Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Hillary’s White House bid energizes gun control supporters
http://thehill.com/regulation/other/239934-hillarys-2016-bid-energizes-supporters-of-gun-controlGun-control advocates have high hopes for Hillary Clinton’s presidential run, viewing her as an ally who can finish the push for tightened background checks that has stalled in President Obama’s second term.
Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, has been a staunch advocate of gun-control proposals, such as expanding background checks and banning assault weapons. Last summer, she ripped groups that oppose those ideas as out of step with public opinion.
“We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a view point that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said during a CNN town-hall event.
The remark was music to the ears of gun-control groups, who want her to bring that same rhetoric to the campaign trail.
...
Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, has been a staunch advocate of gun-control proposals, such as expanding background checks and banning assault weapons. Last summer, she ripped groups that oppose those ideas as out of step with public opinion.
“We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a view point that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said during a CNN town-hall event.
The remark was music to the ears of gun-control groups, who want her to bring that same rhetoric to the campaign trail.
...
Any thoughts here?
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
At the moment the finance and donation inquisition is making lots of headlines. 
A trifecta of fail:
1: Run a family foundation WHILE you're secretary of state.
2: Approve sketchy deals and then TAKE funds from agents in that deal, and fail to report it.
3: Do these things while using a private email server in your home, then deleting files from it.
These taken together would be the end of the job interview anywhere but in bizarro land.
I looked into the Clinton Global Initiative's financial records, their Form 990:
Only 32% of CGI revenue was spend on grants paid out.
Reported prior year figures reported on their 2013 Form 990:
Revenue: $28,221,924
Grants paid: $8,975,872
Salaries, benefits: $6,949,577
Other expenses: $12,296,668
Less than 32% of the revenue was spent on grants paid out.
Over 24% was spent on salaries and benefits.
"Other expenses" accounted for almost 44%.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/271/551/2013-271551550-0b0d6513-9.pdf
GuideStar couldn't provide a Schedule A, which would have listed such details as salaries.
Chelsea V Clinton is listed as a director, but no salary is described, that's often on Schedules A and J.
Personally, when I know that United Way puts out 65-75% of their revenue in grants and CGI can only spit out 32%, it's a red flag.
And when United Way grants paid out are always well above the salaries plus overhead but CGI salaries + expenses are DOUBLE what the grants are, that's a red flag.
There is the appearance that CGI is a money pit that does some good but at a very high cost for doing that good.
Technically, it's legal to have a foundation that takes in money and all they do is fly around and make presentations and shake hands.
The numbers surprised me, but then it fits the pattern.
Reported prior year figures reported on their 2013 Form 990:
Revenue: $28,221,924
Grants paid: $8,975,872
Salaries, benefits: $6,949,577
Other expenses: $12,296,668
Less than 32% of the revenue was spent on grants paid out.
Over 24% was spent on salaries and benefits.
"Other expenses" accounted for almost 44%.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/271/551/2013-271551550-0b0d6513-9.pdf
GuideStar couldn't provide a Schedule A, which would have listed such details as salaries.
Chelsea V Clinton is listed as a director, but no salary is described, that's often on Schedules A and J.
Personally, when I know that United Way puts out 65-75% of their revenue in grants and CGI can only spit out 32%, it's a red flag.
And when United Way grants paid out are always well above the salaries plus overhead but CGI salaries + expenses are DOUBLE what the grants are, that's a red flag.
There is the appearance that CGI is a money pit that does some good but at a very high cost for doing that good.
Technically, it's legal to have a foundation that takes in money and all they do is fly around and make presentations and shake hands.
The numbers surprised me, but then it fits the pattern.
$28 million in revenue, and over $19 million of it going to salaries and expenses.
Red flags, much?
ETA link to their own statement: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf
My figures above are from GuideStar, I don't know why Form 990 numbers from their site are different from the link immediately above, but the red flags are still there, much of the funds go to salaries and travel and conventions:
I think the Clinton Global Initiative is just a small chunk of the Bill Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Now my head really hurts.
She needs to watch that "minority" like the weather; it's changing quickly.
...Heartbreak Ridge; Major Devin: "Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it." 