Hurricane Harvey Relief Fund Donations

To many ads? Support ODJT and see no ads!
I agree - and for those making donations, please pay attention to where you money is going - alot of scams right now.

For those looking for new / used vehicles, there will be alot of flood vehicles coming out of the flood area and showing up on lots for sale. Buyer Beware.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff Romard
I gave to the red Cross. I don't give donations to charities that I'm not familiar with. I don't claim to be a red Cross expert, but they seem to have been around long enough to be legit.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff Romard and ittigger
Red Cross is legit :) .. unfortunately, they botched the Katrina response .. and have a less than stellar record for paying out a high percentage of what you give (lately it's been less than 75%). The Salvation Army does a better job with giving out most of what you send.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff Romard, ittigger and Scott Hanna
No offence to those that donate as I'm sure your heart is in the right place given the circumstances, but the truth of the matter is, if you really did care, you would be donating to these charities on a monthly/yearly basis, not just when disaster strikes so you can ease your conscious and help to convince yourself that you really are a good person.

I am also of the belief that in the event of natural disasters such as this, the government that you pay your taxes to should be the charity that steps up to the plate and looks after it's citizens. Because I donate to that "charity" on a yearly basis, I definitely don't feel any obligation to give anything above and beyond that.

I believe that my donations are better spent helping those that don't have a voice or a vote, i.e - kids, animals and the environment.
For example, if I was going to donate in this case, I would rather direct my money to the rescue organizations that are helping to foster and re-home pets that were abandoned due to the hurricane. Pets don't receive any help from FEMA.
 
Last edited:
Don't really enjoy when someone attacks others who give, claiming they give more or better. Very unseemly, very supercilious. People give however they can and to whomever they want. No one is better because they are on the monthly plan. Or the daily plan. And certainly I can find an issue with channeling money to pet relief when people are flooded out and dying. People come first in a disaster, not animals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steve149
You may give monthly and I may give during a disaster. We may give the same amount - we may not (you may give more or maybe I do). As long as the funds go where they need to go and actually help with the issue at the time, then what does it matter when I give? How is it beneficial to critique the manner in which people are helping?

If people gave 'x' amount all the time, you would have some severely overfunded groups. Unless there's an emergency or crisis (local, regional or national), they don't need all that money. Harvey will cost trillions to recover from and that may not be enough. Thankfully, people are stepping up to help and donate in whatever ways they can.

There are people that donate blood every month - and others during an emergency. Does it make one more important than the other - or is it the act of donating that matters?

Personally, I've been on both sides. I've been the donatee (and didn't care where the help came from but I was very grateful for the much needed help) and with some help from above, I've been able to be the donater for many years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff Romard
I actually gave to a local Fire Department ($100) .. they filled a large cargo trailer and are driving down to Texas to both bring the supplies and to offer emergency dispatch assistance. The captain and 4 others took 2 weeks of personal time to drive down. They left late yesterday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Ricky B, Jeff Romard and ittigger
Dessicant said:
Don't really enjoy when someone attacks others who give, claiming they give more or better. Very unseemly, very supercilious. People give however they can and to whomever they want. No one is better because they are on the monthly plan. Or the daily plan. And certainly I can find an issue with channeling money to pet relief when people are flooded out and dying. People come first in a disaster, not animals.
Click to expand...

I don't really think I was "attacking" anybody in particular. It was just meant to be an observation and opinion on why people give and their reasons for doing so. It wasn't aimed at anyone or any group in particular. It's a well documented trait of the human psyche that the majority of people give for reasons other than pure selflessness i.e - to make them feel better about themselves or they need a tax writeoff. Perhaps I should have used the general term "people" instead of "you" so it didn't sound so targeted.

As far as people coming before animals goes, pets and wild animals are not the same thing. And while I believe that we owe a debt of stewardship to all animals (as well as the planet in general), when you domesticate a species, they now become reliant on you for survival, and because of that reliance we most certainly do owe them the best life we can give them, and have just as much responsibility for their well being as we do our own children imo.

I don't want to start a debate over who or what is more deserving of help in this case, it's just a reminder that those that don't have a voice or a choice...are just as if not more deserving of help than people as unless a person is disabled, they have far more ability to help themselves than the domesticated animals that the people have abandoned and are reliant upon us for survival do.
It's no different than the choice you may make of who to give your donation to based on their management expense ratio (Red Cross vs Sally Ann in this case) or where you feel your donation will do the most good on the ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff Romard
DJ TJ said:
It's a well documented trait of the human psyche that the majority of people give for reasons other than pure selflessness i.e - to make them feel better about themselves or they need a tax writeoff.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the logic you're stating, I don't think it applies to 'most', especially in times of disasters. With that said, personally I have given to many organizations for many years because I can - not because I want to feel better about myself or about needing a tax write off (although that is a nice perk).

As I said earlier, I've been on the other end where I needed help. I'm grateful that I can give back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff Romard
DJ TJ said:
I don't really think I was "attacking" anybody in particular. It was just meant to be an observation and opinion on why people give and their reasons for doing so. It wasn't aimed at anyone or any group in particular. It's a well documented trait of the human psyche that the majority of people give for reasons other than pure selflessness i.e - to make them feel better about themselves or they need a tax writeoff. Perhaps I should have used the general term "people" instead of "you" so it didn't sound so targeted.

As far as people coming before animals goes, pets and wild animals are not the same thing. And while I believe that we owe a debt of stewardship to all animals (as well as the planet in general), when you domesticate a species, they now become reliant on you for survival, and because of that reliance we most certainly do owe them the best life we can give them, and have just as much responsibility for their well being as we do our own children imo.

I don't want to start a debate over who or what is more deserving of help in this case, it's just a reminder that those that don't have a voice or a choice...are just as if not more deserving of help than people as unless a person is disabled, they have far more ability to help themselves than the domesticated animals that the people have abandoned and are reliant upon us for survival do.
It's no different than the choice you may make of who to give your donation to based on their management expense ratio (Red Cross vs Sally Ann in this case) or where you feel your donation will do the most good on the ground.
Click to expand...

I didn't feel targeted at all, nor should anyone else. Plus I am in a safe space and did not feel triggered. We are simply discussing a principle.

Actually no one SHOULD give because of selflessness. Selflessness is actually non-existent, and would be an evil thing if it did exist. Everyone who gives gets a tangible and significant benefit from giving, and that's the way it is, and that's the way it should be. Giving is a trade. Which is as it should be. As for the animals, they should definitely be cared for, AFTER the humans. I love animals and keep animals of all kinds. However they are below humans when it comes to an emergency where lives need to be saved. Humans come first and foremost, then animals. So I would not give to any charity that specifically targets animals and excludes humans. I want to help the animals, after all the humans are rescued and safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back