Clinton Crime Family Foundation

[The Big Dog]

Not paying an employee's wages would be a bad sign, and paying an employee is bad. Are you sure that not falling for that little catch 22 is "pro Hillary shilling"?

Or you know, a "charity" should not be paying a political hack a monthly retainer to do political hack work for a couple of political hacks.

 

[The Big Dog]

I am having a hard time understanding what you are saying here - it would be what?

I am taking CN at its word. The CN website's exact wording is the lack of rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment. Are you suggesting otherwise?

ETA
the first article quoted states

On February 18, 2015, The Washington Post reported that, "the foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs."​

I made a mistake and admitted I was misinformed. I see that the tax returns had to be refiled because they violated tax law. However, I still see no evidence that the rating was dropped because of tax forms being refiled.

The "first" article. Make it through the rest of the list yet?

It is cherry picking season!

 

[Ladewig]

As near as I can tell, there are two issues.
One is the abscence of a rating and one is the presence of CF on a watch list.

From http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
(Story linked on CN website)

We spoke by phone with Sandra Minuitti at Charity Navigator, and she told us Charity Navigator decided not to rate the Clinton Foundation because the foundation spun off some entities (chiefly the Health Access Initiative) and then later brought some, like the Clinton Global Initiative, back into the fold. Charity Navigator looks at a charity’s performance over time, she said, and those spin-offs could result in a skewed picture using its analysis model. If the foundation maintains its current structure for several years, she said, Charity Navigator will be able to rate it again.
The decision to withhold a rating had nothing to do with concerns about the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. Further, Minuitti said citing only the 6 percent of the budget spent on grants as the sum total spent on charity by the foundation — as Willis and Fiorina did — is inaccurate.​

I was completely wrong about the reason it was not rated. On the other hand, the accusations of quid-pro-quo are also not the reason it was not rated.

The new stories listed on the CN website are the reasons that the CF is on the CN watch list:

It’s true, as Willis said, that Charity Navigator put the Clinton Foundation on its “watch list,” but not because of concerns about insufficient funds going toward charity. Mainly, it was put on the watch list due to questions raised in the media about foreign donations to the foundation and the potential for quid pro quo when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. The site also linked to a story about the abrupt resignation earlier this year of the foundation’s CEO. (Go here to see a full list of articles that led to the decision by Charity Navigator to place the foundation on its watch list.)
According to the Charity Navigator site, it “takes no position” on the allegations raised in the media reports, nor does it “seek to confirm or verify the accuracy of allegations made or the merits of issues raised.” Minuitti said the watch list was more like “news to know” for potential donors.
None of the articles cited by Charity Navigator has anything to do with a low percentage of funding going to charitable work.​

Same source:

Another philanthropy watchdog, CharityWatch, a project of the American Institute of Philanthropy, gave the Clinton Foundation an “A” rating.
Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.​

So, Charity Navigator official stance is that while the CF one-time divestitures were enough to not give it a rating, the lack of rating "does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator."

 

[The Big Dog]

And it appears it is not-answering-questions season as well.

Yeah, did you make it through the rest of the list cited by the organization?

The list that starts here:

"Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is on Charity Navigator's Watchlist
Here's why:"

And links to articles concerning among other things, undisclosed foreign donations, the false tax forms and Sid Blumenthal being on the "charity's" payroll?

 

[Ladewig]

Yeah, did you make it through the rest of the list cited by the organization?

The list that starts here:

"Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is on Charity Navigator's Watchlist
Here's why:"

And links to articles concerning among other things, undisclosed foreign donations, the false tax forms and Sid Blumenthal being on the "charity's" payroll?

I massively edited my post after you responded to it. I apologize. I had hoped to edit it before you responded. I was not trying to create a misleading post structure.

 

[Manopolus]

Is it ethical for two liberals to become incredibly wealthy working for a charity? Do you liberals see anything wrong with this latest scandal from your nominee?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/u...nton-came-with-500000-for-his-foundation.html

She's not my nominee. Not yet, anyway.

If we could get all those sexist women out there to think about anything but having the first woman president, we could even manage to give Bernie a chance and have the first Jewish president. Hell, that's even a numerical minority.

(err... I hope everyone knows not to take me seriously in this post. However, the insane difference between the two in the polls is almost all women voters nonetheless).

If not, I'll likely vote for Jill Stein again. See? I'm not the sexist one. She is also a woman. (well, unless she's a damn good cross-dresser and no one has noticed yet)

Umm... I'm not sure why a self-described conservative thinks it unseemly to vote for a person that did everything they could to get rich though. Hell, they worked real hard for that money. By damn they earned it. It also means that they're better than the rest of us and you're just coveting their riches. Quit being jealous and realize that rich people are just harder working and by damn more deserving than you are.

 

[logger]

Umm... I'm not sure why a self-described conservative thinks it unseemly to vote for a person that did everything they could to get rich though. Hell, they worked real hard for that money. By damn they earned it. It also means that they're better than the rest of us and you're just coveting their riches. Quit being jealous and realize that rich people are just harder working and by damn more deserving than you are.

Umm, you do realize the Clintons got rich selling themselves? Most rich I know did it by producing something. But it does make sense that self described liberals love the Clintons even though they got rich exactly the way liberals despise. Its incredible how dems are stuck with these two lowlifes.

 

[Manopolus]

Umm, you do realize the Clintons got rich selling themselves? Most rich I know did it by producing something. But it does make sense that self described liberals love the Clintons even though they got rich exactly the way liberals despise. Its incredible how dems are stuck with these two lowlifes.

Most rich people I know got it from having rich parents, actually... so I guess your experience must not be universal.

 

[RandFan]

I've been absent. Sorry. Any evidence of this "crime family"?

 

[Tony Stark]

I wonder what it will be like for Republicans when Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States. I can only hope very painful. They deserve it.

 

[mgidm86]

Most rich people I know got it from having rich parents, actually... so I guess your experience must not be universal.

I've seen you make this claim in other threads. Most rich people I know did it themselves. Most of them are third generation Americans whose ancestors came here dirt poor. They aren't billionaires but they are wealthy enough.

I remember you complaining that you couldn't get the type of work you think you deserve while people around you who were born rich had it easy. Maybe these rich people simply didn't share your attitude regarding what it means to work toward something.

I don't really want the sort of work that would hire me. That isn't to say I'm lazy; I just don't care much for working 40-60 hours a week for the purpose of making some greedy bastard significantly more money than I get in return.

If I could find work that I felt actually had a point, it'd be different.

Don't get me wrong... I'm still looking for whatever's out there, but it hasn't been a particularly fruitful search of late... possibly due to my current disillusionment towards the entire freaking system at least in part. It also doesn't help that my two most recent employers canned me with virtually no reasonable explanation (and the bad attitude sort of happened as a result, not a precursor).

Sorry to drag out an old quote, but this attitude seems prevalent these days, and it's not a good one. Many many jobs make some "greedy bastard" more money than you, that's kinda how it works, but eventually, if you work hard, you can become that greedy bastard. Or perhaps you can be not so greedy, but you have to earn it either way.

I don't blame you though in some ways - the economy and job availability situation is crap, no matter how politicians spin it and tell us otherwise. It is tougher to make a buck, and salaries have been stagnant for a long time.

As for the Clinton's, like many politicians, they seem to have somehow gotten rich by being politicians, which is a bit interesting given the salaries that we pay them.

 

[RandFan]

Most rich people I know did it themselves. Most of them are third generation Americans whose ancestors came here dirt poor. They aren't billionaires but they are wealthy enough.

The good 'ol American dream. Sadly it's become everyone else's dream and we are falling behind.

 

[Manopolus]

As for the Clinton's, like many politicians, they seem to have somehow gotten rich by being politicians, which is a bit interesting given the salaries that we pay them.

Step 1: Become a lawyer


That's usually how it starts.

The rest your post was making a ideological argument into something personal. I'm going to refrain from going there this time. You need to know nothing about me for the purpose of this conversation.

