If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   Susan G. Komen founder Nancy Brinker billed the foundation $133,507 in expenses while she was working full-time for President Bush. So send more money. You know, for breast cancer   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 199
    More: Interesting, Nancy Brinker, Komen, President Bush, Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen, The Daily Beast, National Cancer Institute, expenses  
•       •       •

7235 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Feb 2012 at 9:56 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



199 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-14 11:04:18 AM

Janusdog: I hate to tell you that many microloan programs and some of these African community building charities are just as bad, or are hampered severely by local corruption.


Giving anything to help African people ends up being pretty depressing once you look into the corruption and gang-related thievery and crime against aid workers and recipients going on. At least if you're buying towards a specific RO plant, it will at least provide someone with clean water, even if it is a bunch of child soldiers. Money is too easy to skim.

Coach_J: BTW, if you want to maximize your charity, give your time and actual materials vs. writing a check.


I've done a lot of volunteer work for My Sister's House here, from handyman/minor IT work to soliciting donations and running charity events. It is really satisfying and since my wife worked there I knew exactly what all of it was doing for the served clients.

But I donate blood to the American Red Cross. Even if it is a racket, they get the best freaking food for post-donation lunch.
 
2012-02-14 11:05:14 AM

ani23: while charity is noble and all that would you rather

a. pay 200k to an "ok" CEO who brings in 10 million a year
b. pay 400k to someone more capable who brings in 50 million a year.

just food for thought


Why not pay $100K for a great CEO who brings in $100 million a year? I say we give it a try, no need to put a limit on how much a CEO might bring in based on their salary...
 
2012-02-14 11:05:48 AM

mccallcl: themeaningoflifeisnot: why is it ok to write off Komen's charitable mission as a failure just because of Brinker's misdeeds?

Yeah! I'm sure she labored in secret, what with being the janitor or nightwatchman or whatever it was she did over there.


I'm not very impressed with SGK. I think it's a charity that has sucked up the funding of a lot of other charities simply because every Hollywood/media star around kisses its ass.

But there are many ways to criticize the organization as a whole that do not require extrapolating one executive's acts to everyone else in the charity. If that's the standard, then there are a ton of failed charities in this world.
 
2012-02-14 11:06:37 AM

Oznog: jasimo: I've always thought that charities should go out of their way to be above reproach. It seems that most charities, including SGK, don't share my views.

No one working for a charity should ever fly first class or stay in an expensive hotel. If the charity they're working for is important to them, shouldn't they rather want to spend that extra money to further the charities goals? If the charity isn't important to them, they should GTFO.

Brinker should also GTFO.

But the weird truth is that by handing out extravagant executive pay, the nonprofits attract really aggressive fundraising people, and as a result ends up with much more net capital than they'd have if they'd given out a $100K salary.


citation..?
 
2012-02-14 11:09:09 AM

scottydoesntknow: ani23: while charity is noble and all that would you rather

a. pay 200k to an "ok" CEO who brings in 10 million a year
b. pay 400k to someone more capable who brings in 50 million a year.

just food for thought

c. Pay 400k to a worthless coont who ends up smearing your entire namesake and nearly tearing an organization to the ground over political motivations.

Hint: It's FARK so it's always C.


Not saying she didnt fark up. and i also think she is one entitled coont.

just saying that if that was not the case the higher salaries could be justified.
 
2012-02-14 11:10:11 AM
the business of cancer is a very good busine$$
 
2012-02-14 11:10:14 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Let's see. That means management and general expenses took up around 9% of expenses.


Janusdog: Exactly. It depends also on what line item is put where. For instance, let's say that Coont CEO first class upgrades are put in "Miscellaneous Expenses" and income from partisan consulting is called "Unrestricted donation". CN wouldn't count that as salary, perks, or overhead, and wouldn't be combing the 990 for information. But hey, if a non-profit review service DID review financials for money hiding, hey, I would TOTALLY pay for that.


I am looking forward to the argument and dissection of these seemingly contradictory points. I actually am, and you two seem motivated to do it. Don't let us down!
 
2012-02-14 11:10:22 AM

ani23: while charity is noble and all that would you rather

a. pay 200k to an "ok" CEO who brings in 10 million a year
b. pay 400k to someone more capable who brings in 50 million a year.

just food for thought


Pay for performance? You do realize what you're suggesting, right? That may not sit well with some of the ideologues around here.

So pay the executive $200k per year, with incentives for really astonishing contributions (meaning way beyond what he/she is expected to achieve for the standard salary). Don't just hand it to them up front because they're supposedly "talented." Make them prove it.

Especially at a charitable organization. If a private business wants to waste money on executive compensation, that's its problem. But charities should be more prudent.
 
2012-02-14 11:11:55 AM

Lsherm: How about you do this? Join Charity Navigator and you can actually read the breakdown of their expenses, per year, back to 2003. That way you don't have to lie to people who don't know any better.



Charity Navigator is based on self-reported figures that reflect only what the charity itself chose to claim as their breakdown. They are not audited or "official" in any way - now you can respond more accurately to people who don't know any better
 
2012-02-14 11:12:07 AM

FlashHarry: the more you dig into this "charity," the more it stinks. their planned parenthood flap will reverberate for a long time. it might even prove fatal.


funny thing is Brinker probably hired Handel to secretly cut ties and destroy PP but ironically the plan backfired and now it seems like Handel may have inadverdently destroy SGK instead.

..... also I don;t care what good etc she had done before.. for her to demand her staff to address as Ambassador Brinker is ridiculous and just disdain arragance.
 
2012-02-14 11:12:15 AM

factoryconnection: But I donate blood to the American Red Cross. Even if it is a racket, they get the best freaking food for post-donation lunch.


I donate blood solely for the fig newtons and cranberry juice
 
2012-02-14 11:15:57 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: From SGK's 2011 returns (new window)

The entire functional expenses of SGK for 2011 were $192,438,599.

Of that, program expenses accounted for $156,198,028.

Fundraising expenses accounted for $22,288,157.

Management and general expenses accounted for 13,952,414.

Let's see. That means management and general expenses took up around 9% of expenses.

Yeah, they should all go to jail. For murdering babies and for embezzlement.


9% is pretty low. It's a bit of a non sequitur, but sales tax on anything is almost that much. If it weren't a nonprofit, the govt would be taking a much larger % of the income for doing nothing.

They're figuring by making it a $400K job, then their income will increase by more than the 0.2% of their income they spent on her salary. They're probably very right there. But now, she might be a liability.
 
2012-02-14 11:16:14 AM
img.photobucket.com

Approves.
 
2012-02-14 11:17:23 AM
I thought they were getting too big for their britches over the past few years.

Here's what she looks like without her makeup:
img268.imageshack.us
 
2012-02-14 11:18:53 AM

jasimo: I've always thought that charities should go out of their way to be above reproach. It seems that most charities, including SGK, don't share my views.

No one working for a charity should ever fly first class or stay in an expensive hotel. If the charity they're working for is important to them, shouldn't they rather want to spend that extra money to further the charities goals? If the charity isn't important to them, they should GTFO.

Brinker should also GTFO.


Yes, because definitely people who work shouldn't get paid for what they do, they should just enjoy doing it "for the children" or what the fark ever.

And it just so happens that women tend to lead lots of influential non-profits and there is a startling wage gap between nonprofit executives by gender. So, yeah. No one needs to eat, and we don't need to actually pay for competent leaders to keep nonprofits afloat during a recession in which lots of people have quit donating altogether.

I'm assuming you work for free because you love your job?
 
2012-02-14 11:19:45 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: What's worse is that 90 percent of those expenses were used for abortions!


Aborted fetuses never get breast cancer, so mission accomplished
 
2012-02-14 11:22:28 AM
It's like the IRS.

They take in who the f*ck knows how much money and set it on fire. They get to skin 20% of the sum total of their own IOUS and burn them / throw them into the debt pit and they produce nothing but paperwork.

Roads? - f*cked, Bridges? - f*cked. Infrastructure? - f*cked, military - largely viewed as an imperialist nuisance by every country but our own Budget? - Nothing but IOU's. Nada. R&d? - f*cked or outsourced.

See, the IRS has an unsustainable business model and produces no value other than writing paychecks to people who drum their fingers and harrumph at you if you don't have any money to give them their cut. They produce no value. They just prop up a failed company that is 14 trillion in debt. THEY PRODUCE NO VALUE. You know what happens to companies that produce no value? Unless you're a Wall St. crony, brokerage house or some other "protected species", yeah. You go tits up. Our government is just another charity that divvies up the choice cuts before we see a dime of value from it an they, and this malarkey farm of a charity, should start firing people. Now.
 
2012-02-14 11:22:38 AM

Janusdog: jasimo: I've always thought that charities should go out of their way to be above reproach. It seems that most charities, including SGK, don't share my views.

No one working for a charity should ever fly first class or stay in an expensive hotel. If the charity they're working for is important to them, shouldn't they rather want to spend that extra money to further the charities goals? If the charity isn't important to them, they should GTFO.

Brinker should also GTFO.

Yes, because definitely people who work shouldn't get paid for what they do, they should just enjoy doing it "for the children" or what the fark ever.

And it just so happens that women tend to lead lots of influential non-profits and there is a startling wage gap between nonprofit executives by gender. So, yeah. No one needs to eat, and we don't need to actually pay for competent leaders to keep nonprofits afloat during a recession in which lots of people have quit donating altogether.

I'm assuming you work for free because you love your job?


What a load of shiat! Yeah, the worry here is that an SGK exec might not get paid enough to eat. Riiiight!

People are pissed about excessive charitable organization executive compensation because we hate women. Riiiight!

Get your head out of your ignorant ass and address the issues people are actually worried about. Troll.
 
2012-02-14 11:23:01 AM

factoryconnection: TheShavingofOccam123: Let's see. That means management and general expenses took up around 9% of expenses.

Janusdog: Exactly. It depends also on what line item is put where. For instance, let's say that Coont CEO first class upgrades are put in "Miscellaneous Expenses" and income from partisan consulting is called "Unrestricted donation". CN wouldn't count that as salary, perks, or overhead, and wouldn't be combing the 990 for information. But hey, if a non-profit review service DID review financials for money hiding, hey, I would TOTALLY pay for that.

I am looking forward to the argument and dissection of these seemingly contradictory points. I actually am, and you two seem motivated to do it. Don't let us down!


My viewpoint is somewhat nuanced, as I am a nonprofit director. I think there is significant fiduciary responsibility, but fair compensation is key. Note that I said 'fair.' Nonprofits either underpay or overpay their execs as a rule. Most trend towards underpay and they get the idiots they can afford. But greedy CEOs can also find a safe haven in NPs because of the typically poor comprehension of finances senior leadership has.

The IRS has noticed this and is cracking down, though.
 
2012-02-14 11:23:43 AM

Janusdog: jasimo: I've always thought that charities should go out of their way to be above reproach. It seems that most charities, including SGK, don't share my views.

No one working for a charity should ever fly first class or stay in an expensive hotel. If the charity they're working for is important to them, shouldn't they rather want to spend that extra money to further the charities goals? If the charity isn't important to them, they should GTFO.

Brinker should also GTFO.

Yes, because definitely people who work shouldn't get paid for what they do, they should just enjoy doing it "for the children" or what the fark ever.

And it just so happens that women tend to lead lots of influential non-profits and there is a startling wage gap between nonprofit executives by gender. So, yeah. No one needs to eat, and we don't need to actually pay for competent leaders to keep nonprofits afloat during a recession in which lots of people have quit donating altogether.

I'm assuming you work for free because you love your job?


I think I found the flaw in your theory.
 
