The Porn Dude
Toronto Escorts

How The Elites Betrayed Working-Class America

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
How The Elites Betrayed Working-Class America

Win-win deals get people more of what they want. Win-lose deals – usually imposed by government – bring them less. The few (the insiders) use government to exploit the many (the rest of us).

Win-lose deals also depress economic progress for everybody. Partly, this happens for an obvious reason.


Dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima was a technical milestone, but not the kind of progress we’re talking about. Progress only makes sense if it means that people are able to get more of what they want.

By definition, when a person is forced into a bad deal, he gets less of what he wants.



Progress is also a learning process. You try something. You see what works and what doesn’t. As people experiment in this way, they learn… and the economy accumulates knowledge and wealth.

They learn to get to work in the morning, for example… to say please and thank you… to save their money… and to invest it wisely.

Win-lose deals interrupt the learning process. That’s why welfare programs fail: People get money without learning.

Temptation to Cheat
That is the real reason the Soviet Union failed, too.

Consumers were forced to buy whatever shoddy products were made available to them; producers had no way to learn how to make good ones.

Toward the end, products available for purchase in the Soviet Union were worth less than the raw materials and labor that went into them.

What do you need for win-win deals?

Three things:

1) People must be free to make choices with their time and money.

2) They must have money they can trust.

3) They must trust each other to respect their rights and property.
These things don’t happen smoothly and without interruption.

Progress is cyclical. Win-win deals add wealth and move society forward. But they depend on trust. And as trust increases, so does the temptation to cheat. When everyone leaves his liquor cabinet open, for example, who can resist having a drink?

Then trust declines. Barriers go up. Costs increase. Win-win gives way to win-lose. Progress goes into reverse.

Money You Could Trust
The invention of real money – based on gold – gave a boost to win-win deals… and to progress.

Why?

It was money you could trust.

If you are paid a gold coin for a day’s labor, you don’t have to trust the person who pays you. You don’t have to wonder if he has the money in his account to cover his check… or what will happen to his money in the future.

You don’t have to trust him; you put your trust in gold. This allows you to do transactions more freely – and speeds up economic progress.

Gold-backed dollars were trustworthy for nearly 200 years (setting aside Lincoln’s phony “greenbacks”).

People became so confident in the integrity of the dollar that they hardly noticed when the gold backing was removed (on March 19, 1968, when President Johnson signed a bill eliminating the “gold cover” for Federal Reserve notes).

But that’s the way it works: The more trusting people become, the easier it is to rip them off.

Set Up by the Elite
Of course, as trust expands and win-win deals proliferate, some people gain more than others.

The typical Chinese day laborer makes six times as much today as he did in 1999. The typical American day laborer has gained little.

And job competition from overseas made him feel like a loser. Now he wants walls – to keep out foreigners and foreign-made products. He wants win-lose deals that guarantee to make him a winner again.

He has no idea that he was set up by his own elite.

Former Fed chiefs Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan got their pictures on the cover of Time magazine. Most people think they are heroes, not rascals. Most people think they saved the economy from another Great Depression by dropping interest rates and injecting it with trillions of dollars in quantitative easing (QE) money.

Most people – even the POTUS – believe we need more fake money to “prime the pump” and get the economy rolling again.

Almost no one realizes it, but it was these stimulating, pump-priming, new credit-based dollars that fueled the trends that ruined America’s working-class wage earner.

Overseas, his competitors used cheap credit to gain market share and take away his job. At home, the elite imposed their crony boondoggles… their regulations… and their win-lose deals – all financed with fake money.

The average American’s medical care now costs him more than seven times more than it did in 1980. His household debt rose nearly 12 times since 1980.

Subtle “Bezzle”
He blamed the Chinese, the Mexicans, the liberals… the media… and the government.

He wanted change.

But who would have guessed that he had been ripped off by his own untrustworthy money?

After you account for inflation, the American worker has not had a significant raise in 40 years – almost since the new money system was put into place after 1971.

But the rich – as measured by the inflation-adjusted Dow – are 10 times richer.

Who would have imagined that after 3,000 years, the elite would have come up with money that betrayed his trust… a “bezzle” so subtle that he didn’t even notice?
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
This skimover of complex issues might be worth a serious reading if you'd given some indication who wrote it, and why it impressed you. Did you — or the writer — imagine there was a time when 'elites', or any group with power didn't exploit those with less? The possibility of regulating their power for wider benefit is one of the reasons we invented government.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Elies like the Trump Family, fattening their various business bottom lines at the White House trough, selling access and expensing everything to the taxpayers.

Speaking of taxpayers, has PoTUS paid his taxes yet?
 
Last edited:

Insidious Von

My head is my home
Sep 12, 2007
38,281
6,534
113
Who knows where Britain would be today if Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne had not given generous tax cuts to the rich after the 2015 Election. Mind you it's not all the Conservatives fault, the rich made out like thieves from Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown's bail outs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2aKlJX6uic
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,971
6,110
113
Elites like Clintons & Clintons foundations and George Soros!
Yea your right the Clintons totally betrayed working people with their paid maternity leave, universal health care, increase in minim wage, assistance with university education and repayment of student loans. Those damn Clintons. Not like Trump and the GOP. Reduce taxes for super rich, end medicaid as we know it, reduce access to medical care, eliminate assistance for repayment of student loans. fight increase to minimum wage, no paid maternity leave. Hooray for the GOP, champions of the workers.

And as far as the Clinton Foundation goes have you ever looked at the work it has done. Instead of making moronic statements why don't you do your homework.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
And as far as the Clinton Foundation goes have you ever looked at the work it has done. Instead of making moronic statements why don't you do your homework.
You lose!! I did my homework! Why don't eat your moronic statements!

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/wall-street-analyst-uncovers-clinton-foundation-fraud/
WALL STREET ANALYST UNCOVERS CLINTON FOUNDATION FRAUD
Hillary's charity already under scrutiny for foreign donations
Published: 04/22/2015 at 9:16 PM
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/01/Jerome-R.-Corsi_avatar-96x96.jpg

Hillary, Chelsea and Bill Clinton
NEW YORK – The Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation – already under scrutiny for foreign donations – is now being accused of fraudulent and possibly criminal mismanagement.



Over the past six weeks, Wall Street financial analyst and investor Charles Ortel has shared with WND, prior to publication, the results of his six-month, in-depth investigation into what he characterizes as an elaborate scheme devised by the Clintons to enrich themselves.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/04/charles-ortel.jpg
Charles Ortel
Through their foundation, Ortel contends, the Clintons have defrauded an unsuspecting international public of hundreds of millions of dollars for personal gain.

The findings come amid separate charges in Peter Schweizer’s upcoming book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”

In Ortel’s April 20 report, “False Philanthropy? First Interim Report Concerning The Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation,” he asks: “Did management exercise vigilance to ensure that the Clinton Foundation actually carried out its original and its amended tax-exempt purposes?”

Another scandal with Hillary Clinton at the center is uniquely exposed in Aaron Klein’s “The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don’t Want You to Know”

Ortel asks further: “Did directors take reasonable care, as fiduciaries, under applicable state, federal and foreign laws to operate this charity serving, at all times, a public interest?”

If not, the executive management as well the board of directors of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation, as well as each of the Clintons personally, may face serious legal liabilities that could extend beyond civil mismanagement.

This article examines the first six “Specific Concerns” that Ortel has detailed.

Ortel says he found evidence the executive leadership of the Clinton Foundation mismanaged, perhaps intentionally, the financial and regulatory reporting required by both state government and federal authorities for charities under tax-exempt status as 501(c)3 foundations.

The next WND article in the series will focus on Ortel’s remaining concerns, including what appears to be a complex fraud the Clintons perpetrated that exploits HIV/AIDs victims in developed countries. The scheme, he said, drew funds from government-collected airline ticket liens imposed through the auspices of the United Nations World Health Organization.

Robin Hood in reverse?

Ortel began his April 20 interim report by posing a series of questions concerning the public disclosures of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation.

Ortel explained to WND that one of the reasons his analysis has taken months is that he found it painstakingly difficult to analyze publicly available financial information pertaining to the Clinton Foundation, because, as far as he could determine, reporting by the foundation since virtually its beginning is not technically complete in numerous material respects.

“The numbers that the Clinton Foundation supply to the global public in its legally mandated filings do not add up, are frequently incorrect and overall appear to be materially misleading,” Ortel explained.

He said that in numerous cases, the Clinton Foundation “appears to have followed inconsistent policies adding in appropriate portions of the various activities it pursued around the world to create ‘consolidated’ financial statements.”

“In some instances, portions were added only for some of the years in which the entities remained in operation, artificially enhancing purported financial results,” Ortel concluded. “In other cases, important elements of activity were improperly characterized and combined.”

Ortel asks: “Do the Clintons, and others who operate the Clinton Foundation, function as Robin Hood in reverse – do they dupe small, modest income donors to enrich themselves and cronies?”

Ortel believes he has found a systematic pattern of faulty financial management and reporting that is consistent with an effort to perpetrate what he suspects may be a massive criminal fraud.

Ortel’s principal charge is that the Clintons and those running the Clinton Foundation have devised an elaborate scheme to steal from hundreds of thousands of small contributors worldwide, as well as from larger donors, including foreign donors.

He further alleges the Clintons have covered up the alleged fraud by a series of apparently technical violations of federal and state law governing the operation of tax-exempt foundations. Ortel says that even if a sophisticated financial analyst were able to discern the fraud, an explanation of how it was carried out would be beyond the comprehension of the average reader.

Ortel’s ‘Specific Concerns‘

Ortel poses 10 specific concerns about the most recent set of Clinton foundation filings for the calendar year ending Dec. 31, 2013. He focuses on “insufficient and materially noncompliant detail” in the operation of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation in total, as well as in the operations of its largest single program, the Clinton Health Initiative Inc., typically represented in the Clinton financial reports by the acronym CHAI.

The first two concerns are explained in full detail, to demonstrate the technical depth of Ortel’s analysis. Ortel’s concerns three through 10 are presented in summary fashion. More in-depth analysis can be found at Ortel’s website.

Specific Concern No. 1: Financial disclosures for the Clinton Foundation Annual Report Year 2013 were filed significantly past regulatory deadlines that are regularly met by charities of comparable size and standing.

Tax-exempt organizations such as the Clinton Foundation and CHAI are required to file complete returns on IRS Form 990, together with all supporting schedules and attachments as soon as May 15 for the previous calendar year.

A single three-month extension is “automatically” granted; however, the IRS exercises more judgment granting or denying an additional extension past Aug. 15 for calendar-year filers.

The Clinton Foundation appears to have filed its Form 990 for 2013 around Nov. 14, 2014, some six months past the deadline, as noted on page 26 of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation consolidated financial statements for Dec. 31, 2012 and 2013.

Ortel explained the problem as follows: “During 2014, a year when the Clinton Foundation pursued an aggressive, far-reaching fundraising campaign, potential donors who might have been interested to review legally mandated filings that generally are an essential component of evaluating a charity did not have an extended period of time to do so.”

Specific Concern No. 2: The independent “audit” for the Clinton Foundation was completed 31 days after the date when Form 990 was filed with the IRS.

Tax-exempt organizations as large as the Clinton Foundation was in 2013 are required to obtain and contemporaneously file an independent audit that is performed by an informed, empowered and experienced firm of accounting professionals. Moreover, multiple questions asked in Form 990 require filers to reconcile entries with key numbers contained in the independent audit.

For calendar year 2013, the Price Waterhouse Cooper audit letter is dated Dec. 16, 2014, and signed at the Little Rock office, as seen on pages 3 through 25 of the consolidated financial statements for Dec. 31, 2012 and 2013.

Ortel further points out it is not clear that Price Waterhouse Cooper conducted an audit in the commonly understood sense of this term.

As the audit letter notes: “The consolidated financial statements of the Foundation as of December 31, 2012 and for the year then ended were audited by other auditors whose report, dated September 10, 2013, expressed an unmodified opinion on those statements.”

By this language, Price Waterhouse Cooper limits its evaluation as follows: “[T]he consolidated financial statements … present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation at December 31, 2013, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America”.

Ortel’s point is that since Price Waterhouse Cooper did not independently test the opening balance sheet for calendar year 2013, the accounting firm “cannot have truly assessed key financial positions and arrangements, let alone fully understood the long and deeply troubling history of CHAI dating to its formation in Arkansas in September 2009 and of a similarly named predecessor entity.”

Furthermore, Ortel points out, according to specific disclosures in the audit prepared by Price Waterhouse Cooper, “subsequent events” that may have occurred in 2014 were only evaluated through Dec. 5, 2014 (see the end of Footnote 1), leaving a potentially crucial 11-day period that was explicitly not considered by the accounting firm.

Finally, key sections of IRS Form 990 (See Schedule D, page 4, Parts XI and XII, as seen in page 51 at the above link to the consolidated statements for 2012 and 2013) are not filled in; so, unless an amended Form 990 was later filed, the foundation neglected to reconcile its independent audit with information contained in its 2013 Form 990 and failed to correct the material deficiency thereafter.

Ortel’s “specific concerns” numbered 3-5 are listed in summary form as follows:

Specific Concern No. 3: For 2013, Key “consolidating” information for constituent Clinton Foundation entities was prepared by management and reviewed by independent auditors; however, the information appears deliberately withheld from public view.

Specific Concern No. 4: In relevant years, the Clinton Foundation either filed and obscured consolidating financial information or elected to cease filing consolidating financial information.

Specific Concern No. 5: The financial impact of fundraising for the speakers’ endowment is not clearly delineated and segregated from results shown for operations.

Specific Concerns No. 6 and No. 7, dealing with the World Trade Organization and UNITAID, are the focus of the next WND article in the series.

What happened to Eric B**********man?

Specific Concern No. 8: In light of the irregularities noted in Specific Concerns 1-7, the agreement to extend former Clinton Foundation CEO Eric B**********man’s employment contract in December 2014, combined with his subsequent and sudden departure just days later, early in January 2015, arouses deep suspicion, Ortel says.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/04/eric-b**********man.jpg

Eric B**********man
Eric B**********man
On March 1, investigative reporter Kenneth P. Vogel writing in Politico, noted that in December 2014, the board of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation had approved a salary of more than $395,000, plus bonuses, to hire the Yale-educated B**********man while voting to extend his board term through 2017.

Vogel noted that B**********man, who had worked with Chelsea Clinton at McKinsey & Company consultancy, had been recruited “with the former first daughter’s support to help impose McKinsey-like management rigor to a foundation that had grown to a $2 billion charitable powerhouse.”

B**********man’s sudden departure shook the New York financial world.

