Rush Limbaugh Stands by Haiti Comments

[Rey C.]

Honestly I would too, I mean 100 million in relief aid? Do you think if a horrible natural disaster struck America, Haiti would be handing over 100 million dollars in 'relief aid'?? Uhh I think not. You know why? Because Haiti doesn't HAVE 100 million to hand over, AND NEITHER DOES THE US, but does that stop Obama from wanting to play superman? No. He needs to put HIS country first and then worry about the other countries. He is President of The United States of America, NOT the whole world. That's like those people (Angelina Jolie, etc.) who adopt kids from China and Africa when we have starving kids on the streets in America in almost every city, why not adopt a kid that needs your help here? I mean seriously.

Don't be offended by this question, Hissy, but the first thing that struck me when I read your post was that you're posting from South Korea. Your husband is in the military and stationed there, correct? Why? Why is the U.S. military still maintaining a presence there? How is that in the direct interests of the U.S.? Is the South Korean government paying any portion of the cost for us being there? Let's say we weren't there and Kim Jong Il got a wild hair up his butt and invaded the South. So what? How would that affect the average American, other than our supply of electronics and video games? I'm just using the logic that I've seen in several posts here. I also don't believe in nation building in general terms. But let's run with this for a bit. Because our tax dollars are keeping South Korea safe, they have the funds (like Japan and other places) to devote to building their economies. So let's say the lil guy from the North took over. He couldn't effectively run a lemonade stand on a hot summer day. So Kia, Samsung and most of the other SK companies would either have to relocate or be nationalized and fail. Where could they relocate to? Here maybe??? We run an annual trade deficit with South Korea. We have for quite some time. So in addition to bearing the cost of our troops being there, we also have an addition to our deficit, because of the imbalance of trade with that nation. Then you throw in the fact that American industries are prohibited from freely doing business there. Our accumulated aid to South Korea has run into the tens, if not hundreds of billions over the decades.

So again, using the logic that I've seen in this thread (some of which has some merit), why are you there... and do you agree with you being there? Wouldn't we be better off if the military was either fighting for/protecting our direct interests, or made smaller and thereby reducing our military budget? Why should I care about how some dictator treats his people or whether or not they have democracy? As long as the dictator can be kept under control, so what??? He's not peeing in my Wheaties, so why should I care? :dunno:

We can talk about the $91 billion+ in aid that we have given to Israel too. We can talk about the Cranston Amendment, which gurantees by law that Israel will ALWAYS receive at least enough aid to ALWAYS make its loan payments. A law endorsed by Republicans and Democrats alike. Last I checked, the average Israeli Zionist was prospering pretty well - they're certainly not poor. Why the hell are we supporting them?! And why is it a U.S. law that we HAVE to???!!! We can talk about the tens of thousands of troops that are in far flung places around the world... all supported by U.S. taxpayers. When I hear Mr. Limbaugh complain about the costs of that, and the war for mom, apple pie and democracy in Iraq, maybe I'll take him seriously. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

As a friend of mine used to say, this is nothing more than jumping over dollars to pick up a dime.

 

[Rey C.]

I got curious...

Cost of War in Iraq to date: $701,879,547,323 (I've seen higher figures, but I'll accept $700 billion for shits & giggles). costofwar.com

We're only about two months from being 7 years in that sewer, so that's about $100 billion/year... about $270 million per day... $11.25 million per hour. This thread was started about 26 hours ago. So in that time, we have shat away roughly $293 million in Iraq - or about 3 times what has been pledged to Haiti.

My ol' pal would have loved this one - he'd have been on the floor laughing with tears in his eyes. Let's lose our religion crying over a one time $100 million shot for disaster relief. But let's pretend that the $293 million per day, flushed down a shithole, doesn't phase us. Lovely! :nanner:

 

[Alyssa Rose]

