When the house is crooked - check the foundation

[Ame®icano]

I know far better than you. You sonny are playing a failed shell game.

Give it up, Americano. You are pwnd.

I doubt you know anything... I've seen your IQ test, it came back negative.

Since you know far better than me, why don't you stop trolling and explain how CF spent $34 mill on salaries, $20 mill on meetings and travel, and only $5 mill on grants and charitable work.

There is no thread where you actually discuss the theme, you just troll, spam and insult.

I don't need to discuss the theme, when it is obvious your own postings' inconsistencies invalidate your arguments, which are nonsensical.

How about you point to those "inconsistencies", instead of just shitposting around?

 

[Montrovant]

I have a couple of questions.

First, with 178 million in revenue and 91 million in expenses, where is the remaining money?

Yeah, where is it?

Second, are you aware of how the Clinton Foundation supposedly functions?

They claim they're 501(c)(3) not-profit organization.

So is Wounded Warrior Project. 58% of their revenue goes to programs and services they deliver.
So is Make-A-Wish Foundations. More then 70% of their revenue reach the people.
So is Humane Society. 80% of their revenue goes to animal help.
So is American Cancer Society. 58% of their revenue goes to programs and services.

Clinton Foundation... 2.9% ??? Are you kidding me?

It is not an organization for simply moving charitable donations around. The Foundation claims it uses its money on charitable works performed by its own staff. Therefore the money it receives would not be expected to go to direct assistance.

Then they cannot claim 501(c)(3) status. By the way, explain bold.

The Clinton Foundation may still be a corrupt organization, but considering it to be so because it doesn't give away the money it receives in donations isn't a fair reading of the situation, I think.

May still be? It's Clinton's personal slush fund.

I'm not sure you're getting me.

From what I've read (admittedly only a bit) the Clinton Foundation, while a charitable organization, is not based around giving money away. Instead, they do various forms of charitable work. When people donate money to them, they aren't donating money to be given to anyone. The money is used to pay for the work done by the organization to help people. So, if they get $1000, it isn't expected that $100 or $200 are going directly to, say, hungry families in Congo. Instead, most of that money goes to, perhaps, members of the foundation teaching those families new farming techniques, or setting up meetings with government officials to try and persuade them to do more for the impoverished, or maybe research a new strain of crop which will grow well in the area. I don't know the specifics, but that's the gist of the claims I read; the Clinton Foundation uses the money received to do various works rather than giving that money away.

All of that would mean that they are still a charitable non-profit. They need not be involved in US politics, nor make money for shareholders, or any of the things which would prevent them from filing as a 501(c)(3).

If you want to argue that what the foundation does isn't efficient, or that they pay employees too much, or spend too much in some areas they shouldn't, I'm fine with that. As I said, it may be a corrupt organization. However, just because it doesn't give away most of the money it receives does not make it so. It simply uses a different model than other charities usually have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know far better than you. You sonny are playing a failed shell game.

Give it up, Americano. You are pwnd.

I doubt you know anything... I've seen your IQ test, it came back negative.

Since you know far better than me, why don't you stop trolling and explain how CF spent $34 mill on salaries, $20 mill on meetings and travel, and only $5 mill on grants and charitable work.

There is no thread where you actually discuss the theme, you just troll, spam and insult.

I don't need to discuss the theme, when it is obvious your own postings' inconsistencies invalidate your arguments, which are nonsensical.

How about you point to those "inconsistencies", instead of just shitposting around?

How about you answer the correct questions above instead of talking about something you don't know.

 

[Montrovant]

I have a couple of questions.

First, with 178 million in revenue and 91 million in expenses, where is the remaining money?

Yeah, where is it?

Second, are you aware of how the Clinton Foundation supposedly functions?

They claim they're 501(c)(3) not-profit organization.

So is Wounded Warrior Project. 58% of their revenue goes to programs and services they deliver.
So is Make-A-Wish Foundations. More then 70% of their revenue reach the people.
So is Humane Society. 80% of their revenue goes to animal help.
So is American Cancer Society. 58% of their revenue goes to programs and services.

Clinton Foundation... 2.9% ??? Are you kidding me?

It is not an organization for simply moving charitable donations around. The Foundation claims it uses its money on charitable works performed by its own staff. Therefore the money it receives would not be expected to go to direct assistance.

Then they cannot claim 501(c)(3) status. By the way, explain bold.

The Clinton Foundation may still be a corrupt organization, but considering it to be so because it doesn't give away the money it receives in donations isn't a fair reading of the situation, I think.

May still be? It's Clinton's personal slush fund.

Oh, I wanted to say that I read something about the gap between reported revenue and expenses. From what I saw, it was supposed to be the difference between pledged donations and money actually received. I don't know if that's the reason for the big difference between the $178 million and $91 million.

 

[Ame®icano]

I'm not sure you're getting me.

From what I've read (admittedly only a bit) the Clinton Foundation, while a charitable organization, is not based around giving money away. Instead, they do various forms of charitable work. When people donate money to them, they aren't donating money to be given to anyone. The money is used to pay for the work done by the organization to help people. So, if they get $1000, it isn't expected that $100 or $200 are going directly to, say, hungry families in Congo. Instead, most of that money goes to, perhaps, members of the foundation teaching those families new farming techniques, or setting up meetings with government officials to try and persuade them to do more for the impoverished, or maybe research a new strain of crop which will grow well in the area. I don't know the specifics, but that's the gist of the claims I read; the Clinton Foundation uses the money received to do various works rather than giving that money away.

All that you listed above goes under the "GRANTS, ASSISTANCE, GIFTS".

$42 million went on salaries and professional fees (?), just to spend $5 million on what you listed above. $20 million spent on travel. They spent more on the office furniture and rent then on actual charity work.

All of that would mean that they are still a charitable non-profit. They need not be involved in US politics, nor make money for shareholders, or any of the things which would prevent them from filing as a 501(c)(3).

They are registered as 501(c)(3) for a reason, to get the money under "donations" umbrella. You're right, as long they're not involved in politics, and spend $1 on charity, they are technically a charity. Were they involved in politics or not remain to be seen, and I hope data from private server will surface or be leaked.

If you want to argue that what the foundation does isn't efficient, or that they pay employees too much, or spend too much in some areas they shouldn't, I'm fine with that. As I said, it may be a corrupt organization. However, just because it doesn't give away most of the money it receives does not make it so. It simply uses a different model than other charities usually have.

Who in the right mind would donate to charity that doesn't do charitable work? Getting huge amount of money from foreign countries and banks while being Secretary of State doesn't really adds up.

 

[Ame®icano]

I know far better than you. You sonny are playing a failed shell game.

Give it up, Americano. You are pwnd.

I doubt you know anything... I've seen your IQ test, it came back negative.

Since you know far better than me, why don't you stop trolling and explain how CF spent $34 mill on salaries, $20 mill on meetings and travel, and only $5 mill on grants and charitable work.

There is no thread where you actually discuss the theme, you just troll, spam and insult.

I don't need to discuss the theme, when it is obvious your own postings' inconsistencies invalidate your arguments, which are nonsensical.

How about you point to those "inconsistencies", instead of just shitposting around?

How about you answer the correct questions above instead of talking about something you don't know.

You did not asked any. All you were doing is rant, rant and rant. However, you ignored every single one.

I did not answered konradv's question directly, but I gave him an answer.

 

[my2¢]

I would think the 2.9% being listed under "expenses" would be the money spent to solicit and collect donations and not donations themselves.

 

[Care4all]

A private foundation which I believe is how the Clinton Foundation is set up requires a minimum of 5% payout per year. I'm not a tax expert but I think that is correct. So if your 2.9% payout is right they are not even complying with the tax code.

.

Still waiting on those page numbers.

I gave you all you need in previous post. Is really that difficult to search for "deductions"?

Since you've already done it, why is it so difficult to post the page number? It's extremely suspicious, since doing it would instantly put me in my place, if your contentions are true. Your failure to do so implies that what you're saying is false. I transcribed the urls from the OP and searched the pages mentioned therein to no avail. Please, tell me where you found those "numbers" or be forever considered a useless troll.

You were actually suspicious before you even posted first time.

In your first post you claimed you've done your homework by checking the links.

When I thank you for checking the links, you complained why I thank you when you called me on my "bullshit".

What's obvious, you did check the links, but overlooked the page formatting, since tax form attachments and statements are not numbered in the same order as PDF files. Instead of searching for it, you complained "if you're so smart"...

Since I've done my homework, I provided what exactly to look for by giving you hint (deductions), and if YOU're so smart you'll be able to find it.

You see, numbers are there, it's not even hard to look for them, but that's not the point.

The point is, that you lefties demand everything to be served to you on platter, and if is not done instantly and the way you want it, you start calling people liars and fakes, use other insults, and it gets worse with every following post. On the other end, "god forbid" if lefties are asked to provide a proof for anything...

If you and others actually did your homework, you WOULD KNOW that the Clinton Foundations is a public OPERATING Charity and not a Private Charity.... you would also KNOW that the Clinton Foundation gives 89% of what they get in donations to charitable causes, not the 3% that you claim. The Clinton foundation does near all of their charitable giving through their own charity programs and not through giving to other Charities....your 3% accounts only for what they gave to a charity as a gift that year, but NOT even close to what they spend on charity.

YOU'VE BEEN HAD by your beloved right wing media.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not sure you're getting me.

From what I've read (admittedly only a bit) the Clinton Foundation, while a charitable organization, is not based around giving money away. Instead, they do various forms of charitable work. When people donate money to them, they aren't donating money to be given to anyone. The money is used to pay for the work done by the organization to help people. So, if they get $1000, it isn't expected that $100 or $200 are going directly to, say, hungry families in Congo. Instead, most of that money goes to, perhaps, members of the foundation teaching those families new farming techniques, or setting up meetings with government officials to try and persuade them to do more for the impoverished, or maybe research a new strain of crop which will grow well in the area. I don't know the specifics, but that's the gist of the claims I read; the Clinton Foundation uses the money received to do various works rather than giving that money away.

All that you listed above goes under the "GRANTS, ASSISTANCE, GIFTS".

$42 million went on salaries and professional fees (?), just to spend $5 million on what you listed above. $20 million spent on travel. They spent more on the office furniture and rent then on actual charity work.

All of that would mean that they are still a charitable non-profit. They need not be involved in US politics, nor make money for shareholders, or any of the things which would prevent them from filing as a 501(c)(3).

They are registered as 501(c)(3) for a reason, to get the money under "donations" umbrella. You're right, as long they're not involved in politics, and spend $1 on charity, they are technically a charity. Were they involved in politics or not remain to be seen, and I hope data from private server will surface or be leaked.

If you want to argue that what the foundation does isn't efficient, or that they pay employees too much, or spend too much in some areas they shouldn't, I'm fine with that. As I said, it may be a corrupt organization. However, just because it doesn't give away most of the money it receives does not make it so. It simply uses a different model than other charities usually have.

Who in the right mind would donate to charity that doesn't do charitable work? Getting huge amount of money from foreign countries and banks while being Secretary of State doesn't really adds up.

All that I listed would NOT fall under Grants, assistance, gifts. Most of it would be spent on salaries, travel, things like that. That would be giving money away. Again, the point is that the foundation supposedly performs charitable work and the money they get mostly goes to paying employees, getting people to and from the places they do their work, maybe buying/maintaining offices and equipment, things of that nature. You are focusing on the fact the foundation doesn't give money away, but their model isn't based on giving money away.

Doing charitable work is not the same thing as giving away money. One might feed the hungry using donated funds without ever giving any of that money away; the donations could be used to pay for food, buy ovens, vans to transport the food, tables and awnings to set up a place in which to feed those hungry, buy and maintain offices and equipment to figure out the best way to both spend the money and distribute the food, and pay the employees who will do the cooking, driving, clerical work, getting permits, and actually working at the food stands. That is just one of many examples of ways to use donations for charitable work without giving it away (I seem to recall the Clinton Foundation claiming to do something with trying to get clean water to areas that need it?).

