Very clever trick there.

I wondered how much of that charity money they gave to their own charities. I am surprised they didn't try to be a little less obvious about it, but if you can't trust your own charity, why would you want to give your money to a reputable outfit?

they were giving some low number ... was it 7% or 3%? .... I forget the exact numbers they were claiming, but I bet they were a damn site better the the 0.08% (no, not 8%, that's 0.08%) that the Clintons paid to real charities.

Not that Haiti didn't need a brand new luxury hotel for the rich, far on the other side of the island away from the filthy poor .... charity begins with your home-boys, or so the saying goes.

I donated $50 to Goodwill because they let you put a value on clothing and household goods. What a cutie pie you have there.

Just feed and keep a Jack Russell Terrier healthy, and perpetual energy, amazing speed, and gymnastics occur naturally.

I miss my girl.

Here she is, trying to will me to toss a ball...

Which they are, but rather because they are so loving, and memorable.
It has been a pleasure for me as well so I also thank YOU.

as I possible, just as I donate to my candidate and not to a candidate I do not support as many others do.

she's worse than the greedy GOP bastards, because they at least wear their greed and callousness on their sleeve. She pretends to be the opposite of what she really is.

I don't know why this doesn't bother her supporters, but it just doesn't. Taking food out of the mouths of the hungry, denying health care to those unable to afford it, forcing section 8-eligible Americans into the street ...

HRC, WJC, & Chelsea are all tax cheats, stealing from America. But since she's waited her turn to be president, we're all supposed to just hold our nose and vote for her like good little lemmings.

Fuck. That. Noise.

Given though, I don't have a problem with it.

There's a legitimate reason to do so and I advise anybody that wins the lottery (or otherwise comes into money) to set up a foundation specifically to make all their tax-deductible donations to at the end of the year. It allows you to build a donations allotment that continues to build interest and which can be used at any time to make donations to charity. It basically takes all the need for strategy out of donating...a decent tax-accountant can tell you the exact optimal amount (to within $1) to donate at the end of December to reduce your tax-burden in any given year. You can then disperse funds from that endowment to charity as you see fit...and your endowment can be invested to grow the amount you have to donate.

It's the smart thing to do.

or could be counted to grow over the long term when prudently invested. Not anymore.

it's not that this has ceased to be true. Like most things, it's been shifted upwards to the 1%. You're not seeing interest-growth on your savings account and it's tied specifically to the ability of people with lots of money to invest in financial instruments that see explosive growth. (they're stealing your prosperity.) Vehicles not open to you or most people because you don't have $50,000 or $250,000 or $1,000,000 minimums to invest.

It's a fucking disgrace is what it is.

One of Chelsea's husband's hedge funds (oriented toward Greece) lost almost 50% in either 2014 or 2015 The overall returns of hedge funds are significantly inflated by survivorship bias. The funds that do well are reported, the funds that do poorly and shut down aren't included in the data. My belief is that a lot of the hedge funds that generated enormous returns over extended periods did it in large part through illegal activity, like insider trading.

I have a significant amount of money that I invest (though under current conditions it doesn't provide a big income to live on) and am a very experienced and knowledgeable investor. My money doesn't sit in a savings account. But I don't see anything I consider to be a prudent investment that can be reasonably expected to provide more than a 3-4% annual return. And even those kind of investments are far from guaranteed and could easily generate negative returns some years.

we offered a "jumbo balance" savings account paying 2% interest, only open to clients with more than $1,000,000 total funds on deposit in the bank including $100,000 for a minimum balance in the "jumbo savings." Now, given, 2% isn't great...but it is about 40 times what we pay in interest on our $1,000 minimum-balance "no fee" savings account (fees kick-in if you fall below the minimum balance) for the plebs. It's about .65% higher than what we offer on any CD with a lower minimum balance and unlike the CDs, there is no required term of deposit.

The questions that have to be asked and never are..."how are they paying 2% on any savings account?" and "why are they paying 2% on any savings account?"...really have unpleasant answers.

How? They generate the revenues to pay those rates (which to be clear, are at a loss versus the utility of the money in question) through the revenues generated off funds on deposit in the much larger pool of lower-balance accounts. Everybody else gets screwed on interest paid in order to pay higher interest on this smaller pool of preferred accounts.

Why? Because they want to keep those clients more than they care about the smaller depositors. They make their profits off the major clients and consider the smaller ones the nuisances of doing business. (and in branch manager meetings, they stop just short of talking about them in those terms.)

They pay them more so they'll do more business with the bank because their research shows that most people would prefer to do as much or all of their financial business with one institution as possible. If they offer better deals to the 1%ers that bank with them...that's more of a windfall than spreading the benefit thinner to everybody.

economic development in poor countries, climate initiatives, etc.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work

The Clinton Foundation has one of the worst records of any charity. Charity Navigator dropped
them because of the bizarre business model.

supplies, equipment, etc., to do a lot of the work. There's a big difference in that type of organization and those that fit in the Charity Navigators rating scheme. The Charity Navigator doesn't take that into it's rating system, which is based primarily on how much money they dole out. Jesus, they even have the Red Cross on their watch list.

"Because of our work, more than 31,000 American schools are providing kids with healthy food choices in an effort to eradicate childhood obesity; more than 105,000 farmers in Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania are benefiting from climate-smart agronomic training, higher yields, and increased market access; more than 33,500 tons of greenhouse gas emissions are being reduced annually across the United States; over 450,000 people have been impacted through market opportunities created by social enterprises in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia; through the independent Clinton Health Access Initiative, 9.9 million people in more than 70 countries have access to CHAI-negotiated prices for HIV/AIDS medications; an estimated 85 million people in the U.S. will be reached through strategic health partnerships developed across industry sectors at both the local and national level; and members of the Clinton Global Initiative community have made more than 3,400 Commitments to Action, which have improved the lives of over 430 million people in more than 180 countries."

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about

Seems like worthwhile efforts, don't you think?

I guess the comparison between the two In this regard does stand out, doesn't it.

The Clinton Family Foundation sends money to other charities.