Don't be offended by this question, Hissy, but the first thing that struck me when I read your post was that you're posting from South Korea. Your husband is in the military and stationed there, correct? Why? Why is the U.S. military still maintaining a presence there? How is that in the direct interests of the U.S.? Is the South Korean government paying any portion of the cost for us being there? Let's say we weren't there and Kim Jong Il got a wild hair up his butt and invaded the South. So what? How would that affect the average American, other than our supply of electronics and video games? I'm just using the logic that I've seen in several posts here. I also don't believe in nation building in general terms. But let's run with this for a bit. Because our tax dollars are keeping South Korea safe, they have the funds (like Japan and other places) to devote to building their economies. So let's say the lil guy from the North took over. He couldn't effectively run a lemonade stand on a hot summer day. So Kia, Samsung and most of the other SK companies would either have to relocate or be nationalized and fail. Where could they relocate to? Here maybe??? We run an annual trade deficit with South Korea. We have for quite some time. So in addition to bearing the cost of our troops being there, we also have an addition to our deficit, because of the imbalance of trade with that nation. Then you throw in the fact that American industries are prohibited from freely doing business there. Our accumulated aid to South Korea has run into the tens, if not hundreds of billions over the decades.

So again, using the logic that I've seen in this thread (some of which has some merit), why are you there... and do you agree with you being there? Wouldn't we be better off if the military was either fighting for/protecting our direct interests, or made smaller and thereby reducing our military budget? Why should I care about how some dictator treats his people or whether or not they have democracy? As long as the dictator can be kept under control, so what??? He's not peeing in my Wheaties, so why should I care? :dunno:

We can talk about the $91 billion+ in aid that we have given to Israel too. We can talk about the Cranston Amendment, which gurantees by law that Israel will ALWAYS receive at least enough aid to ALWAYS make its loan payments. A law endorsed by Republicans and Democrats alike. Last I checked, the average Israeli Zionist was prospering pretty well - they're certainly not poor. Why the hell are we supporting them?! And why is it a U.S. law that we HAVE to???!!! We can talk about the tens of thousands of troops that are in far flung places around the world... all supported by U.S. taxpayers. When I hear Mr. Limbaugh complain about the costs of that, and the war for mom, apple pie and democracy in Iraq, maybe I'll take him seriously. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

As a friend of mine used to say, this is nothing more than jumping over dollars to pick up a dime.

I don't agree with us being here at all. but then again I don't have much say in the matter. I agree with you 100% but we have to do what we are told.

 

[Nester6]

I would stand by those comments as well. If you don't think the Obama administration can and will exploit/use (let's not argue semantics) this for political gain, you're being very naive. As I said in the other thread, I'm not giving any aid on my own. The government will throw away enough money to cover for all of us before this is over.

Haiti is a disaster that deserves help, however, I also stand by those comments.

 

[El Perro Mayor]

You can't take Rush seriously, he finds faults in anything he doesn't agree with, never mind the hypocrisy. Bush gave aid after the tsunami. Obama is giving relief in Haiti. Bush took six days to hold a press conference after the shoe bomber attempt and Obama three.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/bush-waited-nine-days-to_n_406307.html


Yet whatever Move Obama makes, Rush is going to jump all over him. So maybe Rush should do some fact checking before he opens his pie hole.

 

[Hot Mega]

You can't take Rush seriously, he finds faults in anything he doesn't agree with, never mind the hypocrisy. Bush gave aid after the tsunami. Obama is giving relief in Haiti. Bush took six days to hold a press conference after the shoe bomber attempt and Obama three.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/bush-waited-nine-days-to_n_406307.html


Yet whatever Move Obama makes, Rush is going to jump all over him. So maybe Rush should do some fact checking before he opens his pie hole.

Facts don't entertain numb skull GOPers as well.

 

[Friday on my mind]

I see where Obama not only has Bill Clinton working on aid to haiti but GWB as well is speaking out saying we must not only get them through this but aid and assist them beyond that.It's not only the humatarian thing to do folks it's the smart thing to do for the US.Do you think we would not be affected by a country sinking into utter chaos that lies just a 100 miles south of Miami? Even GWB gets that,too bad some of the uneducated others on the right don't get it as well.

 

[JayJohn85]

At the risk of sounding like a right prick. I'd would have to say that I think all the aid talk in the media like Gordon Brown and America and other western nations is all posturing and would be highly suspicious about whats actually happening on the ground. Out of sight and out of mind, Once its out of the headlines and the public glare.

 

[meesterperfect]

I see where Obama not only has Bill Clinton working on aid to haiti but GWB as well is speaking out saying we must not only get them through this but aid and assist them beyond that.It's not only the humatarian thing to do folks it's the smart thing to do for the US.Do you think we would not be affected by a country sinking into utter chaos that lies just a 100 miles south of Miami? Even GWB gets that,too bad some of the uneducated others on the right don't get it as well.

