wounded warrior project

[smackababy]

I'm always suspicious of charities that run frequent ads

This is kind of ridiculous. If a charity doesn't advertise in some way, how can they expect to get donations? The idea that a charity needs to be 100% of funds going directly to the "cause" just isn't realistic. There is overhead and it's been shown that while the charities that do have a higher advertising cost give less of a percentage of funds received to the cause, they also get a lot more donations and give more overall.

I'm not saying anything the Wounded Warrior Project has done is good or right, just stating getting your name out generates far more money than simply running at bare bones. Unless, of course, you can get a bunch of athletes and celebrities to dump water on their head.

 

[Jhhnn]

Her guilt is absolute. So, how do you rectify this in your mind?

Assertion of truthiness as fact, over and over and over ad nauseum.

 

[ivwshane]

This is kind of ridiculous. If a charity doesn't advertise in some way, how can they expect to get donations? The idea that a charity needs to be 100% of funds going directly to the "cause" just isn't realistic. There is overhead and it's been shown that while the charities that do have a higher advertising cost give less of a percentage of funds received to the cause, they also get a lot more donations and give more overall.

I'm not saying anything the Wounded Warrior Project has done is good or right, just stating getting your name out generates far more money than simply running at bare bones. Unless, of course, you can get a bunch of athletes and celebrities to dump water on their head.

Perhaps I'm being a little presumptuous here but I think what he meant was the amount of ads they run. Ww run a lot of ads and they come out with new ones every few months. That seems a little excessive to me.

 

[nickqt]

As long as a charity is using some of the proceeds to ostensibly help people it is trying to help, than it is a charity.

The problem is that most people just don't give enough of a shit to determine what percentage of those funds go to helping people, and what percentage of funds are used to pay salaries of the people running the charity.

FreeMarket, vote with your feet, blah blah blah.

https://www.charitywatch.org/charities

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Assertion of truthiness as fact, over and over and over ad nauseum.

Assertion of truthiness as fact, over and over and over ad nauseum WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

Explain how this foundation isn't a scam, when they spend like 90% of the funds on themselves?

As long as a charity is using some of the proceeds to ostensibly help people it is trying to help, than it is a charity.

The problem is that most people just don't give enough of a shit to determine what percentage of those funds go to helping people, and what percentage of funds are used to pay salaries of the people running the charity.

FreeMarket, vote with your feet, blah blah blah.

https://www.charitywatch.org/charities

No, the issue is the bar for charities is set to asininely low levels.

You are putting all the blame on the victims of the scam.

 

[ivwshane]

Assertion of truthiness as fact, over and over and over ad nauseum WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

Explain how this foundation isn't a scam, when they spend like 90% of the funds on themselves?

Where are you getting that figure from?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

The source I posted earlier.

 

[nickqt]

Assertion of truthiness as fact, over and over and over ad nauseum WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

Explain how this foundation isn't a scam, when they spend like 90% of the funds on themselves?



No, the issue is the bar for charities is set to asininely low levels.

You are putting all the blame on the victims of the scam.

At this point in civilization, there's this thing called google, and I don't have much sympathy for people who don't understand that they can google what percentage of their dollar actually goes to the people it's supposed to go to.

It isn't victim blaming, because there isn't a victim.

These charities may or may not help the people as much as someone assumes they will, but it costs money to raise money.

If you have disposable income and voluntarily give it up to help people, then you can either do, like, 3 minutes of research to determine who will best help a segment of the population, or you can just blindly throw your money into the nearest coffer so you can feel good about yourself. I don't see any victims here.

 

[cubby1223]

This is kind of ridiculous. If a charity doesn't advertise in some way, how can they expect to get donations? The idea that a charity needs to be 100% of funds going directly to the "cause" just isn't realistic. There is overhead and it's been shown that while the charities that do have a higher advertising cost give less of a percentage of funds received to the cause, they also get a lot more donations and give more overall.

I'm not saying anything the Wounded Warrior Project has done is good or right, just stating getting your name out generates far more money than simply running at bare bones. Unless, of course, you can get a bunch of athletes and celebrities to dump water on their head.

Estimates are 40% of the funds Wounded Warrior takes in are consumed internally, which includes high salaries, luxurious travel expenses, etc.

It goes back to the same argument - should the head of a not-for-profit charitable organization be parading around that this charity is his own ticket to obscene personal wealth?

 

[ivwshane]

The source I posted earlier.

Russia today? Lol!

I don't see that claim anywhere in that link.

 

[dainthomas]

Is it better that a charity never advertise, raise a million dollars and give all of it to wounded veterans or to extensively advertise, raise three hundred million and give 60% to wounded veterans?

Could they do better? Sure (and changes will certainly be made). But the fact is over two hundred million went to wounded vets last year, which is great work in my book.

 

[zinfamous]

Did someone pay you to write this post?

It is true, though.

Same with the primary Breast Cancer foundation that hands out pink ribbons and inspires the NFL to wear pink for an entire month.

Also tends to be true of the V Foundation, unfortunately.

 

[smackababy]

Estimates are 40% of the funds Wounded Warrior takes in are consumed internally, which includes high salaries, luxurious travel expenses, etc.

It goes back to the same argument - should the head of a not-for-profit charitable organization be parading around that this charity is his own ticket to obscene personal wealth?

So, 40% is internal, and that is over a large organization. We are talking like $100 million spread out among every employee, plus costs of running (buildings, utilities, etc). That isn't obscene personal wealth by the CEO standards here in the US. And, they have to pay high positions competitive wages. Nobody would work there otherwise.

I'm not saying people aren't abusing it or scamming the system. Just being realistic that running a charity that does anything costs money.

 

[Ns1]

It goes back to the same argument - should the head of a not-for-profit charitable organization be parading around that this charity is his own ticket to obscene personal wealth?

depends how much money he's making for the charity.

 

[Jhhnn]

Assertion of truthiness as fact, over and over and over ad nauseum WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

Explain how this foundation isn't a scam, when they spend like 90% of the funds on themselves?

Yes, you have no evidence, merely empty accusations based on confirmation bias.

Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

The kind of trolling you're engaged in is actually an art form of persuasion when properly executed. Your efforts, OTOH, are more like a toddler smearing their own poo on the carpet.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Is mysticjbyrd embarrassing himself yet again? Say it isn't so!

 

[Indus]

Is mysticjbyrd embarrassing himself yet again? Say it isn't so!

No but you are showing your idiocy every time you post.

Saying charities are scams is hardly as embarrassing as the gullible who would believe in Trump's charity cause or Trump University or Trump Hotels or Trump Presidency for that matter.

Trump's just another conman who's saying what the gullible want to hear.

Want to know who else he sounds like? Bernie Madoff.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No but you are showing your idiocy every time you post.

Saying charities are scams is hardly as embarrassing as the gullible who would believe in Trump's charity cause or Trump University or Trump Hotels or Trump Presidency for that matter.

Trump's just another conman who's saying what the gullible want to hear.

Want to know who else he sounds like? Bernie Madoff.

So mysticjbyrd is correct...that the Clinton Foundation spends 90% of the funds on themselves? Think again Dr. Einstein. mysticjbyrd is getting quite a reputation for making up complete bullshit.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

And you actually think that I'm the one being an idiot here? Sadly, what does this say about you?

BTW, I also never said anything about Trump in this thread...that's all you, tilting at windmills in that pathetic little bubble you live in.