or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by zalb916

 Okay, sure. But what does this even mean? Why would you compare someone's personal wealth to a charitable organization's assets? That doesn't make sense. Okay, fine. Let's compare. Bill and Hillary die with $10 billion. Trump dies with $10 billion. Nearly 90% of the Clinton's $10 billion in assets were used for charitable causes. Less than 1% of Trump's were used for charitable causes. Is that the end game? All we are doing is comparing size of assets, but not discussing...
 First, congrats for securing that donation. It sounds like a good cause. That work is admirable. Second, I have no reason to know anything about your knowledge of 990s. If you say you do, then I believe you. Again, I'm not sure what you were trying to convey originally. The conversation started when you mentioned having the Foundation's assets counted towards the Clinton's wealth. That's not a direct accusation of the assets appearing on their personal balance sheet, but...
 I'm not misreading your post. You wrote your post poorly, if you meant something different than what it actually says. You listed two things: salaries and benefits. You then said "respectively." Generally, that means you are referring to those two things that you just wrote, not the two things that you didn't write.. Sorry for the insult. It's meant as teasing.  You were talking about the "new game for inter-generational, insulated wealth." I was explaining that the "new...
 You've solved it, you brilliant bastard! Despite already having a perfectly legal, albeit totally shady, strategy for manipulating their foundation into personal gain (i.e. having foundation donors pay them in their non-foundation capacity for speeches and private consulting) that has allowed them to obtain tens of millions of perfectly legal, albeit totally shady, dollars, you've discovered that the two individuals, who are more highly scrutinized than any other...
 Well, the pledge is for half, not all. And the donations are meant to be both during their lifetime or in their will. Many of the people on that list have given hundreds of millions away in their lifetimes. I'm also not sure why having your children be incredibly comfortable is incompatible with being incredibly charitable. It's one of the awesome things that stupid wealth allows. There is no reason that they should be mutually exclusive.
 Also, probably also a good time to point out that this is wrong. Line 15 doesn't list salaries and benefits respectively. It lists salaries and benefits combined for two separate years. $30 mil is the combined total for the prior year and $35 mil is the combined total for the current year. If you're going to give more weight to those 990s, you should probably know what they're saying.
 No. Your questions (and Piob's whole theory) expose a complete lack of understanding of the Clinton Foundation. It's helpful to have a basic understanding before trying to critique. The whole point of the foundation is that it doesn't just hand out checks and give out grants. Instead, it just hires a shit load of people all over the world to do projects. The fact that its salaries and benefits are that high makes complete sense when you understand how the foundation...
 Actually, THIS is the new game for the super wealthy:http://givingpledge.org/ God forbid they give a grandkid a job at a charity. Name Net Worth (2016) Bill and Melinda Gates $77,300,000,000 Warren Buffett $66,700,000,000 Larry Ellison $49,300,000,000 Michael Bloomberg $37,200,000,000 Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan $35,700,000,000 Carl Icahn $21,300,000,000 Azim Premji $17,500,000,000 Paul G. Allen $17,400,000,000 Ray Dalio and Barbara...
 Well, they take $0 in salary, so that $30-35 million is not relevant to their personal fortune. That is for salaries and benefits of the foundation's employees. The foundation also employs a not insignificant number of people. I'm guessing that more than just the Clintons travel on its behalf. I also have no idea how a conference enriches them personally, but whatever. Finally, conferences, travel, and other expenses are not necessarily "non-mission related expenses."...
  I understand the critiques of the Clinton Foundation. As your comments are just about how the Clinton Foundation is personally enriching the Clintons, I'll focus on the critiques related to that and set aside the other critiques of the foundation. The Clintons surely have benefited to a massive extent from the foundation. They have made a fortune in speaking fees from foundation donors. They have enriched their friends through the foundation. There are lots of legitimate...
New Posts  All Forums: