Donald Trump wants the Clinton Foundation and its contributors investigated. Fine, I don't have a problem with that.
Donald Trump contributed to the Clinton Foundation. So, in effect, Trump is calling for an investigation into himself, among others.
We have gone beyond the pale.
I don't see how calling for an investigation into a charity you've contributed to is calling for an investigation into yourself. Not unless you run the charity. By the way, has Trump founded any philanthropic entities? With his resources the question should be "if not, why not?"
While none of this is good, giving to a foundation that actually helps people is different than the Clinton's "enriching themselves"......
Except when most of the money the foundation worth a few hundred million spends goes to "expenses."
I just checked Charity Watch, and they state the money put into programs is 88% with expenses at 12%. They also give it an A rating. There are certainly charities with better percentages, but this certainly isn't bad. Similar to the American Red Cross and even better rated.
I think you are underestimating the significance of how damaging HC's willingness to sell influence is. Not only does this mean just about any foreign government or international cooperation will dictate policy and spending but it also means that ANY irrational billionaire @sshole willing to write a check will have influence over our govt.
What makes this scenario different from lobbying?
Chelsa Clinton's $600k a year gig with NBC isn't made up.
Why is that an issue?
Not necessarily illegal, but the Clintons are masters at walking that fine line. You don't have to do something illegal to be a slimeball.
alloak and I agree on something very, very rarely, but this is the core of the matter.
Not necessarily illegal, but the Clintons are masters at walking that fine line. You don't have to do something illegal to be a slimeball.
alloak and I agree on something very, very rarely, but this is the core of the matter.
Same here. Anyone who has been awake the past 25 years would have to agree. I would add they don't just walk the fine line they cross it. That makes it even more amazing that the GOP could come up with an even worse candidate.
Donald Trump wants the Clinton Foundation and its contributors investigated. Fine, I don't have a problem with that.
Donald Trump contributed to the Clinton Foundation. So, in effect, Trump is calling for an investigation into himself, among others.
We have gone beyond the pale.
I don't see how calling for an investigation into a charity you've contributed to is calling for an investigation into yourself. Not unless you run the charity. By the way, has Trump founded any philanthropic entities? With his resources the question should be "if not, why not?"
Trump wants to know if any donor got anything in return from Clinton. As Trump doesn't do anything that isn't quid pro quo, he should be careful about what he asks for.
Donald Trump wants the Clinton Foundation and its contributors investigated. Fine, I don't have a problem with that.
Donald Trump contributed to the Clinton Foundation. So, in effect, Trump is calling for an investigation into himself, among others.
We have gone beyond the pale.
I don't see how calling for an investigation into a charity you've contributed to is calling for an investigation into yourself. Not unless you run the charity. By the way, has Trump founded any philanthropic entities? With his resources the question should be "if not, why not?"
Trump wants to know if any donor got anything in return from Clinton. As Trump doesn't do anything that isn't quid pro quo, he should be careful about what he asks for.
If there were a quid pro quo I think the violation would be the Foundation's, not Trump's. I think the possibility of paybacks is part of the issue. The other part is if the Clintons misused Foundation assets for personal gain. So Trump could have knowledge that there were no paybacks, at least not to him, but still be abuse by the Clintons, right?
While none of this is good, giving to a foundation that actually helps people is different than the Clinton's "enriching themselves"......
Except when most of the money the foundation worth a few hundred million spends goes to "expenses."
I just checked Charity Watch, and they state the money put into programs is 88% with expenses at 12%. They also give it an A rating. There are certainly charities with better percentages, but this certainly isn't bad. Similar to the American Red Cross and even better rated.
Pesky facts.
While none of this is good, giving to a foundation that actually helps people is different than the Clinton's "enriching themselves"......
Except when most of the money the foundation worth a few hundred million spends goes to "expenses."
I just checked Charity Watch, and they state the money put into programs is 88% with expenses at 12%. They also give it an A rating. There are certainly charities with better percentages, but this certainly isn't bad. Similar to the American Red Cross and even better rated.
Pesky facts.
Specific facts:
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.
In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.
More here:
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
Not necessarily illegal, but the Clintons are masters at walking that fine line. You don't have to do something illegal to be a slimeball.
alloak and I agree on something very, very rarely, but this is the core of the matter.
Same here. Anyone who has been awake the past 25 years would have to agree. I would add they don't just walk the fine line they cross it. That makes it even more amazing that the GOP could come up with an even worse candidate.
Trump "worse" than the Clintons? Highly debatable.
While none of this is good, giving to a foundation that actually helps people is different than the Clinton's "enriching themselves"......
Except when most of the money the foundation worth a few hundred million spends goes to "expenses."
I just checked Charity Watch, and they state the money put into programs is 88% with expenses at 12%. They also give it an A rating. There are certainly charities with better percentages, but this certainly isn't bad. Similar to the American Red Cross and even better rated.
Pesky facts.
Specific facts:
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.
In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.
More here:
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
They spend more on employees than most charities because their employees do the work instead of just handing out cash to other organizations. That does not mean that the money isn't spent on programs. As you pointed out, there are no Clintons on the payroll. With the talk around here you would think that donations go straight to the Clinton's personal bank account.
While none of this is good, giving to a foundation that actually helps people is different than the Clinton's "enriching themselves"......
Except when most of the money the foundation worth a few hundred million spends goes to "expenses."
I just checked Charity Watch, and they state the money put into programs is 88% with expenses at 12%. They also give it an A rating. There are certainly charities with better percentages, but this certainly isn't bad. Similar to the American Red Cross and even better rated.
Pesky facts.
Specific facts:
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.
In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.
More here:
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
Be careful about looking into it to closely, Axeman. You may wind up developing an intense desire
to kill yourself, or break your neck in a freak "accident" falling down a flight of stairs or something. Very unfortunate things seem to happen....
One silver lining if Hillary gets elected is that some property might be returned to the White House.
Stuff they stole on the way out last time.
While none of this is good, giving to a foundation that actually helps people is different than the Clinton's "enriching themselves"......
Except when most of the money the foundation worth a few hundred million spends goes to "expenses."
I just checked Charity Watch, and they state the money put into programs is 88% with expenses at 12%. They also give it an A rating. There are certainly charities with better percentages, but this certainly isn't bad. Similar to the American Red Cross and even better rated.
Pesky facts.
Specific facts:
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.
In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.
More here:
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
They spend more on employees than most charities because their employees do the work instead of just handing out cash to other organizations. That does not mean that the money isn't spent on programs. As you pointed out, there are no Clintons on the payroll. With the talk around here you would think that donations go straight to the Clinton's personal bank account.
The Post article says that Charity Navigator placed the Foundation on the watch list. However, if you go to Charity Navigator's web site, it says it removed it from the list after their tax forms were released to the public.
The sire doesn't rate the Foundation because:
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204
While none of this is good, giving to a foundation that actually helps people is different than the Clinton's "enriching themselves"......
Except when most of the money the foundation worth a few hundred million spends goes to "expenses."
I just checked Charity Watch, and they state the money put into programs is 88% with expenses at 12%. They also give it an A rating. There are certainly charities with better percentages, but this certainly isn't bad. Similar to the American Red Cross and even better rated.
Pesky facts.
Specific facts:
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.
In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.
More here:
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
Be careful about looking into it to closely, Axeman. You may wind up developing an intense desire
to kill yourself, or break your neck in a freak "accident" falling down a flight of stairs or something. Very unfortunate things seem to happen....
Now with the murder stuff? You should stick to making up fake businesses that you don't have.
BEGALA: This is politics at its worst. This is a completely new standard, this is what the press and the Republicans do every time the Clintons run. It’s a different standard for the Clintons. I worked for Bill Clinton against George Bush Sr. He had the Points of Light Foundation, which he himself set up while he was president. And every single day as president, he named a point of light to promote his foundation. We thought that was great. We never attacked it. Just a second. Then the next time, we ran against Bob Dole. Bob Dole’s wife, Bob Dole ran the Senate. Bob Dole’s wife, Elizabeth Dole, very able person, was running the American Red Cross, a great foundation. We never attacked that. The press never attacked that either.
Not necessarily illegal, but the Clintons are masters at walking that fine line. You don't have to do something illegal to be a slimeball.
alloak and I agree on something very, very rarely, but this is the core of the matter.
Same here. Anyone who has been awake the past 25 years would have to agree. I would add they don't just walk the fine line they cross it. That makes it even more amazing that the GOP could come up with an even worse candidate.
Trump "worse" than the Clintons? Highly debatable.
Only debatable until November. Then the jury comes in.
BEGALA: This is politics at its worst. This is a completely new standard, this is what the press and the Republicans do every time the Clintons run. It’s a different standard for the Clintons. I worked for Bill Clinton against George Bush Sr. He had the Points of Light Foundation, which he himself set up while he was president. And every single day as president, he named a point of light to promote his foundation. We thought that was great. We never attacked it. Just a second. Then the next time, we ran against Bob Dole. Bob Dole’s wife, Bob Dole ran the Senate. Bob Dole’s wife, Elizabeth Dole, very able person, was running the American Red Cross, a great foundation. We never attacked that. The press never attacked that either.
Bush Sr. and the Dole's had few (if any) character challenges. They we're respected for having an
ethical compass. They earned it.
