Post: #26

(08-18-2014 04:21 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 04:15 PM)kaotic Wrote:  Question is.....how much money is ACTUALLY going to benefit the research for ALS ?

Your guess is as good as mine. Wouldn't surprise me if most of the money goes towards "administrative costs". I am not donating money for this but if I ever do I make sure to check their financial statements - most reputable charities will give you a breakdown of how they spend money.

OT - I don't know how it is now but I remember doing a project once and found that Doctors Without Borders was one of the best charities and 85% of their donations actually went to helping people in need. Then you have agenda driven idiotic organizations like MADD where 80 or 90% of the donations go towards "administrative costs". People should really research this stuff, it's interesting. A lot of these charities are simply scams IMO.

I used to donate to the Wounded Warrior Project until i realized only 38% is actually going to the vets.

Post: #27

(08-18-2014 04:21 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 04:15 PM)kaotic Wrote:  Question is.....how much money is ACTUALLY going to benefit the research for ALS ?

Your guess is as good as mine. Wouldn't surprise me if most of the money goes towards "administrative costs". I am not donating money for this but if I ever do I make sure to check their financial statements - most reputable charities will give you a breakdown of how they spend money.

OT - I don't know how it is now but I remember doing a project once and found that Doctors Without Borders was one of the best charities and 85% of their donations actually went to helping people in need. Then you have agenda driven idiotic organizations like MADD where 80 or 90% of the donations go towards "administrative costs". People should really research this stuff, it's interesting. A lot of these charities are simply scams IMO.

Some good and bad charities in regards to how much / how little money goes to the cause...

   

Post: #28

I understand the cynicism when it comes to giving to charities. There are a lot of bullshit ones out there, like United Way. And there are outright scammers, like the Red Cross, who took money from people for 9/11 relief and used it to pay obscene salaries to their CEO. But I wish people would bother doing the research, which doesn't take a lot of time, before writing this off.

First, as to whether this cause is worth your time, ALS is a nasty, nasty disease. It's one of the worst out there. Between the two, I'd probably rather have Ebola, 'cause at least with Ebola it's over quickly. With ALS, your muscles gradually stop working. You become paralyzed. You can't walk. Then you can't move your arms. You're confined to a wheelchair. Then you lose the ability to speak. If you want to communicate, you have to blink to tell people what you want. You can't even smile when you're happy or frown when you're upset, your face is stuck in an expressionless mask. Eventually, you lose the ability to breathe on your own, and they rip open your lungs and stick a device in there to help you breathe. Not that by that point, there's any point in living. To the person who said that this money should be going to Wounded Warriors, I agree that vets in this country have it pretty bad. I've donated to veteran's causes myself. ALS patients have it worse.


Secondly, as to whether the money is going to actually help people with the disease, or whether it's just going to line some rich guy's pocketbook, there are easy ways of finding this out. You can see from the link in the first post that the guys behind this are ALSA, the American ALS association. I've never heard of them, but if you want to know where your money is going, the place to look is Charity Nagivator. They do independent audits on charities to see if donations are being wasted or put to good use. Here's their breakdown from Charity Navigator. They're 4 stars, the highest rating available. They spend only 10% of their income on administrative overhead.

So it's a worthy cause, and the money will be spent where it should be. Whether people dumping ice water over themselves is silly or not is certainly up for debate, and there are certainly things to be said about self-centeredness in American culture. But this is a good use of your cash, if you've got any spare money lying around. I think I might make a donation myself.

Post: #29

That chart is not complete enough to be meaningful. For example, the salary of some of the CEO's of the charity is something that should be in consideration when the total percentage of donations used towards goals is also low. To use it as the only point of comparison is an incomplete picture.

For example, the American Red Cross CEO salary is currently $564,864. They spend 90.4% of donations on their program goals and 5.6% on fundraising (they have to stay in the public eye, or else donations dry up eventually). Given the size of the organization and the skills needed to run it, as well as how relatively efficient it is run, I have no problem with the CEO bringing home that money. The Red Cross is a charity... her life isn't.

