I'm sick of non-profits, headed up by talentless liberal arts majors, claiming they going to "end poverty."
Really? Like in Africa and Central America and all these other places the peace corps types go.
You know what would be great. If just once, JUST ONCE you people were actually successful and not merely pissing away millions of dollars playing, "Adventure Liberal Arts Major!"
NAME ONE PROBLEM SOLVED BY THE LEFT!!!!
Well, they've solved the problem of themselves needing to find a real job.
There are countless programs aimed at feeding starving Africans and all they do is create more starving Africans that need to be fed. It's my conviction that putting a leftist in charge of solving problems is like putting a drunk in charge of a liquor store - they just make everyone's problems worse - including their own.
The organization is top heavy. Just the way I like my women. Perhaps they are compensating?
Many leftists have too much family money and they feel guilty about it. These causes give them a "socially responsible" way to get rid of some of their parents' ill-gotten gains and thus balance their spending Karma when they buy a new BMW.
Similar to how the purpose of modern art is to separate money from rich people who are too stupid to use it wisely so it can be put back into circulation.
Out of 42 team members, there are:
- 10 "Directors"
- 13 "Managers"
- 7 "Chiefs"
- 2 "Coordinators"
... interesting organizational diagram.
I don't see what the fuss is..... Clearly they have just employed a web designer.
There will be no end to poverty or hunger, nor will there be any 'cures' for any diseases.
Just as in the medical problems of breast cancer, leukemia, Alzheimers, and other diseases, poverty or hunger will NEVER be ended/solved -- not as long as there is money to be made by exploiting the sympathy and the largesse of the ignorant and the taxpayer.
The government and 'nonprofit' charities have too much to lose by 'killing their cash cows' and thereby becoming unnecessary.
Oh, Captain, my Captain, look at their list of sponsors.
The left, of course, never pay for anything out of their own pockets if they can help it. This is no exception. LIFT is bought and paid for by the same banks who crippled the US economy in the first place because they were more gung-ho about "diversity" than about making sure their money was being lent to people who had a snowball's chance in hell of paying it back with interest. End poverty? The banks and the socialist governments they made a killing lending money to are responsible for practically all of it.
A glorified PR campaign intended to salvage their brands? An "investment" in future generations of voters who can be trusted to vote for politicians who won't get in the way of more bailouts? A pure and simple waste of someone else's money (the shareholders of the banks) on easing their guilty consciences? I'll leave figuring out WTF they're playing at to you, Captain. You have more experience working at a bank longer than I have.
They always seem to solve surplus problems.
The left has solved the problem of patriarchal oppression by busting up the traditional family by making government daddy.
As an actual STEM guy (software engineering), the left has all but assured my job security, both because of their inability to do actual work, and the fine examples of quality government software development like HealthCare.gov.
635 loccetaThey've solved a huge number of what they consider to be problems:
Their solution to all of these problems is statist collectivism. They've solved them with losses, demotivation, shrinkage, dullness and laziness.
LIFT is a good one, check out Promise Zones/Neighborhoods for the wettest of all liberal dreams
High western birthrates
One might ask about each of these people, "where was the father?" A sensible man, to point out the folly of an untrained person thinking that she is of use in solving any of the world's problems. The worst are probably the Peace Corps members.
"LIFT is bought and paid for by the same banks who crippled the US economy in the first place because they were more gung-ho about "diversity" than about making sure their money was being lent to people who had a snowball's chance in hell of paying it back with interest.
Pete, this is bullshit! The banks were gung-ho about being given the nudge-and-wink by the government to "create" more money by writing a loan. Period. Who the loan was given to is of no fucking interest to them at all as long as they know that the government will print more fake money to cover any loss of the imaginery money created by said loan. Whether the bucks are created by stroke of a pen or printed with real ink, at the end of the day it is all "real" to the bank's ledger.
Post a Comment