General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton: I’ve Donated All My University Speaking Fees to Charity
by Tina Nguyen | 1:51 pm, July 5th, 2014
No ones quite sure how much money Hillary Clinton makes off of college speaking fees some estimates peg it at $200,000 per speech but in an interview with ABC, Clinton said that her speaking fees didnt factor into her personal wealth, because she donates all her fees to charity! Specifically, her familys charity, the Clinton Foundation.
All of the fees have been donated to the Clinton Foundation for it to continue its life-changing and life-saving work. So it goes from a foundation at a university to another foundation, she told Ann Compton on Friday.
While the tax breaks one gets from donating money to ones foundation must be quite lucrative, Clinton said that the point of her speaking tours (shes on one now, to promote Hard Choices) isnt to collect money, but to fuel a debate over income inequality. She pointed to a protest at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, in which students demanded that she forego her $225,000 fee for a speech shes scheduled to give in October.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-clinton-ive-donated-all-my-university-speaking-fees-to-charity/
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,061 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Or its haggard neoconservative offspring, the New Democrat Coalition.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,061 posts)That's what I got from the comment I responded to.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But more to the point, anyone who aligns themselves with the DLC or NDC or any other third way group is immediately suspect on principle.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,061 posts)I remember the Clinton years.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I just happen to prefer leftward economic policies over neoliberal ones.
I assure you, "welfare reform" wasn't as charming on the receiving end.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Was one of the worst anti poverty programs ever. I would like to know what Hillary thinks about it during the primary.
It didn't harm me personally but it sure screwed the poor nice and good. And they wonder why people sell drugs if there are no jobs in their communities.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)FYI
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And no matter what you think of Clinton, he was also a far better President than the Bush that followed him.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Yes, Clinton is among them.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)If you think it makes a person who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year look bad because she donates it to charity...you are wrong. It just makes you look like a really desperate hater.
I guess you don't take a deduction for charitable contributions.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Thank goodness I don't ever have to meet these people. What a nasty bunch.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)spews that kind of Teabaggy hate. Even other liberal sites are not the screeching haters that you find on DU. It's the reason I cancelled my Star Membership payments. They are full of hatred for republicans who tear down their moderate candidates but they cannot hold a mirror up to their own faces.
They don't have to support Hillary Clinton but they don't need to commit character assassination six times a day and then make ridiculous posts about people obeying the tax laws and giving their money to charity. Apparently, Elizabeth Warren supporters have very little attraction for them except that she isn't Hillary.
But you are right. They really are projecting all over the place.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I know it is common among politicians but I would talk for free as long as they provide the booze.
NMDemDist2
(49,313 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I call bullshit on Hillary Clinton.
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #9)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Thank you for helping to make my point.
The one percent would be delighted to have a Clinton in the whitehouse again.
I won't be supporting her.
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #14)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,061 posts)That's a no no to many on DU no matter how much good work is done by these people.
Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Reply #16)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)My complaint is with the rich using their money to steal the Commons and discriminate. If not, let them do something good with it. But if they use their money to create a monopoly, they are also stealing from others and they are not honest.
Those who are putting themselves out there like the list above - considered 'traitors to their class' who spent their lives working to end discrimination and poverty within the limited framework they had - and some were killed for it, don't deserve hate, but have been getting it from conservatives forever.
I am not much in favor of charity, foundations and philanthropy if the actors don't work for income equality and peace. If they don't address those issues, as the ones on the list do, they are not a net gain for society. MLK, Jr. said
Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.
Things have changed a lot since the big donors, even the Koch's, Mellon's and Scaife's, once gave money to enrich the Commons, like PBS.
They morphed since RR, and done tremendously evil things to America. From the mind to the body to the land and to the nation itself.
I think a lot of criticism of HRC or Obama is not rooted in sound thinking, but a gut reaction to years of conservative attacks designed to go into the subconscious part of people's brains and don't stand up to scrutiny.
Teabaggers jump in and don't reflect. Vitriol is the first sign of not being able to give good reasons and being irrationally hostile.
JMHO.
cali
(114,904 posts)we're jealous, right?
bzzzt. most criticizing those folks do not hate rich people. I certainly don't blanket hate rich people- but I sure know them much better than most people. That is my background. I grew up in a wealthy family in one of the wealthiest communities in the country. Neighbors? Oh you know, the Watsons of IBM, The CEO of Time-Warner, etc.
I don't dislike Hillary Clinton's politics because she's wealthy. I dislike them because they are largely, massively wrong. They are aligned with corporate "well being". They are militaristic. They are opportunistic.
Oh, and the Clinton Foundation has big problems.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Not another ounce of energy toward this attitude:
yada yada..."good things a group does verses the bad things they do".
The bad things fucking matter to me.
Goodbye.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Would be a good thing. Warren apparently is not running. I have not forgotten the Florida debacle where a lot of well intentioned folks voted for Nader.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,061 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #17)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)in foundations donating to foundations. When the Ford foundation donates to the Clinton foundation, do they list THAT as a "charitable work" as if they are helping poor people by making that donation?
Because then it seems to me that the Clinton foundation can turn around and donate $500,000 to the Gates Foundation and include that in "program expenses".
I find for 2010, the foundation had $310 million in income and had $286.9 million in program expenses and added $18.4 million to its $199 million endowment.
I'd like to have some detail on where that money went. I am just betting that when the Ford Foundation makes a donation to the Clinton foundation that the money they donate is listed as "program expenses" for the Ford foundation.
Also, with administrative expenses of $11.9 million including CEO pay of $308.000, it seems that some of the benefits of charity begin at home with the "good jobs for your buddies" program.
http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/relief-and-development/bill-hillary-and-chelsea-clinton-foundation-in-new-york-ny-655/all
But I don't want to be too cynical. It is always possible that that $287 million does a lot of good for some people. Truly needy and deserving people, I mean.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Do some research on what the Clinton Foundation has done for thousands of people around the world.
I expect better from you, at least I expect a fair assessment, rather than reflexive negativity just because you don't like the Clintons.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I need to hear "I was wrong about NAFTA" or the IWR, or "I really regret..."
My alcoholic and abusive stepfather could NEVER admit wrong, I never heard him say, "I was wrong, I'm sorry".
To this day it's my personal measure of failure, those who cannot or will not admit mistakes are dead to me.
Run for president? No. No thank you.
If they can't speak to the past then I have to assume they are happy with their actions of the past.
Still, you and I can remain friends.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Who you, and anyone else for that matter, choose to support in 2016 is your business. I'm just sick to death of the utter bullshit that goes on here over every single thread about the Clintons. This is not supposed to be a RW site and yet I read over and over the same RW talking points.
Through their foundation, the Clintons do more in one day to help people around the world than most folks will get to do in a lifetime. If she chooses to donate her college speaking fees to charity, how is that a problem for some? It's her money, she can do whatever she chooses with it.
Bill signed NAFTA, not Hillary. As for the IWR, she already said that it was a mistake.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Around the world and you happen to be a recipients of their good will, I would hope you would be grateful. On the speech planned for UNLV Foundation, the funds for HRC's has already been taken care of by donors, no money is coming out of the university. This is a fund raiser for the university. If the funds is not appreciated and the fund raisers cease, who is going to be the winner or I should say who is going to be the losers. This is biting the hand which feeds them, shameful for the bitching about a group trying to help a university.
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #18)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Resort to painting by numbers. Celebrity gets big bucks for appearing, I don't think Bill or Hillary should apologize for making the bucks. They are also at free will to place the money wherever they choose. Yes one can get tax write offs for donating to charities. I don't understand why the rants against donations to charities since the lower income folks are benefit from those gifts.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,061 posts)Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #25)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)While 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is not generally seen as a fair assessment of commonality, anyone who conflates public figures with their private woes, is missing the mark badly. Because it's not all about us as individuals, but how we wish to be treated and will grant that to others for a common good. Or else we will have nothing to stand upon, and would be Republicans. :barf:
As I have said repeatedly, HRC is not my choice. Her style does not appeal to me, and I blamed her for a lot, but learned a lot of nuance over the last decade or so that I did not formerly have.
And I have always given her and Bill the benefit of the doubt, watching how she and Bill and Chelsea were savaged and abused to give the RW power over all of us. I saw what his vision and what her vision was when he ran for office and she became First Lady, and how the MSM destroyed it.
Like Obama to a lesser degree, Bill and Hillary's liberal views and the intentions they had when he won the presidency, were dimmed by the irrational, vicious, dishonest PR sent their way. The RW media was flexing its muscle, perfecting its use of the baleful tone applied to PBO to deny the fulfillment of the victory of the people who voted for change both times.
Do the knee jerk haters recall what was going on at the time Clinton was in office? Or the deluge of hate and the real RW conspiracy that broke loose while Clinton ran for office, the low brow attacks, and then the full media coverage of alleged affairs and the blue dress?
The legal challenges that were set into motion as soon as Bill was sworn into office, to derail his plans for rebuilding what was being lost, that HAD to be responded to, just to maintain the presidency? The malicious, giddy pronouncements of doom for Bill and Hillary that were on display in every venue?
I watched all the news shows that sprang up with the same mendacious faces we have been treated to in cable news for twenty years. I remember how the RW increased their power with religious groups, and hearing Ann Coulter on a local Christian radio station late at night, bubbling with joy over the blue dress, chortling 'We got him now!' to the approval of the 'Christian' speakers.
So much hatred, worse than they dealt Carter, but a prelude to what was done to Gore and is still being done to Obama. When I read all these charges laid at Clinton or Gore, I know the writers have been taken in. Saying that Kerry or Gore were stiff, that they didn't run good campaigns, is proof of how 'American Idol' is now politics.
I watched Gore as he ran for office, and he worked just as hard as Obama did. He flew from state to state, seeing tens of thousands every day. I saw the crowds who wanted to see a man with his populist vision become president, not to win a popularity contest, but to see their values ascend once again after 12 years of GOP rule that was designed to eliminate all of the New Deal. One of the last campaign stops showed Gore leaving the stage outside, the sweat soaking the back of his shirt, just as we saw Obama do or being rained upon, still going.
Those men had a fire for ideals, and so did the multitudes who showed up and cheered. There was nothing stiff about Kerry, Gore or Obama, and there probably isn't about HRC. We knew Bill Clinton has charisma, but if that is all that Americans want in a candidate, we truly do deserve the Idiocracy that is galloping toward us.
Those who grew to majority in the Reagan era, have little to compare that with in terms of MSM, and see the RW tone as political criticism and 'holding their feet to the fire.' We're not talking deep thinking from the media, they've been playing every psychological technique know to brainwash listeners - and those who are online.
Go to youtube or many other sites, and you will see, even if you don't click, the negative images to dismay Democrats or encourage Republicans. It's a fact that images carry much more data and are much more powerful to the subconscious mind than text or even sound. Combine text, sound, moving imagery, music, tone of voice, familiar memes from all kinds of entertainment together. as is done cable shows and youtube and an alternate reality will be embedded in the brain where reasoning cannot enter.
It's been non-stop with such memes as 'Obama the arrogant, impeach Obama, fire Holder, get rid of Pelosi, stop Hillary.' Always with an unattractive image to go straight to the gut. That people are incognizant of the subliminal messaging and think those 'gut feelings' of disdain, discomfort and hate are honestly their judgment and originate in their experience, is a huge victory for the RW and a huge loss for us.
We had an OP herein which the article referenced said that in this media environment, Democrats are spouting RW memes, and don't even realize it as it's subconscious. The media is not serving its purpose under the First Amendment to inform, but to enrage and build their team up in their viewers, while destroying fair debate and the roots of democracy itself. A look at the dynamics of how speakers are arrayed against each other the lies that are always left unchallenged, leads a thinking person to know they are being played. But too many focus on the personalities that are paid for us to listen to and watch, and don't think or refuse to admit, they are caught up in a manipulative media product.
Those who are constantly on the look out for a strong leader with a 'backbone' or 'balls' and such are ripe for the picking by the demagogues. They are the first to call the Democrats 'weak' or 'spineless,' because that is how the power is set out on MSM.
They are looking for a savior, but those who help us and save our lives are discounted as not being good enough to get their support, not inspiring enough. They demand being wooed, as if they are the center of the universe, so they want to be sold something that has never existed in the first place, or they refuse to play.
Consumer politics is a GOP game and Democrats don't play, nor should they. Because the sell is not going to respect the needs and minds of people, it is not democratic, it's just a means of control.
The hand that helps to save a life in the real world may not be the 'right' color, gender, orientation, ethnicity, religion or political leaning to our own liking. They are never feted, and would not get a vote from those who are into brand name, consumer driven thinking. We are dismissing our own selves when we dismiss them and have no right to claim we are disrespected when we don't respect each other or ourselves.
Just a few thoughts.
Hekate
(90,721 posts)Thank you thank you thank you.
Some days I just despair of DU's future, but you are one of the people here who give me a ray of hope.
Hekate
*No, my ballot for 2016 is not yet filled in
freshwest
(53,661 posts)But I can never think of an appropriate title for them. Just thinking out loud for the most part. Anything I say, use as you want.
pa28
(6,145 posts)That would be an interesting detail.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The criticism came later with accusations of her taking money from the university when in fact it was a fund raiser by UNLV Foundation which does fund raising for the university.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)is Hillary telling others that she deserves
sympathy her her financial struggles?
and if yes, do you think she believe that herself?
FYI, HRC says she had $$ struggles when leaving the
White House, and they(HRC+Bill) were arranging
finance for 3 expensive residences. At the time,
they likely had a negative net worth.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)In debt when he left the presidency and in his time as president did not save enough money to pay off this debt. Yes they were lucky to write books and do speaking engagements to pay off the debt but was in debt when leaving the WH.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)One in Chappaqua, NY and the other one in DC. Due to Hillary's job as senator and then SOS, she needed to live in DC (she would go home to NY on weekends, when not traveling).
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Hekate
(90,721 posts)Hekate
*No, my ballot is not yet filled in for 2016.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)It's not going to look good with lots of people asleep at the wheel while a bunch of the R's make hay in this years national legislature races.
Mostly too concerned about what happens in 2016
Rot's a ruck with dat one
Beacool
(30,250 posts)CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Make friends with republicans, call your own foundation "donating to charity" and thinks 8 million dollars is dead broke. She should just retire already. She is done in american politics.