To: TurboZamboni; GOPJ; stephenjohnbanker; Gilbo_3; Impy; NFHale; GOPsterinMA; BillyBoy; ...
RE:”
Actually, the fact that so little goes to charity — and that the rate (6.4% in 2013) has become so public — is what has them rethinking their commitments:” 93.6% of donations to Clinton foundation are spent by them on themselves, overhead, management perks and salaries, etc, only 6.4% goes to the causes that they are raised for.
Is there a charity in history with this bad of a record??
OK, the Federal government could tie with them.
Suckers!
9 posted on
05/01/2015 8:57:29 PM PDT by
sickoflibs
(King Obama : 'The debate is over. The time for talk is over. Just follow my commands you serfs""')
To: sickoflibs
If that’s a charity, I’m Judy Tenuta.
To: sickoflibs
It really is a travel slush fund for the Clintons and their friends. I’ll bet those trips to ‘help the poor’ are lavish beyond words...
11 posted on
05/01/2015 9:04:16 PM PDT by
GOPJ
(The thugs loot stores. The community leaders loot cities. - Daniel Greenfield)
To: sickoflibs
even sosh security is a better ‘investment’.
14 posted on
05/01/2015 9:34:41 PM PDT by
TurboZamboni
(Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.-JFK)
To: sickoflibs
There’s no way they could have spent that much money on themselves. First of all, there are lots of people cashing in on this scam. Second, the Clintons haven’t paid for anything since high school.
17 posted on
05/01/2015 9:40:14 PM PDT by
VerySadAmerican
(Obama voters are my enemy. And so are RINO voters.)
To: sickoflibs
It's just the Clinton slush fund, given "charitable" camouflage.
21 posted on
05/02/2015 4:02:38 AM PDT by
Travis McGee
(www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson