Get the message out LOUD and CLEAR: NO MORE GIVING TO CHARITIES

[Atman]

I know this made some of you drop your coffee, but hear me out.

The purpose is NOT to hurt anyone in need of aid. The purpose it to force churches and the Red Cross to OPT-OUT of FEMA's pander-a-thon.

Succinctly put, there simply is no need to give to charities like The Red Cross if they will simply be reimbursed by the U.S. anyway. Essentially, Mr. "No Tax Increase" Bush is levying a substantial new Charity Tax on all Americans except those most able to afford to give, Bush's elite base.

So, we're now expected to give once at the collection jar in the mini-mart, or by mailing a check to orgs like the Red Cross. Then we'll be giving that same money again come tax time. This will make the charitible deduction moot, because the tax money will just be coming from another column on the ledger sheet.

What the fuck is the point? And what is the Red Cross and similar organizations going to do with the money we already gave them if the government simply reimburses them? Will they reimburse us, or does this all turn into a profit making venture for them?

I, for one, will never, ever give to another charity as long as the ridiculous, anti-constitutional FEMA directive is in place. Again, there is simply no point in charity any longer, as BushCo has made charity just another Homeland Security entitlement program.

And hopefully, if enough of us direct this sentiment to our local churches and the Red Cross and anyone expecting a check from FEMA, they will themselves step up and say "NO thank you, Mr. Bush."

Charity only works when it is charity, from the heart. Not when it is just a hidden BushCo tax on those who are not part of his elite 1%.



Please Vote for 1st Amendment Shoppe!
--------

[natrat]

1. fraud is just in there bones

[elehhhhna]

27. tell 'em you gave at the office. because you did.

[elehhhhna]

28. Give to Habitat for Humanity. You KNOW Carter's pet charity won't be

reimbursed. Right?

[Squatch]

2. Research charities before giving to them...

Charity Navigator

[Atman]

5. Thank you.

Good link.

I want to make it clear that I am not talking about giving to local pet shelters or food banks, or even directly to those in need. In fact, those are probably better places to send your money anyway, as BushCo will privitize the large "charity" organizations, and there will be no need to give to them. They can go into the red, deficit-spend just like BushCo does, then submit a bill afterwards. But no more cash-up-front.

[Pool Hall Ace]

13. But the American Red Cross is rated as a 4-star charity.

I question the reliability of the Charity Navigator.

[Squatch]

15. Check out the methodology behind the ratings...

We rate charities by evaluating two broad areas of financial health, their organizational efficiency and their organizational capacity. We use a set of financial ratios or performance categories to rate each of these two areas, and we issue an overall rating that combines the charity's performance in both areas. Our ratings show givers how efficiently we believe a charity will use their support today, and to what extent the charities are growing their programs and services over time. We provide these ratings so that givers can make intelligent giving decisions, and so that the philanthropic community can more effectively monitor itself.

[Greyhound]

20. Their ratings looked suspicious to me so I dug a little deeper.

It (charity navigator) is run almost exclusively by health care executives, and owners of for-profit health care corporations and advertising companies. This goes a long way toward explaining some of their ratings. They love the red cross but hate habitat for humanity. Huge executive salaries? no problem. Spending money to pay the little people that actually get the donations? Terrible, spending all that valuable fund raising time building houses!
Is everything left in amerika a scam?

[Pool Hall Ace]

35. Thank you for your research. Like most of us, I want my charitable

giving to go to organizations that target most of their funds for those in need, not to pay ridiculous salaries. That means nothing goes to the 4-star American Red Cross!

[LifeDuringWartime]

61. operation blessing 4 stars

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4265

[Booster]

30. Thanks for that link. My donations to any charity will from now on

be researched thoroughly, and I will pick just a few - no more Red Cross or any church organization, since I will already have donated to them. Also, no more donations to police, firefighters, etc. which are supposedly paid for by my taxes, again, I already gave to them. I will do this until we get a change of administration and I feel much more comfortable with my donations. This is just ridiculous.

[nashville_brook]

3. you are so right! -- another way bush is making church compulsary

just look at all the narrative about people had close ties to a church being the ones who got out. all the rest were the LEFT BEHIND. now, you KNOW there were plenty of christo-fascists just glubbing in the view of the convention center, imagining those LEFT BEHIND were the sinners -- a spotlight on "the other."

see, this is what happens if you're not on the church bus -- mass rapes, mass murders, rovng bands of looters.

of course these stories were greatly exaggerated and of course even many DUers were seduced by their righteousness.

bushco is just setting up game board so we will fight it out amongst ourselves -- brother against brother -- while the elites, the bush base -- make off with the real loot.

thanks atman. keep your eye on the ball.

[nashville_brook]

4. recommended, btw

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Qualify your slogan or it will backfire. Try "No Reimbursed Charities".

[Atman]

8. It won't backfire if people read the post.

Thanks for your concern, and there is validity to it. But I think the subject needs to be a bit "sensational" in order to attract the attention it deserves. I did qualify it, too, in a subsequent post. Let's see how this plays out first, but I not keen on the idea of softening any more messages. We're in a fight for our very existence as a nation, imo.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. People won't read the post, they'll hear the slogan. Fix the slogan.

[barbaraann]

7. Ted Rall "Charities are for Suckers"

...
Government has been shirking its basic responsibilities since the '80s, when Ronald Reagan sold us his belief that the sick, poor and unlucky should no longer count on "big government" to help them, but should rather live and die at the whim of contributors to private charities. The Katrina disaster, whose total damage estimate has risen from $100 to $125 billion, marks the culmination of Reagan's privatization of despair.
...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050914/cm_ucru/charitiesareforsuckers

[raggedcompany]

32. I couldn't agree more with Rall

Have you looked at your pay stub recently? Have you looked at what the government is spending that money on?

I'll be damned if I'm going to be guilt-tripped into giving money to charities. Every store you walk into. Every goddamned television program--especially sports. Every company I work for. All of them intoning, give to charity or you aren't a caring person, you aren't American.

I've already given money. If our government doesn't use that money properly, if they choose to invest in death and war rather than life and peace, then fuck it. I vote. I write letters to government and media. I march. I do everything I can. I pay taxes I can't even believe. That's enough.

Call me a meanie or whatever you want, but I've given enough.

[hfojvt]

33. that reminds of one time I was watching the news

I think it was in the 1990s. Colin Powell was going around urging people to volunteer. And I said "yeah, because they don't want to pay people to do what they admit needs to be done" and a minute later some Democrat, like Charlie Rangel, was quoted saying about the same thing. And I thought, or said, "thank you Democratic Party!!"
I never have been a big giver to charities, although I have been volunteering my time since the early 1990s. But I got cynical in the early 1990s when the head of United Way, who made about $200,000 annually, was charged with embezzeling and other malfeasance. Then I read a newspaper article where the regional director was not going to send money nationally and it was mentioned that he made $70,000 annually. It just seemed to me that a person making $11,000 a year should not be asked to support the salaries of people making 70K and 200K. I am making more now, but I'll bet they are too.

[China_cat]

9. Why are you so upset?

Don't you get your CHARITY back in the form of a tax deduction?

[Atman]

11. Read the post, please.

And also, don't be lulled into complacency about allowing massive organizations like the Red Cross to be reimbursed simply because you get a small deduction off your taxes. The deduction MUST be put back in another column. The money is going out, it must be replaced.

[China_cat]

24. The Red Cross would not be reimbursed

it is not a 'faith-based' organization. They are talking about the churches and organization such as Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing. I object to this most strenuously.

But the only difference in this proposal and taking a tax deduction for contributions is scale. I don't think it's CHARITY when you know you'll get it back, in whatever form.

[Atman]

25. Red Cross has been expressly mentioned as being reimbursed

right along with the churches.

It was part of the plan FEMA advanced, and I've heard nothing that contradicts that so far.

[kath]

36. but for most people, the tax deduction only saves 15%, and that's only if

they itemize. And, of course, many working people don't itemize.

[Atman]

39. Goodwill gives you blank "receipts"

People who make enough to itemize take their seven trash bags full of old shit to the Goodwill center and grab the receipt so they can get a tax write-off worth 10x more than their moldy liesure suits.

Working Americans donate real money and real services and real time.

It's a generalization, but it's got a lot of truth behind it.

[Lars39]

10. We need to re frame it somehow for the churches...

How would they like to be required by the US government to be in charge of disaster relief for their area?
When you accept government money, the door is wide open for what the government can make you do.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. Exactly. Frame it properly or other side will frame it for you.

[Liberal Dose]

12. Hmm, sounds like I'll be forced to "tithe" now. I wonder who will be in

charge of designing the Christian form of the burkha? Maybe Ashcroft would be willing to scale down a bit.

:wtf:

[xxqqqzme]

21. right -o!

I forgot asscrack designed the 'burka' for blind justice!

[readmoreoften]

16. This is an extremely good point. Recommended.

If churches are 'reimbursed' for the work they do with the donations they get, then they are making a profit off our tax dollars. Then they are government workers with the freedom to proselytize with public funds. I'm so sick of these religious fascists. If their god is so powerful and obvious, then why does he need tax dollars, lobbyists and a marketing campaign?

[JaneGat]

17. Agreed, and this is going to be very problematic for *.

"Tough Questions from Katrina and Rita

Norm Ornstein (Huffington Post)

What will happen to the rest of charitable giving after so much has been given to the victims of Katrina? I still get my pleas each week from the DC Central Kitchen, Bread for the City and So Others May Eat, all fighting hunger in Washington..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-ornstein/tough-questions-from-katr_b_7893.html

:popcorn:

[CornField]

18. I stop monetary giving to Nat'l Organizations a long time ago

I give money and goods to local charities (i.e., those within my own community who keep the stuff here -- Coats for Kids, Food Pantry, Helping Hands, etc.)

The national organizations now only get my talent and time.

[Greyhound]

22. K & R

[Maraya1969]

23. Wait a minute - Charity is one of the top tax deductions for the wealthy

Right?

[elehhhhna]

26. Not once they kill the "Death tax".

[barbaraann]

43. Sort of.

They mostly donate to things like religion, higher education, medicine, right-wing non-profits, etc. in a self-serving manner. Bill Gates, for example, donates a lot of computers and software that use Microsoft software so people get trapped in his web.

[Maraya1969]

53. I'm referring to this statement:

"Bush is levying a substantial new Charity Tax on all Americans except those most able to afford to give, Bush's elite base."

[Hubert Flottz]

51. Why do the wealthy need tax deductions now?

After three Bush tax cuts the wealthy don't need to donate, because they no longer pay taxes!

[UpInArms]

29. it's a way to drain our pockets twice -

once when we give and a second time through the federal deficit (see debt)

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

31. What part of "Non-Profit" doesn't the govt. understand?

Atman, I had the same reaction as yours after reading this news. Church-run organizations are supposed to be not-for-profit. They get tax breaks based on their nonprofit status. They are not supposed to make money, and that's what reimbursement looks like to me.

If issues like gay discrimination and anti-choice activities hadn't already been enough to turn me against faith-based charities, this bullshit would have done it. I will continue to give to local foodbanks and shelters and urge others to do the same.

[Cleita]

34. I've been doing that all along anyway for many of the reasons

that you cite. There are charities I donate to that I know are doing what they claim to do with the money, but mostly I donated to individual causes like when we collected money for Andy.

[osaMABUSh]

37. I haven't given a dime

and I did see one in the mini-mart: an old prretzel jar with something scribbled about Katrina on it. Tell me that guy pushing milk and cigarettes isn't taking a few bucks out of it.

There is no trail of where this money goes. I like to pay taxes so my government can organize and pay for natural disasters. What are we like Amish for every disaster making quilts because we don't believe in inurance?

[Nothing Without Hope]

38. The American Red Cross is NOT a good place to give - LAT exposé:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4878601
Thread title: LA Times: "The Red Cross Money Pit" - The shocking, sorry TRUTH at last!!!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/25/95628/8554
dKos Diary title: LAT exposé: "The Red Cross money pit" - The TRUTH at last!!!

Read the entire op/ed - it is devastating. The dKos version of the story has 233 comments, many of them interesting.

[rniel]

40. You want to really give to charities

Then get rid of the bush tax cuts for the rich and use that money. There's a good start.

[Cookie wookie]

41. I think Salvation Army is

okay. It seemed like they were picking up the ball and doing what needed to be done to help Katrina victims when Red Cross and others weren't.

Red Cross sent a request for help to where I work asking people to donate their time to work 12 hour shifts. It just had a wierd ring to me, thinking about how most people actually have to work and Red Cross has gotten millions donated. Couldn't they pay some of the Katrina victims without jobs to work for them?

Anyway, we had someone at our office whose neighbor housed 5 families from New Orleans and they were getting apartments. They put their requests down (which were so simple and basic, like toothbrushes and shoes....it was sad and touching), and we all brought in what we could or donated directly to the families. We're going to keep track of them to make sure their kids have Thanksgiving and Christmas.

[noamnety]

45. The Salvation Army lobbies against gay rights. (nt)

[Cookie wookie]

58. Didn't know that.

Not good.

[tedzbear]

42. Especially not the American Red Cross!

I gave to the NAACP and The Humane Society of America.

[Spike from MN]

52. I donated to the same organizations you did.

Hmm....great minds think alike. ;)

Oh, and I gave to Second Harvest too. I think they're OK but if anyone has any info on them that says otherwise, please let me know.

[AnnieBW]

44. Give to the Louisiana State Fund

It goes straight to the affected areas of Louisiana. http://louisianahelp.org/

[stickdog]

46. Don't paint all charities with such a broad brush.

There are many worthy charities where 95-98% of your money goes right to help the people who need it.

But I agree with your sentiment about the ridiculous FEMA rules.

[Atman]

47. No one painted anyone with a broad brush...this wasn't about the charities

The good intentions of the charities was not called into question. The finincial and legal implications are the entire gist of my post. While I do not have many kind words for the Red Cross these day, it wasn't even about them. It was the absurdity of reimbursing a charitible organization for doing the very work which makes it a charity. If they are reimbursed for it, it is no longer charity, it is business. There are tax implications, we begin to get into the inevitable cheating on the receipts and invoices; it is the epitome of a Pandora's box.

There are LOTS of charities worth giving to. Many have been listed here, and I applaud those poeple for doing the work they do. But they are already doing the charitible work, and have been for years. Why NOW do they have to be reimbursed, unless for some nefarious reason like vote-buying and pandering by BushCo, in the case of church groups, or outright corruption and payola in the case of the Red Cross, which is aleady a very large business with huge administrative costs and executive salaries which bely its charitible status.

[stickdog]

49. You & I both know why. Our federal tax money is being used for 8 reasons:

1) fill the pockets of BushCo and their oil, finance and defense contracting investors and allies,

2) secure more and more political, military and intelligence power in BushCo's hands,

3) bully, buy off and/or infiltrate any would be domestic opposition groups,

4) neutralize any vestiges of US democracy through Hobson's choices at the ballot box, fraud-o-matic voting machines and corporate media mind control,

5) steal strategic foreign assets and territory while profiteering from both foreign destruction and "rebuilding" missions,

6) militarize and federalize US domestic police forces in anticipation of probable future popular unrest,

7) Latin Americanize the US economy while collecting every possible personal information metric to help keep the middle and lower classes pitted against each other while the US Treasury is being robbed wholesale,

8) support the few remaining federal programs that serve the public interest using obscene credit card debt spending in order to keep the masses asleep at the wheel until the political landscape has been fully transformed in the favor of the Straussian elite.

There are probably a couple more, but that's all I can think of offhand.

[Cookie wookie]

59. Bankrupt the country so that

the way is paved to a military/corporate takeover?

Looks that way to me.

[Pobeka]

48. I gave money to Katrina victims, where is *my* re-imbursment?

Pisses me off to no end, this FEMA tax-money-laundering. This is just oiling the political skids for *'s base, giving them more federal dollars. More of MY money as you said that I already paid in taxes.

[REP]

50. Animal Charities Will Get Squat, Of Course

I continue to support Alley Cat Allies http://alleycat.org

Charity Navigator only gives them 3 stars, but then again, they do very hard work and no one makes a huge salary.

[Maraya1969]

54. This does not include charities like the Humane Society right?

The title is kind of misleading. You are saying not to donate to Red Cross and some other charities that will be reimbursed by the government. The Humane Society and most others are not reimbursed are they?

[Atman]

55. No, please donate to regular "local" charities

Animal shelters and food banks are cool. This is aimed at anyone expecting reimbursement from BushCo for doing the "good work" they're chartered to do anyway.

[Generator]

60. Yes especially because donations to your local places

are especially low because people have been tapped out giving to hurricane relief. I still gave to the local food bank and America's Harvest and Katrina. But next month I think I will just give more to the local food bank-they had a story on the news that the donations are way down.

[pitohui]

56. provide evidence of this "charity tax"

otherwise i am going to feel obliged to lump you in w. the other buttheads who just want to justify themselves for not wanting to help out in this disaster

i have insurance, i'm not asking for a goddamn thing, but there are too many good ppl around here who were told they were in Zone C -- NO FLOOD zone -- and whose insurance agents did not sell them flood insurance, only regular homeowner's insurance, those ppl did everything right, they did exactly what they were advised to do, & now many of them are out of homes, jobs, & everything else

if you don't wanna give, don't

if you don't wanna help out, don't

but how dare you discourage others from giving because you have a chip on the shoulder against the red cross & other charities

[stickdog]

57. Does it make sense to you that FEMA is reimbursing

these charities' hurricane relief efforts with federal deficit spending?