Yep another perfect example of why I stopped donating money. People look at me like I am just the most terrible person on the planet when I refuse to donate to those types of things but until my money actually goes to people that need it I will just continue to be the jack @$$ that “doesn’t care about other peoples’ suffering”
cough cough, sucker…cough cough…sorry I can’t type when im couging , will try later…
RS, its better to be charitable, even if it means being deceived on occasion. Sandra Bullock upon learning of the disaster, gave a million USD and may have had no thought but the good of the victims. (as you did) . Giving without expectation shows that you, and Bullock have little fear. That is a trait not commonly found in today’s world. After 9-11, everyone here, (kids too) donated to the different funds, some folks to all of them. There is no way really to account for the huge sum of money, but no one cared, it was the intention of helping those who were hurting that was important.
Ya, Good Boy, Good Boy, it is better to give than it is to receive. Tank boy say’s it so eloquently…Corenthesis Pslams 2:Chapter 6, Verse-7.
We should all give and feel happy about it when we find out we get ripped off, because it doesn’t always happen and we must think positive. Like Deepak Chopra and Anthony Robins say; it is divine within the heart to forsake the corruption we know not of. Good work my Boy, please continue to help those that are in need, despite the fact that news articles around the world continueousl;y report how much the directors of the Charity’s make, because we shouldn’t care. Give Give and be happy
Investigation: 13 Cents Of Every $1 Donated Goes To Charity
POSTED: 6:53 pm EST November 6, 2007
UPDATED: 11:05 pm EST November 6, 2007
CLEVELAND – A 5 On Your Side investigation revealed that a group raising millions of dollars for veterans, only gives them just 13 cents of every dollar donated.
Investigator Ron Regan uncovered who’s getting rich off the donations that were supposed to be helping American veterans.
More than 1 million veterans, like Jim Bores, live in Ohio.
“It meant a whole lot. You had a very deep sense of duty. I want you to understand that,” said Bores.
In return, Ohioans opened their hearts and their wallets to support veterans’ charities. But a 5 On Your Side undercover investigation found that while millions of people think they are donating to a local charity, instead they are making some other people rich.
It all started with one call to a home from a call center doing business with the Disabled Veterans Associations in Parma Heights.
NewsChannel5 said it was not the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) who pride themselves on a 100-year track record of helping. This is the DVA –- Disabled Veterans Associations -– and tax returns show it raised $5 million in 2005. But $4,492,340 never reached veterans like Pat Hansen, Regan reported.
“Nobody has to be a genius to figure this out. That’s appalling,” said Hansen, a World War II veteran.
Regan said people like Michael Coley, the founder of the Disabled Veterans Associations, got the money.
Records revealed that Coley once paid himself $100,000 from donations. And at one time, he served six months in prison for selling unregistered securities and theft, Regan reported.
He said the charity Coley founded raised millions of dollars that never reached veterans.
Regan tracked Coley down on a golf course.
“Don’t you think that’s a little excessive to pay yourself a $100,000?” Regan asked.
Coley responded saying, “Not for the work I did, no.”
But Regan reported that even after he left the Disabled Veterans Associations, Coley still profited off the donations.
Coley’s ex-girlfriend, Pamela Seman, runs the charity now. Tax returns found in Regan’s investigation showed a $14,000 donation from the Disabled Veterans Associations to Coley’s new charity, conveniently located in an office just a few feet away.
“Do you think that’s what donors think is going on here?” Regan asked. “Do you think that’s right?”
“There’s nothing wrong with that,” Coley said.
“What did you use it for?” Regan asked.
“I paid myself. I hadn’t been paid for a couple of months,” Coley said.
Seman didn’t want to talk to Regan about the money either.
“OK, this interview is over,” Seman said.
“Why would you give $14,000 to your boyfriend’s charity?” Regan asked.
“I didn’t give anything to my boyfriend’s charity. I represented the organization, you can talk to Dawn who works with me here. I did not give my boyfriend anything,” Seman said.
But the group that really makes the big money is Civic Development Group, Regan reported. CDG is a telemarketing firm located just south of New York City, and its founders own multimillion dollar homes in Florida and New Jersey.
Regan reported that the Disabled Veterans Associations in Parma Heights paid CDG almost every penny donated in fundraising fees.
But when 5 On Your Side went undercover at CDG’s Canton call center, the station was told “100 percent goes to the Disabled Veterans Associations.”
So Regan tried to get some questions answered on camera.
“We want to ask you a couple of questions about your fundraising,” Regan said.
“We have no comments, we need you to leave the building,” said representatives in Canton.
Little Raised Over Phone Goes to Charity
16 Dec 2008
A recent investigation by Des Moines Register in Iowa found that the vast majority of donations raised by phone or mail by professional fundraisers winds up in the hands of professional fundraising companies.
These are some of the findings of the Register’s examination of more than 80 professional fundraisers serving more than 500 charities:
-
The median percentage of proceeds that wind up with a charity is about 24 percent, and just five charities received more than 75 percent of the proceeds from fundraising campaigns.
-
One fundraiser, Aria Communications, reported charging nonprofits more than the company raised last year.
