off topic ALS Ice Bucket Challenge

[bunomatic]

Its funny but a year or so ago everyone ( well not everyone but close ) on social media was being challenged by friends to drink large quantities of alcohol and follow it up on video by challenging 3 other friends to do the same with absolutely no benefits to worthy causes or charities. I can't understand why people would complain about this. If you don't want to contribute don't. Some people already donate to a charity or a worthy cause so if they don't actually donate to this one but take part in the fun I don't see the problem. Its nobodies business.

[PASabreFan]

Is this a worthy question: Why isn't ALS research fully funded by the government?

[That Aud Smell]

Is this a worthy question: Why isn't ALS research fully funded by the government?

 

Well, all of those pink ribbon 5k's, those Heart Association galas, and the like -- they're all put on by private non-profits that are raising money to support research into their cause of choice (breast cancer, heart disease, etc.).

 

The federal government supports important research into a wide variety of serious illnesses and diseases. The government can't (and, IMO, should not) do everything, though.

[Claude_Verret]

Is this a worthy question: Why isn't ALS research fully funded by the government?

 

http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx

[Taro T]

Is this a worthy question: Why isn't ALS research fully funded by the government?

What is your definition of "fully funded?"

[That Aud Smell]

What is your definition of "fully funded?"

quite right.

[Claude_Verret]

Some disease states are certainly underfunded, others overfunded, but good luck getting any NIH/government grant PI to ever admit that their research is "fully funded".

[PASabreFan]

What is your definition of "fully funded?"

 

Fully funded=ALS organizations don't feel the need to resort to fundraising gimmicks. I don't think this should be an issue in a country where corporations like Apple pay no taxes, where billions are flushed down the toilet of bureaucracy and where we think we can police the world. Let's see the Department of Agriculture have a bake sale to afford the high salaries of its administrators.

 

To Aud's comment, and Taro's general gist, I see this as a separate issue from the role of government in improving social welfare. I tend to agree that private charities, private initiatives etc. can do a better job at, say, helping the homeless, maybe with some government funding, than the government itself can. I don't think it's fair to say, hey, the gubmint can't do everything, like adequately fund research into dread diseases, here, you nice American people do it.

[Hoss]

 

 

Fully funded=ALS organizations don't feel the need to resort to fundraising gimmicks. I don't think this should be an issue in a country where corporations like Apple pay no taxes, where billions are flushed down the toilet of bureaucracy and where we think we can police the world. Let's see the Department of Agriculture have a bake sale to afford the high salaries of its administrators.

 

To Aud's comment, and Taro's general gist, I see this as a separate issue from the role of government in improving social welfare. I tend to agree that private charities, private initiatives etc. can do a better job at, say, helping the homeless, maybe with some government funding, than the government itself can. I don't think it's fair to say, hey, the gubmint can't do everything, like adequately fund research into dread diseases, here, you nice American people do it.

 

This was started by people, not the organization. Other countries have been doing it for other causes, but we Americans like to go over the top. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[Taro T]

 

 

Fully funded=ALS organizations don't feel the need to resort to fundraising gimmicks. I don't think this should be an issue in a country where corporations like Apple pay no taxes, where billions are flushed down the toilet of bureaucracy and where we think we can police the world. Let's see the Department of Agriculture have a bake sale to afford the high salaries of its administrators.

 

To Aud's comment, and Taro's general gist, I see this as a separate issue from the role of government in improving social welfare. I tend to agree that private charities, private initiatives etc. can do a better job at, say, helping the homeless, maybe with some government funding, than the government itself can. I don't think it's fair to say, hey, the gubmint can't do everything, like adequately fund research into dread diseases, here, you nice American people do it.

So the Lust Garden Foundation (sp?) shouldn't help bring additional funds to pancreatic cancer researchers because the gubmint should be the sole source of funding? Or maybe Jim Kelly should shutdown Hunter's Hope?

 

According to alsa.org, 5,600 people are diagnosed each year with als. Compare that to new 233,000 prostate cancer cases, new 232,000 breast cancer cases, and new 224,000 cases of lung cancer each year.

 

The kid has the disease and did a great job of bringing awareness and $'s to this ONE (relatively) rare disease. How much will it take to find a cure? No data on that, but we've literally spent $B's on cancer research every year and still have more work to be done there.

 

Want to talk about any of the other 1,000's of diseases that currently aren't curable? It'll only take a few $T/yr to research 'all' the "dread diseases."

 

As much as you or I might wish there to be, there isn't enough money to do everything, and I find it extremely shortsighted to claim that gubmint should "fully fund" ALL medical research. There are so many diseases that would slip through the cracks, it isn't even remotely funny. Not to mention the additional beaurocratic waste this system would in all likelihood create. Why shouldn't we be able to donate money to medical causes we find worthy?

[That Aud Smell]

Fully funded=ALS organizations don't feel the need to resort to fundraising gimmicks.

 

My guess is that this would result in a doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc.'ing of the government's current contribution to ALS research efforts. Like it or not, that's just politically unfeasible. And, yes, I sense we're back in the realm of where PA(ngloss) talks of how things should be, and others (here, me) speak of how the world is.

 

I don't think this should be an issue in a country where corporations like Apple pay no taxes, where billions are flushed down the toilet of bureaucracy and where we think we can police the world. Let's see the Department of Agriculture have a bake sale to afford the high salaries of its administrators.

 

Preach!

 

To Aud's comment, and Taro's general gist, I see this as a separate issue from the role of government in improving social welfare. I tend to agree that private charities, private initiatives etc. can do a better job at, say, helping the homeless, maybe with some government funding, than the government itself can. I don't think it's fair to say, hey, the gubmint can't do everything, like adequately fund research into dread diseases, here, you nice American people do it.

 

All well and good. I have the same conversation with a dear friend of mine about equitable public funding for public education. The subject of "box tops" often triggers the back-and-forth. Her position is that school systems should have all the money they need, and that parents shouldn't be scraping up extra cash to pay for field trips, music programs, and such. My position is that we need to work with what we've got, and then do whatever we must to get what we need.

 

According to alsa.org, 5,600 people are diagnosed each year with als. Compare that to new 233,000 prostate cancer cases, new 232,000 breast cancer cases, and new 224,000 cases of lung cancer each year.

 

And I think the NIH's grant figures are proportional to those numbers. Also, fwiw, essentially no one survives ALS -- it's a true death sentence. (Hawking is a true outlier.)

[Doohickie]

Its funny but a year or so ago everyone ( well not everyone but close ) on social media was being challenged by friends to drink large quantities of alcohol and follow it up on video by challenging 3 other friends to do the same with absolutely no benefits to worthy causes or charities. I can't understand why people would complain about this. If you don't want to contribute don't. Some people already donate to a charity or a worthy cause so if they don't actually donate to this one but take part in the fun I don't see the problem. Its nobodies business.

 

Apparently not everyone because I never heard of this.

[LastPommerFan]

Another good part is that we're getting some young people that wouldn't necessarily think about charitable giving (that's what gubmint is for :rolleyes:) now joining in. Another bad part is that we're getting another way for sanctimonious people to act like they are doing their part (had bucket of cold water dropped on head, made a difference but obviously no donation), but really are doing jack squat (again, no donation). It would be better if those actually helped at a shelter or hospital, but that is what it is, and I'd expect this good outweighs the downside as well.

 

FACT: The Younger generations (people under 44) are better givers than their "Rugged Individualism" predecessors. Not only that, they are more engaged with the causes to which they give.

 

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-04-16/features/os-young-charity-donors-20130416_1_millennials-younger-donors-nonprofits

[PASabreFan]

My guess is that this would result in a doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc.'ing of the government's current contribution to ALS research efforts. Like it or not, that's just politically unfeasible.

 

That total was $39 million last year, down $5 million from the year before.

 

Is it idealistic to ask our tax dollars to adequately (I'll drop the hot potato word fully) fund medical research? Yes. But if we can be idealistic in our foreign policy, in thinking that we can "spread democracy," often at the point of a bayonet, we can be idealistic at home.

[That Aud Smell]

The Younger generations (people under 44)

:w00t:

[LastPommerFan]

:w00t:

 

for me, the age limit for "younger" gets 1 year higher, each year.

[That Aud Smell]

That total was $39 million last year, down $5 million from the year before.

 

Is it idealistic to ask our tax dollars to adequately (I'll drop the hot potato word fully) fund medical research? Yes. But if we can be idealistic in our foreign policy, in thinking that we can "spread democracy," often at the point of a bayonet, we can be idealistic at home.

 

The United States engages in nation-building for many reasons -- an idealistic commitment to spreading democracy probably doesn't crack the top 10. The U.S. is a modern empire and conducts itself accordingly.

[LastPommerFan]

The United States engages in nation-building for many reasons -- an idealistic commitment to spreading democracy probably doesn't crack the top 10. The U.S. is a modern empire and conducts itself accordingly.

 

But Spreading democracy is such a FANTASTIC way to rally the flag wavers!

[Sabres Fan in NS]

:w00t:

 

Me too ..

 

:w00t:

[Taro T]

FACT: The Younger generations (people under 44) are better givers than their "Rugged Individualism" predecessors. Not only that, they are more engaged with the causes to which they give.

 

http://articles.orla...nors-nonprofits

:w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

 

Did you HONESTLY believe that the post you responded to was referencing Gen-X'er's as the youth that it's good to see finally contributing? In a thread about serial internet viral videos? That is TRULY priceless. Thanks for the laugh. :beer:

 

And your Gen-X/Millenials info is based on a survey of central Florida local charities surveyed in 2012. The report tries to imply there were 339 respondents (their knowledge base index (whatever the heck that is supposed to be) includes 339 NFP's, though that there were 339 respondents isn't explicitly stated which is odd, because the 2011 report was explicitly stated to be based on 114 responses). And though the Orlando Sentinel (really, the Orlando Sentinel? :P ) states that 50-60% of the individual donations are from the 44 and under crowd, the report doesn't state that. It merely states that 62% of Orlando's population is 44 and under. The report also states that "moderate growth is forcasted for public charities for the next 2 years, driven by online giving and favorable demographics as the number of Americans aged over 65, a significant portion of the overall donor base, is expected to rise. :doh:

