Clinton Charitable Contributions Went To Clinton Foundation

[catgirl]

From Huff Post:

The New York Times notes that most of the Clinton's charitable contributions went to their own foundation, which has yet to give away much of the money:

During that time, the Clintons paid $33.8 million in federal taxes and claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy.

[Joanne98]

1. LOL

[PBS Poll-435]

176. It is funny!

The very people that are vilified here every day are also among the most generous. Strange isn't it. It's all ironic and all.

[hisownpetard]

2. OMG, I soooo knew that was gonna be the case.

[PBS Poll-435]

12. Then you are a smart cookie

The Clintons want to keep giving long after they are gone. You got a problem with that?

[polpilot]

25. I don't know how much more 'giving' we can stand...Iraq War, NAFTA

[PBS Poll-435]

32. Why don't you give something for a change!

Why don't you give it a rest.

[Cha]

144. Brawawawa..the clintons' "charity begins at home"

..takes it to new heights.

[PBS Poll-435]

164. Stay Classy!

[Cha]

169. Hope you're talkin' to the clintons...

Oh, I know you are..'cause they're in the gutter..but, you better say.."GET CLASSY, MO FOS"

[PBS Poll-435]

174. Like the good Democrat that you are!

Thanks!

[Cha]

179. "Clintons -- a last stand that lacks class."

"By JOEL CONNELLY
P-I COLUMNIST

AS HER ham-handed handlers insult entire states, and her self-absorbed husband indulges in red-faced, finger-wagging outbursts, Sen. Hillary Clinton soldiers on.

It is a joyless campaign, with stump speeches that carry tales of woe and get delivered in a booming voice that could open a wall safe.

A full three months after the Iowa caucuses, nearly two months after Washington's caucuses, the Clintons seem bent on turning the Democrats' fertile ground into scorched earth.

The campaign has come back to the Northwest.

Clinton's candidacy is hardly the same one touted by national pundits as "inevitable" when she held three $2,300-a- head fundraisers here in October.

And we've witnessed a former front-runner's ability to step in it -- and stay there."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5391933

[Cha]

167. Sorry, wrong reply.. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

150. Give 'til it hurts!

:hurts:

[polpilot]

165. Give 'til it kills!

[PBS Poll-435]

178. 300% of the average is awesome.

Thank you for realizing what they do!

[EFerrari]

26. Me, too. Another "why do I have to know this" moment. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

58. Cuz You are Paranoid!

And Hillary Clinton stole your teddy bear as a child

[EFerrari]

68. No, I just have been forced to spend too much time around the Clintons.

It's like that relative you have that comes over without calling and borrows $100 and eats the stuff you're keeping for supper.

You hope it's just you, you tell yourself that until the day that their presence is like a home invasion, they took your gas money and there's nothing to eat.

[PBS Poll-435]

84. Dick Morris -

Is that you? Still into toes?

:rofl::rofl:

[EFerrari]

86. Who do you have to be to mistake me for Dick Morris?

LOL

[PBS Poll-435]

91. I actually was just kidding with you

You cracked me up about the gas money.

Reminds me of the movie Tommy Boy where Chris Farley is talking about the "Guarantee Fairy."

[EFerrari]

93. It started me thinking about "Married with Children"

and every addict I have ever taken in. lol

[quakerboy]

141. mmm. Teddy bear

http://shop.vermontteddybear.com/birthdaysuit.html?utm_source=SLI-Search&utm_medium=Site-Search

[PBS Poll-435]

145. That is sooo cute.

I love VT teddy bears!

[stellanoir]

3. How benevolent of them.

[onenote]

47. How silly of you.

Do you know the slightest thing about foundations in general, or about the Clinton Family Foundation in particular. Is there something not particularly 'benevolent' about the Gates foundation, which has received billions from the gates family -- billions that can and will only be used for charitable purposes?

Try educating yourself -- always a good idea.

[stellanoir]

63. I've plenty of clients who work for charitable foundations.

I never contribute until I see a spread sheet of what percentage goes into overhead and marketing.

Things have changed.

Elderly wealthy ladies used to contribute their time gratis. Now people have 6 figure salaries feigning charitable work.

Just requires some scrutiny is all I'm saying.

Relax.

Thanks in advance

[onenote]

71. the Clinton Family FOundation's Form 990s have been online for years

If you want to scrutinize them, they're easy to find. Just go to http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/

and search for the CLinton Family Foundation

You'll find, by the way, that the foundation is operated with virtually no expenses. In 2006, it made 50 contributions of between $500 and $100,000, totalling around $1.25 million. Its Form 990 was over 20 pages. Its total expenses were around $3000 -- half for accounting and half in taxes. No salaries, no fundraising costs, no anything else to reduce the assets available for charitable giving.

You're welcome

[stellanoir]

77. Roughly 10%

commendable.

Thanks again for the info.

But now. . .about NAFTA. . .

My fave charities have less than 2% overhead.

[PBS Poll-435]

83. There is that new "Obama-Math" Again

2,758 / 549,000 = ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT.

[stellanoir]

85. For pete's sake, they just finished paying off their student loans

and have little kids.

Lighten up.

Thanks again.

[PBS Poll-435]

90. You claimed administrative expenses were 10% - Wrong

More like .005 in 2005 and .0028 in 2006.

[stellanoir]

101. I was talking about the Clintons

[PBS Poll-435]

102. Yes...I know

"Obama Math" is the new "Fuzzy Math." It, unfortunately, is also wrong.



ETA: Fix spelling

[stellanoir]

110. Fuzzy math suggests that Obama has raised 40 mil in the last month.

Hill has only raised 20.

So go figure.

[PBS Poll-435]

88. It gets even better!!!

In 2006:

3,669 in Expenses

1,274,990 in Contributions, Gifts, and Grants Paid Out

For a total of LESS THAN ONE THIRD OF ONE PERCENT in Administrative/Overhead Expenses

Way to go Hill!!!

[PBS Poll-435]

177. Come on...you can't defend what you said earlier?

Well I couldn't defend that either.

[dkf]

4. She's even tallying loans to her family members.

Clinton Family Loan Mystery

April 05, 2008 11:19 AM

Those of us old enough to recall the 1990s can remember presidential half-brother and pardon recipient Roger Clinton, as well as presidential brothers-in-law Tony and Hugh Rodham -- all of whom were caught up in the pardon-gate controversy.

None of them has been seen much (or at all) during Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, not without good reason. I don't want to be too harsh, but let's just say they all firmly seem to fall into the Bill Carter mold of presidential siblings.

The reason I bring them up is because according to Bill and Hillary's just-released tax returns from 2000-2006, the Clintons paid interest on loans to family members every year from 2001-2006. (The Clintons applied for an extension on their 2007 filing.)

Who were these loans to and how much are they for? Were Roger, Tony and Hugh among the recipients?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/clinton-family.html

If I had that kind of money I'd just give it to them. Geez.

[catgirl]

6. The sh*t is going to hit the fan

when the rest comes out. I believe the charitable foundation of Bill's claims to
have helped Katrina victims. I'd lke to know more about that.

[1776Forever]

76. Churches Still Await Katrina Bush-Clinton Aid - This was 2006 - Did they ever get it?

Mar 02, 2006

Churches Still Await Katrina Aid -- Bush-Clinton Fund Criticized for Delay in Allocating $20 Million

Publisher: Washington Post

By: Hamil R. Harris and Jacqueline L. Salmon


After Hurricane Katrina struck, President Bush enlisted a coalition of clergy from across the nation to distribute part of the $110 million in private funds that his father and former president Bill Clinton raised to help victims of the storm.

But six months later, Bishop T.D. Jakes, one of the ministers selected by Bush, said that not a dime of the $20 million designated for faith organizations along the Gulf Coast has arrived. He blames the fund led by Clinton and former president George H.W. Bush for not coming up with a plan to distribute the money to churches and other faith-based organizations.

"I am annoyed. I am frustrated. I am angry," said Jakes, who is co-chairman of an advisory panel set up to help the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund distribute the $20 million to churches. "We need to focus more on rebuilding our country."

In December, Jakes; former representative William H. Gray III (D-Pa.), the other co-chairman; and the other members of the advisory panel held hearings in New Orleans. More than 2,000 pastors testified about their hardships, and according to one prominent minister, some wondered when they would see any of the money from the Bush-Clinton fund.

"It is really embarrassing," said Bishop Paul Morton, pastor of the 20,000-member Greater St. Stephen Full Gospel Baptist Church. "We had all of these preachers coming together, about 2,000 filled out applications and there is still no money. They are all blaming Bishop Jakes, but he doesn't have the authority over the money. It is not his fault."

Bush-Clinton fund spokesman Bill Pierce said that the fund plans to distribute the money "as fast as possible," but that a decision on which church or organization will receive funds has not been made.

...........

Religious Leaders Quit Katrina Panel!!!

http://journals.aol.com/foxxgiavani/KATRINAANDRITANEWS/entries/2006/08/20/bishop-t.d.-jakes-and-others-resign-from-katrina-panel/991

NEW ORLEANS, July 14, 2006
(AP) By all accounts, the group of nine was a religious powerhouse: Their ranks included rabbis, imams and ministers, including the man hailed by some as the next Billy Graham.

But as of Thursday, seven of the nine religious leaders serving on a committee created by the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund to disburse money to churches destroyed by Hurricane Katrina had quit their posts, claiming their advice was ignored.

Four out of nine board members confirmed their resignations on Thursday. Last week, two others, Bishop T.D. Jakes, the prominent Dallas megachurch pastor, and the Rev. William H. Gray III, former president of the United Negro College Fund, resigned as co-chairs.

Did they ever get this money? I never heard.

:shrug:

[PBS Poll-435]

10. Hello?? Over here!

It is the FUCKING law that you report imputed interest on Sch B for loans to family members that do not have a contract with a "fair-market" interest rate. Otherwise, a "loan" could be construed as a gift. Gifts over $12,000 (except to a spouse or immediate family member) must be reported on a Gift Tax Return.

Shit, people will believe anything.

[dkf]

14. So give it then.

Or is this whole exercise to escape the taxes that Hillary says she wants the rich to pay anyway?

I'd also like to know if they are doing estate planning to reduce the taxes that they want to reinstate for the rest of us folks.

[PBS Poll-435]

17. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

She paid taxes on the imputed interest. Ordinary income taxes @ 35% on that shit.

[dkf]

23. I'm saying why does she have to put it on the books as a loan, why doesn't

she gift it instead.

[PBS Poll-435]

29. Why should she have to just hand out money

to family members?

[dkf]

33. Because she has a boatload of it?

That is why I put it in this thread, because I do think that most people would help out their siblings if they had $109 million lying around.

I think it goes to her personal generosity.

[PBS Poll-435]

35. Maybe it was a loan for a home or a business...

Who the hell knows.

Why is it any of your business? She paid her taxes on it. The fact that she reported it means she is following the rules.

But I know she doesn't have 109 million dollars just lying around...

[dkf]

44. Yeah, she is putting it to use running for President.

Maybe she needs it more than they do.

And a loan for a home is exactly what I was thinking about. I'd buy my siblings a house if I could afford it.

[PBS Poll-435]

52. Maybe they save "Charity"

For those who actually need it.

[dkf]

56. Charity begins at home...

[onenote]

55. if you "bought" your siblings a house, you'd better be prepared to pay 50 percent more

becuase that's how much the gift tax you might incur could be.

[dkf]

60. And the Clinton's are fighting paying taxes?

Another one of my points...

[onenote]

66. So, in order to give $ to their family, they should pay the government?

If that makes sense to you, okay. Doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.

Again..if you had $2 million lying around and decided to buy each of your three siblings a $666,666 house, you might end up owning, after paying the $2 million, another $1 million to the government. Now, again, maybe that works for you. But if it was me, I'd loan the $2 million to my siblings and let them buy the house and pay me back over time. I'd give them a legal, but favorable rate.

[dkf]

70. But the Clintons want to raise taxes on the rich!

Don't you see the hypocrisy?

[onenote]

78. and so does obama. So what?

In 2005, Obama (who is my candidate by the way) reported over $1.6 million in income. That makes him, for tax purposes, "rich." And yet Obama took advantage of various deductions and credits, including the Child Care Credit. Does that make him a hypocrite? He could've decided not to claim those deductions and credits and pay more taxes, but no one, certainly not me, would expect him to do so.

[dkf]

81. A person can retire comfortably at $5 million.

Under that I do not begrudge anything.

At the levels the Clintons are at, I do see it differently. But maybe that is me.

[PBS Poll-435]

80. What hypocrisy?

They are paying there taxes. You mean to tell me they should create a transaction for the only purpose of creating a taxable event?

They gave 33 million to the government and 10.2 million to charity. They are paying more than their fair share.

I would leave this one alone...

[PBS Poll-435]

67. What?

She loaned a family member money. She pays taxes on the interest that was paid (or should have been paid.) The Clintons, obviously, are paying their fair share of taxes.

Grow up.

[dkf]

75. The argument here is that they aren't simply gifting it because they don't want to

pay the gift tax.

Yet we Democrats scream at every corporation that does things to escape taxes and wealthy individuals who use contortions to lessen their taxes.

I'm saying that showing this on their books as a loan points either to a lack of personal generosity or a desire to not pay taxes.

[onenote]

82. again, they paid taxes on the interest they received

Stop being dense.

[PBS Poll-435]

103. In fact, they may not even have recieved the interest at all.

They still paid the tax!

[onenote]

53. I'm not going to bother trying to explain tax law to you -- but there are gift limits

You can't just give away money -- even to family members -- willy nilly under the US tax code. There are limits on the amount that you can give any individual in a year and there are lifetime limits as well. If you exceed those limits, the tax burden is pretty steep. So if you want to help out a family member without unduly incurring tax expenses (as high as 50% in some instances) you can either give the tax free minimum ($12K) or you can make a loan.

Nothing sinister or odd about it. My dad gives each of his kids a gift up to the maximum every year. BUt when I was first buying a house and needed some help with the purchase price, I borrowed money from him, and paid interest, to cover a part of the purchase price.

[dkf]

95. You can gift up to $1 million for Bill and $1 million for Hillary.

without incurring the gift tax. And then $12,000 each per year.

[PBS Poll-435]

105. Duh

That is not what is being discussed. Obviously the loan was to someone other than Bill/Hill/Chelsea. That is why they paid tax on interest they may or may not have received.

[onenote]

106. Now you want to play tax lawyer?

Presumably what you are saying is that Bill could give $1 million in gifts during his lifetime before incurring tax liability and so could Hillary. Yes, that is right. But so what?

[dkf]

118. The assumption seemed to be that I had no clue how this works and yes I do.

So don't be patronizing please.

[PBS Poll-435]

122. I would think otherwise based on some of your posts on this thread

[dkf]

140. Yeah I knew you were being condescending and insulting my intelligence.

Whatever.

But not everyone who has money keeps family loans on their books. Some people find ways to actually give away things to family members. Sometimes I think the gift tax is a great excuse to not help out people.

[PBS Poll-435]

152. I am just sick of the knit-picking over every damn thing.

If Bill Clinton wants to loan his loser brother money, it is not my place to say that he can't.

[Midlodemocrat]

5. Um, most wealthy people with a foundation do that. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett anyone?

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but this is just silly. Here's the report from the Foundation Center. Latest 990 not available yet.

The Clinton Family Foundation
P.O. Box 937
Chappaqua, NY 10514-0937

Donor(s): William Jefferson Clinton; Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Type of grantmaker: Independent foundation.
Background: Established in 2001 in NY.
Fields of interest: Education; Health organizations; Higher education; Historical activities; Human services.
Geographic focus: Arkansas; New York
Limitations: Applications not accepted. Giving primarily in AR and NY. No grants to individuals.
Application information: Contributes only to pre-selected organizations.
Officers: William Jefferson Clinton, Pres.; Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secy.-Treas.
Director: Chelsea V. Clinton.
Financial data: (yr. ended 12/31/05): Assets, $3,967,622 (M); gifts received, $1,755,453; expenditures, $551,758; total giving, $549,000; qualifying distributions, $549,000; giving activities include $549,000 for grants.
EIN: 300048438
Selected grants: The following grants were reported in 2005.
$50,000 to King Hussein Foundation, Jordan.
$30,000 to Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA.
$25,000 to Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund, DC.
$25,000 to Georgetown University, DC.
$25,000 to National Breast Cancer Coalition, DC.
$20,000 to Yale University, New Haven, CT.
$5,000 to Bennett College, Greensboro, NC.
$5,000 to Wellstone Action Fund, Saint Paul, MN.
$2,500 to Fresh Air Fund, New York, NY.
$1,000 to Cradles to Crayons, Quincy, MA.

