Does this irk you?

[mr_pack]

Text “Haiti” to 90999 for a 10 dollar donation (standard text rates apply)

This idea is great but that added message of standard rate apply just bothers me. So now the phone company will make money off text messages being sent that otherwise would not have been sent if people were not making donations. Why cant they just waive the fee? So if 1 million people text a $10 donation ,phone companies will make 250,000 dollars off of “standard text rates”

[student4ever]

I know very few people who pay on a per text basis, so it really shouldn't matter very much. I do agree with your position though.

[backsthepack]

Personally, I feel it's a very slippery slope where if they start here, will eventually end up with texts for voting on shows like American Idol will end up free, and I simply cannot stand for that. I fully support this.

[Darth Kaepernick]

It doesn't irk me nearly as much as the fact that there is a text message number to give $10 to the Haiti relief fun but not a text message number (or at least one that I know of) to donate $10 to the poor/needy/hungry/abused/family of soldiers killed in action/etc.....for our own country.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that people want to help but it's just too bad that it takes a natural disaster in a foreign land to get people motivated to do so.

[Howl Raiser]

Text “Haiti” to 90999 for a 10 dollar donation (standard text rates apply)

This idea is great but that added message of standard rate apply just bothers me. So now the phone company will make money off text messages being sent that otherwise would not have been sent if people were not making donations. Why cant they just waive the fee? So if 1 million people text a $10 donation ,phone companies will make 250,000 dollars off of “standard text rates”

If you mail in a check as a donation, does the post office not make money?

[mr_pack]

If you mail in a check as a donation, does the post office not make money?

It is not so much the fee. It is how text donations have been advertised greatly over the last weeks, and "Standard rates applies" appears after it says donate money to people that are dying.

On a side note, paying for a stamp actually gets you a service. I am just guessing but a cell phone tower can take on 1000s maybe millions of texts and it still stands regardless of the amount of texts messages it receives, but a mail person is limited. Having a mailman pick up your donation to be mailed is actually providing service that has limits, whereas a cell tower will look the same regardless of the data incoming and outgoing.

Please donate to the Red Cross, 90% of the proceeds go to the CEO the other 9% goes to board members and the last percent makes it to the people. That is what I hear when I see Standard Text Rates Apply when texting a donation.

[Stuck in Seattle]

If you mail in a check as a donation, does the post office not make money?
If only! They get money but they don't make money. The post office lost billions last year.

[Packmike]

Are you joking? Allowing for text messaging has increased ease and volume of giving significantly, and all the major carriers are advancing the funds (or a majority of the funds) already to the charities before they have settled with their customers (over 30-90 days). And I know in the case of AT&T, 100% of donated amounts are going to the Haiti charities so for those few customers that pay per text and are not on a volume text plan, the texts are free anyway... look it up

[PACKFAN22]

It doesn't irk me nearly as much as the fact that there is a text message number to give $10 to the Haiti relief fun but not a text message number (or at least one that I know of) to donate $10 to the poor/needy/hungry/abused/family of soldiers killed in action/etc.....for our own country.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that people want to help but it's just too bad that it takes a natural disaster in a foreign land to get people motivated to do so.

I have to agree with Darth here. We're all concerned about what to do for the people of Haiti. But what about those that live here in the US? Is this because we are a "super power" and a huge economy that we ignore those who suffer at home?

I for one won't donate to the Haiti relief efforts, I share Paul Shirley's sentiment, we are enabling them to rebuild the same type of structure they already had, which has just been proven inferior to earth quakes. So it will happen again, and we'll be asked for more money again. I feel we should take care of our problems at home before we try to fix the world.

[Stuck in Seattle]

I have to agree with Darth here. We're all concerned about what to do for the people of Haiti. But what about those that live here in the US? Is this because we are a "super power" and a huge economy that we ignore those who suffer at home?

I for one won't donate to the Haiti relief efforts, I share Paul Shirley's sentiment, we are enabling them to rebuild the same type of structure they already had, which has just been proven inferior to earth quakes. So it will happen again, and we'll be asked for more money again. I feel we should take care of our problems at home before we try to fix the world.
We don't ignore those that suffer at home. There are billions and billions of dollars in programs to help those who need it. That's not to say all programs are well run or sufficient to the needs of those they serve, but this is an emergency and the American people are the world's most generous in times of crisis.

[PACKFAN22]

We don't ignore those that suffer at home. There are billions and billions of dollars in programs to help those who need it. That's not to say all programs are well run or sufficient to the needs of those they serve, but this is an emergency and the American people are the world's most generous in times of crisis.

I disagree, but I understand what you're saying. I just wonder why a celebrity will give 100K to the aid relief for Haiti, but won't give that 100K to help inner city youth in Detroit, and if they do why doesn't the world know about it?

[mr_pack]

I disagree, but I understand what you're saying. I just wonder why a celebrity will give 100K to the aid relief for Haiti, but won't give that 100K to help inner city youth in Detroit, and if they do why doesn't the world know about it?

I never understood why people would adopt children from other countries when we have many children here that are in need of a home. But then if you look at as more of a global issue, a child needing a home is the same anywhere no matter what country they are from. People suffering in our country are essentially the same as people suffering in other areas of the world. Try to look at as more of a global issue than our country vs. theirs. I don’t have issues with people adopting foreign kids anymore like I use to, same as trying to help Haiti, I see it as just helping another earthling.

[Darth Kaepernick]

Well I would like to know how much other countries donated to the United States to help out with the hurricane katrina victims in New Orleans?

I think sometimes people adopt foriegn kiids because it may be quicker and easier to get one. I know two other people pretty closely who adopted and they both were considering China because it would have been faster and like it was said, you are still helping another human being.

[Stuck in Seattle]

Well I would like to know how much other countries donated to the United States to help out with the hurricane katrina victims in New Orleans?

I think sometimes people adopt foreign kids because it may be quicker and easier to get one. I know two other people pretty closely who adopted and they both were considering China because it would have been faster and like it was said, you are still helping another human being.

And I've read in the past that there is a much greater demand for infants to adopt than there are infants up for adoption. There are plenty of older kids that could be adopted, but most people would rather adopt a child that may not already have developed social and psychological issues.

[wolf_chatter]

And I've read in the past that there is a much greater demand for infants to adopt than there are infants up for adoption. There are plenty of older kids that could be adopted, but most people would rather adopt a child that may not already have developed social and psychological issues.

Hit the nail right on the head! Older kids tend to be f'ed up from abuse or neglect or both. My wife and I have actually looked into adopting a Haitian child and we would rather have a baby just because of the psychological issues the older kids will be facing. Even if you had a great life as a child in Haiti the death of your mom and dad would cause an immense amount of damage. My wife and I would be willing to raise an older child and do everything we can to make their life better and help them through the years it will take to come to terms with what happened but we know it will be a much more difficult job than if it was a baby.

[mr_pack]

Can I adopt a 17year girl soon to be turning 18?


Countries tdonate when we have disasters as well, it might seem like peanuts since our country donates the most but here is a list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina