2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAbout that AFT for Hillary thing... had been made long before it was announced in July.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/06/american-federation-teachers-union-spends-37m-on-politics/
Snip: Other expenditures suggest AFTs decision to endorse Weingartens friend Hillary Clinton for president a move that angered many AFT members had been made long before it was announced in July.
AFT donated $250,000 to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation in February, $125,000 to Clinton Global Initiative in April and another $125,000 to Clinton Global Initiative in May. In December, AFT paid Clinton-allied opposition research group American Bridge 21st Century $100,000.
The American Bridge payment was reported as a political expense. The payments to the scandal-ridden Clinton family nonprofits were not.
Click for more from Watchdog.org: http://watchdog.org/240956/aft-union-politics-2015/
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,073 posts)Two way street. Don't like facts?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)didn't do that, does that mean it is true?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Of course, you won't hear those figures because they kind of ruin the narrative.
Omaha Steve
(99,073 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)To read reply 7.
merrily
(45,251 posts)She's a far more patient and temperate poster than I.
Anyway, the point was to refute instead of just complaining about the source.
Thing is, when it comes to unions, OS really knows what he is talking about. I assumed that everyone who has been on DU a while knew that. Censoring solid information is not a good thing for anyone.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=651745
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Ignore does that
merrily
(45,251 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,073 posts)I must have really pissed off the invite only room of Hillary fans. Still can't handle the info on $ from AFT to Clinton charity that is correct from Watchdog.org?
frylock
(34,825 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)don't they realize this has been preordained?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Conservative, libertarian, anti-union, anti-abortion....yeah, that's a great outfit to associate oneself with... not.
5. those pesky watchdog people
View profile
don't they realize this has been preordained?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)about watchdog styled groups. however, since you mentioned it, is the reported payment info inaccurate? i would imagine that the dates of payments made and how they were reported is pretty straightfoward info to get.
and just because you or i might not like the agenda or viewpoints of an organization doesn't necessarily mean they are providing unfactual info.
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)Tells me everything I need to know about your source.
- "Clinton Cash" book which claimed "scandals" was quickly debunked as half-truths and lies.
- Karl Rove 101: attack your opponents strengths. That's why Kerry was made out to be a coward in Vietnam, and that's why Clinton Global Initiative, which does good work, is being smeared.
Look I don't support HRC, but I really detest right-wing smears against Democrats.
FSogol
(45,360 posts)questionseverything
(9,631 posts)One of the mantras one must invoke when discussing the Clinton Cash controversy is to say that whatever one might think of the pay-to-play aspects of the former first familys charitable endeavors, the Clinton Foundation does a lot of good work around the world. But now that more of the press is finally asking tough questions about the Clintons activities, it appears that their charity may not pass the basic question donors ask of any philanthropy: how much of the money raised is actually spent on the causes you are supposed to be aiding? Though the foundation has claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures are spent on good deeds, their own tax filings reveal that the real number is about ten percent. But far from being an unrelated, albeit embarrassing, sidebar to the allegations about influence peddling, this data is a reminder that the main point of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation is to support its namesakes in a lavish fashion and to allow wealthy donors access to them.
///////////////////
i am also a little shocked about $600,000 teacher dollars going to the clintons too
MADem
(135,425 posts)The foundation says its own employees are doing its charitable work. The annual report -- which, remember, includes both the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative -- says that 7 percent of expenditures were spent on "management and expenses" and 4.5 percent for "fundraising." (The numbers on the 990s for the two entities are in the same ballpark.)
Add those two percentages together and you get almost 12 percent; subtract that from 100 percent and you get the magic 88 percent figure the foundation cited.
An independent academic CPA who specializes in nonprofit foundation finances said Limbaughs error was in assuming that all spending beyond grants amounted to wasteful overhead. ....To offer some context, spending 88 percent of expenses on charitable programs, as the Clinton foundation says it does, would actually be pretty good by industry standards. Parsons said the average reported across all organizations in the National Center for Charitable Statistics is 81 percent -- equal to the Clinton Foundations rate on its own -- and the Better Business Bureaus Wise Giving Alliance suggests a minimum of 65 percent. "The foundation exceeds that," Parsons said.
....The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)The foundations business model is that rather than raise money to give to those helping the poor on the ground, its alleged charitable acts are done by those on its payroll. Fair enough. But the controversy here is that the foundation and its liberal apologists want us to think that when the Clintons and their staff scurry around the world talking about helping the poor that amounts to charity.
This is not a made-up argument about how to characterize expenditures. The Clintons dont feed the hungry or clothe the poor. They are conveners of famous and smart people who supposedly brainstorm about how to do those things. They call this life-changing work and no doubt it does some good. But the only ones whose lives we can be certain have been changed are the Clintons, their cronies, and their staff. Most of the hundreds of millions of dollars raised by the foundation yearly is spent on salaries, travel, offices, and other perks. The Clinton Foundation is the ultimate Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous reality show cloaked in a veneer of good intentions and charitable rhetoric. But it is not much of a charity.
