|
SwiftVets.com Service to Country
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
GenrXr Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 05 Aug 2004 Posts: 1720 Location: Houston
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: Re: VETERAN CHARITIES UPDATE AND SCAMMERS |
|
|
My dad is a member of AMVETS. Wonder if the one on list is the same. Thanks for the link. This kind of thing really ticks me off.
Freedom Alliance is one of the charities I give money to.
Is this the one formed by Oliver North and promoted by Sean Hannity? This list is disturbing. _________________ "An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10 Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 6503
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Look...I don't know from Adam what goes into these ratings but, as I suspected, there's always 2 sides to a story. Nor would I ever discount a possibility of political or ideological motivations.
This may or may not be an offshoot from a recent Wapo article (I haven't read it yet) but I'd suggest looking into this a bit more before jumping to conclusions.
"Freedom Alliance", for one, has a decidedly different story to tell...for example...
Quote: | - AIP also reduces an organization’s grade when that organization has “large asset reserves” – which is the case for Freedom Alliance. According to AIP, non-profit organizations should not have more than 3 years worth of financial reserves. Freedom Alliance believes that such a requirement would be grossly irresponsible given our commitment to provide college scholarships to the children of fallen servicemen and women. To abide by AIP’s standard would be to tell grade school children that they must attend college in the next three years.
http://www.freedomalliance.org/fa/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2278&Itemid=1 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
SandiM Lt.Jg.
Joined: 07 Sep 2004 Posts: 108 Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whoa!
First thoughts (meaning that I need to think them through before coming to a solid conclusion).
1 Too many charities. Surely those operating at around 93% of funds collected actually spent on their stated objectives should absorb, merge, or takeover outright those which have similar stated objectives but are NOT achieving those objectives.
2 Clear evidence that some "charities" are absorbing far too much of collected funds in "administrative" and "fund raising costs", giving rise to suspicion as to their real objectives.
While not doubting the good intentions of most of these charities it is nonetheless evident that those who haven't achieved a decent rating are either
1) grossly inexperienced in fundraising (high costs);
2) are concentrating on building assets for some unknown event, somewhere in the future, instead of prudently reserving a determined proportion of funds, while expending a higher proportion on its stated objectives, on an annual basis or
3) providing a well above average income for their founders (as their unstated objective).
Questions:
Does each state have its own legislation governing the set up of charities?
What, if any, mechanisms are in place to ensure that a minimum percentage of funds collected are expended on stated objectives?
I suspect that in the USA, as here in Aus, each state has its own legislation. If that legislation is anywhere near as woolly as it is here, then state legislature has to be targeted to effect positive change.
Meanwhile, this list is a good start. Awareness is critical. _________________ Success is not final; failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts. (Winston Churchill) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GenrXr Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 05 Aug 2004 Posts: 1720 Location: Houston
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Me#1You#10 wrote: | Look...I don't know from Adam what goes into these ratings but, as I suspected, there's always 2 sides to a story. Nor would I ever discount a possibility of political or ideological motivations.
This may or may not be an offshoot from a recent Wapo article (I haven't read it yet) but I'd suggest looking into this a bit more before jumping to conclusions.
"Freedom Alliance", for one, has a decidedly different story to tell...for example...
Quote: | - AIP also reduces an organization’s grade when that organization has “large asset reserves” – which is the case for Freedom Alliance. According to AIP, non-profit organizations should not have more than 3 years worth of financial reserves. Freedom Alliance believes that such a requirement would be grossly irresponsible given our commitment to provide college scholarships to the children of fallen servicemen and women. To abide by AIP’s standard would be to tell grade school children that they must attend college in the next three years.
http://www.freedomalliance.org/fa/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2278&Itemid=1 |
|
But I like jumping to conclusions.
I am happy with Freedom Alliances reply and will not even bother sending my dad the link about AMVETS. Their misrepresentation of Freedom Alliance is enough to cast doubt over the entire report. Thanks for sharing that info. _________________ "An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|