Alpha male syndrome.

Whyte Horse wrote: The US gives charity? My experience in dealing with the US is that they give the money to corporations and give their rich buddies kids scholarships. How much does the CEO of Red Cross make? Ever try to get any of those charities to actually DO anything? They're all fronts. I've called and/or written to many of them and they all do the same thing... they have some "token" person they help with like 1% of their donations and the rest goes into their salaries and corporate garbage.

The real charities that actually do something never get any money from the gov't. That's just how it is.

Actually Whyte horse that isnt strictly true. While there are badly managed exceptions, the industry standard worldwide is between 15 - 30% of all income goes to salaries and administration, with the rest actually going towards the work done. Any charity worth its salt will be happy to provide its financial reports, and there is a massive trend in the third sector towards better financial transparency. The issue with government contribution is that for the most part, governments can only give money to projects that align with their agendas. But more frustratingly, governments use charities to address shortfall that they are either unwilling or unable to address. If the charity gets good at raising funds to support a particular cause, a government will remove its support and spend its money elsewhere. Infuriating, but thats how it goes.

There are thousands of people who work of volunteer for charities, and I dont think its accurate or fair to say that they are all corrupt somehow or not doing anything. And saying that charities help "token" people is absurb and totally unsubstaniated. You seem to have a very bleak outlook on not for profits and I guarentee you that your opinion is based on the exceptions, not the rule.


Edit - Incidently, some simple research and a quick phone call later, the Red Cross in America use on average 92% of their income to actually support people. Although its ceo does get paid a huge amount. Around $600K annually. I think thats too high personally, but I do know how much work goes into running a not for proft and there is a huge trend towards hiring corporately experienced staff in order to create better efficiency and to remain competitive in a very tight market.

Oh New zealand you disappointment! Tricky comparing statistics though as its not always clear what crime they are comparing. In SA I would hazard a guess that the majority of the crime reported is violent assault and murder, while in NZ, its criminal to drink in certain parts of the city or to forget to pay your fines. Although, NZ does have shockingly high rates of child abuse.

What makes the US eviler than everyone else is you created the CIA and keep on funding it!

Doesn't france have the DGSE? And if I remember corectly, the former Greenpeace Ship Rainbow Warrior, was Sunk by the French intelligence service (DGSE) on 10 July 1985.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-15715.html

Dang pesky protesters...

Like I said,

"No country is a Saint and I don’t think any country is Evil. More than likely, each country is doing what they feel they must to look out for their own best interest."

I don't think giving less to charity than France UK and germany put together puts the US in such a good light. you guys have 300mil peeps, and france, the largest country in the EU, is smaller than Texas.

I'm not picking on them. China and Russia are huge countries, lots of people and economy. Not much charity though?

Brenna wrote: Edit - Incidently, some simple research and a quick phone call later, the Red Cross in America use on average 92% of their income to actually support people. Although its ceo does get paid a huge amount. Around $600K annually. I think thats too high personally, but I do know how much work goes into running a not for proft and there is a huge trend towards hiring corporately experienced staff in order to create better efficiency and to remain competitive in a very tight market.

Well the CEO is just one person:
In 2010, top executive compensation at Red Cross looked like this:
Executive director Gail McGovern made $561,210
EVP for biomedical services James Hrouda made $621,779
Biomedical services president Shaun Gilmore made $573,933

I mean this is just the tip of the iceberg... Now lets break down their "expenses" and see how much money they pissed away. Oh well 92% of the money went to the organization? I would look at how much went to the people they supposedly help. I bet less than 10% of the money was left after "expenses". You can play tricks with the books and make it look like 92% goes to the charity but it doesn't really.

Sure maybe Wescli saw some starving person receiving food. There are countless charities that go buy $100 worth of beans and hand them out in Africa with witnesses and cameras there to record it and then they abscond with millions that were donated by calling it "expenses".

I can tell you how much it costs to run a not-for-profit charity with volunteers: $0/year. If you look at doctors without borders(yes they are paying doctors and flying them all over the world) they spend like 0.003% of their money on themselves.

Whyte Horse wrote:

Brenna wrote: Edit - Incidently, some simple research and a quick phone call later, the Red Cross in America use on average 92% of their income to actually support people. Although its ceo does get paid a huge amount. Around $600K annually. I think thats too high personally, but I do know how much work goes into running a not for proft and there is a huge trend towards hiring corporately experienced staff in order to create better efficiency and to remain competitive in a very tight market.

