Only 5.7 Percent Of Clinton Foundation Budget Actually Went To Charitable Grants

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/j...udget-actually-went-to-charity/#ixzz4KWr6WA4I

$50.4 MILLION on "Other Expenses"....gee...wonder what those entailed.

Anyway, you have to wonder what all the big time donors think when they read this sort of thing. I know before a give dime to any organization I investigate how they much of my donation will actual go the cause it's collecting donations for. If the amount is less than 80% I'm probably not giving that org a dime & if I really support the cause I'll look for more direct ways to donate.

According to the IRS filing, the foundation collected $172.5 million in contributions and had total revenue of $177.4 mil.. The foundations net assets = $332.74 mil. Not bad. So, it would seem the Foundation isn't doing to bad, right? So what gives? I mean, a paltry $5.3 given out in charitable grants & yet have employee expenses in excess of $2 mil (the lions share to just 2 individuals)? What's wrong with that picture?

Anyway, food for thought...that is, if you actually want to think.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf

 

This game was played back in the primaries and debunked back then...where have you been?

"Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that “so little” of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation “actually go to charitable works” — a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent of its annual revenues — but Fiorina is simply wrong.

Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.

Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly."
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

 

Look at the tax form. Read it. It is what it is.

 

So 5.7% of Clinton foundation went to charities.
As far as we can see 0% of Trump foundation went to charities.
And 100% went into his pocket. Whose worse.

 

If 89% of its funding went to charity. then the Clinton foundation has falsified their Tax return to the IRS
math doesn't lie

and Factcheck. org doesn't have any creditability they are the fact checkers that called Obamas statement "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" true then less then a year later called it lie of the year

 

They certainly are con artists, scammers, phonies, etc... I bet they had to pry that 5 million out of her grubbly little hands...

 

The Clinton Foundation has 10 different programs and a staff of nearly 500. It spent $218 million directly on charitable work in 2014.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ya...inton-foundation-172645913.html?client=safari

Old lie that's already been debunked

 

the problem seems to be that these writers are damned lazy..

They don't know the difference between a public charity... an operational charity and a private charity.

 

The clintons make fools of the stupid.

They have enriched themselves to the tune of 200 million

after leaving the white house broke.

Their scam that would make bernie madoff jealous.

hillary's supporters are more gullible than bernies.

 

Nope, there is a difference than giving directly to a charity and actually doing the work. Most of their charity is performed by them.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? OP says nothing about how much charitable work they directly perform

 

No, no....not that easy. You're posting BS rumors, I'm posting facts ... you know...like tax returns. And, what's worse is ignoring the facts and posting LW "as far as we know" rumors. You did that, right?

 

But...you said I didn't, right? So WTF????

 

Do we have a legitimate source for this deplorable accusation?

 

The only thing you did was post a POS source.

 

Maybe the functional expenses for operating various programs around the world as detailed in Part IX of Form 990. Maybe you should read the instructions for filling out this form to learn more about it.

 

this is the part that floored me

wonder if CNN will spend as much time on this as they did Trump's hair ruffling or their 24 hour anti Trump infomercial for questioning his highness' heritage


The tax records, which were filed with the IRS in November of 2015, show that the Clinton Foundation spent far more on overhead expenses like travel ($7.9 million) than it did on charitable grants in 2014. The group also spent more on rent and office supplies (a total of $6.6 million) than it did on charitable grants. The Clinton Foundation’s IRS forms show that even its depreciation expense ($5.3 million) — an accounting classification that takes into account the wear and tear of an organization’s assets — exceeded the tax-exempt organization’s charitable grant outlays.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/16/clinton-foundation-spent-6-percent-charitable-grants-2014/

 

This is why you shouldn't waste your time with RW blogs. They spent over 200 million in direct charitable aid, while those RW blogs are focusing solely on donations.

 

Hilarious! But, you've got to give the Clintons credit for being very capable capitalists. They left the White House, as Hilarity said, "dead broke", but then once they got the "Foundation" set up and running, and churning forward in the influence-peddling and "favor" business (due to her appointment as Secretary of State), they sure as hell weren't "dead broke" anymore!

. "But we had a lot of expenses...you know...expenses...?"

 

The blog clearly states "spent" on those itemized IRS filings...not a mention of donations
even once in your citation.

 

Excuse me "charitable grants". Most of their charity is direct aid, not grants

 

Look closer, MG.

 

Yea, could be, but there are line items specifically for operating expenses. But, hey, lets say you're right (you're not, but...), how does that redeem only 5.7% going to charitable grants?

 

Some folks have forgotten this, of never really new the whole story.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/03/nyregion/with-some-help-clintons-purchase-a-white-house.html?pagewanted=all

If you don't think these two are owned, think again.

 

Because that isnt how it operates, they do direct aid not grants. It's still millions in grants btw. How much has her opponent given?

 

LOL...it's not HER money the foundation gave, MG, it's other peoples $$$$$. So it's dumb to ask "how much has her opponent given?" as if it is.