111–120 of 182 posts
Considering the per capita is $719 then I could see $50 to each Haitan would have been a better use of the money ($500M / 10M population). Or that per family...
You can find it in the same place as the Clinton Foundation $100M
If you want an aggregator charity there are plenty of other options out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
International is fantastic, American is a travesty.
I wouldn’t call a charity with an A- rating from CharityWatch a “travesty”.
Haiti is a complex and contradiction-ridden place. As the poorest nation, per capita, in western hemisphere, Haiti is often the "face of poverty", with photographs of its most unfortunates featured on fund-raising newsletters of every sort but with the failures of efforts at reform being featured on every debunking of I have a personal friend, white, who served as something of a liaison, moving goods, between the ran…
I'm in West Africa now. Same story here. Same in the East too.
I have met hundreds of UN and NGO workers making $1000/day, doing absolutely and completely nothing. Mostly they are proud of it.
Many, many NGOs spend millions to build for example one shed or deliver one truck, which is abandoned less than 2 months later for lack of maintenance.
In the same way healthcare is for profit in the US, many "donations" are for profit.
This is just one of the numerous media stories on how donation money always ends up paying multi-million salaries for top execs.
Sadly, charlatans are everywhere. The Red Cross is just a another brand used to con gullible and well intended people.
"The point is that the concern we should have is not just about the $500,000,000 donated for Haiti for which the good hearted donors received just six $400 shacks. The concern is about billions of donated dollars intended to help people all over the world. The Haiti data demonstrates that for each billion donated to the Red Cross we get a total of 12 each $400 shacks which we wouldn't put our lawn mower in. The great…
NGOs: They pay their employees heaps of money, to do relatively small amounts of work. These aren't the people we see on TV who get out there to work 12 hour days and save lives. These are people who go there because they need a job and like traveling. They're the people who get the office jobs. These are all young people who spend massive amounts of time and money on leisure. Most of this money ends up in the pockets of already rich Haitians, like restaurant owners and rental agencies. The UN seems to be one of the worst at this. I've seen UN people living in $4000 a month houses full of Apple stuff and expensive cooking equipment. They would write reports that were then dismissed by the government.
Corruption: A lot of NGOs try to work with local organizations to get stuff done. This is good, because it gives the locals a chance to earn money by working to rebuild their country. However, what often happens is that higher-ups in these organizations disappear with donated money, or just suddenly have new cars. This is actually quite a big problem there, since the country seems to be inherently corrupt, something I've seen multiple times during my short stay there.
From my experience, Haiti feels a lot like a failed state and most people I've spoken don't think there will be any improvement in the next couple of decades. They're also fearful of what would happen if the UN were to leave, since they'd lose a massive inflow of money and the poor might revolt, causing for even more chaos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But why didn't orgs like FB or Google (I forgot which) advertized SA? SA is well-known too. I don't know the actual reason. But it could be because of the religious connection. While I've seen that the Salvation Army has done a lot of good, they also connect it with their belief system. This makes me uneasy. Fundamentally I'd be happy to donate to a charity that I knew would: - Responsibly manage the funds - Ensure…
It's funny really, outside of religion, people don't seem to be naturally inclined to be both charitable AND scrupulous. Personally, I'm ok with a charity associating their work with religion if the end result is positive. You get a lot of "secular" charities that rake in a lot of money and yet don't produce much in the way of results (White Ribbon, for example), and you also see a lot of religious charities that hav…
For all the younger people reading this. This is just one of the numerous media stories on how donation money always ends up paying multi-million salaries for top execs. Sadly, charlatans are everywhere. The Red Cross is just a another brand used to con gullible and well intended people.
The Red Cross/Red Crescent in the rest of the world is a very important humanitarian response organisation.
Is there any non religious charity that does well?