Clara Barton wrote:
Hey f*** giving cash to the Red Cross. We all gave tons of money after 9/11 then the greedy bastards decided they shouldl hold some of that money back for a "rainy day."
If you want to donate to them, give them materials whether it's water, shovels, batteries, whatever. I'll never give them another damn dollar after the way the f***ed up that 9/11 deal.
i'm not sure what you are complaining about. post 9/11 many people, Americans and others, gave millions of dollars to relief organizations such as the Red Cross. additionally, congress set up a fund to provide the families of victims with an average of over a million dollars each. i believe that was unprecedented, and at the least the families of the OK city bombing got nothing from congress.
i suppose i can understand how, from your perspective, you wanted to feel like you were helping in some way by giving money after 9/11. but there is no doubt that the surviving victims and the families of the deceased in 9/11 got far more, on average, in the form of donations and government aid than victims of similar terrorist attacks or natural disasters.
thus, from an organizational perspective, in made a ton of sense for the red cross to hold back some of the money in order to provide for victims of less publicized disasters - both natural and manmade.
think about it - let's say that from all sources a victim of 9/11 received $2 million prior to the red cross distributing the funds it held back (did it actually even hold them back in the end, or was it just proposed?). and that a family whose breadwinner died during one of the many strong hurricanes this past fall would receive $100,000 in aid from the same sources without the red cross using some of the 9/11 donations it received. wouldn't it make sense for the red cross to give some of that money to the family who lost its breadwinner in a hurricane?
or do you think that the family who lost someone in 9/11 is more deserving? what about the families from oklahoma city? if you disagree with my example above, is there any amount of money for which you would agree? what if the red cross received so many post 9/11 donations that each family could have received $1 billion? would the red cross be justified in holding back some of the money then?