4 ms·

That website is frankly misleading. Their classifications of "overhead" are ridiculous. Look at the actual filing from the Clinton Foundation itself: https://ww

That website is frankly misleading. Their classifications of "overhead" are ridiculous. Look at the actual filing from the Clinton Foundation itself: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_2014.pdf https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinto... Page 18 and 19. Out of a budget of $217 million, they spent $34 million on direct program expenditures. That's about 16%, not 88% as your link would lead us to believe. Additionally, what is this money spent on? Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton Presidential Center, Clinton Development Initiative, Clinton Health Matters Initiative, Clinton Giustra Sustaninable Growth Initiative A little self-serving, don't you think? And what percentage of the money going to those initiatives do you think are spent on directly charitable causes? No one should be under the illusion that the Clinton Foundation is a charity. It isn't. It's a slush fund for political purposes. Look at how mismanaged the billions of dollars for Haiti has been if you want to see how charitable the Clintons are (spoiler: nearly none of the money has actually been spent on Haiti, and virtually none of it on direct relief).

maxerickson 10y ago
Why are you excluding the salaries and benefits paid to people working on programs and services? Paying someone to do something like provide training or administer vaccines is reasonable to describe as a program and service expense, it's not overhead. It's easy to imagine situations where that money is not being spent 100% efficiently, but it also seems unlikely that it is being spent perfectly inefficiently.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  It's really a pointless argument, because the overhead on a non-charitable non-profit doesn't really matter. But you do have a point when looking at traditional charities.
cbr 10y ago
If you read Dylan Matthews' investigation [1] a major takeaway is that the foundation's impact comes primarily from influencing corporations and governments. For example, to make AIDS drugs cheaper they convinced the manufacturers to accept much lower prices in exchange for much larger volume, and they convinced governments to make very large orders. If the foundation were trying to fight AIDS by directly funding the distribution of treatments the numbers in the report would be pretty bad, but that's not the picture here. [1] http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/22/12893444/clinton-foundation-effectiveness http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/22/12893444/cl...
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  The headline quote being "The key question on the Clinton Foundation is whether it saved lives. The answer is clearly yes." is laughable. The Clintons do not give a flying fuck about saving lives. What has the cost of life been in the Middle East due to the US invasion that HRC voted for and wants to perpetuate? Literally tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of women and children, depending on which watchdog reports you believe. HRC is the same woman that literally laughed and bragged on a television interview about killing Gaddafi. As shitty as he was, he was a real person. A living human, and she laughs about killing him. It's fine to have pride in protecting your country, but killing someone (much less a head of state) should never be a laughing matter.
  - sheepz 10y ago
    illustration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
- shard972 10y ago
  > If you read Dylan Matthews' investigation [1] a major takeaway is that the foundation's impact comes primarily from influencing corporations and governments. For example, to make AIDS drugs cheaper they convinced the manufacturers to accept much lower prices in exchange for much larger volume, and they convinced governments to make very large orders. I find it a bit troubling that in the article he makes passing mention of the drug company the CGI was working with but no mention of how they got into huge trouble for not actually passing many drugs, including the AIDS vaccine through QA. You really have to wonder the about effects of pushing down the margins of a drug company who wasn't even following safety standards at the time.
xenadu02 10y ago
And Trump uses his charity to pay off his businesses legal settlements. Every time we get a new accusation from Trump (Clinton Foundation is a slush fund!!!) it turns out that Trump is actually the one doing it. It's classic mis-direction. Accuse your opponent first to put them on the defensive, then when evidence if your own wrongdoing comes out you can muddy the waters and say no one has clean hands. The Clintons used their personal connections and foundation money to lobby drug companies to give massive discounts on AIDs drugs to poor people. They've literally saved thousands of lives. Trump's charity has done nothing charitable. He hasn't even donated to it in many years.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  >uses his charity to pay off his businesses legal settlements This is unproductive and dishonest hyperbole and I'm not going to waste my breath explaining the obvious. >It's classic mis-direction So is your post. "Just look at how bad Trump is!". >to lobby drug companies to give massive discounts on AIDs drugs to poor people What they've actually done is lobby drug companies into business dealings that make money for everyone. Do you think the drug companies are just giving shit out for free because Hillary and Bill asked nicely? Of course not. This would be like Trump saying he's saved lives by providing employment with health benefits. >Trump's charity has done nothing charitable It's funny that you try to say this in the same post as "Trump uses his charity to pay off his businesses legal settlements" because that pay-off was actually a donation to a charity for veterans (something the city of Palm Beach agreed to).

