chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote: What about the vocal right in general? It's this us vs. them mentality that is, IMO, a major issue with our current political sphere.



I have to think we do this because we enjoy it. It's like sports, pick a team.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

I still haven't checked but I will try to remember. I'm quoting a book that isn't about politics at all, but is very well source-cited so I will check the citations and report back.

Off the top of my head, though, aside from what mother referenced, I think Bush 43 did a nice job of avoiding law breaking with the Patriot Act. Obama has completely jumped on board and used the same to a very broad extent and, IMO, has made big brother government bigger and brotherer.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:I have to think we do this because we enjoy it. It's like sports, pick a team.



This very well may be true. And if true, it's very sad. Sports aren't "for keeps" to the level politics are, obviously.


MarkDaSpark wrote:I'm assuming you swallowed the liberal propaganda whole from MSNBC.


This is along the lines of what I mean. And if Sparky were a democrat, he'd use the same words but would replace the nouns.

I would not consider myself a liberal along the MSNBC lines. I wouldn't consider myself a conservative along the Fox News lines, either. But the forced labeling creates a necessary difference that supercedes issue discussion and causes finger-pointing and judgments that fall along those same (false) party lines.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin

Not picking on the messenger, just parts of the message.

mother wrote:Pretty sure he got approval for Iraq and Afghanistan, yeah. Since everyone is intent on making this just about not so congressionally authorized military strikes:
-Drone strike on Yemen in 2002

Against those believed responsible for the attack on the USS Cole that killed US servicemen. Well within the scope of permitted activities.

-US commando raid in Syria in 2008

perhaps a bit more sketchy than above, but the US did cite Article 51 of the UN Charter for this one as self-defense.

Mind you the Bush team have technicalities ready to explain how those are authorized, just like Obama would have had them ready to explain Syria this time.

The second may rely a bit on a technicality, but for the first I think not.
I see the current Syria debate in a different light from either of these; we have not been attacked as with the Cole, nor would it be easy to claim self-defense as with the latter; we have suffered no casualties we'll yet admit to in Syria directly related to the gas attacks. And lobbing cruise missiles is an order of magnitude or so order of an escalation compared to a UAV launched Hellfire.
Kyle, appreciate your efforts and totally agree on the bigger government and it's overstep in many areas. It got started long ago, but has really accelerated these past few years.

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:I would not consider myself a liberal along the MSNBC lines. I wouldn't consider myself a conservative along the Fox News lines, either. But the forced labeling creates a necessary difference that supercedes issue discussion and causes finger-pointing and judgments that fall along those same (false) party lines.



Yes, so true! I HATE this!

FWIW, I'm not educated about the issues with Syria. On a purely emotional level, my default position is against taking action to interfere with another country's own despicable business. On a purely emotional level, I think they're hopeless. On a somewhat less emotional level, it should not be easy to take these actions. If you can't talk Congress into it, maybe there's a good reason.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
rjquillin wrote:
I see the current Syria debate in a different light from either of these;



Not to shoot the messenger, but that's kind of irrelevant- please don't retroactively reframe the thread, which when we last left our heros, was me responding to Sparky's demands for any examples of GWB maybe shootin stuff up without explicit authorization from Congresscritters. (Which was originally a discussion about providing any examples of GWB bending the law like Obama.)

I never set out to entertain debate about the moral equivalency of what Jorge 'the Decider' actually did vs the thing's Barry 'the Explaininator' hasn't yet done. ;)

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 178 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
mother wrote:You can't find anything at least extra-legal about: Extraordinary rendition? Enhanced interrogation? Domestic spying abuses? The abuse of military contractors? An explosion in no-bid procurement? Nearly anything that Darth Cheney was involved in?

There is plenty of grey area in the GWB admins 8 years.

We all know that Clinton and HWB weren't "strictly by the book" either. Regan had, among many other things, Iran-Contra...

Given that what we're really talking about is the executive being power-grabby, it's pretty universal IMHO.



All I was trying to do was to clarify kyle's statements of "fact". He kept claiming GWB committed illegal acts, yet hasn't posted one link yet to prove it.

And a "grey area" is different from a totally illegal act. Yes, I agree that there were "grey areas". I agree that we surrendered freedoms that shouldn't have been surrendered.

But I don't see many condemning Obama for continuing and expanding those policies.

I just don't remember the excesses of domestic abuses with GWB that we've seen with Obama. And I'm not just talking 2nd Amendment here.



Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 178 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:This is along the lines of what I mean. And if Sparky were a democrat, he'd use the same words but would replace the nouns.

I would not consider myself a liberal along the MSNBC lines. I wouldn't consider myself a conservative along the Fox News lines, either. But the forced labeling creates a necessary difference that supercedes issue discussion and causes finger-pointing and judgments that fall along those same (false) party lines.



Perhaps. But then when someone makes unsubstantiated claims along those lines, you put them in that camp. Especially when they keep blaming everything on Bush, and nothing on Obama.

Bush has been out of office for more than 5 years, yet is still being blamed for everything. It's time to stop it and lay the blame where it truly belongs ... with Obama.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
MarkDaSpark wrote:
But I don't see many condemning Obama for continuing and expanding those policies.

I just don't remember the excesses of domestic abuses with GWB that we've seen with Obama. And I'm not just talking 2nd Amendment here.



peanut butter jelly timeing sheep. ("the many" not you)

Obama is certainly as bad or worse than Doubleya was on rights and freedoms.

I do however think your not feeling the same 'excesses of domestic abuse' is just halo error...

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 178 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
mother wrote:Not to shoot the messenger, but that's kind of irrelevant- please don't retroactively reframe the thread, which when we last left our heros, was me responding to Sparky's demands for any examples of GWB maybe shootin stuff up without explicit authorization from Congresscritters. (Which was originally a discussion about providing any examples of GWB bending the law like Obama.)

I never set out to entertain debate about the moral equivalency of what Jorge 'the Decider' actually did vs the thing's Barry 'the Explaininator' hasn't yet done. ;)



And I wasn't asking for that, but kyle to back up his claims of "illegal" activity.

As to shooting stuff up, I believe the War Powers Resolution covers that.

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.



Approved in 1973, "All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional."

As noted, it was violated by Reagan, but also by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. You can blame Eisenhower and Kennedy (Bay of Pigs fiasco), as well as Nixon (Cambodia bombings) for Congress passing it.


The problem is that all too often now, it's not necessarily governments that are attacking us.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin

At the wootception, I had occasion to engage the woot photojournalist in a modest conversation. Not so much about why he was there, but what he thought of the event in general. He seemed truly amazed at the community and how close we we were, yet came from so far geographically to attend. The conversation drifted to other things woot and the forums. He commented most of the sites were full of sniping at one-another and endless worthless jabs, only occasionally would information of an use get posted; the "will it work on a mac" kind of thing was in abundance.

Back to our ww main thread, he commented there were almost always pertinent posts and excellent dialog, both among users and winemakers.

The conversation even drifted to this thread as well, and he commented he was amazed we could have such discourse and remain civil, he really just didn't understand it, and how unique we are.

I think that was a tip-of-the-hat to how we do generally remain civil and openly discuss differing opinions, and hopefully all gain from it.

I'm still wondering what will become of his labors that evening.

CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 178 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
mother wrote:peanut butter jelly timeing sheep. ("the many" not you)

Obama is certainly as bad or worse than Doubleya was on rights and freedoms.

I do however think your not feeling the same 'excesses of domestic abuse' is just halo error...



Really? IRS scandal anyone? The DOJ refusal to prosecute the Black Panthers for Voting Rights violations? The massive spying on Americans scandal even larger than anything Bush approved? The muzzling of Benghazi witnesses? The call for obliterating our 2nd Amendment rights?

Funny, I don't remember anyone accusing Bush of any of those things.

But perhaps it's because the lamestream media wouldn't let Bush get away with it?


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
MarkDaSpark wrote:Really? IRS scandal anyone? The DOJ refusal to prosecute the Black Panthers for Voting Rights violations? The massive spying on Americans scandal even larger than anything Bush approved? The muzzling of Benghazi witnesses? The call for obliterating our 2nd Amendment rights?

Funny, I don't remember anyone accusing Bush of any of those things.

But perhaps it's because the lamestream media wouldn't let Bush get away with it?



Bush's government abused the people it disagreed with in all the same ways. He also personally worked against equal rights for gays and lesbians, and generally attempted to set this country back 60 years socially.

Look I don't want to sit here arguing about just how ungodly bad W sucked, you'll just need to take my word for the fact that anyone who wasn't a "Conservative" really truly and honestly felt that way about him.

Just as honestly and just as validly as you feel that way about Obama.

Who I'm not here to defend. He may very well be worse than Bush. What do we win if that's true? Oh yeah, nothing, we just get to lose even more.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:But I don't see many condemning Obama for continuing and expanding those policies.



Consider this an official condemnation, then.

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin

My, how opinions change with changing administrations.

CT

chipgreen


quality posts: 184 Private Messages chipgreen

Kyle may have been thinking about the record number of Executive Orders signed by GW as opposed to unauthorized attacks on other countries. Another Bush policy that Obama has embraced and expanded, unfortunately - along with the Patriot Act.

Most liberals aren't nearly as thrilled with Obama as conservatives seem to think they are. If conservatives were a little more selective about their criticism of him, they'd probably be surprised at the liberals who would agree with many of those criticisms.

Addressing the "choosing sides" aspect of the conversation, that's just what they want us to do. It makes controlling us that much easier while pols and lobbyists continue to grab more power and wealth due to a lack of term limits, campaign finance reform and other abuses of the system that fall on the backs of the American citizens.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

I'm popping in to post a 3-second thing. I will find that source when Em goes to sleep.

I just watched McCain criticizing Obama for putting himself in a bad situation. That situation: saying that chemical weapons cross a line. And now that they've been used, the fact that Obama is waiting on congress to make a decision that may not be a "yes" to strike. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If Obama struck without congress, he'd be criticized (perhaps rightly so) for doing so. Now that he did go to congress, he's being criticized for not striking on his own accord. All of this on the "lamestream" media that goes so easy on Obama. F 'em all.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

klezman


quality posts: 120 Private Messages klezman
chipgreen wrote:Most liberals aren't nearly as thrilled with Obama as conservatives seem to think they are. If conservatives were a little more selective about their criticism of him, they'd probably be surprised at the liberals who would agree with many of those criticisms.



Yes, this. It's the appearance of reflexive criticism that also sours the conversation, for both sides.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:I'm popping in to post a 3-second thing. I will find that source when Em goes to sleep.

I just watched McCain criticizing Obama for putting himself in a bad situation. That situation: saying that chemical weapons cross a line. And now that they've been used, the fact that Obama is waiting on congress to make a decision that may not be a "yes" to strike. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If Obama struck without congress, he'd be criticized (perhaps rightly so) for doing so. Now that he did go to congress, he's being criticized for not striking on his own accord. All of this on the "lamestream" media that goes so easy on Obama. F 'em all.

+1
The entire thing is lose-lose.
Personal opinion; he went to congress ducking for cover. He can now elude any responsibility for (in)action and results and continue to blame congress, as he has done the past three or four years.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

Found my source. And I saw something I didn't know before.

The thing I didn't know: the NSA surveillance of US citizens by the NSA without a warrant. The NY Times reported this in 2006. There may have been the same level of fuss as there has been with Obama doing the same, but I don't remember. Can someone please chime in and tell me if there was.

Also, I think I need to backtrack a bit, but maybe not. I may have misspoke earlier, but I will quote directly here:

...Bush's unprecedented use of "signing statements." In the process of approving a law passed by Congress, the president affirms his prerogative not to follow the law he has just signed. President Bush [43] has used this tactic more than any other president has in US history, more than 750 times, to disobey statutes passed by Congress when they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.


