NationStates Jolt Archive

okay, not that I am going to say how other people should spend their money (actually I do, often, it's kinda my job to tell people what to do with their money......but I won't do it here)

I was wondering.........do you guys think there should be some hierarchy on charities?

like

'really good cause'
'moderately good cause'
'WTF?!'

I know there are always people who need more than what is around to give......or better stated what is available currently to distribute........but are some things more important than others?

I don't think I am being coherent today........let me start at the beginning.......no, that will take to long.......let me sum up.

I was looking for something else today and I found this site (http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/), and anyway, at first I was like "wow, that's a good thing" and then a few seconds later I was like "but what about all the abused children?"



and anyway, I kinda feel guilty because the charity I previously worked for wasn't top notch on it's user list..........meaning shouldn't we like help the dying instead of the ill?

it's like painting a burning house right?

nevermind.

If anyone can figure out what I am talking about please post! (I wanna know too)

For my money, it's hard to top Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) as a charity. I've given to Amnesty International and OxFam in the past and would do so again in the future, but wouldn't give PETA the back of my hand. They're not wholly corrupt, but they play fast and loose with the facts often enough that I want nothing to do with them.

I'm just struggling to believe that charity exists.

For my money, it's hard to top Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) as a charity. I've given to Amnesty International and OxFam in the past and would do so again in the future, but wouldn't give PETA the back of my hand. They're not wholly corrupt, but they play fast and loose with the facts often enough that I want nothing to do with them.

I couldn't think of another charity when I was making my poll, I mean I give to other ones, but in my head they were just gone......due to all of my thinking about how much I dislike PETA.

Not sure if this is what you mean:

I feel better doing charitable things directly, myself.
No, I'm not going to be able to cure cancer, etc. There will be limits to what I can do. But I will be able to see the need, etc.

So, taking people into my house, or helping out strapped families with their bills, or taking their kids to the doctor, are things I do. There are also things beyond money, food, or shelter that I provide that I view as charity - helping people find jobs who have been unemployed for a long time is one of them.

If I give to a charity, I prefer to give anonymously - I don't want a plaque saying, "He Gave Us A Lot Of Money And We Hated Him Anyway So Here's This Hallway Named After Him".

I do give to a local ranch that raises orphaned boys. I've been out there to see how they are running it, but that's the extent of my involvement other than the money.

While I'm not capable of generating the money necessary to fund a research center to cure cancer or AIDS, I think that at least with my money, time, and resources, I'm more effective than the government or any charity for the people I've helped.

Yeah, PETA and similar organizations have always struck me as kind of wrong. Children are starving, and you're concerned about something that was going to die anyway being used as a coat? Yeaaaahhh....Work on your priorities there, skippy.

He Gave Us A Lot Of Money And We Hated Him Anyway So Here's This Hallway Named After Him".


What kind of charity would publically express their loathing for someone who gave them a lot of money? I mean, that's just weird.

Really it all depends on the motivation of a group.
I'd say an animal rights group isn't as important as a human rights group, but there are very many similar people involved in very important environmental causes.

I've seen enough about modern meat production to give to animal charities. Mostly.

I've seen enough about modern meat production to give to animal charities. Mostly.

my incoherent point is that wouldn't that money be better spent on a charity that is helping people?

Really it all depends on the motivation of a group.
I'd say an animal rights group isn't as important as a human rights group, but there are very many similar people involved in very important environmental causes.

I don't think it's quite as easy as that, at least not for me, but I express my displeasure with the meat-processing industry, for instance, by not eating meat unless it's raised and slaughtered humanely, which means I've pretty much given up eating meat except at home, and even then it's rare. But my dollars go to human rights organizations.

What kind of charity would publically express their loathing for someone who gave them a lot of money? I mean, that's just weird.

I've been to a few places that put nameplates on chairs, hallways, sidewalks, etc.

Very nice stuff printed on the nameplates.

The staff talk shit about the "asshole who gave us money for that".

my incoherent point is that wouldn't that money be better spent on a charity that is helping people?

Not IMO. There are loads of humans and overpopulation's a growing (NPI) problem. And I tend to like animals more anyway.