Um, you can clearly research a charity on several rating factors as to the tooth to tail of how much of your money gets into the hands that need it…and if you are going to post such articles, YOU NEED to post links so we can show what made up, hyperbolic crap they are!
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513478
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188895/
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/11071516.asp?gid=244
http://www.neoperspectives.com/charity.htm
http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/4154028.Charity_worker_Keith_Brown_steals_from_the_blind/
Brisbane man charged over alleged bushfire charity www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/12/2489310.htm
Victoria bushfires ‘charity collector’ charged with www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25040158-661,00.html
Utah Charity Leader Charged With Fraud http://philanthropy.com/news/philanthropytoday/5152/utah-charity-leader-charged-with-fraud
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has commenced proceedings against Mr Anthony Keith Kelly, of Lawnton, Queensland, in relation to three charges of fraud involving more than $500,000. http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/05-284+Wollongong+charity+manager+charged+with+fraud?openDocument
Supreme Court Rules Charity May Be Charged With Fraud http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E6DD113CF935A35756C0A9659C8B63
Charity director charged
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/02/08/charitychrg000208.html
WHat are you calling my comments crap?..If you think Charities are so great then fine, give all your money to them, but the view of this thread that it is better to give than worry about fraud is not going down well with me. Too many goody 2 shoes with no backbone to see through the corrupt charities who always seem to have directors that get paid more than you and me combined because they ripp off our donations to get paid high on the hog. If Charity Directors were so concerned about helping the needy then why do they always need to get paid $200,000 a year??..because they like to rip us off, er correction, rip me off, because there obviously not ripping you off because you don’t have a problem with it. Hymph!
http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_11545409
Charity paid its leaders $2.5 million
One guy got 2.5 million dollars as director of a Charity…but WHo Cares, because we shouldn’t let this bother us. I guess the fact that he got paid 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS is just hyperbolic crap . Hymph!
Quote by Herman:“Ya, Good Boy, Good Boy, it is better to give than it is to receive. Tank boy say’s it so eloquently…Corenthesis Pslams 2:Chapter 6, Verse-7.
We should all give and feel happy about it when we find out we get ripped off, because it doesn’t always happen and we must think positive. Like Deepak Chopra and Anthony Robins say; it is divine within the heart to forsake the corruption we know not of. Good work my Boy, please continue to help those that are in need, despite the fact that news articles around the world continueousl;y report how much the directors of the Charity’s make, because we shouldn’t care. Give Give and be happy
Investigation: 13 Cents Of Every $1 Donated Goes To Charity”
Herman, my post was a response to R.S.'s post,and while it is a board for general posting I was not inviting you to make judgments about it. No need to explain Herman, I’m not interested. If all you can see in this is the money, you’ve already missed the point. I dont know if you are maybe socially awkward, off medication, or just trolling up some mischief, but rude responses, and judgmental attitudes will get you in trouble here.As it is, you are not welcome to respond to any post I make unless you stop being such a jerk.Finally, the name is Tank Geezer, the word boy is an appellation more suited to you.
Woah, let’s just calm down. I can understand why herman2 is frustrated, but at the same time I can also see your point that even if only a fraction of your donation goes to a good cause, that’s better than nothing.
No need to jump at each others throat.
I am glad you liked my response, because while you may be offended by my post, I am merely offering, what I think is offensive, which is/are Charities that rip us off and big fat Charity Directors that get paid oddles of money from my contributions, and yours. My response is not towards you and I have no interest in trolling with you, cause I have no beef with you. My opinion on charities is negative so that labels me as being on medication? Awkward?. You have your opinion and i have mine, but i did not go so far as to call you names.The term boy is a cute slang and I meant no offence by it. I only apologize for my slang and if you chose not to accept ot, then thats fine.I will not need an invitation to reply to your post so don’t think I will ask nor sek it. nonetheless, if you find my comments about charity rip offs to be uncool or unfair then so be it, but don’t call me names because I don’t agree with giving to charities. And for the last time,I AM SORRY I CALLED YOU BOY, I agree it was a slang that was taken the wrong way, Sorry Sorry Sorry…but I am not sorry for my opiions on Charity cause in a free democratic society we are entitled to our opinions, and I believe, i quoted some links to support my view, which I hope may give my judgemental view some credibility.(I am in a rush to go home so excuse my typo mistakes. I have to rush home and take my MEDICATION and I find it Awkward to say this.god!
TG, it’s not about being deceived. Large charities are huge corporations. Huge corporations, like governments, are inclined to engage in various forms of deception. I expect to be deceived by huge corporations and governments. I am surprised only when they don’t engage in deception. I don’t get surprised too often.
My gripe is about donating funds to a charity for a specific purpose and not having the money applied to that purpose. Taking Dixie Devil’s example, I’d be pissed off if the Red Cross used some of my bushfire money to provide drinks etc to protesters protesting about anything, whether or not I agree with their protest. If they’re too stupid to bring their own drinks they deserve to be thirsty. It’s not a charitable act to protect sane adults from the consequences of their own stupidity.
