Trump: Why can't we just use nukes?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Murika, Aug 3, 2016.

  1. All that's saying is that you can maintain control over how your charitable donations are spent, NOT that you can use the money for personal gain. The only personal gain one gets from a family foundation is the same for donations to any charity, e.g. tax benefits.

    From your link:

    You can even appoint yourself as the trustee of your own Foundation. This way, you maintain control over the assets contained in the Foundation. Instead of making a one-time gift to a public charity (and losing control of that gift), you can monitor your favorite charities. If one non-profit changes its focus, or if a more meaningful cause comes along, you can reallocate your Foundation's support.


    Private Family Foundations have special tax advantages, because they are considered "charitable organizations" themselves. Because of this classification, any earnings on Foundation assets are tax-exempt, and can be distribute to the charities you choose.

    If established properly, a private family foundation can often avoid capital gains taxes on highly-appreciated assets (see below). In addition, interest and investment earnings that are not slapped with an income tax can instead be used to help the charities or causes you support.


    It's only shrewd in the fact that they have more control over the money being used in the (charitable) manner they prefer.

    Literally.... Even if you take all the accusations at face value... the Clinton's are being accused of "abusing" their positions of power to get rich people to give money to help poor people.
  2. To what extent is a curated view of the truth interchangeable with the truth?
  3. as much as you can read into it? I mean, the emails are real. I guess if context is important for some of the emails then you should not read too much into it.
  4. Yes, a foundation can be used for good things. No shit. I dont believe she uses it strictly for good. I believe its also a tax shelter and a great way to keep wealth in the family. And I believe she and Bill earn that money by accepting donations and speaking engagements in exchange for using her influence to help organizations that she should not be helping.

    Your stance is that she is earning this money for charitable causes. Fine. There isnt proof to the contrary. There is smoke.
    Her and Bill earned 153million solely by speaking from 01 to this year.
    Goldman Sachs sure does love to hear Bill and Hillary speak, 9 times since 2004, for 2.2mil
    UBS loves them even more. Since August 2011, 10 times, for 1.9mil. Just incredible speakers.
    The list goes on.

    For someone who seemed to understand how institutional racism works, you seem a little naive about institutional corruption. I.e., how the rich stay rich by making rich friends who help rich people
    otherwise known as crony capitalism. If you dont think that exists in America, and that maaaayyybe the Clintons know something about it, i Dont know what to tell you
    ScoRpFerrari and MooSquad like this.
  5. Does this make Clinton evil? no
    well kinda
    but shes definitely not unusual for her line of work.
    MooSquad likes this.
  6. My thoughts are; that rich people opening a charity is very similar to rich people who start their own religion.
    A significant number of these people do it for the tax savings.
    I'd bet that many of the Clintons business trips are done under the name of their charity. Saving them paying taxes on the trips.
    It also allows them to stash their personal money in the charity/religions name. And having chunks of their income payed to the charity tax free. Then they simply use the charity/religions expense accounts to pay for everything tax free.
    Self employed people can do similar things by using the companies expense account for all everyday purchases then writing them off at the end of the year and having a tiny tiny amount to pay or possibly even getting money back for their income tax.
    It is very very far from being illegal. However anybody who uses a charity to do this is definitely lacking in the ethics department.
    I am not saying the Clintons are for sure doing this. But it wouldn't surprise me if they were, and I'd think it's more likely than not.
    It's just an easier way to stay rich.
    The money the foundation actually donates is probably less than what they save on taxes.
    Again not illegal. Just not the most ethical practice. Especially if you are in a position to be payed by the tax payers.
    SEABEE likes this.
  7. I'd be comfortable betting that many of the Clintons speeches are done under the charities name. And the charity gets payed the payment. Then the Clintons simply charge expenses to the charities account.
    It's actually very smart. I do similar things with my business account. My truck is a write off because it's actually owned by my company. Not by me. So the entire cost of my annual truck payments become a tax write off.
    But since I am not payed by tax payers it changes the ethical part of it IMO.
    But if they continue to do this while she is in office that's when it'd really be an issue. Because shed be being payed with tax payer money. And not paying those same taxes on her income.
    I'm not sure how it works in the US. But our politicians get huge tax breaks on their government salary. But they still pay full taxes on any other income.
    SEABEE likes this.
  8. Well that's great that you believe those things, and you're also free to believe in the Loch Ness monster.

    None of the Clintons draw a salary from the foundation, period. In fact, if they were using charity funds for personal gain that would be illegal. But hey, why make accusations based on facts when you can just believe them to be true.

    Considering the charity actually uses the money to help people and has very high marks from charity watch organizations, how is that keeping the wealth in the family?

    Yes it's a tax write off. It's also a tax write off to write a check to the United Way. What's the difference?

    So what if the Clintons get paid to give speeches? What does that have to do with anything?

    "There is smoke." No, there isn't.
  9. There's a lot of "I bet" and "probably" and "I wouldn't be surprised" in there. Intellectual laziness.
  10. Actually it's a semi educated and opinion based observation of possibilities. Also refered to as a theory.
    Just because it has "I bet" "I wouldn't be surprised" and "probably". Doesn't make it invalid.
    Einstein and Hawking probably said those phrases a lot before making great discoveries.(not that I am comparing myself to them)

    But it's not your shared opinion. So go ahead and flame it. It just makes you look like a fool.

    Edit: if you have copies of the Clintons and their foundations financial id gladly take a day to go through them and see.
  11. You know what's hilarious? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also does great work all over the world. I have zero doubt that if Bill Gates were a high ranking Democratic politician there would've been years and years of a Republican smear campaign just the same, and you guys would be saying all the same shit about him and his foundation.
  12. If by semi-educated you mean pure conjecture, then I am in complete agreement with you. See? We do have common ground.
  13. You are absolutely right about this. There absolutely would be a smear campaign. But where you come up short is that you seem to refuse the idea that it's happening on the other side too.
  14. I'm not going to get into yet another argument with you. It's pointless. As said before if someone slapped you in the face with proof of something you don't agree with you'd still deny it as lies or slander.
    My semi-educated opinion comes from experience and watching what many many people in similar positions do.
    As I said throughout. I am not saying that they are doing it. I am simply pointing out that it's a possibility and that I wouldn't be surprised.
  15. Here comes another 1000 word post with a bunch of biased links denying anything I've said I bet..

    And to be clear. I do hope Hillary wins. I think it's the lesser of two evils. This whole topic is just an annoying look how many links I can find contest. When in reality nobody here is going to change anybody else's opinion. There is a lot of pointless gum flapping going on.
    Vote for who you want to vote for and let the numbers decide. Either way there is going to be positives and negatives from whoever wins.

  16. youll be surprised to hear that the Clintons tax returns show a 1million dollar donation to charity. Her charity. and 42k to an org that runs a charity golf event. That same charity donated the clinton foundation 700k in 2015.
    Hillary is so shrewd shes getting profits on her charity donations. Jesus christ I cant believe how effective this charity is.

    To me the most unethical part about this isnt tax sheltering or whatever. Its undue influence by organizations, some foreign, that is gained through these charitable donations.

    When UBS pays 2mil in 5 years to come speak, I bet theyre after more than inspiration.
    MURIKA: is there proof that there is a quid pro quo (beyond the power of the spoken word) ? No. But am I a conspiracy theorist to wonder about it? Are you naive to dismiss it?
  17. I'm keenly aware of how biases can affect perceptions, and in particular I'm cognitive of the fact that that includes my own.

    Believe it or not I make a conscious effort to be objective. To separate myself from internal and external biases and strictly look at the facts from a non-emotional standpoint.

    Can anyone fully separate themselves from those biases? No, but if you put forth the effort and you're both meticulous and tenacious about fact-checking you can do a pretty good job coming the truth.

    Taglines like "Crooked Hillary" are textbook PSYOP messaging - void of any semblance of substance but highly effective at shaping perceptions.

    The conclusion I have drawn is that the countless smear campaigns against Hillary Clinton have been especially dishonest and malicious. You're free to disagree, but your statement about if someone "slapped me in the face with proof" is nonsense.
  18. Oh, SHE is getting profits? Can you back your claim that she's stealing money from her charity and spending it on herself?

    It's actually quite normal for celebrities and former high profile politicians to receive hefty speaking fees. In her case many of them went to her charity (not to herself).

    When Bill Gates gives billions of dollars to his own foundation everyone says what a great guy. When Clinton does it she's "giving money to herself."
  19. no, weve been through this.
    your smoke detector isnt working though.
    thats what those random beeps throughout the day are
  20. The Clinton's run a charity. They don't draw a salary from that charity. That the Clintons are embezzling money from their charity is a whopper of an accusation. I'm sorry, but accusing them of that based on "well um I just feel it in my gut" or "well you gotta wonder" is irresponsible.
  21. They don't have to draw a salary from the charity. That's what I don't think you are grasping. They can still make money off of it in an indirect way. They can still spend it. I haven't taken a salary from my company in a few years. But the company pays for my expenses. My company pays for my truck. My company pays for my mortgage because my office is at home. My company pays for my child care. My company pays for most of my groceries. It's all considered an expense to do business. Therefore the company pays for it. There are very few limits to this.
    And I am sure as a smart business woman. She and Bill understand this. And take full advantage. Any smart business person would.
    My main issue is the level of it. The ethical side of it. Where the money is coming from. Is it tax payer dollars. Is it lobbyist dollars that are made to look like donations. That could influence her once she is in office.
    Any donation the charity is given can be spent quite easily by herself or bill as expenses. They could buy a lamborghini or a new jet under the charity name as long as they drive/fly it to at least one charity event per year. The rest of the time its their personal toy.

    In the big scheme of things I don't care. I'm Canadian. But as and outsider looking in with no real vested interest. I dont get how anybody could be so firmly behind either of these candidates.
    SEABEE likes this.
  22. There are a hell of a lot more restrictions on how money from a nonprofit can be spent than someone's own private (for profit) business.

    And also...

    88% of proceeds actually goes toward its causes. It has an A rating.

    And also...

    The majority of the Clintons' donations didn't even go to the Clinton Foundation. They went to the Clinton Family Foundation, a pass through that forwards the money to other charities.
  23. #148 DIGGS, Aug 19, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2016
  24. op ed from the boston globe wants to shut down a legitimate charity. truly a despicable organization

    UGH and no backbone hillary is capitulating to these unreasonable demands! Why?! They have an A rating!
    Clinton Foundation to limit reach in event of election win

    It was fine to take foreign money when she was a lowly SECRETARY OF STATE, it should be fine for the president!

    "Since the foundation’s inception, it has collected as much as $25 million from Saudi Arabia, as much as $10 million from Kuwait, and up to $5 million a piece from the Citi Foundation, Barclays Capital, and Exxonmobil."

    An A rating!
  25. The Clintons should be canonized!

    Such saints

Share This Page