So what do you think about this Red Cross thing? All the huge sums of money that were recieved will not go directly to the disaster victims. I guess I haven't heard exactly what is going on.
I don't think it is a big deal. I mean, did the Red Cross actually solicit funds by saying that is what they would do with the money? I don't remember hearing that. In fact, I don't remember hearing the RC ask for money. It was everyone else saying we should send them money (which I agree with).
And here's something I've been thinking from the start. If all the cash, gifts, funds and other awards earmarked for the victims and their families were to actually get to them, how many hundreds of thousands of dollars would each one get? I can't imagine the money that's been donated to not only the rescue cause, but the sympathy gifts and funds.
I don't think it is a big deal. I mean, did the Red Cross actually solicit funds by saying that is what they would do with the money? I don't remember hearing that. In fact, I don't remember hearing the RC ask for money. It was everyone else saying we should send them money (which I agree with).
And here's something I've been thinking from the start. If all the cash, gifts, funds and other awards earmarked for the victims and their families were to actually get to them, how many hundreds of thousands of dollars would each one get? I can't imagine the money that's been donated to not only the rescue cause, but the sympathy gifts and funds.
no subject
Date: 2001-11-02 09:58 am (UTC)From:"All the money goes to the cost of administration. It's a racket."
I like to think I'm a little more sensible than that. Of course some of the money has to go to help run the organization that is helping others. They can't operate for free. When I give money to Red Cross, or United Way, I know that it's going to the organization...not directly to the victims.
no subject
Date: 2001-11-02 10:02 am (UTC)From:I don't give money with strings attached. As far as I'm concerned, they can use it for whatever they need.
Re:
Date: 2001-11-02 10:05 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2001-11-02 10:32 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2001-11-02 10:26 am (UTC)From:I saw a bit on the news where the attorney general of NY was going to investigate and perhaps try to force the donated dollars to go to aid victims, etc.......(my cynical minds eye saw a group of lawyers deciding where the money should go......their right pocket?...or their left?)........if the red cross and other relief organizations do not come up with a fair way of using the bucks, the may experience a sharp decrease in donations......and then, what's fair?.....who determines that?.....no doubt, some of the people lost were wages slaves who work from paycheck to paycheck and their families are in dire financial straits.......and others, were wealthy, with potentially no financial worries......is it the same to make sure a family of 4 without a father can make the house payment....or should money go so that a family can still take that annual european vacation?
no subject
Date: 2001-11-02 11:07 am (UTC)From:it's not a racket~
these people are not looking at the big picture at all~
i agree with sending money to the red cross~
they use it for good, end of story. right?
dammit.
no subject
Date: 2001-11-02 01:21 pm (UTC)From:I figure that the money is like blood--the more that's donated locally, the less taxed the national/global supply will be as a whole. I don't know if my donations to the ASPCA go straight to rescuing animals in the ruins of Manhattan, either, but I can be pretty confident that they're helping some poor animal somewhere.
I do hope that the money isn't going for "administrative" costs, though...and I hope that all the victims' families are fairly compensated. The loss of parents, spouses, and children is equally horrible for all, but some families will need the financial support much more than others.