The "How" would I help, delema?

[Ah-Those-Old-Days!]

My time on this 'interesting' ball of dirt/rocks is limited... but I was wondering!!...
Let's say one had $1,000,000 and you wanted to distribute it to charities!!
Would you give the whole million to one group, or 1/2 million to 2 groups, or say $100,000 to 10 groups!!!
Maybe you could extrapolate that to even being $1 to a Million people!!!... but that would not really help at all!!

We ALL have to realize that we can only do so much, for so many people. But where does that 'number' lie???
We have to accept that 'we' may be able to help 'some' people, but not others, but who makes the decision ???

Do we want to KNOW the ones we have helped, and equally 'know' the ones that we were NOT able to help??
This is a dilemma... Like the old "Damned if you do, and damned if you don't"... Life can be hard...

[mtv]

who makes the decision ???

The person donating the money decides.

It's all personal choice and an individual decision based on personal preferences.

For me, it would be to help improve lives of children.. such as a Royal Children's Hospital, for equipment, research, however the hospital wanted to spend it, as long as it directly helped the kids.

[VroomVroom]

no way on this earth i'd be giving money to a charity !! Charities siphon off 90% of the ( tax free ) funds they recieve to feed the top dog in the guise of " administration costs " .... only 10% goes to the cause itself.
If you really want to help some children , say at a kid's hospital , then to go the wards , speak to the kids and parents and write them a cheque for whatever item it is they need.

[enf]

The first thing I would do if I had a lazy million is distribute it to my kids. I have six.

Then I could watch how quickly a million would evaporate.

Seriously, mtv and VroomVroom are on the right track.....

[Uncle Fester]

We ALL have to realize that we can only do so much, for so many people. But where does that 'number' lie???
We have to accept that 'we' may be able to help 'some' people, but not others, but who makes the decision ???

Do we want to KNOW the ones we have helped, and equally 'know' the ones that we were NOT able to help??
This is a dilemma... Like the old "Damned if you do, and damned if you don't"... Life can be hard...

I think the main point of the OP is not a discussion about dodgy charity organisations but a conflict that arises when you help one person or group but ignore another.

Being married to a Filipina I think I can speak from experience as there is an EXPECTATION that you support the hundreds of relatives to some extent and every time certain hard decisions have to be made because you can not help everyone, especially if you are NOT a millionaire.

My wife has been bombarded with requests from so called cousins and childhood friends on FakeBook who obviously only 'friended' her to ask for money (they always say lend which is BS) and as soon as she says no she usually gets unfriended. So that part is simple.

When it comes to helping the closer relatives it becomes more a complex balancing act but it helps when those who missed out this time get angry or jealous then they also get crossed off the list.

So what we mostly do is focus on supporting those who are willing to help themselves by getting them on their feet with work or small business. Be it assisting with education fees and everything involved so they can work overseas or pawning farmland for them to work on or paying for the stock for them to start up a small convenience store.

So basically the old saying: Give a person a fish and they have food for one day but teach a person how to fish (and give them the equipment) and they have food for life.
... so they never need to ask for your help again and you can move on to the next, one by one.

I can't imagine a better reward than when you find out that those individuals you have helped are now successfully able to look after themselves and their families.

[lsemmens]

I agree with everything enf said. OF course, if I was already dead, I'd ensure that it went to an area in which I was passionate. A WILL is essential for this purpose (but I sound as though I am preaching to the choir here). If that means Land rights for Gay Whales, so be it, otherwise, my Kids.


Of course you could always give it to me............

[trash]

I prefer the idea of finding some arsehole that everybody hates and making their life miserable.
Anybody can be nice. But to find somebody who is a cvnt to other people and level out their little corner of the universe.
Yeah, burn it to the ground and leave a legacy of destruction for ordinary people to start fresh on.

[Ah-Those-Old-Days!]

I agree with everything enf said. OF course, if I was already dead, I'd ensure that it went to an area in which I was passionate. A WILL is essential for this purpose (but I sound as though I am preaching to the choir here). If that means Land rights for Gay Whales, so be it, otherwise, my Kids.
Of course you could always give it to me............

That made me laugh!!!!

[Ah-Those-Old-Days!]

I think the main point of the OP is not a discussion about dodgy charity organisations but a conflict that arises when you help one person or group but ignore another.

Being married to a Filipina I think I can speak from experience as there is an EXPECTATION that you support the hundreds of relatives to some extent and every time certain hard decisions have to be made because you can not help everyone, especially if you are NOT a millionaire.

My wife has been bombarded with requests from so called cousins and childhood friends on FakeBook who obviously only 'friended' her to ask for money (they always say lend which is BS) and as soon as she says no she usually gets unfriended. So that part is simple.

When it comes to helping the closer relatives it becomes more a complex balancing act but it helps when those who missed out this time get angry or jealous then they also get crossed off the list.

So what we mostly do is focus on supporting those who are willing to help themselves by getting them on their feet with work or small business. Be it assisting with education fees and everything involved so they can work overseas or pawning farmland for them to work on or paying for the stock for them to start up a small convenience store.

So basically the old saying: Give a person a fish and they have food for one day but teach a person how to fish (and give them the equipment) and they have food for life.
... so they never need to ask for your help again and you can move on to the next, one by one.

I can't imagine a better reward than when you find out that those individuals you have helped are now successfully able to look after themselves and their families.

I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head there mate... (Though I'm sorry and dismayed about your wife's problems!!)
Yea, no matter who we are, we can NOT help everyone, and a lot of so-called 'charities' take a LOT off the top, to answer others!!
The "Teach a man to fish" story is so true, and should take precedence. You sound like an Interesting character too!!

[Reschs]

So basically the old saying: Give a person a fish and they have food for one day but teach a person how to fish (and give them the equipment) and they have food for life.
... so they never need to ask for your help again and you can move on to the next, one by one.

The actual reality is,

teach a person how to fish (and give them the equipment) and they sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

[enf]

I prefer the idea of finding some arsehole that everybody hates and making their life miserable.
Anybody can be nice. But to find somebody who is a cvnt to other people and level out their little corner of the universe.
Yeah, burn it to the ground and leave a legacy of destruction for ordinary people to start fresh on.

Sounds like an election to me...

[Uncle Fester]

The actual reality is,

teach a person how to fish (and give them the equipment) and they sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

They still have to catch fish so they can buy the beer.

[Uncle Fester]

The person donating the money decides.

Just want to clarify in my case that I am the one donating the money but my wife decides.
She also has to carry the burden for her decisions and that has taken toll on her mental heath at times which then becomes a burden for both of us.

There have been cases where Filipino overseas workers (and I can imagine the same from other poor countries) have taken their lives not being able to help everybody.
Another old adage comes to mind: Give a small finger and they will take your whole arm.

I became aware of that very early in our marriage(we are married over 25years) and that is why we learnt to focus on those who are willing to help themselves rather than creating dependancies.

[enf]

Just want to clarify in my case that I am the one donating the money but my wife decides.
She also has to carry the burden for her decisions and that has taken toll on her mental heath at times which then becomes a burden for both of us.

There have been cases where Filipino overseas workers (and I can imagine the same from other poor countries) have taken their lives not being able to help everybody.
Another old adage comes to mind: Give a small finger and they will take your whole arm.

I became aware of that very early in our marriage(we are married over 25years) and that is why we learnt to focus on those who are willing to help themselves rather than creating dependancies.

My brother in law is in a similar situation. His wifes extended family in the Philippines can be demanding, although the pair of them have done the tough love thing enough to get through. Their help at hand approach has worked and they try to aid those that make an effort. He isn't rich by any means.

[trash]

teach a person how to fish (and give them the equipment) and they sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

Buy an airline ticket for a man and he'll fly for a day. Push him out of a plane and he'll fly for the rest of his life !

[dai]

I think the main point of the OP is not a discussion about dodgy charity organisations but a conflict that arises when you help one person or group but ignore another.

Being married to a Filipina I think I can speak from experience as there is an EXPECTATION that you support the hundreds of relatives to some extent and every time certain hard decisions have to be made because you can not help everyone, especially if you are NOT a millionaire.

My wife has been bombarded with requests from so called cousins and childhood friends on FakeBook who obviously only 'friended' her to ask for money (they always say lend which is BS) and as soon as she says no she usually gets unfriended. So that part is simple.

When it comes to helping the closer relatives it becomes more a complex balancing act but it helps when those who missed out this time get angry or jealous then they also get crossed off the list.

So what we mostly do is focus on supporting those who are willing to help themselves by getting them on their feet with work or small business. Be it assisting with education fees and everything involved so they can work overseas or pawning farmland for them to work on or paying for the stock for them to start up a small convenience store.

So basically the old saying: Give a person a fish and they have food for one day but teach a person how to fish (and give them the equipment) and they have food for life.
... so they never need to ask for your help again and you can move on to the next, one by one.

I can't imagine a better reward than when you find out that those individuals you have helped are now successfully able to look after themselves and their families.

my wife is Thai so i know where you are coming from it makes a trip to Thailand very expensive

[Ah-Those-Old-Days!]

Buy an airline ticket for a man and he'll fly for a day. Push him out of a plane and he'll fly for the rest of his life !

Haha!!! That reminded me of my old 'bibles', by Douglas Adams, "The HitchHikers Guide To The Galaxy". In one such Episode, Arthur Dent was trapped on a lonely
Planet, and was bored. So he experimented (and succeeded!) in learning to fly! He found that Flying, is the art of "Throwing yourself at the ground, and missing!!"
(Achieved by being so utterly distracted by something else, mid fall).

[Uncle Fester]

...the art of "Throwing yourself at the ground, and missing!!"

While I know Trash meant something else, a way to miss the ground would be to fall through a hole that goes right through a planet (that doesn't have a molten core) so you could be flying falling for the rest of your life without sudden splatter and assuming you could always grab something to bite at the reversal points

[trash]

He found that Flying, is the art of "Throwing yourself at the ground, and missing!!"

This has always been the advice I've given to people who post in whingepool.net.au and complained that the leftard moderators their would censor everything.
In order to hit the mark you have to write a post which aims at your target but misses. The closer you miss by the more effective the post.

The analogy gets reused in so many places.

Same in the literal sense. A friend boasted he was a better shooter than I was. He wasn't, but his gun more than made up for it.
He put a group on a target at 200m that was about 1 inch.

I shot at the same target, he laughed when I hit the right edge of the bullseye.
Then I took a second shot and hit the exact left edge. More laughter, he thought I'd over corrected until I hit the top dead center and then the bottom dead center.
Then I suggested we swap rifles and he has another go at replicating it.

[Ah-Those-Old-Days!]

This has always been the advice I've given to people who post in whingepool.net.au and complained that the leftard moderators their would censor everything.
In order to hit the mark you have to write a post which aims at your target but misses. The closer you miss by the more effective the post.

The analogy gets reused in so many places.

Same in the literal sense. A friend boasted he was a better shooter than I was. He wasn't, but his gun more than made up for it.
He put a group on a target at 200m that was about 1 inch.

I shot at the same target, he laughed when I hit the right edge of the bullseye.
Then I took a second shot and hit the exact left edge. More laughter, he thought I'd over corrected until I hit the top dead center and then the bottom dead center.
Then I suggested we swap rifles and he has another go at replicating it.

Hahaha.... I didn't know that 'whingepool' was like that, but I have personal experiences with a certain 'eeeevbloggg' forum, where there are a couple of proverbial
"Knights in Shining Armour". Anyway, as the 'Instigator' of this thread/post, I don't mind that it has deviated a tad, as that's the essence of real life!!

And so in reply to your above Anecdotes, and in possibly the same league, you made me remember THIS from my past, when playing 'Major-A' league Darts!!____
I 'Aimed' to MISS!! My logic was that, say I was aiming at Double-19, there was a 'greater' chance that I would miss it, and go slightly above or below. So I would
aim slightly above the wire, knowing again!, that there was a greater chance I would miss where I was aiming, so there might be a say 45% chance of it going even
higher, or a 45% chance of it going slightly lower! & getting what I want!! Seems ill-logical, but it seemed to work for my brain!! hahaha....