If the Clinton Foundation doesn't do much good, point out how and I'll be happy to talk about that. If it hasn't helped the needy, if it is inefficient, if there's evidence of illegality even, bring it up. I have no particular reason to assume the organization is immune to greed and corruption. Your argument seems to hinge on disagreeing with how it operates, but you are doing that without seeming to grasp how it operates; you are complaining about what it doesn't do without seeming to see what it does do. I'd even be perfectly happy to discuss whether charity should be about giving money rather than using the money just to do particular work, if that is your opinion. I just get the impression that your only problem is that the foundation doesn't give enough money away and I've tried to explain why, according to the foundation, that is.

 

[Ame®icano]

A private foundation which I believe is how the Clinton Foundation is set up requires a minimum of 5% payout per year. I'm not a tax expert but I think that is correct. So if your 2.9% payout is right they are not even complying with the tax code.

.

Still waiting on those page numbers.

I gave you all you need in previous post. Is really that difficult to search for "deductions"?

Since you've already done it, why is it so difficult to post the page number? It's extremely suspicious, since doing it would instantly put me in my place, if your contentions are true. Your failure to do so implies that what you're saying is false. I transcribed the urls from the OP and searched the pages mentioned therein to no avail. Please, tell me where you found those "numbers" or be forever considered a useless troll.

You were actually suspicious before you even posted first time.

In your first post you claimed you've done your homework by checking the links.

When I thank you for checking the links, you complained why I thank you when you called me on my "bullshit".

What's obvious, you did check the links, but overlooked the page formatting, since tax form attachments and statements are not numbered in the same order as PDF files. Instead of searching for it, you complained "if you're so smart"...

Since I've done my homework, I provided what exactly to look for by giving you hint (deductions), and if YOU're so smart you'll be able to find it.

You see, numbers are there, it's not even hard to look for them, but that's not the point.

The point is, that you lefties demand everything to be served to you on platter, and if is not done instantly and the way you want it, you start calling people liars and fakes, use other insults, and it gets worse with every following post. On the other end, "god forbid" if lefties are asked to provide a proof for anything...

If you and others actually did your homework, you WOULD KNOW that the Clinton Foundations is a PUBLIC Charity and not a Private Charity.... you would also KNOW that the Clinton Foundation gives 89% of what they get in donations to charitable causes, not the 3% that you claim. The Clinton foundation does near all of their charitable giving through their own charity programs and not through giving to other Charities....your 3% accounts only for what they gave to a charity as a gift that year, but NOT even close to what they spend on charity.

YOU'VE BEEN HAD by your beloved right wing media.

WHAAAA???

Unicorns, unicorns everywhere...

How about you open their tax return and point where that 89% comes from?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Americano realizes finally he is floundering.

 

[Care4all]

A private foundation which I believe is how the Clinton Foundation is set up requires a minimum of 5% payout per year. I'm not a tax expert but I think that is correct. So if your 2.9% payout is right they are not even complying with the tax code.

.

Still waiting on those page numbers.

I gave you all you need in previous post. Is really that difficult to search for "deductions"?

Since you've already done it, why is it so difficult to post the page number? It's extremely suspicious, since doing it would instantly put me in my place, if your contentions are true. Your failure to do so implies that what you're saying is false. I transcribed the urls from the OP and searched the pages mentioned therein to no avail. Please, tell me where you found those "numbers" or be forever considered a useless troll.

You were actually suspicious before you even posted first time.

In your first post you claimed you've done your homework by checking the links.

When I thank you for checking the links, you complained why I thank you when you called me on my "bullshit".

What's obvious, you did check the links, but overlooked the page formatting, since tax form attachments and statements are not numbered in the same order as PDF files. Instead of searching for it, you complained "if you're so smart"...

Since I've done my homework, I provided what exactly to look for by giving you hint (deductions), and if YOU're so smart you'll be able to find it.

You see, numbers are there, it's not even hard to look for them, but that's not the point.

The point is, that you lefties demand everything to be served to you on platter, and if is not done instantly and the way you want it, you start calling people liars and fakes, use other insults, and it gets worse with every following post. On the other end, "god forbid" if lefties are asked to provide a proof for anything...

If you and others actually did your homework, you WOULD KNOW that the Clinton Foundations is a PUBLIC Charity and not a Private Charity.... you would also KNOW that the Clinton Foundation gives 89% of what they get in donations to charitable causes, not the 3% that you claim. The Clinton foundation does near all of their charitable giving through their own charity programs and not through giving to other Charities....your 3% accounts only for what they gave to a charity as a gift that year, but NOT even close to what they spend on charity.

YOU'VE BEEN HAD by your beloved right wing media.

WHAAAA???

Unicorns, unicorns everywhere...

How about you open their tax return and point where that 89% comes from?

YOU and others are simply too easily duped and never seem to bother to do your own research Americano.... that's a problem of your own character and making....and I suppose a bit of naivete in trusting your right wing media propagandists. I always fact check everything but I have the time since I do not work outside of the home anymore....


In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

“Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”

Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.

We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.

We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.

Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

 

[Ame®icano]

All that I listed would NOT fall under Grants, assistance, gifts. Most of it would be spent on salaries, travel, things like that. That would be giving money away. Again, the point is that the foundation supposedly performs charitable work and the money they get mostly goes to paying employees, getting people to and from the places they do their work, maybe buying/maintaining offices and equipment, things of that nature. You are focusing on the fact the foundation doesn't give money away, but their model isn't based on giving money away.

Nope, those are administrative expenses. Every charity has them.

I mentioned earlier Wounded Warrior Project, and they are not most efficient charity.

Grant's, assistance and gifts is money that goes out for the charity work. Also called program expenses.

Doing charitable work is not the same thing as giving away money. One might feed the hungry using donated funds without ever giving any of that money away; the donations could be used to pay for food, buy ovens, vans to transport the food, tables and awnings to set up a place in which to feed those hungry, buy and maintain offices and equipment to figure out the best way to both spend the money and distribute the food, and pay the employees who will do the cooking, driving, clerical work, getting permits, and actually working at the food stands. That is just one of many examples of ways to use donations for charitable work without giving it away (I seem to recall the Clinton Foundation claiming to do something with trying to get clean water to areas that need it?).

If the Clinton Foundation doesn't do much good, point out how and I'll be happy to talk about that. If it hasn't helped the needy, if it is inefficient, if there's evidence of illegality even, bring it up. I have no particular reason to assume the organization is immune to greed and corruption. Your argument seems to hinge on disagreeing with how it operates, but you are doing that without seeming to grasp how it operates; you are complaining about what it doesn't do without seeming to see what it does do. I'd even be perfectly happy to discuss whether charity should be about giving money rather than using the money just to do particular work, if that is your opinion. I just get the impression that your only problem is that the foundation doesn't give enough money away and I've tried to explain why, according to the foundation, that is.

CF is Clinton's private slush fund.

 

[Ame®icano]

YOU and others are simply too easily duped and never seem to bother to do your own research Americano.... that's a problem of your own character and making....and I suppose a bit of naivete in trusting your right wing media propagandists. I always fact check everything but I have the time since I do not work outside of the home anymore....


In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

“Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”

Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.

We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.

We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.

Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

Thanks for the links.

Now, lets do some basic math.

Total Expenses ~$91M

Salaries & Professional fees ~$43M
Travel ~$20M

If you just add those two, that's more then 2/3 of the revenue not spent on programs.

There are thousands of charities in the US and they all fill out the tax forms including 990. They all have money in (revenue) and money out (program expenses, admin expenses, fundraisers and advertising).

The Clinton Foundation own forms shows their program expenses are ~$5 mill or less then 3% of their revenue. You don't have to trust me, or look for the explanation on the internet, just open their own forms and check it out yourself.

 

[Ame®icano]

Americano realizes finally he is floundering.

I’d like to see things from your point of view, but I can’t seem to get my head that far up your ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Americano realizes finally he is floundering.

I’d like to see things from your point of view, but I can’t seem to get my head that far up your ass.

You are a dupe who does not know how such charities operate. The explanations have been given above, but you ignore them with "nuh uh". You are simply stupid: bright enough to learn but unwillingness to be confronted with facts.

 

[Care4all]

YOU and others are simply too easily duped and never seem to bother to do your own research Americano.... that's a problem of your own character and making....and I suppose a bit of naivete in trusting your right wing media propagandists. I always fact check everything but I have the time since I do not work outside of the home anymore....


In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

“Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”

Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.

We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.

We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.

Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

Thanks for the links.

Now, lets do some basic math.

Total Expenses ~$91M

Salaries & Professional fees ~$43M
Travel ~$20M

If you just add those two, that's more then 2/3 of the revenue not spent on programs.

There are thousands of charities in the US and they all fill out the tax forms including 990. They all have money in (revenue) and money out (program expenses, admin expenses, fundraisers and advertising).

The Clinton Foundation own forms shows their program expenses are ~$5 mill or less then 3% of their revenue. You don't have to trust me, or look for the explanation on the internet, just open their own forms and check it out yourself.

When the salaries and travel expenses are for example, professionals hired to go to a drought stricken area of Africa to teach the farming community what crops they can grow to feed themselves in a drought and teach them methods of irrigation that uses much less water to grow their crops etc etc etc....

Basically, in many if not all of the foundation programs, they are teaching them how to fish, (to feed themselves forever in the future) and not just giving them a fish, to fill their bellies today.

 

[Montrovant]

All that I listed would NOT fall under Grants, assistance, gifts. Most of it would be spent on salaries, travel, things like that. That would be giving money away. Again, the point is that the foundation supposedly performs charitable work and the money they get mostly goes to paying employees, getting people to and from the places they do their work, maybe buying/maintaining offices and equipment, things of that nature. You are focusing on the fact the foundation doesn't give money away, but their model isn't based on giving money away.

Nope, those are administrative expenses. Every charity has them.

I mentioned earlier Wounded Warrior Project, and they are not most efficient charity.

Grant's, assistance and gifts is money that goes out for the charity work. Also called program expenses.

Doing charitable work is not the same thing as giving away money. One might feed the hungry using donated funds without ever giving any of that money away; the donations could be used to pay for food, buy ovens, vans to transport the food, tables and awnings to set up a place in which to feed those hungry, buy and maintain offices and equipment to figure out the best way to both spend the money and distribute the food, and pay the employees who will do the cooking, driving, clerical work, getting permits, and actually working at the food stands. That is just one of many examples of ways to use donations for charitable work without giving it away (I seem to recall the Clinton Foundation claiming to do something with trying to get clean water to areas that need it?).

If the Clinton Foundation doesn't do much good, point out how and I'll be happy to talk about that. If it hasn't helped the needy, if it is inefficient, if there's evidence of illegality even, bring it up. I have no particular reason to assume the organization is immune to greed and corruption. Your argument seems to hinge on disagreeing with how it operates, but you are doing that without seeming to grasp how it operates; you are complaining about what it doesn't do without seeming to see what it does do. I'd even be perfectly happy to discuss whether charity should be about giving money rather than using the money just to do particular work, if that is your opinion. I just get the impression that your only problem is that the foundation doesn't give enough money away and I've tried to explain why, according to the foundation, that is.

CF is Clinton's private slush fund.

What on earth are you trying to show with those charts? Neither says anything about grants, assistance and gifts as an expense. In fact, the closest thing shown to that is the Contributions, Gifts & Grants from the second chart which is the main source of revenue, not an expense.

 

[Montrovant]

YOU and others are simply too easily duped and never seem to bother to do your own research Americano.... that's a problem of your own character and making....and I suppose a bit of naivete in trusting your right wing media propagandists. I always fact check everything but I have the time since I do not work outside of the home anymore....


In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

“Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”

Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.

We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.

We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.

Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

Thanks for the links.

Now, lets do some basic math.

Total Expenses ~$91M

Salaries & Professional fees ~$43M
Travel ~$20M

If you just add those two, that's more then 2/3 of the revenue not spent on programs.

There are thousands of charities in the US and they all fill out the tax forms including 990. They all have money in (revenue) and money out (program expenses, admin expenses, fundraisers and advertising).

The Clinton Foundation own forms shows their program expenses are ~$5 mill or less then 3% of their revenue. You don't have to trust me, or look for the explanation on the internet, just open their own forms and check it out yourself.

Programs are not an expense on the list in your OP. It isn't broken down that way. You are complaining about something nonexistent. Unless you are trying to say that grants, assistance, gifts is the same as programs?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Americano is being driven off the cliff screaming "no!!!!"

Goodbye, loser.