The Clinton Global Initiative / Foundation

[wiffleball 4,631]

 

The 10-year-old initiative has facilitated programs that aided more than 430 million people in 180 countries, with government, private and civil-society entities working together in 90 percent of the programs, he [bill Clinton] noted at the initiative’s annual meeting…

Forty-six million children have better educational opportunities, more than 110 million women and children have better access to health care, and clean drinking water is more available to over 27 million people, he said…

The initiative prides itself on some 3,200 “commitments to action” – concrete plans for a new approach to a major problem – by its members.

One such pledge has led to financial education for more than 1.2 million poor women and youths and scholarships for more than 10,000 students in Kenya. Another has spawned more than 430 successful online crowdfunding campaigns for projects centered on women and girls. A third, aimed at enlisting African-American churches in combatting HIV and AIDS, has trained more than 500 religious leaders.

________________________________________________

P.S. One more fact: according to Charity Watch, the Clinton Foundation only spends 12% of their funds on overhead (fundraising and administration) – which is incredibly low for a non-profit. That is why they receive an “A” rating from that watchdog.

[BufordT 371]

A third, aimed at enlisting African-American churches in combatting HIV and AIDS, has trained more than 500 religious leaders.

I lol'd at this. I mean...........really!!!!

[wiffleball 4,631]

This is something that I think is getting missed in all the political hubub.

 

Long before the race, I kept up with the CGI , saw Bill speak - and they do really good things.

 

I agree that the optics - and the reality - of rich people getting face time with the State Dept is not optimal. But, then again, Washington is built on the idea of power shcmoozing with power. It's how things get done. There probably isn't a single global charity that hasn't consulted with the State Dept.

S incorrect. Tax forms are required for charities such as this and there are a handful of reputable organizations like Charity Watch - that don't have any skin in the game - who keep a keen eye on charities looking for that kIind of thing.

 

 

So, if at the end of the day, face time was traded for money - that did the kind of good listed above, I can live with that. Far worse has been done on both sides. In the end, those that are calling for a wholesale shut down of this charity really should educate themselves as to how much and what kind of good has been done and would be lost simply as a result of political brinksmanship.

 

Build a Chinese Wall between the Clintons and the foundation - hell, rename the damn thing, but keep doing the kind of good that's been done to date.

 

Now, resume your bickering. Facts and context are overrated.

[wiffleball 4,631]

I lol'd at this. I mean...........really!!!!

 

Not really sure why. For decades, tribal and church elders have passed all kinds of misinformation about AIDS along to their people. One of the most heinous was that raping a virgin young girl (some as young as toddlers) would cure AIDS. These children would almost invariably end up bleeding out due to vaginal hemorrhaging. If they did survive the brutal rape, they too would become infected.

 

Stopping that kind of BS seems a pretty worthy goal.

[BufordT 371]

 

Not really sure why. For decades, tribal and church elders have passed all kinds of misinformation about AIDS along to their people. One of the most heinous was that raping a virgin young girl (some as young as toddlers) would cure AIDS. These children would almost invariably end up bleeding out due to vaginal hemorrhaging. If they did survive the brutal rape, they too would become infected.

 

Stopping that kind of BS seems a pretty worthy goal.

That's some impressive google-ing. Did you at least have a sh1t eatin' grin on your face when posted that?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

It's a racket

[Baker Boy 1,479]

The 10-year-old initiative has facilitated programs that aided more than 430 million people in 180 countries, with government, private and civil-society entities working together in 90 percent of the programs, he [bill Clinton] noted at the initiative’s annual meeting…

Forty-six million children have better educational opportunities, more than 110 million women and children have better access to health care, and clean drinking water is more available to over 27 million people, he said…

The initiative prides itself on some 3,200 “commitments to action” – concrete plans for a new approach to a major problem – by its members.

One such pledge has led to financial education for more than 1.2 million poor women and youths and scholarships for more than 10,000 students in Kenya. Another has spawned more than 430 successful online crowdfunding campaigns for projects centered on women and girls. A third, aimed at enlisting African-American churches in combatting HIV and AIDS, has trained more than 500 religious leaders.

