New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

C'mon, people.... get real! What kind of sucky charity spends a lousy 15% on charity?

Barbella

Senator
I wouldn't give a DIME to something so obviously corrupt, self-serving, and/or inept as the Clinton Foundation. FIFTEEN PERCENT? You have to be an IDIOT to think that's ok. Look at other charities, and see for yourself what their percentages look like...

The people who mostly benefited from the Clinton charities were the Clintons, and their families and friends. Period.

Money grubbing, dishonest, greedy, and absolutely without a conscience or any morals. Your heroes, lefties? Really?
 

Boltlady

Mayor
I wouldn't give a DIME to something so obviously corrupt, self-serving, and/or inept as the Clinton Foundation. FIFTEEN PERCENT? You have to be an IDIOT to think that's ok. Look at other charities, and see for yourself what their percentages look like...

The people who mostly benefited from the Clinton charities were the Clintons, and their families and friends. Period.

Money grubbing, dishonest, greedy, and absolutely without a conscience or any morals. Your heroes, lefties? Really?
Actually if you do look at other charities you may be in for a bit of a surprise. Although I'm not sure if the percentage is still the same, but I do know that back in the 70's the law stipulated that a non-profit only had to contribute 10% to it's actual cause. The rest could be used for 'expenses'.

A lot of them have a LOT of 'expenses.' Or, as a fellow who published a little 'newspaper' for the benefit of local widows and orphans of police killed on duty told me, "why should I eat beans when I want steak?".

It's a sorry situation but more widespread than you realize.
 
most of the foundation's revenue is spent on "assessments" of the world's problems, not food clothing and shelter for the suffering.

these "assessments" are basically political analyses used by clinton the candidate to formultate her strategies and speeches.

the fact that the press is willfully ignoring this is mind boggling.
 

MrMike

Bless you all
One interesting tidbit about the Clinton Foundation:

Last month, the website The Federalist looked at the Clinton Foundation’s IRS filings for the period between 2008 and 2012. According to its analysis, only 15 percent of the $500 million raised during that span when towards grants for other organizations.

Nearly $110 million was paid out in the form of salaries and benefits while $25 million went towards travel expenses. Almost 60 percent of the organization’s disclosed revenue — or $290 million — was listed under the category of “other expenses.”

That pattern continued into 2013, The Post notes. Of the $140 million in money the Clinton Foundation received in 2013, only $9 million was given out as charity to other groups.





I wouldn't give a DIME to something so obviously corrupt, self-serving, and/or inept as the Clinton Foundation. FIFTEEN PERCENT? You have to be an IDIOT to think that's ok. Look at other charities, and see for yourself what their percentages look like...

The people who mostly benefited from the Clinton charities were the Clintons, and their families and friends. Period.

Money grubbing, dishonest, greedy, and absolutely without a conscience or any morals. Your heroes, lefties? Really?
 

Lukey

Senator
Well, the answer, as with everything, is "it depends." Theirs is obviously an "operating foundation" which doesn't exist primarily to give grants but rather to conduct (and fund) charitable activities, some of which is done by staff and or hired consultants. So just looking at these numbers doesn't mean they did anything wrong. But it is very likely that the activities they undertook were closely aligned with their political philosophies, so there is the potential that they awarded contracts (and grants) with an eye towards advancing their political positions (and potentially Hillary's career). So that could possibly get them in some hot water if it can be proven.
 

Barbella

Senator
Actually if you do look at other charities you may be in for a bit of a surprise. Although I'm not sure if the percentage is still the same, but I do know that back in the 70's the law stipulated that a non-profit only had to contribute 10% to it's actual cause. The rest could be used for 'expenses'.

A lot of them have a LOT of 'expenses.' Or, as a fellow who published a little 'newspaper' for the benefit of local widows and orphans of police killed on duty told me, "why should I eat beans when I want steak?".

It's a sorry situation but more widespread than you realize.
I always check on the charities I give to, and pick the ones with the best ratings from http://www.charitynavigator.org/

If the 'administrative expenses and salaries' are on the low side, I figure that's a good thing.
 

Arkady

President
I wouldn't give a DIME to something so obviously corrupt, self-serving, and/or inept as the Clinton Foundation. FIFTEEN PERCENT? You have to be an IDIOT to think that's ok. Look at other charities, and see for yourself what their percentages look like...

The people who mostly benefited from the Clinton charities were the Clintons, and their families and friends. Period.

Money grubbing, dishonest, greedy, and absolutely without a conscience or any morals. Your heroes, lefties? Really?
What's the source for that 15% figure? Here's their 2013 annual report:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clintonfoundation2013-2014annualreport.pdf

Here are their 2013 financials:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf

That has their expenditures: 88.4% for the program, 7% for management and general, 4.5% for fundraising, and 0.1% as an accounting provision for uncollectible contributions. That sounds reasonable to me. Granted, many of those program services expenses went to "salaries and benefits," but when you actually employ aid workers, that's to be expenses. Those aren't going to Bill, Hillary, or Chelsea. They each worked entirely pro-bono, with zero reportable compensation.
 

Arkady

President
So that could possibly get them in some hot water if it can be proven.
Yet there is no evidence at all that this was the case. It's just something being floated, as bald speculation, in the hopes that people will think it must be the case.

With ANY economic activity that a person or his family members are involved with, there's always the possibility that it could be manipulated for political gain. For example, were any of the Bush clan's business operations used to funnel money to Bush campaign donors, as a way of laundering that money to get it in under campaign finance caps? Did Cindy McCain's charities get extra money from contributors hoping to curry favor with her husband? How about Liddy Dole, who had a nice little run at the Red Cross when her husband was in a position to scratch the political backs of those who donated to it? Was Jenna Bush offered various plum media gigs (including being a contributor to NBC Nightly News) right out of a mediocre undergrad education, in order to earn some political points with the powerful Bush clan? Is Ron Paul being offered speaking fees to buy Rand Paul's votes? Is Virginia Thomas's nonprofit group Liberty Central a device through which donors can influence her husband's Supreme court vote? Did GW bush make Eugene Scalia a recess appointment to the Labor Department in exchange for favorable rulings from his dad? Did Romney use big-bucks contracts from his business in order to woo powerful Republicans and lock up the presidential nomination? If naked speculation is all that's needed, you can create the shadow of wrongdoing for any political figure you can think of
 

Dino

Russian Asset
What's the source for that 15% figure? Here's their 2013 annual report:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clintonfoundation2013-2014annualreport.pdf

Here are their 2013 financials:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf

That has their expenditures: 88.4% for the program, 7% for management and general, 4.5% for fundraising, and 0.1% as an accounting provision for uncollectible contributions. That sounds reasonable to me. Granted, many of those program services expenses went to "salaries and benefits," but when you actually employ aid workers, that's to be expenses. Those aren't going to Bill, Hillary, or Chelsea. They each worked entirely pro-bono, with zero reportable compensation.
Charity Navigator created a watch list last year to include any charity that does not “meet our criteria.” Organizations are placed on the list when Charity Navigator becomes “aware of conduct that may affect a donor’s decision to support that charity.”

Of the Clinton Foundation, Charity Navigator wrote: “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,” while noting “our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity.”

Charity Navigator’s list includes 23 organizations in total. Besides the Clinton Foundation and Sharpton’s National Action Network, other high-profile organizations on the list include the Red Cross and the Sierra Club.

National Action Network’s listing is due to the organization’s failure to pay payroll taxes for its employees. The New York Times reported in November that Sharpton and his group have a total of $4.5 million in pending state and federal tax liens.

The Red Cross is included on the watch list based on reports that it spends too little of its revenue on programs to further its mission. The Sierra Club is on the list because it allegedly failed to get permission to publish the names of several businesses in North Carolina used in a report about Duke Energy.
In its justification for placing the Clinton Foundation on its watch list, Charity Navigator cited numerous recent articles concerning donations from foreign governments.
It cited a Feb. 19, Wall Street Journal report claiming “at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during [Hillary Clinton’s] tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation.”
Charity Navigator also noted that on Feb. 26, Politico reported the Clinton Foundation failed to inform the State Department of a $500,000 donation it received from the Algerian government.
The foundation has received numerous donations from foreign governments, including many in the Middle East. The governments of Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have sent millions to the charity.
While Charity Navigator focused only on the Clinton Foundation’s donors, it could plausibly add the organization’s low payout rate to its watch list rationale.
Last month, the website The Federalist looked at the Clinton Foundation’s IRS filings for the period between 2008 and 2012. According to its analysis, only 15 percent of the $500 million raised during that span when towards grants for other organizations.
Nearly $110 million was paid out in the form of salaries and benefits while $25 million went towards travel expenses. Almost 60 percent of the organization’s disclosed revenue — or $290 million — was listed under the category of “other expenses.”
That pattern continued into 2013, The Post notes. Of the $140 million in money the Clinton Foundation received in 2013, only $9 million was given out as charity to other groups.
In general, groups that monitor charities’ activities say a good charity spends at least 75 percent of its income on causes related to its core mission.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/26/clinton-foundation-put-on-charity-watch-list-along-with-al-sharptons-shady-nonprofit/
Watch list---sounds impressive. Glad it measures up to your rigorous standards.
 

