Skip to main content

The Clintons this week revealed their tax returns and claimed $108 million over the past eight years, gleaned primarily from speaking engagements where the faithful dole it out and Bill Clinton commands up to $250,00 per speech.  What is remarkable about their returns is that they claimed only $10.2 million in charitable deductions over eight years. But it turns out that small amount was in fact dolled out to their own charity: They gave the money to themselves. And further, they gave none of it out until last year when Senator Clinton declared her Presidency.

NYT's article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/...

Charitable giving brings a recognition that although we may not feel it in our every day preoccupations, there is a world which goes on outside our own ego. That world is often in pain and that pain is our pain. This was Siddhartha's first awakening when he traveled out of his castle and found sickness, suffering and death. The Clintons have yet to journey out of their castle.

By giving to charity we recognize our helplessness in the world and we enter in with the suffering in the world - we share the suffering with the poor and the sick as the Christ did if only we share it symbolically and in the spirit of the poor.

This kind of behavior by the Clintons reveals them to be what they have always been: childish, adolescent narcissists who think of nothing but themselves and see no world outside of the own Leviathan visions.

I find it remarkable that Hillary Clinton wrote her college theme on Saul Alinsky, the master organizer of the Back of the Yards neighborhoods in Chicago in the 1930s who trained leftist organizers and assisted in the founding of community organizations around the country. In his day and shortly thereafter dilettante performers and entertainers of the gentry like the Clintons would have been taxed up to 100% because it was characteristic of new elites and the "new rich" to not give a dime to charity as the Clintons have not given a dime. In my generation the "new elite" was sparked when Sixties revolutionary Jerry Rubin called a large part of his generation to switch from Marx and Trotsky overnight to Goldman Sacks. Bill Clinton is avatar of this group.

Question to the Clintons: Who raised you?

Originally posted to Bernie Quigley on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:52 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I need a little more information (13+ / 0-)

    what is their own charity?  What is its name?  What does it do?

    "Stupidity is the great equalizer!" - NonnyO

    by Pandoras Box on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:55:43 AM PDT

  •  asdf (11+ / 0-)

    Bernie you've been here long enough to know you should source the reference for your claims.

    The trick is in what one emphasizes. We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same." Carlos Castaneda

    by FireCrow on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:56:11 AM PDT

  •  Link to proof or is this just (4+ / 0-)

    assumed by the writer?

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:00:04 AM PDT

  •  Of course they gave money to their charity... (13+ / 0-)

    This is a no-brainer and non-issue.

    Bill Gates does the same thing.

  •  A basic tithe (12+ / 0-)

    is 10%.  Isn't 10.2 million about 10% of 109m?  I don't give a hoot that they give it to their own charity, you would too if you had a charity.  Starting a charity means you have specific ideas on who to help and how.  Would you really expect them to ignore their own charity?

    "Do you want to tumble? Let's tumble." Stephen Colbert

    by tobendaro on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:06:32 AM PDT

  •  The Clinton Foundation (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidkc, dolphin777

    Tax law permits sitting up a private foundation and receiving a tax deduction with the actual charitable deeds being merely a promse to do something in the future.  Bill and Hillary continue to control those funds and only need to have about 5% of the principal actually be used in any year. Thus 10 million makes $500,000 in interest each year and only the $500,000 needs to actually be distributed for a true charitable purpose.  Chelsea could be paid $100,000 a year to administer these funds for the balance of her life.

    This is the equivalent of a good speech but no action...

    •  asdf (7+ / 0-)

      I am not a fan of HRC, but you are not being fair here. Saying that Chelsea "could" get money is pure speculation - and to what purpose? The Clinton's may be doing great good with the Charity or they may be using it improperly. Instead of making baseless claims, let's get all of the information necessary to make a proper judgment.

      •  think about who this is about.... (0+ / 0-)

        do you think if the Clintons were doing great good they would be trumpeting about it from sea to shining sea?

        The foundation should have a list of their expenses somewhere.

        I think most of the money goes to speakers for presentations.  I have no proof or link, but that is my opinion.

        Republicans are not a national party anymore.

        by jalapeno on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:25:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Google Clinton Foundation (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Osiris, DocbytheBay

          There are hundreds of links that provide all the information needed to know about it, including the NYT article reporting only half of the Clinton's donations have been awarded.  The article is further debunked.

          "Man's life's a vapor Full of woe. He cuts a caper, Down he goes. Down de down de down he goes.

          by JFinNe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:33:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Their annual report is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Osiris, DocbytheBay

          publicly available.

          I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

          by arielle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:38:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  look who sits on the board... (0+ / 0-)

            BBB also lists it as doesn't meeting standards....

            Republicans are not a national party anymore.

            by jalapeno on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:40:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There are certainly aspects (3+ / 0-)

              of this that can, and should, be looked at.

              But, frankly, I am less concerned with the structure of the board, whether or not it has 5 members on it and who does what, than that the charity actually does what it says its intended purpose is.

              This diary and some of the crowing going on like the Clintons are merely paying themselves and the foundation does no charitable works is outrageous.

              I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

              by arielle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:56:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Addendum - (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jalapeno

              What I REALLY want to see, and what should be discussed, is the donor list.

              I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

              by arielle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:57:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nancelot, empathy

          It sounds as if you are asking me to speculate about this based on my opinion of the Clintons in general. I don't like like Clintons, but I don't have enough information about their charity to accuse them of wrongdoing in this case.

        •  Here you are (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nancelot, empathy, DocbytheBay

          Why submit your opinion when Google is right at your fingertips?

          http://www.clintonfoundation.org/...

          The Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) has partnered with Mayor Ken Livingstone and the City of London to retrofit public buildings across the city, including Transport for London’s headquarters at Windsor House, Transport for London’s Broadway, and police and fire stations. These retrofits, part of CCI’s Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program, will help buildings become more energy-efficient, and in the process ease operating costs, create green collar jobs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

          CHAI’s mission is to work with governments and other partners to increase the availability of high-quality AIDS care and treatment for people in need. We accomplish this by:

          lowering the cost of treatment
          providing strategic and targeted technical assistance where it is most needed
          establishing major initiatives to enable widespread access to HIV-related care.
          We take a business-based and strategic approach to tackling the most significant barriers to HIV/AIDS care and treatment, and hire capable, dedicated and passionate people whose primary motivation is fulfilling our mission.

          The Alliance for a Healthier Generation is a partnership between the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association. Co-led by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, this collaborative effort is focused on fighting one of our nation’s leading health threats – childhood obesity.

          Mission:
          To eliminate childhood obesity and to inspire all young people in the United States to develop lifelong, healthy habits.

        •  is that a parody? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jalapeno, SingularExistence

          "I have no proof or link, but that is my opinion."

          I couldn't make fun of the anti-clinton types any better myself

    •  The Clinton Foundation isn't a private foundation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      empathy

      Only charities classified as "private foundations" by the IRS are required to give away 5% of their assets every year.  But the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation but a public charity, just like any other nonprofit, so they don't have that 5% payout requirement.  Many nonprofits use the word "foundation" even though they aren't a private foundation.

    •  And so what if she did... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DocbytheBay

      as long as it is a ligitimate job based on her skills and education...

      The Clinton haters on this site are driving me crazy with trashing the Clintons for setting up a charitable foundation that gives away millions of dollars a year to help people and somehow this is an evil plot to destroy the world...

      Focus on real issues you disagree with...this is completely legal and very common with wealthy people so they can have someone figure out how to maximize the impact of their charitable donations...

      Obama/Richardson '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

      by dvogel001 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:15:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Read the annual report (21+ / 0-)

    for the foundation.

    Over 92% of the money goes to some very exciting programs.

    Do you not think Tiger Woods gives the bulk of his charitable donations to his foundation?

    You set up a charity to do works you deem are important then of course you are going to give the bulk of your donations to that charity.

    Sheesh.

    I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

    by arielle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:12:28 AM PDT

  •  i have come to really... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nancelot, pattyp

    dislike the clintons for their politics, but they have the right to make money and starting & overseeing your own charitable organization is worthy of praise.

    i am not sure that the clintons used a lot of discretion in making that money, but i don't know the facts.

    ultimately, i don't want to bury them. for a while i did. at times i want to respect them, and other times i can't.

    please, clintons, let us like you again.

    •  The anti-clinton tirade goes like this (4+ / 0-)
      1.  He should be dedicating his post presidency year to great causes like Jimmy Carter instead of making money!

      Well, he has founded the Clinton Global Initiative, donates 10% of his income to it, and spends a lot of volunteer time fundraising for it. This charity fights aids, assists development in the third world, fights global warming, among other good causes.

      1.  Ok then, how dare he set up his own charity to pursue charitable causes!  That's not real charity.  He should be giving his money to someone else to control and thereafter have no involvement in it, or else its not charity.
  •  Taking this at face value... (0+ / 0-)

    They gave the money to themselves. And further, they gave none of it out until last year when Senator Clinton declared her Presidency.

    Each one of those by themselves is not surprising. But if you're going to donate solely for political reasons, why not make it to a non-controversial cause? Like cancer research or something to that effect.

    Lil' Bush: "We can't have a black man in the Whitehouse begging for change!"

    by USArmyParatrooper on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:21:57 AM PDT

  •  This is not true (7+ / 0-)

    It's common for extremely wealthy philanthropists to do their charity through a personal giving foundation. See also, Bill & Melinda Gates. It certainly doesn't mean they're giving it to themselves -- that tax loophole would be a little bit too ridiculous even for us.

  •  this diary is utter (11+ / 0-)

    crap.  

    Can we please stop with the insinuations that rich people can't help poor people?  Who cares what charity they gave it to, and are you really seeing the foundation doesn't do anything?  also utter horseshit.

    And in addition, its Goldman SacHs, not SacKs.  

  •  Nonsense -- you don't get what a foundation is. (5+ / 0-)

    Wealthy people set up foundations for the express purposes of reducing their taxes and increasing (and better controlling) their charitable giving both during their lifetimes and after they die.

    A foundation provides stability, perpetuity, and some structure of governance and group decision-making.  

    If I had $109 million I would definitely establish a Torta Foundation.  And it, like the Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Mellon Foundation -- and the far smaller Clinton Foundation -- would be a good thing for everyone.

  •  Question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonV, Wee Mama

    How does this help Obama defeat McCain in November?  Not that anyone would care about that ...

  •  This is a complicated issue (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, mobiusein, Dougie, Fairy Tale

    I work a lot with foundations, and there is nothing inherently wrong with the Clintons giving money to their own foundation.  Lots of wealthy people do this.  They give money to their own foundation and they do good work through the foundation.  Due to the complexities of our tax system, a donor is often able to get more money to charity this way than by giving directly to charity.

    With that said, I still think it's important for people to understand that this money went to their foundation and not directly to charity.  Because it is a different animal.  Sometimes donations to a foundation will sit in an endowment and not be given directly to charity right away, so that's a big point of distinction.  Not as much goes to charity right away as if the Clintons wrote out checks directly to the charities.

    But my only real concern about the Clinton Foundation is that the Clintons refuse to reveal a list of donors to the foundation.  It is easy for me to see how people wanting to influence Hillary will give a big check to the foundation in return for a favor from her.  Until we see the donor list, we'll never be able to know that for sure.  The law doesn't require charities to reveal their donor lists (although some proposals have floated around Congress to do just that), but I think they should do it in the spirit of transparency and to end any such suspicions.

    •  I agree, the list of donors to a foundation (0+ / 0-)

      is the critical issue, since HRC is running for office and can have a major voice in decision making in the event she is elected into the White House. This is why people are curious to know where all the money to the Clinton Foundation came from. All other issues are extraneous and superfluous.

      For instance, we know that Tiger Woods Foundation receives majority of funds for its endowment from his earnings as a golf pro and from the various product endorsements he makes each year (plus special events that he hosts). There is nothing remotely 'political' in these donations to his foundation, as such.

      On the other hand, someone engaged in getting elected into office, is by definition, a 'political' creature. It is important to know whether serious 'conflicts of interests' may be occurring or other 'deferred payouts' are being made that may affect the public interest.

      For all these reasons, a detailed list of donors to a 'political' candidates' family-operated foundation is crucial for us to have a look at.

      "The blackbird whirled in the autumn winds. It was a small part of the pantomime." Wallace Stevens

      by mobiusein on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:46:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Completely not relevant... (0+ / 0-)

        Donors to the foundation are independent of the Clintons it is just a vehicle to maximize the impact of charitable donations...there is no direct benefit to the Clintons...I would agree if this was some sort of Legal Defense fund then you would have a point...

        Obama/Richardson '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

        by dvogel001 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:21:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I guess you are not familiar with the non-profit (0+ / 0-)

          world of charitable causes - I happen to be very familiar with it.

          It is the height of naivete to believe that large donors to foundations make no demands on those that receive such funds or not except something in return when the recipient is in office.

          "The blackbird whirled in the autumn winds. It was a small part of the pantomime." Wallace Stevens

          by mobiusein on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:27:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have been a consultant to... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SingularExistence

            large foundations for over 20 years...and this is nothing more than conspiracy theories...

            Yes you can ask for your name on a building but asking for something in return like a bribe or something is just silly and does not usually happen...unless you want to go to jail

            Obama/Richardson '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

            by dvogel001 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:46:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As a financial advisor or accountant probably (0+ / 0-)

              but have you served on any boards or been a full-time employee of any major non-profit foundation or institution?

              It's a whole different world there, in the trenches... it's much, much murkier and highly charged politically...

              "The blackbird whirled in the autumn winds. It was a small part of the pantomime." Wallace Stevens

              by mobiusein on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:09:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes I have been on the BOD of (0+ / 0-)

                a Major national NFP and a local trade association as well...These exceptions you talk about are the aberrations not the rules...again just conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact...just because you do not know one fact about a completely open charity does not mean it is a bad organization doing bad things...

                Obama/Richardson '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

                by dvogel001 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:33:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  There may be privacy issues involved (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DocbytheBay

      Many donors request anonymity, for a variety of reasons - not all of which are nefarious.

      "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

      by SingularExistence on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:25:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is no issue if donors want... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SingularExistence

      to stay anonamous...many donors want to do this because they do not want to have every foundation under the sun to come after them for a donation...common' they give 92% of the money away to ligitimate programs all of the tax returns are public...so what if someone who likes Bill & Hillary gives money to the foundation...it is not benefiting them directly at all...

      You Clinton Haters are way off base on this one...

      Obama/Richardson '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

      by dvogel001 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:19:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This simply isn't true! (11+ / 0-)

    I'm an Obama supporter who has serious problems with both of the Clintons, but the accusation that the Clintons gave nothing to charity until last year would be shocking if it was true.  The problem is that it ISN'T true, and isn't even CLOSE to being true.

    Here are the Clintons charitable contributions per their tax return:

    1.    $34,900
    1.   $807,585
    1.   $115,000
    1.   $410,000
    1. $2,534,280
    1. $1,755,473
    1. $1,580,503
    1. >$3,000,000 (per campaign; return not yet filed)

    And FWIW, the tax returns don't show the identity of the charities to which they gave, so I have no idea how you'd know that they gave it all "to themselves," even assuming that their foundation is the same as themselves (which it clearly isn't).

    You owe the Clintons an apology for misrepresenting their situation, and you owe all of US an apology for spreading this garbage.  And you owe ME an apology for wasting my time on this!

    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

    by leevank on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:33:30 AM PDT

  •  Some info (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CA Libertarian, Fairy Tale

    I don't remember where I got it from but I have a pdf of the Clinton Family Foundation 990-PF for 2006. I'm not a tax expert so forgive me if I get some of this wrong. Total Net assets at end of year $4,381,401. In 06 the Foundation gave $1,274,900 in charitable contributions - Various Arkansas concerns, breast cancer, ambulances, volunteer Fire dept., Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund, hospitals, a few universities, Tiger Woods charity, local causes around their home in NY, YMCA at Martha's vineyard and a few churches. The Clintons paid in $1,580,503. Bill is listed as the President, Hillary the secretary/treasurer and Chelsea as a director. I think the campaign said that the 07 accounts will show the Clintons distributed about $3m.

    The Clinton contributions to their foundation have been variable over the years (amount(% of income)) 00 - $34.9k (9.8%), 01 - $807.5k (5.1%), 02 - $115k (1,2%), 03 - $410k (5.2%), 04 - $2.5m (12.7%), 05 - $1.7m (9.7%), 06 - $1.5m (10%), 07 estimate - $3m (14.7%). The only question I see is that there is a marked time difference between large amounts of money entering the Foundation and then being distributed and that those larger pay-outs also  coincide with Hillary's intent to run for the presidency.

  •  Bullshit - paid $30 million for Katrina relief (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes

    Tax return.

    Certainly, some of the Clinton Foundation's work is self-aggrandizing (e.g. its annual conference of world leaders), its expenses lavish ($1 million for Bill's 60th birthday party).

    But there is also some good charity work.  This contribution stands out, as does its HIV/AIDS initiative and some other projects.

    We're pro-choice on everything! - Libertarian slogan

    by CA Libertarian on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:44:05 AM PDT

    •  Some confusion (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nancelot, leevank, arielle, CA Libertarian

      The William J Clinton Foundation (WJCF) is different to the Clinton Family Foundation (CFF). I believe the  Clintons personally finance the CFF and that then gets distributed to charity. I believe the WJCF is funded by a variety of mostly undisclosed sources which go towards other laudable projects. The WJCF donors are the controversial ones first because they are unknown and second the suspicion that many foreign donors would be perceived as politically inconvenient/embarrassing/soliciting favours.

      As with most things maybe its not the donors that are controversial but the perceived secrecy/cover-up.

      •  A fair cop, here's the CFF 2006 return (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama, nancelot, leevank, arielle

        All looks good to me.

        Took in $1.6 million from Clintons in 2006 and gave about $1.3 million away.  $4.4 million in assets at the end of the year.

        The family foundation has basically no expenses, pays no salaries, supports dozens of real charities.

        Looks like a solid foundation, way fewer questions than Bill's foundation - which I agree has a dubious angle due to support by foreign clients who wind up, in effect, buying Bill's support for diplomatic positions contrary to official U.S. ones (e.g. Kazakhstan).

        But - on the technical point - it still does give away a lot of money.

        We're pro-choice on everything! - Libertarian slogan

        by CA Libertarian on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:04:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You people (3+ / 0-)

    Need a new hobby.

  •  Another Case of Daily Kos Making Me Nuts (6+ / 0-)

    I always preface this by saying I voted for Obama, but it has been very disappointing to me in the way this community has been conducting itself this campaign. There are no bounds at Daily Kos as to what can be said about the Clintons. Look, I don't want her to get the nomination either, but I want to oppose her for real reasons, not crazy smears. As someone remarked in another thread yesterday, if you put up a diary advancing conspiracy theories about Sept 11 here, you get banned. If you put up a diary advancing a conspiracy theory about the Clintons, you get recommended. I'm surprised Kos hasn't tried to tamp it down. I guess maybe he thinks it's a good old fashioned pie fight, but I think it hurts the credibility of Daily Kos.

    It turns out news delivered on a for-profit basis is a bad business model for democracy.

    by George Lynch on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:51:50 AM PDT

  •  This diary is a prime example (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leevank, DocbytheBay, desiderata

    of why the whole "Clinton Tax Return Hit Squad" idea promoted here is so mind-numbingly stupid.

    A bunch of people with limited expertise and no understanding of the mechanics of income reporting and charitable giving decide to pile on individual line items and spin wild, incorrect tales of corruption that end up getting smacked down by smarter posters - who actually know what they're talking about - halfway through the comments thread.  

    When you start using Jesus to bash the Clintons, you know you've gone over the top.

    "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

    by SingularExistence on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:58:50 AM PDT

  •  Tax Records (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DocbytheBay

    Bernie,
    I can't seem to find your where you've posted your Tax Records, have you posted them yet, or are you waiting for april 15?
    Wonder how soon Freedom Alliance's Tax Form 990 for 2007 will be available for the public to read? You know the Veterans Foundation of Ollie North and Sean Hannity that gives back roughly 2.18 cents on the dollar, for every dollar collected!

  •  I am encouraged (5+ / 0-)

    by all the Obama supporters putting crap like this diary in it's place.
    We may not agree on our candidates, but baseless smears against the Clintons for their charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation (http://www.clintonfoundation.org) shouldn't be given the light of day.

  •  Acutally, the diarist is right. (0+ / 0-)

    This is atrocious, if the foundation is the Clinton Foundation. The William J. Clinton foundation is responsible for building the Clinton Library, among it's other purported goals. It's also been a large funneling operation for milions of dollars from foreign interests like Saudi Arabia.

    •  There are two foundations (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SingularExistence, DocbytheBay

      The William J. Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Family Foundation (CFF).  The Clintons have apparently made most of their charitable contributions to the CFF, which has in turn distributed them to various charities, including universities, public broadcasting stations, medical institutions, special funds for tsunami and earthquake relief, and pretty much the typical range of charities to which many of us might donate (albeit for most of us, and certainly for me, in much smaller amounts).  It doesn't appear to have donated either to the Clinton Presidential Library or to the William J. Clinton Foundation.

      "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

      by leevank on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:08:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Folks, you can't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DocbytheBay

    use this against Clinton, because Obama did not start giving heavily to charity until the last few years as well, according to his own returns.

    I vote and I'm pissed off!

    by TheStormofWar on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:26:53 AM PDT

    •  Yes but... (0+ / 0-)

      if we are to accept complexity in people's affairs then we have to accept that the Clintons didn't have 2 young children to pay for or 2 lots of student debts unlike the Obamas. Though in fairness I think the Clintons had millions of legal fees to pay after leaving the White House. Obama has benefited from a resurgence in book sales (his first was a poor seller in the 90's) since running for president and I would guess they've paid their debts and are more able to give larger amounts to charity. There is that phrase - charity begins at home.

  •  I want to know why (0+ / 0-)

    Did Hillary make campaign staffers go without pay this year when she was struggling to raise funds?

    She is a rich selfish elitist.  She doesn't care about you or me.  She only cares about how much POWER she can get and also so that she too gets a cushy million dollar pension when she no longer is president of the US.

    I think that if a president can earn millions speaking we should eliminate their pension.  They don't need one.  They just have to spew their ego and rake in the dough.

    Hillary is a fraud.

  •  Clintons Are Just Gaming The System Donating To (0+ / 0-)

    Themselves. Oldest trick in the book, makes you look like you are a charitable person but what you really are doing is exploiting a well known loophole specificlly created for the ultra-wealthy.

    Obama '08 YES WE CAN
    God Bless America. God Damn George Bush

    by DFutureIsNow on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:07:33 AM PDT

    •  Your envy is showing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DocbytheBay

      Please explain how donations to a family charitable foundation constitutes "donating to themselves."  They can't use the money for themselves -- only for donating to other charities.  That doesn't sound like "donating to themselves" to me.

      "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

      by leevank on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:10:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not envious at all. I dont get paid by foreign (0+ / 0-)

        Sheiks who hold up my peoples future with their oil prices, the Clintons do, they sold us to Dubai Ports and god knows who else? We will know one day that is for sure.

        Anyways. the foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period.

        Obama '08 YES WE CAN
        God Bless America. God Damn George Bush

        by DFutureIsNow on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:23:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh for God's sake (0+ / 0-)

          They paid over $30 million in Federal income taxes alone over the same period. That's hardly tax dodging.

          "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

          by SingularExistence on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:34:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And Their Friend Burke And Yucaipa Hold Several (0+ / 0-)

            Assets in the Cayman Islands, the Clintons dealings with him are shady, he receives money that no one knows what is it for, that is why they are trying to get rid of it so the people wouldnt find out, but too late, they got caught.

            Just for the record:

            The Cayman Islands doesn't charge any individual or corporate income tax and has strict bank secrecy laws.

            Talk about Hillary Clinton having a plan for the economy, looks like their economy is well taken care of.

            Obama '08 YES WE CAN
            God Bless America. God Damn George Bush

            by DFutureIsNow on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:13:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  This not true... (4+ / 0-)

    it is very common for wealthy people to give to their own foundation which is then responsible for giving the money away to good causes...Their foundation is a separate entity of which the tax returns are public...This kind of trashing of the Clintons is just nasty and unnecessary and competely untrue.

    Wealthy people do this so that they can strategically give and make the most of their donations rather than just having every charity under the sun come hand in hat and having to evaluate each request on an individual basis.

    There are plenty of areas of ligitimate criticism of the Clintons but this one is completely unfair...

    Obama/Richardson '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:10:32 AM PDT

  •  Information on the Clinton Family Foundation ... (0+ / 0-)

    can be found here:  http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/...

    Clicking on links to the years demonstrate that it has donated money to other charities in 2002 (the year after it was founded) and every year since then.  It was only founded in 2001.  Here are the biggest single contributions (although by no means the only contributions) that it made in each year:

    1. Immanuel Baptist Church; $100,000
    1. University of Arkansas; $100,000
    1. Thea Foundation; $75,000
    1. U.S. Fund for UNICEF Tsunami; $100,000
    1. Arkanas Cancer Research Foundation; $100,000; Maria Fareri Children's Hospital; $100,000; Bythedale Children's Hospital; $100,000

         
         

    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

    by leevank on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:24:51 AM PDT

  •  great diary, Bernie! thanks. (0+ / 0-)

    ..to be healed/the broken thing must come apart/then be rejoined.

    by Zacapoet on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:30:26 AM PDT

    •  If this is a "great" diary, I hope never to ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SingularExistence

      see a bad one.  It has a title that is flatly false, and goes down hill from there.  It's about as "truthy" as Hillary's descriptions of the sniper fire in Bosnia.

      There are plenty of legitimate things to attack the Clintons about, and I've done my share of attacking them, but this sure isn't one of them!

      "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

      by leevank on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:33:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site