• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,061
Reaction score
33,377
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charitable spending | Fox News


The charity run by the Clintons has raised $2 billion since it was founded in 2001 -- $144.3 million in 2013 alone -- but only a small fraction of the take went to its “life-saving work,” according to analysts who monitor non-profits.

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation claims 88 percent of the money it raises goes to actual charity work, but experts who have looked at the books put the number at about 10 percent. The rest, they say, goes mostly to salaries, benefits, travel and fund-raising.

“That claim is demonstrably false, and it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim,” said Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, a conservative online magazine.
Okay, let's give the benefit of the doubt and say 30% went to real charity, WTF are they doing with the other 70%? Watch the wagons circle.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

We've gone from a 2012 front-runner Presidential candidate turned nominee who kept his consider wealth in the Cayman's, to this current front-runner Presidential candidate presumed nominee with her well-endowed foundation.

Now please remind me again, if you will: "What is the difference between these two parties"?

(besides that they promise us - to never be attained)
 
Last edited:
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charitable spending | Fox News



Okay, let's give the benefit of the doubt and say 30% went to real charity, WTF are they doing with the other 70%? Watch the wagons circle.

Charitable organizations usually spend a lot on themselves. What are the numbers for the International Red Cross or the UN or the Olympics people? Charities are usually mostly about that and often scams If you want to be politically incorrect about it.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

I'm surprised anyone is surprised. The Clintons are politicians, after all. I think the foundation is a way to provide wealth to family and friends. While some money does go to charitable works, a normal foundation would have about 80 to 85% of its revenue go to charitable works. Political power is for sale. Everybody knows that. No surprise here.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

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

Charitable organizations usually spend a lot on themselves. What are the numbers for the International Red Cross or the UN or the Olympics people?
On average, a reasonably reputable charity should spend 65% on programs.

As noted, the Clinton Foundation does a lot in-house, so focusing exclusively on charitable grants is incorrect. They are probably not at the 88% they claimed, but are very likely above the 65% threshold.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

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

Valiant effort. Now explain away this: Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations - Bloomberg Politics
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

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

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

Sure. I'll get right on that, after all the SuperPACs stop hiding the identity of their donors. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/u...secret-money-flood-the-midterm-elections.html)

Oh, and as soon as Scott Walker can prove that he didn't abuse the election laws which bar collaboration between a candidate and SuperPACs.


Edit: I guess it didn't take much work after all. The CGEP claims that they're subject to the laws of British Columbia, which (arguably) require permission before disclosing donor's names. They are probably taking an extreme stance. My point remains, though -- namely everyone is currently relying heavily on secret cash.
 
Last edited:
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Sure. I'll get right on that, after all the SuperPACs stop hiding the identity of their donors. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/u...secret-money-flood-the-midterm-elections.html)

Oh, and as soon as Scott Walker can prove that he didn't abuse the election laws which bar collaboration between a candidate and SuperPACs.


Edit: I guess it didn't take much work after all. The CGEP claims that they're subject to the laws of British Columbia, which (arguably) require permission before disclosing donor's names. They are probably taking an extreme stance. My point remains, though -- namely everyone is currently relying heavily on secret cash.

Canada claims that no such law prevents these from being released.

This is the most corrupt family that ever held the office. You can throw out all the trumped-up moral equivalencies you want, but nothing compares to this mafia-like duo of power freaks.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Sure. I'll get right on that, after all the SuperPACs stop hiding the identity of their donors. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/u...secret-money-flood-the-midterm-elections.html)

Oh, and as soon as Scott Walker can prove that he didn't abuse the election laws which bar collaboration between a candidate and SuperPACs.

That's the real point here.