-C. Savage, "Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws." The Boston Globe, April 30, 2006. Qtd. in The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo.

I think, if I'm reading and understanding this correctly, that I was talking about what chip said and confusing it with Obama's waiting for congressional approval (or permission).

Apologies if I misremembered the quote and misunderstood its importance within the scope of our conversation.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

North316


quality posts: 107 Private Messages North316

Didn't want to post this directly in the other thread, because that would be totally inappropriate, but I curious what other people thought, or if they typically do any research about charitable organizations before they donate.

Neil just posted a thread about a cool week long bike ride he is doing for a charitable organization called Pablove Foundation, which contributes to research for childrens cancer. This is to take absolutely nothing away from Neil and what he is doing, or his intentions, but personally, I am very cautious before donating to organizations which I have never heard of, and prefer to do some research.

Having not heard of Pablove Foundation, I checked the BBB, nothing there. I then went to their website and after some looking found a link to their 2011 990 (Non-profit tax return filing) (2012 is technically not due until 9/15/13, so I wasn't too surprised it was not available). While this organization isn't bad compared to a lot of others around there, they have gross receipts of just over 1,000,000, half of which is from fundraising events, the other half from general contributions. With 1,000,000 in gross receipts, they had about 600,000 in expenses. In a perfect world, 1,000,000 would be given out for various cancer research, as their mission states, but even in a semi-perfect world, most of the 600,000 in expense would be expected to go to that goal. Unfortunately, only $230,000 of the 1,000,000 raised/received went out directly for cancer research, while there was over $260,000 in payroll and payroll related expenses. The remainind expenses were for rent, supplies, fundraising and some seminars to raise awareness for the cause.

Simply looking at this, this is not an organization that I would personally donate to. The cause is question is a great cause, but with only 25% of all donations being purposed for the so-called mission of the charity, the money could be better used elsewhere. For full disclosure, the charity was founded in 2008, so it likely still in it's infancy and is still trying to grow, which tends to hurt its ability to donate as intended.

Just curious what other's thoughts are on this topic in general? (like I said, not really attempting to bash this charity, or Neil's efforts, it just hit a trigger point in my mind). Being an auditor, and having audited a number of non-profit organizations over the years, I have seen how well, and how poorly, these organizations can run, and I am always looking organizations which give the most bang for the buck.

My CT
"Trust your homies on the net", Clark Smith.
R.I.P. Inkycatz - Feb. 2013

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
North316 wrote:Didn't want to post this directly in the other thread, because that would be totally inappropriate, but I curious what other people thought, or if they typically do any research about charitable organizations before they donate.

...

With 1,000,000 in gross receipts, they had about 600,000 in expenses. In a perfect world, 1,000,000 would be given out for various cancer research, as their mission states, but even in a semi-perfect world, most of the 600,000 in expense would be expected to go to that goal. Unfortunately, only $230,000 of the 1,000,000 raised/received went out directly for cancer research, while there was over $260,000 in payroll and payroll related expenses.



So I personally:
1) Make sure its a 501(c)3
2) Make sure there is nothign I fundamentally disagree with about the organisation.
3) Check to make sure it's not a scam to raise money to pay executive directors million dolalr salaries.

Ultimately I've decided that since I'm a lazy bastard I will financially support the fundraising of friends and acquantances. If you're willing to put in the sweat equity to actually make a difference, I can write a check.

In this case I didn't dig into the financials like you did, well until I saw this post at least.

A few poitns:
1) Those salary expenses include expenses directly related to providing services/programs.
2) Out of $1M $240k got spent on 'the cause' and $400k went unspent. That is approximately 1/3 overhead. While not "great" it's pretty acceptable in my book.

Again though, I count on the people investing their time and energy into a charity to have done the due diligence before both committing so much of their energy and asking for my money...

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

I may have a weird perspective on charities, but if I were to make a donation large enough to matter, I would go directly to the source. I would find and research pediatric oncologists (for example) doing research at universities and write them a check. I don't see the need for a charity as a middleman in this situation.

The issue is that there is no "control" over charities distributions to such doctors. The bigger issue is there shouldn't be so it's unsolvable. There are politics at work, as well as $$ being spent to people to apply for grants from the govt and these charities. If I were a donor, I would spend my time researching those who could use the most amount of the money for what I'm intending it for instead of researching the charity who absolutely has to use some of it to basically function.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:I may have a weird perspective on charities, but if I were to make a donation large enough to matter, I would go directly to the source. I would find and research pediatric oncologists (for example) doing research at universities and write them a check. I don't see the need for a charity as a middleman in this situation.

The issue is that there is no "control" over charities distributions to such doctors. The bigger issue is there shouldn't be so it's unsolvable. There are politics at work, as well as $$ being spent to people to apply for grants from the govt and these charities. If I were a donor, I would spend my time researching those who could use the most amount of the money for what I'm intending it for instead of researching the charity who absolutely has to use some of it to basically function.

However..
If I were to write a sizable check, I would only be able to take advantage of any tax incentive were it written to a 501(c3); I believe. I do annually contribute substantially to the University I work for in the way of volunteer labor which is tax advantaged. Since I was 'retired' due to lack of funding, I found 'retirement' not at all to my liking, and hung out on campus continuing to contribute as my talents would allow. I was rehired, at a maximum of 43%; no bennies. Much remains to be done so I seem to always exceed those ~two days a week; the rest is charitable, generally 8+ hours/week. I am fortunate to enjoy what I do, and the University is a great place to hang out and work.

We really need to overhaul our tax codes.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:We really need to overhaul our tax codes.



Huge +1. I totally forgot about that.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:I may have a weird perspective on charities, but if I were to make a donation large enough to matter, I would go directly to the source. I would find and research pediatric oncologists (for example) doing research at universities and write them a check. I don't see the need for a charity as a middleman in this situation.

The issue is that there is no "control" over charities distributions to such doctors. The bigger issue is there shouldn't be so it's unsolvable. There are politics at work, as well as $$ being spent to people to apply for grants from the govt and these charities. If I were a donor, I would spend my time researching those who could use the most amount of the money for what I'm intending it for instead of researching the charity who absolutely has to use some of it to basically function.



What Kyle has just admitted is that he has never done any charitable giving :P

When you're that rich you form a private foundation which, as a 501(c)3, you can give grants through to the oncologist, or whatever, of your choosing, and ge the tax advantages.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
mother wrote:What Kyle has just admitted is that he has never done any charitable giving :P

When you're that rich you form a private foundation which, as a 501(c)3, you can give grants through to the oncologist, or whatever, of your choosing, and ge the tax advantages.



Isn't it the thought that counts?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 178 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
mother wrote:So I personally:
1) Make sure its a 501(c)3
2) Make sure there is nothign I fundamentally disagree with about the organisation.
3) Check to make sure it's not a scam to raise money to pay executive directors million dolalr salaries.

Ultimately I've decided that since I'm a lazy bastard I will financially support the fundraising of friends and acquantances. If you're willing to put in the sweat equity to actually make a difference, I can write a check.

In this case I didn't dig into the financials like you did, well until I saw this post at least.

A few poitns:
1) Those salary expenses include expenses directly related to providing services/programs.
2) Out of $1M $240k got spent on 'the cause' and $400k went unspent. That is approximately 1/3 overhead. While not "great" it's pretty acceptable in my book.

Again though, I count on the people investing their time and energy into a charity to have done the due diligence before both committing so much of their energy and asking for my money...



I try to use Charity Navigator to check them out first as well. They require 5 full years of 990 forms.

Sadly, the Pablove Foundation hasn't had 5 full years yet.