2012-02-14 11:24:16 AM
We used to be hounded to death to donate to the United Way at work. The woman (nag) in charge always wanted 100% participation, one time donation, or taken directly from your check, if you didn't you weren't a team player and lower then whale shiat on the ocean floor. Then the shiat hit the fan, United Way built a beautiful building (Va Beach Expressway next to Mt Trashmore) and the salaries of the top guys and girls came out in the paper. Along with the list of perks given to them, cars, planes, meals and such.
Donations plummeted to next to nothing for those bloodsuckers.
Only donate to non profit charities that give a vast majority of their money to the people that need it.
 
2012-02-14 11:24:20 AM

themeaningoflifeisnot: Janusdog: jasimo: I've always thought that charities should go out of their way to be above reproach. It seems that most charities, including SGK, don't share my views.

No one working for a charity should ever fly first class or stay in an expensive hotel. If the charity they're working for is important to them, shouldn't they rather want to spend that extra money to further the charities goals? If the charity isn't important to them, they should GTFO.

Brinker should also GTFO.

Yes, because definitely people who work shouldn't get paid for what they do, they should just enjoy doing it "for the children" or what the fark ever.

And it just so happens that women tend to lead lots of influential non-profits and there is a startling wage gap between nonprofit executives by gender. So, yeah. No one needs to eat, and we don't need to actually pay for competent leaders to keep nonprofits afloat during a recession in which lots of people have quit donating altogether.

I'm assuming you work for free because you love your job?

What a load of shiat! Yeah, the worry here is that an SGK exec might not get paid enough to eat. Riiiight!

People are pissed about excessive charitable organization executive compensation because we hate women. Riiiight!

Get your head out of your ignorant ass and address the issues people are actually worried about. Troll.


Hahaha!

Calm the fark down. And see my answer above.
 
2012-02-14 11:24:41 AM
Susan G. Komen Foundation for the CureTM Lulz
 
2012-02-14 11:24:54 AM

RexTalionis: Lsherm: The organization's 2011 financial statement reports that 43 percent of donations were spent on education, 18 percent on fund-raising and administration, 15 percent on research awards and grants, 12 percent on screening and 5 percent on treatment. (Various other items accounted for the rest.) (new window)

Once again - you're relying on Susan G. Komen to be honest with you in its publicity material?


Interesting. They have "for the Cure" in their name yet spend more on fundraising and administration costs that research awards and grants. Maybe they should change their name to "for the Win".
 
2012-02-14 11:25:12 AM
It's amazing how many of you Farktard liberals don't recognize a hatchet job when you see one. You should because you are experts at it. OMG $133,000 over 3 freaking years....OMG SHE CHARGED THEM $44K per year...after she helped them raise $1.9 BILLION.

She made the mistake of messing with the abortion loving liberals at Planned Parenthood and now is paying the price. Keep reveling in the comeuppance of someone who has done more good in her life than all you pathetic farktard liberals combined.

/Mom died of breast cancer when I was five
 
2012-02-14 11:26:28 AM

propasaurus: But the reality that research in the conventional medical world is put toward, well, conventional medicine (allopathic drugs) remains. For me, this begs the question - where exactly does your research funding go, Komen?


Yeah, why don't they spend more on researching the effects of holistic meditation and oatmeal enemas to deal with cancer? Stupid scientists, always with their "medicines" and "evidence-based research".
 
2012-02-14 11:26:29 AM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: bongmiester: Brinker, 65, earns more than $400,000 a year at Komen, a level of compensation that is in line with the pay for top officials at other major charities

that doesn't make it right

Yeah, that seems way too high for the head of a charity. That's high enough that the charity itself could use the money. Don't get me wrong, if running the charity is her full time job, then she needs to make a living wage, but that's ridiculous.

The $133K charged to the charity while she worked for the State Department - that's meh - she was still doing work for the charity, so she still had expenses, big deal. That's just liberal derp (OMG, she was working for BUSH!!!! and still charging expenses to the charity!!!!)


What concerns me is, if she is working "full time" for someone else, how does she rack up 133K in expenses working for the foundation? Speech writing expenses? Is she using a solid gold pen? If she can run up a tab like that while performing full time for someone else, what is she doing now with all this extra time that wasn't getting done before to justify her enourmous salary?
 
