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?

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On 10/18/2014 10:57 PM, 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?
>
Need you ask? They're trying to line their own pocketbooks. A
negligible amount of anything you might donate goes to any of those
Veterans. Charities that send out notepads, address labels, etc. are
spending more money to line their own pockets than they are to help the
people they allegedly claim to represent. Just say NO.

If you want to donate to Veterans, contact a local source. There is
probably a VA hospital in your area.

Jill

On Saturday, October 18, 2014 10:11:45 PM UTC-5, jmcquown wrote:
> On 10/18/2014 10:57 PM, 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?
> >
> Need you ask? They're trying to line their own pocketbooks. A
> negligible amount of anything you might donate goes to any of those
> Veterans. Charities that send out notepads, address labels, etc. are
> spending more money to line their own pockets than they are to help the
> people they allegedly claim to represent. Just say NO.
>
> If you want to donate to Veterans, contact a local source. There is
> probably a VA hospital in your area.
>
> Jill

Excellent answer, Jill.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:57:03 -0400, 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?

The admin etc. are maintaining their little fiefdom and respective
jobs/incomes. Quite typical of charities in this day and age and why I
keep my charity work strictly local, with local people I know.

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...
> 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?

Hmmm... Interesting! I don't think I have heard of them. I have
occasionally gotten a phone call from someone wanting money for disabled
Vets. I listen only long enough for them to get to the part (and they
always do) about the poor Vets not getting the money that they deserve.
Then I agree and say that the VA still owes us money. That's when they
quickly hang up. Ha!

On 10/18/2014 10:57 PM, James Silverton wrote:

> 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?
>
There is a lot of money to be made running a charity fundraiser.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/18/2014 10:57 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
> There is a lot of money to be made running a charity fundraiser.

Some of them send those nickels in the packets, I don't understand that.

Cheri

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 10/18/2014 10:57 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>> There is a lot of money to be made running a charity fundraiser.
>
> Some of them send those nickels in the packets, I don't understand that.
>
> Cheri


They are nickel and diming you to death

On 10/19/2014 10:26 AM, Matt Ferrari wrote:
> "Cheri" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 10/18/2014 10:57 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>> There is a lot of money to be made running a charity fundraiser.
>>
>> Some of them send those nickels in the packets, I don't understand that.
>>
>> Cheri
>
>
> They are nickel and diming you to death
>
>
>
Heh. I just keep the nickel and spend it. They don't get a dime back.

Jill

"Matt Ferrari" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cheri" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 10/18/2014 10:57 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>> There is a lot of money to be made running a charity fundraiser.
>>
>> Some of them send those nickels in the packets, I don't understand that.
>>
>> Cheri
>
>
> They are nickel and diming you to death

LOL, thanks for the laugh.

Cheri

On 10/19/2014 10:26 AM, Matt Ferrari wrote:
> "Cheri" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 10/18/2014 10:57 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>> There is a lot of money to be made running a charity fundraiser.
>>
>> Some of them send those nickels in the packets, I don't understand that.
>>
>> Cheri
>
>
> They are nickel and diming you to death
>
>
>
I think I mentioned that one of those coins jammed my shredder when I
put the unopened envelope in it :-(

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:02:59 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 10/18/2014 10:57 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
> There is a lot of money to be made running a charity fundraiser.

Same deal with church of the Reverend X... another non-profit scam.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 2014-10-19 1:53 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:02:59 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/2014 10:57 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>> There is a lot of money to be made running a charity fundraiser.
>
> Same deal with church of the Reverend X... another non-profit scam.
>
>
I was surprised to learn that a number of the local fundamentalist
churches are legal entities in the form of numbered companies.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 08:19:53 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2014-10-19 1:53 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:02:59 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/18/2014 10:57 PM, James Silverton wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >> There is a lot of money to be made running a charity fundraiser.
> >
> > Same deal with church of the Reverend X... another non-profit scam.
> >
> >
> I was surprised to learn that a number of the local fundamentalist
> churches are legal entities in the form of numbered companies.

What's a numbered company?


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 2014-10-19 9:36 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 08:19:53 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2014-10-19 1:53 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:02:59 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/18/2014 10:57 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>> There is a lot of money to be made running a charity fundraiser.
>>>
>>> Same deal with church of the Reverend X... another non-profit scam.
>>>
>>>
>> I was surprised to learn that a number of the local fundamentalist
>> churches are legal entities in the form of numbered companies.
>
> What's a numbered company?
>
It is an incorporated company. Corporations can have registered names or
can have a number assigned to them by the government. They are
registered as corporations. It might be 1234567 Ontario Inc, or 9876543
Canada Inc for official purposes, but be doing business under another
name. The Doing Business As (DBA) is common in the US and Canada. In
the cases of the churches I dealt with, those that were numbered
companies were legally incorporated companies operating as numbered
companies but dba FITB Church Name.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 08:19:53 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2014-10-19 1:53 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:02:59 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/18/2014 10:57 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>> There is a lot of money to be made running a charity fundraiser.
>>
>> Same deal with church of the Reverend X... another non-profit scam.
>>
>>
>I was surprised to learn that a number of the local fundamentalist
>churches are legal entities in the form of numbered companies.

<shrug>. Australia is listed on the stock exchange as a corporation,
and presumably so are many other nations, the U.S has patented a
strain of ebola virus. Things get weird when you look closely enough.

In article >,
says...
>
> 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?

Guilt trip you, so you haven't got the heart to reject their
investment.

It's the modern equivalent of the unsolicited pack of christmas cards
we used to get every year, painted by Foot and Mouth artists, so
disabled they have to hold the brush in their teeth or toes. Funnily
enough I haven't had any for years..maybe the "Foot and Mouth" card
market collapsed after the UK's same-name epidemic of livestock disease.

Janet UK

Janet UK, I just got one of those foot and mouth artist packets for the first time this month. I
tossed it without opening it.

That Disabled Vet thing may have been a useless "charity," but I think there is at least one
with a similar but different name that is worthwhile. I contribute to the same half dozen or so
charities every year, and ignore the rest. My charities include Heifer, Nature Conservancy,
The Smile Train, Doctors Without Borders, and Audubon. I support the NWF and UNICEF
by buying my holiday cards from them.

If someone wants to make a difference, try Heifer International, or find a legitimate one that
feeds the hungry in this country.

N.

In article >,
says...
>
> Janet UK, I just got one of those foot and mouth artist packets for the first time this month. I
> tossed it without opening it.

I just looked them up to see if they are still active here and it turns
out they are not a charity at all :-( and have a sickening reputation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associa..._Painting_Arti
sts_of_the_World

quote

"Controversies

The AMFPA has in later years been the subject of several exposés in
German, French, Swiss, Swedish, Norwegian, Polish, British, Canadian and
Danish media, suggesting unethical behaviour within the organization.
The coverage has spurred criticism from charity, consumer and handicap
organizations. The criticism includes:

That AMFPA effectively poses as a charity organization although it
is purely a commercial venture, in effect conning charitable people out
of money.[2][3][4][5]
That only a fraction of the surplus is paid out to the handicapped
artists, since only 94 (2008) of them are fully employed by the company,
which in turn allegedly turns a world wide profit in the hundreds of
millions US$.[5][6][7] The precise world wide profit is confidential.
That high salaries, favourable loans and property lease contracts
are given to AMFPAs long-time legal adviser Herbert Batliner, his
friends and family and other lawyers employed at the AMFPA.[2][4][5][7]
Recently retired Batliner is himself a controversy, being previously
accused of money laundering for Colombian drug barons and for his
alleged involvement in the 1999 German CDU contribution scandal.[8][9]
That funds are being diverted to unknown parties via a network of
"mailbox" companies.[6][7]
The use of high pressure sales tactics by sending its main sales
item, Christmas card packages to consumers via unsolicited direct mail
with an option to pay afterwards.[4]
The secrecy maintained by the company.

