1. Welcome to the new MacRumors forums. See our announcement and read our FAQ

Don't Give to the Red Cross

Discussion in 'Community' started by oldschool, Sep 3, 2005.

  1. macrumors 65816

    oldschool

    #1
  2. Moderator emeritus

    #2

    Prisonplanet is one twisted conspiracy site that published all sorts of unsubstantiated and ludicrous allegations about conspiracies related to the London bombings... let's see some well-researched arguments from the opposing side, huh?

    Many informed historians? :confused: :rolleyes:
     
  3. macrumors 68000

    DeSnousa

    #3
    Im quite disgusted to hear such a major charitable organisation like the Red Cross holds onto there money, and even more disgusted that it was used on the war on terror afterwards. Not something i would want my money to be used on.

    I have felling this is going to get moved to the political forum.
     
  4. Moderator emeritus

    #4
    Ridiculous statement

    Like the Red Cross is now installing CCTV in your towns and is also bombing Iraq?

    Lazy and slur-ridden words. Pure piffle.
     
  5. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    #5
    Sorry, my browser was not able to open that site. Said my tin foil hat was preventing it from loading.
     
  6. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    #6
    Years ago when the house got cooked, the Red Cross were the ONLY people outside immediate family and close friends who offered to lift a finger to help out.
     
  7. macrumors member

    scubabeano

    #7
    Without wanting to sound uncharitable, i have a problem with regular people giving money to the American Red Cross for a situation like Katrina.
    Some of the richest people in the world live in the United States; about 70 percent of the wealth in the US is in the hands of 10 percent of population. And those 10% certainly aren't sitting in the Conference Center in New Orleans waiting to see if they'll get rescued before they're shot, raped, or diseased -Those are the people that work for minimum wage in malls and factories while the owners of the corporations they serve make obscene amounts of money. How about the RICH citizens, from the RICHEST nation on EARTH give money towards helping the poorest?

    Here's how us civilised folks in the west spend our dollars compared to the developing world:

    Global Priority - $U.S. Billions
    Basic education for everyone in the world - 6
    Cosmetics in the United States - 8
    Water and sanitation for everyone in the world - 9
    Ice cream in Europe - 11
    Reproductive health for all women in the world - 12
    Perfumes in Europe and the United States - 12
    Basic health and nutrition for everyone in the world - 13
    Pet foods in Europe and the United States - 17
    Business entertainment in Japan - 35
    Cigarettes in Europe - 50
    Alcoholic drinks in Europe - 105
    Narcotics drugs in the world - 400
    Military spending in the world - 780

    That's right - Europe spends nearly TWICE as much money on ice cream as the rest of the world have to spend on basic eduction. That's not right.

    See here for more stats on the distribution of wealth.
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    dornoforpyros

    #8
    I believe the head of the red cross makes something like $1 million a year. That's not a charity, that's a ****ing corporation. Nuff said
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    Kwyjibo

    #9
    so I don't know exactly how the red cross works, they aren't a public corporation where I can go on yahoo and look at their financials, I don't believe that they give as much as they should, and its not an organization I donate too because of the fact that there are allegations, not just from this website.....

    it also makes me think back to the south park when they hid the original raiders of the lost ark in the extra 9/11 funds ...
     
  10. macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    #10
    Disclaimer: let me say that I am far from either the richest or the poorest of Americans.

    I have a real problem with your argument. The rich have the ability to help, but I don't see how that equates to the responsibilty to help. All people have an equal level of responsibility to one another, and we could argue about what the level is/should be. But how do you figure that having more raises your level of responsibility?
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    Fukui

    #11
    Um, because you CAN do more?

    Let me ask you this: what else are they going to do with thier money?
    Play golf?
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    #12
    I'm as much a lefty as anyone on this site, but, sorry, this is ridiculous. I've no problem with criticisms of charity organizations, but what counts now, for the people of the Gulf Coast, is people on the ground with resources to help. I'll write my letters and shout from my soapbox about the way the Red Cross or any other charity is run at another time. For today, unless you can get the resources to the people in need yourself, it's time to pony up some money to whichever charity organization you want or just plain shut the f..k up!
     
  13. Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    #13
    Since you have no qualms about dicatating what others can do with their money, I guess you'd have no problems with me telling you what to do with yours, right? So, hand it over! ;)
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    #14
    Man, THAT is just sad. If you believe in reincarnation, your odds of having a pretty crappy next-life are pretty good.
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    oldschool

    #15

    no.

    the point of that post was to encourage people to give to other, just as well meaning charities...not to stop giving. The hope is that the money will reach the people who need it most quicker.
     
  16. macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    #16
    While the cash aid may not 100% go to the current disaster, 100% of the money does eventually get used.

    They like to buy their supplies in bulk, meaning it may take awhile for the money to be converted into aid -- so what.

    If they can turn $100 into $150-$250 in food, water, and supplies so much the better. But that takes time. They can do it much more efficiently than somebody buying water and food at Wal-Mart.

    Remember it takes awhile for people to contract for and have stuff delivered to the warehouse.

    If people didn't give last year, there would be no Red Cross supplies for disaster victims today. You simply cannot convert cash into bulk supplies quick enough to get it there in a timeley manner.

    What are you going to do buy a cargo carrier full of rice and have it delivered to the port, get it bagged, palletized, moved to a embarkation point and delivered in a matter of hours... heck even the MREs need to be ordered a long time in advance, to get them in a position to be staged for a disaster.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    EJBasile

    #17
  18. macrumors 65816

    ColoJohnBoy

    #18
    The site, it's true, is out there. Much of what they publish cannot be reasonably substantiated, but in this case much of what they say is true. The Red Cross does withhold funds, the majority of funds, in fact, during fundraising efforts such as what we now see. Yes, the funds will at some point help somebody, but the fact is the funds are needed immediately. People donate money with a certain expectation, that they are donating to a particular cause, for a specific purpose. It seems to me dishonest and deceptive to do with that money anything but the reason for which it was donated.
     
  19. macrumors 6502

    Etrain

    #19
    Your right, the Red Cross steals money and drinks blood! :eek:

    They have been a respectable charity for a long time. I trusted them with my donation and I would recommend the same.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    njmac

    #20
    That is true though of every single large scale non-profit. The CEO's make hundreds of thousands, if not millions each year. They are getting in-line of what for-profit CEO's are making. In their defense though, because of they are run by people who know how to run a large company they take in more money.
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Otto Rehhagel

    #21
    I respect your opinion, but you cannot refute the links they use to back up some of their information, like the Wall Street Journal link. The WSJ doesn't publish just anything. The things they write about the Red Cross are not secrets/consipracies at all. Just look at what the mainstream media has to say about the Red Cross and scandals.

    Anyway---I will *directly* donate my money to a church or homeless family any day, than use a middle-man to handle my money. In the end, it is our own fault, not the Red Cross' when our money does not get to the families in need.

    No one said the Red Cross is THE way to donate.
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    Leareth

    #22
    the problem with a majority of charities is that the money donated to them is spent more on administrative costs rather than actually helping.
    I recall reading in an economic journal that some charities spend more than 80% of their donations on running the charity. I rather spend my time and money on directly helping rather than going through middle men that take a piece out of it.
    I won't be donating to the red cross. I rather spend my time and money locally where the need is just as great and constant , not a flash in the pan news headline that no one will give a damn about in a week.
     
  23. macrumors 604

    Lacero

    #23
    It's unbelievable to think the Red Cross could be so crooked. But then again, nobody expected respected Catholic priests to be rampant child molesters.
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    #24
    Erm... why are you pinning some blame of some sort on a continent?

    And, about the Red Cross, this is true of all charities. Out of your £2 a month to Oxfam, only about 20p actually gets there. The rest of that goes towards shipping costs, the people running it, and, of course, a little goes into the profit bank
     
  25. macrumors 601

    eva01

    #25
    Wow and i didn't think this was new that of course some of the money goes to themselves or how would a charity stay together if they didn't have some money of their own.

    :confused:
     

Share This Page