2012-02-14 11:27:07 AM
Marcus Aurelius
The same thing happened to United Way back in the 90's. But the big flap happened because the CEO was looting the place. And everyone was outraged that he was pulling down $400k a year.

=======

That is when I quit giving to the United Way and never gave again.

Look here before you give, it might not be perfect but it is a start (new window)
 
2012-02-14 11:27:30 AM

rohar: Janusdog: jasimo: I've always thought that charities should go out of their way to be above reproach. It seems that most charities, including SGK, don't share my views.

No one working for a charity should ever fly first class or stay in an expensive hotel. If the charity they're working for is important to them, shouldn't they rather want to spend that extra money to further the charities goals? If the charity isn't important to them, they should GTFO.

Brinker should also GTFO.

Yes, because definitely people who work shouldn't get paid for what they do, they should just enjoy doing it "for the children" or what the fark ever.

And it just so happens that women tend to lead lots of influential non-profits and there is a startling wage gap between nonprofit executives by gender. So, yeah. No one needs to eat, and we don't need to actually pay for competent leaders to keep nonprofits afloat during a recession in which lots of people have quit donating altogether.

I'm assuming you work for free because you love your job?

I think I found the flaw in your theory.


What theory? It's true. There are competent nonprofit leaders, but they tend to stick to where they get paid more. You know, like any sector of the economy.

Do I think that Komen's CEO is compensated fairly? Absolutely not! She's overpaid and skeevy with the money. Do I think lots of nonprofits in general suffer from not being able to attract talent? Yes.

The current crop of leaders are Boomers who could lead as long as the money was coming in. Lots of them are completely unequipped to lead in a downturn. But they stay and take up spots and suck up money because they can't retire. Which leads to problems with leadership.
 
2012-02-14 11:28:22 AM
Hey, here's an idea: how about expecting executives who want to be paid to run charities to think of the charity's mission first, and their perks second. Yes, if you run a children's charity you do refuse to fly first class. You do take taxis instead of limos. You do get a regular hotel room at a reasonably priced hotel instead of a suite at some upper crust hotel.

Why's that too damn hard to accept? You want to get my money to help fight cancer? Be accountable and put the mission first, your personal whims second.

If that's not something you can do as a charitable organization executive, then walk away. Get a job in private business where you can exploit every perk opportunity to its max.
 
2012-02-14 11:29:59 AM

crispyone: It's amazing how many of you Farktard liberals don't recognize a hatchet job when you see one. You should because you are experts at it. OMG $133,000 over 3 freaking years....OMG SHE CHARGED THEM $44K per year...after she helped them raise $1.9 BILLION.

She made the mistake of messing with the abortion loving liberals at Planned Parenthood and now is paying the price. Keep reveling in the comeuppance of someone who has done more good in her life than all you pathetic farktard liberals combined.

/Mom died of breast cancer when I was five


And my mom died of cancer at 61 and the "liberals" didn't kill your mother or mine. Stop that. Please. Please.
 
2012-02-14 11:30:28 AM

DjangoStonereaver: Two there always are.

A master and an apprentice.


I lol'd.
 
2012-02-14 11:30:57 AM

Janusdog: themeaningoflifeisnot: Janusdog: jasimo: I've always thought that charities should go out of their way to be above reproach. It seems that most charities, including SGK, don't share my views.

No one working for a charity should ever fly first class or stay in an expensive hotel. If the charity they're working for is important to them, shouldn't they rather want to spend that extra money to further the charities goals? If the charity isn't important to them, they should GTFO.

Brinker should also GTFO.

Yes, because definitely people who work shouldn't get paid for what they do, they should just enjoy doing it "for the children" or what the fark ever.

And it just so happens that women tend to lead lots of influential non-profits and there is a startling wage gap between nonprofit executives by gender. So, yeah. No one needs to eat, and we don't need to actually pay for competent leaders to keep nonprofits afloat during a recession in which lots of people have quit donating altogether.

I'm assuming you work for free because you love your job?

What a load of shiat! Yeah, the worry here is that an SGK exec might not get paid enough to eat. Riiiight!

People are pissed about excessive charitable organization executive compensation because we hate women. Riiiight!

Get your head out of your ignorant ass and address the issues people are actually worried about. Troll.

Hahaha!

Calm the fark down. And see my answer above.


Ok. That makes more sense to me.
 
2012-02-14 11:31:51 AM

themeaningoflifeisnot: Hey, here's an idea: how about expecting executives who want to be paid to run charities to think of the charity's mission first, and their perks second. Yes, if you run a children's charity you do refuse to fly first class. You do take taxis instead of limos. You do get a regular hotel room at a reasonably priced hotel instead of a suite at some upper crust hotel.

Why's that too damn hard to accept? You want to get my money to help fight cancer? Be accountable and put the mission first, your personal whims second.

If that's not something you can do as a charitable organization executive, then walk away. Get a job in private business where you can exploit every perk opportunity to its max.


I am having trouble understanding why there is no middle of the road here. Most nonprofit people I know do NOT fly first class and do NOT take limos. That does not exclude the fact that lots of nonprofit people are also underpaid.

Komen is too far off one direction. I'm not talking about them. But believe me many, many nonprofits force their leaders to come to what amounts to minimum wage if you look at hours worked. Some advertisements I've seen lately for Executive Directors cite compensation at $40k. To run everything, be responsible for ALL fundraising, all finances, all hiring, all facilities. And they want Master's level education and 10 years at least of experience.
 
2012-02-14 11:32:54 AM

themeaningoflifeisnot: Janusdog: themeaningoflifeisnot: Janusdog: jasimo: I've always thought that charities should go out of their way to be above reproach. It seems that most charities, including SGK, don't share my views.

No one working for a charity should ever fly first class or stay in an expensive hotel. If the charity they're working for is important to them, shouldn't they rather want to spend that extra money to further the charities goals? If the charity isn't important to them, they should GTFO.

Brinker should also GTFO.

Yes, because definitely people who work shouldn't get paid for what they do, they should just enjoy doing it "for the children" or what the fark ever.

And it just so happens that women tend to lead lots of influential non-profits and there is a startling wage gap between nonprofit executives by gender. So, yeah. No one needs to eat, and we don't need to actually pay for competent leaders to keep nonprofits afloat during a recession in which lots of people have quit donating altogether.

I'm assuming you work for free because you love your job?

What a load of shiat! Yeah, the worry here is that an SGK exec might not get paid enough to eat. Riiiight!

People are pissed about excessive charitable organization executive compensation because we hate women. Riiiight!

Get your head out of your ignorant ass and address the issues people are actually worried about. Troll.

Hahaha!

Calm the fark down. And see my answer above.

Ok. That makes more sense to me.


Glad you understand what I'm trying to say.
 
2012-02-14 11:33:17 AM
Didn't try to bold my last post, I deleted have the original post and that is what happened. Not yelling.

/still check out the link
//it was eye opening
 
2012-02-14 11:34:32 AM
have = half

/I need sleep
//and preview
 
2012-02-14 11:35:09 AM

crispyone: It's amazing how many of you Farktard liberals don't recognize a hatchet job when you see one. You should because you are experts at it. OMG $133,000 over 3 freaking years....OMG SHE CHARGED THEM $44K per year...after she helped them raise $1.9 BILLION.


She was solely or even primarily responsible for raising almost $2 billion? Really? How about all the other SGK employees and volunteers? They're not the real reason that money was raised?

Why don't you trace for us the $1.9 billion dollars in donations that this woman single-handedly brought in for SGK?

You can't, because an awful lot of people put their efforts toward fundraising goals and there's no way that one person can be credited with the result (except, perhaps, Susan G. Komen).
 
2012-02-14 11:35:10 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: From SGK's 2011 returns (new window)


Let's take an enumerated list of Susan G. Komen's expenses (Page 12 of your PDF):

1. Grants and other assistance to governments and organizations in the U.S.- 72,110,320
2. Grants and other assistance to governments, organizations, and individuals outside the U.S. - 4,094,982
3. Compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees - 2,716,831
4. Other salaries and wages - 17,127,226
5. Pension Plan Contributions - 811,459
6. Other employee benefits - 2,242,130
7. Payroll taxes - 1,334,867
8. Management fees - 285,983
9. Accounting fees - 814,308
10. Lobbying fees - 2,500
11. Professional fundraising fees 829,211
12. Advertising and promotion fees - 20,105,178
13. Office Expenses - 14,747,106
14. Information Technology Fees - 6,296,259
15. Occupancy - 2,065,550
16. Travel - 3,264,725
17. Conferences, conventions and meetings - 2,457,562
18. Depreciation depletion and amortization - 1,607,704
19. Insurance - 142,258
20. Consulting and Professional Services - 14,187,337
21. Equipment Rental and maintenance - 1,054,544
22. Contract Labor - 7,088,737
23. Event Production - 7,313,030
24. Bank Fees - 3,915,225
25. All other expenses - 5,608,037

Between the Grants to governments and organizations in the US and abroad (lines 1 and 2), Susan G. Komen gave $76,205,302. This is the ONLY part of the expenses in the 990 that is used for treatment or research.

For executive and employee compensation and benefits (lines 3-6), Susan G. Komen spent $22,897,646

For management fees, accounting fees, lobbying fees, professional fundraising fees, advertising fees, office expenses and information technology fees (lines 8-14), Susan G. Komen spent $43,080,545(!).

For Travel, occupancy and convention costs (lines 15-17), Susan G. Komen spent $7,787,837.

For miscellaneous expenses like consulting, equipment rental, labor, event production, banking and other fees (lines 20-25), Susan G. Komen spent $39,166,910.
 
2012-02-14 11:35:38 AM

ani23: while charity is noble and all that would you rather

a. pay 200k to an "ok" CEO who brings in 10 million a year
b. pay 400k to someone more capable who brings in 50 million a year.

just food for thought



That's food for thought only if it's true. What if the choice is more like:

a. pay 200k to a CEO who is "ok" at claiming to bring in lots of money per year or
b. pay 400k to a CEO who is more aggressive about how they spin their performance and has less ethical qualms about doing so

Outrageous CEO pay for performance is sold as some necessary evil, but I work with many CEO's and I doubt that there's all that much truth to it. I think the executive class in our country is full of people whose main skillset involves creating and maintaining the impression that they should be an executive, not actually adding much value to a company - and certainly not NEARLY the kind of value we're paying for. We don't really seem to be getting our money's worth when we actually investigate their performance and not just accept their assertions and spin unquestioningly.
 
2012-02-14 11:39:22 AM

mongbiohazard: ani23: while charity is noble and all that would you rather

a. pay 200k to an "ok" CEO who brings in 10 million a year
b. pay 400k to someone more capable who brings in 50 million a year.

just food for thought


That's food for thought only if it's true. What if the choice is more like:

a. pay 200k to a CEO who is "ok" at claiming to bring in lots of money per year or
b. pay 400k to a CEO who is more aggressive about how they spin their performance and has less ethical qualms about doing so

Outrageous CEO pay for performance is sold as some necessary evil, but I work with many CEO's and I doubt that there's all that much truth to it. I think the executive class in our country is full of people whose main skillset involves creating and maintaining the impression that they should be an executive, not actually adding much value to a company - and certainly not NEARLY the kind of value we're paying for. We don't really seem to be getting our money's worth when we actually investigate their performance and not just accept their assertions and spin unquestioningly.


Interesting thought. I don't think it's limited to nonprofits.

I think the problem is that most senior leadership and board chairs don't really know what makes a successful CEO. One gets to be a CEO because someone at one time was able to be snowed by you. And once you've made it to the C-suite there is less scrutiny. So that's why you get people screwing up place to place, and because they're "resigning to pursue new challenges" rather than publicly fired, the next place will take them up and so on and so on.

I personally know of a NP VP who was bounced around two states at three high profile orgs, leaving a trail of wreckage wherever she went. No one thought to actually, you know...ask anyone for objective information about her.
 
2012-02-14 11:40:46 AM

crispyone: /Mom died of breast cancer when I was five




It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
 
2012-02-14 11:41:23 AM

mongbiohazard: I think the executive class in our country is full of people whose main skillset involves creating and maintaining the impression that they should be an executive


metropolitanreporters.com
 
2012-02-14 11:42:42 AM

bunner: crispyone: It's amazing how many of you Farktard liberals don't recognize a hatchet job when you see one. You should because you are experts at it. OMG $133,000 over 3 freaking years....OMG SHE CHARGED THEM $44K per year...after she helped them raise $1.9 BILLION.

She made the mistake of messing with the abortion loving liberals at Planned Parenthood and now is paying the price. Keep reveling in the comeuppance of someone who has done more good in her life than all you pathetic farktard liberals combined.

/Mom died of breast cancer when I was five

And my mom died of cancer at 61 and the "liberals" didn't kill your mother or mine. Stop that. Please. Please.


Where did I ever claim that liberals killed my mother? Stop putting words in peoples mouths? Stop that. Please. Please.
 
2012-02-14 11:42:46 AM
Oh, and also, almost everyone who demands to be called by a title is an asshat.

I'm looking at you, "Dr." Jill Biden (if you're a PhD you shouldn't want or expect to be called Dr. unless it's in a professional capacity - business card, conference, etc.) and you Ambassador Brinker. If you're an MD, yes, being referred to as doctor is reasonable.

I have several family members and close friends who have PhDs. They, and every PhD I've ever met who is worth his/her salt, agree with the "If you ain't an MD, you're a tool if you want people to address you as 'Dr.' convention."

/pet peeve
 
2012-02-14 11:46:01 AM

crispyone: Where did I ever claim that liberals killed my mother? Stop putting words in peoples mouths? Stop that. Please. Please.


Judging from your blanket assessment of "farktard liberals" being the root of all evil, I'd be very surprised if you didn't. I've seen this movie before. Bye.
 
2012-02-14 11:46:37 AM

themeaningoflifeisnot: crispyone: It's amazing how many of you Farktard liberals don't recognize a hatchet job when you see one. You should because you are experts at it. OMG $133,000 over 3 freaking years....OMG SHE CHARGED THEM $44K per year...after she helped them raise $1.9 BILLION.

She was solely or even primarily responsible for raising almost $2 billion? Really? How about all the other SGK employees and volunteers? They're not the real reason that money was raised?

Why don't you trace for us the $1.9 billion dollars in donations that this woman single-handedly brought in for SGK?

You can't, because an awful lot of people put their efforts toward fundraising goals and there's no way that one person can be credited with the result (except, perhaps, Susan G. Komen).


Who started the foundation? Why don't you trace for me how much the SGK foundation would have raised if nobody ever founded it.
 
2012-02-14 11:53:01 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: [0.tqn.com image 300x225]
It was her Patriotic Duty. Don't let the terrorists win.


I always liked that guy. It was a silly impossible dream of mine that he would come to the united states and get a talk show.
 
2012-02-14 11:53:58 AM

Chameleon: propasaurus: But the reality that research in the conventional medical world is put toward, well, conventional medicine (allopathic drugs) remains. For me, this begs the question - where exactly does your research funding go, Komen?

Yeah, why don't they spend more on researching the effects of holistic meditation and oatmeal enemas to deal with cancer? Stupid scientists, always with their "medicines" and "evidence-based research".


...says the guy who didn't bother to read
 
2012-02-14 12:01:00 PM

bunner: crispyone: Where did I ever claim that liberals killed my mother? Stop putting words in peoples mouths? Stop that. Please. Please.

Judging from your blanket assessment of "farktard liberals" being the root of all evil, I'd be very surprised if you didn't. I've seen this movie before. Bye.


Where did I ever claim that "farktard liberals" are the root of all evil? See, there you farktard liberals go, putting words in peoples mouths and acting like that means you won some sort of arguement.

You liberals had no problem with her until she messed with your abortion loving Planned Parenthood crowd. Now that she did that you are all too willing to tear her apart..
 
Displayed 50 of 199 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report