320 Years of History
Gold Member
You simply regurgitate that title 2013 Snapshot from paid off charity watch give it a restAnd as a CPA, I know what to look for in his returns and in his proposals to find the answers to those kinds of questions.
Then YOU could have been going over the limited Clinton Foundation crap they put out. Only 5% actually reached those in need? come on...
"other"? Salaries? travel? office equipment in the millions? Library penthouse?
funny.........have not heard a word out of you and your ilk?
I have looked over the Clinton Foundation's published financial statements and tax returns. I don't see anything whereby the something Mrs. Clinton did anything that resulted in hers or her husband's personal gain.
As for the 5% figure, I know what you are looking at, but I also know you don't fully understand what it represents, for were you to fully understand it, you would not cite that 5% figure. To understand the information in the Clinton Foundation's returns and financial statements, you will find the following very helpful:
Some sample "program percentages" from Charity Watch or Charity Navigator:
- American Institute of Philanthropy explains how charity ratings work.
- Charity Watch's rating of the Clinton Foundation
So when you talk about people of my "ilk," whom you are talking about are folks who do know what that 5% figure represents, which is why we don't have anything to say about it. We know it's meaningless and that anyone who does is presenting a red herring. People of my "ilk" don't do that; we don't need to in order to make our points.
- Clinton Foundation --> 88% (87% at Charity Navigator)
- American Red Cross --> 90%
- American Heart Association --> ~79%
- Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research --> 89%
- Shawn Carter Foundation --> 77%
- Rotary Foundation of Rotary International --> 89%
And as a CPA, I know what to look for in his returns and in his proposals to find the answers to those kinds of questions.
Then YOU could have been going over the limited Clinton Foundation crap they put out. Only 5% actually reached those in need? come on...
"other"? Salaries? travel? office equipment in the millions? Library penthouse?
funny.........have not heard a word out of you and your ilk?
I have looked over the Clinton Foundation's published financial statements and tax returns. I don't see anything whereby the something Mrs. Clinton did anything that resulted in hers or her husband's personal gain.
As for the 5% figure, I know what you are looking at, but I also know you don't fully understand what it represents, for were you to fully understand it, you would not cite that 5% figure. To understand the information in the Clinton Foundation's returns and financial statements, you will find the following very helpful:
Some sample "program percentages" from Charity Watch or Charity Navigator:
- American Institute of Philanthropy explains how charity ratings work.
- Charity Watch's rating of the Clinton Foundation
So when you talk about people of my "ilk," whom you are talking about are folks who do know what that 5% figure represents, which is why we don't have anything to say about it. We know it's meaningless and that anyone who does is presenting a red herring. People of my "ilk" don't do that; we don't need to in order to make our points.
- Clinton Foundation --> 88% (87% at Charity Navigator)
- American Red Cross --> 90%
- American Heart Association --> ~79%
- Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research --> 89%
- Shawn Carter Foundation --> 77%
- Rotary Foundation of Rotary International --> 89%
Brought to you by Google top top. You are simply regurgitated That tired Old Cherry Picked 2013 charity watch Report There's plenty of other information out there That you're completely overlooking And that's all I got to say on the subject I've seen enough of it. You're no different than all the rest You use more words to try to appear different. They've used every trick in the book to take Clinton income moving into Clinton Foundation Build Penthouse in the library they have all their friends and Buddies Very little reaches hungry children wandering the fields in Africa
Red:
So much of it in fact that you bothered to reference not one bit of it that comes from widely accepted credible sources. I think sensible readers who are interested in getting a full picture and who have taken the time to read my posts and read the reference sources I link to in them as corroboration of my assertions will note that you have made your empty-ass assertion and asked to merely take your word for it, something I rarely do. Even the folks with whom regularly engage in discussion and who also disagree with me will surely grant that I don't generally make unsubstantiated claims and that I do support my claims with highly credible sources.