Posted on 10/20/2016 7:43:58 AM PDT by GilGil
FULL Title:FACT CHECK: Hillary Said 90% of Clinton Foundation Donations go to Charity. Actual Number? 5.7%
Hillary Clinton told a whopper of a lie during last night's debate when she claimed 90% of the money donated to the Clinton Foundation is paid out in charity.
The truth is only 5.7% of their "massive budget" in 2014 went to charitable grants, "the rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and 'other expenses.'"
As The Daily Caller reports: Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”
The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.
(Excerpt) Read more at informationliberation.com ...
Wallace is a sniveling chinless coward.
He probably wanted to, but did not have a good statistic as to the actual figure, so backed off.
But seems like some of the MSM might have reported this, instead of focusing on his refusal to accept election results, or the fact he might have kissed a woman 30 years ago or whatever.
Why did Chris Wallace not call her on this damnable lie. If Hillary gets in you can count on the Clinton Foundation getting Billions in donations(Bribes.)
It might be if it gets hammered home on the "social media".
Yes, this would be good for a commercial, of her saying this, and then some statistical rebuttal. To the effect of, “not only does she lie, but her charity only spends $5.70 of each hundred dollars to actually help people....”
What a difference-—90 percentage points?
What a difference-— 85 percentage points?
Hillary probably means that after “operating expenses” they give 90%.
Does hillary fact check her own, lies i mean, statements at haggery.com?
You have to parse every Clinton statement with a scanning electron microscope.
She meant 90% of the 5.7%.
The other 10% of the 5.7% is just the normal skim off the top that somehow turns to vapor but ends up as a cash deposit to the Clintons’ offshore bank accounts.
That was the biggest whopper of the night. I practically fell out of my seat at that claim. The real test is if the media will fact check (of course not). It’s been a well known fact that the foundation gives about 6%.
Is there documentation to back up these claims of percentages?
Not sure why I want to do this, but to be fair...
The 5.7 is just the amount granted to other charities. The “other expenses”category is where the money the foundation spent directly on good works would be reported.
Both the 5.7% and the 90% numbers could be correct.
The same goes for the Russian uranium sale.
Trump needs to make a fact check commercial about the foundation.....people hate “charities” that do this. One of the best easily understood examples of how crooked the Clintons are.
Correct. You have to unparse everything the evil liar says. In this case, “it all depends on what the meaning of “charity” is.
One of the ways that they try to sustain this claim is that they say they do a lot in house and therefore they probably include their operating costs, salaries paid in particular, into this 90%.
In doing so they might distinguish between purely support and administrative staff, like Chelsea with her near million dollar salary, and those who are doing charitable work.
Indeed, they cannot arrive at 90% figure without doing this as salaries make up more than a third of the budgets I’ve seen! with Chelsea herself getting roughly 1 of each 34 or 35 dollars paid out in salaries.
Likewise they would have to claim a considerable part of their other costs as somehow being charitable rather than just going to support operations.
But to make such a claim means that they probably do NOT go about providing stuff or support directly to persons for them to use. So they MIGHT be running a soup line or running a pantry but a sizable portion of whatever it is they think that they are doing must be related to providing paid services to others ... think maid services or the like, or even dental cleaning, which don’t have large material outlays.
In this they are then explicitly different than charities where people donate their time from their professional work and the charity concentrates simply on delivering the service.
Is that really fair? If it were then something like where a group of doctors perform medical missionary work could likewise claim well over 100% rate of giving.
No matter how you slice it then, the Clinton Foundation is providing employment rather than alms ... It is NOT providing anywhere near the percentage that something doing similar things with donated time will be doing.
I wish that Congress would go and make it a mandated law that if you claim this tax-status....you have spend a minimum of 75-percent of the “take” on actual charity items, instead of operating cost. All of this is totally fake and bogus.
That old dingbat lives in an alternate reality. Nothing she says surprises me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.