Clinton Foundation / Clinton Wealth questions linger (POL)

My point is simple. Either you and jphelan have serious problems understanding how charities report financials...or you are being intentionally misleading so as to partisanly smear a political opponent. Or both. I'm going with both.

CharityNavigator.org summary of Red Cross
Charity Navigator claims Red Cross gave 90% of its donations go to the charity. Jpehan (and Jatki's endorsed) research method would suggest only 6% of Red Cross donations go to the charity services.

So either CharityNavigator.org has serious problems with basic arithmetic or Jphelan/Jatki do. Readers can choose for themselves who they believe has better insight.

PJ - OK, I will bite again and try to keep this discussion rolling. I never said that "grants" are the "total expenditure" of the charity. Please do not put words in my mouth. I also never said I was a "CPA", but I said I passed the CPA certification examination.

Now to the point at hand - you were comparing the Red Cross to the Clinton Foundation. In some ways this may be valid and in others it may not. For example, the "American Red Cross" only does charity work in America while the Clinton Foundation claims to do charitable work around the world....so one would expect the Clinton foundation costs to be lower per employee. If what you say is correct, that "charitable works" are part of the "program costs", then maybe we should compare a few key metrics of the two organizations:



Salary per employee is more than double in the Clinton foundation compared to the American Red Cross and so are "other expenses". In addition, the Clinton foundation seems to do a "bang up" job of fund-raising for some reason.

From what I can gleam from tax returns, there looks to be no way to determine what % of money actually goes to "charity" unless the charity redirects all "charitable" works through grants. I think the best you can do is look at administrative costs and hope not charitable expenses are not hidden in "salaries" or "other expenses".

You are exactly right, people can decide for themselves if the CF has crooked written all over it ($33 million and change from a Russian mining oligarch just because he felt so charitable who then happens to get the go ahead from state to purchase and take full control of a US uranium mine? Coincidence?, yes the reader can decide for themselves). As far as partisanship goes, you are sadly mistaken if you think I'm being partisan on this matter, I wouldn't give a shit if it was the Bushes and some bullshit foundation they had(I'm kinda surprised they don't, I guess they have some other way to hide slimy money) and I would yell SLIME!! if it looked anything like the CF.
Also I don't care much how the Red Cross reports its' financials,( I think it's kinda crummy if a small fraction actually goes to charitable causes), BUT I do care if some people were/are garnering favors from the US govt. in exchange for "donations" to the CF.

So, yea, leave it to the reader.

Is there anything above that supports your "only 15% went to charity" claim?

If there is, please point it out. If not, you should apologize and change the title of this thread. (How about: "The Clinton Foundation pays higher salaries than are paid to Red Cross day workers.")

There is something that supports 15% went to charity - my original source (the Federalist).......however, I am not 100% sure where THEY reached that conclusion.

So, why are the Clinton's re-filing there taxes for the last 3 years? My understanding is they may some sort of "mistake" in the characterization of foreign contributions.

Maybe a better title would be many questions still linger regarding the Clinton foundation including the accuracy of the last 3 years tax returns. Too bad that is a little too long.

So you only repeat the lies you're told. How nice.

Wait a minute, how do you know they're lies? Source?

It's not up to me to prove a negative. You've got the tax returns and the financial statement. If you or anyone else can prove the title of this thread, go for it.

DonDiego opines the 15% figure is as originally described.

Of all the funds which departed the Clinton Foundation from 2009 through 2103
__85% was expenses
__15% was "charitable" grants



n.b. This addresses only the disbursements; it does not address all the contributions to the Clinton Foundation retained within that entity.

From the Associated Press:

Maura Pally, the acting chief executive of the Clinton Foundation, is acknowledging the global philanthropy made mistakes in how it disclosed its donors.
The foundation expected to refile some of its tax forms, following a voluntary external review, because it had "mistakenly combined" government grants and donations.

[Oopsie ! Mistakes happen. - DD]

Pally also described the foundation's work with the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, which she said received funding from a separate organization in Canada. She said that partnership does not disclose its donors because under Canadian law they are not disclosed without prior permission from each donor.
"This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency," Pally said.
That partnership has come under scrutiny because it is named after Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining billionaire who has donated more than $31 million to the Clinton Foundation since the mid-2000s.

[Mr. Giustra was the chief beneficiary of the buyout of Uranium One by the Russians. It appears his "contributions" may have been even higher than $31-million, . . . just another "mistake", . . . or just maybe "an effort to avoid transparency on his part. But why? - DD]

Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea will be starting a nine-day trip to Africa on Wednesday to highlight the group's work on issues such as economic growth and empowerment, climate change and empowering women and girls.

[It is just such trips by those who own and operate the Clinton Foundation which contribute to the significant travel expenses of the Foundation. A trip to Africa on the donors, . . . cool - DD]

Hillary is a crook, and the Liberals on this site don't care.