The donation money trail; Red Cross use of charitable contributions questioned

Nightline, Koppel et al ^ | 10/26/01 | Red Cross and Dr. Healy

[VA Advogado]

If this NOTION were correct then the agencies would not require a Judge to reapportion.

And this has to do with WHAT? I've seen no mention of a judge being involved. Do you support the ARC instructing the families how to SPEND the money?

[VA Advogado]

Why do you appear to support such systematic stealing?

How is it stealing? Obviously you either dont pay taxes or don't make charitible contributions because you would know that legally, a donor that controls the distribution of a contribution is not entitled to a charitable deduction. You must be on some disablity program.

[Diogenesis]

This was discussed on Nightline (the point of this thread)
by one of the critics of the Red Cross.

You did not answer why you appear to support their stealing of donated money to such a degree of 2/3rds?

Even Julia Roberts was upset.

[Diogenesis]

"You must be on some disablity program."

Thank you for the ad hominem attack.

You sound like a member of the Red Cross or their lawyer.

[VA Advogado]

Even Julia Roberts was upset.

Yeah, an air-headed hollywood actress is always a good barometer against which to judge my own feelings. This statement of yours only confirms my suspicion of the level of your intellect.

[VA Advogado]

You sound like a member of the Red Cross or their lawyer.

One need not be a lawyer to know that this controversy doesn't involve stealing. How much have you donated to the red cross since 9/10/2001?

[Diogenesis]

Thanks for the second ad hominem attack.

Clearly, however, you are a dim bulb compared to Julia Roberts. LOL

[VA Advogado]

"You must be on some disablity program." Thank you for the ad hominem attack.

What other than a disability explains how confused you appear by the term steal or stolen. Were you even watching the show? The debate was fairly simple - should the red cross use that money for ARC programs beyond those directly related to the Washington, PA and NYC families. Even if you disagree, they're still going to ARC programs.

[Miss Marple]

It is very simple. The Red Cross took money by USING the victims of the 9/11 attacks as their poster people. Everyone who donated to the Red Cross thought the Red Cross was simply serving as a conduit for the money. No one thought they were giving for "services" for these people or even worse, to programs overseas. The American public thought they were giving money to the families. This is nothing but bait and switch.

This is no different than that group making a recording that was going to use most of the money for "diversity education." As far as I am concerned, it is fraud.

[CWRWinger]

Is Judicial Watch a charity?

[VA Advogado]

Clearly, however, you are a dim bulb compared to Julia Roberts. LOL

Must be. I keep mistaking you for that former poster Im_not_a_genius.

[Diogenesis]

Yes, but it is worse than "bait and switch", which assumes someone still has control.

They lied for their own purposes having NOTHING TO DO with the 911 atrocities.

[woollyone]

Just wait until everyone who ran to give blood finds out that their blood was sold on the market for up to $280 per pint for research and international resale. Then the poop will hit the proverbial propeller again. Most of the "blood banks" are scams!

[VA Advogado]

Everyone who donated to the Red Cross thought the Red Cross was simply serving as a conduit for the money. No one thought they were giving for "services" for these people or even worse, to programs overseas. The American public thought they were giving money to the families. This is nothing but bait and switch.

I donated. I didn't believe that. Every penny they've spent on the NYC thing is listed on their website. They served almost 8 million meals in NYC. I'm quite sure a majority of that food DID NOT go to the families. You have a problem with the red cross feeding rescue workers?

[Brimack34]

We need Larry Klaymen too look into this. Where is Judicial Watch when you need them?

[Diogenesis]

Hello. What planet are you on?

They took more than $300,000,000.00 -- given by donors for the victims--

for NON-NY,PENTAGON,PA matters including their plans outside of the US and for their overhead.
That is what THEY said.

What part of stealing do think does not apply to this?

[VA Advogado]

Is Judicial Watch a charity?

For some it certainly is. But you weren't talking about charities, you were talking about 501(c)(3) organizations. Judical Watch is such an organization. And I believe it claims that contributions are tax deductable 'to the extent allowable by law'. Thanks for playing.

[Psycho_Bunny]

About two weeks after 911 I was playing golf with a couple guys in the Army and one of them was the first person I heard question where all the donations would end up going. I hadn't thought about it before then but, he was extremely skeptical.

It’s too bad he’s being proved correct.

[VA Advogado]

They lied for their own purposes having NOTHING TO DO with the 911 atrocities.

How can you even say they lied? Its all posted on their website. Its not a hard address. Just type:

W W W . R E D C R O S S . O R G

[Diogenesis]

People have responded to ADS on TV, on radio, as they cried.
There was nothing there that the money was going overseas or to Red Cross projects in the future.

I doubt many people viewed the fine print on a remote web site, even if it is there.

You did answer why this is not stealing in your "ethics.