 

[The Big Dog]

Step 1: Become a lawyer


That's usually how it starts.

.

That is a fine non sequitor...

 

[NoahFence]

I've seen you make this claim in other threads. Most rich people I know did it themselves. Most of them are third generation Americans whose ancestors came here dirt poor. They aren't billionaires but they are wealthy enough.

I remember you complaining that you couldn't get the type of work you think you deserve while people around you who were born rich had it easy. Maybe these rich people simply didn't share your attitude regarding what it means to work toward something.



Sorry to drag out an old quote, but this attitude seems prevalent these days, and it's not a good one. Many many jobs make some "greedy bastard" more money than you, that's kinda how it works, but eventually, if you work hard, you can become that greedy bastard. Or perhaps you can be not so greedy, but you have to earn it either way.

I don't blame you though in some ways - the economy and job availability situation is crap, no matter how politicians spin it and tell us otherwise. It is tougher to make a buck, and salaries have been stagnant for a long time.
As for the Clinton's, like many politicians, they seem to have somehow gotten rich by being politicians, which is a bit interesting given the salaries that we pay them.

How to you suppose it's possible for rank-and-file HARD WORKING Americans to get both highlighted parts to match?

Hint: It's not.

 

[RandFan]

I'....if you work hard, you can become that greedy bastard.

I grew up poor. I grew up on a farm. I'm willing to bet anything that poor people work much, much, much harder than rich people.

I woke before dawn every day to feed the animals. When I came home from school I did chores like clean pens, feed animals, hoe the garden, buck wheat, move pipe, dig trenches, move head gates, slaughter rabbits and chickens, etc., etc.

I'm so sick of this lie. Poor people work harder than you could possibly work, unless of course you were motivated by the need to live. Try picking fruit for a day. I grew up harvesting cherries, apples, onions, etc.

No one works harder than the poor and that is easily provable. Go work on a farm for a week. Go dig ditches for a week.

The lie has to stop.

When I started school I was told that now I was expected to work. Age 5. Tell me mgidm86, what did you do at age 5? Be honest. Most 5 year olds who aren't poor don't get up before school in order to perform manual labor. Many poor children do. This BS about working hard is so easily proven false but, like most ingrained myths it will not die. Thankfully there are some who care about the truth.

You likely couldn't even do it. The irony of rich idiots who work 40 hours a week siting at a desk and telling poor people to work harder is one of the most absurd things I can think of.

 

[DavidJames]

The right wing is driven by the ideology of unfettered capitalism being the salvation of humanity. Any problems are caused by people failing to heed that and or failing to fully participate. Since their beliefs are ideological and not fact based, they refuse to admit any failures and holes exist in their religion.

Systemic problem? It's the governments fault.
Individual problem? It's the persons fault.
Anything but the ideology.

 

[The Don]

The good 'ol American dream. Sadly it's become everyone else's dream and we are falling behind.

Not only is social mobility comparatively low but the consequences of low social mobility are worse than they used to be.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hillary attacks bank that fattened her coffers.

Hillary Clinton attacked a bank (HSBC) that paid her husband, Bill Clinton, and donated to her family foundation at a speech on the economy in New York City.

they paid Bill $200k and donated $1million to the "foundation."

And if Hillary wins, well Bill said that he is going to keep cashing those fat checks and running the Slush Fund Foundation.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blog...linton-donated-clinton-foundation_990050.html

 

[RandFan]

Hillary Clinton attacked a bank (HSBC) that paid her husband, Bill Clinton, and donated to her family foundation at a speech on the economy in New York City.

they paid Bill $200k and donated $1million to the "foundation."

And if Hillary wins, well Bill said that he is going to keep cashing those fat checks and running the Slush Fund Foundation.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blog...linton-donated-clinton-foundation_990050.html

I seriouldy dislike the Clintons, however, in the case, COOL. HSBC can stop giving them money if they want. Shills like the Clintons should bite the hand that feeds them more often. The facts are clear. Clinton is telling the truth.

This is great news and I thank you for that.