No claims have been made suggesting any illegal activity by AMFPA.
Thecriticism has been centered on what is perceived as bad ethics."
<......>
Litigation
In June 2007 the company sued Danish Broadcasting Corporation and Danish
daily Ekstra Bladet for libel after negative coverage during December
2005. On October 10, 2008 the High Court of Eastern Denmark ruled in
favor of the accused journalists, stating that there was sufficient
factual basis for statements like: "Behind the scenes we found a well-
oiled money making machine with economic puppeteers, who are scraping in
money with arms and legs", "People think they are supporting a charity,
but in reality we are looking at a money making machine" and "...only a
measly 3% is going to the mouth and foot painting artists". AMFPA has
not appealed the decision"
end quote

Janet UK

On 10/18/2014 9:57 PM, 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?
>

Wow! I never bothered to look them up. I give them a small amount
every year. My son is a disabled veteran. I suppose that what I give
covers the cost of the mailing labels. :-)

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

On 2014-10-19 10:31 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:

>> 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?
>>
>
> Wow! I never bothered to look them up. I give them a small amount
> every year. My son is a disabled veteran. I suppose that what I give
> covers the cost of the mailing labels. :-)
>


I guess the point of it is that they are exploiting people like you
would feel an obligation to disabled veterans. You should Google the
"charity" and see what has been reported about them. It seems that
Disabled Veterans National Foundation has raised millions and millions
of dollars, which donors thought was being spent on programs for disable
veterans, and almost all the money is being spend on fund raising.
Almost nothing is going the the disabled veterans. In other words, it's
basically a scam.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 10:55:26 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2014-10-19 10:31 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>
> >> 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?
> >>
> >
> > Wow! I never bothered to look them up. I give them a small amount
> > every year. My son is a disabled veteran. I suppose that what I give
> > covers the cost of the mailing labels. :-)
> >
>
>
> I guess the point of it is that they are exploiting people like you
> would feel an obligation to disabled veterans. You should Google the
> "charity" and see what has been reported about them. It seems that
> Disabled Veterans National Foundation has raised millions and millions
> of dollars, which donors thought was being spent on programs for disable
> veterans, and almost all the money is being spend on fund raising.
> Almost nothing is going the the disabled veterans. In other words, it's
> basically a scam.

I looked up the one that advertises the most around here. It could be
better, but it's not bad
http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ry&orgid=12842
OTOH: I've never heard of the top rated (probably because they don't
advertise). http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html#veterans


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 10/19/2014 9:55 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-10-19 10:31 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> Wow! I never bothered to look them up. I give them a small amount
>> every year. My son is a disabled veteran. I suppose that what I give
>> covers the cost of the mailing labels. :-)
>>
>
>
> I guess the point of it is that they are exploiting people like you
> would feel an obligation to disabled veterans. You should Google the
> "charity" and see what has been reported about them. It seems that
> Disabled Veterans National Foundation has raised millions and millions
> of dollars, which donors thought was being spent on programs for disable
> veterans, and almost all the money is being spend on fund raising.
> Almost nothing is going the the disabled veterans. In other words, it's
> basically a scam.

No more checks from me!

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

On 10/19/2014 10:31 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
> On 10/18/2014 9:57 PM, 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?
>>
>
> Wow! I never bothered to look them up. I give them a small amount
> every year. My son is a disabled veteran. I suppose that what I give
> covers the cost of the mailing labels. :-)
>

There are a few organizations using the Veterans name. Some are OK,
others are not so good. Check them out. I'd much rather help the Vets
than the fund raisers.

On 2014-10-19 10:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>> Wow! I never bothered to look them up. I give them a small amount
>> every year. My son is a disabled veteran. I suppose that what I give
>> covers the cost of the mailing labels. :-)
>>
>
> There are a few organizations using the Veterans name. Some are OK,
> others are not so good. Check them out. I'd much rather help the Vets
> than the fund raisers.


I addressed this sort of issue recently and commented that I have soured
on charities in general because they seem to have created a business
that is more actively engaged in fund raising than they are in helping
their causes. I donated to the Cancer Society and ended up getting beg
letters from societies for cancer of just about ever part of the body.
Make a donation to a charity in memory of a deceased friend and they
don't stop hassling you for more.

In this case, the "charity" is blatantly playing on patriotism, loyalty
to our vets and to the guilt some feel about the plight of wounded vets.
The sad thing is that they are not the only charity for vets that
scores badly in this regard. It is also surprising that we have not
heard more about it from official veterans groups.

On 19/10/2014 11:00 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-10-19 10:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>> Wow! I never bothered to look them up. I give them a small amount
>>> every year. My son is a disabled veteran. I suppose that what I give
>>> covers the cost of the mailing labels. :-)
>>>
>>
>> There are a few organizations using the Veterans name. Some are OK,
>> others are not so good. Check them out. I'd much rather help the Vets
>> than the fund raisers.
>
>
> I addressed this sort of issue recently and commented that I have soured
> on charities in general because they seem to have created a business
> that is more actively engaged in fund raising than they are in helping
> their causes. I donated to the Cancer Society and ended up getting beg
> letters from societies for cancer of just about ever part of the body.
> Make a donation to a charity in memory of a deceased friend and they
> don't stop hassling you for more.
>
> In this case, the "charity" is blatantly playing on patriotism, loyalty
> to our vets and to the guilt some feel about the plight of wounded vets.
> The sad thing is that they are not the only charity for vets that
> scores badly in this regard. It is also surprising that we have not
> heard more about it from official veterans groups.

If a Vet is disabled or needs help because of service to his country,
THE GOVERNMENT should look after him!
Graham

On 10/19/2014 12:06 PM, graham wrote:

> If a Vet is disabled or needs help because of service to his country,
> THE GOVERNMENT should look after him!
> Graham

The Government most definitely should, but I am afraid they don't.
--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 11:06:24 -0600, graham wrote:

> If a Vet is disabled or needs help because of service to his country,
> THE GOVERNMENT should look after him!

The government *should*, but sometimes they make the paperwork to get
help so daunting the Vet gives up.

I've got an Internet friend who had his Humvee flipped over by an IED
while serving in Iraq. He suffers from PTSD and started the paperwork
to get a VA rating. Eventually he became disgusted at the amount of
paperwork they wanted him to file to prove his claim that he just gave
up. Next thing you know he's threatening suicide and we're sending the
police to his house.

Luckily, once he was in the hospital he hooked up with a Service Rep who
took over the paperwork and the hassle that went with it.

For me it was a 12 year odyssey of going from 0% service connected (yes,
that's possible), to 40%, to 60% to 100%. For many of those years I
just gave up and didn't try to advance my claim.

--

-Jeff B.


"Excuse me.
I don't mean to impose,
but I am the Ocean."

~ The Salton Sea

"graham" > wrote in message
...
> On 19/10/2014 11:00 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2014-10-19 10:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>>> Wow! I never bothered to look them up. I give them a small amount
>>>> every year. My son is a disabled veteran. I suppose that what I give
>>>> covers the cost of the mailing labels. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are a few organizations using the Veterans name. Some are OK,
>>> others are not so good. Check them out. I'd much rather help the Vets
>>> than the fund raisers.
>>
>>
>> I addressed this sort of issue recently and commented that I have soured
>> on charities in general because they seem to have created a business
>> that is more actively engaged in fund raising than they are in helping
>> their causes. I donated to the Cancer Society and ended up getting beg
>> letters from societies for cancer of just about ever part of the body.
>> Make a donation to a charity in memory of a deceased friend and they
>> don't stop hassling you for more.
>>
>> In this case, the "charity" is blatantly playing on patriotism, loyalty
>> to our vets and to the guilt some feel about the plight of wounded vets.
>> The sad thing is that they are not the only charity for vets that
>> scores badly in this regard. It is also surprising that we have not
>> heard more about it from official veterans groups.
>
> If a Vet is disabled or needs help because of service to his country, THE
> GOVERNMENT should look after him!
> Graham

Oh don't get me started! The government is sooo very backlogged. We have
gone over a year now and the VA still owes us a nice chunk of change.
Thankfully my husband doesn't have to use the VA medical facilities.

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 10:06:24 AM UTC-7, graham wrote:
> On 19/10/2014 11:00 AM, Dave Smith wrote:

> > In this case, the "charity" is blatantly playing on patriotism, loyalty
> > to our vets and to the guilt some feel about the plight of wounded vets.
> > The sad thing is that they are not the only charity for vets that
> > scores badly in this regard. It is also surprising that we have not
> > heard more about it from official veterans groups.
>
> If a Vet is disabled or needs help because of service to his country,
> THE GOVERNMENT should look after him!
>

The vets can always use a little extra. My Dad was in the VA hospital for
a bit in the 1970s. If they wanted to make a call they had to use a pay
phone. Visiting him, I asked him how he was fixed for dimes.

Turned out that the American Legion's women's auxiliary gave every vet
a roll of dimes for the phone. And this was much appreciated -- a lot
of the vets were there because they couldn't afford care anywhere else.

On 2014-10-19 10:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>
> There are a few organizations using the Veterans name. Some are OK,
> others are not so good. Check them out. I'd much rather help the Vets
> than the fund raisers.


Maybe I can add a rant about veterans. I do have a lot of respect for
our fighting men and women, and even more for those who get wounded. I
am getting a little concerned about some of the claims for PTSD that are
coming out these days, and the call for services for ALL veterans.

It seems that a lot of people in certain professions are falling back on
the PTSD. Cops, firemen, EMTs, like they are the only ones who face
stress on job. It started off as a syndrome for those who had been
subjected to the concussive force of explosions. In recent cases, a
female RCMP officer claimed PTSD resulting from sexual harassment by her
supervisors. A soldier in a support role in Afghanistan claimed his was
the result of the trauma he experienced when people in his base would go
out on patrol and come back dead or wounded. It didn't even happen to
him. For some reason, we are expected not to dare to question their
claims because they are somehow sacred in our society.

Then there is the issue of veterans benefits. There was a call for free
university or college education for all veterans. While all officers are
university graduates, the others probably would not have joined the
military if they had been able to get into university. Moreover, it was
just a job for many. Less than 10% of troops are involved in combat. The
rest are support workers. I cannot equate a combat veteran with a pencil
pushed back at headquarters.

On 10/19/2014 12:34 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

> Then there is the issue of veterans benefits. There was a call for free
> university or college education for all veterans. While all officers are
> university graduates, the others probably would not have joined the
> military if they had been able to get into university. Moreover, it was
> just a job for many. Less than 10% of troops are involved in combat. The
> rest are support workers. I cannot equate a combat veteran with a pencil
> pushed back at headquarters.


My son was a pencil pusher who badly injured his back while serving his
country in the Personnel Department at Ft. Campbell. He left the Army
with 30% disability and he lives with constant pain from that injury.
He doesn't have PTSD, but his disability is legitimate even though he
never left the United States.

One of his duties was to help new widows/widowers of soldiers who were
killed. Do you think this was just pencil pushing?

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

On 2014-10-19 7:06 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:

>> Then there is the issue of veterans benefits. There was a call for free
>> university or college education for all veterans. While all officers are
>> university graduates, the others probably would not have joined the
>> military if they had been able to get into university. Moreover, it was
>> just a job for many. Less than 10% of troops are involved in combat. The
>> rest are support workers. I cannot equate a combat veteran with a pencil
>> pushed back at headquarters.
>
>
> My son was a pencil pusher who badly injured his back while serving his
> country in the Personnel Department at Ft. Campbell. He left the Army
> with 30% disability and he lives with constant pain from that injury. He
> doesn't have PTSD, but his disability is legitimate even though he never
> left the United States.
>
> One of his duties was to help new widows/widowers of soldiers who were
> killed. Do you think this was just pencil pushing?
>
He injured his back serving in the personnel department. My father's
plane was shot down over occupied territory and he was lucky enough to
survive a plane crash that killed his 7 crew mates. My friend's father
survived 3 1/2 years in a Japanese prison camp. In recent conflicts,
men and women have been shot and blown to pieces. Believe me, I have
sympathies for anyone with a back injury, but it is a far cry from a
serious battle wound.

On 10/19/2014 10:56 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 10/19/2014 10:31 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>> On 10/18/2014 9:57 PM, 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?
>>>
>>
>> Wow! I never bothered to look them up. I give them a small amount
>> every year. My son is a disabled veteran. I suppose that what I give
>> covers the cost of the mailing labels. :-)
>>
>
> There are a few organizations using the Veterans name. Some are OK,
> others are not so good. Check them out. I'd much rather help the Vets
> than the fund raisers.
There are some veteran's charities that get an A rating but it is sad
how many of them receive F.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

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 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.

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.

> 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.

"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.

Yes, they used to force you to donate by taking it out of your check, but
that was a long time ago, might be different now but that always left a bad
taste in my mouth for the organization.

Cheri

Cheri wrote:
>
> "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.
>
> Yes, they used to force you to donate by taking it out of your check, but
> that was a long time ago, might be different now but that always left a bad
> taste in my mouth for the organization.

They still do that kind of scam, and they wine and dine company execs to
meet fundraising goals. To this day they still try to get everyone to
"acknowledge" the "campaign", something I still refuse to do, so the
execs at my company never meet their "goals". **** the corrupt UW.

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.