I don't think it's quite as easy as that, at least not for me, but I express my displeasure with the meat-processing industry, for instance, by not eating meat unless it's raised and slaughtered humanely, which means I've pretty much given up eating meat except at home, and even then it's rare. But my dollars go to human rights organizations.

Meh. All I care about is humans. I can't relate to a cow.

Meh. All I care about is humans. I can't relate to a cow.

Not unless it's in the form of a thick juicy steak on a charcoal grill...

Is donating to my local food bank more important than a donation to a local arts organization? Surely feeding hungry families is more “important” than providing educational opportunities to disadvantaged youth, but both improve the quality of life in my area, so they both get money from me. The measure of where they fall on my “good/bad” hierarchy is how well they are managed, not based on the type of charity they are.

Perhaps saving lives is more important than saving animals, but the child welfare movement came out of animal protection laws. If you can tolerate reading a poorly designed narrow column of text, read “The Legacy of Mary Ellen” here…http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=edu_resources_america
It could be argued that groups like the ASPCA and child welfare interests are linked in their efforts to work against abuse, neglect and violence in our communities. Folks that I know that work in both fields (the ASPCA and child protective services) certainly seem to think so.

Organizations like PETA are rediculous and would never get my money.

The NAACP and ACLU are good groups but I don't generally support thier ends anymore so I wouldn't be likely to donate much if at all.

The Red Cross, the World Health Orgnization, and the Salvation Army recieve the brunt of my charity money when I can afford to donate. I have in the past donated to the Veterans of Foriegn Wars and to the United Negro College Fund too, amounts of almost $50 at a time.

I wouldn't donate to PETA specifically, but would donate to animal-related charities. I think using them in the poll might throw off the results.

i don't think there really is a hierarchy.
First you must consider that different people find different things important but have limited resources. Most people would probably give to multiple good causes if they could, but often they can't so they have to choose. It's not bad if you have a passion for one specific cause, which might or might not be more important in the greater scheme of things, and don't have time or money to spend on other causes. It's better than doing nothing and more possible than doing everything.
You should also consider that charity isn't always as effective as people wish to think, and that there are other things than paying that you can do to help solve certain problems which are often at least as effective, on long term sometimes even more effective.
Anyway, spend your money on things you find most important and maybe think about other things you could do to help other causes (for instance give money to Greenpeace and volunteer for oxfam if you care about both environment and the third world (which of course have great impact on each other...))

I wouldn't donate to PETA specifically, but would donate to animal-related charities. I think using them in the poll might throw off the results.

part of the reason for the poll (most of the reason) was so that if someone stole the OP they couldn't add something idiotic up there.

I am much more interested in the discussion than whatever random radio button someone clicks.

;)

I usually donate to local charities and tend to shy away from big international charities. In no way, shape or form would I donate to PETA though I have donated to my local animal shelter.

my incoherent point is that wouldn't that money be better spent on a charity that is helping people?

I see no problem with spreading money between charities that help animals and those that help people, although I would personally give more to those that help people.

I would also give to the defense fund of the woman currently on trial for taking a dog away from idiots who were mistreating it. I would have done the same thing, and I would be just as unapologetic.

I usually donate to local charities and tend to shy away from big international charities. In no way, shape or form would I donate to PETA though I have donated to my local animal shelter.

I used to take my dogs to the Humane Society clinic in my city even though it was out of my way because I supported them. Then, they stopped being a no-kill shelter, so I no longer support them.

I usually prefer Doctors Without Borders but I think the next one I donate to will either be Sick Kids, or United Way. Something local that will help the city.

Yeah, I'd rather give to some charities over others... speaking of which, you should all click on that link in my sig. *nods*

So, none of you give money to the homeless you run across?
Never take them for a good meal?
Never take any poor into your home?
Does it all have to be "an official charity"?

So, none of you give money to the homeless you run across?
Never take them for a good meal?
Never take any poor into your home?
Does it all have to be "an official charity"?

I give what I can to homeless people when I encounter one.

No, generally I can't afford one for myself.

I'm not that trusting, I will help them find housing but letting them in my home is a last resort.

No, but the thread seemed to imply that this is what its about.

Remember Remote... I'm the guy who had to stop and think about NOT sending $200 to some woman in Nigeria who I hardly know.

my incoherent point is that wouldn't that money be better spent on a charity that is helping people?

Why?

So, none of you give money to the homeless you run across?
Never take them for a good meal?
Never take any poor into your home?
Does it all have to be "an official charity"?

I always give to homeless people, but I don't classify that as charity, really. It's just spare change.
I get a bit mean though when it comes to musicians... if you play or sing in the street, you'd better either be good or you risk me stealing your money for being loud and annoying.

So, none of you give money to the homeless you run across?
Never take them for a good meal?
Never take any poor into your home?
Does it all have to be "an official charity"?

I don't give them money
I bring them some food instead
Don't take random strangers into my home in general unless I have a good reason
It doesn't have to be an official charity. My parents prefer to spend their money directly and I follow that example

I wouldn't donate to PETA specifically, but would donate to animal-related charities. I think using them in the poll might throw off the results.
Yeah PETA wants to replace animals with vegetables. I like animals so the last thing I'd want to support is someone who wants to get rid of them and replace them. But I could donate to a charity that wants to keep eating and using animals but make sure they are treated well.
So, none of you give money to the homeless you run across?
Never take them for a good meal?
Never take any poor into your home?
Does it all have to be "an official charity"?
Never money, only heavy drug addicts are homeless here so most of the money they get/steal goes to drug dealers. I sometimes buy food coupons to give them or donate to local charities that feed them. But it feels a bit hopeless as they'll still be homeless after receiving food. The government is to blame for that, not even the drug addicts should fall through the security net in a welfare state.

I'm far too bitter and self-absorbed to give money to charity. Frankly, my hair cut, clothes and general happiness matter more.

Yeah PETA wants to replace animals with vegetables. I like animals so the last thing I'd want to support is someone who wants to get rid of them and replace them. But I could donate to a charity that wants to keep eating and using animals but make sure they are treated well.

Never money, only heavy drug addicts are homeless here so most of the money they get/steal goes to drug dealers. I sometimes buy food coupons to give them or donate to local charities that feed them. But it feels a bit hopeless as they'll still be homeless after receiving food. The government is to blame for that, not even the drug addicts should fall through the security net in a welfare state.

How do you suggest you stop them falling back into their old ways even if the government provides rehab

Amnesty has some good points, and puts on a decent concert at OSU every year (booyah Jamnesty! booyah!...PETA on the other hand is just a bunch of whackjobs who think that fish are equal to us, or some nonsense along those lines.

So, none of you give money to the homeless you run across?
Never take them for a good meal?
Never take any poor into your home?
Does it all have to be "an official charity"?

Have you ever tried to buy homeless food? They don't usually want it.

At any rate, giving a homeless person money does not:
* mean they will spend it on food (there was a food voucher program that was instituted in my college town; under half of them were ever turned in for food)
* get them off the streets into permanent housing
* get them to take their psychiatric medications
* get them into rehab

Additionally, homeless people do not have to file forms with the IRS or have open documentation as to where and how they have spent their money. Official charities will, and you should look to make sure that less than 30% of their income is being used for administration. ie at least 70% should be going towards the services and programs they claim to be supporting.

there was a girl at my school who signed the whole school up to amnesty international as a gift, but we all kicked up such a fuss that she had to stop it and make it voluntary. if it had been peta then the school wouldnt even have let her do it in the first place, peta are a bunch of arse.

So when you have long hair, people ask you why you haven't cut it off and given it to Locks of Love. Perhaps I should ask them if they are an organ donor?

The thing is, Locks of Love supposedly gives wigs to kids with no hair. Well, most of their donations they actually sell and only a small number of wigs are actually made. And cancer hair-loss is considered temporary, so you can't get a wig for that. Apparently they make the kids get letters of recommendations and write essays and stuff to get a wig.

And they aren't very forthcoming in their financials.

http://hannah.tedpearson.com/?p=322
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/34753/locks_of_love.html
give some numbers

I don't have a formal priority list, but I guess I could say I have a list in my mind.

I normally give as locally as possible and usually to people oriented rather than animals or arts. Too much of a hassle to check out national and international organizations. I'll leave that to Bill Gates and his buddies.

I also donate a lot of time to organizations locally. I've had to quit a few just out of lack of time. I also live along a rural 4-lane road so I always stop if someone is broke down. Changed a lot of flat tires that way. Faster than AAA.

Worked for many years at MDA summer camps. I feel they spend the money well but it does bring up a conflict in my mind. Through Jerry Lewis they get a massive amount of money---far more than diseases that affect far more people. So should people consider how many people have a disease before they give to that disease or should they give to the best sales scheme?

Everybody has their priorities and that keeps the system going.

I loathe PETA. They're violent, rabble-rousing liars.

Amnesty is somewhat better, but doesn't address the problems I consider important.

The charities I support are like Project Heifer - they give livestock and seed to Third World farmers. Another one gives small, no-interest loans to capitalize small business in Third World countries - loans to be paid back when the business person is able (they have a 94% recovery rate - the money goes back to capitalize more loans). In other words, I support charities that are geared toward making people self-sufficient and not toward making them more dependent. I also support various global health initiatives that help people with vaccinations, prenatal care and dental care.

PETA?

http://www.mtd.com/tasty/

Oh well, I like a good piece of meat, but to call this a charity... :p

I am wary of ranking charities in order of importance, and think that publicity can distort the importance of some causes

Take AIDS....it receives millions of pounds/dollars/euros etc and does really good work - however, many many times more people die of malaria in Africa and that is never mentioned.

I personally don't give to homeless/beggar types as *here comes a stereotype* the are often drunk and would just spend the money on booze. I do however support the NSPCC and charities that I think should be government funded (Lifeboats for Gods sake!! Still a charity!

I don't know how an official hierarchy of charities would work. People could create their own list if they want, and if they think it would benefit them, but I don't like the idea of some critics creating a list, unless it's to do with the effectiveness of the charity or the amount of money that actually goes to the cause.
Speaking of which, I hate those Christian Children's Fund commercials. Not because I think sponsoring children is bad, but because they say "80% of the money given goes to helping children". Why not 100%?
I suppose the case could be made that the other 20% goes to administrating the funds given to the charity. So I propose a different type of charity hierarchy: a group of connected charities of various causes all linked to a separate charity - a charity administrators' charity. This way, 100% of the funds given to each charity can actually go to the cause the charity is meant to fund.

As far as the poll goes, both charities are worthy causes, but both have their shortcomings as well.

Yeah, I'd rather give to some charities over others... speaking of which, you should all click on that link in my sig. *nods*The "on crack" link? ;)

Judging from the amounts donated there is definitely a pecking order for charities. People seem much happier giving to 'attractive' causes - so a fluffy kitten charity is always going to be able to collect more money than one based around helping people with a particular. Even only considering charities aimed at helping people it is always harder to collect money for something like helping people with mental health problems than say anything to do with children. Cuteness seems to be a part of it.

tons of interesting opinions guys! thanks!

I could quote Ghandi on slaughterhouses...a lack of respect for life is the root issue all decent charities are addressing. which is why I've have the Consistent Life Ethic charity linked to in my signature since I started posting on here. to be honest I think the act of people giving and engaging in compassion is almost more important than the results of the giving...everything's going to die anyway, the important thing is how we relate to eachother.

The "on crack" link? ;)

The one with the big red letters. *nods*

okay, not that I am going to say how other people should spend their money (actually I do, often, it's kinda my job to tell people what to do with their money......but I won't do it here)

I was wondering.........do you guys think there should be some hierarchy on charities?

like

'really good cause'
'moderately good cause'
'WTF?!'

I know there are always people who need more than what is around to give......or better stated what is available currently to distribute........but are some things more important than others?

I don't think I am being coherent today........let me start at the beginning.......no, that will take to long.......let me sum up.

I was looking for something else today and I found this site (http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/), and anyway, at first I was like "wow, that's a good thing" and then a few seconds later I was like "but what about all the abused children?"



and anyway, I kinda feel guilty because the charity I previously worked for wasn't top notch on it's user list..........meaning shouldn't we like help the dying instead of the ill?

it's like painting a burning house right?

nevermind.

If anyone can figure out what I am talking about please post! (I wanna know too)

I donate all my money to myself.

My theory is that, if I didn't spend every last cent on my many hedonistic whims, I'd become very upset and begin hurting people. So my greed is a good cause, right?

In all seriousness, I like groups like Hawkwatch, Ducks Unlimited, anything that'll help out my under-appreciated feathered friends.

I donate my money to some cancer groups, doctors without borders, and a few others from time to time.
I donate some time to things like soup kitchens or tutoring programs
I once donated $10 to the ACLU, and for the last 6 years, have not stopped getting mail (they've spent well over the $10 on just sending me stuff after I repeatedly told them I'm not going to give money because they sent me a letter). They no longer get a penny from me, despite the fact that I support them.

I also donated $15 to an environmental group up here because the girl who was doing the solicitations on campus was hot. The down side: I was out $15. The up side: I got a date with her. The down side: she turned out to be not worth the initial $15 or the subsequent date.

I figure that there are good charities. The bad ones are the ones that call endlessly and have names that sound like the good ones. And the American Red Cross is a bad charity to give money to, but I don't mind donating blood.

Church is always a good charity. Ours does a lot more than missionary work. They keep up a food pantry, among other things.

Other good charities have minimal administrative costs. But when it comes down to it, the group you give to is going to have some special meaning for you. I mean, no one can be expected to support everything, but if we all pitch in a little the money will get spread around.

Better we choose who the good charities are, than to leave that task to our government.

Have you ever tried to buy homeless food? They don't usually want it.

At any rate, giving a homeless person money does not:
* mean they will spend it on food (there was a food voucher program that was instituted in my college town; under half of them were ever turned in for food)
* get them off the streets into permanent housing
* get them to take their psychiatric medications
* get them into rehab

Additionally, homeless people do not have to file forms with the IRS or have open documentation as to where and how they have spent their money. Official charities will, and you should look to make sure that less than 30% of their income is being used for administration. ie at least 70% should be going towards the services and programs they claim to be supporting.

I've fed homeless people before without giving them money. I do it about once a week near where I work. Just pick one and take him to lunch.

I've also given them money, and I don't mean pocket change. I've also had them in my home, or bought them a room for the night.

Not all of them are psychiatric patients or drug addicts (although I've also sheltered drug addicts - I've even paid to send some to rehab).

I know where I'm spending my money - even if there isn't an IRS form.

For my money, it's hard to top Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) as a charity. I've given to Amnesty International and OxFam in the past and would do so again in the future, but wouldn't give PETA the back of my hand. They're not wholly corrupt, but they play fast and loose with the facts often enough that I want nothing to do with them.

Well that's pretty much all charities. They're in the sympathy business. Most people don't give on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. Even PBS knows that you don't get people to give money because they know it will keep shows that they want to watch on the air. You get them to give by getting them emotionally engaged.

people have their own priorities.

in the past ive been disturbed by people whose charity priorities are things like the symphony.

then i got over myself.

put all your charity money into the one best charity for your top priority. dont spread it around.

trust other people to do the same with their own top priority and everything is covered as best it can be.

so if this year you have $100 to give and oxfam best represents how you would like that money spent, give it all to them.

no that doesnt get you out of having to support local causes that are important to you like the animal shelter, church or symphony. you give them your time.

my incoherent point is that wouldn't that money be better spent on a charity that is helping people?

I suppose that would depend on the person giving was a fan of humanity or not. Or I guess, which humans the person giving were most sympathetic to.


I'm in agreement with The Nazz about Doctors without Borders.

I personally don't like the majority of charities and feel that if I can personally help someone I know or can work directly with then I can feel better knowing that I accomplished something rather than letting my charity funds go out into the ether not knowing if its payign some guys salary or really helpign someone.

I suppose that would depend on the person giving was a fan of humanity or not. Or I guess, which humans the person giving were most sympathetic to.


I'm in agreement with The Nazz about Doctors without Borders.

I personally don't like the majority of charities and feel that if I can personally help someone I know or can work directly with then I can feel better knowing that I accomplished something rather than letting my charity funds go out into the ether not knowing if its payign some guys salary or really helpign someone.
most of my charitable giving doesn't go to any "big name" charities, in fact the only really "big name" one I donate to is the Southern Baptist Disaster Relief Fund, because I have volunteered with them before and I know it's run in a way that I agree with, also 100% of the money raised goes directly to helping people, every single person is a volunteer. I like that.

Like I said though most of my money goes to local charity type things, like the food bank, and free clinic, and my church.

I don't think it's quite as easy as that, at least not for me, but I express my displeasure with the meat-processing industry, for instance, by not eating meat unless it's raised and slaughtered humanely, which means I've pretty much given up eating meat except at home, and even then it's rare. But my dollars go to human rights organizations.

I wonder how many ethical vegetarians would eat in vitro meat when it is at parity cost with normal meat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meatWikipedia - In vitro meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat)

I wonder how many ethical vegetarians would eat in vitro meat when it is at parity cost with normal meat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meatWikipedia - In vitro meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat)
Surely the cells and whatnot would have come from a killed animal in the first place?

most of my charitable giving doesn't go to any "big name" charities, in fact the only really "big name" one I donate to is the Southern Baptist Disaster Relief Fund, because I have volunteered with them before and I know it's run in a way that I agree with, also 100% of the money raised goes directly to helping people, every single person is a volunteer. I like that.

Like I said though most of my money goes to local charity type things, like the food bank, and free clinic, and my church.

the 100% volunteer thing is pretty awesome.

I help out a few local charities that I like with PC work.

I like helping individuals the most still though.

Surely the cells and whatnot would have come from a killed animal in the first place?

According to the article they are not killed by the extraction.

Argument against - Animals are still used
Animals are still used as tools in multiple steps. For example, current cell and tissue culture almost always use calf or fetal calf serum (or other animal sources, such as pituitary extracts) to provide the growth factors the cells need to signal them to divide. However, animals would not have to be killed in the process, which minimizes the ethical implications of eating meat.

Amnesty International. I don't know much about them, but anything's better than PETA.

And the American Red Cross is a bad charity to give money to, but I don't mind donating blood.

Why is that?

My problem with charities like Amnesty International, PETA, NSPCC etc. is that they don't really do anything - they spend all their money on adverts to get more money, it seems. Or changing public attitudes or something.

However, I still give AI some money.

Why is that?

My problem with charities like Amnesty International, PETA, NSPCC etc. is that they don't really do anything - they spend all their money on adverts to get more money, it seems. Or changing public attitudes or something.

However, I still give AI some money.
The ARC and I go back a few years. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, many donated money to the ARC with the wishes and expectations that it be spent on the survivors of those awful events. The ARC decided that it would rather spend much of the money elsewhere. That enraged many of us who donated money specifically to funds that the ARC had supposedly set up for victim and survivor relief. They relented, but they're never getting a dollar of my money again. But blood is fine. They can't misappropriate that.

According to the article they are not killed by the extraction.
But I'm sure it's not enough for the ultra-veggies though.;)

I could quote Ghandi on slaughterhouses...a lack of respect for life is the root issue all decent charities are addressing. which is why I've have the Consistent Life Ethic charity linked to in my signature since I started posting on here. to be honest I think the act of people giving and engaging in compassion is almost more important than the results of the giving...everything's going to die anyway, the important thing is how we relate to eachother.
But, think of the veggies! How can you justify consuming their reproductive organs?

But I'm sure it's not enough for the ultra-veggies though.;)

I'd say a lot of people a vegetarian for purely ethical reasons and a lot of people who still eat meat would prefer a more ehtical version.

I wonder if the Hindu groups that do not eat meat because of spiritual ethics (such as not killing an animal) would be able to eat in vitro meat?

and anyway, I kinda feel guilty because the charity I previously worked for wasn't top notch on it's user list..........meaning shouldn't we like help the dying instead of the ill?

it's like painting a burning house right?


If anyone can figure out what I am talking about please post! (I wanna know too)

I believe the older people hooked up to machines should be dead. I know they would want it. If hooking up older people to machines is what you mean by helping the dying instead of the ill, I would disagree.