Vogel wrote that in January, “only weeks after the board’s show of support and just a year and a half after B**********man arrived, he abruptly resigned, and sources tell Politico his exit stemmed partly from a power struggle inside the foundation between and among the coterie of Clinton loyalists who have surrounded the former president for decades and who helped start and run the foundation.”

“Some, including the president’s old Arkansas lawyer Bruce Lindsey, who preceded B**********man as CEO, raised concerns directly to Bill Clinton about the reforms implemented by B**********man, according to sources, and felt themselves marginalized by the growing influence of Chelsea Clinton and the new CEO she had helped recruit.”

In an article Ortel wrote for Breitbart News on March 15, he referenced an Aug. 13, 2013, New York Times article by Nicholas Confessore and Amy Chozick describing the foundation.

They wrote: “For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.”

In his report, Ortel comments on the Confessore-Chozick piece: “Considering this article now, with the benefit of hindsight and having poured through reams of public filings and comments made by the Clinton Foundation as well as related parties, one wonders how seriously management, directors, and other employees take their manifold legal duties, particularly when it comes to making truthful and complete, rather than untruthful, incomplete, and thereby misleading public disclosures.”

Ortel, a frequent guest on Bloomberg television and a contributor to several different print and Internet publications, including the Washington Times, began his Wall Street career from June 1980 through July 2002 with Dillon, Read, & Co., followed by the Bridgeford Group and the Chart Group.

His international investment expertise frequently has him engaged in complex legal and financial structures in many different countries. He is currently managing director of Newport Value Partners LLC, which provides independent investment research to professional investors. He is a graduate of the Horace Mann School, Yale College and the Harvard Business School.

In an article published Aug. 4, 2009, demonstrating the financial analysis for which Ortel is perhaps best known on Wall Street, Forbes magazine noted he first broadcast his concerns about General Electric’s earnings quality in 2008, when the stock was trading above $30 a share. A year later, GE’s market value had plunge by about $200 billion, to $13 a share.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/wall-str...clinton-foundation-fraud/#C2kUfhxTTdr47m2u.99
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,971
6,110
113
You lose!! I did my homework! Why don't eat your moronic statements!

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/wall-street-analyst-uncovers-clinton-foundation-fraud/
WALL STREET ANALYST UNCOVERS CLINTON FOUNDATION FRAUD
Hillary's charity already under scrutiny for foreign donations
Published: 04/22/2015 at 9:16 PM
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/01/Jerome-R.-Corsi_avatar-96x96.jpg

Hillary, Chelsea and Bill Clinton
NEW YORK – The Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation – already under scrutiny for foreign donations – is now being accused of fraudulent and possibly criminal mismanagement.



Over the past six weeks, Wall Street financial analyst and investor Charles Ortel has shared with WND, prior to publication, the results of his six-month, in-depth investigation into what he characterizes as an elaborate scheme devised by the Clintons to enrich themselves.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/04/charles-ortel.jpg
Charles Ortel
Through their foundation, Ortel contends, the Clintons have defrauded an unsuspecting international public of hundreds of millions of dollars for personal gain.

The findings come amid separate charges in Peter Schweizer’s upcoming book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”

In Ortel’s April 20 report, “False Philanthropy? First Interim Report Concerning The Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation,” he asks: “Did management exercise vigilance to ensure that the Clinton Foundation actually carried out its original and its amended tax-exempt purposes?”

Another scandal with Hillary Clinton at the center is uniquely exposed in Aaron Klein’s “The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don’t Want You to Know”

Ortel asks further: “Did directors take reasonable care, as fiduciaries, under applicable state, federal and foreign laws to operate this charity serving, at all times, a public interest?”

If not, the executive management as well the board of directors of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation, as well as each of the Clintons personally, may face serious legal liabilities that could extend beyond civil mismanagement.

This article examines the first six “Specific Concerns” that Ortel has detailed.

Ortel says he found evidence the executive leadership of the Clinton Foundation mismanaged, perhaps intentionally, the financial and regulatory reporting required by both state government and federal authorities for charities under tax-exempt status as 501(c)3 foundations.

The next WND article in the series will focus on Ortel’s remaining concerns, including what appears to be a complex fraud the Clintons perpetrated that exploits HIV/AIDs victims in developed countries. The scheme, he said, drew funds from government-collected airline ticket liens imposed through the auspices of the United Nations World Health Organization.

Robin Hood in reverse?

Ortel began his April 20 interim report by posing a series of questions concerning the public disclosures of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation.

Ortel explained to WND that one of the reasons his analysis has taken months is that he found it painstakingly difficult to analyze publicly available financial information pertaining to the Clinton Foundation, because, as far as he could determine, reporting by the foundation since virtually its beginning is not technically complete in numerous material respects.

“The numbers that the Clinton Foundation supply to the global public in its legally mandated filings do not add up, are frequently incorrect and overall appear to be materially misleading,” Ortel explained.

He said that in numerous cases, the Clinton Foundation “appears to have followed inconsistent policies adding in appropriate portions of the various activities it pursued around the world to create ‘consolidated’ financial statements.”

“In some instances, portions were added only for some of the years in which the entities remained in operation, artificially enhancing purported financial results,” Ortel concluded. “In other cases, important elements of activity were improperly characterized and combined.”

Ortel asks: “Do the Clintons, and others who operate the Clinton Foundation, function as Robin Hood in reverse – do they dupe small, modest income donors to enrich themselves and cronies?”

Ortel believes he has found a systematic pattern of faulty financial management and reporting that is consistent with an effort to perpetrate what he suspects may be a massive criminal fraud.

Ortel’s principal charge is that the Clintons and those running the Clinton Foundation have devised an elaborate scheme to steal from hundreds of thousands of small contributors worldwide, as well as from larger donors, including foreign donors.

He further alleges the Clintons have covered up the alleged fraud by a series of apparently technical violations of federal and state law governing the operation of tax-exempt foundations. Ortel says that even if a sophisticated financial analyst were able to discern the fraud, an explanation of how it was carried out would be beyond the comprehension of the average reader.

Ortel’s ‘Specific Concerns‘

Ortel poses 10 specific concerns about the most recent set of Clinton foundation filings for the calendar year ending Dec. 31, 2013. He focuses on “insufficient and materially noncompliant detail” in the operation of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation in total, as well as in the operations of its largest single program, the Clinton Health Initiative Inc., typically represented in the Clinton financial reports by the acronym CHAI.

The first two concerns are explained in full detail, to demonstrate the technical depth of Ortel’s analysis. Ortel’s concerns three through 10 are presented in summary fashion. More in-depth analysis can be found at Ortel’s website.

Specific Concern No. 1: Financial disclosures for the Clinton Foundation Annual Report Year 2013 were filed significantly past regulatory deadlines that are regularly met by charities of comparable size and standing.

Tax-exempt organizations such as the Clinton Foundation and CHAI are required to file complete returns on IRS Form 990, together with all supporting schedules and attachments as soon as May 15 for the previous calendar year.

A single three-month extension is “automatically” granted; however, the IRS exercises more judgment granting or denying an additional extension past Aug. 15 for calendar-year filers.

The Clinton Foundation appears to have filed its Form 990 for 2013 around Nov. 14, 2014, some six months past the deadline, as noted on page 26 of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation consolidated financial statements for Dec. 31, 2012 and 2013.

Ortel explained the problem as follows: “During 2014, a year when the Clinton Foundation pursued an aggressive, far-reaching fundraising campaign, potential donors who might have been interested to review legally mandated filings that generally are an essential component of evaluating a charity did not have an extended period of time to do so.”

Specific Concern No. 2: The independent “audit” for the Clinton Foundation was completed 31 days after the date when Form 990 was filed with the IRS.

Tax-exempt organizations as large as the Clinton Foundation was in 2013 are required to obtain and contemporaneously file an independent audit that is performed by an informed, empowered and experienced firm of accounting professionals. Moreover, multiple questions asked in Form 990 require filers to reconcile entries with key numbers contained in the independent audit.

For calendar year 2013, the Price Waterhouse Cooper audit letter is dated Dec. 16, 2014, and signed at the Little Rock office, as seen on pages 3 through 25 of the consolidated financial statements for Dec. 31, 2012 and 2013.

Ortel further points out it is not clear that Price Waterhouse Cooper conducted an audit in the commonly understood sense of this term.

As the audit letter notes: “The consolidated financial statements of the Foundation as of December 31, 2012 and for the year then ended were audited by other auditors whose report, dated September 10, 2013, expressed an unmodified opinion on those statements.”

By this language, Price Waterhouse Cooper limits its evaluation as follows: “[T]he consolidated financial statements … present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation at December 31, 2013, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America”.

Ortel’s point is that since Price Waterhouse Cooper did not independently test the opening balance sheet for calendar year 2013, the accounting firm “cannot have truly assessed key financial positions and arrangements, let alone fully understood the long and deeply troubling history of CHAI dating to its formation in Arkansas in September 2009 and of a similarly named predecessor entity.”

Furthermore, Ortel points out, according to specific disclosures in the audit prepared by Price Waterhouse Cooper, “subsequent events” that may have occurred in 2014 were only evaluated through Dec. 5, 2014 (see the end of Footnote 1), leaving a potentially crucial 11-day period that was explicitly not considered by the accounting firm.

Finally, key sections of IRS Form 990 (See Schedule D, page 4, Parts XI and XII, as seen in page 51 at the above link to the consolidated statements for 2012 and 2013) are not filled in; so, unless an amended Form 990 was later filed, the foundation neglected to reconcile its independent audit with information contained in its 2013 Form 990 and failed to correct the material deficiency thereafter.

Ortel’s “specific concerns” numbered 3-5 are listed in summary form as follows:

Specific Concern No. 3: For 2013, Key “consolidating” information for constituent Clinton Foundation entities was prepared by management and reviewed by independent auditors; however, the information appears deliberately withheld from public view.

Specific Concern No. 4: In relevant years, the Clinton Foundation either filed and obscured consolidating financial information or elected to cease filing consolidating financial information.

Specific Concern No. 5: The financial impact of fundraising for the speakers’ endowment is not clearly delineated and segregated from results shown for operations.

Specific Concerns No. 6 and No. 7, dealing with the World Trade Organization and UNITAID, are the focus of the next WND article in the series.

What happened to Eric B**********man?

Specific Concern No. 8: In light of the irregularities noted in Specific Concerns 1-7, the agreement to extend former Clinton Foundation CEO Eric B**********man’s employment contract in December 2014, combined with his subsequent and sudden departure just days later, early in January 2015, arouses deep suspicion, Ortel says.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/04/eric-b**********man.jpg

Eric B**********man
Eric B**********man
On March 1, investigative reporter Kenneth P. Vogel writing in Politico, noted that in December 2014, the board of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation had approved a salary of more than $395,000, plus bonuses, to hire the Yale-educated B**********man while voting to extend his board term through 2017.

Vogel noted that B**********man, who had worked with Chelsea Clinton at McKinsey & Company consultancy, had been recruited “with the former first daughter’s support to help impose McKinsey-like management rigor to a foundation that had grown to a $2 billion charitable powerhouse.”

B**********man’s sudden departure shook the New York financial world.

Vogel wrote that in January, “only weeks after the board’s show of support and just a year and a half after B**********man arrived, he abruptly resigned, and sources tell Politico his exit stemmed partly from a power struggle inside the foundation between and among the coterie of Clinton loyalists who have surrounded the former president for decades and who helped start and run the foundation.”

“Some, including the president’s old Arkansas lawyer Bruce Lindsey, who preceded B**********man as CEO, raised concerns directly to Bill Clinton about the reforms implemented by B**********man, according to sources, and felt themselves marginalized by the growing influence of Chelsea Clinton and the new CEO she had helped recruit.”

In an article Ortel wrote for Breitbart News on March 15, he referenced an Aug. 13, 2013, New York Times article by Nicholas Confessore and Amy Chozick describing the foundation.

They wrote: “For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.”

In his report, Ortel comments on the Confessore-Chozick piece: “Considering this article now, with the benefit of hindsight and having poured through reams of public filings and comments made by the Clinton Foundation as well as related parties, one wonders how seriously management, directors, and other employees take their manifold legal duties, particularly when it comes to making truthful and complete, rather than untruthful, incomplete, and thereby misleading public disclosures.”

Ortel, a frequent guest on Bloomberg television and a contributor to several different print and Internet publications, including the Washington Times, began his Wall Street career from June 1980 through July 2002 with Dillon, Read, & Co., followed by the Bridgeford Group and the Chart Group.

His international investment expertise frequently has him engaged in complex legal and financial structures in many different countries. He is currently managing director of Newport Value Partners LLC, which provides independent investment research to professional investors. He is a graduate of the Horace Mann School, Yale College and the Harvard Business School.

In an article published Aug. 4, 2009, demonstrating the financial analysis for which Ortel is perhaps best known on Wall Street, Forbes magazine noted he first broadcast his concerns about General Electric’s earnings quality in 2008, when the stock was trading above $30 a share. A year later, GE’s market value had plunge by about $200 billion, to $13 a share.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/wall-str...clinton-foundation-fraud/#C2kUfhxTTdr47m2u.99
See post #10.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Ouch. LMAO. Why dont you try and find some real evidence instead of posting some conspiracy site.
LOL Checkmate!! Loser
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

Just looking at their Clinton foundation tax return / financial statement is proof enough that it a slush fund!

The Clinton family discusses the Clinton Global Initiative. Reuters
MORE ON:
CLINTON Foundation


Bill Clinton vows major donation to foundation
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

In July 2013, Eric B**********man, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

B**********man abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace B**********man.

Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.

The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.

The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.

An accountant for the Clinton Foundation did not return The Post’s calls seeking clarification on its expenses Friday, and a spokesperson for the group refused comment.

FILED UNDER BILL CLINTON , CHARITIES , CLINTON FOUNDATION , HILLARY CLINTON ,
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,971
6,110
113
LOL Checkmate!! Loser
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

Just looking at their Clinton foundation tax return / financial statement is proof enough that it a slush fund!

The Clinton family discusses the Clinton Global Initiative. Reuters
MORE ON:
CLINTON Foundation


Bill Clinton vows major donation to foundation
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

In July 2013, Eric B**********man, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

B**********man abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace B**********man.

Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.

The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.

The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.

An accountant for the Clinton Foundation did not return The Post’s calls seeking clarification on its expenses Friday, and a spokesperson for the group refused comment.

FILED UNDER BILL CLINTON , CHARITIES , CLINTON FOUNDATION , HILLARY CLINTON ,
Well at least now you are making an attempt at something serious. the only problem I have is that if you go on the Charity navigator site the Clinton foundation is given 4 stars.