What seems to happen with many large charities is that money isn’t necessarily applied to the purpose for which it was given, sometimes because the charity does not expend all the funds donated on that purpose even though there may have been things that still needed to be done. I regard that as unsatisfactory, but the charities will say that there are greater needs. Perhaps so, but that’s not why I gave them the money, and I wouldn’t have given them a cent for the other purpose they’ve chosen to apply it to.
On the other hand, I allow myself to be deceived when it suits me. Last Xmas I gave a goat, a pig, a bicycle, some chickens, some farming tools, immunisations, mosquito nets, education for girls, water and sanitation, and a few other bits and pieces to people in poorer countries through an aid organisation which lets you pick the items you want your money spent on. Read the fine print and it’s the same as the other charities as there is no guarantee that the money will be applied to those items as some items may be oversubscribed. But it gives the donor a feeling of closer connection with what their money is being spent on, although really it’s just a very clever marketing exercise by the charity.
The latter exercise raises an interesting moral issue, being: What entitles me to judge what I should give to those in need? Who am I to say that they should have a goat and not a sheep? Obviously the charity determines what is best in a given case, but sitting at my computer I’m engaging in something perhaps not far off life and death decisions for some people by selecting items from a catalogue and imposing my judgements on what people I don’t know should have in circumstances I don’t know.
Conversely, if this sort of targeted giving was guaranteed to get your money to purposes you want it spent on, or is quarantined from things you don’t want it spent on, it might increase giving, such as by allowing people who disagree with birth control to give their money to a charity which funds birth control but also does other things.
Having said all that, about an hour ago I put a few more bucks towards the bushfire appeals in our local shopping village where a quintet of girls about ten years old started singing every time someone approached and stopped when they got money. Trust me, to shut them up it was money well spent. 
Agreed, I know many large, organized charities are just grindhouses for money, with little getting to the intended beneficiaries. Being charitable should not equate to foolish.Thats why I do not give to them, Having a charitable heart is a good thing, but one needs to be sure the gift gets where its needed. (hush money for the singing petitioners is always well spent. 
) My point was that even if one gets snagged for some dosh by a phoney, that it wouldnt jade them to the point of never again donating . Careful about giving goats, and chickens, in some societies that will get you a new Bride. (good luck explaining that one to the missus’. :shock: )
Which societies would they be?
As I have the capacity to buy quite a few goats and chickens, if you tell me where I can swap them for shagadelic young things then, if it works out the way I’m planning in light of your helpful information, I’ll be offshore and she’ll be the former Mrs RS and I won’t have to explain one bloody thing to her.
In the UK charitable donations are made to either restricted funds i.e. something which has been specifically identified for the fund raising, or to a general fund e.g. donate £2’s a week to the RNIB.
Under various charities acts, any amounts raised for a restricted fund, if not used for that purpose, must be returned to the donator.
An example would be the Three Graces. About 5million was needed in order for this work to be purchased by the Victoria and Albert Museum (IIRC). They raised about four and a halff or something like that. Anyway, they hadn’t raised enough funds, therefore, they put out an ad on the radio for all of the donators to contact them for their money back. The publicity from the ad generated the extra funding they needed in order to purchase the work.
Off the top of my head, the Dani people of the highlands of New Guinea are one, Another would be the Igbo of Nigeria. There are a few others in Africa,and doubtless a good number of tribes in the Amazon Basin that would enjoy the goats&chickens. You may also want to include some pigs in the ark load, they like pigs alot too. Beads, and other types of jewelry items will go a long way as well, since most of these groups live off the land, something that is hand made is the only type of value added objects they may see. The raw materials are free in nature, so the effort to produce a usable item from them is why they are valued.Tools would also be a good gift for the respective in-laws, and extended families. (just dont take a load of Martini rifles along, you remember what became of Sean Connery in Man who would be king)
What pisses me off is the price of Red Bull. I mean its almost $3.00 for a pewney can and Walmart offers it for only 40 cents cheaper. Why is it so dam expensive? In today’s recession it should be cheaper. I don’t know why I still but it but I do. It just seems unfair that I can buy 3 Laker beers for double the price of the tiny Red Bull. I think its a conspiricy or something!~
It is ridiculously expensive here in Canada. Oddly enough, it’s only a little bit cheaper in Germany, too. I wonder how much it costs in Switzerland…
But the main reason they can be so expensive is their name, really. There’s plenty of copies out there that taste almost exactly like it.
How do you think they manage to afford two Formula 1 motor racing teams and and air racing series?
Really? I never thought of it. I just read today that these high energy drinks have a vey high percentage of that material they find in plastic that may be cancerous. I think its called biosphyal…anyways, they say its below the guidelenes but extremely high compared to other cansned stuff. Also, I wish to point out that Red Bull with Vodka is the Bomb!!
Oh ‘Vodka Red Bull’… I can’t even count how many alcohol poisonings I owe to that…
Tastes so good, but also so deceiving… One would thing that after the first 2 - 3 times I’d have realized that.
(In my defense, one time they didn’t even tell me there was vodka in it. And because I had already been drinking a bit, I didn’t even notice)
As for the Formula 1 racing team: They should definitely rename Red Bull in general to Toro Rosso. Sounds so much better.