- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Wounded Warrior Program
Posted on 1/27/16 at 12:40 pm to dawg23
Posted on 1/27/16 at 12:40 pm to dawg23
quote:
You probably know more about this than I do, but two other major charities that help war veterans sure seem to have a much better ratio:
* Disabled American Veterans: 96%
* Fisher House: 91%
* Wounded Warrior: 60%
And the Red Cross is around 10%. I'd say 60% is still decent.
0
Posted on 1/27/16 at 12:42 pm to dawg23
quote:
Disabled American Veterans: 96%
I specifically mentioned them - along with the American Red Cross - they have been doing this for decades and already have sustainable income investments.
I also categorized their ratios as not "outstanding" because they're not. But, not wildly unreasonable.
There are some charities - too many - that have 90 to 95 percent of their spending on fundraising and administrative costs. Those are shams. Shells. Pretend.
Often times, celebrities and self-important people set up charities to do a lot of their jetsetting tax free and to "feel good" about their super rich lifestyle.
WWP doesn't seem to fit into this category, but they are not above criticism and improvement.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 12:45 pm to Ace Midnight
I always suspect that anytime one of these foundations gets this popular someone is making some money. However, these amounts reported dont strike me as shocking.
Did CBS happen to give any info on the Clinton Foundation?
Did CBS happen to give any info on the Clinton Foundation?
Posted on 1/27/16 at 12:49 pm to PT24-7
quote:
Did CBS happen to give any info on the Clinton Foundation?
Can't say. Charity Navigator has removed them from the watchlist - so I can't do an apples to apples comparison with the others.
And, I do think the WWP numbers I quoted above are from 2013 or 2014.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 1:03 pm to Ace Midnight
Thanks for the link. It's one thing if the CEO is anti-gun. Its another if the organization has that stance. I mean, I'm sure some physicians at St.Jude are anti-gun, but that doesn't make the organization's mission any less important or critical. I'm not prepared to write off a charity based on the post of someone on a message board- unless they can verify their post (as you did).
Moreover, why punish the vets becasue WWP has a political stance different from mine. I hold my donation back, I don't fundamentally change their board's opinion. I DO hurt the vets.
Moreover, why punish the vets becasue WWP has a political stance different from mine. I hold my donation back, I don't fundamentally change their board's opinion. I DO hurt the vets.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 1:28 pm to dawg23
that's pathetic and now makes 2 charities(red cross and WW) that i've donated several times to that have been exposed
lesson learned, will donate elsewhere
lesson learned, will donate elsewhere
Posted on 1/27/16 at 1:35 pm to dawg23
quote:
You probably know more about this than I do, but two other major charities that help war veterans sure seem to have a much better ratio:
Again, the bigger organizations have much larger expenses/cost as a ratio
WWP used 148 million on programs
quote:
Disabled American Veterans
6 million
quote:
Fisher House
37 million
Now fisher house is large, but they have a different business model as far as raising money.
People chastise some of these companies as being evil empires. Id say anyone who gives 148 million in a year, is not all that bad.
People are free to donate where ever they please.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 3:06 pm to White Bear
quote:
Those celebrity endorsements I'd guess are expensive.
I'd really hope that the celebrities were doing it for free.
I hope the funding stream to WW dries up and people focus on better charities. This is a shame and that CEO ought to be shot.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 3:12 pm to tigerinthebueche
LINK
It is a FB link but it has a string of emails where WWP states they don't want to go on a national radio show because "WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies.".
It is a FB link but it has a string of emails where WWP states they don't want to go on a national radio show because "WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies.".
This post was edited on 1/27/16 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 1/27/16 at 3:14 pm to terriblegreen
You people are acting like a bunch of women. That 26 million the spent on "fundraisers" actually "raised" almost 300 million dollars. This is jotting more than a hit piece by some journalist trying to make a name for themselves.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 3:15 pm to civiltiger07
BOOM
Posted on 1/27/16 at 3:16 pm to terriblegreen
quote:
I hope the funding stream to WW dries up and people focus on better charities. This is a shame and that CEO ought to be shot.
Again, I think the anger is misguided. Do we even know if the story has been verified? Can we get a rebuttal from WW before everyone decides to close their checkbooks? I think a more pragmatic, objective approach is in order until we know if any of this is even true.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 3:22 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Id say anyone who gives 148 million in a year, is not all that bad.
So potentially wasting/stealing only 60 million $$ or so of our money makes it ok??
I gave to WW for the disabled veterans who need the money, not for their civilian hierarchy to party down with when a vet and his/her family in need could be using it for good.
Same ideology has led to the PTB in Washington spending our tax dollars like a drunken sailor...
JMHO
This post was edited on 1/27/16 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 1/27/16 at 3:30 pm to AUTimbo
quote:
So potentially wasting/stealing only 60 million $$ or so of our money makes it ok??
So WW "wastes" more than twice the amount any other charity gives to veterans. And what you call waste makes them the most widely known charity and brings attention to the cause.
quote:
Same ideology has led to the PTB in Washington spending our tax dollars like a drunken sailor...
JMHO
It's not even close. No one forces you to give to WW. You have to give your money to Washington.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 3:36 pm to AUTimbo
quote:
So potentially wasting/stealing only 60 million $$ or so of our money makes it ok??
They wouldnt be able to generate 148 million if they didnt spend money. Besides, the 148 million, they also put away 94 million for future use.
Believe it or not, its hard to raise money for a charity. I am very active in an almost 100% volunteer based charity(one staff accountant) that operates at about 10-12 million a year. It cost quite a bit to host parties and events to get business and big donors to give. People dont like to give money, but they will bitch about charities all day.
Like I stated earlier, if you dont like it, dont give to them. But they still help out in a very significant way
Posted on 1/27/16 at 3:39 pm to AUTimbo
quote:
So potentially wasting/stealing only 60 million $$ or so of our money makes it ok??
Takes money to make money, baw. And it's certainly not stealing, you are literally giving it to them. It's your fault if you don't research before you donate.
This post was edited on 1/27/16 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 1/27/16 at 3:49 pm to DownSouthDave
True that.
Get pretty wired about this topic, since my Pop is a disabled Vietnam Vet.
Not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers ...just venting at what "seems" to be an unacceptable amount of financial waste/greed from a charity I wanted to believe in.
Carry on
Get pretty wired about this topic, since my Pop is a disabled Vietnam Vet.
Not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers ...just venting at what "seems" to be an unacceptable amount of financial waste/greed from a charity I wanted to believe in.
Carry on
Posted on 1/27/16 at 3:49 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
But they still help out in a very significant way
amen. i'm surprised at the reactions around here based on the info thats been presented. It seems more like a mob mentality because they THINK something wrong is being done.
And as all the donations dry up, who will suffer? The vets or the executive board of WWP?
Posted on 1/27/16 at 3:53 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
You people are acting like a bunch of women. That 26 million the spent on "fundraisers" actually "raised" almost 300 million dollars. This is jotting more than a hit piece by some journalist trying to make a name for themselves.
If you actually watched the piece, you can't deny that this CEO is seriously over the top. He repelled into one conference and rode a horse into another one. That's just ridiculous and a waste of money. He certainly could have been a better steward of the money. I know it takes money to make money but he was wasteful. If you have an organization attached to veterans, you better be able to account for the money you spend. He won't even agree to be interviewed.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News