Question about the Clinton Emails

[Neutron Monster]

The point is that the Clintons "foundation" isn't about charitable acts. It does just enough to "qualify" as charitable but is not there to be charitable.

There are WAY to many such foundations but those who keep claiming the Clinton Foundation is a charity are not trying to be accurate.

Your diversion doesn't show you to be interested in accuracy either.

It is a charity under the tax code. It's not inaccurate to refer to it as a charity. You receive a tax deduction for donating to the Clinton foundation.

You're being ridiculous by saying it's not a charity. It's a not for profit that spends donations on public welfare projects. That's a charity.

You may have complaints about how it raises the money and the public nature of the foundation but it does perform charitable acts and is a charitable organization under U.S. Law.

 

[millerbleach]

Sure, they are a "charity" under the law but my point is that if their goal is to do charitable work, they fail miserably. 15% of donations helping people is a horrible rate if it's your goal to help people in need.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Cite your source that only 15 percent is used for charitable purposes.

 

[Expect2Win]

Here is one link.

 

[Neutron Monster]

That's helpful but not really inclusive of any data.

Charity filings can be a bit opaque so I can see how there would be challenges in coming up with the right number

 

[Expect2Win]

Oh, I was just showing the number is out there, but not really from any really strong sources. They are just throwing out a number that works for them.

 

[millerbleach]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/28/inside-the-beltway-807384353/?page=all#!
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27...0-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/
After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back. In a tweet posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to [the foundation’s] life-changing work.”
More than 88% of our expenditures go directly to our life-changing work: http://t.co/5BrnpBtIp6 pic.twitter.com/GoKfRE9rKq

Clinton Foundation (@ClintonFdn) April 25, 2015
There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.

I was being overly generous.

 

[Duck_walk]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/28/inside-the-beltway-807384353/?page=all#!
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27...0-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/
After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back. In a tweet posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to [the foundation’s] life-changing work.”
More than 88% of our expenditures go directly to our life-changing work: http://t.co/5BrnpBtIp6 pic.twitter.com/GoKfRE9rKq

Clinton Foundation (@ClintonFdn) April 25, 2015
There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.

I was being overly generous.

Do you honestly think this topic will determine anyone's vote in the 2016 election?
Find a new hobby dude.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Nothing in what the federalist posted is a real answer to how much of what the Clinton foundation does is charity. Did you read the actual article?

It's one thing to say they only pass ten percent of the funds they raise on as grants. But, that's only one kind of charity. Paying people to do charitable work is also charity, and the article glosses over that for a sensationalist headline.

After reading that article I still have zero idea what their actual spend on charity is. That article isn't a gotcha. It just makes the writer look like he's biased.

 

[vbsideout]

Man after reading these posts I almost have to vote republican because they are so honest and upstanding.

 

[ag-man]

Do you honestly think this topic will determine anyone's vote in the 2016 election?
Find a new hobby dude.

I agree Duck,

This will not influence my vote at all.

I realized the clintons were worthless POS a long time ago. This story doesn't change my vote at all, you are correct.

 

[Duck_walk]

If the repubs can find a candidate and allow him to come thru the primaries in one piece, Hillary can be beaten.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Nothing in what the federalist posted is a real answer to how much of what the Clinton foundation does is charity. Did you read the actual article?

It's one thing to say they only pass ten percent of the funds they raise on as grants. But, that's only one kind of charity. Paying people to do charitable work is also charity, and the article glosses over that for a sensationalist headline.

After reading that article I still have zero idea what their actual spend on charity is. That article isn't a gotcha. It just makes the writer look like he's biased.

Domenech is most well known for being a liar and plagiarizer.