Rut-row - follow the Clinton (library and donor list) money

[DaDooRonRon]

Interesting story on the Clinton tax releases and some of the places all that charity may have gone to.

<snip>

A full 93 percent, or $5.9 million of the $6.4 million of those charitable donations from 2002 through 2006 went to the Clinton Family Foundation, which the Clintons control. The foundation has disbursed about $2.53 million, or 42 percent, to charities.

The Clintons have refused to release the list of contributors to Bill Clinton's presidential library, citing confidentiality promises to the donors. The Washington Post in December reported that 10 percent of the $165 million raised came from Saudi Arabia. Obama's campaign continues to push Hillary Clinton to release the donor list.

entire article at: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFf1gT.S2w7I&refer=home

(if it walks like a duck...)

[NDambi]

1. Both of them...slick oil salesmen..I just want them to take their money and disappear

goooooo away Hilda and Billy Gruff

[MethuenProgressive]

2. GASP!!! This is HUGH!!1!!!! The CLINTONS control the CLINTON FOUNDATION !11!1

The Clintons are so generous, they set up a foundation to give their money away.
Over 10 million dollars.
And some people still bitch...

[GarbagemanLB]

3. If 16.5 million dollars was donated to the Clinton library from Saudi Arabia, I'd like to know...

[leftofcool]

5. Why?

I doubt Clinton is the first president to have his library in part funded by some foreigners. Who cares who funds his library? Hell, maybe the Saudis/Royal Family can help fund our new universal health care program that we can't afford due to two wars going on and a possible third one coming up.

[BeyondGeography]

7. Because we've never had a couple take huge gifts from foreigners after leaving the White House

and then sent them back to the White House again.

That's why.

[leftofcool]

9. Yea, but for a library and charities

I don't really see the problem. I don't care who takes money from who in primaries, in elections, afterward or any other time, as long as they do right by the country. Take all the money ya want from the bad guys, the shady characters and the crooks, just take care of us and keep us out of stupid wars

[babylonsister]

10. It has to do with what the huge donors expect in return, that's why. nt

[elehhhhna]

11. We sent Gw's son the the WH, and we put Cheney & Rummy (disaster profiteers)

back in 8 years ago. Bone up.

That said, we deserve to knwo who they're beholden to.

[BeyondGeography]

15. The Saudis gave $10 million to George W. before we sent him to the White House?

Bone yourself up.

[elehhhhna]

26. Heck yeah. And untold buhziliions under the table, dontcha think?

[elehhhhna]

27. btw, the saudis and the bin ladens in particular have been business

partners/investors w/ Daddy Bush for, like, ever.

[BeyondGeography]

29. What's your point? The Clintons can be just as dirty as the Bushes and it's no biggie?

[elehhhhna]

44. NO BIGGIE? HELL NO, I have grown to loathe the Clintons...

to the extent that even Chelsea, who has her mother's looks and arrogant attitude, annoys me.

[tyedyeto]

4. And accepted millions from the Saudis

The Clintons have refused to release the list of contributors to Bill Clinton's presidential library, citing confidentiality promises to the donors. The Washington Post in December reported that 10 percent of the $165 million raised came from Saudi Arabia. Obama's campaign continues to push Hillary Clinton to release the donor list.

They are not giving their money away. They may have put up the principal, but only give away theearnings on the principal.

[onenote]

13. huh? The earnings on the principal in the Clinton Family Fund in 2006 were $112,000

You obviously don't have a clue about what you're talking about do you?

[tyedyeto]

16. They obviously have an incompetant investment manager

If they only had a return of $112,000 on over $5 million dollars.

I've only had dealings with 3 foundations and NONE of them ever touched the principal. They typically have had a return on investment of about 10% which was then disbursed to charities.

[onenote]

22. how large were those foundations? You may be comparing apples and oranges.

The Clinton Family Foundation is a relatively small family foundation -- it has no employees, no professional investment managers, which is the norm for this type of foundation -- and it has no expenses for employees, investment managers etc. Like most such charitable foundations, they simply stick the money in an interest bearing bank account.

I'll give you another example: the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. It started 2006 with $3 million in the bank, had $11 million in revenue over the year, and after contributions and expenses, ended up with around $4 million in the bank. It reported earning $115,000 in interest, and had no other revenues from investments, etc.

Is it a badly run foundation? I don't think so. And, presumably, neither does Obama, since he made it the beneficiary of his third largest charitable contribution ($13K) in 2006.

If this was the Gates foundation with $94 million and a paid staff, you'd have a point. But not a small (at least by the measure of these things) private family foundation.

[elehhhhna]

45. it's a tax-reduction vehicle. can other-than-clintons contribute to this "charity"?

[DaDooRonRon]

46. What? Bill and Hill feathering their own political nest while making it look like

they just re-invented UNICEF?

