It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Not sure what happened in this case, but would be nice if there is an independent investigation.
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: Rezlooper
originally posted by: intrptr
If someone hasn;t already said it…
The red cross didn't give a half billion to the people of Haiti, they gave it to the government.
Its why they lived in squalor before the earthquake and why they still do.
Trust me...they didn't give that half billion to the government. It's well known that they keep a very large majority percentage for their "overhead" and they don't deny that. If they collected a half billion ($500,000,000) then it's safe to assume that no more than $100,000,000 made it to Haiti.
I agree. I throw out the figure I did because that was the amount suggested by the thread. Your "safe to say" suggestion that they only give a percentage to a corrupt government to help after a disaster is well founded, Bernie Madoff showed us how greedy some charities can be.
I don't have as much problem with the red cross because they do in fact help other peoples during tragedy and wars, often the first to fly in to danger, land and dispense aid directly to the needy.
My point was that whatever aid Haiti received didn't make it to where it was needed. You agreed with that I presume.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SuperFrog
Not sure what happened in this case, but would be nice if there is an independent investigation.
I think some want to blame the red cross for failure to help the Haitians, instead of focusing on the US lack thereof? After all the uS is right there a stones throw away and purports to be helping everyone everywhere with humanitarian aid and all. Read that supplying arms to a dozen revolts and dictatorships, US help is really harm and Haiti? Why the Red Cross dropped the ball there…
Don't even get me started on Cuba.
As we've reported, the Red Cross releases few details about how it spends money after big disasters. That makes it difficult to figure out whether donor dollars are well spent.
The Red Cross did give some information about Sandy spending to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who had been investigating the charity. But the Red Cross declined our request to disclose the details.
So we filed a public records request for the information the Red Cross provided to the attorney general's office.
That's where the law firm Gibson Dunn comes in.
An attorney from the firm's New York office appealed to the attorney general to block disclosure of some of the Sandy information, citing the state Freedom of Information Law's trade secret exemption.
The documents include "internal and proprietary methodology and procedures for fundraising, confidential information about its internal operations, and confidential financial information," wrote Gabrielle Levin of Gibson Dunn in a letter to the attorney general's office.
If those details were disclosed, "the American Red Cross would suffer competitive harm because its competitors would be able to mimic the American Red Cross's business model for an increased competitive advantage," Levin wrote.
originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ugmold
Didn't the Clinton Fundation do a lot of "work' in Haiti too?
Kars4Kids is an American non-profit national car donation organization based in Lakewood, New Jersey which donates proceeds to Jewish children and their families through the funding of Oorah, a national non-profit organization.
Donations to Kars4Kids benefit the Oorah (Joy for Our Youth, or J.O.Y.), a national organization with a stated goal of addressing the "educational, material, emotional and spiritual needs of Jewish children and their families."
In 2010 Kars4Kids reported revenue of $29.1 million and expenses of $31.1 million.
originally posted by: roadgravel
Non profits seem to have become as way for a few officers to make a very good salary. I helps when people believe the advertising that they do.