Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

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

  1. #1
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 07:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    75,616

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

    '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.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #2
    Sage
    Chomsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Third Coast
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,369

    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 by Chomsky; 04-29-15 at 03:53 PM. Reason: add 'wealthy' & 'well endowed

  3. #3
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    42,029

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

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    '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.

  4. #4
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,049

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

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    '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's the Clintons. Crony-ism is expensive!
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #5
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,261

    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.

  6. #6
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,645

    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

  7. #7
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    10-18-17 @ 05:34 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,916

    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
    Valiant effort. Now explain away this: Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations - Bloomberg Politics

  9. #9
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,336
    Blog Entries
    10

    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
    Bull****.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  10. #10
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    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/us...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 by Visbek; 04-29-15 at 05:00 PM.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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