Posted on 12/30/2004 4:25:17 PM PST by 4.1O dana super trac pak
Ditto.
Do a search on kitties or viking kitties
LOL -- doubleplus true!
Nah, she posted the original accusation that the Red Cross spends 80% on administration costs. It's her responsibility to back it up with a source - or your responsibility if you wish to assume it.
If and when I make an outlandish statement, I'll post links.
If you are going to continue to make these accusations, I will continue to ask you to back it up. Until you do they are completely meaningless.
Can we "embarass" you into sending more?
Because it's elitist and callous. People who can't afford it are giving whatever they can, even if it's their last $5, because they care, they want to help and they know that their $5, added to someone else's $5, added to tens, twenties, hundreds, thousands, can make a difference.
All you do with such off the cuff, callow statements is grind down those who can't afford it and discourage them from giving. Regardless of taxpayer donations pledged by "wealthy" Western countries in proportion to the amount of the GDP each country controls, the REAL $$$$ is going to come from hundreds of millions of small, private donors. Only an elitist would discount their heartfelt contributions out of hand, rather than trying to encourage people to continue donating via a little positive reinforcement like "we're doing a great job, together we're going to make a huge difference"
By your posts, you seem to be a reasonable person. By your previous job, you're obviously caring. It's extremely hard these days to find an...err....avowed non-conservative who cares enough about people to participate in reasoned discourse in order to find out how they think. You could find a home here at FR.
I just heard a radio program tonight by John and Ken on KFI here in Los Angeles. UNICEF has offices in all 158 countries so they are prepared and have trained people wherever there is a disaster. The representative talked in detail on their organization and what relief they supply. They seem like a reputable charity if you want to give to them as well as Salvation Army and World Vision.
You must note that even though the American Red Cross has a questionable reputation, the International Red Cross has an even more questionable reputation and they are the ones that deal with disasters outside of the US. Give your $ to a charity that will use your money more responsibly.
Here's the most up to date info I can find on the Red Cross from give.org an independant analyist of charities. It say 04% for fund raising and 04% for administrative costs plus a 10% increase in net assets.
http://www.give.org/reports/arc.asp
Scroll to the bottom of the page for the pie chart.
Are you saying that this was a strategic move by a UN bureaucrat to raise more money? Sorry, the money would have come anyway. This person is a product of a socialist Norway, when he said that rich countries should raise taxes and send more relief money, thats what he meant. UNs are not that sophisticated.
I despise the UN for its hypocrisy. They did not lift a finger to stop the genocide in Rwanda.
Its that old time religion thing.
UN members are exempt from income taxes in most countries. If they are not and they pay, the UN reimburses them all monies due.
Re #67:
You left out - Who saved all of Europe from the Nazis? Who lifted all of Western Europe from economic disaster after WW2?
Probably lots more but I needed to get that in there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.