion on government without the old liberal strawman of "roads and infrastructure" ? The Federal Government doesn't typically pay for your local roads and power lines and such, typically it's city and state/provincial governments who handle this responsibility, but this is of course not counting federal government "stimulus" spending. Besides, the federal income tax is less than 40% of their revenues in the US. It's silly to think these things wouldn't exist without a huge government, as is it to infer they wouldn't when one is opposed to massive government wasteful spending.

It is not charity coming from the government. Did Obama ask people if they wanted this? Not a chance, it was just announced. You may support your tax dollars going to Haiti, but someone else might not, why should they be forced to? I fully encourage people to donate to Haiti, there are options now where people can donate via text messaging and it shows up on your monthly bill!

What people support is not government spending their money, that's why people do things like look for every possible tax write off and ways to do things under the table, what they support is government giving someone else's money going to Haiti, and health care, and education, and most other things. That isn't charity.
 
Top