FnlPrblm, on Apr 28 2007, 09:06 PM, said:
I know what you mean Cait and I've found myself wondering this too at various times. However, the oil was probably withheld so it wouldn't decrease oil prices in the U.S. Same thing with the cash, but with slightly better reasons. The dollar is very weak (at this time and it wasn't all that much better back when Katrina hit). So by dumping a lot of cash (even though overall it's a trickle in the GDP) in the U.S. market, it weakens it even further. I'm sure there are also political agendas, favor loaning...so on.
But, taxpayer money is/was used. That money flowed into the economy. And what it really implies is that it is OK to keep people homeless and poor in order to protect the dollar. I'm not saying the dollar doesn't need to be protected, I'm just saying this was a lousy place and manner with which to do it. You know what I mean. It's a PR nightmare in fact.
I understand the economic problems, and I even understand the possible hidden obligation to nations offering aid, but it makes no sense, to use taxpayer money, and hold back donated money that has already been accepted.
The news reports how much taxpayer money it is taking to re-build and help Katrina/Rita victims, except we also see that rebuilding is slow, and then we find out that millions were given in aide and even more rejected.
And still there are people having to practically beg for help, and Insurance companies denying claims, ext. Some of those allies ended up donating to the Red Cross and the Bush/Clinton Katina Fund, so it must not be too much of an economic problem.
I can also understand the oil. That does make sense, but the other aid.. no it doesn't make sense at all. Just like watching those people waiting for some water for days didn't make sense. It's like these agencies are being run by a room full of monkeys. That's how bad the management is. I'm an executive, this is just outrageous.
The quote from Karen Hughes, it was stupid. You either tell allies we don't need it or you accept it. You don't accept it and then waste it or not use it. They're politicians they can understand all the reasons you cited. Hell I understand them. But this bunch, just didn't handle it with the allies, donor nations or the public. It's just plain bad management.
There might be good reasons, but you damn well explain those reasons, so people don't ultimately find out that you denied them help. Because in the end, that's all people will see. They won't give a damn that the value of the dollar was threatened.
It's called diplomacy and PR, an integral part of good management.
Every time I think it can't get any worse, it does.
And [dare I ask] just where is the 500+ billion dollars sitting?