////////////////////////
my problem remains why is the teachers union donating to the clintons at all?
and if they are doing it without their members approval it is a huge problem
merrily
(45,251 posts)I did not think the Clinton foundation allegations were debunked. First, there is no question that they had misreported their income from foreign sources. Second a statement like "No evidence of a quid pro quo" is not a debunking.
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?tag=politifact
If people around here want to jump in bed with The Koch's, Mr. Murdoch, and Mr. Limbaugh, so be it.
Not me though, and I seriously doubt Bernie will either. The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
MADem
(135,425 posts)articles talk about how shitty "leftists" are, how the Pope is wrong on climate change, 'justice for Wisconsin conservatives' and things like that. They are affiliated with the Franklin Center, and on that website, they post Watchdog's latest headlines, which I will copy/paste here-this does not sound like a liberal outfit to me:
THE LATEST FROM WATCHDOG
Idaho lawmakers, officials unwilling to disclose sponsors for posh weekend getaway
October 06, 2015
Meet this feisty forklift driver fighting for the right to leave her union
October 06, 2015
The silence of the left is the Dems transparency hypocrisy
October 06, 2015
Heres proof energy efficiency subsidies dont necessarily lower energy costs
October 06, 2015
Federal judge will hear D.C. charter school case on equitable funding
October 06, 2015
Paid sick leave a cynical issue for 2016
October 06, 2015
Hotel workers propose strict regulations on these homeowners
October 06, 2015
AFSCME says Rauner trying to end step increases
- See more at: http://franklincenterhq.org/#sthash.zv1rQgz8.dpuf
Then check out the board of directors....
....
This website is neither liberal nor progressive--I think they run a few false flag type articles to lure people in, but this is just some wingnut tripe here.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:55 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
About that AFT for Hillary thing... had been made long before it was announced in July.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251651016
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"Watchdog.org is a network of American news websites that feature reporting on state and local government from a conservative perspective." And foxnews? This is what we are going to attack Democratic candidates with here at DU? This is ridiculous and completely inappropriate.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Oct 6, 2015, 12:13 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't find it "out of line" to be able to read and dig into posts that provide a window into what "information" and "facts" are being used to influence opinions - be they true or false
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Despite its source, the post raises legitimate issues and does so in a an unbiased way.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Fox News not a reliable source for the day of the week.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why don't you address the veracity of the post? Ohhhh....because it's true? Yeah, no.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: So, why didn't you answer the post with your alert message instead of calling out a jury to do your work for you? Because you don't like a messenger doesn't mean the message is wrong.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
merrily
(45,251 posts)moobu2
(4,822 posts)for anti Hillary attacks huh?
Omaha Steve
(99,073 posts)The conclusion the AFT endorsement was made long ago then seems fair.
In GD-P: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251651745
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)Response to emulatorloo (Reply #41)
Omaha Steve This message was self-deleted by its author.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Ironically, they are ANTI-UNION, too...!!!!
Who knew that public employee unions 'hurt' private sector workers?
Who knew that a 'Bernie Sanders backer FORCED employees to pay union dues?'
Who knew that Right To Work laws made unions 'better?'
You can learn all that happy horseshit, and MORE, at Watchdog.Org. You can also learn, simply by perusing this thread, which people who frequent this site will throw all judgment, all integrity, all reason, under the bus if it means someone is dissing Hillary Clinton.
This is probably the most outrageous example I've seen, oh, today. But I see this kind of nonsense all the time lately, and it makes the website look like Yahoo.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)moobu2
(4,822 posts)Bernie wont ever be the nominee and most people realize that.
Omaha Steve
(99,073 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 6, 2015, 07:40 PM - Edit history (1)
Need I say more?
Edit: Labor unions hold back on endorsements for Hillary: http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/252823-labor-unions-hold-back-on-endorsements-for-hillary
Labor leaders are playing hard to get with Hillary Clinton in her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Many of the nations top unions are sitting on the sidelines, content to let Clinton sweat it out while they withhold endorsements.
Some labor officials are frustrated with Clinton for not coming to their aid in the fight over trade legislation in Congress, while others are skeptical of her commitment to their issues.
The face of the labor movement, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, has not endorsed Clinton while seemingly courting her biggest rivals in the Democratic primaries: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Vice President Biden, who is weighing a run for president.
FULL story at link.
The AFT is a member of and is the largest member of the AFL-CIO. That means they pay a per capita on every member. Meanwhile the AFL-CIO is asking all groups not to endorse ANYONE yet.
OS
merrily
(45,251 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)At this point in the race....historically, the leader at this point in the process doesn't get the nomination. Now is the time for complete vetting of the nominee....this is vetting...
merrily
(45,251 posts)basis for the donations--and for jumping the gun.
Seems as though the Clintons are calling in every chit they have; and they have been collecting chits for decades.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Gonna find out Who's naughty and nice.
http://www.the-north-pole.com/carols/santacome.html
olddots
(10,237 posts)I don't include Chelsea , hopefully she will break the chain .
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I'm sure they will have plenty of great information about Democratic candidates.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)But, you no doubt read that, right?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)have been in partnership for years, funding a New Deal type jobs program involving infrastructure:
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Economy/Labor-Hits-10-Billion-Goal-for-Clinton-Global-Initiative-Jobs-and-Infrastructure-Investment