Whoopsies, Clinton forgets to mention $26 million in donations

[Dan]

I wonder where these donations came from and what she promised in return.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/22/clinton-foundation-reveals-up-to-264m-in-previously-undisclosed-payments/

[Jw2]

100% legit.  the money should stay in the Foundation, it does good in this world.
 
daniel is against rich people freely doing good with their wealth.
 
daniel wants the gubberment to seize that wealth and do something else with it...\
 
like kill some of god's children.
 
 

[wvit1001]

I just keep wondering why people like dan hate on an organization that does such great work.  The republinuts seem to be grasping at anything they can find on the Clinton's right now and they keep trying to turn every little thing into some huge issue.

[Dan]

100% legit.

Not to misreport it, it isn't.

the money should stay in the Foundation, it does good in this world.

15% of it does.  The other 85% doesn't go to charity.

dan is against rich people

Nope.  Hillary and Obama are.

freely doing good with their wealth.

Nope.  I think people can do whatever they want with their own money.  It's people like you who think the government should control it.

dan wants the gubberment to seize that wealth

Nope.  Johniel does.

[Dan]

I just keep wondering why people like dan hate on an organization that does such great work.

When did I do that?  And how great can they be when 85% of their revenue is wasted?

The republicans seem to be grasping at anything they can find on the Clinton's

Not possible.  There is way too much corruption with the Clintons to be able to grasp all of it.

[wvit1001]

dan just keeps spouting dishonesty.  it's like he just can't help himself.

and I'm still here dan, what's up with that?

[Dan]

dan just keeps spouting dishonesty

Prove it.

and I'm still here dan, what's up with that?

I don't know.  I don't know what your schedule is.  I assume you come here when you want.

[wvit1001]

let's check out this one comment from dishonest dan that he got from his hero, el rushbo.



Rush Limbaugh says Clinton Foundation spends just 15 percent on charity, 85 percent on overhead

When most people in the charitable world think of foundations, they think of organizations that give away a lot of money in the form of grants to others who go out and do good works. The Clinton foundation works differently -- it keeps its money in house and hires staff to carry out its own humanitarian programs.


Partly because of that, one of the leading independent groups that track charities -- Charity Navigator -- has been flummoxed about how to analyze that foundation and has stopped rating it, at least for now.
Charity Navigator says it has "determined that this charity's atypical business model cannot 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."
The foundation says its own employees are doing its charitable work. The annual report -- which, remember, includes both the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative -- says that 7 percent of expenditures were spent on "management and expenses" and 4.5 percent for "fundraising." (The numbers on the 990s for the two entities are in the same ballpark.)

Add those two percentages together and you get almost 12 percent; subtract that from 100 percent and you get the magic 88 percent figure the foundation cited.

An independent academic CPA who specializes in nonprofit foundation finances said Limbaugh’s error was in assuming that all spending beyond grants amounted to wasteful overhead.

Our ruling

Limbaugh said "85 percent of every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up either with the Clintons or with their staff to pay for travel, salaries, and benefits. Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary."
There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits. However, the foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house, and it’s not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work, which is what it would take for Limbaugh to be correct.

The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.



http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/

[Dan]

See?  I told ya so.

I'm still waiting for you to prove I was being dishonest.

[wvit1001]

I prove that everyday dan/cas/dard/tommy/et. al.

[Dan]

I prove that everyday dan/cas/dard/tommy/et. al.

No you didn't.  And why are you addressing those other people?  You accused ME of being dishonest, not them.

[hoosier_daddy]

using fox for a source about any democrat is by definition dishonest.