Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charitable

  1. #41
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,865

    Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Well if Rush Limbaugh is saying it, it must be, well...

    The Clinton Foundation has an unusual structure, in that it does a lot of the work with its own staffers. The travel and salary costs are going largely to charitable works. What conservatives are decrying as "excess spending" uses criteria that doesn't apply to the Clinton Foundation.

    It sounds like the 88% figure is inflated, but not by an excessive amount. It's also difficult for charity watchdogs like Charity Navigator to rate, because it works so differently from most charities.

    But hey, don't let something like nuance get in the way of a good slam, amirite?

    Rush Limbaugh says Clinton Foundation spends just 15 percent on charity, 85 percent on overhead | PunditFact


    I guess if you are saying it, it must be true.

    you make a wild claim without one iota of substance to back it up and challenge one of the most credible sources in America?

    Hard facts like "it sounds like the 88% figure is inflated" sure sell that claim.
    "Small people talk about people, average people talk about events, great people talk about ideas" Eleanor Roosevelt

  2. #42
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,855

    Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Well if Rush Limbaugh is saying it, it must be, well...

    The Clinton Foundation has an unusual structure, in that it does a lot of the work with its own staffers. The travel and salary costs are going largely to charitable works. What conservatives are decrying as "excess spending" uses criteria that doesn't apply to the Clinton Foundation.

    It sounds like the 88% figure is inflated, but not by an excessive amount. It's also difficult for charity watchdogs like Charity Navigator to rate, because it works so differently from most charities.

    But hey, don't let something like nuance get in the way of a good slam, amirite?

    Rush Limbaugh says Clinton Foundation spends just 15 percent on charity, 85 percent on overhead | PunditFact

    I'm trying to figure out if you actually believe the bull crap you just wrote.

    They are a different kind of charity that spends most of its money on its employees and their travel? ... aka. "A scam".
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  3. #43
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,855

    Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Clinton Foundation Admits 'Mistakes' in Tax Returns - NBC News

    Imagine if the book hadn't come out, doubtful any of this would be known. There always seems to be something up with the Clintons....some kind of questionable activity ever since they've been on the national scene.
    They couldn't be a Democrat politician if they weren't tax dodgers. I think that is in the party bylaws.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  4. #44
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:55 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,139

    Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    I'm trying to figure out if you actually believe the bull crap you just wrote.

    They are a different kind of charity that spends most of its money on its employees and their travel? ... aka. "A scam".


    Again: The Clinton Foundation is structured differently than most charities. When they are paying salaries, it's because their staffers are the ones doing the work. When they pay travel, at least some of it is to get their employees to do the work.

    As the Politico article points out:

    Many foundations carry out charitable works by giving money to other organizations that, in turn, do the ground-level charity work, whereas the Clinton foundationís charitable works are mostly done by people on the foundationís payroll. "We are an implementing organization rather than a grantmaking organization," said the foundationís Minassian. Thatís why the Clinton Foundationís 990s show a relatively small amount of money categorized as "grants" -- only about 10 percent of all expenses in 2013.

    There are certainly questions to ask. But overall, it's not difficult to understand -- unless, of course, you're a partisan who will ignore any and all facts to make the "10%" figure stick. But that can't possibly be the case at DP, amirite?

  5. #45
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,855

    Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post


    Again: The Clinton Foundation is structured differently than most charities. When they are paying salaries, it's because their staffers are the ones doing the work. When they pay travel, at least some of it is to get their employees to do the work.

    As the Politico article points out:

    Many foundations carry out charitable works by giving money to other organizations that, in turn, do the ground-level charity work, whereas the Clinton foundation’s charitable works are mostly done by people on the foundation’s payroll. "We are an implementing organization rather than a grantmaking organization," said the foundation’s Minassian. That’s why the Clinton Foundation’s 990s show a relatively small amount of money categorized as "grants" -- only about 10 percent of all expenses in 2013.

    There are certainly questions to ask. But overall, it's not difficult to understand -- unless, of course, you're a partisan who will ignore any and all facts to make the "10%" figure stick. But that can't possibly be the case at DP, amirite?

    No, the problem is that what her foundation does isn't "charity". What the Clinton foundation does is more commonly known as "lobbying".

    The twisted excuse sold by the Politico piece is the same argument used by the Susan G. Komen foundation for why the vast majority of their money goes to staff expenses rather than, ya know, cancer research.

    It is fine if the Clintons decided to use their political clout to launch a half-billion dollar lobbying firm, just don't pretend it is a charity.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  6. #46
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,851

    Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

    "I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance." William Faulkner

  7. #47
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:55 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,139

    Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    No, the problem is that what her foundation does isn't "charity". What the Clinton foundation does is more commonly known as "lobbying".
    Yes, I'm sure that opinion is based on a deep investigation of the CF's activities....


    The twisted excuse sold by the Politico piece is the same argument used by the Susan G. Komen foundation for why the vast majority of their money goes to staff expenses rather than, ya know, cancer research.
    Your analysis here is incorrect.

    Charity Navigator classifies 80% of Komen's expenses as going to programs. In a typical year, 9% is spent on fundraising, 10% on administrative expenses.

    In Komen's case, they were increasing funding for research grants on an annual basis, but revenues were increasing at a much faster rate. They spend a lot on education and awareness; they're caught up with controversial issues such as debates over the frequency of mammograms, and the use of Avastin; they smacked a hornet's nest when they tried to cut off Planned Parenthood, mostly for political reasons; there are conflicts between the umbrella organization and the regional affiliates.

    There may be good arguments for Komen to spend its funds differently. However, that question has nothing to do with the inaccurate characterization of "Komen wastes money on overhead."

    On a side note: My guess is that most people don't know what Komen does in the first place. They assume Komen allocates a large percentage of its expenses to research, and get upset when they find out that is not the case.

  8. #48
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,855

    Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Yes, I'm sure that opinion is based on a deep investigation of the CF's activities....
    As deep as Politifact.



    Your analysis here is incorrect.

    Charity Navigator classifies 80% of Komen's expenses as going to programs. In a typical year, 9% is spent on fundraising, 10% on administrative expenses.

    In Komen's case, they were increasing funding for research grants on an annual basis, but revenues were increasing at a much faster rate. They spend a lot on education and awareness; they're caught up with controversial issues such as debates over the frequency of mammograms, and the use of Avastin; they smacked a hornet's nest when they tried to cut off Planned Parenthood, mostly for political reasons; there are conflicts between the umbrella organization and the regional affiliates.

    There may be good arguments for Komen to spend its funds differently. However, that question has nothing to do with the inaccurate characterization of "Komen wastes money on overhead."

    On a side note: My guess is that most people don't know what Komen does in the first place. They assume Komen allocates a large percentage of its expenses to research, and get upset when they find out that is not the case.
    As I said, Komen only spends about 20% of their money on actual cancer research which is where the cure will actually come from. Saying that it isn't true because they also spend a lot of money of pay people to do things other than breast cancer research is only supporting my statement.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  9. #49
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,398
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    lol

    No, I don't worship any politicians, and certainly not the Clintons.

    Meanwhile, I see no indication you actually read the Politifact article. If you did, you'd understand why merely reading the tax filings does not give you an accurate picture of how much the Clinton Foundation spends on programs.
    You mean the Politifact article that bases the entirety of their findings on what they were told by a Clinton spokesperson?

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •