iTunes Store Facilitating Red Cross Donations for Haitian Earthquake Relief

[Skoal]

Because clicking a button is easier than typing my name. Then my address. My State. My zip code. My 16 digit cc number. The 3 little faded numbers from the back. A phone number. Probably an e-mail address.

You see the difference, right?

Gosh, it's so hard to give!

 

[GeekGirl*]

I gave it a negative.

Money donated through The Red Cross doesn't go directly to disaster relief efforts. Most money donated there goes to helping them get out of their $200million+ debt. Donate through Mercy Corps or Oxfam or some other organization. Not the Red Cross. They're scammers.

so true, its the better way

 

[KristenM]

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277


Yes, they have a deficit, but no a significant portion of their collections do not get consumed by administrative costs. Their program expenses (i.e. helping people) costs are over three billion. Some really bad charities (in terms of administrative costs) are here: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=20

This information is freely available - look it up before spouting uncited hearsay.

Their overhead is still very high in comparison to other organizations such as AmeriCares (who I donated to). Check the site you linked to.... Admin expenses of 5.9% and fundraising at 3.9%. In comparison, AmeriCares uses .4 and .8% respectively (that's from 2008, in 2009 this was down to .35 and .64% in 2009).
In addition, TRC admitted to misusing donations from 9/11, ousted their president, gave him a nice 1.5 million to leave (out of your donations), and finally gave out 94% to 9/11 related issues.
I'm not saying they don't help, but if I have a choice between 90-94% being used to help people and 99%, I'm going to choose 99% every time. It's the beauty of free choice.
I think it's awesome that they have done these text messaging and iTunes donations because it makes a lot of people that wouldn't normally donate, decide to do so. I'd personally rather take the time to give to a more efficient charity.

 

[Cinnabar]

Negatives? really?

I can understand some idiots voting "negative" on a story about Steve Jobs recovering from an illness or Apple releasing a new product, but come the **** on. This isn't some Mac vs PC thing.

These people need help.

And despite what some may think about Red Cross, they aren't spending your money on yacht parties. Even if your donation goes into a giant pot, it's still helping the people you intend to help with your dollars.

In sum, whoever is clicking negative on the story is a giant ********.

I second this. How could this possibly be construed as negative? Come on people, take some of that expendable cash you are about to fritter away on something that is really very nice, but which you probably really don't need, and help the people who have lost everything. It's really quite obvious that you should help, isn't it? Anybody who constructs an argument to the contrary is really quite a mean-spirited ba$*rd, lacking in basic human kindness.

 

[Skoal]

The U.S. has a history of sucking the life out of other nations for purposes of securing natural resources. As Americans we live an amazing quality of life that requires ~25% of the worlds natural resources. Many Americans do not realize the high price of having a capitalist based economy, especially when we're marketed to ignore our energy plight in order to propagate further consuming. Until we develop clean, renewable energy and become completely independent, our foreign policy will continue to manipulate and dominate other for their natural resources. This will never happen as oil and gas companies will NEVER relinquish control. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are already being used in many parts of the nation, but unless these companies can control and profit from this form of energy, we will continue to be dependent on oil.

As an aside, I met a guy through a mutual friend who works for the Army and Navy as a, wait for this, rocket scientist lol. A bunch of us began inquiring about the US governments view on oil and clean, renewable energy. When asked what the US may plan on doing when, not if, oil runs out, he said "coal". COAL! ***** coal! The room fell silent in disbelief. Talk about ignorance. The point he made was that coal is essential limited in quantity as is oil. There is still a way for companies to profit from the sale and control of coal. In the end, it's business, it's about money. How soon we forget that we are walking on a planet.

I'm sorry, but what so "LOL" about someone who works for the Army/Navy being a rocket scientist? Not only that but that fact that you take his "opinion" on the use of natural resources as gospel. Why? Because he's employed by the Govt.? Please clarify your point on him being a rocket scientist!

 

[racketeer71]

In sum, whoever is clicking negative on the story is a giant ********.

That's not a very Christian thing to say. I presume it's easy for you to forgive those that gave it a negative.

I swear som of you posters are really heartless and tend to really over think some situations.

YES! Because the last thing we want, in a time of crisis, is that people THINK. Oh noes! We might do something rational.

 

[spydr]

I did give a small chunk as it was so easy — needless to say, it pisses me off to notice that the CEO makes $565,000 a year (wonder how much he donates back to ARC or any other charity) and they are in half a billion in deficit...

 

[Trojita]

If I wanted my donations to actually reach the people in Haiti, I wouldn't donate to the red cross.

No one remembers the scandal concerning the 9/11 Family Fund or the racist background of the red cross?