2 ms·

This is 95% of all NGOs and their ilk. Related: "We now have evidence of how at least $7.7 billion for homelessness was spent on salaries. They created a jobs

This is 95% of all NGOs and their ilk. Related: "We now have evidence of how at least $7.7 billion for homelessness was spent on salaries. They created a jobs program that grows at the expense of the actual homeless who need help instead of helping the homeless." https://x.com/Twolfrecovery/status/2095661343215141026 https://x.com/Twolfrecovery/status/2095661343215141026

bluegatty 21d ago
Levels of waste in NGOs are a fully fair subject for debate but without context an arbitrary number is only misleading and therefore sadly cynical. Also - you have no evidence for '95% of NGO's and their ilk'. This is not Twitter.
- hunterpayne 21d ago
  Please remember that NGOs are not charities. And the entire point of an NGO is to get around restrictions on what governments can do. I think most of the grips about NGOs comes from the selling of NGOs as charities which they very much are not. They are however, taxed in the same way as charities and donate significant amounts to political campaigns (mostly local and state level). So they get around centuries old restrictions on governments, get taxed like charities and donate heavily to political campaigns. That set of properties can and should draw significant criticism. When you act like they are charities, it just makes you seem naive. If they were charities, they would call themselves charities.
  - bluegatty 20d ago
    " And the entire point of an NGO is to get around restrictions on what governments can do" - no, they can serve many purposes, and there are tons of things governments should not be doing. They are entities that have a civic purpose, not for profit. Yes, they can in some cases support political causes, that is normal. You seem to have a narrow view of what 'community' is aka something is either a 'charity' or 'government' - the world is more complicated than that. " That set of properties can and should draw significant criticism. " - no, the properties of fine. They can be scrutinized like any organizaition: charity, private company, ngo, government, etc.
    - MrBuddyCasino 20d ago
      Yours is the naïve view of someone who has never looked at how the sausage is made. There are hundreds of billions each year flowing through NGOs. Where do you think this money comes from. Hint: its not your friendly grandma.
      - bluegatty 20d ago
        You should take some time to learn what NGO's are. America Medial Association, AARP (retired people) are NGOs, they advocate for their causes, that's perfectly reasonable and normal. They are not 'for profit' obviously, and they're not strictly charities. People can group together and organize as they please. Donations to NGOs are not tax deductible.
        hunterpayne 19d ago
        1) Its spelled Medical 2) We have different regulations for different types of institutions 3) NGOs specifically exist to get around those regulations 4) A lobbying group (AARP) should have specific rules around how it can function. Lumping them with a professional standards organization makes it impossible to have reasonable anti-corruption laws. That's why NGOs exist, to make it impossible to enforce corruption laws. There is literally no other reason for it to exist as a category. We already have categories for lobbying groups and professional groups and charities.
    - hunterpayne 20d ago
      "They are entities that have a civic purpose, not for profit." If they had a true civic purpose, they would call themselves charities. The specific reason they don't is because an audit of their spending wouldn't meet the standards of a charity. Remember, charities can take government money. They just can't do it in exchange for a service. NGOs can. That's not about civic purpose. Its about different administrative standards. Standards that allow abuse. That's the entire point of them using the term NGO instead of charity.
      - 20d ago

bluegatty 21d ago

Levels of waste in NGOs are a fully fair subject for debate but without context an arbitrary number is only misleading and therefore sadly cynical. Also - you have no evidence for '95% of NGO's and their ilk'. This is not Twitter.

hunterpayne 21d ago
Please remember that NGOs are not charities. And the entire point of an NGO is to get around restrictions on what governments can do. I think most of the grips about NGOs comes from the selling of NGOs as charities which they very much are not. They are however, taxed in the same way as charities and donate significant amounts to political campaigns (mostly local and state level). So they get around centuries old restrictions on governments, get taxed like charities and donate heavily to political campaigns. That set of properties can and should draw significant criticism. When you act like they are charities, it just makes you seem naive. If they were charities, they would call themselves charities.
- bluegatty 20d ago
  " And the entire point of an NGO is to get around restrictions on what governments can do" - no, they can serve many purposes, and there are tons of things governments should not be doing. They are entities that have a civic purpose, not for profit. Yes, they can in some cases support political causes, that is normal. You seem to have a narrow view of what 'community' is aka something is either a 'charity' or 'government' - the world is more complicated than that. " That set of properties can and should draw significant criticism. " - no, the properties of fine. They can be scrutinized like any organizaition: charity, private company, ngo, government, etc.
  - MrBuddyCasino 20d ago
    Yours is the naïve view of someone who has never looked at how the sausage is made. There are hundreds of billions each year flowing through NGOs. Where do you think this money comes from. Hint: its not your friendly grandma.
    - bluegatty 20d ago
      You should take some time to learn what NGO's are. America Medial Association, AARP (retired people) are NGOs, they advocate for their causes, that's perfectly reasonable and normal. They are not 'for profit' obviously, and they're not strictly charities. People can group together and organize as they please. Donations to NGOs are not tax deductible.
      - hunterpayne 19d ago
        1) Its spelled Medical 2) We have different regulations for different types of institutions 3) NGOs specifically exist to get around those regulations 4) A lobbying group (AARP) should have specific rules around how it can function. Lumping them with a professional standards organization makes it impossible to have reasonable anti-corruption laws. That's why NGOs exist, to make it impossible to enforce corruption laws. There is literally no other reason for it to exist as a category. We already have categories for lobbying groups and professional groups and charities.
  - hunterpayne 20d ago
    "They are entities that have a civic purpose, not for profit." If they had a true civic purpose, they would call themselves charities. The specific reason they don't is because an audit of their spending wouldn't meet the standards of a charity. Remember, charities can take government money. They just can't do it in exchange for a service. NGOs can. That's not about civic purpose. Its about different administrative standards. Standards that allow abuse. That's the entire point of them using the term NGO instead of charity.
    - 20d ago