 

 

That's some pretty solid basis there GCoP. :w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

[LastPommerFan]

:w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

 

Did you HONESTLY believe that the post you responded to was referencing Gen-X'er's as the youth that it's good to see finally contributing? In a thread about serial internet viral videos? That is TRULY priceless. Thanks for the laugh. :beer:

 

And your Gen-X/Millenials info is based on a survey of central Florida local charities surveyed in 2012. The report tries to imply there were 339 respondents (their knowledge base index (whatever the heck that is supposed to be) includes 339 NFP's, though that there were 339 respondents isn't explicitly stated which is odd, because the 2011 report was explicitly stated to be based on 114 responses). And though the Orlando Sentinel (really, the Orlando Sentinel? :P ) states that 50-60% of the individual donations are from the 44 and under crowd, the report doesn't state that. It merely states that 62% of Orlando's population is 44 and under. The report also states that "moderate growth is forcasted for public charities for the next 2 years, driven by online giving and favorable demographics as the number of Americans aged over 65, a significant portion of the overall donor base, is expected to rise. :doh:

 

 

That's some pretty solid basis there GCoP. :w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

 

No, I figured you were talking about Millenials. I heard the statistics from one of the two studies (not the Florida one) referenced in the article a few months ago, this was the article that came up in a google search. I'm glad you think so highly of me as to assume I was referencing 40 year olds as the people you were talking about. This is by far more an indication of my naivety than your ability to jump to conclusions based on your hardened and immovable views on how the world works. I will work to improve my image, but I will need your guidance and advice. I have much to learn about how to properly assimilate into the narrative you provide.

 

You are, of course, right about Millenials. While no stereotype achieves 100% demographic saturation, we are by and large selfish and lazy and believe the government should will take care of everything. Thankfully, we have x-ers and boomers to show us the true nature of the world. We certainly are incapable of creating community, as we spend nearly all of our time taking pictures of ourselves with our Obamaphones smartphones. I am prepared to change all that. I will get on my iPhone as soon as I get home from this hipster coffee shop where I am spending my unemployment check parents hard earned money and find a new pair of boots. I'll look for a pair firmly outfitted with straps from which I may pull myself up.

 

Do you have any advice on where best to purchase such an item, or would the more prudent thing be to procure a used pair. You are wise and gracious, dear elder, please show me the Way.

[Hoss]

Is it a thing for generations to blame the next generation for their problems? Or is this the first time a large group of people decided that the people who aren't old enough to truly contribute yet are to blame?

[Taro T]

No, I figured you were talking about Millenials. I heard the statistics from one of the two studies (not the Florida one) referenced in the article a few months ago, this was the article that came up in a google search.

 

...

Please show me where I said that the young people that were now being further exposed to charitable donation, which is a good thing btw, were necessarily the sanctimonious people that I also discussed. You can't, because I didn't. The previous paragraph had been about how hopefully there was significantly more money coming in to charity on a whole to outweigh the likely cannibalism of some charitable $'s from other worthy causes to ALS. This was another good thing / bad thing paragraph, nothing more. You ASSUMED and you know where that typically gets us. ;) (btw, for future reference, TYPICALLY when I refer to "young people" I'm referring to teens/early 20's NOT people that are ~30.)

 

(The line about gubmint was tongue in cheek (THUS THE ROLL YOUR EYES SMILEY). ;))

 

And after you assumed, it appears you got bent out of shape over that and then in an effort to prove the "FACT" that Millennials give more to charity than older people found an article that mentioned Gen-Xers directly and referenced a study that discusses how people up to 44 years old (of which it is not clear why that was the study's age cutoff as the study did specifically reference Gen-Xers and Millennials as Gen-Xers were turning 46-47 at the time the study was performed) are the majority of the Orlando population. I found that HYSTERICAL. Thank you for the good laugh.

 

(Not even going to get into your apparent confusion over the use of the word "some" in the original post.)

 

Is it a thing for generations to blame the next generation for their problems? Or is this the first time a large group of people decided that the people who aren't old enough to truly contribute yet are to blame?

:huh: :unsure:

Edited August 19, 2014 by Taro T

[LastPommerFan]

I'm was not ignoring the history of our discussions about young people while responding to your snide comment degrading young people and their engagement with charity. FWIW, I identify much more closely with my siblings and friends in their early-mid twenties than I do with people in their mid-late thirties. And as I said, your position, both written and implied, is absolutely accurate. Now, about those boots...

[Taro T]

I'm was not ignoring the history of our discussions about young people while responding to your snide comment degrading young people and their engagement with charity. FWIW, I identify much more closely with my siblings and friends in their early-mid twenties than I do with people in their mid-late thirties. And as I said, your position, both written and implied, is absolutely accurate. Now, about those boots...

wtf are you talking about?

 

The one where I (and several others) called you on your silly comment essentially implying that Millenials have a much greater sense of community than other generations because of essentially having internet wired brains?