Well the CEO is just one person:
In 2010, top executive compensation at Red Cross looked like this:
Executive director Gail McGovern made $561,210
EVP for biomedical services James Hrouda made $621,779
Biomedical services president Shaun Gilmore made $573,933

I mean this is just the tip of the iceberg... Now lets break down their "expenses" and see how much money they pissed away. Oh well 92% of the money went to the organization? I would look at how much went to the people they supposedly help. I bet less than 10% of the money was left after "expenses". You can play tricks with the books and make it look like 92% goes to the charity but it doesn't really.

Sure maybe Wescli saw some starving person receiving food. There are countless charities that go buy $100 worth of beans and hand them out in Africa with witnesses and cameras there to record it and then they abscond with millions that were donated by calling it "expenses".

I can tell you how much it costs to run a not-for-profit charity with volunteers: $0/year. If you look at doctors without borders(yes they are paying doctors and flying them all over the world) they spend like 0.003% of their money on themselves.

Do you work in the not for profit sector?

Also, doctors without borders last year spent close to 15% of total funds raised on admin, excluding the salaries of the administration staff. It's on their website. Not hard to do a little bit of research before making statements that are completely untrue.

Also, charities run by volunteers... They still have to pay for power, Internet, websites, collateral, development services, equipment, petrol.... I could go on for a while. I have worked in the third sector for almost 10 years now, proffessionally and as a volunteer and i promise you Volunteers, as many "do it for nothing" managers learn the hard way, does not mean there's no money spent. It simply means your labour is free.

Yes I work in the non-profit sector. I worked in the Inspector General's office auditing government starting at age 15 and then went into bank-to-bank transaction processing through the US Treasury when 16, and then did stints in the US Army, state universities, telecomm, etc. I lived and worked overseas for 4 years. I spent several years running non-profits in the US after working for them. I've camped on the lawn of my state capitol and testified in front of our state senate. I've been on television for making people switch their banks to non-profit credit unions. I've stood in the freezing cold on street corners to block the NDAA 1021. I've done a lot of stuff that would be called non-profit, yes.

No I've never worked for the Red Cross, UNICEF, United Way, or the Peace Corps and I never will because they are full of baloney and they use marketing to get everyone to believe they are so great and wonderful. In fact my criticizing them has probably appalled many members here simply because they have a belief that these organizations are beyond reproach.

Also the 15% doctors without borders number is totally fictitious. Big brothers of NY shows up at 20% because of the way the rules are stacked in favour of corporate charities like red cross. The big brothers are all volunteers and they take in very little money but they do huge amounts of work in the community compared to red cross, yet they spend very little money recruiting people which shows up as admin and it amounts to 20% because they have so little money. Seriously, those stats are pure fiction.

Whyte Horse wrote: Yes I work in the non-profit sector. I worked in the Inspector General's office auditing government starting at age 15 and then went into bank-to-bank transaction processing through the US Treasury when 16, and then did stints in the US Army, state universities, telecomm, etc. I lived and worked overseas for 4 years. I spent several years running non-profits in the US after working for them. I've camped on the lawn of my state capitol and testified in front of our state senate. I've been on television for making people switch their banks to non-profit credit unions. I've stood in the freezing cold on street corners to block the NDAA 1021. I've done a lot of stuff that would be called non-profit, yes.

No I've never worked for the Red Cross, UNICEF, United Way, or the Peace Corps and I never will because they are full of baloney and they use marketing to get everyone to believe they are so great and wonderful. In fact my criticizing them has probably appalled many members here simply because they have a belief that these organizations are beyond reproach.

I certainly don't believe they are beyond reproach because there is a lot that I believe can be done better, but I dont think you can base an argument that they are all "full of baloney" without presenting a single piece of evidence to support that theory other than your personal opinion.

Your comment that those "stats are pure fiction" has no supporting evidence. Those stats are from those charities published financial reports. Yes, charities do find wiggle room in how they reports things, but saying that 10% of the money actually helps people is not based on fact.

Wescli Wardest wrote:

What makes the US eviler than everyone else is you created the CIA and keep on funding it!

Doesn't france have the DGSE? And if I remember corectly, the former Greenpeace Ship Rainbow Warrior, was Sunk by the French intelligence service (DGSE) on 10 July 1985.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-15715.html

Dang pesky protesters...

Like I said,

"No country is a Saint and I don’t think any country is Evil. More than likely, each country is doing what they feel they must to look out for their own best interest."

Yeah, well we like our nuclear power and greenpeace are known for their piracy... Besides, it was a ship, not che guevara.
But that's not the point. the DGSE doesn't make up phony info like the CIA does on behalf of the private sector... And the DGSE isn't its own people's worst enemy.