Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hmmmm:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/just-5-7-percent-of-clinto...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:


Been brought up and thoroughly disproved at least 3 times on this forum in the last 6 months. How about just link one of those discussions in to this thread.
16 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:


Hahaha... Dailycaller. The Penthouse Forum of "Journalistic" Troof.

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:

No, it really hasn't. Shouting angrily that it's been debunked and name-calling everyone is not an actual method of disproving it.


How about the Clinton Foundation annual report 2014 (way down on pg 94)

Quote:
EXPENSES (PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENSES)
PROGRAM SERVICES
Clinton Health Access Initiative $127,781,347 (57.4%)
Clinton Global Initiative $23,684,078 (10.6%)
Clinton Presidential Center $12,288,987 (5.5%)
Clinton Climate Initiative $8,406,801 (3.8%)
Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership $5,039,288 (2.3%)
Clinton Development Initiative $2,575,401 (1.2%)
Clinton Health Matters Initiative $1,676,729 (0.8%)
Other Programs $15,180,749 (6.8%)
Management and General $15,633,562 (7%)
Fundraising $10,129,160 (4.5%)
Provision for Uncollectible Pledges $225,000 (0.1%)

Total Expenses $222,621,102


5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
^paranoid refuses evidence he requested.

14 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:


The link is fine. Does the tax return have all expenditures on it? Is everything they donated tax deductible to show up on that form? In short, does the tax form tell the whole story or is it picked to provide click bait to get some rage boners going?

I don't know. Do you?



8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Henry
United States
Manvel
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Those two financial posts aren't contradictory. They don't have a lot of outside charitable grants because they're doing the actual work in house. As Donald lists, their main programs are the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the Clinton Global Initiative, etc. Money spent on those programs--even if it's for salaries--are "program costs." That's not atypical for a charity. Charity Navigator (an obvious tool of the liberal establishment) gives the Clinton Foundation a rating of 94.74, with 86.9% of their spending going to program expenses--a pretty good percentage for a charity.

If you think Hillary murdered Vince Foster, you're probably not going to believe anything positive you hear about her. But the Clinton Foundation is pretty consistently praised for the work that it does.
31 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
Ferretman wrote:


Been brought up and thoroughly disproved at least 3 times on this forum in the last 6 months.


No, it really hasn't. Shouting angrily that it's been debunked and name-calling everyone is not an actual method of disproving it.

I sense panic.


I sense mental illness.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Henry
United States
Manvel
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Erik17 wrote:
If you think Hillary murdered Vince Foster, you're probably not going to believe anything positive you hear about her.


I like how you try to suggest that correctly believing that the Clinton Foundation spends very little on actual charity is somehow equal to believing that Hillary murdered Vince Foster.

Let's see . . . that's sort of a reductio ad absurdum mixed with a straw man fallacy.

Either way, you lose.

Thanks for proving my point.

They don't give charitable grants to other organizations or people, they're doing the actual charity work themselves. They're not a United Way type charity that just raises money and then funnels it to other organizations. They are producing tangible results themselves and are widely praised in the charity community for the work that they do. How is that so hard to understand?

Now certainly there are valid issues that can be raised about the foreign donations they've recieved, but I've yet to see a legitimate news source criticizing the actual work that they do.
22 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Donald wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:


The link is fine. Does the tax return have all expenditures on it? Is everything they donated tax deductible to show up on that form? In short, does the tax form tell the whole story or is it picked to provide click bait to get some rage boners going?

I don't know. Do you?





Well, I know because I have prepared many From 990-PF's and 990's and 990-EZ's. You have to list EVERYTHING that the charitable organization spends money on. You cannot spend money on "charitable endeavors", and then not list it on the 990. The balance sheet reporting won't work, and it would result in net income to the charity (which it really isn't supposed to have, being a "non-profit" after all).

So, to answer your questions, there are no "missing" deductions or charitable endeavors that were paid but not reported. What you see is what they spent, and that's the whole story.

The tax form will tell the "whole" story. Essentially, this tax form shows that lots of donations were collected, very little went to "charitable" endeavors, and a whole crapload went to "payroll and benefits" - more than I would think would need to go there, but I don't know who's on the payroll and how much they get paid, so I can't say anything about that. But it does look like a large number.

Of course, their is the fact fact that a whole bunch of money went to other charities that start with the word "Clinton", which to me says "greedy, self-aggrandizing assholes that use the system to deduct expenses that aren't otherwise deductible". But hell, I already hated the Clinton's anyway, so this just validates my utter disdain for them.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
Essentially, this tax form shows that lots of donations were collected, very little went to "charitable" endeavors, and a whole crapload went to "payroll and benefits"

So let me ask you this. If a person was employed by the Clinton Foundation to provides their services at no cost to the community, what category would that expense be under? Say, for example, they hired a group people to travel to Africa and assist the locals in establishing sustainable farms. Where would those salaries be listed on this form? Under payroll, correct? Because that's what the Fuondation does. It's not a charity that distributes money to other charities, it's a charity that actually does the charitable work.

There's 65 pages of that Form 990. Maybe look at more than the first page? Even just to page 10 where you can see of the ~$91 million in expenses ~$72 million of that goes to providing services.

Quote:
But hell, I already hated the Clinton's anyway, so this just validates my utter disdain for them.

That's what's known as "confirmation bias".
31 
 Thumb up
2.40
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
Essentially, this tax form shows that lots of donations were collected, very little went to "charitable" endeavors, and a whole crapload went to "payroll and benefits"

So let me ask you this. If a person was employed by the Clinton Foundation to provides their services at no cost to the community, what category would that expense be under? Say, for example, they hired a group people to travel to Africa and assist the locals in establishing sustainable farms. Where would those salaries be listed on this form? Under payroll, correct? Because that's what the Fuondation does. It's not a charity that distributes money to other charities, it's a charity that actually does the charitable work.

There's 65 pages of that Form 990. Maybe look at more than the first page? Even just to page 10 where you can see of the ~$91 million in expenses ~$72 million of that goes to providing services.

Quote:
But hell, I already hated the Clinton's anyway, so this just validates my utter disdain for them.

That's what's known as "confirmation bias".


Like I said, I don't know how is getting paid what, so I chose not to speculate about the "salaries and wages" line. I admitted that.

And everyone here already knows (or should know) that I hate the Clintons (Chapels calls is "Clinton Derangement Syndrome"), so it isn't like all of a sudden I am going to come to the realization that "OMG, they are so charitable, I guess I should vote for Hillary!" Um, no...

So f*&k yeah, it's confirmation bias! Who cares?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:


Either way, you lose.


You poor fool. You have it backwards.

Every time you post about the Clintons. WE WIN.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
Ferretman wrote:


Been brought up and thoroughly disproved at least 3 times on this forum in the last 6 months.


No, it really hasn't. Shouting angrily that it's been debunked and name-calling everyone is not an actual method of disproving it.

I sense panic.


Actually disproved is the wrong word. What was shown is why that number doesn't mean what you want people to think it does.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundati...

Quote:
Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”

That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.

Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”

“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”

Craig Minassian, chief communications officer for the Clinton Foundation, said the Clinton Foundation is “an implementer.”

“We operate programs on the ground, around the world, that are making a difference on issues ranging from poverty and global health to climate change and women’s and girls’ participation,” Minassian told us via email. “Many large foundations actually provide grants to the Clinton Foundation so that our staff can implement the work.”

Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton Foundation listed these:

Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.

To bolster its case, CARLY for America noted that the Clinton Foundation spent 12 percent of its revenue on travel and conferences and 20 percent of its revenue on salaries. That’s true. But the Form 990 specifically breaks out those travel, conference and salary expenses that are used for “program service expenses” versus those that are used for management or fundraising purposes.

For example, nearly 77 percent of the $8.4 million spent on travel in 2013 went toward program services; 3.4 percent went to “management and general expenses”; and about 20 percent went to fundraising.

As for conferences, nearly 98 percent of money spent was tabbed as a programming expense. And when it comes to salaries — which includes pension plan contributions, benefits and payroll taxes — about 73 percent went to program service expenses.

“I am not the expert on what portion of the Clinton Foundation activities are truly charitable,” Vince Stehle, executive director of Media Impact Funders and a board member of the Center for Effective Philanthropy told us via email. “But I can say that it is not appropriate to simply calculate that based on what portion goes out in grants. Certainly all types of foundations are able to engage in direct charitable activities in any event. But as I understand it, the Clinton Foundation is a public charity, despite the name. Many charities call themselves foundations, which can be confusing, as they might seem like private foundations.

“The organization carries out programs,” Stehle said. “I am not intimately familiar with those programs, but assuming they are genuine, those would be considered charitable activities.”
Charity Evaluators

Fiorina isn’t the only one making this charge about the Clinton Foundation. Fox Business Network’s Gerri Willis, for example, also claimed only 6 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s 2013 revenue “went to help people.” Willis claimed that charity experts have looked into whether the Clinton Foundation “wisely spen(t) charitable dollars” and weighed in with a “resounding no.”

“Charity Navigator … [has] placed the Clinton Foundation on a watch list,” Willis said. “They think there are problems with this nonprofit. They don’t like the way it runs itself. They say the money is not spent wisely.”

