• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Likely indictment

No, my post was not false. Polemical, perhaps, but not false:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/j...n-foundation-budget-actually-went-to-charity/

See also

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

Please don't confuse complaints about lavish expenses with a misunderstanding of public charities. The point is that outside grants are low. The rest is handled in-house. I generally prefer my henhouse guarded by someone other than the fox.

Also, don't accuse me of supporting Trump.

Your articles are full of shit. The Daily Caller's assertion of 5.7% has been totally debunked as a RW lie.

Here's what Politifact said about an 80/20:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/j...n-foundation-budget-actually-went-to-charity/

RE:In house is because there are no middlemen.

You are simply and totally FOS as usual.
 
No, my post was not false. Polemical, perhaps, but not false:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/j...n-foundation-budget-actually-went-to-charity/

See also

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

Please don't confuse complaints about lavish expenses with a misunderstanding of public charities. The point is that outside grants are low. The rest is handled in-house. I generally prefer my henhouse guarded by someone other than the fox.

Also, don't accuse me of supporting Trump.

I didn't confuse anything. I'm quoting your exact words. Keep Trumping. Double down baby and don't give an inch! Your very own articles show your post was wrong. How hard is it to admit it? You said that 7% went to grants and the rest to salary, travel, and whatever else you posted. Yet the articles you posted show that the sum of all the expenses you list is not the total amount of money spent by the foundation. The numbers are right there. I'm not saying you weren't complaining about alleged lavish spending. What I'm not putting up with is the new Trumpian ethos of facts don't matter. You misrepresented the facts to make a point and you were wrong.
 
WTF are you talking about? According to Charity Navigator- 86.9% of all funds that come into the Clinton Foundation are used for programs.

Only 8.7% of funds sent to the Clinton Foundation are used for "Administrative Expenses.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ind...ry&orgid=16680


Financial Performance Metrics
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 86.9%
Administrative Expenses 8.7%

Using your source, I'm pointing out that The Carter Center carries out nearly the same amount of programing with one-third of the Administrative Expenses. If you use the Carter Center as a benchmark it appears there's around $10 million of unnecessary administrative spending at the Clinton Foundation. In other words, you're going get a lot less bang for your charitable buck with Clinton than you will with Carter. It's not even close.

Here are the numbers for the Carter Center:

Financial Performance Metrics
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 91.4%
Administrative Expenses 3.8%
 
I don't know what kind of reading comprehension issues you are dealing with, but the first article I posted says the following:

Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/j...udget-actually-went-to-charity/#ixzz4P8DuG7b1

My original post said 7% on charitable grants rather than 5.7%. I got that figure from an article that looked at another year's 990. If that is your beef I'll gladly admit I was wrong.

And again, don't accuse me of supporting Trump.

I think that's a misleading statement in the article. From their 2014 990, they paid out $5.16 million in direct service grants, paid $34.8 million in salary/benefits, $6.7 million on fundraising, $50.4 million on "other expenses (which includes IT infrastructure upgrades, endowment development, website design, etc.). If these items were the only things the foundation did, the article would be correct, but it ignores the $128.8 million in direct program spending for the Clinton Health Access Initiative, $23.1 million for the Clinton Global Initiative, $12.3 million for the Clinton Presidential Center, and $8.2 million for the Clinton Climate initiative
 
I think that's a misleading statement in the article. From their 2014 990, they paid out $5.16 million in direct service grants, paid $34.8 million in salary/benefits, $6.7 million on fundraising, $50.4 million on "other expenses (which includes IT infrastructure upgrades, endowment development, website design, etc.). If these items were the only things the foundation did, the article would be correct, but it ignores the $128.8 million in direct program spending for the Clinton Health Access Initiative, $23.1 million for the Clinton Global Initiative, $12.3 million for the Clinton Presidential Center, and $8.2 million for the Clinton Climate initiative

Did they buy that dreaded second device?
 
Using your source, I'm pointing out that The Carter Center carries out nearly the same amount of programing with one-third of the Administrative Expenses. If you use the Carter Center as a benchmark it appears there's around $10 million of unnecessary administrative spending at the Clinton Foundation. In other words, you're going get a lot less bang for your charitable buck with Clinton than you will with Carter. It's not even close.

Here are the numbers for the Carter Center:

Financial Performance Metrics
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 91.4%
Administrative Expenses 3.8%

Whether you like townie or not, he is has a lot of experience in the non-profit arena. His statements about how efficient the Clinton Foundation holds a lot of water.

The benchmark from Charity Navigator for positive use of funds is :

"Performance Metric One: Program Expense Percentage
Percent of total functional expenses spent on programs and services (higher is better)

Program Expenses less than 33.3%"

Thus the Clinton Foundation is 75% lower that what is considered good.

Your constant, irrational hatred of everything Clinton makes your attack meaningless.

Did you ever think about the reality of delivering HIV/AIDS drugs to towns and villages throughout Africa as well delivering millions upon millions of malaria nets have inherently more expenses than the wonderful programs of the Carter Foundation does? You have no context, but you have Pavlovian need to attack everything Clinton. You have to find a reason to attack them even when they are saving millions and millions of lives.

Of you course you wouldn't think about this, it would kill you to admit that the Clinton Foundation does massively good deeds and keeps costs to a very, very low percentage of revenues. You are incapable of giving them the credit they have earned.

This makes everything you post inconsequential.

What we have here is comparing a Monet to a Cezanne. Each are great in their own way, but you can't admit this. It's terribly sad and shows your true colors.
 
I don't know what kind of reading comprehension issues you are dealing with, but the first article I posted says the following:

Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/j...udget-actually-went-to-charity/#ixzz4P8DuG7b1

My original post said 7% on charitable grants rather than 5.7%. I got that figure from an article that looked at another year's 990. If that is your beef I'll gladly admit I was wrong.

And again, don't accuse me of supporting Trump.

You are completely wrong as almost all of the projects that the Clinton Foundation do are done IN HOUSE so as to keep costs and expenses down and eliminate the cost of middlemen. Thus the concept of outside grants has no meaning with this organization.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit that you are wrong.
 
Using your source, I'm pointing out that The Carter Center carries out nearly the same amount of programing with one-third of the Administrative Expenses. If you use the Carter Center as a benchmark it appears there's around $10 million of unnecessary administrative spending at the Clinton Foundation. In other words, you're going get a lot less bang for your charitable buck with Clinton than you will with Carter. It's not even close.

Here are the numbers for the Carter Center:

Financial Performance Metrics
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 91.4%
Administrative Expenses 3.8%

Okay? As DF07 said Jimmy Carter is a great American. Just because one group does something better doesn't mean the other does it poorly.
 
Whether you like townie or not, he is has a lot of experience in the non-profit arena. His statements about how efficient the Clinton Foundation holds a lot of water.

The benchmark from Charity Navigator for positive use of funds is :

"Performance Metric One: Program Expense Percentage
Percent of total functional expenses spent on programs and services (higher is better)

Program Expenses less than 33.3%"

Thus the Clinton Foundation is 75% lower that what is considered good.

Your constant, irrational hatred of everything Clinton makes your attack meaningless.

Did you ever think about the reality of delivering HIV/AIDS drugs to towns and villages throughout Africa as well delivering millions upon millions of malaria nets have inherently more expenses than the wonderful programs of the Carter Foundation does? You have no context, but you have Pavlovian need to attack everything Clinton. You have to find a reason to attack them even when they are saving millions and millions of lives.

Of you course you wouldn't think about this, it would kill you to admit that the Clinton Foundation does massively good deeds and keeps costs to a very, very low percentage of revenues. You are incapable of giving them the credit they have earned.

This makes everything you post inconsequential.

What we have here is comparing a Monet to a Cezanne. Each are great in their own way, but you can't admit this. It's terribly sad and shows your true colors.

Someone asked if there was a foundation that operates similar to The Clinton Foundation. The Carter Center is a pretty good comparable as they were both founded by former Presidents and operate as Global Charities accepting donations from individuals, corporations and foreign governments. Annual administrative expenses for The Carter Center were $6.8 million compared to $20.6 million for The Clinton Foundation. As usual you are way off track when you try to say the Clinton programs are more expensive than the Carter programs. Most of those differences would be captured in Program Expenses which are broken out separately. Sorry RJ but you seem to have an incurable case of Clinton blindness.
 
It's the opposite. You have a Clinton hatred.

What I said was delivering the services might cost more. You refuse to consider anything other than Clintons are evil and bad. You are incapable of admitting that their foundation uses money extremely wisely. You are driven to attack them even when they are saving millions of lives.

Why can't you simply say- The Carter Center and Clinton Foundation are among the gold standards of how to run charities? Charity Navigator has said so.

Rather than comparing two great foundations, why don't you compare the good the Clinton Foundation has done and the usage of donations to the Trump Foundation?

We know why. The Clinton Foundation saves millions of lives. The Trump Foundation buys pictures of Donald, pays his fines and even pays Boy Scout fees for his son.

Carter isn't running. Clinton and Trump are. Why not compare the good each does and how they spend their money?

NAH, you'll look for ANY excuse and way to tap dance from that.
 
At this point CNN should just run a story "Donald Trump performs abortion for fun" and then retract it. OOOPS!
 
Back
Top