Kevin
The debate isn’t about how much republican Elizabeth Dole got for a salary, but the percent of the income for RedCross that actually goes for aid. I say 10% is waaaaaaay off. 100k is a pretty cheap salary for the president of an organization like the Red Cross. That is chump change. The CEO of an average bank can be 100k.
@jtsanders Not old enough? I watched Jack Parr for heavens sake. You win though, if three people claim they saw it on the Tonight show, even though there is no record or film of it, that’s fine.
Nothing against helping with world relief, but part of the whole problem of not becomming self-sufficient, is the culture and lack of working government. Having to bribe officials to deliver food to starving citizens, and then having it stolen for profit, just seems to point out how low some of these countries have sunk and why they are not more prosperous. Can you imagine this country with those kinds of governments?
Now I will say that I consider myself a reasonably hard worker and good money manager etc. But there were times that if the rug would have been pulled out from under me, it would have been very hard. Had I not had a banker that backed me for a couple years of school, it would have been tough to finish. Even though I paid interest and every penney, I still needed the financing to finish. A company, big or small is no different.
@Bing " officials deliver food to starving citizens"
We do that now. It’s called corporate starvation where the working poor live on food deprivation islands with profits made from the only available food with minimal nutrients and lots of obese contributing additives to keep the yearly income flowing. Yes, we do conduct our selves with a lack of respect for the human condition, and wonder why they can’t be more prosperous. Those selling their version of food certainly are .
This was a good while back,even now I think that is a huge salary,dont imagine there was much effort put forth to acquire that salary(plus the perks) I heard that the 3rd brakelight was called the “Dole” light because she implemented it when she was sec of transpotation-I tend not to take people seriously who gain thier posistions because they are rich.
I still maintain that Red Cross is one of the worst,when I found out how much they charged Hospitals for donated blood,one of the reasons I quit giving blood-do your research ,when you give,give to ones that multiply,rather then fractionalize-Kevin
Kevin, are you suggesting that the Red Cross should do everything on a voluntary basis ? Organizations often hire people with name recognition for the fact…they have name recognition to attract donors. Are you suggesting that “Kevin Mccune” could attract more and richer donors if you worked for free ? Networking works better. Organizations, even non profits do the gazintas. They spend money to get money. We may not like where they originally spend the money. But they don’t spend 90% on Bob Dole’s wife.
Free blood donations are not free for the users. It cost money for collection, testing storage and transportation and distribution. The hospital bill you get for blood includes their fee too. Everyone over charges because of the so called “free” cost for the uninsured. Got an answer for that ? Because the only one option is to let them die, including a very well to do neighbor’s daughter who was uninsured. You are paying for their care through Medicaid which is under funded. So you pay the difference through your bill.
Do you pay for high salaries ? Sure. The amounts just boggle the mind for the average Joe. Health insurance company CEOs and other for profit entities. Look there for the real money lost in healthcare !
“I still maintain that Red Cross is one of the worst, when I found out how much they charged Hospitals for donated blood”
It’s not just hospitals, Kevin.
One of the most shameful episodes of which I am aware goes back to the Vietnam War, when The American Red Cross charged our soldiers $40 per unit of blood if they needed a transfusion.
When my brother arrived in Vietnam, one of the main things that his CO emphasized was to always have at least two $20 bills with you at all times, in the event that you were wounded, because it was necessary to pay Red Cross workers on the spot for blood–which had been donated to The Red Cross. No money, no blood. Nice, huh?
Charging WW II combat soldiers for hot coffee and donuts was bad enough, but, charging seriously wounded men for blood? That has to be an all-time low in the spirit of charity. Is it any wonder that so many US Army veterans get semi-violent at the mention of The Red Cross?
@dagosa Barry Goldwater has been dead for many years. The UNICEF data comes from several reliable sources and is very recent.
I belong to a local charity organization that works entirely voluntary, has no overhead in the form of buildings and works by phone and internet. It’s run by the father of a well known athlete who loves to give back to the community. We are 200 volunteers who network and post items which we or our friends want to part with. We also learn of people in need who many need specific items. It’s more fun than having a garage sale.
I have to agree that the Red Cross, although not a model of efficieny, is one of the better aid organizations, and relatively free of corruption, which seems to plague most UN organizations. My niece volunteerd to do some work in Haiti and was appalled by the waste and inefficiency after the earthquake.
Aid by churches is very effective, and as much as 96% of what you give actually gets to those that need it.
@VDC
That’s just a sample of how everyone involved in healthcare service often uses the situation to profit. No one, not even a soldier on the front lines is immune to healthcare costs. Until we go to single payer healthcare for citizens and fully fund health services for our soldiers, their families and veterans, we will always have sad situations. But…One question; during Vietnam, if the soldier did not have the $40, was he allowed to die ? I worked in a hospital during the Vietnam war. The amount of blood transfusion required by the wounded can be massive in total and it had a big effect on the availability of blood in general. I can’t imagine $40 having any effect on that used for some of the severely wounded.
Well @Doc…
I told you my feeling about using a political entity like the UN for charitable distribution. Politics is an important part of any help provided to nations. But we owe it to our tax payer donors to do it in the most effective way. That is not handing money over to the UN. It should be as I feel we primarily do. Provide the service ourselves. Red Cross and other organizations should be that arm.
Well Dag I understand that, but I volunteered to give my blood(cost me time and money to do that) when I give Blood it makes me feel like I’m strangling,but aside from that the Nurses where I used to give Blood were very inept and to my horror I could see them contaminating a sterile field.I kind of wish the local hospital would accept “free” Blood,By the way there are places where you can actually sale your Blood or Plasma.
I’m not blasting Liz,but I learned a long time ago,to stop taking the good ol’ boy network seriously-
@Dag,you are right,we need to stop feeding the armies of repressive regimes-Kevin
Based on the pro GM bailout argument so far…then our country should be ashamed of itself…
For not bailing out Texaco (filed for bankruptcy before being bought out by Exxon).
Or Pacific Electric and Gas - It wasn’t their fault that their industry was deregulated and they were forced to file bankruptcy in 2001.
How could we possible let a multi-billion dollar company like Enron file for Bankruptcy. We should be ashamed!!!
It wasn’t Woolworth’s fault that people wanted to do most of their shopping in Malls. So the US should have stepped in and helped out this obviously mistreated company from filing bankruptcy.
WorldCom - They made a simple ($100 BILLION) accounting error. It’s not their fault. Those 55,000 employees were paid very good salaries and contributed greatly to our economy. Why didn’t we bail them out?
I’m appalled. We as tax payers should be shouting from the roof-tops that our government didn’t step in and bail out these companies with our hard earned money.
Completely different issues, mike.
Completely different issues, mike.
HOW???.. I suggest you actually look into it before you make that assessment.
@dagosa I have a correction to make. Only 5 cents of every dollar you give to UNICEF goes to the kids. For the others, the March of Dimes has 9 dimes of every dollar given marching into the organization’s expenses and one dime to the cause.
The Red Cross CEO makes $651,957 plus expenses. United Way president gets $375,000 plus numerous expenses, Mark Curran of Goodwill gets only $2.3 million!! per year after you donate all that free stuff. And nothing is given away; you have to pay for the stuff you get from their stores. By contrast the Salvation Army Commissioner get a whole $13,000!! per year; 96% of all your donations get to the needy.
All the American Legion and Veterans Association leaders get no salary and all donations go to vets. Similar with Lions Club International.
I know whos going to get my donations from now on,actually dropped some stuff off there yesterday-Thank you-Doc-Kevin
Well @Doc
Considering your figures, that makes our federal govt. pretty efficient when it comes giving aid to GM. About 80%. And, I still don’t get how you don’t understand that money goes back into the economy. That is different from sending monies to organizations to do charitable work overseas. Even if it is efficiently spent, much of it goes directly into the economy of another nation. What part about bailing out Amerucan countries with monies to be spent in the US, just like we give preferential treatment to Raytheon and Boeing instead of taking lower bids from the French to build our next generation of refueling tankers don’t some conservatives get. Infrastructure, education etc. and strategic businesses ( GM Allison transmissions are a big item for land forces) as well as industrial diesels for military use meet our needs. When in bankrupcy, assets are frozen for a considerable amount of time. So no, for GM, that was an unacceptable option.
Dag, IMHO your belief that of the federal government had not taken that money out of the general funds it would not have gone back into the economy is incorrect. It could have been used to reduce our deficit (a definite benefit), used to support our military (all of which ends up back in our economy), or used for other purposes here at home. The economic activity in the automotive segment is determined by the demand, and the demand was not increased one iota by the bailout. Nor is there any evidence that the bailout prevented the demand from decreasing.
I should remind you that Toyota and Honda could have picked up the reductions in volume from GM’s shrinking (which would have been the likely result of their bankruptcy without the bailout) and done it using U.S facilities and employees. GM would likely have come out a far more efficient producer.
I should also remind you that one of my biggest gripes with the bailout was that it simply is not, IMHO, a valid reason for taxation…or for not reducing our deficit.
I think that you have been the “victim” of a bogus e-mail that has been circulating for many years, and the information in your post is no more accurate than it was when that bogus “spam” e-mail began circulating many years ago.
If you want to read a well-researched analysis of that bogus “spam” info, take a look at:
Trust me, reality is VERY different from the “info” that you posted.
@Same
I posted this on another thread over the same topic…p[lease look at why the money was spent as it was. BTW No president has reduced the deficit from the previous president more then THIS one. Not investing the 10 billion would have increased the deficit. Just to show you how spending reduces the deficit, earlier I posted a letter from The house majority leader to the CBO asking them to estimate the cost of NOT HAVING OBAMACARE. Not going through with it would raise the deficit by 106 Billion dollars over the coming years. Another example how “investing” in people saves tax payer money.
BTW.There were strict guild lines on what the money was to be spent for so it would go back into the economy . why don’t you think that does not go back into the economy…it certainly didn’t go in mass to the Cayman Islands…
GM bailout:
First, it wasn’t an Obama plan. It was made and also approved under Bush, passed by congress and signed into law by Obama.
Secondly; we were going through a recession at the time.
Third; If you look at the number of jobs saved and to number of jobs created, it was worth the $78 it cost each tax payer spread out over several years
It was not a Rep vs Dem issue as Faux News listeners would have you believe. It was an attempt to save jobs in a strategically important industry at a very critical time; and MOST went along with it…for $78 spread out over several years.
Fouth: bankruptcy was considered, but again, do to the timing of the recession was set aside.
In November 2008, the three major U.S. auto industry companies – GM, Chrysler and Ford – asked the government for a $50 billion bailout to avoid bankruptcy. The Big 3 stated that their demise would trigger three million layoffs within a year, plunging the economy further into recession. Ford didn’t really need the funds, but asked to be included so it wouldn’t suffer by competing with subsidized companies. Congress initially refused, saying that the automakers needed to fine tune their request.
The Big Three came back in December 2008 with a request for $35 billion. Congress opposed the bailout, saying U.S. automakers brought their near-bankruptcy on themselves by not retooling for an energy efficient era, reducing their competitiveness in the global market. Congress first explored whether a planned bankruptcy reorganization was the best alternative for the companies, but realized that would take too long to implement. Congress was divided on whether to use the $700 billion bailout funds, instead of the $25 billion available from an Energy Department energy-efficient loan program. President Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson ultimately agreed to the bailout.
Five years later, the government recovered $54.6 billion as of the end of October 2013. In return, more than 340,000 jobs were created by GM and Chrysler since June 2009,
So, then, Dag, you believe the federal government is right in using our tax dollars to bail out failing private enterprises, as long as they’re big enough? Where would you draw the line on that? Ay what point do you think it will become too much?
With respect, your post is a list of the same twisted facts and verbal “pea under the shell” illusions that have been used by the Democratic party since day one to justify the bailout, including blaming Bush because the idea (passed into legislation and signed into law under Obama) originated during the Bush administration.
I’m clearly aware of Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke’s contributions. They were also the masterminds behind the financial community bailouts. Their actions in their positions, using their respective positions to allocate tax dollars to protect large organizations with whom they had ties from the consequences of their actions, were IMHO reprehensible. And highly damaging to the economy in the long run.
I’m tired as I write this. And bit irritable due to a cold. But I stand behind everything I’ve said.