[catgirl]

8. King Hussein Foundation?

[PBS Poll-435]

What about it?

Please visit the Wikipedia soon. You really need some info.

Also google Queen Noor + Charitable.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[catgirl]

24. I was just asking the poster about it

"looking stupid" yourself. Isn't it okay to ask questions on this forum?
Insulting people shows off YOUR level of intelligence.

[thewiseguy]

168. Just ignore him/her. The troll been active since the tax returns came out.

This is damage control.

[bhikkhu]

20. Link

http://www.noor.gov.jo/khf.htm

Like the majority of this, it seems like a good thing with good intentions.

The only thing that really sticks out as a potential negative is the lack of distributions. But even that is pretty common, as foundations tend to value financial "permanence" by way of retaining large sums of capital and distributing only the interest earned.

[BlooInBloo]

28. Yah - I dunno why people are jumping on this, when there's REAL stuff to jump on....

EDIT: It's just how DUers are, I suppose.

[Milo_Bloom]

43. Those are pretty ugly numbers!!!

expenditures, $551,758; total giving, $549,000;


It looks for more like a tax dodge than an actual charity!

[PBS Poll-435]

46. Please learn to read before posting

The 549,000 is part of the 551,758.

DUH

Less that 1/2 of 1% in Administrative Overhead.

That is FUCKING Spectacular in the 503(c) world.

[Milo_Bloom]

65. LOL... Uhhh, no.

Since the CEO of the fund earns over 200,000 per year and that salary is included in expenditures.

[PBS Poll-435]

72. Just Kidding!

Edited because you made me look at it again.

Here is the IRS 990 from 2005:

Read it and weep -

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990pf_pdf_archive/300/300048438/300048438_200512_990PF.pdf

[Milo_Bloom]

115. You're right... It's actually much worse than I thought.

They don't report the salaries on the form you stated.

The CEO alone made 200,000 in 2005

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6903

Nearly 40% of their total "charitable" contributions.


OUCH.

[PBS Poll-435]

124. THE CLINTON FAMILY FOUNDATION PAID NOT 1 CENT IN WAGES in 05 or 06

Try again...

[Milo_Bloom]

127. LOL!

Salaries do not need to be reported on a form 990... you know that, right?

[PBS Poll-435]

134. Actually.....THEY DO

Lines 13 and 14 on Form 990.



Keep Digging....

[onenote]

135. you're so wrong its hilarious - wrong foundation, wrong information. wrong wrong wrong

First, the William J. Clinton Foundation is a completely separate and independent entity from the Clinton Family Foundation. ANd the William J. Clinton Foundation has not received one cent from the Clintons, either directly or through the Clinton Family Foundation.

And second, salaries do have to be reported on Form 990. Reading comprehension is definitely not your strong suit.

FORM 990 Line 13: Compensation of officer,directors etc.
FORM 990 Line 14: Other employee salaries and wages.

I hope you really are as stupid as you seem. Otherwise you're unbelievablly dishonest.

[PBS Poll-435]

79. Again,

Please do us all a favor and reserve your attacks (however incorrect they may be) for McCain.

[onenote]

100. again, what are you babbling about

The Clinton Family Foundation pays no salaries to anyone. Its expenses are a fraction of one percent.

Are you this really that confused. Its as clear as day on the Foundation's tax filing. If you see something on that form (or elsewhere) to back up your ridiculous claims, point us to it.

[Milo_Bloom]

114. LOLL

Sure, they just report a salary of 200,000 to the CEO for fun.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6903

Please.

[PBS Poll-435]

136. OMG here is a link that is just as relevent as yours!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oMurXz8ypM

[onenote]

147. keep laughing -- you're looking at the wrong foundation

The William J. Clinton Foundation is a totally separate entity from the Clinton Family Foundation. It has received one cent from the Clintons directly or through the Family FOundation. Its funded almost entirely by private contributions. It is a major foundation, that conducts programs around the world. WHile the Clinton Family Foundation, which is funded entirely by contributions from the Clintons, currently has around $4 million in assets, the William J. Clinton Foundation, which as noted, doesn't get any money from the Clintons, had gross receipts in 2006 of over $139,000,000. It operates not only the Foundation's charitable operations, but also the Clinton Presidential Center and museum, including the Clinton archives.

Not surprisingly, an entity that has almost $140,000,000 in revenue each year and spends over $85 million on programs around the globe is going to have a full time staff, including a CEO, a CFO, etc. These are full time employees.

Stop making a fool of yourself.

[MonkeyFunk]

104. Why do people just make up lies?

There are no salaries paid to run the Clinton family foundation.

[PBS Poll-435]

108. Cuz it is way more funner!!!

Hey check out my summary on this issue!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5396874

[Milo_Bloom]

116. Uh, please check your facts.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6903



Bruce R. Lindsey Chief Executive Officer (The person identified as holding the highest position of management, and therefore who would normally be responsible for carrying out the mission of the charity and leading the organization on a day-to-day basis.) $200,000 0.75%

[PBS Poll-435]

123. He does not work for the Clinton Family Foundation

CHECK YOUR FACTS FIRST, then post :-)

[Milo_Bloom]

126. LOL... no, they just say he does.

[PBS Poll-435]

131. The Amount of Wages that the Clinton Family Foundation

Paid in 2005-2006 is the same amount that they spent on "Cher" wigs.

Zero
Zilch
Nada

[Milo_Bloom]

139. So it is just a 3.1 million dollar tax dodge?

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=CLIN040

Financial Data
(yr. ended 12/31/06)
Total Assets: $4,383,401
Total Giving: $1,274,900

That equals about 1 million in lost tax revnue.

[PBS Poll-435]

142. Who is dodging taxes?

It is for the benefit of the charities to recieve the interest, tax-free.

It doesn't benefit the Clinton's at all, except that they will have a lasting legacy of generosity.

They would have the same 1040 tax benefit if they just gave to the Red Cross instead of their foundation.

They don't pay themselves a salary, trustee fees, or anything like that.

The only entities that benefit are the City of Chappaqua, the State of NY, and the Accounting Firm that prepares the 990.

[Milo_Bloom]

151. Let me explain a Tax Dodge to you...

The reason it is a tax dodge is because they remain in control of the money.

They get to claim it as a "charitable contribution" without actually donating any of it to Charity.

To date, they have managed to avoid paying taxes on nearly 3.1 million in revenue that otherwise would have been taxed.

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=CLIN040

Financial Data
(yr. ended 12/31/06)
Total Assets: $4,383,401
Total Giving: $1,274,900

This leaves 3.1 million in the "charity" account, which they can get at ANY TIME they choose by paying themselves a salary, consulting fees or anything. It is an absolutely classic accounting trick, much like self-incorporation. You create an entity over which you have full control.

Maybe they actually are completely altuistic and wish the money to go for only good... that's cute, but why such a large surpluss between 2002 and 2006? Are you saying they really couldn't find charities worthy of 3.1 million dollars during that time? Let's say that is true... why are the Clinton's using a tax dodge trick that should be taken out of the tax code because it is abused much more often than it isn't?


Any time you can take a tax deduction for money that hasn't actually gone to the place it was supposed to, it is a tax dodge. That's just what it is.

[PBS Poll-435]

154. So .... they saved a million in taxes....

If they are as sinster as you claim them to be. However, they haven't taken one penny from the foundation.


And they gave the 1,274,990 in one year. That does not include what was given in years past.

[onenote]

156. when you give money to a charity, you deduct it whether they spend it that year or some time in the

future.

Or do you call up every charity you give to (assumning you give to charity) and ask whether they've spent your money yet?

A well run charity doesn't deplete its assets every year. And a foundation,which is desinged to outlast its originators, definitely doesn't do so.

You have no clue what you're talking about but you go on and on and on.

[onenote]

153. since you refuse to acknowledge your error, I'm going to continue to point it out

You are looking at the WIlliam J. Clinton Foundation. It is a totally separate entity from the Clinton Family Foundation. It has never received one cent from the Clintons, directly or through their family foundation. It is a sizable enterprise, operating programs around the globe as well as managing the Clinton Presidential Center,which contains the Clinton archives. It had revenues in 2006 of more than 139 million dollars and spent over $85 million on programs. It has a full time staff, as one would expect for an enterprise of its size.

And, as noted, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Clinton Family Foundation.

At this point, if you fail to acknowledge your misstake you will, of course, revealed that you were not merely mistaken, but were intentionally making false claims. Last chance, buckaroo.

[MonkeyFunk]

158. wrong foundation

you're just embarrassing yourself.

[MonkeyFunk]

161. Wrong foundation

You're either truly, deeply dumb, or truly deeply dishonest. Which do you prefer?

[PBS Poll-435]

7. Already Debunked...

2003 - $410,000 5.2% of Adjusted Gross Income
2004 - $2,534,280 12.7% of Adjusted Gross Income
2005 - $1,755,473 9.7% of Adjusted Gross Income
2006 - $1,580,503 9.9% of Adjusted Gross Income

Just when did she start running for President?

People will believe anything.

[Yael]

15. In 1999?

[PBS Poll-435]

19. What about 1999?

[Yael]

34. You asked when she started running for President.

:P

[PBS Poll-435]

38. OOOOOOOO YOU !!!

It is a good thing that I looked up and saw the smiley! You were gonna get it!!!

:7

[joeybee12]

21. Well, since those returns--for 1999 and earlier were ALREADY released...

...you look pretty stupid...par for the Obama course.

[PBS Poll-435]

27. Dang...

You ruined my Obamatroll trap.

You deserve this: :spank:


;)

[Yael]

37. Trap? Because I answered the question you posed?

What are you, 14?

:rofl:

[PBS Poll-435]

40. I am if you are...

:eyes:

[Yael]

36. Or, I was answering the question posed -- When did she start running for President?

Reading comprehension: D-

[Milo_Bloom]

45. That doesn't debunk anything at all.

The charge here is that the money they gave was given to their own Foundation... the numbers you are quoting is AMOUNT given to the foundation.


The 2005 Charity numbers prove it true... (From earlier in thread)

Financial data: (yr. ended 12/31/05): Assets, $3,967,622 (M); gifts received, $1,755,453; expenditures, $551,758; total giving, $549,000; qualifying distributions, $549,000; giving activities include $549,000 for grants.

In 2005, every single penny they gave away in "charity" (according to your numbers) went to their own charity foundation. Only 1,000,000 was actually spent and less than 1/2 of that went to ACTUAL charity.

That is either one of the poorest run charities OR a tax dodge. Either way, it doesn't look good for the Clintons.

[PBS Poll-435]

48. See Post # 46

You are just rabid.

[Milo_Bloom]

69. Please learn to read.

Expenditures include salaries.

[PBS Poll-435]

74. LOL YOU ARE WRONG

Get Over It!!!


http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990pf_pdf_archive/300/300048438/300048438_200512_990PF.pdf

[Milo_Bloom]

120. Yeah, it was worse than I thought.

They are paid the CEO 200,000 in 2005... now up to 276,000 (http://charityreports.bbb.org/Public/Report.aspx?CharityID=655)

And of course, Bruce gave 2300 to CLinton in February of 2007

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search_hp.asp?txtName=Lindsey%2C+Bruce&NumOfThou=0&txt2008=Y&submit=Go%21


Interesting that they report over 2.5 million in "administrative" expenses (that is generally all salaries)

[PBS Poll-435]

121. What in the world are you looking at.

YOU ARE WRONG.

