• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Local Red Cross help people whose McMansions burn down?

Who should Red Cross financially help after a fire?

  • Anyone and everyone

    Votes: 4 50.0%

  • Only those with a verifiable financial hardship

    Votes: 3 37.5%

  • Only the uninsured

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Only people who refuse to buy thriftstore clothing

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Only renters

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Only people who have maxed out their credit cards

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other, or more than one of above

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • Total voters
    8
MyOwnDrum

MyOwnDrum

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
1,374
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I stopped in our local Red Cross chapter the other day to give another donation for Haiti, since they have such ongoing dire needs. Was talking to the girl, asking about their organization, and what sort of things the local chapter does in the community.

She proudly cited a recent fire where they provided emergency funds so the people could buy new clothes. I was familiar with the fire, this is a very small community. They listed in the paper that the dwelling was worth $400,000. The house was on expensive acreage.

The people, in fact, are well to do and they no doubt are well insured. Their home is worth more than most people's including mine. Why in the hell should Red Cross help people like that?

What do you think? Who should Red Cross help financially after a fire?
 
Legally they can help out who ever they want, but morally it should be those with a verifiable financial hardship. But then again some of those people with the $400,000 dollar homes probably donate a lot to the red cross,so it is probably in Red Cross interest to help out any and everybody.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
She proudly cited a recent fire where they provided emergency funds so the people could buy new clothes. I was familiar with the fire, this is a very small community. They listed in the paper that the dwelling was worth $400,000. The house was on expensive acreage.

The people, in fact, are well to do and they no doubt are well insured. Their home is worth more than most people's including mine. Why in the hell should Red Cross help people like that?
Click to expand...

This isn't the 50s anymore. You've seen the housing and mortgage crisis. Banks were (and still are) letting people get lines of credit on houses that a) they cannot make payments on, and b) have almost no down payment or equity in. There's a good chance that these people were some of those irresponsible fools who sank every penny they had into this because of Bush and other presidents pretty much pushing the "American dream" BS on the populace, and make it sound like home ownership isn't just a right, but a duty.

Even if that's not the case, people of means deserve the same rights, and perhaps even more than others. Otherwise you're just empowering a giant redistribution "welfare state", where Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor in a futile effort of "equality".

Besides, the Red Cross is not a partisan institution and has absolutely no political affiliation - and thank God for that. How would you feel if you called for help and got, "Nine-one-one emergency response. Are you Democrat or Republican?".
 
I feel that, with limited funds available, that they should prioritize distribution, the truly needy at the top of the list.

I understand that a fire is a very devastating event for people, but if you are well insured and you have invested in an expensive home and property, that you should also have your own emergency fund. I'm disappointed that the Red Cross squanders its funds to help the well-heeled.
 
Gipper said:
This isn't the 50s anymore. You've seen the housing and mortgage crisis. Banks were (and still are) letting people get lines of credit on houses that a) they cannot make payments on, and b) have almost no down payment or equity in. There's a good chance that these people were some of those irresponsible fools who sank every penny they had into this because of Bush and other presidents pretty much pushing the "American dream" BS on the populace, and make it sound like home ownership isn't just a right, but a duty.

Even if that's not the case, people of means deserve the same rights, and perhaps even more than others. Otherwise you're just empowering a giant redistribution "welfare state", where Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor in a futile effort of "equality".

Besides, the Red Cross is not a partisan institution and has absolutely no political affiliation - and thank God for that. How would you feel if you called for help and got, "Nine-one-one emergency response. Are you Democrat or Republican?".
Click to expand...

Being able to provide for yourself or not being able to provide for yourself in a disaster has nothing to do with politics or partisanship.
 
jamesrage said:
Being able to provide for yourself or not being able to provide for yourself in a disaster has nothing to do with politics or partisanship.
Click to expand...

Yes, but not receiving help from a non-profit organization based on being able to provide for yourself or not being able to provide for yourself in a disaster has everything to do with politics or partisanship.
 
Gipper said:
Yes, but not receiving help from a non-profit organization based on being able to provide for yourself or not being able to provide for yourself in a disaster has everything to do with politics or partisanship.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It has everything to do with how that non-profit organization uses its limited resources. The only reason a lot of these non-profit organizations exist in the first place is to help those who are unable to help themselves.So it is reasonable for a organization to with limited resourced to stick to helping those who are unable to help themselves. It has nothing to do with politics or partisanship.
 
jamesrage said:
No it doesn't. It has everything to do with how that non-profit organization uses its limited resources. The only reason a lot of these non-profit organizations exist in the first place is to help those who are unable to help themselves.So it is reasonable for a organization to with limited resourced to stick to helping those who are unable to help themselves. It has nothing to do with politics or partisanship.
Click to expand...

While I understand where you're coming from, I still see it as selective redistribution. I won't condone some sort of arbitrary selection process based on the value of what went down. There's no way to know that if this loss would just be a drop in the bucket for them, or if it would completely toss them out on the street.

If it's a tax-funded non-profit government organization, you get help if you need help. When you have to sit there and make justifications and pull out past tax forms, you make it quite partisan. I'm not talking about Bill Gates losing his three million square foot country-mansion, I'm talking middle America. Besides, when you squander money on decisions like that, you're bound to go broke anyway. Non-profit or not, you have to be conscious of money. Chances are that society would benefit more from assisting someone with a half million dollar house that is worth much more in taxes than some squalid hellhole that may be worth a steak dinner in municipal income.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I stopped in our local Red Cross chapter the other day to give another donation for Haiti, since they have such ongoing dire needs. Was talking to the girl, asking about their organization, and what sort of things the local chapter does in the community.

She proudly cited a recent fire where they provided emergency funds so the people could buy new clothes. I was familiar with the fire, this is a very small community. They listed in the paper that the dwelling was worth $400,000. The house was on expensive acreage.

The people, in fact, are well to do and they no doubt are well insured. Their home is worth more than most people's including mine. Why in the hell should Red Cross help people like that?

What do you think? Who should Red Cross help financially after a fire?
Click to expand...







:lol:


This is a typical "400,000" home in Bergen County, NJ.


MLS Number 1007473 - 3 bed,1 bath, Residential Property for $399,999 - PARK RIDGE, NJ - New Jersey Multiple Listing Service
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I stopped in our local Red Cross chapter the other day to give another donation for Haiti, since they have such ongoing dire needs. Was talking to the girl, asking about their organization, and what sort of things the local chapter does in the community.

She proudly cited a recent fire where they provided emergency funds so the people could buy new clothes. I was familiar with the fire, this is a very small community. They listed in the paper that the dwelling was worth $400,000. The house was on expensive acreage.

The people, in fact, are well to do and they no doubt are well insured. Their home is worth more than most people's including mine. Why in the hell should Red Cross help people like that?

What do you think? Who should Red Cross help financially after a fire?
Click to expand...
sure, if the need is verified. think about it, if a fire happened on a friday night and burned everything, the people wouldn't have access to banks or credit cards.

they would need emergency funds. if they have means, no reason not to ask them to repay once they have access to funds.
 
On the other hand do you say emergency support should only goes to those who have nothing which may be due to their own irresponsibility and not to perhaps those who have worked hard their whole lives?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
This sounds made up. :lamo
Click to expand...

It is not made up. The paper listed the estimated damage to the dwelling, which was just under $400,000. The house was a total lose. It was a very nice house. The house sits on expensive acreage of forested ranchero property, with irrigation rights.

Oh, lookie, I found the article online

Capt. John Doe of Undisclosed County Fire District 5 said the damage estimate includes $370,000 for the home and $230,000 for its contents.
Click to expand...
 
if you don't like who the red cross assists, don't donate to them.
 
liblady said:
if you don't like who the red cross assists, don't donate to them.
Click to expand...

My point is that I didn't even know that they financially assisted well off people. I thought they helped down and out people, battered women, flood victims, stuff like that. Now that I found out otherwise, I'm bringing it up for discussion.
 
Gipper said:
While I understand where you're coming from, I still see it as selective redistribution.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what all charities do is selectively redistribute .I can't walk into a soup kitchen with a suit and tie with wallet full of credit cards and cash and expect the volunteers to feed me for free, nor can I go to a john 3:16 and expect them to give me a box of food or any other charity that helps people. Its not about politics or partisanship.


I won't condone some sort of arbitrary selection process based on the value of what went down. There's no way to know that if this loss would just be a drop in the bucket for them, or if it would completely toss them out on the street.
Click to expand...
Unless you are in NewYork or commiefornia $400,000 will get you a very nice house in most parts of the country.


If it's a tax-funded non-profit government organization, you get help if you need help.
Click to expand...

Even with tax payer funded programs there are qualifications that must be met, it has nothing to do with politics and or partisanship.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
My point is that I didn't even know that they financially assisted well off people. I thought they helped down and out people, battered women, flood victims, stuff like that. Now that I found out otherwise, I'm bringing it up for discussion.
Click to expand...
i know, i wasn't responding to you with that post. i was responding to crosscheck.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
My point is that I didn't even know that they financially assisted well off people. I thought they helped down and out people, battered women, flood victims, stuff like that. Now that I found out otherwise, I'm bringing it up for discussion.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call a $400,000 home a well-off home.

They lost everything and are in need.

I think it is awesome that the Red Cross was there to help them.

It's entirely appropriate.
 
jamesrage said:
Isn't that what all charities do is selectively redistribute .I can't walk into a soup kitchen with a suit and tie with wallet full of credit cards and cash and expect the volunteers to feed me for free, nor can I go to a john 3:16 and expect them to give me a box of food or any other charity that helps people. Its not about politics or partisanship.



Unless you are in NewYork or commiefornia $400,000 will get you a very nice house in most parts of the country.




Even with tax payer funded programs there are qualifications that must be met, it has nothing to do with politics and or partisanship.
Click to expand...

Exactly. People don't give to the Red Cross as an insurance policy for themselves in case of their own personal calamity. That's what insurance is for. I have insurance on my house in case of a fire. These people did have insurance, the paper stated that. The house was actually fairly new, they said the fire was caused by a short in a TV.

In the case of floods, then most people don't have flood insurance. We had flooding last year and the Red Cross did help people, as well as FEMA. But in this case, these people were financially prepared in case of a fire, and I'm sure they also have credit cards to take care of immediate expenses. Even Goodwill takes credit cards these days.

The lady at the Red Cross said that they got $500 for immediate expenses. Ridiculous!
 
reefedjib said:
I wouldn't call a $400,000 home a well-off home.

They lost everything and are in need.

I think it is awesome that the Red Cross was there to help them.

It's entirely appropriate.
Click to expand...
i'd call it a well off home.
 
This home wasn't a $400,000 home. Home prices include the home and the land. In this case, the dwelling itself was worth a little under $400,000. The land is probably worth $300,000-400,000. The home was what we call McMansions in these parts. They are rural urbanites with snowmobiles and boats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom