Clinton tax forms released

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
No. To their foundation as explained at the end of your link. :roll:

Lol, like that makes it any better. I heard an AP story on the radio today that they gave 10 million to charity and absolutely no mention about the 18 mil unaccounted for.

Were that a republican they would have skewered them with the facts.

The AP story you heard didn't mention the 18 mil unaccounted for because there is nothing that is unaccounted for. The reporter is not hiding anything from you. There just isn't a story to tell. All of the income is accounted for in the tax returns.

Aside from the IRS, there are millions of news researchers, amateur accountants, and just plain Clinton haters going over those forms with a fine tooth comb right now. They may be able to spin some kind of story out of them but this one ain't it.

Where did the 18 million unaccounted for come from? Where is that 18 million from?

The $18 million is mostly run of the mill investment income that was not listed in a summary that was released by the Clinton camp.

Some people must have jumped on it as a story without checking to see that it is accounted for on the actual tax returns.

Here's some light shed on it, not much but works for me:

Text

UPDATE: The interesting part, of course, is the roughly $18 million that the summary doesn't account for -- (though it is accounted for in the returns).

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The Clintons took a tax deduction in 2004 for $2.5 million in charitable gifts, $2 million of which went to their family foundation, which as a tax-exempt nonprofit is considered a charity under the tax code. That same year, the foundation gave away just $221,000 to charitable groups, according to its tax return.

Uh-huh. Pretty much as I expected. In fact, Drudge reports in 2006 all their charitable givings were to the Clinton Foundation. I wonder how much the foundation dispersed in '06?

:Q let's see... paying their own nonprofit $2mil... out of which only 221k actually ended up in a real charity... but claiming the whole 2mil in charitable donations for that transaction? I'm not surprised...

that's a little interesting.. but we need more... so... SHOW ME THEIR MONEY BABY!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Details? How about the fact Obama never gave more then 1% of his income to charity until he started running for President.

Well then, since every good Muslim is required to give a minimum of two and a half percent of their income to charity, each year, we can finally put your favorite emails to rest, right? 😀

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Pabster
The Clintons took a tax deduction in 2004 for $2.5 million in charitable gifts, $2 million of which went to their family foundation, which as a tax-exempt nonprofit is considered a charity under the tax code. That same year, the foundation gave away just $221,000 to charitable groups, according to its tax return.

Uh-huh. Pretty much as I expected. In fact, Drudge reports in 2006 all their charitable givings were to the Clinton Foundation. I wonder how much the foundation dispersed in '06?

:Q let's see... paying their own nonprofit $2mil... out of which only 221k actually ended up in a real charity... but claiming the whole 2mil in charitable donations for that transaction? I'm not surprised...

that's a little interesting.. but we need more... so... SHOW ME THEIR MONEY BABY!

It says that in 2004 the Clinton Foundation gave away $221,000 to other charitable groups. No where does it say that the Clinton Foundation exists just to give away money. Look into some of the other things the Clinton Foundation might do with their money and money from other donors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation

 

[borosp1]

One question im curious about is what happens with all those huge campaign donations that dont get used... Do the candidates keep what they dont spend on there campaigns? Because when all said and done Obama raised like 40 million in one month and extrapulate that till the election and he could very wealthy man.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Pabster
The Clintons took a tax deduction in 2004 for $2.5 million in charitable gifts, $2 million of which went to their family foundation, which as a tax-exempt nonprofit is considered a charity under the tax code. That same year, the foundation gave away just $221,000 to charitable groups, according to its tax return.

Uh-huh. Pretty much as I expected. In fact, Drudge reports in 2006 all their charitable givings were to the Clinton Foundation. I wonder how much the foundation dispersed in '06?

:Q let's see... paying their own nonprofit $2mil... out of which only 221k actually ended up in a real charity... but claiming the whole 2mil in charitable donations for that transaction? I'm not surprised...

that's a little interesting.. but we need more... so... SHOW ME THEIR MONEY BABY!

It says that in 2004 the Clinton Foundation gave away $221,000 to other charitable groups. No where does it say that the Clinton Foundation exists just to give away money. Look into some of the other things the Clinton Foundation might do with their money and money from other donors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation

I'm counting on real accountants to thoroughly examine the Clinton Foundation's finances with a fine-toothed comb...

Here's a good start:
http://charityreports.bbb.org/...tyID=655&bureauID=9999

William J. Clinton Foundation (The Foundation) does not meet the following 4 Standards for Charity Accountability.

Standard 1 : Oversight of Operations and Staff - Organizations shall have a board of directors that provides adequate oversight of the charity's operations and its staff. Indication of adequate oversight includes, but is not limited to, regularly scheduled appraisals of the CEO's performance, evidence of disbursement controls such as board approval of the budget, fund raising practices, establishment of a conflict of interest policy, and establishment of accounting procedures sufficient to safeguard charity finances.

* The Foundation does not meet this Standard because the board of directors has not reviewed the performance of the chief executive officer (CEO) in over two years and because it reports that no member of the board is assigned the responsibility of serving as the treasurer of the board of directors. In general, the board's treasurer helps provide independent oversight of the organization's finances.

Standard 2 : Number of Board Members - Soliciting organizations shall have a board of directors with a minimum of five voting members.

* The Foundation does not meet this Standard because it has four (4) voting members of the board.

Standard 3 : Frequency and Attendance of Board Meetings - An organization shall have a minimum of three evenly spaced meetings per year of the full governing body with a majority in attendance, with face-to-face participation. A conference call of the full board can substitute for one of the three meetings of the governing body. For all meetings, alternative modes of participation are acceptable for those with physical disabilities.

* The Foundation does not meet the meeting frequency provision of this Standard because the board did not meet in 2006.

Standard 4 : Compensated Board Members - Not more than one or 10% (whichever is greater) directly or indirectly compensated person(s) serving as voting member(s) of the board. Compensated members shall not serve as the board's chair or treasurer.

* The Foundation does not meet this Standard since the paid chief executive officer (CEO) also serves as the chair of the board.

William J. Clinton Foundation (The Foundation) meets the remaining 16 Standards for Charity Accountability.

nothing major, of course... but certainly a decent place to start! 😉

More good reading here:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24800

some excerpts:

Who?s on the donor list? Billionaires, Saudi royalty, Arab businessmen, the king of Morocco, the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, and Taiwan, and lots of Hollywood celebrities have donated to the Clinton Foundation. In 2004, the New York Sun reported on 57 donors who appear to have each given $1 million or more. The big donors included Gupta, former Mattel Inc. Chairman Bill Rollnick, Black Entertainment Television (BET) founder Robert L. Johnson (who is an outspoken supporter of Mrs. Clinton?s presidential candidacy), Hollywood director-producer Steven Spielberg and his actress wife Kate Capshaw, movie producer and Kerry 527 funder Stephen Bing, insurance magnate Peter B. Lewis, Gateway, Inc. co-founder Ted Waitt, shopping center developers Bren and Melvin Simon, and the Soros Foundation, which is the European arm of George Soros?s Open Society Institute. Denise Rich, ex-wife of Marc Rich, the fugitive whom Clinton granted a pardon hours before leaving office, gave the foundation $450,000 (?Saudis, Arabs Funneled Millions to President Clinton?s Library,? New York Sun, Nov. 22, 2004).

The New York Times also revealed that in the closing years of the Clinton Administration at least 97 donors donated or pledged a total of $69 million for the library. Although some of the $1-million donors were longstanding friends of the Clintons, others were pushing the Clinton Administration for policy changes. Two donors pledged $1 million each while they or their companies were undergoing Justice Department probes (?In Charity and Politics, Clinton Donors Overlap,? New York Times, Dec. 20, 2007).

Legendary money-man Terry McAuliffe, a close personal friend of the Clintons, is on the Clinton Foundation?s board of directors and is one of its top fundraisers. McAuliffe, who used to head the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is also managing Sen. Clinton?s presidential campaign and is its chief fundraiser.

enjoy...

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: borosp1
One question im curious about is what happens with all those huge campaign donations that dont get used... Do the candidates keep what they dont spend on there campaigns? Because when all said and done Obama raised like 40 million in one month and extrapulate that till the election and he could very wealthy man.

LINK

Question: What happens to a candidate's leftover campaign funds when he or she drops out of the race?
Do candidates for elected office keep donations to their campaigns for personal use after they lose or drop out? Or do those donations have to go into a greater party fund?

Answer: The big rule is: no personal use.
As Bob Biersack from the Federal Election Commission points out, most candidates don?t have much left over to begin with. Campaigning is expensive, and ?leftover? money gets used for bills and debts first, including expenses incurred while winding down an abandoned campaign or a lost political office.

Candidates do sometimes end up with surplus funds, though, particularly if they're incumbent members of Congress who decide not to run for another term. State and local governments have their own rules, but those running for federal office -- including presidential candidates -- must abide by strict FEC guidelines when it comes to their extra campaign money. They can donate an unlimited amount to a charity or political party. They can also, within limits, make contributions directly to other candidates. A campaign committee can give up to $2000 per election to each candidate. If the committee is converted into a political action committee, the limit jumps to $5000 ? but to be established as a PAC, the committee would have to be in existence for six months, receive contributions from 50 donors, and make contributions to five recipients.

What candidates can?t do with leftover money is use it for personal expenses. Retiring federal lawmakers used to be able to pocket extra cash and use it for cars, vacations, clothes, pet grooming, whatever -- but that changed in 1989 with the passage of the Ethics Reform Act.

- Jess Henig

Sources
Federal Election Commission. "Permissible non-campaign use of funds." Code of Federal Regulations. 1 Jan. 2007.

Berke, Richard. "Cash of Campaigns Can Go Elsewhere." The New York Times. 22 Jan. 1989.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
-snip-
I'm counting on real accountants to thoroughly examine the Clinton Foundation's finances with a fine-toothed comb...

It'll probably never happen.

I don't see where they would be required to have a (CPA) audit. If they did, it would be voluntary and they have no legal obligation to make it public.

Edit: Forgot to mention that as a non-profit they are required to make their tax returns (Form 990) available for public inspection. They can do no more than charge you a reasonable amount for photocopying and mailing.

Fern

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: palehorse74
-snip-
I'm counting on real accountants to thoroughly examine the Clinton Foundation's finances with a fine-toothed comb...

It'll probably never happen.

I don't see where they would be required to have a (CPA) audit. If they did, it would be voluntary and they have no legal obligation to make it public.

Edit: Forgot to mention that as a non-profit they are required to make their tax returns (Form 990) available for public inspection. They can do no more than charge you a reasonable amount for photocopying and mailing.

Fern

those are actually available online at their website -- including what looks like an audit of some sort in 2006... all in PDF format.

so go for it dude! lol... 😉

 

[Pabster]

There's obviously something juicy in her 2007 filings. Conveniently we won't see them until after the election...

Just how much does one surmise Bill sucked in from his Dubai partnerships, amongst a few others?

And here's a good article on Ron Burkle and Yucaipa...and the Bill Clinton connection.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: palehorse74
-snip-
I'm counting on real accountants to thoroughly examine the Clinton Foundation's finances with a fine-toothed comb...

It'll probably never happen.

I don't see where they would be required to have a (CPA) audit. If they did, it would be voluntary and they have no legal obligation to make it public.

Edit: Forgot to mention that as a non-profit they are required to make their tax returns (Form 990) available for public inspection. They can do no more than charge you a reasonable amount for photocopying and mailing.

Fern

those are actually available online at their website -- including what looks like an audit of some sort in 2006... all in PDF format.

so go for it dude! lol... 😉

HERE'S the '06 audit report.

Check out page 5 (pdf pg #8).

$11Mil in salaries?

$17Mil in "professional fees"?

$6Mil in travel?

there's a lot of fat in there. We're unlikely to ever know what it is. I'd love to see details about the professional fees, that's a very easy way to spread money among friends etc.

Fern

 

[Pabster]

Here's the Morris synopsis:

QUESTION: Is it appropriate for the spouse of a US senator and a presidential candidate to be in business with the leader of a foreign country?

A foreign country that has lots of matters before the US government?

ANSWER: No.

Hillary and Bill Clinton's tax returns from 2000-2006 reveal that he made at least $8 million from foreign sources and another $15 million from Yucaipa, which is owned by supermarket magnate and "Friend of Bill" Ron Burkle.

It's been reported that Yucaipa manages the financial portfolio of Dubai's ruler - Emir Mohammad bin Rashed al-Maktoum.

So how much of Bill's earnings came from Burkle really come from the Emir's petrodollars?

And what does Bill bring to Yucaipa? A rolodex of contacts made while he was president, and nothing else.

By the way, this is the same Emir who aggressively boycotts Israel and has been cited for human rights violations by the State Department.

How much did Bill get from the Emir and what did he do for it? The tax returns don't say and the Clintons aren't talking.

The returns released yesterday also reveal another outfit paid substantial sums to Bill - InfoUSA, a mailing-list company that was under investigation for providing lists of vulnerable senior citizens to telemarketers.

InfoUSA sold these con men lists like "Elderly with Alzheimer's" and "Gullible seniors" so they could be flee ced out of their life savings.

A lawsuit filed by InfoUSA shareholders, founder and "Friend of Bill" Vin Gupta used corporate jets to whisk the Clintons around the globe for events, including political events, since 2001 - spending nearly $900,000 to do it.

The suit suggests Gupta used company funds to party with high-profile pals such as the Clintons.

Again, it's not clear what Bill did for this company.

Hillary has called for more transparency in foreign government-funded sovereign wealth funds and for full disclosure of their activities.

Let that start at home.

 

[Lemon law]

What ever happened to the 67 million we paid to Ken Star, he got a deanship hahha ha. What ever happened to the money all kinds of republican swiftboaters paid to invent total
fiction against the Clinton's and John McCain.

Inquiring minds want to know. And they have even less credibility than the national inquirer.

Rush to judgment on mere suspicion. Never mind the facts, they are inconvenient. And the more suspicion raised the more the argument hold that where there is smoke there is fire. Never mind the fact that not a single allegation will stand scrutiny as Ken Star found out.

And by that logic, the Clinton's are guilty again. Well if you critics feel froggie, make a citizens arrest and turn em over to justice. You first Pabster, you are the froggiest.

 

[MonkeyK]

When you rub mud in your eyes, everything looks dirty.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Dari

The Devil's in the detail.

Originally posted by: Dari

Well, I haven't looked at it and I don't plan to. But, considering this could've been done a long time ago and, sensing the timing, I'm sure there's something there. No doubt there will be questions raised. Right now, we're hearing the spin from Hillary's camp but give it time.

Spin from Hillarty's camp???? Try just the facts. Your the one trying to spin it based on absolutely nothing but your own hot air.

People like you are just a good example of why not to support Obama. Did Bush talk to God and then pass some of that secret info on to you or what?

Keep up the good work troll!!

lol. I'm sure you had your reasons before I ever came along. But keep pretending I'm the reason why:laugh:

Keep pretending I said you were MY reason why. I said people like you, not YOU in particular. You just happen to be a prime example. 😛

You give yourself WAY too much credit. Besides, I have more then just one reason for not supporting Obama, many more. Your feeble logic is rather amusing to watch. :laugh:

I'm glad I'm providing entertainment to take away the tears of watching your cold bitch lose the Democratic candidacy.

You're the only cold bitch I know. 😛

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Here's the Morris synopsis:

QUESTION: Is it appropriate for the spouse of a US senator and a presidential candidate to be in business with the leader of a foreign country?

A foreign country that has lots of matters before the US government?

ANSWER: No.

Hillary and Bill Clinton's tax returns from 2000-2006 reveal that he made at least $8 million from foreign sources and another $15 million from Yucaipa, which is owned by supermarket magnate and "Friend of Bill" Ron Burkle.