________________________________________________

P.S. One more fact: according to [/size]Charity Watch, the Clinton Foundation only spends 12% of their funds on overhead (fundraising and administration) – which is incredibly low for a non-profit. That is why they receive an “A” rating from that watchdog.[/size]

Did you notice they never mentioned dollar amounts.

 

The way this works is, I give $100 to the Indian Government. That means I helped 1.3 Billion people. See how that works?

 

Check the tax returns of the foundation and you will get at the truth.

 

In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants

Hillary Clinton's non-profit spent more on office supplies and rent than it did on charitable grants

[Baker Boy 1,479]

Not really sure why. For decades, tribal and church elders have passed all kinds of misinformation about AIDS along to their people. One of the most heinous was that raping a virgin young girl (some as young as toddlers) would cure AIDS. These children would almost invariably end up bleeding out due to vaginal hemorrhaging. If they did survive the brutal rape, they too would become infected.

 

Stopping that kind of BS seems a pretty worthy goal.

 

You sure talk a lot of crap with no links!

[rholio 339]

Whole thing seems like an impressive way to laundry money.

[rholio 339]

You sure talk a lot of crap with no links!

Are you two twins?

[wiffleball 4,631]

That's some impressive google-ing. Did you at least have a sh1t eatin' grin on your face when posted that?

 

Actually dumbshiit, that's a pretty old story. Both 60 minutes and gupta covered it years ago as I recall. Probably many others. Do you wear your ignorance as a badge of pride?

[wiffleball 4,631]

You sure talk a lot of crap with no links!

 

 

Again, pretty much common knowledge for anyone who bothers to take 5 minutes off of burning their Dixie Chicks CD's. But I'm sure you can google the story/ies pretty easily.

 

What? You think I made that up? LOL

 

Oh yea, I also made up FGM too. Google that too. Educate yourself as to why the need for education is so necessary in that part of the world.

[giraldi02 470]

 

The 10-year-old initiative has facilitated programs that aided more than 430 million people in 180 countries, with government, private and civil-society entities working together in 90 percent of the programs, he [bill Clinton] noted at the initiative’s annual meeting…

Forty-six million children have better educational opportunities, more than 110 million women and children have better access to health care, and clean drinking water is more available to over 27 million people, he said…

The initiative prides itself on some 3,200 “commitments to action” – concrete plans for a new approach to a major problem – by its members.

One such pledge has led to financial education for more than 1.2 million poor women and youths and scholarships for more than 10,000 students in Kenya. Another has spawned more than 430 successful online crowdfunding campaigns for projects centered on women and girls. A third, aimed at enlisting African-American churches in combatting HIV and AIDS, has trained more than 500 religious leaders.

________________________________________________

P.S. One more fact: according to Charity Watch, the Clinton Foundation only spends 12% of their funds on overhead (fundraising and administration) – which is incredibly low for a non-profit. That is why they receive an “A” rating from that watchdog.

 

 

 

Keep using Charity Watch as your only backing of this shady enterprise. Daniel Borochoff is a blowhard that isn't well received with a lot of people. Also, it's been proven time and time again that simply using overhead expenditures isn't a proven way to figure out the legitimacy of a charity.

 

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/3-Major-Charity-Groups-Ask/154681

 

Charity Navigator won't even grade the Clinton Foundation:

 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/04/27/independent-watch-groups-split-on-clinton-foundation/

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

 

 

Keep using Charity Watch as your only backing of this shady enterprise. Daniel Borochoff is a ###### blowhard that isn't well received with a lot of people. Also, it's been proven time and time again that simply using overhead expenditures isn't a proven way to figure out the legitimacy of a charity.

 

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/3-Major-Charity-Groups-Ask/154681

 

Charity Navigator won't even grade the Clinton Foundation:

 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/04/27/independent-watch-groups-split-on-clinton-foundation/

Boom! Roasted.

[giraldi02 470]

An interesting comment in the first linked article I provided

 

Regarding Charity Watch's Borochoff:

Here is some public information that can be found in Charity Watch's 2010 990 IRS Form:
Total Revenue: $498,691
Total salaries: $332,194 (66.6% of total revenue)
Borochoff's salary: $147,977 (29.6% of total revenue)
Savings and temporary cash investments: $847,075 which is interesting since he handed out "F" ratings to charities with savings because they "have a heck of a lot of money they're not spending"

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/23/nyregion/boys-town-sues-over-listing-by-watchdog-group.html

 

I find it interesting that he doesn't follow the guidelines he holds other accountable to... must be nice.

 

 

[IGotWorms 3,302]

An interesting comment in the first linked article I provided

 

 

Well that's kinda dumb since they don't actually do any charity work

[Sho Nuff 719]

Did you notice they never mentioned dollar amounts.

 

The way this works is, I give $100 to the Indian Government. That means I helped 1.3 Billion people. See how that works?

 

Check the tax returns of the foundation and you will get at the truth.

 

In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants

Hillary Clinton's non-profit spent more on office supplies and rent than it did on charitable grants

so Grants are the only way to measure. Seems like you need to educate yourself much better. You continually prove to be the lowest of the low information voters.

[Sho Nuff 719]

You sure talk a lot of crap with no links!

The king of copy and paste with no links or just spreading complete BS whining about links...holy focking shat thats funny.

[BufordT 371]

 

Actually dumbshiit, that's a pretty old story. Both 60 minutes and gupta covered it years ago as I recall. Probably many others. Do you wear your ignorance as a badge of pride?

To answer your question....yes I do.

 

And just for the record, I believe the Clinton Foundation to be a good charity. Certainly no more corrupt than any charity that doesn't give 100% of the donations to ..... charity. Maybe they can concentrate more of their efforts in the US though.

[drobeski 3,061]

wiff is the ultimate lemming/moron

[wiffleball 4,631]

In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants

Hillary Clinton's non-profit spent more on office supplies and rent than it did on charitable grants

Ah, so you've fallen for that canard, have you? Well, at least I know what level we're starting at.

 

I have actually looked at the 990's for that year.

 

What you're not understanding or choosing not to understand (I'll leave that up to you) is:

 

There are two types of Foundations. Operating Foundations (OF) and Non-Operating Foundations (NOF).

 

An NOF largely collects money, then (minus admin) disseminates that money to OF's, NGO's and other charities who actually DO things like Build Schools, Buy Medicines, etc. For example, Mike Vick has a "foundation", but you're not going to see him cleaning out any dog cages. He gives money to other active charities to do with the money what they will (with no oversight or control on his part),

 

OF's skip the middle man and actually do much of the work themselves. That's largely what the CF does. But in both cases, it's not "either or".

 

For example, Oprah may build a school or 3 with proceeds from her Foundation, but then give a minor amount to the local government for necessary roadwork or utilities. You wouldn't slag her for "only" giving 10% would you?

 

It is amazing to me how much (the largely uneducated) people out there really want to believe the most unbelievable shiit ($50 Million! 10%) without asking themselves if that even makes sense in the face of so many stringent guidelines and watchdog groups. When, a few minutes of research would edify their viewpoint - without having to look foolish or a pawn of hucksters..

 

 

[Sho Nuff 719]

wiff is the ultimate lemming/moron

Impossible with you, RP Lite, and phurfur around.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

wiff is the ultimate lemming/moron

Sniffleball

[wiffleball 4,631]

Guys, there's any of number of charity watchdogs. As to why Charity Watch doesn't rate them, CW explained it themselves. I'll google for you when time, ya tards.

 

Charity Navigator: We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

GOD YOU GUYS ARE WEAK! Again, maybe research some of your own propoganda sometime? Or use a little common sense?

[wiffleball 4,631]

Or, if this is more to your liking (I certainly like validation), from Philathropy.com

 

Although it has "foundation" in its name, the Clinton Foundation is actually a public charity. In practical terms, this means both that it relies heavily on donations from the public and that it achieves its mission primarily by using those donations to conduct direct charitable activities, as opposed to providing grants from an endowment.

Failure to understand the difference led to the widespread claim (covered by the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and others) that only a small portion of Clinton Foundation spending goes toward charity. While measuring charitable endeavors by the amount of grants awarded may be appropriate for many private foundations, it is not for an organization that acts as a direct service provider like the Clinton Foundation.

 

Well, as long as THOSE reputable sources reported it....

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

This is my favorite time at the Geek Club. Wiffle curb stomps one non-thinking lemming, and all the other non-thinking lemmings run up and put their mouths on the curb thinking "Man I've got wiffle right where I want him now".

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

Anyone defending this charade by HRC and her foundation at this point is a joke

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

This is my favorite time at the Geek Club. Wiffle curb stomps one non-thinking lemming, and all the other non-thinking lemmings run up and put their mouths on the curb thinking "Man I've got wiffle right where I want him now".

Wiffleball=Enron. Bam!

[giraldi02 470]

Anyone defending this charade by HRC and her foundation at this point is a joke

There's no use in trying to discredit HRC to the people that are fully on board the anti-Trump at all costs train.

 

Hillary herself could come out and say it was a sham, and they'll still say she's helping third world countries that despise her and her charity.

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

 

I want to look away, but I can't.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

 

I want to look away, but I can't.

See, you're so simple you don't see what the problem is. Your boy sniffleball is busy touting the foundation because of charity ratings and the good it does. Great. The problem is that over half the people she met with as SOS were also donors. She was selling her time and access, and it doesn't matter why. You look foolish following sniffle on his misdirection tour. Talk about a stomping.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

 

The 10-year-old initiative has facilitated programs that aided more than 430 million people in 180 countries, with government, private and civil-society entities working together in 90 percent of the programs, he [bill Clinton] noted at the initiatives annual meeting

Forty-six million children have better educational opportunities, more than 110 million women and children have better access to health care, and clean drinking water is more available to over 27 million people, he said

The initiative prides itself on some 3,200 commitments to action concrete plans for a new approach to a major problem by its members.

One such pledge has led to financial education for more than 1.2 million poor women and youths and scholarships for more than 10,000 students in Kenya. Another has spawned more than 430 successful online crowdfunding campaigns for projects centered on women and girls. A third, aimed at enlisting African-American churches in combatting HIV and AIDS, has trained more than 500 religious leaders.

________________________________________________

P.S. One more fact: according to Charity Watch, the Clinton Foundation only spends 12% of their funds on overhead (fundraising and administration) which is incredibly low for a non-profit. That is why they receive an A rating from that watchdog.

Who GAF? She was selling access, to OUR state department to people who donated. It doesn't matter whether the charity was on the up and up or not (it wasn't) . It matters that money, no matter how it's spent, got you in the door.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

There's no use in trying to discredit HRC to the people that are fully on board the anti-Trump at all costs train.

 

Hillary herself could come out and say it was a sham, and they'll still say she's helping third world countries that despise her and her charity.

They are actually touting charity ratings. So fockin stupid.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

P.S. One more fact: according to Charity Watch, the Clinton Foundation only spends 12% of their funds on overhead (fundraising and administration)

 

Rather clever statement. How much of those "funds" do they spend not on overhead?

[rholio 339]

Who GAF?

Most people take their ball and go home, I think this is the first time we've seen someone take the goalposts with them.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

Clinton foundation + Haiti = Google failure

[rholio 339]

Clinton foundation + Haiti = Google failure

Big fail in Haiti, still hoping to see lawsuits against the foundation and the Clintons come out of it.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

Most people take their ball and go home, I think this is the first time we've seen someone take the goalposts with them.

Oh, it's a racket all right, but that has yet to be definetivly proven. The bigger issue is access, and when over half the people you meet with are donors, the verdict is in.

[giraldi02 470]

Oh, it's a racket all right, but that has yet to be definetivly proven. The bigger issue is access, and when over half the people you meet with are donors, the verdict is in.

I believe it was that over half of the people that donated met, not that over half those that met were donors.

[rholio 339]

Oh, it's a racket all right, but that has yet to be definetivly proven. The bigger issue is access, and when over half the people you meet with are donors, the verdict is in.

Agree completely. Most politicians do the same with their "constituents", but a Secretary of State isn't an elected official. Different rules apply.