She said Charity Navigator concluded the Clinton Foundation “does not meet their criteria as an organization that does charitable work.”

But that’s not what Charity Navigator said.

Here’s what the Charity Navigator site actually states:

Charity Navigator: We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not 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.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

We spoke by phone with Sandra Minuitti at Charity Navigator, and she told us Charity Navigator decided not to rate the Clinton Foundation because the foundation spun off some entities (chiefly the Health Access Initiative) and then later brought some, like the Clinton Global Initiative, back into the fold. Charity Navigator looks at a charity’s performance over time, she said, and those spin-offs could result in a skewed picture using its analysis model. If the foundation maintains its current structure for several years, she said, Charity Navigator will be able to rate it again.

The decision to withhold a rating had nothing to do with concerns about the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. Further, Minuitti said citing only the 6 percent of the budget spent on grants as the sum total spent on charity by the foundation — as Willis and Fiorina did — is inaccurate.

She referred us to page 10 of the 2013 990 form for the Clinton Foundation. When considering the amount spent on “charitable work,” she said, one would look not just at the amount in grants given to other charities, but all of the expenses in Column B for program services. That comes to 80.6 percent of spending. (The higher 89 percent figure we cited earlier comes from a CharityWatch analysis of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.)

“That’s the standard way” to measure a charity’s performance, Minuitti said. “You have to look at the entirety of that column.”

Minuitti said it is also inaccurate to assume all money spent on travel and salaries does not go toward charity. Depending on the nature of the charity, she said, travel and salary could certainly be considered expenses related to charity.

It’s true, as Willis said, that Charity Navigator put the Clinton Foundation on its “watch list,” but not because of concerns about insufficient funds going toward charity. Mainly, it was put on the watch list due to questions raised in the media about foreign donations to the foundation and the potential for quid pro quo when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. The site also linked to a story about the abrupt resignation earlier this year of the foundation’s CEO. (Go here to see a full list of articles that led to the decision by Charity Navigator to place the foundation on its watch list.)

According to the Charity Navigator site, it “takes no position” on the allegations raised in the media reports, nor does it “seek to confirm or verify the accuracy of allegations made or the merits of issues raised.” Minuitti said the watch list was more like “news to know” for potential donors.

None of the articles cited by Charity Navigator has anything to do with a low percentage of funding going to charitable work.

Another philanthropy watchdog, CharityWatch, a project of the American Institute of Philanthropy, gave the Clinton Foundation an “A” rating.

Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.

By only looking at the amount the Clinton Foundation doled out in grants, Fiorina “is showing her lack of understanding of charitable organizations,” Borochoff said. “She’s thinking of the Clinton Foundation as a private foundation.” Those kinds of foundations are typically supported by money from a few people, and the money is then distributed to various charities. The Clinton Foundation, however, is a public charity, he said. It mostly does its own charitable work. It has over 2,000 employees worldwide.

“What she’s doing is looking at how many grants they write to other groups,” Borochoff said. “If you are going to look at it that way, you may as well criticize every other operating charity on the planet.”

In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

“Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”

Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.

We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.

We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.


postscript. Charity Navigator has rated the foundation and that rating is below and the rating is absolutely fabulous.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...


The Clinton Foundation
Strengthening the capacity of people to meet the challenges of global interdependence
Share


Rating Profile Programs Historical Ratings IRS (Forms 990) Comments ()

Score(out of 100) Rating
Overall Score & Rating 94.74
Financial 97.50
Accountability &
Transparency 93.00

This rating was published 09/01/2016 using data provided by the charity on a consolidated pro forma 990 which was verified against 990s received from the IRS.


Back to Top ▲
Financial Performance Metrics
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 86.9%

Administrative Expenses 8.7%
Fundraising Expenses 4.2%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.03
Working Capital Ratio (years) 1.17
Program Expenses Growth 17.3%
Liabilities to Assets 15.3%


All data for Financial Performance Metrics calculations was provided by The Clinton Foundation on recent 990s filed with the IRS.

Accountability & Transparency Performance Metrics
Information Provided on the Form 990
Independent Voting Board Members
No Material diversion of assets
Audited financials prepared by independent accountant
Does Not Provide Loan(s) to or Receive Loan(s) From related parties
Documents Board Meeting Minutes
Provided copy of Form 990 to organization's governing body in advance of filing
Conflict of Interest Policy
Whistleblower Policy
Records Retention and Destruction Policy
CEO listed with salary
Process for determining CEO compensation
Board Listed / Board Members Not Compensated
Is the following information easily accessible on the charity's website?
Donor Privacy Policy
Board Members Listed
Audited Financials
Form 990
Key staff listed
Back to Top ▲
Income Statement FYE 12/2014)
REVENUE
Contributions
Contributions, Gifts & Grants $190,192,538
Federated Campaigns $115,910
Membership Dues $43,281
Fundraising Events $14,828,409
Related Organizations $6,874,010
Government Grants $102,059,161
Total Contributions $314,113,309
Program Service Revenue $2,897,690
Total Primary Revenue $317,010,999
Other Revenue $2,490,569
TOTAL REVENUE $319,501,568

EXPENSES
Program Expenses $201,397,304 (much higher than average)
Administrative Expenses $20,619,878 (Lower than average)
Fundraising Expenses $7,610,237 (Much lower than average)
TOTAL FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES $229,627,419


Payments to Affiliates $0
Excess (or Deficit) for the year $89,874,149

Net Assets $371,958,668

12 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This ratings and percentages are MUCH BETTER than many other popular charities.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...
American Cancer Society
Overall Score & Rating 71.86
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 59.9%

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...
March of Dimes
Overall Score & Rating 71.86
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 66.3%

---

This is the FOURTH time I've posted these or similar numbers now.
I'm going to book mark them this time so I can respond easily to this known falsehood in the future.

---

Had a fabulous laugh filled dnd game today.

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
and log on to this shit again.

It actually irritates me that a large block of voters say the lie- see it corrected- and then say it again knowing it's a lie- see it corrected- and then say it again knowing it's a lie.

And they talk about voting for this like oompa loompa haired narcissist who spends his foundation's money on personal items (on record) and who brags about donating money which investigation shows he didn't actually donate and who then takes a fifth of donations to his political campaign ($17 million dollars) and sticks it in his own pocket by raising his rent by 500% (well above going rates).

but I can't control how republicans are going to vote. But I can show this "fact" which some idiot above claims the irs forms shows is false.

18 
 Thumb up
0.30
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Donald wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:


The link is fine. Does the tax return have all expenditures on it? Is everything they donated tax deductible to show up on that form? In short, does the tax form tell the whole story or is it picked to provide click bait to get some rage boners going?

I don't know. Do you?





It's like trying to show a calculus problem to a sparrow... you'll just get squawking and shit dripping from its rear.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Hey! Did you hear? Just 5.7% of the clinton foundation budget went to charitable grants!?!?!? The clintons must be criminals.

Oh wait, no they are not. See the discussion above to remind you that the clinton foundation has extremely high ratings for charitable work, openness, and financials!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I believe what Drew and Weaselboy are saying is that they believe most churches are just as bad as the Clinton Foundation since they also donate only a tiny percentage of the money they receive to external charities. We need to shut down all of these bullshit operations like the Clinton Foundation and pretty much every church in existence.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?keyword_list=chur...

Churches which have ratings do okay. Some as good as the clinton foundation but all better than the american cancer society and march of dimes.

Most churches are unrated and the news regularly reports abuse by churches or their leaders.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:

Hey! Did you hear? Just 5.7% of the clinton foundation budget went to charitable grants!?!?!? The clintons must be criminals.

Oh wait, no they are not. See the discussion above to remind you that the clinton foundation has extremely high ratings for charitable work, openness, and financials!


It's OK... these idiots have no idea how the Foundation functions, so of course they are confused.

Perhaps they can cite personal relationships that work for or with the Foundation or its many partners, so they have a bit more than Tucker the Forced-Fucker Carlson as their beacon of truth.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 8 27 Feb - 1 Mar 2015 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk Essex Games 27 Jul '15
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There's a problem even for the best charities that, for example, spending an extra 200 on campaigning to bring in an extra 250 results in a gain of 50 for the good cause. That it results in a 20% figure that drags down the overall average isn't seen as mattering.

Of course it does matter. In part it doesn't bring in the full 250 into charitable causes, some is simply displaced from other charities. Which is bad overall, but charities generally are into their thing, and other charities aren't an issue. In part, it shows risk. That 200 could easily only have brought in 150. Or most likely you don't know how much it brought in. Which leads to that charities, like everything else, fall into issues that one way of expressing it is Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureacracy. (I don't agree with much of his politics, but it's a good statement of a real issue.) That's apart from the people who just are paid customers of the charity and positively want it to spend. They shouldn't be making decisions. And note I'm ignoring issues of people running the charity with their hands in the till. I'm only considering threats that arise without that happening.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?keyword_list=chur...

Churches which have ratings do okay. Some as good as the clinton foundation but all better than the american cancer society and march of dimes.

Most churches are unrated and the news regularly reports abuse by churches or their leaders.

The point I was making is not that I think churches are bad charities. Some are, some aren't. The point is that virtually every church would badly fail the exact same test that the Trump lovers on this thread are trying to measure the Clinton Foundation with.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.