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.

(Journal News)   Judging by the speed with which the Red Cross has handled Sandy relief, that ten bucks you sent out last week to help Oklahoma tornado victims should get to them some time in 2016   (lohud.com) divider line 8
    More: Fail, Red Cross, Oklahoma, tornado victims, Superstorm Sandy, relief, tornadoes, civil societies  
•       •       •

1769 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 May 2013 at 9:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-28 10:02:22 AM
2 votes:

Carousel Beast: Why is anyone surprised by this? This is the same organization that wanted to spend their 9/11 earmarked donations on a new national phone system.


This is the same organization that kept running blood drives in the two weeks after 9/11 despite the fact they were so overcapacity that they were sending the blood straight from the drives to medical incinerators.

There's a reason that Red Cross Liaison is considered punishment duty for most hospitals.
2013-05-28 10:52:18 AM
1 votes:

Caucasian: mechgreg: BitwiseShift: Who makes more: The CEO of the non-profit government-chartered American Red Cross or the CEO of the manly, rogue boy of a non-profit the NRA. $651.957 vs $972,000.

I generally hate the Red Cross, it is a carry over from my days teaching the Red Cross learn to swim program in Canada. But this doesn't bother me that much. I mean sure it is a crazy amount of money. But who do you think has the harder job? Plus I am sure they could pay less, but with a job like CEO of the red cross do you want someone who is competent, or someone who is willing to take the amount of money you have?


Large amounts of money does not equate to competency. There are plenty of other CEOs that have made much larger sums of money and been incompetent as well.

>$500,000 should be more than adequate to find someone who is not only competent, but also believes in the cause.


You would think that someone competent would come from the private sector and would have been successful enough that they could head the Red Cross as an act of charity and not collect a cent of salary.
2013-05-28 10:39:25 AM
1 votes:

IdBeCrazyIf: LineNoise: Maybe they should go down to the payday loan place every time there is a disaster.

I was just thinking that subs is a moron since the day of the disaster the Cross was there and feeding close to 1000 people that first night, and then quadruple that the next day. Of all the charitable entities out there, the Red Cross is one of the few who can respond with lightning speed and with impressive resources.


Some guys from the local VFW post went to West, TX the day after the explosion. They normally do cookouts for fund raisers locally and then donate the funds to charities, but when something hits locally they usually road trip and cook food for people who have been affected. Seemed like a good thing to do and an excuse for a bunch of 50-60 year olds to road trip. They packed up, rode off and set up shop making breakfast burritos in the morning and burgers at night for as many as they could feed.

Every single day the Red Cross came by requesting half of the several hundred burritos saying they would help distribute the food, as the Red Cross simply didn't bring enough food themselves. They, the VFW group, happily gave the Red Cross that food only asking for them to let the folks of West know the VFW supported the area and were there making food, and to point the people to where their tents were set up if they or their children were hungry or thirsty as they pretty much ran all day and well into the evenings.

Then the nightly news rolled and of course the Red Cross took credit for everything. I figure this is the norm as it is the third time it has happened in as many years.

The Red Cross obviously have a chance to do a lot of good, but it seems the operation is muddled. Non-profits have an increasing amount of scrutiny when it comes to their spending, and we shouldn't be lenient when it comes to dollars that every day civilians put into these organizations. Expecting most of my $50 to go to food, shelter, or emergency funds isn't asking too much. It shouldn't take months and half of that original donation in operating costs to get that family $25 worth of food stuffs. And giving them access to funds via text makes it that much easier. No more door-to-door collecting or phone drives. This should only help to expedite peoples money going to where it is needed instead of just floating around in a non-profits coffers.
2013-05-28 10:23:07 AM
1 votes:

Satanic_Hamster: Carousel Beast: Why is anyone surprised by this? This is the same organization that wanted to spend their 9/11 earmarked donations on a new national phone system.

This is the same organization that kept running blood drives in the two weeks after 9/11 despite the fact they were so overcapacity that they were sending the blood straight from the drives to medical incinerators.

There's a reason that Red Cross Liaison is considered punishment duty for most hospitals.


Generally the very first donation from an individual is tested extensively, little of it is used. What the Red Cross is interested in is consistent donors who give regularly so that testing cost can be reduced. So when an emergency happens and people get in line to donate, Red Cross will accept these donations because they hope it encourages someone to become a future donor, but they don't have the facilities to test all of that new blood from new people. Or they could just not test it all and give everyone HIV..
2013-05-28 10:14:18 AM
1 votes:
and the blood drive things are more for awareness than anything. The thought being, sure, you don't need all that blood, but if it gets a few people into the habbit of donating regularly, great. Not to mention that at the onset of things, you may not have a handle on what exactly you need. Were storage facilities compromised that you are unaware of at first? Is something going to happen shortly afterwards that you may be unprepared for?

I mean its kind of silly to fault the red cross for being safe rather than sorry.
2013-05-28 10:04:16 AM
1 votes:
LineNoise--the money we give right after a disaster is not intended to fund normal day-to-day operations, but to respond to that disaster.  Nine months later, it's a reasonable criticism to wonder why 2/3rds of that money is still at the Red Cross and not having helped the victims through the winter.
2013-05-28 10:02:10 AM
1 votes:
Who makes more: The CEO of the non-profit government-chartered American Red Cross or the CEO of the manly, rogue boy of a non-profit the NRA. $651.957 vs $972,000.

Thanks for playing prole.
2013-05-28 09:59:37 AM
1 votes:
Why is anyone surprised by this? This is the same organization that wanted to spend their 9/11 earmarked donations on a new national phone system.
 
Displayed 8 of 8 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report