I know its pessimistic but I beleive also realistic,

Haiti has been around for a long time.
Even after Billions given to them by the US they still live in a very 3rd world country.
They just cant get it together.
So really how much more can we do to help them short of taking over the corrupt shitty government, controlling their agriculture and food distribution, taking over their businesses and schools, ect ect for the rest of eternity?
You think more US taxpayer money is the answer, anybody?
Thats like giving an alcoholic money for food, you know what theyre gonna do with it.
Sad but true.

The humanitarian thing to to is keep taxation down as much as possible in the USA and let the people keep as much of their money as possible for them and their familys.
If they want to donate charity to Haiti thats just awesome.
But seriously friday its easy to say what money should be spent on when its not yours.

At the risk of sounding like a right prick. I'd would have to say that I think all the aid talk in the media like Gordon Brown and America and other western nations is all posturing and would be highly suspicious about whats actually happening on the ground. Out of sight and out of mind, Once its out of the headlines and the public glare.

You dont sound right or like a prick.
But then again how dare you be skeptical of GOV and politicians when BO is in office?
Are you a racist? A wingnut? Or a numb skull?

 

[JayJohn85]

I know its pessimistic but I beleive also realistic,

Haiti has been around for a long time.
Even after Billions given to them by the US they still live in a very 3rd world country.
They just cant get it together.
So really how much more can we do to help them short of taking over the corrupt shitty government, controlling their agriculture and food distribution, taking over their businesses and schools, ect ect for the rest of eternity?
You think more US taxpayer money is the answer, anybody?
Thats like giving an alcoholic money for food, you know what theyre gonna do with it.
Sad but true.



You dont sound right or like a prick.
But then again how dare you be skeptical of GOV and politicians when BO is in office?
Are you a racist? A wingnut? Or a numb skull?

Rep to you After aid is sent regime change probably needed at a later date one of the only places I would advocate it. I mean isnt the dire state of the country before this disaster all down to a seriously messed up government/dictatorship. Probably need it actually to make sure people get the aid and it isnt all misappropriated in some giant cluster fuck

 

[Jane Burgess]

I know it's an emergency, but we have our own emergencies. We literally have millions of people dying because of our shitty health care system, but instead of putting $100 MILLION into our own country's problems and saving the lives of our own citizens, we're shelling out $100 MILLION to help the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere? How does that make sense? It doesn't.

I have to agree with you. The US has it's own problems. For once we need to keep the money in the US and stop helping other countries. We need to focus on our own issues. :2 cents:

 

[Rey C.]

Is anyone here familiar with the Pareto Principle? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?! I guess not. :dunno:

BTW, since my last post, we have spent $225 million in Iraq.

 

[meesterperfect]

my last post on this.
I think most agree we can and will but not should help them in this emergency as best we can.
that means going in there and helping with the rescue, saving people, giving medical aid.stuff like that
beyond that after say a few weeks what more could we do except start giving them money to rebuild and reorganize.
I hope this burden doesnt voluntarily fall on the USA.
I'm telling ya if we do that its not only a waste and useless but also unfair to those who must foot the bill.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Is anyone here familiar with the Pareto Principle? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?! I guess not. :dunno:

BTW, since my last post, we have spent $225 million in Iraq.

Yes I am familiar with it.

About your 225 million dollar comment. I assume you voted for Obama and I thought that he was going to get us out of Iraq?

So now your beef should be with him regarding any further expenditures.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Those were loans Chef much of which are being repaid because the bailouts in large measure worked:2 cents:

How did it work out? Especially in the large measure, how did it work out?

I wasn't aware that the people who lost their homes because of the financial crisis got their houses back. I wasn't aware that the billions and billions of dollars that the mortgage companies raped out of it's loan holders were repayed to the homeowners who got screwed.

The bailout was a temporary fix to a monumental problem. All it did was delay the inevitable, which is exactly what happens when the US shells out endless amounts of money to provide health care aid in Africa, food in Ethiopa and even relief efforts in Haiti. People in Africa are still sicker than ever, Ethiopians are still starving to death and Haitians are going to remain a poor and destitute country that is full of sick and dying poor people.

Chef...am I going to have to spend another 15 posts explaining some simple, elementary concept to you in 50 different ways again before you finally get it.

Honestly (honestly) I have never see one other poster here lose sight of a point faster then stake out almost the exact wrong perspective and have literally the last shovel of dirt about to be dumped on them at the grave site before they eventually get it than you have in some of the issues here (now that's saying something).

What am I losing sight of, exactly? I wasn't aware that caring about my own country, it's citizens and their wellbeing meant that I was losing sight of something. What happened in Haiti is awful, but we have our own problems to deal with.

Am I going to have to spend another 15 posts explaining some simple, elementary concept to you in 50 different ways before you finally get it? Answer my question about your children and your neighbor's children and then tell me who's losing sight here.

When aid and relief is sent into a disaster area...it doesn't just come in the form or dollars...It comes in the form of supplies, material, payment to relief workers, funding for military equipment, personnel and support, etc...it's just not handing money to someone...

What the fuck is $100 m going to do someone who doesn't have the means to do anything with it???

Yes, supplies, materials, people (etc) are sent to provide aid to disaster areas, but without money, none of it would be possible. Without money, a lot of things aren't possible. For example...

Without money, poor people in our own country can't buy medicine to treat their illnesses and can end up dying. Without money, poor people in our own country can't buy food to eat and can end up starving to death. Without money, poor people in our own country can't buy or rent a home and have to live on the street. Without money, poor people in our own country can't buy proper clothing and can end up freezing to death in the winter. Without money, poor people in our own country can't get a proper education at a good school and will never be able to provide themselves or their families with a better life.

We can easily shell out money to our own citizens to help resolve some of our own problems, but...we don't. Instead, we send a huuuuge amount of money to other countries each and every year in order to help relieve the problems of their citizens.

But last I checked, we don't have a natural disaster occurring right now where 100k people are dead and dying in a matter of days...

Walk into any doctor's office here in the US, look around at all of the people that are getting turned away because they can't afford insurance and then tell me that. Walk into any hospital here in the US, look around at all of the children who are literally on their death bed, unable to afford proper treatment and then tell me that.

We can't save everybody. So, why aren't we trying to at least save ourselves?

:dunno:

We send aid to countries in times of emergencies because we have the means and it's in our human interest to do so.

I 100% agree with you on this. Helping others, whether it be with financial, physical or emotional support, is a very humanitarian thing to do. I will never, ever claim that trying to help somebody is the wrong thing to do. It's just that sometimes, you need to be thinking about yourself first and others second.

I have to agree with you. The US has it's own problems. For once we need to keep the money in the US and stop helping other countries. We need to focus on our own issues. :2 cents:

:lovecoupl

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

I have to agree with you. The US has it's own problems. For once we need to keep the money in the US and stop helping other countries. We need to focus on our own issues. :2 cents:

Well to do that you'd have to go get your money from China, wouldn't you? :tongue:

 

[Rey C.]

Yes I am familiar with it.

About your 225 million dollar comment. I assume you voted for Obama and I thought that he was going to get us out of Iraq?

So now your beef should be with him regarding any further expenditures.

A friend of mine has ceramic brakes on his 911 GT2. From 100 to 0, it is quite impressive, but even it doesn't stop that suddenly. A body in motion tends to stay in motion...

But you're missing my point. My question is, why wouldn't a $225 million expenditure in 20 hours (every 20 hours!) pluck the feathers of people here more than $100 millon over what could be months?

 

[Jack Davenport]

A friend of mine has ceramic brakes on his 911 GT2. From 100 to 0, it is quite impressive, but even it doesn't stop that suddenly. A body in motion tends to stay in motion...

But you're missing my point. My question is, why wouldn't a $225 million expenditure in 20 hours (every 20 hours!) pluck the feathers of people here more than $100 millon over what could be months?

Yes, I know a little bit about expensive car parts.

Because like you, I am ideologically opposed to certain expenditures.

 

[Jane Burgess]

Well to do that you'd have to go get your money from China, wouldn't you? :tongue:

Sad but true. Damn you China. :thefinger

 

[bodie54]

We can easily shell out money to our own citizens to help resolve some of our own problems, but...we don't. Instead, we send a huuuuge amount of money to other countries each and every year in order to help relieve the problems of their citizens.

Chef, as I recall we spent approximately 26 billion total on foreign aid last year.
Meanwhile from our 2009 federal budget we spent 360 billion on welfare/unemployment, 408 billion on medicare, 224 billion on medicaid and SHIP. So as you can see, the money we send to other countries is a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend at home.