[sceptic]

please don't take some one with a simplistic view as some one who is not prepared to help people, or even does not care about others, this would not be true, I have a personal opinion of charities and the people running them, which I am sure would cause a great deal of debate on here as I would not be complimentary about many of them ( or more to the point the people that run them)

Erick, give me an example of what you say in real life, where they have helped learn to fish and then said great thx, no more aid required?

[sceptic]

cheap operations to cure blindness and give people their life back. It's very hard to argue that they become dependent on blindness operations and never learn to solve their own problems!


Owen

This is a valid reason to help some one

Hunger is NOT cured by any form of charity

There is enough food in the world for everyone, the goverments are the ones that can make a difference, not joe public, unless you want to vote in someone who has good solid moral standards and genuinely wants to make the world a better place

Most of the powerful governments will help some one as long as they want to be like them or do things thier way............ ask yourself why anyone goes hungry these days and it wont be because not enough people donate money to charity

[shubi]

Just amazing no comment on education fund or seniors comfort but lot of strong opinion about poor and hungry people. What you guys got against them they are just dealt a bad hand? sweet dream and sleep.

[TimG]

sceptic, on Sep 23 2007, 11:47 AM, said:

Erick, give me an example of what you say in real life, where they have helped learn to fish and then said great thx, no more aid required?

I'm sure there are some examples of this sort of thing as a result of programs run by Heifer International.

There are also plenty of examples of successful small business in the US that were started with loans backed by the US government. Loans that would not have been possible without the government program.

[Badmonster]

sceptic, on Sep 23 2007, 11:47 AM, said:

please don't take some one with a simplistic view as some one who is not prepared to help people, or even does not care about others, this would not be true, I have a personal opinion of charities and the people running them, which I am sure would cause a great deal of debate on here as I would not be complimentary about many of them ( or more to the point the people that run them)

Erick, give me an example of what you say in real life, where they have helped learn to fish and then said great thx, no more aid required?

The welfare to work program was very successful. Or at least the tv news said it was.

[sceptic]

here is (possibly) not a comment that would be well recieved about old people

" old people, who struggle to manage after finishing work because the state pension does not fully cover thier needs to give a good life style"

possible reasons

1/. not enough charitable donations?

2/. We never bothered to save as it is the governments responsibility to look after us, (we fought and died in the war for our country) ((interesting concept about this statement and I have actually heard it used in this debate)

3/. We were promised a pot of gold by successive governments (well you voted the bastards in on the back of promises that in all reailty were never sustainable from the start (greed)

[sceptic]

Quote

The welfare to work program was very successful. Or at least the tv news said it was

please give hard facts on this ?

TV news reports generally come from someone telling them what they want the TV news people to hear, statistics say a lot, but prove very little, there are an awful lot of statisticians about that for a few $ will provide statistical evidence about anything anyone wants people to believe

[sceptic]

Quote

There are also plenty of examples of successful small business in the US that were started with loans backed by the US government. Loans that would not have been possible without the government program

starting a buisness in the US is not really charitable, as I dont recall the last person in the US to die of starvation, unless it was one of theirr size zero models

[han]

Are you claiming that there are no poor people in the US? That it is not possible for charities in the US to be worthwhile?

[Robert]

Hi everyone

The math is somewhat better now, however, the entire population of the earth is less than 10 billion so the idea of 440 billion people each giving a dollar a month is simply not possible.

Change your idea to one dollar a month from say 4 billion people gives 4 billion dollars each month. Your ten trillion dollar figure now needs 2,500 months or something like 200 years to raise the money that you require.

Regards,
Robert

[gwnn]

in Romania you can buy a city and a half for 1$. i can't sell my city for some random african guy's fishing lessons mmkay?

[cherdano]

awasome, this thread is just awasome!

[sceptic]

Quote

Are you claiming that there are no poor people in the US? That it is not possible for charities in the US to be worthwhile

actually Hannie, I cant believe you are dumb enough to make the assumption that I indicated that there were no poor people in America from what I have written


There will always be poor people in a rich country like america, that is what makes the rich "RICH"

I never said some charities are not worth while and benifical

just that I think Charity wont solve starvation

[shubi]

hi hi robert, i know world population is 6.5 billions. i made a accumulateted total of 7 billions x 12 84 billions plus x 8 years makes it originally to make it 6.72 trilions, roughfly collecting 4 trilions over 8 years. thank you very much.

[Robert]

Hi shubi

Trillion=1,000 billion not 100 billion. Decimal points change the value by 10 times.
Commas show 1,000 units.

7 times 12 is 84 billion correct. 84 times 8 years is 672 billion not 6.72 trillion(6.72 trillion=6,720 billion)

You only have a small fraction of your claimed total in eight years 'if' you have 100% contribution from 6.5 billion people and you also manage to have 500 million babies that are 'yet to be born' contribute to your fund each month.

How people that are starving will be able to contribute $1.00 each month to your fund is still something that I do not understand. I think that I was being quite generous in letting say 4 billion people give to your fund out of a 6.5 billion total.

Many third world nations have people with little of no income. Babies might also find it difficult to raise a $1.00 each month if they are part of a family that is not getting the minimum food requirement to continue to live. How the unborn will contribute is a concept that I simply do not understand.

Regards,
Robert

[Al_U_Card]

Hey Justin! it's Shubiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii with only 27 i's

[shubi]

hi hi robert, I am just a catalyst. I worked hard and retired at age 50 to follow my hobies watching world event and play bridge, i dont see any change on that. But i know many people around the world who i wish seats on board of director. The person who will lead the program must be responsible and accountable to UNITED NATIONS, must have open book for public scurinity, must be audited once a year.
now 4 5 6 etc trillion i dont really worry about even though we request 1 dollar many people will donate 10 20 10,000, 1 millions if they have reason to belive its a good cause. For poor people and non donars we have set aside 2.72 trillions to make up the gap.

[Al_U_Card]

Anyone else's head explode yet?

[Robert]

Hi shubi

Didn't the world bank President just get replaced because of a non work related problem? The United Nations is not free of problems. When 7 trillion dollars suddenly appears, the problems will get even bigger.

Your math does not make any sense. You just do not get anywhere near that amount of money using your 'facts.' You only have 672 billion dollars which is 'only' .672 trillion dollars. You cannot set aside 2.72 trillion dollars if you 'only' have 672 billion to start with.

If you wish to change your facts and just decide that people are going to give you seven trillion dollars or so, that is fine.

I would suggest that you start with say 999 trillion dollars and you could now not only end world hunger, you could also supply free housing and medical care to all that needed it. Why do something less when you could raise a mere 999 trillion dollars using the same method that you raised seven trillion dollars?

Jerry Lewis set a new record for a charity when he raised 63 million this year.
If you would contract him and explain how to raise trillions rather than mere millions, he could host one more event and fund the charity forever.

Regards,
Robert