The Clinton Foundation gave away very little in DIRECT grants.. They spent the money on OPERATING PROGRAMS world wide which meant facilities, training and hiring of people who worked the programs. That's like the Bill Gate Foundation and totally unlike the Trump Charities... although Gates does have a higher percentage in direct grants. The problem is ignorance not the charities. Gates Foundation Launches Public Charity | News | PND philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/gates-foundation... The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has announced the launch of a 501(c)(3) public charity that will work to advance progress in global health, development, and U.S. education. Created in response to the more than $32 million in unsolicited donations the foundation has received since 2000, Gates Philanthropy Partners will accept donations in any amount to help fund grants to existing Gates Foundation grantees .
The link is ignorant. The Clinton Foundation's direct grants were small.. 12 to 13% of their charity. 9 to 10% to overhead and administrative costs and the rest when to operating programs in areas like education for women, healthcare .. teaching skills to operate small cottage businesses, clean water and teaching agricultural skills. Trump's charities were private and used (rightly so) to protect income from taxes to the government. The problem Trump got into was that all his direct grants benefited him or his family directly.. VERY small amounts in grants were given to veterans, child services etc. Trump was working it and misrepresenting his grants to those who donated to his charity. He got in trouble and is barred from having a charity.
What are you trying to sell? That, like the Clinton's, Gates was dirt poor before he cranked up his charity and then, like the Clintons, he amassed huge sums of money? Is that what you're selling today?
I am trying very hard to make you aware that how charities are structured is important. The people who rushed to accuse the Clinton Foundation were ignorant as hell and never bothered to LEARN how different charities are structured.
Here Margot2 read the interview .... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-...-in-haiti-haitians_b_57f604f9e4b087a29a5486fd Cant wait to see how you spin this . From huffpo so u cant complain about source.
Read the interview https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-...-in-haiti-haitians_b_57f604f9e4b087a29a5486fd
We know how charities work for the well connected or when you have, say, a foreign policy to peddle. They work like this: House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings’s wife has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars from her charity to her private for-profit organization, according to a previously undisclosed cost-sharing arrangement that multiple experts said raises red flags. Maya Rockeymoore Cummings’s charity, the Center for Global Policy Solutions (CGPS), paid her for-profit venture, Global Policy Solutions LLC, over $250,000 in “management fees” between 2013 and 2015, according to the charity’s audited financial statements covering those years. The management fees were paid in addition to a cost-sharing agreement where the charity pays for its share of equipment, personnel and other expenditures. Rockeymoore Cummings’s charity is funded by companies with interests before her husband’s congressional committee, according to the Washington Examiner. https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/05/elijah-cummingss-wife-charity/
Administration Expenses were 13% which is well in line with other charities. My point was that they should be more in line with feed the poor and Catholic charities. What are thier expenses? They don't adveritize, they don't have 1000 telemarketers calling people at home.
Every thing you said has been debunked over and over and you cons persist in bring them up.. "Hillary destroyed 30,000 government e-mails". No, they were not government e-mails.. I doubt if Donald Trump has written 300 government emails. " Obama sent Iran over ONE BILLION DOLLARS IN CASH!!!!! ". It was their money (earning compound interest), paid for military equipment which we did not deliver. "Hillary sent Russia 20% of our uranium for a Quid Pro Quo $140,000,000 donation to the Clinton foundation." Snopes gave a timeline which showed that Hillary was not in office at the time of the donation, and the donor was no longer associated with the company that bought the Canadian lease. That transaction was approved at a meeting of all the cabinet heads, not just Hillary.