• 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

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

Visbek said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did read them and pointed them out to you. You obvious think they walk on water, so nothing to see here.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

joG said:
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?
Click to expand...
They claim 88%, which (as noted) is probably a bit too high.

They publish annual reports, like most other large charities.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

American said:
I did read them and pointed them out to you. You obvious think they walk on water, so nothing to see here.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

LowDown said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you cannot answer the question. How is it I knew that would be the case...
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Maybe this time we will get her.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Visbek said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Lol, post #2 just flew right under the radar.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Chomsky said:
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)
Click to expand...
HIS wealth, not donations from questionable sources....
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

American said:
Imagine if the book hadn't come out, doubtful any of this would be known.
Click to expand...
Uh, okay....

You're mixing apples and oranges here. Allegations of inappropriate donations are different than claims that the Clinton Foundation is only allocation 10-15% of its annual revenues to programs.

The tax forms in question are public, and easy for anyone to get. There is no doubt that someone would look at it, much as I'm sure they are poring over the Foundation's annual reports, and that reporters will look into other candidate's funding sources, SuperPACs, business dealings and so forth. Eventually, this particular item would be discussed.


There always seems to be something up with the Clintons....some kind of questionable activity ever since they've been on the national scene.
Click to expand...
*shrug* You can say similar things about almost any candidate today. E.g. the New York Times has already looked at Jeb Bush's business practices; Rubio is already drawing a little notice for the links between his brand-new SuperPAC and the Conservative Solutions PAC.

Sadly, unless someone runs who doesn't take any donations whatsoever, every candidate is going to have questions about their funding.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

UtahBill said:
HIS wealth, not donations from questionable sources....
Click to expand...
True - But (both) still scamming the American taxpayer.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Chomsky said:
True - But (both) still scamming the American taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Romney did pay taxes, tho....despite what the leftist liar said...
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Chomsky said:
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)
Click to expand...

One yells and screams about "the rich", the other simply admits they are.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

UtahBill said:
Romney did pay taxes, tho....despite what the leftist liar said...
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but it's not easy to believe when he refused to fully disclose his taxes as his opponent did.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

joG said:
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.
Click to expand...

No.

They may NOT spend on themselves, beyond managerial salaries or usual costs associated with raising donations.

Where the corruption comes in is usually with "expenses" which, in the US can mean anything, a second or third home for the Clintons perhaps.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Visbek said:
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
Click to expand...



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

Visbek said:
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
Click to expand...


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

American said:
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.
Click to expand...

They couldn't be a Democrat politician if they weren't tax dodgers. I think that is in the party bylaws.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

jmotivator said:
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".
Click to expand...
:roll:

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

Visbek said:
:roll:

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? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


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

jmotivator said:
No, the problem is that what her foundation does isn't "charity". What the Clinton foundation does is more commonly known as "lobbying".
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: 'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charit

Visbek said:
Yes, I'm sure that opinion is based on a deep investigation of the CF's activities....
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

Visbek said:
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.
Click to expand...

You mean the Politifact article that bases the entirety of their findings on what they were told by a Clinton spokesperson?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom