Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: James on October 20, 2016, 08:07:07 AM
-
FULL Title:FACT CHECK: Hillary Said 90% of Clinton Foundation Donations go to Charity. Actual Number? 5.7%
Hillary Clinton told a whopper of a lie during last night's debate when she claimed 90% of the money donated to the Clinton Foundation is paid out in charity.
The truth is only 5.7% of their "massive budget" in 2014 went to charitable grants, "the rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and 'other expenses.'"
As The Daily Caller reports: 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.”
The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=55710
-
What a vile, wretched bitch she is.
The truth is only 5.7% of their "massive budget" in 2014 went to charitable grants, "the rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and 'other expenses.'"
Only 5.7% went to actually helping people in need. Fucking disgusting.^^^^
-
That's not what other groups say.
Independent groups say it's like 87.5% that go to charities.
That number is just the number to grants. It doesn't include other charities.
-
Why isn't PBS or BBC reporting on these stories? Are the internet blogs out scooping them?
-
Why isn't PBS or BBC reporting on these stories? Are the internet blogs out scooping them?
Are you that in the dark?
-
I guess so, why don't you explain it to me.
-
That's not what other groups say.
Independent groups say it's like 87.5% that go to charities.
That number is just the number to grants. It doesn't include other charities.
Their isn't any other charities, grants is the total amount paid to charities.
Here are the actual IRS forms they filed.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf
-
Their isn't any other charities, grants is the total amount paid to charities.
Here are the actual IRS forms they filed.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf
According to financial people, that is incorrect.
The Grants are direct grants and do not include all charitable donations.
That's just what I've read, maybe it is incorrect.
-
According to financial people, that is incorrect.
The Grants are direct grants and do not include all charitable donations.
That's just what I've read, maybe it is incorrect.
You are wrong, just read the tax forms.
no other charitable expenditures listed:
Here are the actual IRS forms they filed.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf
-
According to financial people, that is incorrect.
The Grants are direct grants and do not include all charitable donations.
That's just what I've read, maybe it is incorrect.
WikiLeaks is currently releasing documents on bill's personal abuse of their charity funds. You can't actually believe these 2 started this charity with anything but personal gain as the main objective
-
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
-
You are wrong, just read the tax forms.
no other charitable expenditures listed:
Here are the actual IRS forms they filed.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf
Yes, I saw the filing. I am simply saying that's what other financial people are claiming. I am not some financial wizard, but they are saying that the expenditures in the expenditures column includes non-grant charitable donations.
That's what they are saying. I am not saying anything but what they are.
-
but they are saying that the expenditures in the expenditures column includes non-grant charitable donations.
That's what they are saying. I am not saying anything but what they are.
Read page 10 of 65 (part IV) titled "Statement of Functional Expenditures: it is the actual breakdown of all expenditures, and all charitable expenditures are listed in the first 3 lines. ( line 1,2,3)
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf
Yes, I saw the filing. I am simply saying that's what other financial people are claiming. I am not some financial wizard, but they are saying that the expenditures in the expenditures column includes non-grant charitable donations.
That's what they are saying. I am not saying anything but what they are.
People can say anything they want, and websites can write all they want. but the actual IRS tax forms are the proof.
-
Ok.
-
WikiLeaks is currently releasing documents on bill's personal abuse of their charity funds. You can't actually believe these 2 started this charity with anything but personal gain as the main objective
Excactly.
-
Maybe she meant that more than 90% of her supposed "charity donations" go directly to the Clinton Family Foundation.
-
The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.
What that really means is The Clinton Foundation spend $91 million on their own programs: HIV health care and meds in Africa, supporting Hatian small businesses, girls and women's programs in South America, etc. Of that $91 million, $5 million was grants to other (outside) organizations.
There are many watchdog organizations out there monitoring and rating charitable organizations. All these watchdogs give the Clinton Foundation their highest ratings.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
Breitbart and others are not stupid. They know that the Clinton Foundation is highly rated by watchdog orgs, that very little of the money raised by the foundation is used for overhead, and most of the money is used for Foundation programs. But by saying "but but only $5 million went to charitable grants" they know that stupid people will see that as evidence that the foundation is corrupt.
-
What that really means is The Clinton Foundation spend $91 million on their own programs: HIV health care and meds in Africa, supporting Hatian small businesses, girls and women's programs in South America, etc. Of that $91 million, $5 million was grants to other (outside) organizations.
There are many watchdog organizations out there monitoring and rating charitable organizations. All these watchdogs give the Clinton Foundation their highest ratings.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
Breitbart and others are not stupid. They know that the Clinton Foundation is highly rated by watchdog orgs, that very little of the money raised by the foundation is used for overhead, and most of the money is used for Foundation programs. But by saying "but but only $5 million went to charitable grants" they know that stupid people will see that as evidence that the foundation is corrupt.
What about the money that wikileaks is showing to go directly into bill's pockets?
Your link shows nothing about what program expenses actually means and in no way implies they spend that on the cases you mentioned. Why do you lie so much?
-
What that really means is The Clinton Foundation spend $91 million on their own programs: HIV health care and meds in Africa, supporting Hatian small businesses, girls and women's programs in South America, etc. Of that $91 million, $5 million was grants to other (outside) organizations.
wrong again, if you read page 10 of 65 (part IV) titled "Statement of Functional Expenditures: it is the actual itemized breakdown of 91 million, and nowhere on there is any money paid for medicines, no healthcare cost or reimbursement listed anywhere, showing that the funds that were paid for these things would was listed on the first 3 lines, depending if the funds were given to domestic or foreign organization, groups or individuals. you can plainly see that the majority of the 91 millions were to towards themselves in administrative cost ( salaries, travel, etc,,)
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf
Just like I said above, anyone can say anything they want, and and website can do the same the the proof is on the IRS Tax Forms
another good read:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/thepoint/2016/10/06/clinton-foundation-suddenly-gets-flawless-charity-rating-then-the-truth-comes-out/
-
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
Interesting that the charity watch dog you listed " the charity navigator" to prove your point was paid 2 million dollars from the Clinton's. How fascinating...A Fraud Charity Organization rating a Fraud Charity Organization! SO how much did Hillary pay you off to get the high rating? Oh wait, I know, Perhaps it was a $2 million donation provided to Charity Navigator by the Clinton Global Initiative to run through 2016?:
It was itself a member of the Clinton Global Initiative between 2012 and 2014. The Clinton group said Charity Navigator committed to spend an estimated $2 million over four years through 2016 to review more charities and provide more detailed information about them in its reviews.
Charity Navigator also participated in a Clinton Global Initiative program in 2011 with other groups to identify worthy charities for U.S. veterans, journalism integrity and Islamic outreach, but Charity Navigator did not contribute money as part of that effort.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-charity-watchdog-gives-clinton-foundation-high-marks-2016-9
And what does the BBB think of the Clinton foundation :
"Standards Not Met"
http://www.give.org/charity-reviews/national/clinton-foundation-aka-bill-hillary-and-chelsea-clinton-foundation-in-new-york-ny-655
7 Things You Need To Know About The Clinton Foundation
For an organization that is supposedly a charity, the Clinton Foundation spent very little money on "direct aid."
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8561/7-things-you-need-know-about-clinton-foundation-aaron-bandler#
-
Interesting that the charity watch dog you listed " the charity navigator" to prove your point was paid 2 million dollars from the Clinton's. How fascinating...A Fraud Charity Organization rating a Fraud Charity Organization! SO how much did Hillary pay you off to get the high rating? Oh wait, I know, Perhaps it was a $2 million donation provided to Charity Navigator by the Clinton Global Initiative to run through 2016?:
It was itself a member of the Clinton Global Initiative between 2012 and 2014. The Clinton group said Charity Navigator committed to spend an estimated $2 million over four years through 2016 to review more charities and provide more detailed information about them in its reviews.
Charity Navigator also participated in a Clinton Global Initiative program in 2011 with other groups to identify worthy charities for U.S. veterans, journalism integrity and Islamic outreach, but Charity Navigator did not contribute money as part of that effort.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-charity-watchdog-gives-clinton-foundation-high-marks-2016-9
And what does the BBB think of the Clinton foundation :
"Standards Not Met"
http://www.give.org/charity-reviews/national/clinton-foundation-aka-bill-hillary-and-chelsea-clinton-foundation-in-new-york-ny-655
7 Things You Need To Know About The Clinton Foundation
For an organization that is supposedly a charity, the Clinton Foundation spent very little money on "direct aid."
