Nailed It... The lefts Scam to destroy America, Sports and Apple Pie

Spending 6% on fundraising is too much? I read the financials, you clearly cannot.

It's much more than 6% -- time for you to put on your reading glasses and go read the financials. Obviously you have not gone through them.
 
It's much more than 6% -- time for you to put on your reading glasses and go read the financials. Obviously you have not gone through them.

Yes, PWC, CharityWatch and CharityNavigator haven't done the numbers but someone who speaks in broad generalities and doesn't understand the numbers is the expert in this field.
 
Yes, PWC, CharityWatch and CharityNavigator haven't done the numbers but someone who speaks in broad generalities and doesn't understand the numbers is the expert in this field.

Yeah let's see what Charity Navigator said about the Clinton Foundation in 2015 before they were pressured to relent...

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.

Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.

The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.

The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.

An accountant for the Clinton Foundation did not return The Post’s calls seeking clarification on its expenses Friday, and a spokesperson for the group refused comment.
 
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.

20% of 8.4 million went to fundraising, that's the lot more?
 
Yeah let's see what Charity Navigator said about the Clinton Foundation in 2015 before they were pressured to relent...

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
/.

This is your source? A complete list of lies by Murdoch's NYPost which will print anything?




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.


http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
 
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.

20% of 8.4 million went to fundraising, that's the lot more?

Earlier you claimed "Spending 6% on fundraising is too much?" Now you say it is 20%. Whatever.
 
Earlier you claimed "Spending 6% on fundraising is too much?" Now you say it is 20%. Whatever.

6% of NET vs 20% of a part of a fund meant for management. I said 20% of 8 million, did they raise only 8 million net? Math is easy.
 
As some of us said yesterday these players are being used by leftists.

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/09...urce=hadaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl


...
This isn’t about protesting racism, police misconduct or anything of the sort. What we’re observing is potentially one of the greatest red herrings in the history of American political scams.


The question I was most confused over was… why this location? Why this particular time? The reality is that any of these well paid players could call a press conference or show up at any rally to talk about racism, police shootings and all the rest, and they would draw the attention of millions, along with the media. (God only knows ESPN would show up.) So why were the liberal activists insisting that it had to be at the start of a game while the National Anthem is playing and the flag is on display? It didn’t make sense. And then, suddenly, it did.


...
With that complete lack of engagement in professional football, why would Jonathan and so many of his progressive colleagues be so completely driven to support and gin up protests taking place on the gridiron? Why did they suddenly care so much about the intersection of racial identity politics and football?

The answer is that they don’t. This has little or nothing to do with police shootings, racial profiling or any of the rest of it. What we’re seeing is an almost brilliant and concerted effort to damage, if not eliminate, the National Football League.

Why? Because the activist Left has despised the NFL for years. They hate everything about it. It’s a game filled with big, tough, manly men engaging in the closest thing to warfare you can manage without guns. It’s a game rife with symbolism and, yes… nationalism. Even people who would never buy an album from a country singer could feel their blood heating up when Hank Williams used to sing, Are you Ready for Some Football. The military loves football and they fly jets over the stadiums in formation and send our nation’s finest out to pay tribute. And it’s not just the military. Our police and other first responders are frequently called out for honors at the games. Everything about it screams of apple pie, fireworks and patriotism. (Or, if you prefer, God, guns and flags.) And the activist Left hates it. Probably the only sporting event they despise more is NASCAR.

And this isn’t the first ginned up attack on the NFL that the Left has orchestrated. Observe the running debate, mostly driven by liberals, about how concussions and other long-term physical effects on players make the sport “unsafe.” Do you honestly think it’s because they care about the health of the players? Activists have gone so far as to point out that even “micro concussions” caused by repeated, far lighter taps to the head are too much of a risk.

Have you ever seen the Left getting that worked up over soccer, where both kids and adults have to repeatedly take shots on goal or make passes to their teammates by bouncing a high speed ball off their head? For that matter, have you seen these levels of protests over boxing, which literally gets some warriors of the ring killed and they are constantly hit with crushing blows to the skull? How about Rugby (a sport which makes alligator wrestling look boring)? Nope. The only real attention is paid to the “dangers” of football. Soccer is very European and politically correct. You can’t find American Rugby on TV. And I have no idea why they don’t care about boxers. You’d think they might because the lion’s share of professional boxers are minorities and the blows to the head they receive are far more damaging over the long run.

It was never about the health of the players. It was all about damaging the NFL. And that’s what’s fueling this National Anthem debate as well.

And to their credit, it seems to be working this time. No amount of campaigning or colored ribbons would have gotten the faithful NFL fans to abandon America’s favorite sport, but if they could manage to get the players to start dragging politics out of the press briefing room and onto the field, that might be the final straw to break the camel’s back. If they could drive a wedge between the players and the fans, and then divide the fans themselves into splintering, warring camps, arguing over the politically correct aspects of these offensive displays, they might finally put a dent in the popularity of football.

And it seems to be working. The ratings for Sunday Night Football this week were the worst in over a decade. Viewership for other games was off as well. People I’ve been following on social media for years who would rather risk their jobs than miss a game featuring their home team are so disgusted that they’re not even bothering to tune in. Divisive, infuriating identity politics was probably the only thing with the potential to kill football if you could find a way to inject a hefty dose of it into the NFL’s bloodstream. And now they’ve done it.





more at the link...
You didn't nail shit, what a bunch of garbage..this reeks of an infowars kool aid cocktail.
 
Back
Top