gravid
|
posted on October 26, 2001 02:42:06 PM new
Questions have been raised about the Red Cross' Liberty Fund, set up after the September 11 attacks -- how much will be collected and whether all of it will go to
victims. In an allusion to that criticism, Healy said, "I can assure you, this is no
hurricane, this is no single-family fire fund. Our Liberty Fund is a war fund."
Does anybody else understand what part of that answers the question?
|
rachelcrisscross
|
posted on October 26, 2001 04:23:56 PM new
Nope...
|
Shadowcat
|
posted on October 27, 2001 12:30:01 AM new
I watched the news that had parts of her press conference. She alluded to vehemently opposing using the funds raised for the 11-09-01 attacks for other purposes. Sounded to me like there are those in the organization who can't resist spreading the wealth being donated.
While these groups are busily wrangling over the disposition of the funds and meting out pittances to the victims' and their families, the bulk of the monies are sitting in the banks and gathering a great deal of interest. I wonder who will receive the interest?
|
gravid
|
posted on October 27, 2001 04:15:18 AM new
I am more concerned with who will keep the principal.
If I were homeless etc. from that attack I would ask some hot shot lawyer how he would like to take a shot at prying a half billion dollars out of their grubby little fingers.
I'd rather see the laeyers split it than those vampires at American Red Cross. My Dad never had any use for them since he was in the Army. He said they could not even give a service man a donut without charging him for it despite all the money they recieve.
|
margot
|
posted on October 27, 2001 10:50:49 AM new
gravid: My dad was a WWII GI and he said the same thing about the Red Cross. He even used the same example of having to pay for a donut. It really ticked him off and he never donated a nickel to them as a result.
When large sums of money are involved, greed always shows up. How sad for those who need it and sad for those who gave thinking it would be used in the spirit it was given.
|
Shadowcat
|
posted on October 28, 2001 12:39:03 AM new
My mother related once about how the Red Cross charged for sandwiches after a local disaster. Any time she spoke of the RC, it was with an expression of distaste.
|
ConnieM
|
posted on October 29, 2001 08:29:57 AM new
Well..THANK YOU! This is the absolute first I have heard of people saying this about the RC. Besides my family of course. I have kept my mouth shut about the subject, because people seemed so gung ho to support them during this crisis.
A few years ago, when I was starting in EMS, we had a tornado in a small Texas town where I worked. We were doing the rescue thing in the rain all night, busting our butts. RC shows up and we think "cool!" The RC procedes to try to charge us $1 for a freaking cup of coffee!!! This was rescuers and civilians alike! I was floored, and told my Dad about it. He sighed, and said they did the smae thing to the servicemen in WW2 when he was in the Pacific. My ex-FIL tells me the same damn thing when he was in 'Nam.
The RC doesn't get a dime of my money. Like Dad said, they have the best marketing dept
on the planet. Healy resigning just makes me more suspicious of their operation. I'm also glad that others know about them and how they operate. Trying to explain to someone right now why you won't even give your spare change to the RC gets you some really dirty looks. I think it's probably more PC to kick puppies than to not like the good ol Red Cross right now.
|
gravid
|
posted on October 29, 2001 08:43:40 AM new
The director's job she quit pays $450,000 a year.
First of all that is too much for ANY charity and what would it take to make you quit that?
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on October 29, 2001 08:48:14 AM new
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-redcross-healy.story
|
nebula5
|
posted on October 29, 2001 09:07:16 AM new
During World War II, all English and Australian men in uniform had to pay for off-base food and lodging because voluntary giving (which is characteristic of the U. S.) is not the pattern in other countries. The Red Cross, which has never accepted a dime from the U.S. government (and to this day relies totally on voluntary contributions) was asked to establish club facilities for U.S. servicemen overseas where troops from all allied forces would be welcome. No other voluntary organization was given this responsibility.
The British High Command then made an official request that U.S. servicemen be required to pay for whatever they receive, just as their men had to pay. The Red Cross was adamantly opposed to this concept and protested vehemently. They lost the fight when a "request" came in from Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, on March 20, 1942. His letter was tantamount to a command. (A copy this letter is in your local Red Cross Chapter office.)
Allegations have persisted since WWII that the Red Cross made a profit overseas. Nothing could be further from the truth. The clubs operated at a loss and represented a heavy financial burden to the Red Cross. Moreover, the public image of the Red Cross was badly tarnished when they were forced by Stimson to go along with the British High Command.
|
gravid
|
posted on October 29, 2001 10:18:15 AM new
That is nice - but my Dad's experience was here in the US not over in Europe.
And that does not have anything to do with
relief for hurricanes and other modern events or the fact they charge big bucks for all that blood that is donated. Just does not ring true that it is some government imposed rule for all their activities up to this day.
I am going to be doing some web searching to see what more I can find out about this organization.
|
DoctorBeetle
|
posted on October 29, 2001 11:02:56 AM new
My father was a Marine in WWII and he has told me the same thing. In the states the Red Cross would stick servicemen for every penny they could get. A verbatim quote of his opinion would be deleted by the moderators in nothing flat.
They are definitely missing from my charities list.
Dr. Beetle
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on October 29, 2001 11:11:38 AM new
They claim to have a lot of administration costs... whatever.
But I don't think United Way is any better.
[email protected]
|