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8561/7-things-you-need-know-about-clinton-foundation-aaron-bandler#
Are you implying that time Fogarty would lead us astray from the truth? Considering he does that on almost everyone of his political posts, I can't say I'm shocked
-
Interesting that the charity watch dog you listed " the charity navigator" to prove your point was paid 2 million dollars from the Clinton's. How fascinating...A Fraud Charity Organization rating a
How about this one instead
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
And what does the BBB think of the Clinton foundation :
"Standards Not Met"
http://www.give.org/charity-reviews/national/clinton-foundation-aka-bill-hillary-and-chelsea-clinton-foundation-in-new-york-ny-655
and if you read that report, three of the 20 items on their list of standards were not met:
- The organization states that the current chair is compensated as an employee of the organization.
- It does not have a written board policy that commits the organization to complete, no less then every two years, an assessment of its performance and effectiveness and of determining future actions required to achieve its mission.
- The organization reports that it has not completed an effectiveness assessment but indicates it plans to do so
all administrative issues.
Now if you click over to the financial tab, ON THE LINK YOU PROVIDED, it says 86% goes to their programs.
so thank you for proving my point.
-
How about this one instead
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
oh look... another reputable group ::)
"CharityWatch, formerly known as the American Institute of Philanthropy changed its name after being Busted for inappropriate self promotion on Wikipedia"
http://charity-news.org/index.php/aip-busted-for-inappropriate-self-promotion-on-wikipedia/
CharityWatch is run out of the president's apartment: 3450 North Lake Shore Drive, Suite 2802. lol...
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=620792.0;attach=692989;image)
One more time.. the IRS Tax filing shows the truth, and if you look at page 10 (Part IX):
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf
it shows the complete breakdown of the expenses, including the "Program Expenses" in column "B" and in doing so you will see that most of that went towards salaries in the amount of 19 million, the second biggest amount going to "conferences, conventions and meeting" in the amount of 12 million. now if you go up to page 7 and 8 it shows who was receiving the salaries and they were Board Directors, Advisers, Secretaries, no names of any Doctors or Nurses showing that they would fall under line 1 or 3 of the expenses (page 10) under the amount of 4 million in line 1 or 900,000 under line 3.
So once again, people can say anything and websites can say anything BUT the IRS Tax Filing prove without a doubt that a little over 5% of the monies collected went towards actual charities or true hands on charitable work and that the Clinton's are nothing more than thieves and liars.
-
it show the complete breakdown of the expenses, including the "Program Expenses" in column "B" and in doing so you will see that most of that went towards salaries in the amount of 19 million, the second biggest amount going to "conferences, conventions and meeting" in the amount of 12 million.
Yup.
-
Are you implying that time Fogarty would lead us astray from the truth? Considering he does that on almost everyone of his political posts, I can't say I'm shocked
true
-
C'mon guys. Listen to what the media is reporting...
-
another reputable group ::)
"CharityWatch, formerly known as the American Institute of Philanthropy changed its name after being Busted for inappropriate self promotion on Wikipedia"
http://charity-news.org/index.php/aip-busted-for-inappropriate-self-promotion-on-wikipedia/
Which is run out of the president's apartment: 3450 North Lake Shore Drive, Suite 2802. lol...
One more time.. the IRS Tax filing shows the truth, and if you look at page 10 (Part IX):
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf
it shows the complete breakdown of the expenses, including the "Program Expenses" in column "B" and in doing so you will see that most of that went towards salaries in the amount of 19 million, the second biggest amount going to "conferences, conventions and meeting" in the amount of 12 million. now if you go up to page 7 and 8 it shows who was receiving the salaries and they were Board Directors, Advisers, Secretaries, no names of any Doctors or Nurses showing that they would fall under line 1 or 3 of the expenses (page 10) under the amount of 4 million in line 1 or 900,000 under line 3.
So once again, people can say anything and websites can say anything BUT the IRS Tax Filing prove without a doubt that a little over 5% of the monies collected went towards actual charities or true hands on charitable work and that the Clinton's are nothing more than thieves and liars.
Tim, do you care to share more lies and less than reputable biased sites with us on this subject matter?