quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact


To answer your original question, no I wouldn't because I don't know you personally and have no idea of what the criteria would be (other than what you mentioned) for the selection process of who would receive the funds next Christmas.

If you really are serious about starting something like this up, I do know someone who can help advise you.  His name is KinkMasterDave on this site and can be found by going through My friends list on My profile.  I'm not sure of how often he visits CM these days, but I'll be happy to act as a go between if needed.  This is the gentleman who set up the Leather Angel's Fund in the Atlanta area and every year they 'adopt' a family in need to help at Christmas.  He has plenty of experience with non profit status, etc that you may need for your project.  The Leather Angel's Fund folks most recently had a booth at Twisted Toyland in Atlanta just a couple of weeks ago and to My knowledge are still going strong.

I should mention that LAF was started in the kink community and has always had ties within it, so I can't particularly agree with you that such connections are bad for a charity. 

Feel free to contact Me on the other side and I'll be more than happy to answer any questions that you might have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissBeautiful2U

It is not paranoia... there are a lot of scams out there.  And my response had Nothing to do with my level of trust for you or the fact that I first encountered you on a kinky site.  If I heard about something like this on the local news, there is no way I would donate.  I just wouldn't.  I am sure there would be some who would.  But, my guess is it would not be most people.

The idea behind it seems good, but I would never trust it to be legit and not a scam... regardless of where I encountered it.  When/if you do pursue this, keep that in mind and confront that fear in your marketing of the project.  I wish you the best.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

In a word no. Discounting any trust issues, let's assume there is 100% accountability and you are fair and honest. I don't think the whole idea is structured quite right. I think when we the donors pull out of our pockets collectively, that power should be used for more than the betterment of one. I think we could make more difference by other actions, up to and including the hiring of lobbyists. Something like that could have a positive effect for many if not all. Purchasing power is not something to be abused.

I am still thinking about the structure. The important bit to me is that the amount received should be substantial enough to escape poverty, not just get by to the next month. And I didn't fully express myself really earlier, the goal is not necessarily to just to plop a million in a homeless guys lap, but rather to build up people that would contribute back if they were successful.

To a large degree that is why a few would do the vetting process to ensure that the person getting the "present" would actually use it productively. Poor doesn't necessarily translate to "worthy". There are lot's of people I wouldn't give a dime to. If done Democratically then one runs the risk of a well written sob story winning.

Example of a good candidate:
A couple lost their business because their kid got cancer, and they lost money dumping everything they had into treating their child. They struggled eventually losing everything. However, you could look at their history and see they were competent business people beforehand.

Example:
Kid is about to have to drop out of college he is making good grades, but his dad got laid off, and the mothers hours are getting cut back. So, he's planning on leaving for a year to help support the family.

Bad Example: (Exempt from Present)
Raging Alcholic lost everything lives on street.

Bad Example:
Person living on Welfare and off parents for 8 years, has no solid work history.

Bad Example:
Addicts, Repeat Felons, Leeches,  whiny babies(adults, that always complaining why they can't do something).


Unless this is a quite large operation I think it wise to forget about the really high hopes, such as grooming a future President or any other pie in the sky notions.

No, the notion is to put good people into a better position so they can themselves eventually do good things. As in help someone with a business, help someone get an education. Help someone that is economically fucked up for a fucked up reason.

But then people can do what they want with their money and I have no objection to helping people, I just do it more directly. First of all you cut out the middleman and it's cheaper and more effective. In this case if you want to donate the time and resources to set it up, that is likewise your perogative.

The problem that I, among others that might prove to be a problem is in the choice of the recipient(gr). Perhaps the democratic process would be appropriate for such a project. Optimally this would entail that all donors can submit candidates for contention for the money. All donors would vote, and their vote weighed by their donation amount, or not........ that itself would be something to figure out in the beginning. Just because you can afford more your vote should have more weight ? That is something to decide up front for sure.

A good compromise might be to let the community vote on the top ten potential candidates. Then a real vetting process would take over.

However your plan in it's current form is not going to attract alot of donors. No matter what the money is used for people all have their own notion where it should go. Possibly the best attraction for possible donors would be the democratic selection of the recipient. What other charity offers that choice, or even a say in it ?

There are many out there vying for charity dollars along with any other disposable income people may think they have. To compete you need an edge. The only edge I can see for something like this is what I just wrote. Present it as a different form of charity. Candidates may be known by their nominators, but that is reported and well known, there is no secret.

Structured that way, I might even participate, and I now know who my nominee would be, my nextdoor neighbor. He has been a friend for along time, and is struggling. Ironically I have people who are living with me, I take care of that personally, but I would not nominate them. They, as I have put it straight to them, they have burned all the bridges back to anywhere they want to go. They fucked up. However my neighbor did not. He needs money for house taxes and a few repairs, some a bit pricey. But he still works, albeit in this economy for half of what he used to make but never stops trying. They took his license and what did he do ? He rode a bicycle almost thirty miles each way to and from work.

You see, in my view the recipient must also be trustable, and as I have said, there are two components to trust. One is of course basic trust in that they don't take the money and run, or whatever in any case. But you also have to trust their judgement. I am reluctant to help people in certain ways when they have repeatedly blown it. It's just a waste. If nothing else, they must put the grant to good use.

I would like to see external infuences that caused them to fail, or begin to fail. People who cause their own demise will simply do it again. I want my dollars well placed. And that is in the hands of those who need it, but they don't have to be living under a bridge. But think of it this way. Just because someone is not under the bridge yet does not mean they are not worthy of help. You can house a homeless person, or you help not create another homeless person, in the end the result is the same is it not ?

I think no matter what, this will be more complex than meets the eye.

T

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

Yes, I would. Based on my brief communication with you in the past, I believe you are both generous and sincere. I would think of this project as an benevolent experiment, and it would be worth it for me to throw in a few bucks, and observe the ultimate result.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

FR-

First of all, you need to go through all the legal hoops of becoming a bonifide non-profit charitable organization. Yes, you would need a full committe to determine the "winner," but here's the problem, what makes YOU or the others qualified to determine a person's "worthiness?"
Because I went through the effort of actually establishing, promoting, and eating the inital costs. You certainly don't have to participate.

You have already said, an alcoholic is out of the running. A recovering alcoholic has big hurdles to fixing their life. Honestly, in almost all the examples you gave, you talk about previously "well off" people who have had tradegy strike.

All of my examples, you mean the two I rattled off. I don't think this form of "help" would "help" an active drug addict. Thus why they would not qualify. So, let's see I let a raging alcholic win, give him a check for a 100K. Yeah, that is going to work out. There probably are better options for such people.


The reality is that everyone who is on welfare is not lazy or stupid or unaware of how to be self sufficient. Yet I read these posts and find far too many talking about those living in poverty as though they are all lack the knowledge of how to do better. It simply is not the case. Are there people who are on welfare like that? Yep. In college, one of my classmates was on all kinds of state assistance, yet she had a job at Seton Hall University (a highly ranked NJ school). When she talked about how she never took her son anywhere without his portable DVD player, I almost screamed. I was sitting there unable to afford a cell phone and struggling to buy clothes for my son, yet she sat there with professionally manicured nails, lots of gold jewlery and her son had a portable DVD player. All while collecting state assistance. I have seen things like this over and over. But then there is the other side of the coin. People who are unable to find a job that will pay their rent and bills, both of which are not ridiculously high, their budgets so tight that gas and insurance for their car is draining them dry. People tell them to just take any job, even at the local Walmart or grocery store because at least then they will have an income, yet those people really just don't grasp reality. If a single mother takes a job at the local Walmart, she most likely will not be hired full time, because then Walmart would have to pay her benefits. So she takes a job that is qualifies as being just shy of full time, around 30 hours a week at maybe eight dollars and hour if she is lucky, so she grosses $240 a week. She has a small child so she has to hope that she can get some assistance for day care and that the waiting list isn't too long. Even then she will still need to pay a portion of the day care, say $20 a week. If a family of TWO makes more than $150 a week, they no longer qualify for any state assistance. Before taxes this woman will be making just over a thousand dollars a month. After taxes, she will be making less than a grand a month. She still needs to pay rent, she needs to pay for gas and insurance on her vehicle, daycare for her child, utilities and food. Keep in mind we are not talking about a teenage mom or even a young woman with no education. This has happened to many women who were married and then weren't working after their child was born and then got divorced. They aren't stupid, they don't need someone to teach them how to be a parent, or how to budget money. But she has been out of the job market for 3 or 4 years taking care of her child while her husband worked, but he is no longer there. Sure, she has an Order for child support, but it isn't being paid. Court dates regularly to enforce the order doesn't get her the money, if anyone thinks it does, they have no clue about the reality. Yet how often does everyone just assume this woman needs parenting classes, or needs to be taught how to be self sufficient? Do you think maybe that is a little insulting?

First off I grew up on welfare, so I don't need the lecture. Second, yeah, if a person selects to stay on welfare, because it pays more, then I would not help them. Why for one I know lots of people that have pulled themselves off welfare, my sister has three kids and managed to do, and we are in one of the highest unemployment counties in the state. She actually makes more money than I do.

I have nothing against people that go on welfare for a time, but once that time is measured in years, sorry they have chosen to stay there.

In addition this isn't a training program to teach people basic math, or balance a check book or whatnot. It's a program to take people that have the ability to do well, to do well.

Maybe it's not for you, maybe a different organization would suit your beliefs.

I've no interest though, in "helping" those that aren't trying to help themselves, and a person on welfare for a half a decade or longer is either stupid, or lazy.

Sorry, that's my view, grew up on welfare like I said, those that want to escape generally do.

So meanwhile, you want to start a charity where one lucky person who was likely well off, running their own business has hit a rough patch and give them thousands of dollars to get their business going again.
One possible scenario... of thousands, but that would be a good application. The reasoning is that only those doing well, are really in a position to help others. As in if you "help" a 1000 people with a 1000 dollars, there is almost zero chance that any permanent result will come of it, however, if you gave 1 qualified competent person that money, more than likely something permanent will come forth and actually help going forward. Is it really that complicated.

Sure that single mother might "qualify" for your gift, but based on what you said, you would already choose the parents of the kid with cancer, or the college kid who has to work to help support his family over the divorced mom struggling to get through each day.
Probably. It would largely depend on the divorced mom, and if she was trying to contribute, rather than leech the system. It would depend on her history. If she was on welfare for 5 plus years, it would be unlikely, If she never worked, it would be very unlikely.

If you con't think this sounds just a little elities of you, don't start your charity.
You don't tell me what to do, especially in regards to something that is giving to someone. Geez, so you would prefer no one get help if it's not a poor working divorcee I suppose. How generous of you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady


The reality is that everyone who is on welfare is not lazy or stupid or unaware of how to be self sufficient. Yet I read these posts and find far too many talking about those living in poverty as though they are all lack the knowledge of how to do better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

Because I went through the effort of actually establishing, promoting, and eating the inital costs. You certainly don't have to participate.

quote:


All of my examples, you mean the two I rattled off. I don't think this form of "help" would "help" an active drug addict. Thus why they would not qualify. So, let's see I let a raging alcholic win, give him a check for a 100K. Yeah, that is going to work out. There probably are better options for such people.

quote:


First off I grew up on welfare, so I don't need the lecture. Second, yeah, if a person selects to stay on welfare, because it pays more, then I would not help them. Why for one I know lots of people that have pulled themselves off welfare, my sister has three kids and managed to do, and we are in one of the highest unemployment counties in the state. She actually makes more money than I do.

I have nothing against people that go on welfare for a time, but once that time is measured in years, sorry they have chosen to stay there.

quote:


I've no interest though, in "helping" those that aren't trying to help themselves, and a person on welfare for a half a decade or longer is either stupid, or lazy.

Sorry, that's my view, grew up on welfare like I said, those that want to escape generally do.

quote:

One possible scenario... of thousands, but that would be a good application. The reasoning is that only those doing well, are really in a position to help others. As in if you "help" a 1000 people with a 1000 dollars, there is almost zero chance that any permanent result will come of it, however, if you gave 1 qualified competent person that money, more than likely something permanent will come forth and actually help going forward. Is it really that complicated.

quote:

Probably. It would largely depend on the divorced mom, and if she was trying to contribute, rather than leech the system. It would depend on her history. If she was on welfare for 5 plus years, it would be unlikely, If she never worked, it would be very unlikely.

quote:


color="#000099"]You don't tell me what to do, especially in regards to something that is giving to someone. Geez, so you would prefer no one get help if it's not a poor working divorcee I suppose. How generous of you.

quote:


LOL, whatever.  You sound bitter to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NuevaVida


As someone who posted about helping someone gain skills, the group I was talking about was a select handful of women who escaped from and are recovering from domestic violence situations, and/or who have been homeless and without the ability to work.  I did not imply that everyone in poverty lack knowledge, and I certainly did not imply stupidity or laziness.  I know this is not true.  My group of friends and I have chosen to help those who do lack the skills they need to get off the ground, however.

quote:

Would you donate to this?