"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...

Like Microsoft, the health care companies, insurance companies, big
oil, big unions, etc.? I don't think they really represent "people,"
when they lobby Congress. The interests of the corporations might
coincide with some individual interests, perhaps more likely some of
their stockholders, but certainly not all of them. So, that's not
really voting, it's really influencing the voting of those in Congress
and the White House.

It's all about money, Jon. "Them that has, gets. Them that don't,
don't". The irony is that the country is largely composed of middle class
citizens, a class of people largely unrepresented in either the White
House or Congress.


Again, try and get access to Bush and not be the head of a large
corp. or a big lobby firm and see what happens.

Hell, try getting access to the president of any major American
corporation. About as futile.

Max

And, continuing to shrink...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katy" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
What does the political affiliation have to do with the access we're
talking about? You're really stretching if you think this is good for
the country.


I don't think it's good...but sitting here and griping and complaining
about it certainly doesn';t change anything...like I said, if you don't
like things the way they are then get off your butt and get out there and
change things...that's the only way that the PEOPLE are going to get back
their governemnt..they have to become active participants...and they can
use the vehicles already established to infiltrate or they can create
their own new ways...I write letters to Congressmen all the time..do you"
I respond to surveys if they are woirthwhile...I write network television
stations and complain when something doesn't suit me..I write
manufactuter's when products are subp par or are defective...I give my
money to organizations that represent my interests...and not to blanket
charities like United Way...all I'm saying is that sitting on
alt.sailing.asa griping and moaning about the conditions of the world is a
futile endeavor...stop talking about it and get out there and do something
about it...


I do more than you'll ever know or I will ever say.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katy" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...


I don't think it's good...but sitting here and griping and complaining
about it certainly doesn';t change anything...like I said, if you don't
like things the way they are then get off your butt and get out there and
change things...that's the only way that the PEOPLE are going to get back
their governemnt..they have to become active participants...and they can
use the vehicles already established to infiltrate or they can create
their own new ways...I write letters to Congressmen all the time..do you"
I respond to surveys if they are woirthwhile...I write network television
stations and complain when something doesn't suit me..I write
manufactuter's when products are subp par or are defective...I give my
money to organizations that represent my interests...and not to blanket
charities like United Way...all I'm saying is that sitting on
alt.sailing.asa griping and moaning about the conditions of the world is
a futile endeavor...stop talking about it and get out there and do
something about it...


I admire your persistent faith in the system, K. I guess I've been
around long enough to have become cynical. I've watched grass-roots
movements rise and fall without effect. I've watched small corporations
get kicked around and dissolved by big money and its influence with
government. I pay a horrendous bill in FICA, only to be told I'm
unlikely to ever see even a reasonable percentage of it returned by SS.
And I see the man for whom I voted and believed to be honorable and
decent slide into the hip pockets of every special interest that gave him
a few bucks for his election/re-election. Yeah, I'm cynical.

Max
There's a difference between cynacism and defeatism...You can be a cynic
or a skeptic and still go on...it doens't mean you have to lie down in
defeat...


I'm not cynical, but I am skeptical.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Thu, 03 May 2007 07:33:40 -0400, katy
wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Katy, katy... the point is that the lobbiest money is interfering with
the process. Some would claim that it's a first amendement right of
theirs to pump big money to politicians to get their way, but the
effect is to subvert the will of the people.

If you don't think that's true, see how easy or difficult it is for a
private citizen to get a private meeting with the President vs. a big
sponsor. This is true for both parties. The Dems have claimed they're
going to address it, but so far, nothing has happened.



I wonder why?? )that's a rhetorical question) SOme of the largest
lobbying groups are liberal...like i mentioned: the NEA, the AMA, 2 of
the most powerful...but then, those groups are made up of people with
interests who use the group effort rather than the individual effort to
make their mark...many regular old citizens contribute to those groups,
not just the big money...so..if you really want this war to end..start
lobbying...get some big money behind you...obviously, big money isn;'t
interested in ending the war...


What does the political affiliation have to do with the access we're
talking about? You're really stretching if you think this is good for
the country.



...I give my money to organizations that represent my
interests...and not to blanket charities like United Way...


You should. Unless your local United Way is ineffective.

As a two term UW board member my eyes were opened to the effectiveness
of the UW. All I can say is I would hate to be the head of a charity
that goes before the UW allocation committee without all my ducks in a
row. A brutal ordeal.

Of course it is a local thing.

Frank

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 07:33:40 -0400, katy
wrote:


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

In article ,
katy wrote:


Katy, katy... the point is that the lobbiest money is interfering with
the process. Some would claim that it's a first amendement right of
theirs to pump big money to politicians to get their way, but the
effect is to subvert the will of the people.

If you don't think that's true, see how easy or difficult it is for a
private citizen to get a private meeting with the President vs. a big
sponsor. This is true for both parties. The Dems have claimed they're
going to address it, but so far, nothing has happened.



I wonder why?? )that's a rhetorical question) SOme of the largest
lobbying groups are liberal...like i mentioned: the NEA, the AMA, 2 of
the most powerful...but then, those groups are made up of people with
interests who use the group effort rather than the individual effort to
make their mark...many regular old citizens contribute to those groups,
not just the big money...so..if you really want this war to end..start
lobbying...get some big money behind you...obviously, big money isn;'t
interested in ending the war...


What does the political affiliation have to do with the access we're
talking about? You're really stretching if you think this is good for
the country.




..I give my money to organizations that represent my

interests...and not to blanket charities like United Way...



You should. Unless your local United Way is ineffective.

As a two term UW board member my eyes were opened to the effectiveness
of the UW. All I can say is I would hate to be the head of a charity
that goes before the UW allocation committee without all my ducks in a
row. A brutal ordeal.

Of course it is a local thing.

Frank

Mr Sails was the plant rep for UW for 3 years...and he always donated to
them...I prefer to give my money to organizations that represent my
interests..some of the money that is given out by UW goes to places I do
not support in fact or in theory...it's bad enough my tax money can't be
designated to where I want it to go..my personal contributions, though,
I can control and do...

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 May 2007 07:33:40 -0400, katy
wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Katy, katy... the point is that the lobbiest money is interfering with
the process. Some would claim that it's a first amendement right of
theirs to pump big money to politicians to get their way, but the
effect is to subvert the will of the people.

If you don't think that's true, see how easy or difficult it is for a
private citizen to get a private meeting with the President vs. a big
sponsor. This is true for both parties. The Dems have claimed they're
going to address it, but so far, nothing has happened.



I wonder why?? )that's a rhetorical question) SOme of the largest
lobbying groups are liberal...like i mentioned: the NEA, the AMA, 2 of
the most powerful...but then, those groups are made up of people with
interests who use the group effort rather than the individual effort to
make their mark...many regular old citizens contribute to those groups,
not just the big money...so..if you really want this war to end..start
lobbying...get some big money behind you...obviously, big money isn;'t
interested in ending the war...


What does the political affiliation have to do with the access we're
talking about? You're really stretching if you think this is good for
the country.



..I give my money to organizations that represent my
interests...and not to blanket charities like United Way...


You should. Unless your local United Way is ineffective.

As a two term UW board member my eyes were opened to the effectiveness
of the UW. All I can say is I would hate to be the head of a charity
that goes before the UW allocation committee without all my ducks in a
row. A brutal ordeal.

Of course it is a local thing.

Frank--what percentage of the money collected by the United Way actually
goes to the various charities? What percent is considered "administrative
expenses?"

Max

On Thu, 03 May 2007 21:49:44 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 03 May 2007 07:33:40 -0400, katy
wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Katy, katy... the point is that the lobbiest money is interfering with
the process. Some would claim that it's a first amendement right of
theirs to pump big money to politicians to get their way, but the
effect is to subvert the will of the people.

If you don't think that's true, see how easy or difficult it is for a
private citizen to get a private meeting with the President vs. a big
sponsor. This is true for both parties. The Dems have claimed they're
going to address it, but so far, nothing has happened.



I wonder why?? )that's a rhetorical question) SOme of the largest
lobbying groups are liberal...like i mentioned: the NEA, the AMA, 2 of
the most powerful...but then, those groups are made up of people with
interests who use the group effort rather than the individual effort to
make their mark...many regular old citizens contribute to those groups,
not just the big money...so..if you really want this war to end..start
lobbying...get some big money behind you...obviously, big money isn;'t
interested in ending the war...


What does the political affiliation have to do with the access we're
talking about? You're really stretching if you think this is good for
the country.



..I give my money to organizations that represent my
interests...and not to blanket charities like United Way...


You should. Unless your local United Way is ineffective.

As a two term UW board member my eyes were opened to the effectiveness
of the UW. All I can say is I would hate to be the head of a charity
that goes before the UW allocation committee without all my ducks in a
row. A brutal ordeal.

Of course it is a local thing.

Frank--what percentage of the money collected by the United Way actually
goes to the various charities? What percent is considered "administrative
expenses?"

Max

As mentioned, it is a local thing. The local board controls the UW
administrative budget, campaign expenditures, compensation levels,
etc.

I haven't been on the board for several years (locally, two terms of
three years then off for at least one term), but when I was on the
administrative budget was about 10%. For that you get a very well run
campaign, with mostly volunteers as campaign coordinators and brutal
scrutiny of charities that have made application to recieve funds,
along with ongoing oversight.

Additionally, an endowed fund has been established so that at some
time in the future, the administrative expenses can come from income
from the endowed fund and 100% of the campaign can pass through. Not
there yet.

The board is all volunteer. The local UW had three full time
employee's when I was on the board, may have four now. The last
campaign was 2.2 million dollars..

But it is local. The efficiency depends on board members willing to
volunteer and provide the proper oversite. It took quite a bit of
time.

Frank

On Thu, 03 May 2007 18:26:01 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2007 21:49:44 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 03 May 2007 07:33:40 -0400, katy
wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Katy, katy... the point is that the lobbiest money is interfering with
the process. Some would claim that it's a first amendement right of
theirs to pump big money to politicians to get their way, but the
effect is to subvert the will of the people.

If you don't think that's true, see how easy or difficult it is for a
private citizen to get a private meeting with the President vs. a big
sponsor. This is true for both parties. The Dems have claimed they're
going to address it, but so far, nothing has happened.



I wonder why?? )that's a rhetorical question) SOme of the largest
lobbying groups are liberal...like i mentioned: the NEA, the AMA, 2 of
the most powerful...but then, those groups are made up of people with
interests who use the group effort rather than the individual effort to
make their mark...many regular old citizens contribute to those groups,
not just the big money...so..if you really want this war to end..start
lobbying...get some big money behind you...obviously, big money isn;'t
interested in ending the war...


What does the political affiliation have to do with the access we're
talking about? You're really stretching if you think this is good for
the country.



..I give my money to organizations that represent my
interests...and not to blanket charities like United Way...


You should. Unless your local United Way is ineffective.

As a two term UW board member my eyes were opened to the effectiveness
of the UW. All I can say is I would hate to be the head of a charity
that goes before the UW allocation committee without all my ducks in a
row. A brutal ordeal.

Of course it is a local thing.

Frank--what percentage of the money collected by the United Way actually
goes to the various charities? What percent is considered "administrative
expenses?"

Max


A very important question.

I found a local charity that hits up newspapers and radio stations for both
publicity, and sponsorship of overhead costs, so 100% of donated money goes to
the cause. United Way gives this particular charity ZIP. The charity takes needy
families shopping, and outfits the kids with winter coats, mittens, and often
blankets. It's called "Warm The Children" and it's been around for about 15-20
years. It's gotten bigger and bigger, but the script hasn't changed.

Sounds like a good cause.

With regard to "ZIP," my local UW would support any agency that makes
application and qualifies. It currently allocates to 34 agencies, and
that list grows as the size of the campaign increases.

I especially like it because the money goes to kids in my local area. Money to
United Way appears to get shifted all over the place.

In my last year on the board, my local UW was forced to curtail
funding for a particular agency that signed an agreement with a state
wide organization that would send some of their funds out of the
counties that are covered. It is outside the charter. All funds
allocated have to stay in the counties covered by the local UW. If
that is not adhered to fundraising would be less than effective. As
you've as much as stated.

I'm not saying United Way
is bad, I'm just saying that there are other avenues where your money may be
used more directly and efficiently to get things done.

Most agencies do not have the power to raise funds via a major
campaign. that particular fund raising prowness is the benefit of the
UW. They do no good themselves, just raise and allocate funds very
efficiently. I can assure you that the individual agencies would not
be able to do that, at least in my area.

The other thing I do is plant a much bigger garden than I can use personally.
All the intentional excess goes to the local homeless shelter and soup kitchen.

CWM

I stopped giving to UW when they insisted that fags could
join Boy Scouts.

SBV


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...


..I give my money to organizations that represent my
interests...and not to blanket charities like United
Way...


You should. Unless your local United Way is ineffective.

As a two term UW board member my eyes were opened to the
effectiveness
of the UW. All I can say is I would hate to be the head
of a charity
that goes before the UW allocation committee without all
my ducks in a
row. A brutal ordeal.

Of course it is a local thing.

Frank

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 May 2007 21:49:44 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 03 May 2007 07:33:40 -0400, katy
wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
katy wrote:

Katy, katy... the point is that the lobbiest money is interfering
with
the process. Some would claim that it's a first amendement right of
theirs to pump big money to politicians to get their way, but the
effect is to subvert the will of the people.

If you don't think that's true, see how easy or difficult it is for a
private citizen to get a private meeting with the President vs. a big
sponsor. This is true for both parties. The Dems have claimed they're
going to address it, but so far, nothing has happened.



I wonder why?? )that's a rhetorical question) SOme of the largest
lobbying groups are liberal...like i mentioned: the NEA, the AMA, 2 of
the most powerful...but then, those groups are made up of people with
interests who use the group effort rather than the individual effort
to
make their mark...many regular old citizens contribute to those
groups,
not just the big money...so..if you really want this war to end..start
lobbying...get some big money behind you...obviously, big money isn;'t
interested in ending the war...


What does the political affiliation have to do with the access we're
talking about? You're really stretching if you think this is good for
the country.



..I give my money to organizations that represent my
interests...and not to blanket charities like United Way...


You should. Unless your local United Way is ineffective.

As a two term UW board member my eyes were opened to the effectiveness
of the UW. All I can say is I would hate to be the head of a charity
that goes before the UW allocation committee without all my ducks in a
row. A brutal ordeal.

Of course it is a local thing.

Frank--what percentage of the money collected by the United Way actually
goes to the various charities? What percent is considered "administrative
expenses?"

Max

As mentioned, it is a local thing. The local board controls the UW
administrative budget, campaign expenditures, compensation levels,
etc.

I haven't been on the board for several years (locally, two terms of
three years then off for at least one term), but when I was on the
administrative budget was about 10%. For that you get a very well run
campaign, with mostly volunteers as campaign coordinators and brutal
scrutiny of charities that have made application to recieve funds,
along with ongoing oversight.

Additionally, an endowed fund has been established so that at some
time in the future, the administrative expenses can come from income
from the endowed fund and 100% of the campaign can pass through. Not
there yet.

The board is all volunteer. The local UW had three full time
employee's when I was on the board, may have four now. The last
campaign was 2.2 million dollars..

But it is local. The efficiency depends on board members willing to
volunteer and provide the proper oversite. It took quite a bit of
time.

I guess I was more interested in the UW on the national level. It has been
quite a while ago, but at one time the UW reported 90% administrative and
10% pass-through. Of course the various media crucified the UW for that,
and changes were brought about immediately. That some fat cats were getting
rich on the UW didn't cut it with donors or potential recipients. The news
of the organization's malfeasance hurt it severely for a while. I'm
confident that your 10% administrative is probably not far off the national
level now.

My wife and I contribute about $5000 to the UW each year. While we'd like
to have the time to investigate which individual charities might better be
served through direct donations, we find it more expedient to use the UW. I
believe that's what the UW was chartered for in the first place: folks like
us.

Max