Overall Score & Rating 94.74
Financial 97.50
Accountability & Transparency 93.00



Financial Performance Metrics
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity's total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 86.9%
Administrative Expenses 8.7%
Fundraising Expenses 4.2%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.03
Working Capital Ratio (years) 1.17
Program Expenses Growth 17.3%
Liabilities to Assets 15.3%

People should read the report for themselves.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Well at least now you are making an attempt at something serious. the only problem I have is that if you go on the Charity navigator site the Clinton foundation is given 4 stars.

Overall Score & Rating 94.74
Financial 97.50
Accountability & Transparency 93.00



Financial Performance Metrics
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity's total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 86.9%
Administrative Expenses 8.7%
Fundraising Expenses 4.2%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.03
Working Capital Ratio (years) 1.17
Program Expenses Growth 17.3%
Liabilities to Assets 15.3%

People should read the report for themselves.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/16/clinton-foundation-spent-6-percent-charitable-grants-2014/


The Clinton Foundation spent less than 6 percent of its budget on charitable grants in 2014, according to documents the organization filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2015.

The tax records, which were filed with the IRS in November of 2015, show that the Clinton Foundation spent far more on overhead expenses like travel ($7.9 million) than it did on charitable grants in 2014. The group also spent more on rent and office supplies (a total of $6.6 million) than it did on charitable grants. The Clinton Foundation’s IRS forms show that even its depreciation expense ($5.3 million) — an accounting classification that takes into account the wear and tear of an organization’s assets — exceeded the tax-exempt organization’s charitable grant outlays.

Checkmate Loser!
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,971
6,110
113
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/16/clinton-foundation-spent-6-percent-charitable-grants-2014/


The Clinton Foundation spent less than 6 percent of its budget on charitable grants in 2014, according to documents the organization filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2015.

The tax records, which were filed with the IRS in November of 2015, show that the Clinton Foundation spent far more on overhead expenses like travel ($7.9 million) than it did on charitable grants in 2014. The group also spent more on rent and office supplies (a total of $6.6 million) than it did on charitable grants. The Clinton Foundation’s IRS forms show that even its depreciation expense ($5.3 million) — an accounting classification that takes into account the wear and tear of an organization’s assets — exceeded the tax-exempt organization’s charitable grant outlays.

Checkmate Loser!
LOL. Keep looking in right wing publications. I prefer the non-partisan Charity Navigator. Charity Watch another non-partisan organization gave them an A. But nice try.

And by the way what does the Clinton Foundation for good or for bad have to do with elites betraying working people.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
LOL. Keep looking in right wing publications. I prefer the non-partisan Charity Navigator. Charity Watch another non-partisan organization gave them an A. But nice try.

And by the way what does the Clinton Foundation for good or for bad have to do with elites betraying working people.
http://www.nonprofitpro.com/article/who-watches-the-charity-watchdogs-charity-navigator/

“There are two fatal flaws in the Charity Navigator approach: One, it misleads the public even when purportedly accurate, and two, it is often inaccurate,” said Geoffrey W. Peters, pro bono general counsel, American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising. “The public, press and politicians are encouraged to believe that Charity Navigator is an ‘impartial evaluator of publicly reported financial, accountability/transparency and results reporting’ that exists to ‘guide intelligent giving’ and ‘advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic marketplace.’ Yet its choices of ratings criteria are instead—whether intentionally or inadvertently—designed to mask rather than reveal what should be intelligent giving choices. And its public behavior is anything but impartial, intelligent or promoting efficiency.”
Peters, a respected fundraiser and industry veteran, stressed that his comments were his own and do not reflect the views of any organization with which he is involved. But his feelings on Charity Navigator typify those of the fundraising community at large.
The biggest issue is Charity Navigator’s notorious use of overhead and fundraising ratio as primary factors in its ratings formula. This information is easy to obtain, but tells little about how effective a charity truly is and favors organizations that spend little on fundraising or administrative costs. It’s also easy to manipulate.
“This has led to Charity Navigator rating organizations that are all but overt scams with four stars and others that are leading the sector in implementing impact measurement with lesser ratings—as if Charity Navigator could really distinguish between a three-star level of effectiveness and a two- or four-star level,” said Peters. “Thus, the public is misled into believing these ratings have meaning, utility and accuracy, when the truth is the measures chosen are nothing more than conveniently and easily obtained from the Form 990.”
Other criticisms leveled at the site:
• It does a poor job of actually identifying when a nonprofit is crooked. Writes Jan Masaoka for Blue Avocado, an online nonprofit magazine: “When a nonprofit is extremely badly managed or is run by crooks, the charity raters are typically the last to know. Paradoxically, the raters wait for The New York Times to identify bad apples, and then they jump in to call the apple rotten. The Central Asia Institute (Three Cups of Tea) was found to be crooked by 
‘60 Minutes’ at a time when it boasted four-star ratings (the top available) from the raters.”
• Despite its status as a nonprofit, Charity Navigator does not rate itself. While it plans to in the future—and freely offers its financial and results data on its website—it’s a bad look for an organization that advocates for transparency.
• It does little to defend charities from inaccurate reports or wrongful criticism. “What our sector needs is more courageous leaders to help shape pubic discourse and respond to false and misleading media headlines, not to wrongly follow the herd in order to gain favor with the media,” said Peters. “Charity Navigator, once again, missed that opportunity when a truly worthwhile charity recently was attacked in the national media, and instead of using its supposed expertise in reading the Form 990 to clearly refute the allegations, it instead placed the charity on its Watch List despite the correct information being readily ascertainable from [the organization’s] Form 990 and website.”
On this last point, Peters is referring to Wounded Warrior Project, the subject of investigations by CBS News and The New York Times alleging that the veterans charity spent $26 million on opulent staff parties and events. The investigations leaned heavily on financial data obtained from Charity Navigator, and while much of that information appears to have been misinterpreted—a closer reading of Wounded Warrior Project’s Form 990 reveals that $24.4 million of its events spending was a program expense—the damage was already done.
Three days after the reports were published, Charity Navigator added Wounded Warrior Project to its Watch List and Donor Advisory. At the time, Wounded Warrior Project had a four-star accountability and transparency score—Charity Navigator's highest.
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,971
6,110
113
http://www.nonprofitpro.com/article/who-watches-the-charity-watchdogs-charity-navigator/

