Janet Wilder wrote:
>
> On 10/19/2014 11:53 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Pico Rico wrote:
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> On Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:24:02 AM UTC-7, Pete C. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just charity leaches much like the united way criminals. It seems it's
> >>>> the trendy liberal thing to do to corruptly leach off of charity while
> >>>> stroking your ego pretending you are somehow helping people with the
> >>>> 10-15% you actually use for charitable work.
> >>>
> >>> Huh? The opposite is true.
> >>>
> >>> United Ways typically deliver over 80% of what they raise to the programs
> >>> you think you're giving to, with 8% of your funds going to fundraising,
> >>> and another 8% or so going to salaries and rent.
> >>
> >> But they, at least in the past, used strong arm techniques at the workplace
> >> to get their donations. And there was scandal in at least one of their local
> >> outfits. And they ban donations to groups based on UW's political agenda.
> >> Best to just give to the specific charity you want, rather than run it
> >> through a clearinghouse.
> >
> > Exactly, as corrupt as they get, and the strong arm coercion stuff is
> > not at all in their past.
> >
> > The UN World Food Program has something like 9% overhead, as an example
> > of what a charity's overhead should look like. That 8% the corrupt UW is
> > scraping off funds their execs lavish offices and salaries.
> >
>
> I would not give a plug nickle to anything that had the United Nations
> name attached to it. They just hand over the money to the local
> governments, many of whom are corrupt, and the cash you donated thinking
> it will feed hungry people will go to buying weapons and teaching small
> children how to shoot them.

I'm all for arming and training small children.