DUmp tries to disprove Rush.

[txradioguy]

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/

[freedumb2003b]

73. Limbaugh vs Clintons: charitable giving

Limbaugh is fairly generous in his direct give to charity, and he sponsors charitable drives. Limbaugh annually gives hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to the leukemia foundation, which is fantastic. Limbaugh's EIB Cure-a-Thon has raised a total of $15 million since 2006, which is also very nice.

The Clinton Foundation direct gifts were $75 million over 5 years (2009-2013), or $15 million per year. In direct giving, the Clintons have given $10.2 million over the past eight years.

Both are generous, but if one must compare:

Direct giving:
Limbaugh: $4 million (appx) over the past eight years.
Clintons: $10.2 over the past eight years

Charitable fund raising:
Limbaugh: $1.5 million per year
Clintons: $15 million per year

2 comments:

1) Link?  Those numbers look suspicious

2) The clinton FOUNDATION means the clintons don't donate a dime out of their impoverished pockets. Rush does his donations from his own pockets.  Once again liberals are (possibly) gracious with OPM.

[SVPete]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/

Various %s (6%, 11%, 15%, etc.) for monies expended for actual charitable activities are in circulation. Much of what appears to be confusion (or even contradiction) comes from the time spans considered. Some sources looked at particular years; this article looks at a 5-year span; another I saw (and quoted somewhere) looked at 2013, the most recent year for which data was available.

Don't lose sight of the forest by examining and cross-comparing individual trees. A "charity" whose percentage of money given to charitable work is under 20% is a gross and blatant sham.

[Carl]

Some interesting reading for comparisons.

https://famewhorgas.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/the-worst-charities-in-a-nation-of-givers/

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4045#.VUIqa5P5Guc

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7653#.VUIq0JP5Guc

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277#.VUIq7pP5Guc

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8195#.VUIrS5P5Guc

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=164#.VUIsXpP5Gud



The Clintons suck buzzy.

[BuzzClik]

txradioguy, here's what you said:

Oh and Buzzy...Rush raises more in that one day fund raiser...in 3 hours than the Clintons do via legit donations in a year.

And I asked you for a link to verify your claim, to which you replied,

One thing you DUmmies that come over here never seem to learn is that when I make statements...unlike you Libtards...I can back up what I say.

And, of course, what you said was that Limbaugh raises more in a day than the Clintons raise via "legit" donations in a year.

We're going to use Limbaugh's figure that 15% of the Clinton Foundation donations are actually used for charity. Limbaugh quoted a Federalist article that stated, " A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants" over the period of 2008-2012. http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/

Okay. That will be our basis of comparison: Clinton Foundation donated $75 million to charity over the period 2008-2012. Average: $15 million per year.

I will take every figure you quoted for Limbaugh without question: The Cure-a-Thon raised $3.1 million over one weekend. We'll let that be your "three hours" and let it go. Even though that's a new record for Limbaugh and it's for 2015, I'll use that as the average for 2008-2012. So, $3.1 million per year.

$15 million for the Clintons in one year versus $3.1 million for Limbaugh in "three hours." These are all your numbers (directly from Limbaugh himself), not mine.

There is no place in the universe where $3.1 million is greater $15 million.

[txradioguy]

txradioguy, here's what you said:

And I asked you for a link to verify your claim, to which you replied,

And, of course, what you said was that Limbaugh raises more in a day than the Clintons raise via "legit" donations in a year.

Way to leave out everything in between that totally dispels your bullshit about the Clintons.

Typical of a DU'er.

We're going to use Limbaugh's figure that 15% of the Clinton Foundation donations are actually used for charity. Limbaugh quoted a Federalist article that stated, " A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants" over the period of 2008-2012. http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/

We can use that or the other figure of 6% that the charity monitoring organization put out.  Your choice.

Okay. That will be our basis of comparison: Clinton Foundation donated $75 million to charity over the period 2008-2012. Average: $15 million per year.

How much of that was legitimate donations?  We don't know.  They are scrambling to refile tax returns for the last 5 years.

I will take every figure you quoted for Limbaugh without question: The Cure-a-Thon raised $3.1 million over one weekend. We'll let that be your "three hours" and let it go. Even though that's a new record for Limbaugh and it's for 2015, I'll use that as the average for 2008-2012. So, $3.1 million per year.

No...as I sstated very clearly...that figure was for 2014 because they haven't gotten the final total for this year.  But every year it's been held the amount rises.  So this year will be north of $3.1 million.

$15 million for the Clintons in one year versus $3.1 million for Limbaugh in "three hours." These are all your numbers (directly from Limbaugh himself), not mine.

There is no place in the universe where $3.1 million is greater $15 million.

There is when $3 million goes 100% to the charity versus $15 million and we have no idea what percentage of that went to a true legit charitable organization.  Not one dime of that money raised went to Limbaugh or any of his employees. 

As I linked to and you chose to ignore...the largest reciepient of Clinton charity dollars was...the Clinton's themselves.  So you need to take out the millions the Clinton's gave to themselves formthat 15 million figure to more accurately compare the two amounts.

Sorry Buzzy...you lose.

[txradioguy]

Oh and Buzzy...it's very disingenuious to not provide links of your own to back up your bullshit claims.

I believe you chastized others who did that as hypocrites.

Physician heal thyself.

[J P Sousa]

It's interesting how Buzzy compares a so called "charitable organization" to an individual's giving. 


Also an oldie but still true;
Charitable Giving. Who Gives More?
Posted on December 30, 2010  |  By Kathleen McKinley   

http://blog.chron.com/texassparkle/2010/12/charitable-giving-who-gives-more/


AND, Catholic Charities (for comparison)
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
 and services it delivers) 75.0% http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10656

[98ZJUSMC]

It's interesting how Buzzy compares a so called "charitable organization" to an individual's giving. 

Exactly.

[landofconfusion80]

Exactly.

Since he wants to figure it that way, how about Rush vs. the Clintons in what their donations are every year? No? how about Rush vs. Gore?

[thundley4]

Bill and Hillary make millions giving speeches, then donate to their own charity, which they use to live a luxurious lifestyle tax free. It's a nice scam.

[BuzzClik]

txradioguy,

Oh and Buzzy...it's very disingenuious to not provide links of your own to back up your bullshit claims.

For my first post, I gave the links in the original post at DU and told you that before.

For the new stuff, here's the link:
http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=102059.0
Scroll down to reply 24. As I said, I used ALL your figures without changing a thing.

We can use that or the other figure of 6% that the charity monitoring organization put out. Your choice.

I took the 15% figure from Limbaugh and the Federalist article that he quoted and that you quoted (Reply 25). Changed your mind? You want to use 6% now? Okay, here's the bottom line with your NEW number:

$6 million for the Clintons in one year versus $3.1 million for Limbaugh in "three hours."

There is no place in the universe where $3.1 million is greater $6 million.

Face it: you were dead wrong. You made a statement you cannot defend. Period. I have used ALL of your numbers and ALL of Limbaugh's numbers, and you come out dead wrong every time. Even when you undercut Limbaugh's figures, you still are wrong. (And you questioned MY math skills?)

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Later, bubba. You've got nothin' left. Don't underestimate your opponents, pal.

[Big Dog]

Buzz,

For the third time, when are you goung to call out Skinner for being bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign?

[txradioguy]

txradioguy,
Changed your mind? You want to use 6% now? Okay, here's the bottom line with your NEW number:

No haven't changed my mind about anything.  There are two different percentages being bandied about...so I was just giving you an option.

$6 million for the Clintons in one year versus $3.1 million for Limbaugh in "three hours."

There is no place in the universe where $3.1 million is greater $6 million.[/quote]

Again as I said before, 100% of what Limbaugh raised ladt year verifiably went to a charity.  The only charity the Clinton Foundation gave to in large dollar number was themselves.

There is a huge difference you are willfully ignoring between giving to a charity and giving to yourself and calling it charity.

Face it: you were dead wrong. You made a statement you cannot defend. Period. I have used ALL of your numbers and ALL of Limbaugh's numbers, and you come out dead wrong every time. Even when you undercut Limbaugh's figures, you still are wrong. (And you questioned MY math skills?)

I have defended my position and I've provided evidence to back it up.

You...well you've done nothing byt dick dodge and weave...cherry pick what you want from the proof I've provided and tried to obfusciate at all turns.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Yes you are...and quite obviously.

Later, bubba. You've got nothin' left. Don't underestimate your opponents, pal.

You keep saying bye and yet keep coming back...another instance in which you lie through your teeth.

As for underestimating...you're a DU Progressive Liberal...there's nothing to under or over estimate when it comes to you or other lib.

[obumazombie]

It's like the lib is like all other libs who refuse to educate themselves on any issue.
If any information even remotely appears to contradict their agenda, they simply ignore it.
That's something Buzzy is very good for.
A perfect example of a lib.

[98ZJUSMC]

Since he wants to figure it that way, how about Rush vs. the Clintons in what their donations are every year? No? how about Rush vs. Gore?

Yep.  Have to go individual vs. individual and I would bet that the Klintoons come somewhere near zero.

[I_B_Perky]

Our ruling

Limbaugh said "85 percent of every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up either with the Clintons or with their staff to pay for travel, salaries, and benefits. Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary."

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits. However, the foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house, and it’s not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work, which is what it would take for Limbaugh to be correct.

The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

Hmmm... let us look into politifact, shall we:

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".[2] They publish original statements and their evaluations on the PolitiFact.com website, and assign each a "Truth-O-Meter" rating. The ratings range from "True" for completely accurate statements to "Pants on Fire" (from the taunt "Liar, liar, pants on fire") for false and ridiculous claims.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com

So let us check out the Tampa Bay Times (formerly St. Petersburg Times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times) shall we? Let us take a look at their endorsements for pres:

They endorsed Obama:
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/obama-for-president/1257328
They endorsed Kerry:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/election.endorsements/
They endorsed Gore:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/102900/Perspective/Gore_for_president.shtml
They endorsed Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale and Carter:
http://www.politifactbias.com/2014/07/the-tampa-bay-times-endorsed-mitt-romney.html

So they are in the bag for the dems. Felt the need to have someone check the facts. Got the same folks checking the facts that they had reporting them. And the dummies want me to believe this crock of crap?

Then we have this:

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits. However, the foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house, and it’s not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work, which is what it would take for Limbaugh to be correct.

Oh it is VERY credible to think that Rush's claim is true. The numbers don't lie. Now whether or not their setup makes a difference is not the story. The story was that Rush said it and the numbers back him up. So the fact checkers just could not resist themselves spinning. 

Look dummies, spin is not facts. Politifact is nothing more than spin. Rush did not say no dollars went to charity, he said 15 percent of all dollars they spend went to charity. He was correct by politifacts own words!!!!

[BuzzClik]

Buzz,

For the third time, when are you goung to call out Skinner for being bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign?

Didn't catch the other two times. Sorry.

I think I've read here that his wife has gotten a lot of money from Hillary. Does that make him bought and paid for?

[obumazombie]

Didn't catch the other two times. Sorry.

I think I've read here that his wife has gotten a lot of money from Hillary. Does that make him bought and paid for?

More passive aggressiveness from the master of non answers.
A question is not an answer.
Answer the question.
Why are you libs so obtuse ?
Does it come naturally, do you have to work at it, or both ?

[Karin]

These comparisons are apples and oranges.  The blood cancer fundraising is legit, while the Clinton foundation is nothing more than an extortionate influence peddling scam. 

[BuzzClik]

These comparisons are apples and oranges.  The blood cancer fundraising is legit, while the Clinton foundation is nothing more than an extortionate influence peddling scam.

You may be correct. However, keep in mind that this little urination contest was started by The Federalist and Limbaugh gave it wings.

[Big Dog]

Didn't catch the other two times. Sorry.

I think I've read here that his wife has gotten a lot of money from Hillary.

Not just here. PJ Gladnick has done a great job of showing the primary sources. Those are cited in his posts here at the Cave.

Does that make him bought and paid for?

That is a question you should ask Skinner.

Will you?

[GOBUCKS]

These comparisons are apples and oranges.  The blood cancer fundraising is legit, while the Clinton foundation is nothing more than an extortionate influence peddling scam.

Can you imagine how the jug-eared muslim and the Wookie are salivating over the prospects for their "foundation"?

Combining the race hustle extortion of The Reverend Jackson with the political clout of a black ex-president with Chicago connections, the sky's the limit.

He may have to turn down the Hildebeast when she nominates him for the Supreme Court.

[BuzzClik]

Not just here. PJ Gladnick has done a great job of showing the primary sources. Those are cited in his posts here at the Cave.

That is a question you should ask Skinner.

Will you?

I followed up a bit on PJ Gladnick (previously unknown to me), and I see he has appetites similar to the residents of the Cave and a similar personality. He also shares some personality flaws with Will Pitt ... but this isn't about him or Pitt. So, he has shown (I didn't find it, but I believe you) that Skinner's other half has gotten money from directly from the Hillary Clinton campaign, and Skinner has come out as a Hillary "fan boy." As a result, you want me to go to DU and announce (or ask Skinner if it's true) that Skinner has "sold out" to the Hillary campaign.

I certainly am not opposed to raising mischief or calling out admins over there. But why would I do this? Skinner has not been shy about his support for Clinton, so there's nothing hidden there. He's allowed the Warren and Sanders fans to go completely insane for weeks, declaring how much they hate Hillary. So what would I be attempting to prove?

Aside from the total hilarity (for you) of watching the repercussions of me airing out the personal finances of Skinner's wife, you're going to have to give some sort of compelling motivation.

[franksolich]

I followed up a bit on PJ Gladnick (previously unknown to me).....

Not to be rude sir, but no way.

Everybody's heard of the DUmmie FUnnies.

So, he has shown (I didn't find it, but I believe you) that Skinner's other half has gotten money from directly from the Hillary Clinton campaign, and Skinner has come out as a Hillary "fan boy."

True.

As a result, you want me to go to DU and announce (or ask Skinner if it's true) that Skinner has "sold out" to the Hillary campaign.

I agree there; better that some PonP, primitive of non-prominence, or a particular primitive we don't like here, throw himself on the fire.
 

I certainly am not opposed to raising mischief or calling out admins over there.

Good; you get the "idea" of the DUmpster, but of course you figured that out a long time ago.

Skinner has not been shy about his support for Clinton, so there's nothing hidden there. He's allowed the Warren and Sanders fans to go completely insane for weeks, declaring how much they hate Hillary.

True, and it's been a great lot of fun watching the primitives discombobulate.