Color me shocked, I tell ya. :)

[elehhhhna]

47. All the congressmen have their own personal family-run charities, now, as well as

the Cheneys. Fairly new phenom.

[lefty from jersey]

6. Humanitarians

Only problem they gave their money away to a charity they control and one with no transparency. You know, (a Hillary quote)as offensive as the video of Randi Rhodes was, Randi got one thing right: With the Clinton's you always have to read the fine print.

They want to boast about their "charity", but you have to read the fine print. Grifters, Sunday preachers, used car salesmen, are better descriptions of these two self-important moochers.

[MethuenProgressive]

8. The linked story's headline: "Clintons Get Rich, Avoid Criticism by Paying Taxes, `Tithing'"

And Obama followers twitch and jerk into "Must Criticise Clintons" mode anyway.

[uberblonde]

12. Yep.

I'd so much rather see a complete list of the people who attended the Rezko fundraisers.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

17. Uh, I believe the Clintons have attended at least one.

And Obama really has nothing on Bill and Hillary when it comes to shady associations. Rich, Burkle, Gupta, various Saudis, etc. All you can find on Barack is Rezko, whom no one outside Chicago had even heard of until now. But you think if you repeat his name ad nauseum it'll seem bigger than it is.

[DaDooRonRon]

20. Ah, the great old game of "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours"

You're more corrupt!

No, YOU are!

Am not!

Are too!

(hint: you both are - one is just so fucking blatant about it, and the other just has better PR)

[LSK]

24. and who did the Clinton Foundation give the money to?

[rodeodance]

30. Link to site--lots of noble causes--including HIV/AIDS reaseach/medicines

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/index.htm

[merh]

41. You need to notice that the numbers you use are not exactly correct

A full 93 percent, or $5.9 million of the $6.4 million of those charitable donations from 2002 through 2006 went to the Clinton Family Foundation, which the Clintons control. The foundation has disbursed about $2.53 million, or 42 percent, to charities.

[onenote]

14. What supposedly is the connection between the Clinton Familly Foundation and the Library?

Cause I don't see any connection in your story.

And I love ducks.

[DaDooRonRon]

18. Well, I've read a few of your postings

No offense, but it seems to me you might not know a duck if it came nose to nose and quacked for an hour.

I mean, you wouldn't think the Clintons are hiding those donors for any reason now, would you?

Kind of like why it took them so long to release the tax returns - perhaps a not-so-quick game of "shit, hope we didn't leave a trail" before the unveiling?

[onenote]

21. no offense not taken -- I'm just happy that my posts make more sense than yours

You want to raise questions about the Clinton library and its donors and the lack of transparency? I have absolutely no issue with that. I think there should be more transparency.

But you are the one that implied in your post that there was a connection between the Clinton's charitable giving (through their Family Foundation) and the Library. And that's the issue I raised.

Of course, its still the issue you haven't addressed.

[rodeodance]

31. yeah--I think clintons released thiers a lot over a week later than BO did-stop crying.

[DaDooRonRon]

32. Let me try again

I support NEITHER candidate.

Got it?

Granted, Ms. Clinton is by far the more egregious of the two, but I am not even lukewarm to either of them.

Please stop pretending that anyone who dares step on the toes of a Clinton is in some way wearing officially licensed and approved Barack Obama lead shoes.

[rodeodance]

34. ok sorry

[burythehatchet]

36. It's called Hillarage...sorta like road rage only different

[uberblonde]

38. Still waiting for Obama's state legislative records....

The ones he "lost." Oops!

[Recursion]

23. I don't think people are saying one is secretly in service of the other

...just that there is now a fairly well-established political tradition of using charitable foundations and library foundations as a way to hide, not to put too fine a point on it, wholesale buying of political favors. The Clintons certainly didn't invent this game, but there are plenty of indications they have been playing it.

[DaDooRonRon]

25. Ya think?

:)

[knixphan]

19. Saudis...

just sayin'.

[redqueen]

28. So the Saudi's donated $16M... and that Giustra guy gave $31M...and promised

to give another $100M down the line...

When will Hillary's staunchest defenders start to detect the whiff (IMO more than a whiff) of corruption?

[Lugnut]

33. K&R n/t

[me b zola]

35. I think the country has been through enough the last 7 years

...of elected officials whom reject the premise of transparency. We really don't need any more of this behavior.

[redqueen]

37. Yup... my thoughts exactly. (nt)

[radfringe]

39. k&r

[kevinmc]

40. You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it!!

Is that clear?! You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance!

You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multi-national dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, Reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels.

It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!

Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.

What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state -- Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.

We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality -- one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.

And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.

Beale: But why me?

Jensen: Because you're on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.

[Seabiscuit]

42. Oh, get a life.

What have you done about poverty lately?

[DaDooRonRon]

43. I don't know

How many is orange?

(makes about as much sense as your answer)

Will this be her new campaign slogan?


"Hillary - stopping poverty one political favor at time"


:rofl: