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

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:37:40 AM UTC-7, 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.

Any strong-arm techniques come from management, who want the kudos that
come from getting all their workers to contribute. You could contribute
just five bucks if you wanted to. If you work for jerks it's not UW's
fault.

Yes, any time people have control of money there is a chance they will
steal some. Consider Rita Crundwell, who siphoned off $53 million from
the small town of Dixon Illinois, as its comptroller, to support her
horse habit.

We do not condemn all small American towns based on this one incident.

And yes, many UW boards have voted to deny funds to the BSA, because
of its *** exclusion policies. They have taken sides, and the side they
took was to accept gays as full citizens.

"Pico Rico" > wrote in message
...
>
> > 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.

They did that where I used to work. And they would not give money to
certain charities such as Planned Parenthood. So they didn't get a dime
from me.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 10:24:02 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>James Silverton wrote:
>>
>> Today, I received a large envelope appealing for money from the Disabled
>> Veterans National Foundation. The envelope enclosed a note pad holder
>> with an attached rather large simple calculator and a ball pen.
>> The calculator was impressive to look at but rather basic in capabilities.
>>
>> I looked them up in Charity Watch where I see they received an F rating,
>> with 85% of the funds they received being spent on fund raising. What
>> are they trying to do?
>>
>
>Just charity leaches much like the united way criminals. It seems it's
>the trendy liberal thing to do to

How is it 'liberal'? I guess you're one of the fools who thinks there
a real difference between liberals and republicans.

>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.

"Jeßus" wrote:
>

> >Just charity leaches much like the united way criminals. It seems it's
> >the trendy liberal thing to do to
>
> How is it 'liberal'? I guess you're one of the fools who thinks there
> a real difference between liberals and republicans.

From my view in the center as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal,
pro gun, pro choice atheist, I have a clear picture of the two wings.

The liberal left is by far the most likely to form charities to right
whatever wrongs they perceive (real or imagined), and then enrich
themselves with some of those charitable proceeds which stroking their
egos thinking they are somehow saving the world.

The religious right is far less likely to form a charity or profit from
it, they by and large donate to their churches which have established
charities that are by and large pretty efficiently run and not corrupt.
The only real issue with those charities is the proselytizing, not any
sort of embezzlement or personal enrichment (church charities, not
churches themselves).

As for differences between liberals and conservatives, they are indeed
stark. While both have their false beliefs/feelings, the left seems to
have lost all capacity for rational debate or critical thinking about
their beliefs. When there is a difference of opinion on something
tangible and measurable (not opinion like *** marriage or whatever), the
right will present a very reasoned argument citing sources like bls.gov,
doj.gov, etc. and the left will respond only with personal attacks,
references to "faux news" and other nonsense, completely incapable of a
reasoned and factually supported response.

So yes, there is a very big difference between liberals and
conservatives. There are no "feelings" or "faith" applicable to things
like economics, only hard facts and statistics, and only the
conservatives seem to be capable of evaluating those facts and
statistics.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:09:26 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>"Jeßus" wrote:
>>
>
>> >Just charity leaches much like the united way criminals. It seems it's
>> >the trendy liberal thing to do to
>>
>> How is it 'liberal'? I guess you're one of the fools who thinks there
>> a real difference between liberals and republicans.
>
>From my view in the center as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal,
>pro gun, pro choice atheist, I have a clear picture of the two wings.
>
>The liberal left is by far the most likely to form charities to right
>whatever wrongs they perceive (real or imagined), and then enrich
>themselves with some of those charitable proceeds which stroking their
>egos thinking they are somehow saving the world.
>
>The religious right is far less likely to form a charity or profit from
>it, they by and large donate to their churches which have established
>charities that are by and large pretty efficiently run and not corrupt.
>The only real issue with those charities is the proselytizing, not any
>sort of embezzlement or personal enrichment (church charities, not
>churches themselves).
>
>As for differences between liberals and conservatives, they are indeed
>stark. While both have their false beliefs/feelings, the left seems to
>have lost all capacity for rational debate or critical thinking about
>their beliefs. When there is a difference of opinion on something
>tangible and measurable (not opinion like *** marriage or whatever), the
>right will present a very reasoned argument citing sources like bls.gov,
>doj.gov, etc. and the left will respond only with personal attacks,
>references to "faux news" and other nonsense, completely incapable of a
>reasoned and factually supported response.
>
>So yes, there is a very big difference between liberals and
>conservatives. There are no "feelings" or "faith" applicable to things
>like economics, only hard facts and statistics, and only the
>conservatives seem to be capable of evaluating those facts and
>statistics.

I liked your answer Pete, sorry I missed your considered reply until
now. Yes, I concede there are differences such as you describe, but
ultimately when it comes to fundamental things like the perpetual war
industry and the gradual erosion of the constitution, personal rights
and freedoms in general based on fear and the excuse of security,
well, they are very hard to differentiate from where I sit.

On Saturday, October 18, 2014 7:57:03 PM UTC-7, James Silverton wrote:

> Today, I received a large envelope appealing for money from the Disabled
> Veterans National Foundation. The envelope enclosed a note pad holder
> with an attached rather large simple calculator and a ball pen.
> The calculator was impressive to look at but rather basic in capabilities.
>

Old folks have limited vision. But I do miss the miniature license
plates that that one disabled vets' group used to send out.

The charity-printed address labels almost drove "Walter Drake" out
of business.


> I looked them up in Charity Watch where I see they received an F rating,
> with 85% of the funds they received being spent on fund raising. What
> are they trying to do?
>


Try these (ratings from charitynavigator.org):

DAV (Disabled American Veterans) Charitable Service Trust - KY 91.25 4 stars
Wounded Warrior Project - FL 84.39 3 stars
Fisher House Foundation - MD 99.62 4 stars
Move America Forward - CA 44.32 0 stars
Special Operations Warrior Foundation - FL 98.96 4 stars