Clinton Foundation Spends 15% On Programs - Real Charities Spend At Least 65%

[boedicca]

The Clinton Foundation hoovered up more than $500M during 2009 through 2012. A mere $75M (15%) was spent on their supposed charitable programs. $290M was labeled as OTHER. Other does not include personnel expenses or travel.

Real charities devote the use the majority of their funds on programs for their specified agenda. Given that the majority of the Clinton funds go to a murky OTHER, one cannot help but conclude that this is a pay for play influence peddling scam.


The official Team Clinton defense is that this whole thing is no big deal because the Clinton Foundation uses all that money to save lives, and who doesn’t want to save lives?

“As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way,” said the spokesman, Craig Minassian. “When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives.”

If only that were true. When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it actually goes toward fat salaries, administrative bloat, and lavish travel.

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses....

The U.S. Constitution Actually Bans Hillary s Foreign Gov t. Payola

 

[westwall]

Yep, their Foundation is supporting the primary charity they like...which is them.

 

[Marxist]

Politics in a world with capitalists..

 

[TheOldSchool]

The Clinton Foundation hoovered up more than $500M during 2009 through 2012. A mere $75M (15%) was spent on their supposed charitable programs. $290M was labeled as OTHER. Other does not include personnel expenses or travel.

Real charities devote the use the majority of their funds on programs for their specified agenda. Given that the majority of the Clinton funds go to a murky OTHER, one cannot help but conclude that this is a pay for play influence peddling scam.


The official Team Clinton defense is that this whole thing is no big deal because the Clinton Foundation uses all that money to save lives, and who doesn’t want to save lives?

“As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way,” said the spokesman, Craig Minassian. “When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives.”

If only that were true. When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it actually goes toward fat salaries, administrative bloat, and lavish travel.

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses....

The U.S. Constitution Actually Bans Hillary s Foreign Gov t. Payola

What do you consider a "real" charity?

 

[boedicca]

The Clinton Foundation hoovered up more than $500M during 2009 through 2012. A mere $75M (15%) was spent on their supposed charitable programs. $290M was labeled as OTHER. Other does not include personnel expenses or travel.

Real charities devote the use the majority of their funds on programs for their specified agenda. Given that the majority of the Clinton funds go to a murky OTHER, one cannot help but conclude that this is a pay for play influence peddling scam.


The official Team Clinton defense is that this whole thing is no big deal because the Clinton Foundation uses all that money to save lives, and who doesn’t want to save lives?

“As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way,” said the spokesman, Craig Minassian. “When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives.”

If only that were true. When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it actually goes toward fat salaries, administrative bloat, and lavish travel.

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses....

The U.S. Constitution Actually Bans Hillary s Foreign Gov t. Payola

What do you consider a "real" charity?

One that spends at least 65% on the cause for which it solicits charitable donations.

If the Charity is to fight world hunger, then the funds should go to programs that end hunger, not to excessive staffing, salaries, travel, entertainment and OTHER.

 

[Ame®icano]

One that spends at least 65% on the cause for which it solicits charitable donations.

If the Charity is to fight world hunger, then the funds should go to programs that end hunger, not to excessive staffing, salaries, travel, entertainment and OTHER.

I guess world hunger ended after first $75 mill is spent.

 

[eagle1462010]

Off Topic..............Intro thread no one is saying welcome aboard..........

Hello US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Stop by and say hello.............

Thanks.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The Clinton Foundation hoovered up more than $500M during 2009 through 2012. A mere $75M (15%) was spent on their supposed charitable programs. $290M was labeled as OTHER. Other does not include personnel expenses or travel.

Real charities devote the use the majority of their funds on programs for their specified agenda. Given that the majority of the Clinton funds go to a murky OTHER, one cannot help but conclude that this is a pay for play influence peddling scam.


The official Team Clinton defense is that this whole thing is no big deal because the Clinton Foundation uses all that money to save lives, and who doesn’t want to save lives?

“As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way,” said the spokesman, Craig Minassian. “When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives.”

If only that were true. When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it actually goes toward fat salaries, administrative bloat, and lavish travel.

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses....

The U.S. Constitution Actually Bans Hillary s Foreign Gov t. Payola

What do you consider a "real" charity?

One that spends at least 65% on the cause for which it solicits charitable donations.

If the Charity is to fight world hunger, then the funds should go to programs that end hunger, not to excessive staffing, salaries, travel, entertainment and OTHER.

Well I can't seem to find an explanation for what the $290 million "other expenses" cost was for. I see a lot of positive reviews for the foundation regarding non-program related items, such as being a great stepping stone for interns. The only article that seems to come up reviewing the charity is the one you linked to.

The foundations stated goal per their website is "We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change."

It's not a charity that I would donate to but I don't think they're doing anything nefarious with the money. And the goals seem lofty enough to require a whole lot of capital. So

 

[boedicca]

The Clinton Foundation hoovered up more than $500M during 2009 through 2012. A mere $75M (15%) was spent on their supposed charitable programs. $290M was labeled as OTHER. Other does not include personnel expenses or travel.

Real charities devote the use the majority of their funds on programs for their specified agenda. Given that the majority of the Clinton funds go to a murky OTHER, one cannot help but conclude that this is a pay for play influence peddling scam.


The official Team Clinton defense is that this whole thing is no big deal because the Clinton Foundation uses all that money to save lives, and who doesn’t want to save lives?

“As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way,” said the spokesman, Craig Minassian. “When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives.”

If only that were true. When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it actually goes toward fat salaries, administrative bloat, and lavish travel.

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses....

The U.S. Constitution Actually Bans Hillary s Foreign Gov t. Payola

What do you consider a "real" charity?

One that spends at least 65% on the cause for which it solicits charitable donations.

If the Charity is to fight world hunger, then the funds should go to programs that end hunger, not to excessive staffing, salaries, travel, entertainment and OTHER.

Well I can't seem to find an explanation for what the $290 million "other expenses" cost was for. I see a lot of positive reviews for the foundation regarding non-program related items, such as being a great stepping stone for interns. The only article that seems to come up reviewing the charity is the one you linked to.

The foundations stated goal per their website is "We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change."

It's not a charity that I would donate to but I don't think they're doing anything nefarious with the money. And the goals seem lofty enough to require a whole lot of capital. So

There's an old saying that one is known by the company one keeps. The Clinton Foundation donor lists tells the story.

This was pay to play. And if this had been done by Dubya and Barbara, the leftwing would be screaming for criminal convictions.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The Clinton Foundation hoovered up more than $500M during 2009 through 2012. A mere $75M (15%) was spent on their supposed charitable programs. $290M was labeled as OTHER. Other does not include personnel expenses or travel.

Real charities devote the use the majority of their funds on programs for their specified agenda. Given that the majority of the Clinton funds go to a murky OTHER, one cannot help but conclude that this is a pay for play influence peddling scam.


The official Team Clinton defense is that this whole thing is no big deal because the Clinton Foundation uses all that money to save lives, and who doesn’t want to save lives?

“As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way,” said the spokesman, Craig Minassian. “When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives.”

If only that were true. When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it actually goes toward fat salaries, administrative bloat, and lavish travel.

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses....

The U.S. Constitution Actually Bans Hillary s Foreign Gov t. Payola

What do you consider a "real" charity?

One that spends at least 65% on the cause for which it solicits charitable donations.

If the Charity is to fight world hunger, then the funds should go to programs that end hunger, not to excessive staffing, salaries, travel, entertainment and OTHER.

Well I can't seem to find an explanation for what the $290 million "other expenses" cost was for. I see a lot of positive reviews for the foundation regarding non-program related items, such as being a great stepping stone for interns. The only article that seems to come up reviewing the charity is the one you linked to.

The foundations stated goal per their website is "We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change."

It's not a charity that I would donate to but I don't think they're doing anything nefarious with the money. And the goals seem lofty enough to require a whole lot of capital. So

There's an old saying that one is known by the company one keeps. The Clinton Foundation donor lists tells the story.

This was pay to play. And if this had been done by Dubya and Barbara, the leftwing would be screaming for criminal convictions.

That's wild speculation. Dubya's parents were friends with the Bin Laden's, which imo is waaay worse, and I don't see anyone calling for their arrest.

 

[westwall]

The Clinton Foundation hoovered up more than $500M during 2009 through 2012. A mere $75M (15%) was spent on their supposed charitable programs. $290M was labeled as OTHER. Other does not include personnel expenses or travel.

Real charities devote the use the majority of their funds on programs for their specified agenda. Given that the majority of the Clinton funds go to a murky OTHER, one cannot help but conclude that this is a pay for play influence peddling scam.


The official Team Clinton defense is that this whole thing is no big deal because the Clinton Foundation uses all that money to save lives, and who doesn’t want to save lives?

“As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way,” said the spokesman, Craig Minassian. “When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives.”

If only that were true. When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it actually goes toward fat salaries, administrative bloat, and lavish travel.

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses....

The U.S. Constitution Actually Bans Hillary s Foreign Gov t. Payola

What do you consider a "real" charity?

One that spends at least 65% on the cause for which it solicits charitable donations.

If the Charity is to fight world hunger, then the funds should go to programs that end hunger, not to excessive staffing, salaries, travel, entertainment and OTHER.

Well I can't seem to find an explanation for what the $290 million "other expenses" cost was for. I see a lot of positive reviews for the foundation regarding non-program related items, such as being a great stepping stone for interns. The only article that seems to come up reviewing the charity is the one you linked to.

The foundations stated goal per their website is "We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change."

It's not a charity that I would donate to but I don't think they're doing anything nefarious with the money. And the goals seem lofty enough to require a whole lot of capital. So

There's an old saying that one is known by the company one keeps. The Clinton Foundation donor lists tells the story.

This was pay to play. And if this had been done by Dubya and Barbara, the leftwing would be screaming for criminal convictions.

That's wild speculation. Dubya's parents were friends with the Bin Laden's, which imo is waaay worse, and I don't see anyone calling for their arrest.

You don't think that bribing a high government official to gather benefits for your country isn't bad?

You sure you want to hold to that?

 

[TheOldSchool]

What do you consider a "real" charity?

One that spends at least 65% on the cause for which it solicits charitable donations.

If the Charity is to fight world hunger, then the funds should go to programs that end hunger, not to excessive staffing, salaries, travel, entertainment and OTHER.

Well I can't seem to find an explanation for what the $290 million "other expenses" cost was for. I see a lot of positive reviews for the foundation regarding non-program related items, such as being a great stepping stone for interns. The only article that seems to come up reviewing the charity is the one you linked to.

The foundations stated goal per their website is "We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change."

It's not a charity that I would donate to but I don't think they're doing anything nefarious with the money. And the goals seem lofty enough to require a whole lot of capital. So

There's an old saying that one is known by the company one keeps. The Clinton Foundation donor lists tells the story.

This was pay to play. And if this had been done by Dubya and Barbara, the leftwing would be screaming for criminal convictions.

That's wild speculation. Dubya's parents were friends with the Bin Laden's, which imo is waaay worse, and I don't see anyone calling for their arrest.

You don't think that bribing a high government official to gather benefits for your country isn't bad?

You sure you want to hold to that?

Yeah it's terrible.

 

[depotoo]

From charitynavigator-

Why isn't this organization rated?

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.
...
Why does their atypical business model not surprise me?.

 

[Mr. H.]

Fuck the Clintons.

 

[Ame®icano]

Fuck the Clintons.

Come on...

Hillary Promises to Get Everyday Americans Foreign Money

“Like a lot of everyday Americans, many of you are struggling to pay your bills,” she told an audience here. “As President, I will work tirelessly to help you make ends meet—by getting foreign governments to pay you.”

“In cold, hard cash,” she added, to a standing ovation.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[depotoo]

Haha! Those are great!

 

[Ame®icano]

You don't think that bribing a high government official to gather benefits for your country isn't bad?

You sure you want to hold to that?

 

[whitehall]

Nobody in their right (political) mind ever expected that the degenerate would really raise any money and nobody really cared. The problem for the world class enabler is that she might have been guilty of a felony when she funneled money to her little private retirement fund as secretary of state.

 

[Ame®icano]

Nobody in their right (political) mind ever expected that the degenerate would really raise any money and nobody really cared. The problem for the world class enabler is that she might have been guilty of a felony when she funneled money to her little private retirement fund as secretary of state.

She should change her campaign slogan to...

Hillary 2016: Cash for clunker