![]() |
|
Originally Posted by ConciergeMike
(Post 13186670)
I can think of better reasons to withhold donations to the Red Cross than political mailers with which one might disagree. A really good reason to do so would be their unacceptably high overhead. I remember reading something a few years ago that only ~.12 of every dollar ended up going toward the cause du jour.
|
Originally Posted by Phudnik
(Post 13186638)
I'm told someone on F:rolleyes:x was telling watchers not to donate to the Red Cross because they would end up on Obama's mailing list for donations.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...pid_words.html |
Originally Posted by Anglo Large Clawed Otter
(Post 13186695)
I did not know that. If that is still true today, that would outwardly appear pretty disappointing. Would have to see the methodology behind that calculation, though. A charity as large as the red cross, with lots of hard infrastructure in place (vehicles, buildings, personnel, etc.), with such an expansive international reach, could be expected to have a substantial overhead. If the contribution of those elements of the organization aren't counted towards the ultimate $$$ funneled to whatever situation currently demands it, that could seriously skew the statistics.
|
Originally Posted by bdjohns1
(Post 13186723)
According to the Chicago Trib, it started with Limbaugh:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...pid_words.html "We've already donated to Haiti,'' Limbaugh told the caller on his radio show (here it below) "It's called the U.S. income tax." |
Originally Posted by ConciergeMike
(Post 13186682)
Rain in LA? Hallelujah, it's raining panicky news reports.
|
Originally Posted by Trustguy
(Post 13186767)
Yes, the end is coming, and we all need to load up on provisions, according to the news... :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by ConciergeMike
(Post 13186389)
IAD-LAX/SFO isn't operated (at least on some frequencies) with 3-class Intl.?
|
Originally Posted by Anglo Large Clawed Otter
(Post 13186695)
I did not know that. If that is still true today, that would outwardly appear pretty disappointing. Would have to see the methodology behind that calculation, though. A charity as large as the red cross, with lots of hard infrastructure in place (vehicles, buildings, personnel, etc.), with such an expansive international reach, could be expected to have a substantial overhead. If the contribution of those elements of the organization aren't counted towards the ultimate $$$ funneled to whatever situation currently demands it, that could seriously skew the statistics.
In terms of vehicles, etc. I also know that those end up being donated across Red Cross organizations as their lifetime in one country may be "up" but would still be very helpful (and appreciated) in another country with fewer funds/technology. Again, I wonder how those are accounted for in the math... |
Originally Posted by mwg25
(Post 13186002)
Oh, interesting! How much is the PATH? The drive + train through Secaucus is $10.75 plus however much NJT toll you incur ($5/day weekend parking and $5.75 for the train), which is still better than the $24 in parking and tolls to do the Princeton Junction roundtrip that I usually do.
|
Originally Posted by ConciergeMike
(Post 13186670)
I can think of better reasons to withhold donations to the Red Cross than political mailers with which one might disagree. A really good reason to do so would be their unacceptably high overhead. I remember reading something a few years ago that only ~.12 of every dollar ended up going toward the cause du jour.
Another questionable issue with regard to the Red Cross is their blood bank operation(s), and how, at times, money is seemingly the most important thing to them. I don't even begin to pretend to know what charity is a good one, but it does seem to me that the larger charities may not be the ones that do the most good. |
Originally Posted by ConciergeMike
(Post 13186726)
Indeed. I haven't done any reading on the topic recently. I'd imagine that there are a few charities that are very lucky (or incredibly smart) and have nearly all-volunteer staffing and subsidized office space or some such thing and manage to get an extremely high portion of funds brought in out to their cause, whatever it might be.
They ended the program last year, but they did increase the matching they do on our contributions now, so in the end, it worked out OK. They have their own version of a DEQM promo next week - they'll match my donations 2-for-1. |
Originally Posted by uncertaintraveler
(Post 13186818)
I don't even begin to pretend to know what charity is a good one, but it does seem to me that the larger charities may not be the ones that do the most good.
|
Originally Posted by ConciergeMike
(Post 13186401)
You hired Futbol Ducky to go out and acquire you a river otter, and upon Ducky's return you took it to a taxidermist and told him to lay said otter on a wooden plank in a sexually explicit pose. Did I miss by much?
|
Originally Posted by bdjohns1
(Post 13186835)
We used to have an employee charitable giving fund at work that we could contribute to direct out of our paycheck (because people got sick of United Way's overhead). There was a "board of directors" (all employees of various ranks) that reviewed grant applications and directed the funds. It was nice, because the company picked up 100% of the overhead costs of the program.
They ended the program last year, but they did increase the matching they do on our contributions now, so in the end, it worked out OK. They have their own version of a DEQM promo next week - they'll match my donations 2-for-1. |
Originally Posted by ConciergeMike
(Post 13186848)
I'm a huge fan of the USO, Fisher House, and the Rotary Foundation. Three large entities that do measurable and noticeable good.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:22 pm. |
|
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.