The Clintons have totally skipped that part of the process. Even their supporters are forced to cover for
them and make constant excuses. Nobody is out to "get" the Clintons. If anything, they are out to get
themselves.
While none of this is good, giving to a foundation that actually helps people is different than the Clinton's "enriching themselves"......
Yeah, that does seem to get lost in the "debate". The Clinton Foundation is actually saving lives all over the world. That pales in comparison to presidential politics though I guess.
I wonder if the people of Haiti feel the same way.
Whether the foundation has done good things is not the point. I'm sure it's done some
good and nobody is claiming it hasn't.
The point that's becoming more obvious by the day is that, during her tenure as SOS, if you
wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton you had to pay for it. I doubt that's the way the office
was set up to operate.
Now Bill is out saying he won't be out raising money for the foundation if Hillary is elected.
Secretary of State it was OK, if she get's elected President then it's not? Unbelievable.
Whether the foundation has done good things is not the point. I'm sure it's done some
good and nobody is claiming it hasn't.The point that's becoming more obvious by the day is that, during her tenure as SOS, if you
wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton you had to pay for it. I doubt that's the way the office
was set up to operate.Now Bill is out saying he won't be out raising money for the foundation if Hillary is elected.
Secretary of State it was OK, if she get's elected President then it's not? Unbelievable.
It pains me to agree with you but in this case I do. But I'm puzzled that this bothers you more than the things Trump has said and done and says he will do.
Whether the foundation has done good things is not the point. I'm sure it's done some
good and nobody is claiming it hasn't.The point that's becoming more obvious by the day is that, during her tenure as SOS, if you
wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton you had to pay for it. I doubt that's the way the office
was set up to operate.Now Bill is out saying he won't be out raising money for the foundation if Hillary is elected.
Secretary of State it was OK, if she get's elected President then it's not? Unbelievable.It pains me to agree with you but in this case I do. But I'm puzzled that this bothers you more than the things Trump has said and done and says he will do.
Trump is a private citizen, not an elected official who's gotten rich off politics. Might not make
a difference to you, but as far as I'm concerned a HUGE difference.
[Edited on 8/24/2016 by alloak41]
Whether the foundation has done good things is not the point. I'm sure it's done some
good and nobody is claiming it hasn't.The point that's becoming more obvious by the day is that, during her tenure as SOS, if you
wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton you had to pay for it. I doubt that's the way the office
was set up to operate.Now Bill is out saying he won't be out raising money for the foundation if Hillary is elected.
Secretary of State it was OK, if she get's elected President then it's not? Unbelievable.It pains me to agree with you but in this case I do. But I'm puzzled that this bothers you more than the things Trump has said and done and says he will do.
Trump is a private citizen, not an elected official living who's gotten rich off politics. Might not make
a difference to you, but as far as I'm concerned a HUGE difference.Actually both Clinton and Trump are private citizens running for President, no?
The Clintons are career politicians. Trump is not. Trump has not spent a day in elected office. If that
changes, you can rest assured I will hold him accountable for his actions in that role, and conduct himself
in a manner suitable for public office.
Whether the foundation has done good things is not the point. I'm sure it's done some
good and nobody is claiming it hasn't.The point that's becoming more obvious by the day is that, during her tenure as SOS, if you
wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton you had to pay for it. I doubt that's the way the office
was set up to operate.Now Bill is out saying he won't be out raising money for the foundation if Hillary is elected.
Secretary of State it was OK, if she get's elected President then it's not? Unbelievable.It pains me to agree with you but in this case I do. But I'm puzzled that this bothers you more than the things Trump has said and done and says he will do.
Trump is a private citizen, not an elected official living who's gotten rich off politics. Might not make
a difference to you, but as far as I'm concerned a HUGE difference.Actually both Clinton and Trump are private citizens running for President, no?
The Clintons are career politicians. Trump is not. Trump has not spent a day in elected office. If that
changes, you can rest assured I will hold him accountable for his actions in that role, and conduct himself
in a manner suitable for public office.
I have already agreed with you regarding the Clintons, but if you are suggesting that Trump's past behavior is irrelevant because he was not in politics I strongly disagree.
Whether the foundation has done good things is not the point. I'm sure it's done some
good and nobody is claiming it hasn't.The point that's becoming more obvious by the day is that, during her tenure as SOS, if you
wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton you had to pay for it. I doubt that's the way the office
was set up to operate.Now Bill is out saying he won't be out raising money for the foundation if Hillary is elected.
Secretary of State it was OK, if she get's elected President then it's not? Unbelievable.It pains me to agree with you but in this case I do. But I'm puzzled that this bothers you more than the things Trump has said and done and says he will do.