The Clinton Family Foundation paid NO SALARIES or WAGES.

They gave money to charities, the firm to prepare the 990, and local/state taxes.

THAT IS IT.

[Milo_Bloom]

128. I am looking at the vetting of their charity.

Which shows salaries.

These are not reported on a 990.

[PBS Poll-435]

149. Salaries are shown on a 990.

On the very first page.

[MonkeyFunk]

159. How have you not slunk away in embarrassment yet?

You've been wrong in everything you've posted.

You're now dragging in stats from an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FOUNDATION!

[onenote]

87. you keep digging in deeper. The Clinton Family Foundation has no salaries

Indeed,it is run with virtually no expenses at all. You could look this up, but since educating yourself would mean that instead of just being uninformed you'd have to lie to keep up your BS, you probably won't. So I'll spell it out for you:

In 2006, the Clinton Family Foundation made 50 contributions of between $500 and $100,000 totalling over $1.25 million. The total administrative and other expenses incurred by the foundation: around $3000, around half for taxes and half for accounting fees. That's right: $1.25 million given away, total expenses incurred - three thousand.

And as for the recipients -- here's a partial list:

Blythedale Children's Hospital $100K
Desmond Tutu Peace Foundation $25K
Natl Breast Cancer Coalition $25K
Walter Sisulu Pediatric Care Centre for Africa $30K
Wellstone Action Fund $5K
Ron Brown Scholarship $5K
Chappaqua Volunteer Fire Dept $5K
Chappaqua Volunteer Ambulance $5K
American Nurses Foundation $35K
Shakespeare Theatre Co $20K
School of American Ballet $40K
Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund $25K
Central Arkansas Library System $25K
Eliz. Glaser Pediatric Aids Fndtn $5K
Arkansas Cancer Reserach Center $100K
United Church of Christ $3600
Jon Michael Moore Trauma Center $5K

they also made donations to their alma maters and their church, among others.

[Milo_Bloom]

129. Unfortunately, INDEPENDENT reporting shows otherwise.

[bhikkhu]

130. Like this?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010002

It is a good run-down of the RW swings at the Clinton Family Foundation, and a good review of the foundation itself. What I see, from a middling amount of research, is a well-intentioned Democrat backing her words with good works.

[Milo_Bloom]

137. Its, so far, a 3.1 million dollar tax dodge.

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=CLIN040

The info is right there and quite public.

Financial Data
(yr. ended 12/31/06)
Total Assets: $4,383,401
Total Giving: $1,274,900


The CLinton's have given 4.3 million, but only disbursed 1.2.

This is way of getting a tax benefit you don't necessarily deserve at the time. You can GIVE money to a charity organization and then allow the charitable organization to hold onto it. You get the tax benefit and you also run the organization.

If at some point you decide you want the money back, you can always pay yourself at a salary at that time or get "consulting fees", or any number of other stunts.

It is a classic accounting trick, especially when you leave yourself in charge of the money but claim to take no salary... as long as you are in charge, it is still your money, because you control it.

[bhikkhu]

143. That is how foundations are typically run.

They are often set up to be perpetual financial entities that will survive their makers. To do that, the contributions are larger than the distributions, and in many cases distributions are made solely from interest earned on capital.

If you have ever watched PBS and seen the lists of sponsors, many of them are foundations set up by people who are no longer with us. This is how that is done.

[PBS Poll-435]

146. Please stop embarassing yourself

It is for the benefit of the charities to recieve the interest, tax-free.

It doesn't benefit the Clinton's at all, except that they will have a lasting legacy of generosity.

They would have the same 1040 tax benefit if they just gave to the Red Cross instead of their foundation.

They don't pay themselves a salary, trustee fees, or anything like that.

The only entities that benefit are the City of Chappaqua, the State of NY, and the Accounting Firm that prepares the 990.

[onenote]

155. its actuallly the way any well run foundation operates

I'd be appalled if I gave money to a foundation that depleted its entire base of assets every year. The point of setting up a foundation is to create an entity that will outlast its orignators and be able to continue making charitable bequests for years to come. You need to build up a balance of assets in order to do that, which is what the Clintons have properly done. All well run foundations operate this way, some on a much larger scale -- for example, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which was the recipient of one of Barack Obama's largest charitable gifts in 2006, had nearly $1 million in excess (ie unspent) revenues in 2006 and is maintaining a cash balance of over four million. It also spends a crap load more than the Clinton Family Foundation on management, fundrising, etc.

Please stop being such a fool.

[PBS Poll-435]

138. LOL

Not one cent. Not one employee.

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. Charity begins at home

And so do tax shelters,
The returns show more than $50,000 in income (and $40,000 in losses) in 2006 from funds with the name Quellos, an asset manager accused in a scathing bipartisan 2006 Senate committee report of structuring "tax shelters."

The 2006 return also contains a foreign tax credit worth $285,368, which could be an issue in a race that has been hostile to the notion of overseas jobs — though the details of that figure (line 47 of the 1040 from 2006) aren't immediately obvious.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Clinton_returns_Assets_and_liabilities.html

[Zachstar]

11. OUCH!!!

Politically Busted!!!

Things are not looking good for Clinton at ALL! First her Hospital story is a bunch of BS and now this on the same day.

Looking forward to this being exposed and the polls tanking in PA

Please note this to the News Stations and Radio in PA!!

[cornermouse]

13. Other charitable foundations.

http://www.naccho.org/topics/fundingguide/documents/march_2007/Kansas.pdf

Take note of the fact that they gave away considerably less than what they had. Your charitable contribution post is completely bogus. Posting it repeatedly does nothing whatever to advance Obama's cause.

[NashVegas]

18. That's How the Ultra Rich Do It

They set up trusts to disperse the $.

As is hinted above, upthread: it's a way to keep funding charities after you're gone. Part of the money goes to investments to keep the money coming in, and part gets distributed to causes.

[futureliveshere]

22. Typical...next she will probably claim she stopped World War II in her last life.

[DemVet]

30. BFD

[bhikkhu]

31. On the surface it looks sketchy, but really it isn't.

This is how things are generally done, and a bit of research yields lists of the good acts and good intentions of this and related charities. Foundations can be poorly run or only cynical tax-shelters for the rich who really don't care, but this one seems to be well run, and genuinely well intentioned.

[mod mom]

39. Reminds me of Babs Bush demanding her Katrina donation go to her son's company.

[Milo_Bloom]

41. You gotta be kidding me!

[onenote]

42. the fact that there is nothing wrong or out of the ordinary about this has been shown over and over

But you won't drop it.

So, I guess I'll fight fire. Let's take a closer look at how Obama (who is my candidate by the way) donated his money.

In 2006, his third largest contribution went to the COngressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF). Apparetnly the foundation does research and awards scholarships. I'm sure its a very worthwhile organization. Let's take a look at its operations as closely as everyone seems to be picking over the Clinton Foundation -

In 2006, the CBCF took in over $11 million (including several hundred thousand in government grants). A little under 5 million came from public support, the rest from programs it sponsored. The cost of putting on those programs exceeded $3 million, so the CBCF ended up with around $8 million net. It had a couple million more in additional operational expenses -- salaries, fundraising costs, etc. It ended up giving out a few hundred thousand in with over $4 million in the bank.

Again, I have no doubt that this is a worthwhile charitable endeavor. But if you want to start engaging in speculative attacks on the Clinton's foundation, you better be prepared to defend the operations of the charities that any other candidate supported.

[Milo_Bloom]

64. There actually is something wrong with it.

The problem is when you look at the "charity" numbers, their expenditures are higher than their actual charity. "Financial data: (yr. ended 12/31/05): Assets, $3,967,622 (M); gifts received, $1,755,453; expenditures, $551,758; total giving, $549,000; qualifying distributions, $549,000; giving activities include $549,000 for grants."

And all giving is in the form of "grants".

[bhikkhu]

98. Link to those expenditure numbers?

Thanks, and are they broken down?

[onenote]

99. what are you talking about. - you obviously don't know how to read a Form 990

read their Form 990, for heaven's sake. It itemizes every single contribution that the foundation made, giving name, address and amount. The 'grants' to which you refer are simply cash donations to recognized charities -- charities like the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids foundation, which got $5k, or the National Breast Cancer Coaltition, which got $25K or the Wellstone Action Fund which got $5K. ALl told, in 2005, the Foundation gave away $549,000 in cash contributions. It took in $1.75, plus another $40K in interest on its asset balance. The total expenses incurred by the Foundation other than giving $549,000 to charitable organizations like those described was $2265 in accounting fees and a couple of hundred in taxes -- a grand total of $2758 (or 5/10ths of one percent of the amount given away). The remaining $1.2 that was collected but not given away in 2005 was added to the FOundation's balance -- one of the reasons that the FOundation was able to earn over $100,000 in interest in 2006.

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/300/300048438/300048438_200512_990PF.pdf

You obviously don't have a clue when it comes to reading a tax form. I hope someone else does your taxes, or else you're probably going to jail some day :)

[PBS Poll-435]

107. Come see me here...

We seem to be in agreement on this!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5396874

[ORDem]

190. Bingo! n/t

:kick:

[JVS]

49. DING DING DING!

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Given away? Was any of that cash put into a trust fund for the foundation?

The type of account that pays interest to help support the foundation? That couldn't qualify as "giving it away", but it certainly would be something that a lot of charities do.

[onenote]

92. the foundation earned over $100,000 in interest on its funds balance in 2006

[Bolo Boffin]

170. There you are. What hasn't been spent is invested to give the charity its own backing.

Non-issue.

[SoCalDem]

51. Right pocket - left pocket

:puke:

[PBS Poll-435]

54. Right.

Keep telling yourself that.

Pretty weak...

[MonkeyFunk]

59. Nope

unless you can show that the Clinton Family Foundation is giving money to the Clintons. And you won't be able to show that.

Setting up such foundations is pretty standard - it's how rich people manage their charitable contributions. But never let that get in the way of yet another bullshit, made-up, freeper-like, assholish smear of the Clintons.

[onenote]

62. another DUer showing off their ignorance

terrific.

[SKKY]

57. I was soooooo hoping that wouldn't be the case....

...because it's going to be painful watching her tap-dance around that one.

[onenote]

61. like the way soros and the gates have had to tap dance around their foundatrions

Do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor -- learn something about foundations before you spout off.

[SKKY]

89. Oh, Soros and Gate are running for President?

I'm sorry. I didn't know. :flipsthebird:

[onenote]

94. still looking for your explanation of why their foundation needs to be "tap danced" around

What exactly has it done that isn't perfectly common, reasonable, and indeed beneficial?

[EFerrari]

73. That's exactly where I am.

It's like watching a small child pull the legs off of a spider. You just want it to stop immediately.

[MonkeyFunk]

109. How so?

Not the smallest bit of wrong-doing has been demonstrated. The only thing demonstrated is the sheer ignorance and the extremes to which clinton-haters will go to spread a baseless smear.

[EFerrari]

111. Oh, dear. Would you take a camera crew to where Dr. King was murdered

and smile and wave from the balcony?

I don't think so.