It's been reported that Yucaipa manages the financial portfolio of Dubai's ruler - Emir Mohammad bin Rashed al-Maktoum.

So how much of Bill's earnings came from Burkle really come from the Emir's petrodollars?

And what does Bill bring to Yucaipa? A rolodex of contacts made while he was president, and nothing else.

By the way, this is the same Emir who aggressively boycotts Israel and has been cited for human rights violations by the State Department.

How much did Bill get from the Emir and what did he do for it? The tax returns don't say and the Clintons aren't talking.

The returns released yesterday also reveal another outfit paid substantial sums to Bill - InfoUSA, a mailing-list company that was under investigation for providing lists of vulnerable senior citizens to telemarketers.

InfoUSA sold these con men lists like "Elderly with Alzheimer's" and "Gullible seniors" so they could be flee ced out of their life savings.

A lawsuit filed by InfoUSA shareholders, founder and "Friend of Bill" Vin Gupta used corporate jets to whisk the Clintons around the globe for events, including political events, since 2001 - spending nearly $900,000 to do it.

The suit suggests Gupta used company funds to party with high-profile pals such as the Clintons.

Again, it's not clear what Bill did for this company.

Hillary has called for more transparency in foreign government-funded sovereign wealth funds and for full disclosure of their activities.

Let that start at home.

It's sorta funny to apply the same stadards to the Bush administration.

Was it appropriate for the father of the candidate to have intimate activities with Carlyle Group, the world's leading private arms trader, with all kinds of policy issues?

If all Bill brought (besides the skills that made him president) was a Rolodex, what did Cheney bring to b CEO of Halliburton with no private sector experience IIRC?

Hm, government contracts shot up hundreds of percent with him.

What I recall Cheney doing was two things:

- Lobbying for the Iraq sanctions to be lifted

- Off-shoring the finances of Halliburton to avoid paying the US taxes

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Pabster
Here's the Morris synopsis:

QUESTION: Is it appropriate for the spouse of a US senator and a presidential candidate to be in business with the leader of a foreign country?

A foreign country that has lots of matters before the US government?

ANSWER: No.

Hillary and Bill Clinton's tax returns from 2000-2006 reveal that he made at least $8 million from foreign sources and another $15 million from Yucaipa, which is owned by supermarket magnate and "Friend of Bill" Ron Burkle.

It's been reported that Yucaipa manages the financial portfolio of Dubai's ruler - Emir Mohammad bin Rashed al-Maktoum.

So how much of Bill's earnings came from Burkle really come from the Emir's petrodollars?

And what does Bill bring to Yucaipa? A rolodex of contacts made while he was president, and nothing else.

By the way, this is the same Emir who aggressively boycotts Israel and has been cited for human rights violations by the State Department.

How much did Bill get from the Emir and what did he do for it? The tax returns don't say and the Clintons aren't talking.

The returns released yesterday also reveal another outfit paid substantial sums to Bill - InfoUSA, a mailing-list company that was under investigation for providing lists of vulnerable senior citizens to telemarketers.

InfoUSA sold these con men lists like "Elderly with Alzheimer's" and "Gullible seniors" so they could be flee ced out of their life savings.

A lawsuit filed by InfoUSA shareholders, founder and "Friend of Bill" Vin Gupta used corporate jets to whisk the Clintons around the globe for events, including political events, since 2001 - spending nearly $900,000 to do it.

The suit suggests Gupta used company funds to party with high-profile pals such as the Clintons.

Again, it's not clear what Bill did for this company.

Hillary has called for more transparency in foreign government-funded sovereign wealth funds and for full disclosure of their activities.

Let that start at home.

It's sorta funny to apply the same stadards to the Bush administration.

Was it appropriate for the father of the candidate to have intimate activities with Carlyle Group, the world's leading private arms trader, with all kinds of policy issues?

If all Bill brought (besides the skills that made him president) was a Rolodex, what did Cheney bring to b CEO of Halliburton with no private sector experience IIRC?

Hm, government contracts shot up hundreds of percent with him.

What I recall Cheney doing was two things:

- Lobbying for the Iraq sanctions to be lifted

- Off-shoring the finances of Halliburton to avoid paying the US taxes

Why the HELL do you keep bringing Bush and Cheney into this?! Do two wrongs somehow make a right when it's your chosen wunder-candidate under the microscope?!

Besides, one reason HRC must be stopped is because this is exactly the type of shady backroom underhanded bullsh*t we need to do our best to get rid of in Washington! The filthy Bush and Clinton dynasties must end!

All of them have to go... we need to f'n clean house!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Why the HELL do you keep bringing Bush and Cheney into this?! Do two wrongs somehow make a right when it's your chosen wunder-candidate under the microscope?!

Besides, one reason HRC must be stopped is because this is exactly the type of shady backroom underhanded bullsh*t we need to do our best to get rid of in Washington! The filthy Bush and Clinton dynasties must end!

All of them have to go... we need to f'n clean house!

Did you vote for Bush Cheney in 2000 or 2004?

I didn't say two wrongs make a right at all. I didn't defend the Clintons (or condemn them for that matter) with my post, I made a side point.

As far as 'my' candidate, while Obama wasn't my first choice and he worries me, he's my current choice of the three candidates.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Why the HELL do you keep bringing Bush and Cheney into this?! Do two wrongs somehow make a right when it's your chosen wunder-candidate under the microscope?!

Besides, one reason HRC must be stopped is because this is exactly the type of shady backroom underhanded bullsh*t we need to do our best to get rid of in Washington! The filthy Bush and Clinton dynasties must end!

All of them have to go... we need to f'n clean house!

Did you vote for Bush Cheney in 2000 or 2004?

I didn't say two wrongs make a right at all. I didn't defend the Clintons (or condemn them for that matter) with my post, I made a side point.

As far as 'my' candidate, while Obama wasn't my first choice and he worries me, he's my current choice of the three candidates.

1) wtf does my vote in 2000 or 2004 have to do with this? again, stop diverting...

2) wtf is a "side point"? Most people call it threadjacking...

3) I just threw up a little bit in my mouth when I found out that you and I now support the same candidate...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Why the HELL do you keep bringing Bush and Cheney into this?! Do two wrongs somehow make a right when it's your chosen wunder-candidate under the microscope?!

Besides, one reason HRC must be stopped is because this is exactly the type of shady backroom underhanded bullsh*t we need to do our best to get rid of in Washington! The filthy Bush and Clinton dynasties must end!

All of them have to go... we need to f'n clean house!

Did you vote for Bush Cheney in 2000 or 2004?

I didn't say two wrongs make a right at all. I didn't defend the Clintons (or condemn them for that matter) with my post, I made a side point.

As far as 'my' candidate, while Obama wasn't my first choice and he worries me, he's my current choice of the three candidates.

1) wtf does my vote in 2000 or 2004 have to do with this? again, stop diverting...

2) wtf is a "side point"? Most people call it threadjacking...

3) I just threw up a little bit in my mouth when I found out that you and I now support the same candidate...

1) truth hurts huh? You get credit for improvement, at least.

2) I didn't bring up Bush's drunk driving record - it was the same point as the thread, discussing how it applies to others.

You obvious can't tell the difference between trying to deny something by bringing someone else up, and simply expanding the same topic to others for interest.

But then again, I guess when it's exposing your inconsistency, that's a factor, eh?

3) Well, I guess that's one reaction to have other than any acknowledgement you were wrong in your attack. But not a surprise. You don't seem big on accountability.

I don't throw up a little over your supporting the same candidate; I simply recognize the flaws in much of your politics, and am glad to see an exception that's helpful.

I predicted in 2001 that Bush would be a disaster that would lead many righty sheep (I'm not referring to you) to turn against him and have a bit of an identity crisis.

The question was how they'd handle it - would they fall for the next new and improved right-wing candidate who said they'd be better, would they get educated, not vote, what?

I say, good for you for thinking for yourself to pick the candidate, and to recognize there are serious problems with Bush's administration, even if we differ on many of them.