On 10/19/2014 11:53 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Pico Rico wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:24:02 AM UTC-7, Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just charity leaches much like the united way criminals. It seems it's
>>>> the trendy liberal thing to do to corruptly leach off of charity while
>>>> stroking your ego pretending you are somehow helping people with the
>>>> 10-15% you actually use for charitable work.
>>>
>>> Huh? The opposite is true.
>>>
>>> United Ways typically deliver over 80% of what they raise to the programs
>>> you think you're giving to, with 8% of your funds going to fundraising,
>>> and another 8% or so going to salaries and rent.
>>
>> But they, at least in the past, used strong arm techniques at the workplace
>> to get their donations. And there was scandal in at least one of their local
>> outfits. And they ban donations to groups based on UW's political agenda.
>> Best to just give to the specific charity you want, rather than run it
>> through a clearinghouse.
>
> Exactly, as corrupt as they get, and the strong arm coercion stuff is
> not at all in their past.
>
> The UN World Food Program has something like 9% overhead, as an example
> of what a charity's overhead should look like. That 8% the corrupt UW is
> scraping off funds their execs lavish offices and salaries.
>

I would not give a plug nickle to anything that had the United Nations
name attached to it. They just hand over the money to the local
governments, many of whom are corrupt, and the cash you donated thinking
it will feed hungry people will go to buying weapons and teaching small
children how to shoot them.

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas