bringing humanity back

Status
Not open for further replies.

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
I'm on the fence about getting shot at or getting blown up by IED's. Maybe if we can cherry-pick about what support we are willing to give to vets returning from war, it's reasonable for vets to cherry-pick which dangers they are willing to face. "OK, we'll man checkpoints in rear areas, but we won't travel through areas known to have IED's." Seems fair, right?
Oh what a utopia you have in your mind. Do you think it's proper for the President of the U.S. to beg each and every person to go to an assignment? I'm sure they are called "orders". Do you remember when Clinton sent troops into Bosina as part of a U.N. Mission? There was one young soldier who "refused" an order to wear the Blue UN cover. He was court martialed. They are not "invitations".

I don't think any veteran on this board got an "invitation" to any tour of duty. Some assignments were more hazardous than others.

I don't think it was right when a disease like leukemia can crop up 20 years afterwards and you were never informed of that danger. I have a shipmate who contracted leukemia from being irradiated. I can tell you one unit had 3 rems per hour in an area near the finals in that transmitter and I have posted the video of some recent measurements. By the way, of that crew all but one has died and when the disease was diagnosed, they were well within the norms for the population. It took a long time before the source was recognized.

Veterans earn what they get. They signed on the line and followed the orders. They must determine what is a lawful order or not, and suffer whatever consequences occur if they are wrong.

22 year veteran sends.

p.s. I will agree that in stolen valor issues and in money scams, public perception of veterans are the victims of criminal elements of society at large. However, the U.S. Courts have struck down a lot of the "stolen valor" cases that were prosecuted as it said it was a "first amendment right" to lie about one's service to the country.

on edit:
@Brownout
Giving is one of the most moral things a person can do, if not the most moral.
Agreed. However, charitable giving from your pocket to someone else is not the same as taxing you to give to someone else. There is no need to federalize everything, yet we continue to do so.

My most recent act of kindness was I gave someone some cash. He told me his name, told me about the situation he was in, and I proceeded to act on good faith that his story was true.

The last one involving a veteran, was at a gas pump in AZ. I was wearing my CG Veteran cover at the time and he approached me. He showed me his VA card. I had not asked for proof, but he told me about his time in the Navy and stated he needed some cash for gas. In my pocket was cash I was planning to lose in Las Vegas, so I took some money out and handed it to him. Even though he said he would repay me, and I texted my address to his phone, he must have forgotten. I could have went another route and just paid for his gas on my card, but I chose the cash route. Like I said, it was money I planned to lose in Vegas, so, it's still a loss, and a slight loss of faith in humanity.

My wife told me she bought some homeless man a meal ... she got a to go order and handed it to him.
 
Last edited:

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
@ronv

In the Annual Combined Federal Campaign brochure, they always have the "administrative" costs with each listed charity. Then you can choose whichever one you want to contribute that meet your standards.

I have no problem with people supporting the charity they want to support.

At the bottom of this page, you will find that 88.6 percent of your dollar goes towards the stated goals. Also mentioned is no taxpayer money is used to pay the staff. Of course if you designated where your money goes, by law, it is required to go to that specific area.
 
Last edited:

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
@ronv

In the Annual Combined Federal Campaign brochure, they always have the "administrative" costs with each listed charity. Then you can choose whichever one you want to contribute that meet your standards.

I have no problem with people supporting the charity they want to support.

At the bottom of this page, you will find that 88.6 percent of your dollar goes towards the stated goals. Also mentioned is no taxpayer money is used to pay the staff. Of course if you designated where your money goes, by law, it is required to go to that specific area.
Seems good, but the problem is that it is grass roots. Maybe what we need is some like Gates and Clinton getting big chunks, but for America.
The thing I like about the approach is that it puts people to work. I think it could work for homeless vets with some creative thinking. They know the problem and a job helping others with the same problem would help them recover and help others.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
The problem will always be political. The tax law allows you to donate, and claim that donation once you exceed the standard deduction for your filing status. In fact, you can donate up to 50 percent of your income.

There are plenty of opportunity for people to give their money away ... from crowd funding sites to the millions of charities out there. If you want some charity to get BIG chunks, you can promote it until you get enough people where Big chunks can be available. Therein lies the problem. Who should decide who get's "big chunks".

Think about 7 percent of 100 million dollars. That avails 7 million to the administrative expenses. When does the 7 percent become too much?
 

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
The problem will always be political. The tax law allows you to donate, and claim that donation once you exceed the standard deduction for your filing status. In fact, you can donate up to 50 percent of your income.

There are plenty of opportunity for people to give their money away ... from crowd funding sites to the millions of charities out there. If you want some charity to get BIG chunks, you can promote it until you get enough people where Big chunks can be available. Therein lies the problem. Who should decide who get's "big chunks".

Think about 7 percent of 100 million dollars. That avails 7 million to the administrative expenses. When does the 7 percent become too much?
You know what they say about robbing banks.
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
5,237
And what does your mind say about how much of their money goes to charitable use?
My mind says that there are enough doubts about the purpose, activities, directors, participants, and conflicts of interest of the fund to steer clear of it. For one who is philanthropically minded (not me!), there are plenty of other far more transparent charities that perform far more obvious, and demonstrable, good than the Clinton Foundation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top