“There are two fatal flaws in the Charity Navigator approach: One, it misleads the public even when purportedly accurate, and two, it is often inaccurate,” said Geoffrey W. Peters, pro bono general counsel, American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising. “The public, press and politicians are encouraged to believe that Charity Navigator is an ‘impartial evaluator of publicly reported financial, accountability/transparency and results reporting’ that exists to ‘guide intelligent giving’ and ‘advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic marketplace.’ Yet its choices of ratings criteria are instead—whether intentionally or inadvertently—designed to mask rather than reveal what should be intelligent giving choices. And its public behavior is anything but impartial, intelligent or promoting efficiency.”
Peters, a respected fundraiser and industry veteran, stressed that his comments were his own and do not reflect the views of any organization with which he is involved. But his feelings on Charity Navigator typify those of the fundraising community at large.
The biggest issue is Charity Navigator’s notorious use of overhead and fundraising ratio as primary factors in its ratings formula. This information is easy to obtain, but tells little about how effective a charity truly is and favors organizations that spend little on fundraising or administrative costs. It’s also easy to manipulate.
“This has led to Charity Navigator rating organizations that are all but overt scams with four stars and others that are leading the sector in implementing impact measurement with lesser ratings—as if Charity Navigator could really distinguish between a three-star level of effectiveness and a two- or four-star level,” said Peters. “Thus, the public is misled into believing these ratings have meaning, utility and accuracy, when the truth is the measures chosen are nothing more than conveniently and easily obtained from the Form 990.”
Other criticisms leveled at the site:
• It does a poor job of actually identifying when a nonprofit is crooked. Writes Jan Masaoka for Blue Avocado, an online nonprofit magazine: “When a nonprofit is extremely badly managed or is run by crooks, the charity raters are typically the last to know. Paradoxically, the raters wait for The New York Times to identify bad apples, and then they jump in to call the apple rotten. The Central Asia Institute (Three Cups of Tea) was found to be crooked by 
‘60 Minutes’ at a time when it boasted four-star ratings (the top available) from the raters.”
• Despite its status as a nonprofit, Charity Navigator does not rate itself. While it plans to in the future—and freely offers its financial and results data on its website—it’s a bad look for an organization that advocates for transparency.
• It does little to defend charities from inaccurate reports or wrongful criticism. “What our sector needs is more courageous leaders to help shape pubic discourse and respond to false and misleading media headlines, not to wrongly follow the herd in order to gain favor with the media,” said Peters. “Charity Navigator, once again, missed that opportunity when a truly worthwhile charity recently was attacked in the national media, and instead of using its supposed expertise in reading the Form 990 to clearly refute the allegations, it instead placed the charity on its Watch List despite the correct information being readily ascertainable from [the organization’s] Form 990 and website.”
On this last point, Peters is referring to Wounded Warrior Project, the subject of investigations by CBS News and The New York Times alleging that the veterans charity spent $26 million on opulent staff parties and events. The investigations leaned heavily on financial data obtained from Charity Navigator, and while much of that information appears to have been misinterpreted—a closer reading of Wounded Warrior Project’s Form 990 reveals that $24.4 million of its events spending was a program expense—the damage was already done.
Three days after the reports were published, Charity Navigator added Wounded Warrior Project to its Watch List and Donor Advisory. At the time, Wounded Warrior Project had a four-star accountability and transparency score—Charity Navigator's highest.
LOL. Weren't you the one who was quoting Charity Navigator when you thought it helped you. And you missed Charity Watch and the bigger question about wht this has to do with how the Clintons betrayed working people. But nice try.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,872
6,345
113
I notice that PropagandaAddict is still ignoring that Trump's cabinet is full of elites and follows typical republican policy that harms the little guy.

And should we start discussing Trump's "charitable" foundation?
 
Toronto Escorts