Remember, owning a gun isn't a state of being, it's a right of property. The two aren't directly comparable. If you decide not to be a gun owner tomorrow, it's not a problem. Changing your lineage, though? That requires more bleach.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Partners With Imagine Dragons and One4 Project to Aid in Refugee Relief Efforts
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Remember, owning a gun isn't a state of being, it's a right of property. The two aren't directly comparable. If you decide not to be a gun owner tomorrow, it's not a problem. Changing your lineage, though? That requires more bleach.
Gee, you're gonna have to give me some time to think about that!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/19/-sp-islamic-state-oil-empire-iraq-isis
Nope, can't think of anything off the top of my head. Sorry, you must be right.
Exactly. This is all hype and lies. And charities only allocate 10% of donations to causes - the rest goes to "administration". Don't believe it? The Red Cross received a billion dollars from American citizens in donations after 9/11, and only dished out 10% of it to 9/11 victims. I know this first hand, as I lived in TriBeCa during and after the WTC attack, and received limited help from the Red Cross, while other charities were more generous.
I would love to continue being facetious but this is not the thread for it. . catch you on another one. hope the refugees are able to return to their homeland ASAP.
Gee, you're gonna have to give me some time to think about that!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/19/-sp-islamic-state-oil-empire-iraq-isis
Nope, can't think of anything off the top of my head. Sorry, you must be right.
That is a bunk response - what has been looted by whom - answer the question.
This is an inappropriate generalization. It also misstates the amount officially allocated to administration. This varies across charities. The Red Cross claims roughly 10% goes to administrative expenses. They had a disclaimer of sort post-Katrina that some amount of donations to a specific cause often go to help less well known causes. I cannot find anything to even remotely substantiate a claim of 90% administrative expenses. Like many others in these threads, you're coming up with your own numbers without any credible source of information.
This is something I don't really understand. How do you correlate socioeconomic status within their country of origin with refugee status?
Excellent point - most of these "charities" are a rip off - very little help actually gets to those in need.
Ugh. A gun owner playing the victim in a thread about refugees. Get some perspective
They're my favorite band, and not just because they make good music, that's a given. It's also because they're simply good people. I've been to a few of their concerts and at their most recent one in my hometown, the lead singer of ID, Dan Reynolds, invited up on stage a girl with special needs who writes him everyday. That's amazing that these huge rockstars would be so compassionate. Say what you want about their music, but you just can't argue that they're not good people.
Any campaign of conspicuous compassion that relies on a piece of cardboard with a hash tag is automatically suspect to me. In such cases I generally find it to be more about the narcissistic prat behind the cardboard than the issue de jour.
Just like #bringourgirlshome. How did that work out?
Just like #bringourgirlshome. How did that work out?
It's a well known fact:
The Red Cross often leads the charge after natural disasters, like the deadly tornado in Moore, Okla., that killed 24, injured more than 200 and wiped out thousandsof homes on Monday.
But every dollar you give isn't going directly to the victims you're intending to help. In fact, an average of nine cents of every dollar you donate is going to Red Cross expenses, likeemployee salariesand fundraising efforts.
While nine cents may seem small, it adds up the more you give -- if you donate $3,000, nearly $300 of that money goes to administrative costs, and that amount jumps to a whopping $90,000 for a donation of $1 million.
But every dollar you give isn't going directly to the victims you're intending to help. In fact, an average of nine cents of every dollar you donate is going to Red Cross expenses, likeemployee salariesand fundraising efforts.
While nine cents may seem small, it adds up the more you give -- if you donate $3,000, nearly $300 of that money goes to administrative costs, and that amount jumps to a whopping $90,000 for a donation of $1 million.
It's not exactly well known, however that figure is reversed from what the other guy posted. He suggested that $2700 from a $3000 donation goes to administrative expenses. Your numbers are probably much closer to being accurate.
You can rely on things other than confirmation bias. There's a pdf including audited expenditures there, although it's for a totally different year. None of them approach 90% administrative expenses. The audited breakdown includes liabilities and carried assets, so it's not as easy to discern donations to money that reaches victims. It's to be expected though given that things vary year over year and donations may not be spent in the same year.
The approximated PR numbers for the Red Cross usually suggest around 10% of donations goes to administrative expenses, although the full breakdown does not (imo) suggest they run as lean as that. Charities certainly vary in terms of their overall effectiveness, but you and the other guy failed to make a point about any of it. You just posted your own personal assumptions to the web.
http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/How-the-American-Red-Cross-Spends-Your-Donations
Just spend some time looking at the annual reports of these charities, that is the best way to work out which one to send your money to. Far too many are very inefficiently run, have CEOs with massive salaries, and only a very small bit ends up in the hands of the people the charity is meant for. There are some good ones, and which ones they are varies over time. I find it a worthwhile exercise to regularly check annual reports before I give. I wouldn't rely on a press release.
My personal hate is anything with UN in its name and world vision. They yell "Think of TEH CHILDREN!!!" and snout most of the money for themselves.
DUCK! Holy crap!
Then while Mums isn't wrong exactly, he flipped his numbers around. 9% goes towards administrative costs, and 91% goes to the target of the charity.
That's not terrible.
"A well known fact" which is wrong. You disproved Mums. Thanks. Mum's post was all "hype and lies".
Please provide references that world vision "snout" most of donation money "for themselves".
This is interesting - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...t-exactly-how-charities-spend-your-money.html
"half a dozen oil-producing fields" had been taken in Iraq, Syria was used as a trade route ("oil is still finding its way to Turkey via Syria").
Now IS control oil fields that used to be owned by the Assad regime. You can find the source for that, I don't know which news outlet you prefer. I saw links from Huffington post, reuters and so on. So to be specific. Loot: Oil. Looters: IS. Looted from: Assad/Oil companies. I am certain IS have also been looting people's personal property too. In that instance, Loot: Personal items from homes. Looters: IS. Looted from: Syrian people.
That's just one example from the top of my head. I'm not going to research for you.
That is worth a read.
(Not sure I'd ever donate to someone with a bucket on the street though :-/)
Syria is #68 in global oil production - a mere 33,000 b/day - hardly a blip on the production charts.
Does Apple get to keep their 30% or whatever off each song purchase? Just curious.