I've seen that in real life. 2 women were raising money for this cancer kids charity, in their defense they did help a lot of kids but my wife noticed that they had extremely luxurious houses, kids in private schools that I can't afford and one of the woman's husband is not even working while the other had an average paying job.
Is easy to take your share when the sums are large enough and you can set your own salary without having to make a profit, problem in the article is that they appear to have taken most of the money from the charity.
The "CEO" of the Good Shepherd Soup Kitchen in Ottawa that created the fake hoax about the Freedom Convoy truckers stealing food from the homeless, makes 140k a year and only 26% of the charity's revenues ever reaches the downtrodden.
26% of the charity's revenues ever reaches the downtrodden.
26% go to programs. There's not even a guarantee that it reaches anyone in need. Programs have a wide latitude, things like "free job training" and "life skills coaching" are valid 'programs' that don't help anyone other than the person paid to put them on.
It works in small scale too. Couple weeks ago I volunteered at a parish to process (categorize) donated clothing before distribution. The married women there would occasionally take something nice and separate it for themselves or their family. When you're doing ”a good deed” it's easier to justify some things to yourself.
many charities keep 80-90% of the incoming money for "operational costs", which really what they mean by that is payments to the top executives, pittance of salaries to the lower workers who organize volunteer labor, and a shitload spent on extravagant events designed to bring in more money for more extravagant events for the top executives.
and then they hide it all in PR releases with weasel words and accounting tricks. for example, Red Cross raised something $500m with the haitian earthquakes. they claim they spent over 90% on aid, but by their own admissions, it doesn't even crack $350m, they refuse any sort of accounting on the projects, and the spending is wildly more than what any normal estimate would be for those levels of services, even in a disaster zone. whistleblowers admitted tons of money is spent on marketing donation requests, and then they stockpile it into the endowment, only spending dividends. this is how their CEO gets paid over a half million in salary every year, on top of all the ridiculous perks.
This kind of 'feed the hungry NGO' corruption is something pretty well established here in the third world. NGOs are part of the political landscape in South America, and even though the founders and "CEOs" of the more famous nonprofits are all strangely well off, the media still portraits them as saints. Sad to see it becoming a thing in the US.
It was probably always a thing in the states, but now people are finally waking up.
The fact that we have homeless camps on our very doorstep and yet are sending money to Africa where the Warlords will just steal it is telling as to how futile charity organizations really are.
Non profit organizations are really difficult to keep non-corrupted.
I've seen that in real life. 2 women were raising money for this cancer kids charity, in their defense they did help a lot of kids but my wife noticed that they had extremely luxurious houses, kids in private schools that I can't afford and one of the woman's husband is not even working while the other had an average paying job.
Is easy to take your share when the sums are large enough and you can set your own salary without having to make a profit, problem in the article is that they appear to have taken most of the money from the charity.
The "CEO" of the Good Shepherd Soup Kitchen in Ottawa that created the fake hoax about the Freedom Convoy truckers stealing food from the homeless, makes 140k a year and only 26% of the charity's revenues ever reaches the downtrodden.
26% go to programs. There's not even a guarantee that it reaches anyone in need. Programs have a wide latitude, things like "free job training" and "life skills coaching" are valid 'programs' that don't help anyone other than the person paid to put them on.
Excellent point
It works in small scale too. Couple weeks ago I volunteered at a parish to process (categorize) donated clothing before distribution. The married women there would occasionally take something nice and separate it for themselves or their family. When you're doing ”a good deed” it's easier to justify some things to yourself.
You see that with rich jews during the day ... they're donating to children's causes too ... because they're busy raping them at night.
Ironically I'd always do the opposite. I'd take the shit not worth giving for gym clothes or shop towels
many charities keep 80-90% of the incoming money for "operational costs", which really what they mean by that is payments to the top executives, pittance of salaries to the lower workers who organize volunteer labor, and a shitload spent on extravagant events designed to bring in more money for more extravagant events for the top executives.
and then they hide it all in PR releases with weasel words and accounting tricks. for example, Red Cross raised something $500m with the haitian earthquakes. they claim they spent over 90% on aid, but by their own admissions, it doesn't even crack $350m, they refuse any sort of accounting on the projects, and the spending is wildly more than what any normal estimate would be for those levels of services, even in a disaster zone. whistleblowers admitted tons of money is spent on marketing donation requests, and then they stockpile it into the endowment, only spending dividends. this is how their CEO gets paid over a half million in salary every year, on top of all the ridiculous perks.
I always assume non profits are shady and most likely money laundering fronts.
Especially if they're receiving public funds. Most of that is just getting kicked back to the politicians that created the bill to fund it.
charities can legally keep like 98% of their donations.
It's all a scam.
Time + Money will always end in corruption. Always. It's just a matter of catching it when it occurs and squashing it and starting over.
Its almost like the authority to spend unearned resources inevitably leads to corruption
Wow, imagine that.
Well, the FBI would know first hand about doing things that waste money.
Happens literally every time a government program handing out money is created. Every. Time.
People in government exploiting emergency funding for own personal gain? Well duh, who didn't see this coming? I sleep.
FBI actually did their job: Real shit?!
This kind of 'feed the hungry NGO' corruption is something pretty well established here in the third world. NGOs are part of the political landscape in South America, and even though the founders and "CEOs" of the more famous nonprofits are all strangely well off, the media still portraits them as saints. Sad to see it becoming a thing in the US.
It was probably always a thing in the states, but now people are finally waking up.
The fact that we have homeless camps on our very doorstep and yet are sending money to Africa where the Warlords will just steal it is telling as to how futile charity organizations really are.
If you want something done right, do it yourself.
The problem with those types of charity is that money often isn't the core issue.
You can dig a dozen rivers, but if the horse refuses to drink...
And this is why I absolutely hate Non-profits.
names and addresses, please
https://www.feedingourfuturemn.org/
can't find a single name or face on the site whatsoever
guess where they are hosted, Wix, out of israel.
Registrant State/Province: FL Registrant Country: US Name Server: NS8.WIXDNS.NET
What are the chances, fbi agents watching this, better be careful your bosses may cancel this investigation or offer you a cut.
so get the money back. bleed them dry.
Stop the lies! Stop the hate! Nigger Lives Matter!
Those grifters needed that money more than some stupid poor kids. How dare you say otherwise!
Were the programs ran by BLM? Sounds like their kind of grift.
They were great investments. But they have no right doing that