To compare, look at The Hope Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Southwest Oncology Group. Their Administrative Expenses are only 15.5%, and have a Fundraising Efficiency (The amount spent to raise $1 in charitable contributions. To calculate a charity's fundraising efficiency, they divide its fundraising expenses by the total contributions it receives.) of $0.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chipgreen


quality posts: 184 Private Messages chipgreen
North316 wrote:Didn't want to post this directly in the other thread, because that would be totally inappropriate, but I curious what other people thought, or if they typically do any research about charitable organizations before they donate.

Neil just posted a thread about a cool week long bike ride he is doing for a charitable organization called Pablove Foundation, which contributes to research for childrens cancer. This is to take absolutely nothing away from Neil and what he is doing, or his intentions, but personally, I am very cautious before donating to organizations which I have never heard of, and prefer to do some research.

Having not heard of Pablove Foundation, I checked the BBB, nothing there. I then went to their website and after some looking found a link to their 2011 990 (Non-profit tax return filing) (2012 is technically not due until 9/15/13, so I wasn't too surprised it was not available). While this organization isn't bad compared to a lot of others around there, they have gross receipts of just over 1,000,000, half of which is from fundraising events, the other half from general contributions. With 1,000,000 in gross receipts, they had about 600,000 in expenses. In a perfect world, 1,000,000 would be given out for various cancer research, as their mission states, but even in a semi-perfect world, most of the 600,000 in expense would be expected to go to that goal. Unfortunately, only $230,000 of the 1,000,000 raised/received went out directly for cancer research, while there was over $260,000 in payroll and payroll related expenses. The remainind expenses were for rent, supplies, fundraising and some seminars to raise awareness for the cause.

Simply looking at this, this is not an organization that I would personally donate to. The cause is question is a great cause, but with only 25% of all donations being purposed for the so-called mission of the charity, the money could be better used elsewhere. For full disclosure, the charity was founded in 2008, so it likely still in it's infancy and is still trying to grow, which tends to hurt its ability to donate as intended.

Just curious what other's thoughts are on this topic in general? (like I said, not really attempting to bash this charity, or Neil's efforts, it just hit a trigger point in my mind). Being an auditor, and having audited a number of non-profit organizations over the years, I have seen how well, and how poorly, these organizations can run, and I am always looking organizations which give the most bang for the buck.


You bring up a good point. Admittedly, I did not research the Pablove Foundation. Like mother, I chose to support Neil's efforts without vetting the charity first. I did the same for PB a few months back and would have done the same for Corrado if he was still a woot regular or had been someone that I interacted with regularly in the past.

I just googled and re-discovered a website that I used years ago to vet charities, it's called Charity Navigator.

That's how I started making yearly donations to the Carter Center, which is one of the most highly rated charities. Jimmy Carter may not have been a great President but he IS a great humanitarian.

Charity Navigator has not yet rated the Pablove Foundation because they only rate charities which have filed at least 5 full years of Form 990s. They do provide some useful information about Pablove, however.

I agree with you that their expense ratio is high. 25% of donations actually going to the cause is not good, it should be at least 50% IMO. So it's probably not a charity that I would choose to donate to on my own, but I'm still happy to help a friend who's trying to make a difference.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:Isn't it the thought that counts?



Only to your actual mother ;)

But seriously, you're a bit younger and just started a family- not so unusual.

chipgreen


quality posts: 184 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:I try to use Charity Navigator to check them out first as well. They require 5 full years of 990 forms.

Sadly, the Pablove Foundation hasn't had 5 full years yet.

To compare, look at The Hope Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Southwest Oncology Group. Their Administrative Expenses are only 15.5%, and have a Fundraising Efficiency (The amount spent to raise $1 in charitable contributions. To calculate a charity's fundraising efficiency, they divide its fundraising expenses by the total contributions it receives.) of $0.


Nice

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Is it bad that I only give to animal charities? Don't answer that.

I have found that if you give to an animal charity, they will give your name to ASPCA et al. and they will send you gut-wrenching, heart-breaking animal stories on the regular. Bastards.

North316


quality posts: 107 Private Messages North316
mother wrote:A few poitns:
1) Those salary expenses include expenses directly related to providing services/programs.
2) Out of $1M $240k got spent on 'the cause' and $400k went unspent. That is approximately 1/3 overhead. While not "great" it's pretty acceptable in my book.

Again though, I count on the people investing their time and energy into a charity to have done the due diligence before both committing so much of their energy and asking for my money...



1) Functional expense allocations between administrative services, program services and fundraising services can be pretty arbitrary, especially if the board does not require an audit of the financials. These allocations are simply an estimate created by the accountant. Nothing in that 990 really screams that the charity has much in the way of "program services" other than the information seminars and the few small programs they do with the kids. Regardless of all of that, I get your point.

2) I did notice the unspent portion of the contributions, which is also very curious. In the 4 years they have reported, they collected $2.6 million and are carrying almost $1.5 million in cash. $2.6 million in receipts and $600k in donations for actual research. Just the facts.

My CT
"Trust your homies on the net", Clark Smith.
R.I.P. Inkycatz - Feb. 2013

North316


quality posts: 107 Private Messages North316
kylemittskus wrote:I may have a weird perspective on charities, but if I were to make a donation large enough to matter, I would go directly to the source. I would find and research pediatric oncologists (for example) doing research at universities and write them a check. I don't see the need for a charity as a middleman in this situation.

The issue is that there is no "control" over charities distributions to such doctors. The bigger issue is there shouldn't be so it's unsolvable. There are politics at work, as well as $$ being spent to people to apply for grants from the govt and these charities. If I were a donor, I would spend my time researching those who could use the most amount of the money for what I'm intending it for instead of researching the charity who absolutely has to use some of it to basically function.



Just for future reference, for anyone that's concerned with how their funds were being used, if you choose to make a sizeable donation, you should be able to restrict the donation whatever purpose you chose (clearly would want to discuss this with the organization). You can even donate it as a permanently restricted endowment which the organization would hold as an investment and just be able to spend any interest and earnings.

My CT
"Trust your homies on the net", Clark Smith.
R.I.P. Inkycatz - Feb. 2013

tytiger58


quality posts: 74 Private Messages tytiger58
North316 wrote:1) Functional expense allocations between administrative services, program services and fundraising services can be pretty arbitrary, especially if the board does not require an audit of the financials. These allocations are simply an estimate created by the accountant. Nothing in that 990 really screams that the charity has much in the way of "program services" other than the information seminars and the few small programs they do with the kids. Regardless of all of that, I get your point.

2) I did notice the unspent portion of the contributions, which is also very curious. In the 4 years they have reported, they collected $2.6 million and are carrying almost $1.5 million in cash. $2.6 million in receipts and $600k in donations for actual research. Just the facts.



Interesting thoughts here but in my opinion if a friend or acquaintance wants to put his a@@ in the saddle for 400 miles for a cause that he or she believes in and it only costs me 10 or 30 dollars that's a slam dunk, I have to support that.

More people should be doing the same..just my opinion. Now if i'm going to donate 100, 500 or 1000 hard earned dollars I will pick the charities bones clean to make sure the money is going exactly where I want it. Just my opinion and no offence intended...well maybe

What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch? ~ W. C. Fields

“Freedom is something that dies unless it's used” Hunter S Thompson




North316


quality posts: 107 Private Messages North316
tytiger58 wrote:Interesting thoughts here but in my opinion if a friend or acquaintance wants to put his a@@ in the saddle for 400 miles for a cause that he or she believes in and it only costs me 10 or 30 dollars that's a slam dunk, I have to support that.

More people should be doing the same..just my opinion. Now if i'm going to donate 100, 500 or 1000 hard earned dollars I will pick the charities bones clean to make sure the money is going exactly where I want it. Just my opinion and no offence intended...well maybe



As I said, I meant absolutely no ill-will towards Neil, his efforts, or the cause in general, which I why I brought my post here, a place that I NEVER post.

I was just trying to get a sense for what, if anything, others do in regards to due-diligence of charitable organization. To take this slightly off-topic... In my experience, there are simply far too many non-profit organizations out there. I understand the idea of giving people the freedom to start a charity to support their cause, but in the end (just for example) when there are 5 charities who do basically the same thing, with basically the same mission, operating in the same local area, who is that serving? You now have 5 times the administrative costs and general overhead just because each of their organizations wanted "fight the cause their way". I would really like to see a lot of consolidation of similar charities to reduce costs, increase the actual benefits of the charity, and maybe weed out the organizations who are just looking to pad the pockets of the executives at the expense of unaware donors (definitely not putting Neil's cause in this bucket).

My CT
"Trust your homies on the net", Clark Smith.
R.I.P. Inkycatz - Feb. 2013

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin
North316 wrote:As I said, I meant absolutely no ill-will towards Neil, his efforts, or the cause in general, which I why I brought my post here, a place that I NEVER post.

I was just trying to get a sense for what, if anything, others do in regards to due-diligence of charitable organization. To take this slightly off-topic... In my experience, there are simply far too many non-profit organizations out there. I understand the idea of giving people the freedom to start a charity to support their cause, but in the end (just for example) when there are 5 charities who do basically the same thing, with basically the same mission, operating in the same local area, who is that serving? You now have 5 times the administrative costs and general overhead just because each of their organizations wanted "fight the cause their way". I would really like to see a lot of consolidation of similar charities to reduce costs, increase the actual benefits of the charity, and maybe weed out the organizations who are just looking to pad the pockets of the executives at the expense of unaware donors (definitely not putting Neil's cause in this bucket).

Weed them out? A noble cause. In principle I agree with you, out with those that don't preform as advertized, but isn't that what we, with due diligence, do? It ~absolutely is NOT~ something I'd want our government to assist in, beyond what they already do by granting status. Oh, come to think of it we've recently had a huge problem with even that. No, this should remain a free market solution, but I agree there are organizations that under perform for their cause, if not their administrators.
Ah, and welcome to the fray.

CT

North316


quality posts: 107 Private Messages North316
rjquillin wrote:Weed them out? A noble cause. In principle I agree with you, out with those that don't preform as advertized, but isn't that what we, with due diligence, do? It ~absolutely is NOT~ something I'd want our government to assist in, beyond what they already do by granting status. Oh, come to think of it we've recently had a huge problem with even that. No, this should remain a free market solution, but I agree there are organizations that under perform for their cause, if not their administrators.
Ah, and welcome to the fray.



Absolutely not with government assistance, consolidation and mergers on their own. Sure it is a pie-in-the-sky idea, but it is common sense.

It's really not any different they we are seeing in my industry (accounting firms). People started out in the large accounting firms, gained some experience and decided they could do better on their own, starting their own firm. As those firms grow and the founding partners age, they look to secure their retirement and keep the company alive, and merge back in with a larger firm, starting the cycle again.

Not exactly the same premise, but the idea of the larger non-profit organizations spawns the idea of the smaller more intimate organizations, who unfortunately, can't always function efficiently. Unlike the accounting firms, these smaller non-profit organization typically either hang on for a lot of years in efficiently, or just end of closing the doors, rather than consolidating their efforts with a larger organization which could be benficial for both sides.

My CT
"Trust your homies on the net", Clark Smith.
R.I.P. Inkycatz - Feb. 2013

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:Weed them out? A noble cause. In principle I agree with you, out with those that don't preform as advertized, but isn't that what we, with due diligence, do? It ~absolutely is NOT~ something I'd want our government to assist in, beyond what they already do by granting status. Oh, come to think of it we've recently had a huge problem with even that. No, this should remain a free market solution, but I agree there are organizations that under perform for their cause, if not their administrators.
Ah, and welcome to the fray.



Free market, baby! Now, if we could just get people to understand how that works...

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee

So this happened, because this happened.

So basically, four people died because Nebraska doesn't like to keep people in prison. I have a friend who is a probation officer and she said you'd have to assault the judge before you'd actually go to prison in this state.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)