Thread: Pact with the Devil?

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Surely choosing an aid program that draws pretty graphs isn't the answer. We see the same graphs everywhere. Certain organizations are more respected than others, but this doesn't mean they are indeed trustworthy, either.

Dwelling on minutia doesn't sell you point either. I gave links if anyone cared to investigate. The site I quoted was one that I read regularly and have a "feel" for. Much the same as if you encountered a link on one of you trusted sites. Even with that I did encourage one to look into it further.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Channeling aid money through the government seems the right thing to do. After all the aid coordination is often centralized at the local government. This is how things work in most countries in the world. But if any of us want to believe we live in a country where our government is corrupt to the point of stealing money from aid funds, fine. It's your prerogative.

Is is well known and documented, and government entities seem to exhibit a track record of being some of the worst offenders of waste, fraud, and abuse. But who am I to tell another what to do with his business.

Originally Posted by Daved

>> If one is truly interested in helping the victims, it might be a good idea to check into the charity to find out where the donations go.

This is a good point. I used to donate to the Red Cross, but based on information I've read I'm not as convinced they have the best use of the money. My wife and I used charitynavigator.org to decide on a Haiti charity (we picked Doctors Without Borders because we were hoping it could help immediately with some of the emergency health needs they have). That site is pretty helpful in finding charities that use the moneys well and also explaining what types of work each charity focuses on.

Thanks for the link.

Originally Posted by MK27

[...] My mom was an administrator for the red cross, and she claims [...]

My preferred form of charity is giving money to people who ask me for change. IMO, there is nothing more despicable than posters of the sort "Don't give money to panhandlers -- give it to an organization that feeds the homeless".

Anecdotally, I can tell you of panhandlers that drive Cadillac Escalades to their panhandling jobs where they rake in an extra $60,000 tax free per year.

Originally Posted by MK27

I would strongly question that pie graph and similar "charity rating" systems. What does "97% went to programs" mean? It's totally vacuous. It means nothing. If any of that "program cost" is someone's salary, all they are doing is shifting figures around so they can present people with pie graphs claiming "our administrative cost are only 2%"! Very unlikely -- if it smells like BS and it looks like BS, I say it's probably BS! Also, they are Christian missionaries. No doubt, a lot of those "programs for the poor" are just about proselytizing, handing out bibles, and even building churches == more hypocrisy. They simply profit from an industry, and make like it's charity. Not saying that of all Christian organizations -- I think the Salvation Army is terrific -- just most of them.

When folks start off this way with bashing "pie graphs" and other minutia and seeming to miss the larger point, I get the impression that they are looking for a straw man. Discover your own research and make your own rating system.

With regard to your view on religion and religious charities, that is your opinion. Find something else, then, as I've pretty much said. And Daved did kindly provide a link for others who think similarly on religion or the Red Cross and might like to see what else is out there.

---

But I don't know what to do, now. It seems that even Daved's link shows a pie chart and even gives a 4-star rating to the Food for the Poor charity that was mentioned. And with some of those gosh darn religious charities, they've already got "boots on the ground" to try to feed people -- can't help them if they pass out a piece of paper with a meal.

And by the way, the Salvation Army is a religious organization.

The Salvation Army, is an international evangelical movement that sees itself as part of the universal Christian Church.

[edit]And I'm not really defending Rush Limbaugh's comment. But this article does:

As for donating through a government website, Limbaugh stated Thursday:

I also said private donations are going to be much better than a government donation. They're all going, go to the Red Cross, do other things, don't go through the government. It's just going to go through hands and bureaucracies and a dollar is going to end up being 30 cents by the time they get through with it.

And this of course was Limbaugh's point: If you want to make a donation to disaster relief, why not give your money directly to the agency(ies) you trust without the government potentially acting as an intermediary and/or putting your name on a list for future political contributions?