Jen

Senator
I wouldn't give a DIME to something so obviously corrupt, self-serving, and/or inept as the Clinton Foundation. FIFTEEN PERCENT? You have to be an IDIOT to think that's ok. Look at other charities, and see for yourself what their percentages look like...

The people who mostly benefited from the Clinton charities were the Clintons, and their families and friends. Period.

Money grubbing, dishonest, greedy, and absolutely without a conscience or any morals. Your heroes, lefties? Really?
Pffffft..............I quit giving to the Red Cross because they only ("only") give about 85 cents out of every dollar to the needy.

Keep in mind that the Clintons have to maintain a certain lifestyle and......how else are they supposed to do it? ;)
 

Barbella

Senator
What's the source for that 15% figure? Here's their 2013 annual report:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clintonfoundation2013-2014annualreport.pdf

Here are their 2013 financials:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf

That has their expenditures: 88.4% for the program, 7% for management and general, 4.5% for fundraising, and 0.1% as an accounting provision for uncollectible contributions. That sounds reasonable to me. Granted, many of those program services expenses went to "salaries and benefits," but when you actually employ aid workers, that's to be expenses. Those aren't going to Bill, Hillary, or Chelsea. They each worked entirely pro-bono, with zero reportable compensation.


Salaries and benefits 65,775,050$
Direct program expenditures 29,389,026
Professional and consulting 13,697,674
Conferences and events 9,721,984
UNITAID commodities expense 28,647,779 - -
Procurement and shipping 1,668,867 (700) -
Travel 16,707,454
Telecommunications 2,214,469
Meetings and trainings 7,470,295
Bank and other fees 706,900
Occupancy costs 4,715,823
Office expenses 4,673,655
Capital charges 3,962,232 - -
Depreciation 4,318,967
Other 2,963,205
Totals, year ended
December 31, 2013 196,633,380

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf
 

Saladin2

Senator
Supporting Member
What's the source for that 15% figure? Here's their 2013 annual report:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clintonfoundation2013-2014annualreport.pdf

Here are their 2013 financials:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf

That has their expenditures: 88.4% for the program, 7% for management and general, 4.5% for fundraising, and 0.1% as an accounting provision for uncollectible contributions. That sounds reasonable to me. Granted, many of those program services expenses went to "salaries and benefits," but when you actually employ aid workers, that's to be expenses. Those aren't going to Bill, Hillary, or Chelsea. They each worked entirely pro-bono, with zero reportable compensation.
Source?....These Tea Party Repugs have NO source...They are fvckin liars
 

Barbella

Senator
Yet there is no evidence at all that this was the case. It's just something being floated, as bald speculation, in the hopes that people will think it must be the case.

With ANY economic activity that a person or his family members are involved with, there's always the possibility that it could be manipulated for political gain. For example, were any of the Bush clan's business operations used to funnel money to Bush campaign donors, as a way of laundering that money to get it in under campaign finance caps? Did Cindy McCain's charities get extra money from contributors hoping to curry favor with her husband? How about Liddy Dole, who had a nice little run at the Red Cross when her husband was in a position to scratch the political backs of those who donated to it? Was Jenna Bush offered various plum media gigs (including being a contributor to NBC Nightly News) right out of a mediocre undergrad education, in order to earn some political points with the powerful Bush clan? Is Ron Paul being offered speaking fees to buy Rand Paul's votes? Is Virginia Thomas's nonprofit group Liberty Central a device through which donors can influence her husband's Supreme court vote? Did GW bush make Eugene Scalia a recess appointment to the Labor Department in exchange for favorable rulings from his dad? Did Romney use big-bucks contracts from his business in order to woo powerful Republicans and lock up the presidential nomination? If naked speculation is all that's needed, you can create the shadow of wrongdoing for any political figure you can think of
Oh for God's sakes, STOP! Stay on topic, which is CLINTON... NOT Bush, Dole, McCain, Thomas, Paul, Scalia or anyone else.

You're making yourself look stupid, again!
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Charity Navigator created a watch list last year to include any charity that does not “meet our criteria.” Organizations are placed on the list when Charity Navigator becomes “aware of conduct that may affect a donor’s decision to support that charity.”

Of the Clinton Foundation, Charity Navigator wrote: “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,” while noting “our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity.”

Charity Navigator’s list includes 23 organizations in total. Besides the Clinton Foundation and Sharpton’s National Action Network, other high-profile organizations on the list include the Red Cross and the Sierra Club.

National Action Network’s listing is due to the organization’s failure to pay payroll taxes for its employees. The New York Times reported in November that Sharpton and his group have a total of $4.5 million in pending state and federal tax liens.

The Red Cross is included on the watch list based on reports that it spends too little of its revenue on programs to further its mission. The Sierra Club is on the list because it allegedly failed to get permission to publish the names of several businesses in North Carolina used in a report about Duke Energy.
In its justification for placing the Clinton Foundation on its watch list, Charity Navigator cited numerous recent articles concerning donations from foreign governments.
It cited a Feb. 19, Wall Street Journal report claiming “at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during [Hillary Clinton’s] tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation.”
Charity Navigator also noted that on Feb. 26, Politico reported the Clinton Foundation failed to inform the State Department of a $500,000 donation it received from the Algerian government.
The foundation has received numerous donations from foreign governments, including many in the Middle East. The governments of Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have sent millions to the charity.
While Charity Navigator focused only on the Clinton Foundation’s donors, it could plausibly add the organization’s low payout rate to its watch list rationale.
Last month, the website The Federalist looked at the Clinton Foundation’s IRS filings for the period between 2008 and 2012. According to its analysis, only 15 percent of the $500 million raised during that span when towards grants for other organizations.
Nearly $110 million was paid out in the form of salaries and benefits while $25 million went towards travel expenses. Almost 60 percent of the organization’s disclosed revenue — or $290 million — was listed under the category of “other expenses.”
That pattern continued into 2013, The Post notes. Of the $140 million in money the Clinton Foundation received in 2013, only $9 million was given out as charity to other groups.
In general, groups that monitor charities’ activities say a good charity spends at least 75 percent of its income on causes related to its core mission.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/26/clinton-foundation-put-on-charity-watch-list-along-with-al-sharptons-shady-nonprofit/
Watch list---sounds impressive. Glad it measures up to your rigorous standards.

Interestingly..$110 million is salary and benefits across a census of 350 employees (2013)...equates to some $314,000 per annum per employee. a nice gig. if you can get it.

interesting.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Interestingly..$110 million is salary and benefits across a census of 350 employees (2013)...equates to some $314,000 per annum per employee. a nice gig. if you can get it.

interesting.
Yeah...the IRS ought to demand their share of this supposed salary structure.

The Clinton Crime Family should still be behind bars.
 

Arkady

President
Salaries and benefits 65,775,050$
Direct program expenditures 29,389,026
Professional and consulting 13,697,674
Conferences and events 9,721,984
UNITAID commodities expense 28,647,779 - -
Procurement and shipping 1,668,867 (700) -
Travel 16,707,454
Telecommunications 2,214,469
Meetings and trainings 7,470,295
Bank and other fees 706,900
Occupancy costs 4,715,823
Office expenses 4,673,655
Capital charges 3,962,232 - -
Depreciation 4,318,967
Other 2,963,205
Totals, year ended
December 31, 2013 196,633,380

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf
So, what's the source of the 15% figure?
 

Arkady

President
Oh for God's sakes, STOP! Stay on topic, which is CLINTON... NOT Bush, Dole, McCain, Thomas, Paul, Scalia or anyone else.

You're making yourself look stupid, again!
I'm simply pointing out that if we took the same scumbag tactics of baseless speculation that the right uses against the Clintons, and turned it elsewhere, we could imply that any politician was dirty. If that makes you uncomfortable, you should think about why.
 
Top