While it would be nice to have the trust fund babies of the world dedicate their lives to charity, I know that won't happen. It is great when it does, but I can't expect anybody to take on the huge responsibility of running a charity without compensation. I also have no problem paying the CEO of a charity a few hundred thousand plus expenses when I know that he could make 10-25X that as a corporate CEO.

Source:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cf..._J-0GOwXNw

Edit: I'm not saying that the Red Cross is a good charity, only that one data point alone isn't enough to make that determination. As the poster above pointed out, there are other reasons to not give to the Red Cross.

Post: #30

Attention whore or pay money? WOW TOUGH CHOICE AMERICA.

https://twitter.com/runsonmagic/status/5...5050772480

Post: #31

Well, there's a spin off benifit to the charity, but what if we look at all the effort/cost/time/ego self-aggrandizing vs all the money that actually goes to ALS sufferers? That return on all those resources has to be like 5%. Instead of organizing a dump truck and 60 bags of ice and like a day of time, why not use all that to help them directly? Unless he donated like 10k. Then fine. But maybe I'm a cynic. I'm firmly in Don cherry's camp on this one "Its not charity if you talk about it"

It frustrates me to no end when people try to guilt me into donating to charity, I just don't do it any more. I don't have the effort to explain. The big ones like United Way are literally just marketing firms. Then places like Value Village and Goodwill which play up the charity angle, but are actually for profit companies. I thought microlending services like Kiva were a great idea, but then as I looked more into it, the end user doesn't actually get the money interest free, they still pay third world interest rates of 50+%, you just gaurentee the loan. So the big winner there to me seems to be these third world banks getting garenteed loans with decent returns. Its a problem of human nature I think. People see a stream of given money and then everyone and their dog wants a cut.

Post: #32

If I found out I had ALS, I wouldn't raise funds for nothing. Corporations and Universities will do that on there own for profit. How much money has been pocketed in the name of "cancer research".

I would do rewarding shit until I felt the effects, then move to Vegas and do massive amounts of coke and run up tons of debt until I died.

Post: #33

I think the whole thing using narcissism to raise money. It's smart. I just hate that my friends are posting videos of the ice water opposed to just donating the extra money.

(08-18-2014 10:50 PM)CaP7 Wrote:  If I found out I had ALS, I wouldn't raise funds for nothing. Corporations and Universities will do that on there own for profit. How much money has been pocketed in the name of "cancer research".

I would do rewarding shit until I felt the effects, then move to Vegas and do massive amounts of coke and run up tons of debt until I died.

ACS was notorious for flying top level employees first class, and putting them up in the finest hotels in cities. They would eat an fancy restaurants, and run up large tabs. Less than 1/5 of donations were actually going towards research.

These fundraisers are crooked. If I'm going to donate, I'm going straight to the source.

Post: #34

There is just knee jerk cynicism on this thread. You're making the same arguments as the feminists at vice/salon made about this.

The Ice Bucket Challenge is sponsored by the ALS association: http://www.alsa.org/fight-als/ice-bucket-challenge.html It has raised over $10 million dollars that is going to go towards helping people who have the disease and help raising the cure.

A lot of the people who have done the challenge have also donated money. Even if they don't, it spreads the challenge and gets other people to donate. Yes, it is all about social media and it's done in a way where people who want attention can get it. But guess what- it works! The campaign uses social media in a way that's incredibly effective. They made the challenge.

If you think that an effort that has raised $10 million for charity for one of the worst diseases in the world is a bad thing because maybe someone somewhere is enjoying the attention they get from posting a video than you are a twisted person.

Post: #35

(08-18-2014 04:12 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  I remember reading that they have already raised more money with this 'challenge' than they did all of last year. I also read that most of the celebs doing this challenge are also donating money.

I agree with the general point about narcissism but in this case to be fair they have raised money and awareness.

Point taken.

Post: #36

Only just seen this one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qat9gR5nrpM

Charlie Sheen with a bucket of $10k

Post: #37

(08-20-2014 05:00 AM)ocean Wrote:  Only just seen this one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qat9gR5nrpM

Charlie Sheen with a bucket of $10k

He did it the right way.

Post: #38

(08-18-2014 07:07 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  Attention whore or pay money? WOW TOUGH CHOICE AMERICA.

https://twitter.com/runsonmagic/status/5...5050772480

   

Post: #39

(08-20-2014 04:14 PM)RockHard Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 07:07 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  Attention whore or pay money? WOW TOUGH CHOICE AMERICA.

IMG

LEO DID IT FIRST !!!

Post: #40

I feel like going to 4chan and start a campaign to troll the "ALS Ice Bucket" thing....

"5 things that provide better ROI than donating to ALS"

1 - SPY
2 - Cocaine
3 - 5 Thai bitches
4 - Donating to provide clean water to kids in Africa
5 - Starbucks

Post: #41

(08-18-2014 05:06 PM)Big Nilla Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 04:21 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 04:15 PM)kaotic Wrote:  Question is.....how much money is ACTUALLY going to benefit the research for ALS ?

Your guess is as good as mine. Wouldn't surprise me if most of the money goes towards "administrative costs". I am not donating money for this but if I ever do I make sure to check their financial statements - most reputable charities will give you a breakdown of how they spend money.

OT - I don't know how it is now but I remember doing a project once and found that Doctors Without Borders was one of the best charities and 85% of their donations actually went to helping people in need. Then you have agenda driven idiotic organizations like MADD where 80 or 90% of the donations go towards "administrative costs". People should really research this stuff, it's interesting. A lot of these charities are simply scams IMO.

Some good and bad charities in regards to how much / how little money goes to the cause...

I wonder why they left out the breast cancer foundation. They definitely left them out on purpose because no way they'd forget the most popular charity. Everybody know what a pink ribbon means. They have NFL players wearing pink. The top dogs over there gotta be banking.

Post: #42

(08-18-2014 05:52 PM)tarquin Wrote:  That chart is not complete enough to be meaningful. For example, the salary of some of the CEO's of the charity is something that should be in consideration when the total percentage of donations used towards goals is also low. To use it as the only point of comparison is an incomplete picture.

For example, the American Red Cross CEO salary is currently $564,864. They spend 90.4% of donations on their program goals and 5.6% on fundraising (they have to stay in the public eye, or else donations dry up eventually). Given the size of the organization and the skills needed to run it, as well as how relatively efficient it is run, I have no problem with the CEO bringing home that money. The Red Cross is a charity... her life isn't.

While it would be nice to have the trust fund babies of the world dedicate their lives to charity, I know that won't happen. It is great when it does, but I can't expect anybody to take on the huge responsibility of running a charity without compensation. I also have no problem paying the CEO of a charity a few hundred thousand plus expenses when I know that he could make 10-25X that as a corporate CEO.

Source:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cf..._J-0GOwXNw

Edit: I'm not saying that the Red Cross is a good charity, only that one data point alone isn't enough to make that determination. As the poster above pointed out, there are other reasons to not give to the Red Cross.

I'm pretty leery of companies that don't actually produce anything but still demand that kind of salary. If you're doing it "for a good cause" then you don't need to bring home millions per year. Anybody can live a very comfortable life on 80k a year.

Post: #43

It is even worse considering the likelihood that ALS is being caused primarily by pesticides, toxic food ingredients, vaccine additives etc. Orthomolecular treatments via high dosage supplements and change of diet have been successful at reversing the disease completely. (http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v3n14.html & http://ezinearticles.com/?Treating-ALS-W...id=6000822 - many other links)

So what does it mean if 100 mio. $ gets collected by a bunch of morons?

It means that some foundations with top-earnings in the high-six-digits get their bills paid and it means that maybe 50% of the money finally finds its way into the coffers of the pharma corporations who will use the funds as they see fit.

Meaning they will run away from any cure as hard as they can and try to come up with some expensive pill that only combats a few symptoms. The same bottomless crap hole as with cancer. Toolbags once again fooled - congrats!

And I don't wish to demean all those people who actually were manipulated to believe in the fact that giving pharma corporations more money will solve the problem.

Anyone should watch the documentary Pink Ribbons Inc. and then stop believing in most of the donation industry. You might just as well wire Pfizer the money directly - in addition to stupidly supporting people with 2 houses in the Hamptons who actually lead those NGOs. I worked once for an NGO and the boss made high six figures and was supported by tax money. NGO just means that it is supposedly not for profit, but salaries can be sky-high and money can be spent in a million ways.





Enjoy dumping the water on yourself. The plutocracy must truly enjoy the peasants making fools of themselves once again and then sending them more money.

This comes to mind:

Post: #44

Word

Post: #45

Interesting thread. I've always thought this and the cold water challenge were stupid...and still do, though this has raised a shit-load of money.

I was golfing on the 15th hole Sunday when my buddy called me out via FB because he had to do it (he thinks the same thing as me about how stupid this is). In my quick thinking I had the two people I was golfing with toss the ice water from our coolers on me before we left...the most efficient ice-bucket challenge ever. Yeah, a little self-indulgence I'll admit, I did it because friends did it.

I'm not against charity and giving in general, but I am annoyed with all these fundraisers and Charities, etc.

The best motivator = Money, profit (or resources if you'd like)
forever and always

Post: #46

The fail videos are fantastic, I enjoy watching those attention whores hurt themselves.

Post: #47

http://worldtruth.tv/als-ice-bucket-chal...upporting/

We pulled up their 2013 tax returns to take a closer look at how their funds are spent. Here are the salaries for the leadership of the group:

Jane H. Gilbert – President and CEO – $339,475.00
Daniel M. Reznikov – Chief Financial Officer – $201,260.00
Steve Gibson – Chief Public Policy Officer – $182,862.00
Kimberly Maginnis - Chief of Care Services Officer – $160,646.00
Lance Slaughter - Chief Chapter Relations and Development Officer – $152,692.00
Michelle Keegan – Chief Development Officer – $178,744.00
John Applegate – Association Finance Officer – $118.726.00
David Moses – Director of Planned Giving – $112,509.00
Carrie Munk – Chief Communications and Marketing Officer – $142,875.00
Patrick Wildman – Director of Public Policy – $112,358.00
Kathi Kromer – Director of State Advocacy – $110,661.00

Post: #48

(08-26-2014 11:16 AM)starchild5 Wrote:  http://worldtruth.tv/als-ice-bucket-chal...upporting/

We pulled up their 2013 tax returns to take a closer look at how their funds are spent. Here are the salaries for the leadership of the group:

Jane H. Gilbert – President and CEO – $339,475.00
Daniel M. Reznikov – Chief Financial Officer – $201,260.00
Steve Gibson – Chief Public Policy Officer – $182,862.00
Kimberly Maginnis - Chief of Care Services Officer – $160,646.00
Lance Slaughter - Chief Chapter Relations and Development Officer – $152,692.00
Michelle Keegan – Chief Development Officer – $178,744.00
John Applegate – Association Finance Officer – $118.726.00
David Moses – Director of Planned Giving – $112,509.00
Carrie Munk – Chief Communications and Marketing Officer – $142,875.00
Patrick Wildman – Director of Public Policy – $112,358.00
Kathi Kromer – Director of State Advocacy – $110,661.00

You know - that is not even the main problem here. The problem is that people think that money is being collected to find a "cure" for the disease. It is not. When you've got good results with supplements and extreme diet changes, then you should invest money into researching that approach to really cure the disease. But of course that would be stupid profit-wise as supplements and food cannot be patented and anyone can copy the approach. Besides - curing a disease like cancer would wipe out a 400 billion dollar industry, so you cannot expect any cure to come from the parties who profit from it so well. ALS ist just lower on the totem pole with 3 in 100.000 afflicted versus 1 in 2 with cancer.

Why don't you just drive up to Merck & Pfizer headquarters and hand them over the cash in envelopes? They will do whatever they want with the cash anyway.

Post: #49

I've been taking cold showers for years now, didn't know I was a philanthropist by design.

Post: #50

New study released that shows link between exposure to ice water and ALS :/