maxerickson 10y ago

Why are you excluding the salaries and benefits paid to people working on programs and services? Paying someone to do something like provide training or administer vaccines is reasonable to describe as a program and service expense, it's not overhead. It's easy to imagine situations where that money is not being spent 100% efficiently, but it also seems unlikely that it is being spent perfectly inefficiently.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
It's really a pointless argument, because the overhead on a non-charitable non-profit doesn't really matter. But you do have a point when looking at traditional charities.

cbr 10y ago

If you read Dylan Matthews' investigation [1] a major takeaway is that the foundation's impact comes primarily from influencing corporations and governments. For example, to make AIDS drugs cheaper they convinced the manufacturers to accept much lower prices in exchange for much larger volume, and they convinced governments to make very large orders. If the foundation were trying to fight AIDS by directly funding the distribution of treatments the numbers in the report would be pretty bad, but that's not the picture here. [1] http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/22/12893444/clinton-foundation-effectiveness http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/22/12893444/cl...

whamlastxmas 10y ago
The headline quote being "The key question on the Clinton Foundation is whether it saved lives. The answer is clearly yes." is laughable. The Clintons do not give a flying fuck about saving lives. What has the cost of life been in the Middle East due to the US invasion that HRC voted for and wants to perpetuate? Literally tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of women and children, depending on which watchdog reports you believe. HRC is the same woman that literally laughed and bragged on a television interview about killing Gaddafi. As shitty as he was, he was a real person. A living human, and she laughs about killing him. It's fine to have pride in protecting your country, but killing someone (much less a head of state) should never be a laughing matter.
- sheepz 10y ago
  illustration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
shard972 10y ago
> If you read Dylan Matthews' investigation [1] a major takeaway is that the foundation's impact comes primarily from influencing corporations and governments. For example, to make AIDS drugs cheaper they convinced the manufacturers to accept much lower prices in exchange for much larger volume, and they convinced governments to make very large orders. I find it a bit troubling that in the article he makes passing mention of the drug company the CGI was working with but no mention of how they got into huge trouble for not actually passing many drugs, including the AIDS vaccine through QA. You really have to wonder the about effects of pushing down the margins of a drug company who wasn't even following safety standards at the time.

xenadu02 10y ago

And Trump uses his charity to pay off his businesses legal settlements. Every time we get a new accusation from Trump (Clinton Foundation is a slush fund!!!) it turns out that Trump is actually the one doing it. It's classic mis-direction. Accuse your opponent first to put them on the defensive, then when evidence if your own wrongdoing comes out you can muddy the waters and say no one has clean hands. The Clintons used their personal connections and foundation money to lobby drug companies to give massive discounts on AIDs drugs to poor people. They've literally saved thousands of lives. Trump's charity has done nothing charitable. He hasn't even donated to it in many years.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
>uses his charity to pay off his businesses legal settlements This is unproductive and dishonest hyperbole and I'm not going to waste my breath explaining the obvious. >It's classic mis-direction So is your post. "Just look at how bad Trump is!". >to lobby drug companies to give massive discounts on AIDs drugs to poor people What they've actually done is lobby drug companies into business dealings that make money for everyone. Do you think the drug companies are just giving shit out for free because Hillary and Bill asked nicely? Of course not. This would be like Trump saying he's saved lives by providing employment with health benefits. >Trump's charity has done nothing charitable It's funny that you try to say this in the same post as "Trump uses his charity to pay off his businesses legal settlements" because that pay-off was actually a donation to a charity for veterans (something the city of Palm Beach agreed to).