One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
Just Another Story Showing How Generous the Clintons Really Are
Page 1 of 2 next>
Aug 14, 2016 14:33:48   #
fullspinzoo
 
They really have America in their best interest. I can tell. http://conservativetribune.com/hillarys-donations-1-charity/

Reply
Aug 14, 2016 15:00:59   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
fullspinzoo wrote:
They really have America in their best interest. I can tell. http://conservativetribune.com/hillarys-donations-1-charity/




Regardless of what you think the Clinton's financial donation should be, at least the foundation spends nearly 90% of its budget on the charity programs to funds. Compare that to The American Cancer Society, which is generally well respected, and spends just under 60% of its budget on the charity programs it funds.





Reply
Aug 14, 2016 15:08:40   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Regardless of what you think the Clinton's financial donation should be, at least the foundation spends nearly 90% of its budget on the charity programs to funds. Compare that to The American Cancer Society, which is generally well respected, and spends just under 60% of its budget on the charity programs it funds.

The foundation spends around 13% on actual charity.

Reply
Aug 14, 2016 17:59:50   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
JFlorio wrote:
The foundation spends around 13% on actual charity.


Can you advise where you got your statistics?

Mine for The Clinton Foundation came from Charity Watch. And it was quoting program costs to fundraising costs. That could be a different benchmark than you are looking at.

Reply
Aug 14, 2016 18:49:05   #
mwdegutis Loc: Illinois
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Regardless of what you think the Clinton's financial donation should be, at least the foundation spends nearly 90% of its budget on the charity programs to funds. Compare that to The American Cancer Society, which is generally well respected, and spends just under 60% of its budget on the charity programs it funds.

In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants
Hillary Clinton's non-profit spent more on office supplies and rent than it did on charitable grants

Sean Davis ~ April 27, 2015
After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back. In a tweet posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to (the foundation’s) life-changing work.”

There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-2013-Breakdown.jpg

In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the t***h, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers “life-changing” commodities?

Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead expenses.

How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go directly to life-changing work is demonstrably false. Office chairs do not directly save lives. The internet connection for the group’s headquarters does not directly change lives.

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-Overhead-2013-990.jpg

But what if those employees and those IT costs and those travel expenses indirectly save lives, you might ask. Sure, it’s overhead, but what if it’s overhead in the service of a larger mission? Fair question. Even using the broadest definition of “program expenses” possible, however, the 88 percent claim is still false. How do we know? Because the IRS 990 forms submitted by the Clinton Foundation include a specific and detailed accounting of these programmatic expenses: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf. And even using extremely broad definitions–definitions that allow office supply, rent, travel, and IT costs to be counted as programmatic costs–the Clinton Foundation fails its own test.

According to 2013 tax forms filed by the Clinton Foundation http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf, a mere 80 percent of the organization’s expenditures were characterized as functional programmatic expenses. That’s a far cry from the 88 percent claimed by the organization just last week.

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-Programmatic-Breakdown-2013.jpg

If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.

While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project t***sitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.

The Clinton Foundation announced last week that it would be refiling its tax returns for the last five years because it had improperly failed to disclose millions of dollars in donations from foreign sources while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.

Reply
Aug 14, 2016 18:58:16   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
mwdegutis wrote:
In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants
Hillary Clinton's non-profit spent more on office supplies and rent than it did on charitable grants

Sean Davis ~ April 27, 2015
After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back. In a tweet posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to (the foundation’s) life-changing work.”

There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-2013-Breakdown.jpg

In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the t***h, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers “life-changing” commodities?

Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead expenses.

How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go directly to life-changing work is demonstrably false. Office chairs do not directly save lives. The internet connection for the group’s headquarters does not directly change lives.

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-Overhead-2013-990.jpg

But what if those employees and those IT costs and those travel expenses indirectly save lives, you might ask. Sure, it’s overhead, but what if it’s overhead in the service of a larger mission? Fair question. Even using the broadest definition of “program expenses” possible, however, the 88 percent claim is still false. How do we know? Because the IRS 990 forms submitted by the Clinton Foundation include a specific and detailed accounting of these programmatic expenses: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf. And even using extremely broad definitions–definitions that allow office supply, rent, travel, and IT costs to be counted as programmatic costs–the Clinton Foundation fails its own test.

According to 2013 tax forms filed by the Clinton Foundation http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf, a mere 80 percent of the organization’s expenditures were characterized as functional programmatic expenses. That’s a far cry from the 88 percent claimed by the organization just last week.

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-Programmatic-Breakdown-2013.jpg

If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.

While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project t***sitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.

The Clinton Foundation announced last week that it would be refiling its tax returns for the last five years because it had improperly failed to disclose millions of dollars in donations from foreign sources while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.
b In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 P... (show quote)


Imagine that. Re-filing what a noble act. Wouldn't want Hillary to be accused of wrongdoing. Thanks for the post. It's what I'd seen and heard but couldn't find it. Why do people of any ilk defend these lying, entitled thieves?

Reply
Aug 14, 2016 19:12:06   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
JFlorio wrote:
Imagine that. Re-filing what a noble act. Wouldn't want Hillary to be accused of wrongdoing. Thanks for the post. It's what I'd seen and heard but couldn't find it. Why do people of any ilk defend these lying, entitled thieves?


Glad that information was readily available. I knew the lefts claim was wrong as I have seen the charts and information in several sources, but couldn't get to them that quickly. Good job!!!

Reply
Aug 14, 2016 20:04:39   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
mwdegutis wrote:
In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants
Hillary Clinton's non-profit spent more on office supplies and rent than it did on charitable grants

Sean Davis ~ April 27, 2015
After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back. In a tweet posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to (the foundation’s) life-changing work.”

There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-2013-Breakdown.jpg

In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the t***h, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers “life-changing” commodities?

Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead expenses.

How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go directly to life-changing work is demonstrably false. Office chairs do not directly save lives. The internet connection for the group’s headquarters does not directly change lives.

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-Overhead-2013-990.jpg

But what if those employees and those IT costs and those travel expenses indirectly save lives, you might ask. Sure, it’s overhead, but what if it’s overhead in the service of a larger mission? Fair question. Even using the broadest definition of “program expenses” possible, however, the 88 percent claim is still false. How do we know? Because the IRS 990 forms submitted by the Clinton Foundation include a specific and detailed accounting of these programmatic expenses: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf. And even using extremely broad definitions–definitions that allow office supply, rent, travel, and IT costs to be counted as programmatic costs–the Clinton Foundation fails its own test.

According to 2013 tax forms filed by the Clinton Foundation http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf, a mere 80 percent of the organization’s expenditures were characterized as functional programmatic expenses. That’s a far cry from the 88 percent claimed by the organization just last week.

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-Programmatic-Breakdown-2013.jpg

If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.

While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project t***sitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.

The Clinton Foundation announced last week that it would be refiling its tax returns for the last five years because it had improperly failed to disclose millions of dollars in donations from foreign sources while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.
b In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 P... (show quote)





I have the feeling that most of your data comes not from direct research but from conservative articles/publications that are already biased against Clinton. This makes them suspect (as would any article from a liberal publication already biased towards Clinton.)

This article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy (which has been published since the mid 80s) addresses several, if not all, of the issues your post brings up. Although I cannot find much independent background on which to judge The Chronicle of Philanthropy, I was unable to find any derogatory articles about the publication, so I am making the assumption it is an unbiased journal.

http://www.philanthropy.com/article/Opinion-How-to-Understand-the/230745


As with most private organizations, it may be impossible to parse all of The Clinton Foundations work and expenses.
From the bit of direct research I have had the time to do it appears that in some areas it is a great foundation and in some areas its expenses may be higher than expected.
My guess is if it were named for some other family or individual it would not be getting the attention it is at this particular point in time, and any definitive judgement is not possible.

You might want to spend some time focusing on the Christian ministries in this list that appear to be fleecing their followers to fund outrageously extravagant lifestyles for their leaders.

http://stories.avvo.com/nakedlaw/bizarre/6-outrageously-wealthy-preachers-under-federal-investigation.html

Reply
Aug 14, 2016 20:23:51   #
mwdegutis Loc: Illinois
 
PaulPisces wrote:
I have the feeling that most of your data comes not from direct research but from conservative articles/publications that are already biased against Clinton. This makes them suspect (as would any article from a liberal publication already biased towards Clinton.)

This article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy (which has been published since the mid 80s) addresses several, if not all, of the issues your post brings up. Although I cannot find much independent background on which to judge The Chronicle of Philanthropy, I was unable to find any derogatory articles about the publication, so I am making the assumption it is an unbiased journal.

http://www.philanthropy.com/article/Opinion-How-to-Understand-the/230745


As with most private organizations, it may be impossible to parse all of The Clinton Foundations work and expenses.
From the bit of direct research I have had the time to do it appears that in some areas it is a great foundation and in some areas its expenses may be higher than expected.
My guess is if it were named for some other family or individual it would not be getting the attention it is at this particular point in time, and any definitive judgement is not possible.

You might want to spend some time focusing on the Christian ministries in this list that appear to be fleecing their followers to fund outrageously extravagant lifestyles for their leaders.

http://stories.avvo.com/nakedlaw/bizarre/6-outrageously-wealthy-preachers-under-federal-investigation.html
I have the feeling that most of your data comes no... (show quote)

Don't deflect like you always do Paul by bringing up another subject. This is about the Clinton Foundation and your bogus claims. The data came directly from The Clinton Foundation 2013 Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax Return.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf

Reply
Aug 14, 2016 20:28:36   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
fullspinzoo wrote:
They really have America in their best interest. I can tell. http://conservativetribune.com/hillarys-donations-1-charity/


Judicial Watch is pushing for disclosures. they are the only ones who are apparently not aftaid of Clinton and her cronies. These are good places to start. however, I doubt that any "progressives" will believe a word of their writing, preferring to stand by the clinto machine
Judicial Watch Uncovers New Batch of Hillary ...
www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/ju...

Huma Abedin Emails Show Clinton Foundation Donor Demands on State Department (Washington DC) ... Twice in May, Judicial Watch uncovered new Clinton emails, ...
Judicial Watch On Clinton Foundation News
Clinton Foundation scandals will haunt Hillary if she becomes prez
Clinton Foundation scandals will haunt Hillary if she becomes prez
New York Post2 days ago

... to Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog...have evidence that the Clintons may have crossed the...see concrete proof that foundation staff sought access to... officials on behalf of donors...
Panetta defends Clinton Foundation-State Department relationship
Politico8 hours ago
Hillary Clinton aide’s e-mails show State-foundation links
Denver Post3 days ago
Clinton Foundation Corruption News - Judicial ...
www.judicialwatch.org/.../clinton-foundatio...

... Clinton Foundation Corruption This has been an important week in our continuing investigation ... Clinton Email Scandal Panel. Judicial Watch Reveals More ...
Newly released Clinton emails shed light on...
www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-email...

Aug 09, 2016 · Judicial Watch released new Clinton emails Tuesday; They raised questions about the State Dept. and the ... The Clinton Foundation confirmed on May ...
Judicial Watch: New Clinton Documents Raise...
www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/ju...

... – Judicial Watch today released ... Hillary Clinton turned the State Department into the DC office of the Clinton Foundation.” Judicial Watch’s FOIA ...
Clinton Foundation Archives - Judicial Watch
www.judicialwatch.org/blog/tag/clinton-foun...

Judicial Watch • Clinton Foundation. ... A Clinton Foundation official pressed Hillary ... parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton ...
Judicial Watch & The Clintons - Judicial Watch
www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/judicial-watch...

... Judicial Watch has consistently sought ... The secret server scandal and the unmistakable odor of financial impropriety at the Clinton Foundation are just ...
Judicial Watch - Official Site
www.judicialwatch.org

Judicial Watch, a conservative foundation, ... Judicial Watch today released a letter from the ... former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s secret ...
Clinton Foundation Rocked by Judicial Watch...
www.newsmax.com/LindaChavez/clinton-global-initiative...

Aug 11, 2016 · Clinton Foundation Rocked by Judicial Watch Investigation (AP) By Linda Chavez Friday, 12 Aug 2016 11:47 AM More Posts by Linda Chavez
Hillary Clinton Archives - Judicial Watch
www.judicialwatch.org/blog/tag/hillary-clinton...

... Cryptic NY Filing Revealed Clinton Foundation Foreign ... New documents obtained by Judicial Watch raise questions about the role of Clinton Inc. in the ...
Judicial Watch Reveals More B******i, Clinton ...
www.breitbart.com/obama/2016/03/28/judicial-watch...

Judicial Watch Reveals More B******i, Clinton Foundation Corruption. Andrew Burton/Getty Images/AFP. ... 2013, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State ...

Also try
judicial watch on clinton emails judicial watch on clinton

1,540,000 results

Judicial Watch | Search.com
www.Search.com/Judicial Watch

Search for Judicial Watch Find Judicial Watch


Just use Yahoo to search by posting Judicial Watch news on Clinton Foundation, you will get as much as you can handle and more. Google has a few listings but not as many.

Reply
Aug 14, 2016 20:32:49   #
mwdegutis Loc: Illinois
 
no propaganda please wrote:
...Just use Yahoo to search by posting Judicial Watch news on Clinton Foundation, you will get as much as you can handle and more. Google has a few listings but not as many.

That's because Google's in the tank for her. They are suppressing information by bringing complimentary inquiries to the top.

Reply
Aug 14, 2016 20:41:36   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
mwdegutis wrote:
That's because Google's in the tank for her. They are suppressing information by bringing complimentary inquiries to the top.


I know that, which is why I advocated Yahoo

Reply
Aug 14, 2016 20:46:11   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
mwdegutis wrote:
Don't deflect like you always do Paul by bringing up another subject. This is about the Clinton Foundation and your bogus claims. The data came directly from The Clinton Foundation 2013 Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax Return.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf




The article I quoted directly addressed some of, if not all, of the issues you brought up, including why tax returns alone are not adequate documents with which to judge The Clinton Foundation. Did you read the article? If not, please do. If you did, please read again.

I can see how you might think my query about corrupt Christian organizations might be a deflection. But since I responded first with documentation addressing your post directly I do not see it that way. Indeed I meant it more of a "People Who Live In Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones"

And if we are going to use debate terms, your ad hominem attack on me reveals what I would call a childish pique in yourself.

In any case, I have provided sources supporting my statements, and you have not.

Reply
Aug 14, 2016 21:34:47   #
fullspinzoo
 
JFlorio wrote:
Imagine that. Re-filing what a noble act. Wouldn't want Hillary to be accused of wrongdoing. Thanks for the post. It's what I'd seen and heard but couldn't find it. Why do people of any ilk defend these lying, entitled thieves?

I'm beginning to think it's PURE ignorance.

Reply
Aug 14, 2016 22:14:07   #
mwdegutis Loc: Illinois
 
PaulPisces wrote:
...And if we are going to use debate terms, your ad hominem attack on me reveals what I would call a childish pique in yourself.

In any case, I have provided sources supporting my statements, and you have not.

We’ll keep it simple Paul using your criteria and your article:

Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation
Consolidated Statements of Activities
Year Ended December 31, 2013
Total revenues, gains and other: $294,741,158
Total expenses and losses: $222,621,102 (75.5 percent)
Change in net assets: $72,120,056

Hardly the 88 percent program percentage that you suggested.

And will you please point out how I attacked you. This is at least the second time in the course of our interactions that you have blamed me of this without pointing out how I did...just accusing me of it.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.