Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Sunday, September 24. 2017

How the crooked Clinton Foundation worked

Over the transom: 



With the publishing of her new book, seems only fair (and balanced) to take a look  at excerpts from the 2014 Tax Return for the Clinton Foundation. These are public documents. 


2014 Total revenue (line 12) $177,804,612


Total grants to charity (line 13) $5,160,385   (that's less than 3%)


Total expenses of $91,281,145 Expenses include:
Salaries (line 15) $34,838,106
Fund raising fees (line 16a) $850,803
Other expenses (line 17) $50,431,851
Travel $8,000,000
Meetings $12,000,000


They list 486 employees (line 5) plus 400 volunteers (line 6) 




"Fair Analysis: It took 486 (886?) people who are paid $34.8 million and $91.3 million in fees and expenses to give away $5.1 MILLION. Geez, wonder what all those folks wuz really doin?


Line 22 shows ending year net assets/fund balances of $332,471,349 which is up $85,171,891 from last year's tax return!  (No substantial asset increase in 2015 when she was running.....hmmm)


- All these contributions were pure charitable donations?...it's another fair question that should leap to anyone's mind.


Posted by The News Junkie in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 16:05 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Sounds like "Government As A God".
Hmmm, much like the title of one of your previous posts...
#1 Charlie on 2017-09-24 16:53 (Reply)
Obama is running the same scam now.

https://www.obama.org/


In terms of donations, the Clintons were laundering a lot of the money through Canada, because the law there doesn't require donors to be identified there. So the payoffs are madee as gifts to a Canadian shell chairty, that "charity" then transfers the money to the Clinton Foundation, and the Clinton Foundation simply reports the money as coming from the Canadian charity without having to list the actual "donors."
#2 Jim on 2017-09-24 18:14 (Reply)
It's a common game. You give your friends jobs to go places and advocate, or meet with important people, and tell foreigners what to do. Conferences, universities, journalists, NGO's - it adds up. So many people to tell what to do! If they aren't paid a lot of money to have nice clothes and drivers and take people to dinner, they won't have any credibility.
#3 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2017-09-24 22:16 (Reply)
Based on those figures, the average salary was $71.683 per employee. Would be extremely interesting to find out just who made what, and just who is on the payroll - young Chelsea, for instance.
#4 Frances on 2017-09-25 01:00 (Reply)
QUOTE:
Fair Analysis: It took 486 (886?) people who are paid $34.8 million and $91.3 million in fees and expenses to give away $5.1 MILLION.

Most of the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation is done by their own employees; consequently direct grants represent only a small part of their spending, while salaries are a large part of their spending. Staff train rural farmers in Africa, work to provide access to seed and markets, provide technological expertise on energy to people without access to the grid, and help provide access to HIV drugs to millions of people.

There is no evidence of self-dealing on the part of the Clintons. The Clintons have provided 20-years of their tax returns. The Clinton Foundation records are public. Experts who have studied the Clinton Foundation give it a high charitable rating.

Charity Navigator, 87% program percentage
Charity Watch, 88% program percentage

Frances: Would be extremely interesting to find out just who made what, and just who is on the payroll - young Chelsea, for instance.

Chelsea Clinton, current Vice Chair of the Clinton Foundation, has never taken any pay for her work with the Foundation.
#5 Zachriel on 2017-09-25 10:01 (Reply)
QUOTE:
There is no evidence of self-dealing on the part of the Clintons.


Haiti

Chelsea's wedding
#5.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-09-25 11:44 (Reply)
Hold on there. The charity watchdogs do not make a determination of whether the money spent on "programs" qualify as charity under any usual definition, so long as it meets a technical definition. That's very nice - it is certainly better than not spending it on programs - but the "programs" are as I noted above: jobs for friends to travel on. You can call those activities charity if you want to, but a lot of people would disagree. It doesn't mean that the Clintons are doing anything illegal (at least in this case), but it does shine a light on what these charitable activities actually are.

They aren't the only ones. It's a common game, as I said.
#5.2 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2017-09-25 15:31 (Reply)
Assistant Village Idiot: The charity watchdogs do not make a determination of whether the money spent on "programs" qualify as charity under any usual definition, so long as it meets a technical definition.

Of course it has to meet the technical definition, which is spending on charitable causes. Administrative personnel are not counted in charitable spending. Foundation staff train rural farmers in Africa, work to provide access to seed and markets, provide technological expertise on energy to people without access to the grid, and help supply access drugs for diseases such as HIV and malaria to millions of people.
#5.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-09-25 16:56 (Reply)
Yep, those would be line 6.
#5.2.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-09-25 23:16 (Reply)
Even if this information was made public on all the PUBLIC MEDIA us DUMMIES would not believe it.
#6 Orest on 2017-09-25 11:10 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.