Yes, the Clinton's are corrupt. But if we want to vote for a candidate that's not been corrupted by money in 2016, we'll have to choose whichever bunch of whackos is way down ballot and who collectively won't get 5% of the vote. What's worse is the same thing will be true for any Senate candidate in a competitive race who might have $10 or $20 million dropped in the race by c4s and the like, from secret donors, no matter the party.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Canada claims that no such law prevents these from being released.
There are no Canadian federal laws to that effect. The Foundation is in British Columbia, which has more restrictive privacy laws. They are very likely still pushing it, but it sounds fairly typical.


This is the most corrupt family that ever held the office.
lol

Yes, much more corrupt than Nixon, who hired aides to break into the offices of political opponents, and played so fast and loose with campaign cash (remember CREEP?) that it sparked off a wave of campaign funding laws; more corrupt than Ulysses S Grant, whose administration fostered such endemic corruption it threatened the entire nation.

No, wait, I lied. Nixon and Grant were certainly far more corrupt than the Clintons. So were a few others, I'm sure.


You can throw out all the trumped-up moral equivalencies you want, but nothing compares to this mafia-like duo of power freaks.
lol

Sorry dude, but "secret cash = secret cash." If you're going to blast Hillary for this (which is fine actually), then you ought to be in a righteous indignation about EVERY candidate in EVERY election which has taken or benefitted from anonymous donations. (Exceptions can be made for anyone who makes a good-faith effort to close the SuperPAC loopholes or enact campaign finance reform, such as John McCain.)
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Bull****.

Good thing you put so much thought into that rebuttal, otherwise it might have been laughably incomplete...
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charitable spending | Fox News



Okay, let's give the benefit of the doubt and say 30% went to real charity, WTF are they doing with the other 70%? Watch the wagons circle.

It is the road map to how Obama is going to fund all his exotic golf vacations all across the world after he can no longer change it to the tax payers.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Them pantsuits don't pay for themselves.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

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
Did you even look at the linked documents in the article???? No of course not, get your head out of the sand!
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Good thing you put so much thought into that rebuttal, otherwise it might have been laughably incomplete...

I gave obvious bull hockey all the thought that it deserved.

Yeah, the Clintons are all special. The rules don't apply to them. They even have special rules for how their fund runs.

You are foisting on us the most openly corrupt presidential candidate that this nation has ever seen. I really don't know how you can live with yourselves.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

I gave obvious bull hockey all the thought that it deserved.

Yeah, the Clintons are all special. The rules don't apply to them. They even have special rules for how their fund runs.

You are foisting on us the most openly corrupt presidential candidate that this nation has ever seen. I really don't know how you can live with yourselves.

Which rules about how they spend their money did they break?
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

On average, a reasonably reputable charity should spend 65% on programs.

As noted, the Clinton Foundation does a lot in-house, so focusing exclusively on charitable grants is incorrect. They are probably not at the 88% they claimed, but are very likely above the 65% threshold.

If they do 65% they are in comparatively good shape, though, the Red Cross of Austria, which I had looked at a while ago publishes a number of 89%. Do the Clintons publish, do you know?
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Seriously, does anybody believe this foundation was created primarily to engage in charity as opposed to engage in image-building and promotion of the Clintons?
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Which rules about how they spend their money did they break?

Oops. That's telling. It's not their money, it belongs to the foundation. Of course, they apparently treat it like it is their money.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

The fact that politicians are corrupt is pretty well known universally. But that isn't the problem. The problem is that people accept it and continue to vote for the people. You can see examples in this thread. As long as we reward corrupt people with political power, we will continue to have corrupt people in office. Shame on us.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Did you even look at the linked documents in the article????
Yes, I did!!!!

So did Politifact -- whose article YOU apparently did not read. If you're looking at the Clinton Foundation documents like you would most similar charities, their numbers would look awful. However, since they do most of the work themselves, paying for salaries ought to be classified mostly as programs rather than overhead.

Again, I do think they are overstating things with the 88% number. But they clearly aren't only spending 10-15% on programs. It's probably more in the 75-80% range.
 
Back
Top Bottom