Is that wrongdoing? Not exactly.

But it's wrong acting.

[MonkeyFunk]

112. What are you talking about?

There's absolutely nothing unusual, wrong, or even remotely unethical about using a family foundation to manage charitable giving. It's done all the time.

You guys are making this into something unseemly and self-serving, and you couldn't be more wrong.

[EFerrari]

113. You're right about that. When the foundation funds something

substantial, it will feel better.

At this point, I don't want another stupid scandal or psuedo scandal. Enough already.

[MonkeyFunk]

117. Define substantial

people have already posted some of what they fund.

[EFerrari]

119. What do you think of this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5395615&mesg_id=5396262

What I think is I want them to go away. I don't want to know one more thing about them. I don't want to attack them, I don't want to smear them. I just don't want to deal with them.

[MonkeyFunk]

160. I think you

have no idea whatsoever how foundations operate, and you and Milo and others are just embarrassing yourselves with your drooling, festering hate of all things Clinton.

[EFerrari]

181. Then you would be wrong.

I've spent many years working with non profits. And too much time having the Clintons and their ridiculous supporters inflicted on me. That in some measure is my mistakke.

[MonkeyFunk]

182. Then why do you feel I need to comment

on the post you referenced? There's nothing unusual at all about a foundation operating that way.

I've been on the boards of directors of both foundations that give and non-profits that receive. There's nothing unusual at all about the operation of the Clinton Family Foundation.

[greguganus]

96. What a miserly witch she is! n/t

[bhikkhu]

97. A good review from MediaMatters - link

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010002

All of this part of things is old news, and any criticism is essentially chiming in on the side of people who are definitely not on our side.

[Marrah_G]

125. The responses shows how incredibly ignorant many here are.

[lumberjack_jeff]

132. So what percentage of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has been liquidated?

News flash: most charitable foundations have some cash on hand. In fact, I would suggest that those that don't aren't being run appropriately.

Perhaps this comes as a surprise.

Jiminy Christmas! Don't you have any book-bag research to conduct?

The check is in the mail from the vast right wing conspiracy for being a loyal minion.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010002

[jackson_dem]

133. and Obama gave almost no charity--less than the average person--until 2005...

The Clinton Foundation does great work and is a worthy charity, certainly far more worthy than a racist church.

[QC]

171. But he had to pay for dancing lessons! And the multimillion dollar house!

And the student loans!

I can just hear those crying violins right now!

[catgirl]

172. Actually, dancing lessons are quite expensive

My two nieces took ballet their whole lives and it cost my brother ALOT of money,
so don't knock a guy for loving his children and supporting their endeavors. Plus
the Obamas made a lot less than the Clintons and actually donated to organizations
that they didn't run themselves. But you know that and are out to flame.

[QC]

173. And you know that the wealthy generally set up foundations

to handle their charitable donations, rather than just dropping off a turkey at the rescue mission, but that does not matter to you, since you are here purely to prop up your empty Elmer Gantry of a candidate by trashing his opponent.

[catgirl]

187. Wow. What a spewing hater you are

Where in my post am I trashing a candidate? The only one trashing here is YOU.
Donna Brazille was right when she said angry Clinton supporters are hurting
her campaign. I don't need to say anything negative about Clinton, you're already
doing a fine job at exposing her.

[L0oniX]

148. Oh that soooo figures ...silly me. Why wouild I expect anything else from the Clintons? n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

163. I was shocked too, I will admit

I figured 6% maybe 7%. But they never stop impressing me. I am glad it had the same effect on you!

[MethuenProgressive]

157. God BLESS the Clinton family! Over TEN MILLION DOLLARS to charity!

What fine examples they are!

[PBS Poll-435]

162. They were gorgeous then,

And they are even more today.

Thank you for that picture. I haven't seen it in years.

:hug:

[stillcool]

166. This is a subject..

that I need a remedial course in, which is why I have been re-reading, and posting the link to Ferdinand Lundberg's book "The Rich and the Super-Rich". It is the only book that has ever come close to explaining in a way I can understand how money works. I have never been good with loop-de-loops. Anyway, the book is available for free down-load because of it's copyright expiration at the following link. They also have lots of other good books to down load...
http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303critic/0303socialcriticism.html

[PBS Poll-435]

175. There you are again!

Tax law has changed since the passage & signing of the 1986 IRC.

The Clinton's Foundation is transparent to an obscene degree. In fact, in the first years, the foundation actually gave more to charities than it took in? Imagine that!

[stillcool]

180. The book I am referring to..

is about far more than tax law. Before you respond about the book, maybe you should read it?

[Alii]

183. Another article...

When will they ever learn? Clinton supporters that is.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3690022.ece

C'mon Pennsylvanians, the Clinton campaign needs your $10 donation, they are in dire straits.

[MonkeyFunk]

184. Surely you don't think

their personal money is the same fund as her campaign's?

The Kerrys are worth far more than the Clintons, and Kerry didn't finance his own campaign.

[TheDonkey]

185. How selfless of them... o wait......

[Life Long Dem]

186. Isn't that sweet! n/t

[workinclasszero]

188. Isn't that nice! The multimillionaire Hillary Clinton has so much compassion

toward the poor and needy in this country?

First she helps the blue collar workers get out of their high wage, full benefits, union jobs with NAFTA so they can all enjoy their new jobs as minimum wage, zero benefits, non-union door greeters for her old pals and employer Walmart.

Then she takes a whopping 10 million dollars and donates it to her own personal charity who is sitting on it till hell freezes over!

Isn't that special?:sarcasm:

[MonkeyFunk]

189. More lies

They're not sitting on the money 'til Hell freezes over. That's just untrue.

You guys simply can't stop lying, can you?