No jackass, people on this thread are seeking the most efficient way of giving to an organization that directs its assets to those in need REGARDLESS OF POLITICS!!!
Their money is going to be sent to needy recipients via another more responsible source. It is as simple as that.
Get it?
Their money is going to be sent to needy recipients via another more responsible source. It is as simple as that.
Get it?
WOW!!!
Jackass...???
Really???
My comment wasn't even directed at you, and you start off with Jackass.
Here...let me explain how things in the world work, as you really don't have a clue. I'll type slow, so that you can keep up.
You said:
"people on this thread are seeking the most efficient way of giving to an organization that directs its assets to those in need REGARDLESS OF POLITICS!!!"
First, let's discuss efficiency.
S/A pulling out of Mar-A-Lago has no affect on their efficiency to help people. S/A has always been considered one of the best organizations for helping people in times of need. They don't question a persons politics and pulling away from Mar-A-Lago doesn't change their day to day operations.
Next you said: "REGARDLESS OF POLITICS!!!"
And yet...the very reason you won't give to them is because of political optics.
Next, you said:
"Their money is going to be sent to needy recipients via another more responsible source. It is as simple as that."
Part of what I do is deal with man power. I have to know what has to be done and how many people it takes to get it done.
I understand that I can only put so many people in a given area, before EFFICIENCY drops.
Time, space, materials, man power are all finite resources.
I understand you have the mental capacity of a typical Democrat, but no matter how much money you throw at a problem, short one of the other needed resources and EFFICIENCY drops and waste increases.
Speaking of resources. Charities themselves are resources. Not all these resources/charities are equal. S/A is one of a relative few who hold a reputation of being a reliable charity.
Remove one reliable charity from the group, you limit efficiency.
Samaritans Purse is one very good group, but they can't do everything, no matter how much money they have. Likewise with Operation Blessing. Or even any other reliable organization.
By themselves, no single group can handle every situation. The more TRUSTWORTHY organizations there are, the more that can be handled with the most EFFICIENCY.
Money itself is a finite resource. No matter how much is thrown, no one or 2 or three groups can handle all the needs that Houston has right now.
Lastly...it's obvious you're unfamiliar with, knowledgeable and informed giving to charitable organizations. But most large, international charities have local groups or chapters. Groups that operate semi autonomously from the parent group.
S/A is one such group.
Point being...
Before making ignorant all encompassing statements about a group like the Salvation Army, you should know EXACTLY who did what.
Such as:
WHICH Salvation Army chapter actually was agreed to be at Mar-A-Lago, and then pulled out.
WHICHS/A chapter is actually boots on the ground in the Houston area.
Did the parent S/A organization force or pressure the local chapter to pull out of Mar-A-Lago. (highly unlikely)
So many questions you can't answer.
So many questions you're not intelligent enough to think to even ask.
Get it...Jackass???