Posted on 10/20/2016 7:43:58 AM PDT by GilGil
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at informationliberation.com ...
That a woman who has been politically active, all her entire adult life, among a people with the most successful history of economic achievement over their first century and a quarter, of any people on earth, under a Constitutional Government designed to protect that people from a bureaucratic pestilence, which has been the bain of most nations; that such a woman has so missed the essential point of the American achievement, is staggering in its implications.
Mrs. Clinton claimed that a Clinton Government woujld rebuild the "Middle Class." Was she tottally unaware that the American Middle Class clearly built itself? That the American Middle Class resulted from naturally energized individuals, aspiring to achieve the good life, who risked everything to first clear a wilderness, work hard, generation to generation, to save & accumulate the attributes of the good life; with the result that by 1913--the year that a graduated income tax first became Constitutional, this Settler built Federation of newly settled States, had already surpassed every one of the great powers of Europe in industrial strength.
To "rebuild" the "Middle Class," Mrs. Clinton vowed to make the most successful Americans--those who had achieved the most-- pay increased taxes; she called it "paying their 'fair' share." But it was clearly to be a tax on success--a tax to fund a raft of new programs (a cancer or pestilence of an expanded bureaucracy). She was obviously indifferent to the fact that the biggest impediment to any poor person with ambition, actually launching a small business to improve his status, is an almost incomprehensible explosion in bureaucratic regulations, most of which premised on the same flawed understanding of how people actually advance, which Mrs. Clinton displayed, last night.
Americans used to learn by experience. What were the experience based lessons of what transpired from the drafting of our written Constitution in 1787, until the passage of the income tax amendment in 1913? Are they instructive or not, for what actually works for human advancement?
The Constitution prior to 1913, absolutely interdicted a tax driven war on the accumulation of individual wealth. Article I, Section 9, which Mrs. Clinton should have remembered from Law School, provided that no direct tax on individual Americans could be applied in any way but pro-capita. (That is Warren Buffet would pay the same tax--not the same percentage tax--but the same tax as Joe the Plumber. The Founders had no desire to limit individual success. They sought only to encourage it.
Under there experience based philosophy, there were almost certainly not even 1% of the bureaucratic regulations, with which Americans seeking to improve their lot, must face today. In place of today's pursuit of grievances, real or imagined, there was universal admiration for the high achievers! And the growth rate of a people freed to achieve, was the economic phenomenon of human history.
We do not pretend to know whether it was in her indoctrination by Marxist Pied Pipers, in her late teens, or pure confusion in whatever she is struggling with today. But Mrs. Clinton is utterly clueless on how a dynamic economy works; as she is utterly unaware of the dynamic, interactive factors, that drive or stagnate any human aspiration or achievement. What is absolutely clear, even if one ignores her lack of a moral compass in her political dealings; the woman is absolutely unqualified to be President of the United States.
This is one more reason why we must win this election for Donald Trump.
William Flax
[This may be reproduced, if in full context, with or without attribution.]
60% of gross receipts go to “other expenses”. 60%! that is the definition of a money laundry.
The 5.7 percent went for advertising how great they are.
Anything left over goes for Mao suits for Hillary.
Don’t forget Bill’s Cialis.
Better:
“It’s the exact opposite, or worse. Her “charity” spends over 94 cents of each dollar on itself, and passes less than six cents on, to the needy.”
I concur with your basic point. I was struck by how high the salaries and benefits figure was for a supposedly charitable operation - roughly a third, plus or minus 5%. Another 35%, plus or minus 5%, went to “other expenses.” To me, a very generous estimate would be that 50% of revenues went to charity, with the actual figure more likely to be in the 25-35% range, which is very low, among the worst I’ve ever seen.
“Why did Chris Wallace not call her on this damnable lie. “
Because the moderator is not a debater and it would have been inappropriate. Wouldn’t it have been?
Addendum: I agree with your basic point, EXCEPT I disagree that the Clinton Foundation’s actual expenditures on charity could be anywhere near 90%. If the CEO of Goodwill Industries makes $200,000 (I have no idea what the actual figure is), there is no way that Goodwill could claim that the CEO’s salary and benefits are a “charitable expense” just because the overall purpose of the organization is charitable. The salary and benefits are for the CEO, not for recipients of charity.
A little she first two moderators were not neutral, were they??
#48 Google: hillary clinton oven mitt
Oven Mitt outfit: http://tammybruce.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/hillary-cher-260x300.png
Variety
http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/08/Clinton-fashion3.jpg
Evil fashion outfits
http://www.topnewsallday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/hillary-fashion-6.jpg
Now that Trump has started running his “Clinton = liar” campaign ad series, I hope his PR staff will pickup on the criminal and near criminal activities of the Clinton Foundation and incorporate them into the campaign’s advertising.
Dang it, that information had been out in the public view for months. Trump- should have jumped right on her about it. I can’t believe he just hasn’t figured out all the lines of attack on the foundation.
It only takes a few minutes of time to read something on their percentage of charitable payments and pay for plays and other sins like stashing political workers and cronys there at high salaries to keep working for her political career.
A truly missed opportunity that has no excuse.
All I could think about when she spoke was “lie lie lie lie”. I think she could care less about toddlers who die from guns. And could care less than the little boy in Aleppo.
I would add that the Clinton’s annual donation to the Clinton Foundation is almost entirely accounted for by Chelsea’s wages.
Now, color me suspicious, but that looks like them having a tidy end run around gift taxes to the tune of whatever her net is a year.
Don’t get me wrong: I abhor all inheritance taxes and there is no delegated power given the federal to tax a person for giving a gift (with gift taxes the estate of the giver bears the tax burden) so if I could act that way there would be no ethical duplicity; but, the Clintons are basically once again showing that so-called “progressives” are really about being generous with other people’s money....
PIAPS lies like a rug, or dog depending on what she is wearing.
5.56mm
I cannot believe the MSM refuses to point out Hillary’s constant LIES.
Sheesh, everyone knows they pay out so much less than 90% AND she said neither Bill or Chelsea profited yet Chelsea draws a huge salary and they both probably get free travel for CGI “events” i.e. junkets
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.