Trump is a private citizen, not an elected official living who's gotten rich off politics. Might not make
a difference to you, but as far as I'm concerned a HUGE difference.Actually both Clinton and Trump are private citizens running for President, no?
The Clintons are career politicians. Trump is not. Trump has not spent a day in elected office. If that
changes, you can rest assured I will hold him accountable for his actions in that role, and conduct himself
in a manner suitable for public office.I have already agreed with you regarding the Clintons, but if you are suggesting that Trump's past behavior is irrelevant because he was not in politics I strongly disagree.
His supposed bad past behavior has been magnified x10,000 since he entered the race with a R next
to his name. Do you expect me to critique every other businessman in the country? What he does
after he's elected is what's important to me.
Full disclosure, I just came across this meme on Facebook and know nothing about this but a) I bet it is just as rotten as it looks b) based on the fact that the Clinton Foundation is mentioned, I am going to guess there is favorable govt treatment or a govt contract involved and c) oh look, yet another sleezy connection to the Clinton a Foundation!
Donald Trump wants the Clinton Foundation and its contributors investigated. Fine, I don't have a problem with that.
Donald Trump contributed to the Clinton Foundation. So, in effect, Trump is calling for an investigation into himself, among others.
We have gone beyond the pale.
I don't see how calling for an investigation into a charity you've contributed to is calling for an investigation into yourself. Not unless you run the charity.
Right? Some pretty screwed up logic there.
Whether the foundation has done good things is not the point. I'm sure it's done some
good and nobody is claiming it hasn't.The point that's becoming more obvious by the day is that, during her tenure as SOS, if you
wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton you had to pay for it. I doubt that's the way the office
was set up to operate.Now Bill is out saying he won't be out raising money for the foundation if Hillary is elected.
Secretary of State it was OK, if she get's elected President then it's not? Unbelievable.It pains me to agree with you but in this case I do. But I'm puzzled that this bothers you more than the things Trump has said and done and says he will do.
Trump is a private citizen, not an elected official living who's gotten rich off politics. Might not make
a difference to you, but as far as I'm concerned a HUGE difference.Actually both Clinton and Trump are private citizens running for President, no?
The Clintons are career politicians. Trump is not. Trump has not spent a day in elected office. If that
changes, you can rest assured I will hold him accountable for his actions in that role, and conduct himself
in a manner suitable for public office.I have already agreed with you regarding the Clintons, but if you are suggesting that Trump's past behavior is irrelevant because he was not in politics I strongly disagree.
His supposed bad past behavior has been magnified x10,000 since he entered the race with a R next
to his name. Do you expect me to critique every other businessman in the country? What he does
after he's elected is what's important to me.
Critique every businessman? No, just every candidate. How is one supposed to decide between the candidates if one does not consider their past as well as their stated positions for the future? The fact is that past bad behavior for both candidates has been magnified by their opposition. If you don't realize that your partisanship is clouding your vision. Part of evaluating the candidates is assessing their character and the only way to do this is evaluating how they have conducted themselves in the past. If you don't give consideration to both candidates in the process you are not able to make a clear decision are you? I know that there are a lot of folks whose party allegiance is so strong that they are not able or interested in anything that may reflect poorly on their party or it's candidate. Maybe that's you. It's not me. I have never been interested in party politics. I can see flaws and strengths in both candidates and won't try to make nonsensical rationalizations about either.
[Edited on 8/25/2016 by bob1954]
Looks like the above is just as bad as it looks.
Senaror's daughter is CEO of company that makes like saving Epipens (medicine injection devises for extreme allergic reactions) that cost $57. She successfully lobbies congress to require schools nationwide to carry Epipens and then raises the price to $300 a pop. Oh yeah, she also was able to pull a corporate inversion meaning the company pays far less taxes despite still being headquartered in the US. Apparently many on govt are afraid to speak out cause daddy is a senator.
CAST A PROTEST VOTE! This sh#t is just getting worse and worse.
Looks like the above is just as bad as it looks.
Senaror's daughter is CEO of company that makes like saving Epipens (medicine injection devises for extreme allergic reactions) that cost $57. She successfully lobbies congress to require schools nationwide to carry Epipens and then raises the price to $300 a pop. Oh yeah, she also was able to pull a corporate inversion meaning the company pays far less taxes despite still being headquartered in the US. Apparently many on govt are afraid to speak out cause daddy is a senator.
CAST A PROTEST VOTE! This sh#t is just getting worse and worse.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-24/the-senator-s-daughter-who-raised-prices-on-anti-allergy-epipen/blockquote >
How does this relate to Clinton, other than the fact that Clinton called the price increase outrageous?
