Cloudy Waters: Clinton Foundation Accomplishments - Page 1

I think an examination of the Clinton Foundation is a very telling tool for what Americans will be able to expect, should the looming inevitable election result become our reality; namely a Hillary Clinton presidency. I was asking the question, "What has the Clinton Foundation accomplished?" and ironically then found this article, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/clinton-foundation-controversy-actual-work

We can expect ballooning bureaucracy including loyalty rewards for cushy, well paying positions that commensurate with donors' largess. The real beauty and brillance of the Clinton Foundation, also lies in the fact of their formation uniqueness.  There simply isn't a way to clearly point to a measurable success based on comparison. When there is a comparison available we can expect this:

 As one example, note that CHAI employed 56 people with pay over $100,000; in contrast, Task Force for Global Health had 25, Brothers Brother Foundationhad 1. This is just a snippet, but it may give a sense that the organization does have more people than other organizations with similar objectives. If you want to look at some other things, conferences, travel, personal costs as a % of the expenses (as compared to peer organizations) may give a sense for how the organization seeks to achieve its objectives.

 I know these are rather equivocal statements, but I suspect you will see similar things as you examine the organization: clear successes but also bureaucracy in place.

What becomes even more alarming, is reading this assessment by Mittendorf, a professor of accounting at Ohio State University's Fisher College of Business:

"Measuring successes in the other initiatives of the [Clinton Foundation]," Mittendorf notes, "is likely to be even more delicate since the outcomes are more 'fuzzy' and often entail shifting perceptions, altering policies of governments, developing partnerships, etc."

I would think, that someone who knew without a doubt that they have wanted to become President of the United States of America for over a decade would have wanted to create a personal foundation or institution that would be a model for transparency and straight forward accountability, such that any lay person could see and understand the question as to, "Where did all that money go?".

 

Where's the 6 Billion she lost while SoS ?

Trump donated money to the Clinton Foundation. And if we want transparency we could start with his tax returns.

It really doesn't mean much as to whom Trump donates money to, because he has admitted that he does it for reasons other than altruism.

We do want transparency with our elected officials, who we entrust with a huge power, complete with the actual means to action, because of a faith in their campagning to become our representative and the driver of our common goals. I think that would include you, too.

The comparison doesn't really make sense, in that Trump's tax returns are what he does with his own income. The type of disclosure of a PF990 is what the Clinton's using their Foundation does with OPM's, (other peoples' money).

That— I would hope has meaning, that you should be able to extrapolate across to the responsibility of being President, and as to why it would be an area of concern as a future predictor with determining how honestly she will be, as a matter of integrity and of motives, when in control of our trust and money.

Did Clinton release her taxes?

Trump claims to be the non-establishment guy yet, he admits to playing the same game. The fox is claiming to be the one to straighten up the hen house.

I don't think you understand the most salient point here.

This isn't about personal income tax disclosure and who is better at minimizing their personal tax obligation.

This is about a pattern, (love that word!) of smoke and mirrors, and shades of grey to hide certain personal motives of advantage, priviledge, power and other perks while doing wealth building.

I am not defending Trump for his failings. He is incapable of hiding those, so he doesn't bother to try. Not so Hillary, she has a necessity to hide hers. We have seen that has always been her way. She does some "little" good just to mask the narcissistic goals that matter most.

This evaluation of the Clinton Foundation and point is, that other foundations do the same mission or more with less, so why don't they? I am saying that reason isn't altruistic, either.

You think this tendency to obfuscate won't be tagging behind her and bogging her down, every step she takes as a President, by her enemies? She can't change, and won't change her particular habit of elitist entitlement, she doesn't know how.

"This is about a pattern, (love that word!) of smoke and mirrors, and shades of grey to hide certain personal motives of advantage, priviledge, power and other perks while doing wealth building."

Are we talking about Trump or Hillary?

And Trump does hide his failings. He hides them behind his image of someone who has nothing to hide.

The Gates Foundation probably has many times more money than the Clinton Foundation. It also has more influence.

If you can't see the difference between Trump (Bull in a China Shop) and Hillary (The House of Mirrors), I have to believe you are not as smart as I'd thought, or you are playing a mind game of your own.

Since Trump's supposed strategy of hiding his failing in plain sight isn't really working for him—he's down ten percent, at least in the polls, I think you are grasping at straws and being ornery for its own sake.

What does the Gates Foundation have to do with The Clinton Foundation? Bill Gates has never run for office as far as I know. The one thing that I find funny that you mention about the Gates Foundation, is that Hillary seems to have borrowed some of his pet causes to showcase her own. And even more entertaining to me, is that Warren Buffet gave Bill Gates' Foundation the biggest donation ever, a huge part of his fortune because he believed in their mission and management.

I heard on some news, some talking head... not precise on which one, as I was probably folding the laundry, that the idea for divesting the stigma of unfair advantage and pay to play schemes within the Clinton Foundation, was to suggest Warren Buffet take over the Clinton Foundation should Hillary become President.

Say what? Buffet didn't want to manage his own foundation and funds, so why would Buffet want to manage ... theirs?

Oh the horror of it all that the Clinton foundation would pay 56 people over 100000 to help donate 100s of millions of dollars to charities. Gasp. Transparency is that how GWB did it with Iraq, transparency? What about torture how transparent was that? And you want to talk bureaucracy? Pretty sure GWB increased the size of government uncontrollably, pretty transparent, huh? Trump isn't a bull in a china shop - he is a bigot in a sea of racists.

Yes, it is a horrible record of bloated administration payroll with little proof of delivery of program services under cover of the philanthropic charity umbrella.