Stop it? I know what you meant. It's not worth arguing. My point was that this man is doing something honorable and noble, yet all we seem to be able to do is criticize him. Seems like cynicism has eclipsed selflessness as a more sensible approach to living. Pretty sad. What is even more sad is that the implications of the criticism and cynicism seem to be apathy. It's easier to do nothing and say, "Well, nothing can be done," than it is to do something and risk failure.
Major: If donors understand who and what they are giving for, there is no issue. Homeless shelters help people who will live on the streets for the remainder of their lives and they are still able to maintain donors and non-profit status. Agreed, but those homeless shelters are clearly using those donations to help the poor. The problem here is that the site says that you can donate and help people cover their daily needs (this is good) but then turns around and states that he has no quality control system. So, in reality, your donation that you intended for someone really in need may very well go to a criminal, and there's no system in place to even TRY to prevent this. In fact, he's even stated that he's not going to try to deter these people and "if they can live with themselves", they'll be able to do it. Does no one else think this is problematic? If I donate money to the Make-a-Wish Foundation (my favorite charity), and they the go out and help some healthy kid of a multi-millionaire family attend a baseball game, I'm going to be pissed <I>because that's not what I donated money for</I>. Of course, Make-a-Wish has a quality-control system in place to make sure they are actually helping needy people. This site doesn't have any such thing. Let's say it turns out half of what people are donating ends up going to criminals. Is that really in anyone's best interests? Even if this guy is not trying to scam people (and he certainly has good intentions), he may very well be facilitating fraud and helping make it easier to criminals to commit fraud.
Jeff, I don't think there's anything wrong with what he's doing. I'm not criticizing him; I'm criticizing the behavior that gets a lot of people into the kind of trouble he's talking about because I've been there myself. His site will undoubtedly help a number of people who really need it. It will also probably help a lot of irresponsible people instead of getting them into the kind of trouble that will teach them to be responsible. It worked for me.
What is even more sad is that the implications of the criticism and cynicism seem to be apathy. It's easier to do nothing and say, "Well, nothing can be done," than it is to do something and risk failure. No one's criticizing his intentions or for trying to make it work. But not everything that is done with good intentions is a good thing, nor is it always done right. If we don't criticize things when we see potential problems, then we're basically creating a recipe for failure.
BTW, you two, I'm fairly certain none of us has ever truly lived on a low wage income. Given the fact that we all are college educated and have living familes, we always had some type of safety net. Not everyone has that advantage. Plus, you guys get too damn hyper taking all this stuff so personally. Don't get so bent out of shape. We are priveleged people sitting around discussing **** on a bulletin board. Life can't be that bad!
I think the point Jeff is making is that if you give to this organization, you've got to know that there is a chance for fraud, so you shouldn't really take issue if fraud does occur because you knew the risk when donating money.
You're right-- I took that whole "typical not knowing what the **** your talking about response" too personally. That could have meant anybody.
BK: You know I love you, man, but let's be honest here. Was there ever a time when you were a single parent without an education or family who had no health insurance and no real prospects for the future? Maybe I'm wrong and, if I am, I apologize in advance. But, it seems like there is a difference between you or I struggling and someone truly in need. I think many of us struggled with our finances. I bounced checks, lived off of Top Ramen and macaroni and cheese when I bought too much music gear and got myself into plenty of debt. But, I never honestly thought that I couldn't go back home and get help when I needed it. Major: I understand what you mean about criticizing things to make them better. I'm just not sure that makes a lot of sense unless we actually intend to make the changes ourselves. I mean, are you going to help him organize his business or start a foundation of your own? It's pretty easy to criticize when you aren't going to do anything to help in that situation.
That's an outstanding point. Maybe that's why he went on TV. I did see an interesting story about a woman who saved for 6 months to get a computer and internet access so she could apply for college loans and scholarships. She worked 3 jobs and had 2 daughters under the age of 5. She finally did get into school and continued to work the 3 jobs while she studied at night. I wonder how she is doing now.
I mean, are you going to help him organize his business or start a foundation of your own? It's pretty easy to criticize when you aren't going to do anything to help in that situation. No, because I'm not sure of a good solution to this for one thing. This is one reason that nation-wide charities tend to have infrustructure. He could do just as much good if he did this in whatever city he lives in and could actually meet with these people, etc. The problem here is that if half the money that donated to him goes to fraud, then he's actually *hurting* the entire charity system. If he'd put a disclaimer of some sort that "some of your funds may be accidentally given to criminals", I'd have no problem with it. People can obviously choose to do what they want with their money, and if they are willing to take the risk, great. However, that's not the case. Unless you look deep into the FAQs on the site, there's no way to know he has no way to check the validity of the requests. I think many reasonable people would assume that if they donate, the money would be going to help people in need. Some of the people donating might donate elsewhere if they knew that a chunk of their money might be being wasted on criminals, and in that respect, people who could be getting help ARE getting hurt by this system.
Another problem is that if we find out, say next year, that this charity was being abused and hundreds of thousands of dollars went to criminals, it makes people less likely to donate to small charities in the future. Badly run charities, in my opinion, can do more harm than good. I'm not saying this one definitely is badly run, but I think its current setup does open up many questions.
Major: I understand what you are saying but it sounds more like you are looking for reasons why this will not work than why it will. I'd prefer to think that this will spawn not only help for those who need it but also other charitable organizations that will help as well. He is giving an example to people that they CAN do something to help if they so choose. Intention is absolutely important. I understand that not everything always works they way we'd like it to but not taking the risk is worse than trying and failing. If everyone did that, there wouldn't be any charities. There are plenty of businesses where fraud is rampant, yet people keep going into business. Pyramid schemes have existed for decades yet some people keep investing in them. Criminals commit crimes everyday, yet somehow we manage to keep living our lives. I am the first person to admit that I am one of the worst when it comes to overanalyzing details, but there are times when you just have to do something you think is worthwhile and accept the risks that come with it. Better to do that than not do anything.
