It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump profited from kids cancer charity

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

Michelle Obama made 500K off a non profit in like the first month in office. I am sure you will find much more if you dug. Just saying.




posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Taking a quick looksie:

To date, Eric Trump has raised more than $11 million — including $2.9 million last year — for the hospital's research, most of it through the golf tournaments, according to Forbes.

The costs for the tournaments averaged $50,000 during the first four years, which is about what other charities pay for events at Trump courses. But the expenses quickly began to rise, reaching $322,000 by 2015, Forbes reported, citing IRS filings.

If accurate, these figures are hard to reconcile with Eric Trump's claims that the charity is able to use the course for free and that many other expenses are donated. "We get to use our assets 100% free of charge," the president's son told Forbes.

"In reviewing filings from the Eric Trump Foundation and other charities, it's clear that the course wasn't free — that the Trump Organization received payments for its use, part of more than $1.2 million that has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization," Forbes reported. "Golf charity experts say the listed expenses defy any reasonable cost justification for a one-day golf tournament."


So apparently maybe 12% didn't go out?

Yes / no?

Now lets compare that to the Clinton Foundation:


Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”

The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.

That number pales in comparison to the $34.8 million the foundation spent on salaries, compensation and employee benefits.

Another $50.4 million was marked as “other expenses,” while the remaining almost $851K was marked as “professional fundraising expenses.”

Despite taking in an additional $30 million in 2014, the Clinton Foundation spent 40 percent less on charitable grants in 2014 than in 2013. Even as it slashed charitable spending, the foundation increased the amount spent on salaries, employee benefits and compensation by $5 million in 2014. The foundation also spent $5 million more “other expenses” in 2014.
dailycaller.com...



edit on 7-6-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
So we expected Trump to act any differently than all the rich and famous people who entertain themselves with hugely expensive tickets for charity balls, auctions etc and then pay a pittance to the actual charity?

It's just the rich man's game.

Private charities are a scam. But then, so are the government give-outs.

No Honest Abes these days.

Even the Red Cross charged wartime soldiers for coffee and donuts.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Sorry, but I read the USA article as very astute business man making sure there is a paper trail for every cent. Giving to charities is the top red flag to the IRS and they pursue people who claim giving to a charity with a vengeance.

Of course, Trump baaadd! he not play nice...



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
This is a question about whether the expenses are right, which there is no detail to suggest they were not right, just a reporters opinion. A charity has the right to cover expenses.

It's also old news.

I guess we're back to the opinionated campaign type stories now that everything else the left has tried is collapsing in a heap and Trump continues to keep promise after promise and revive the USA.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthsSword

Of course, charities do have expenses that will be covered from the money they take in. Everyone understands or should understand that.

The problem is that excessive expenses can indicate poor management or worse, some form of abuse. For instance, if a person setup a charity, collected $1 million and pay himself a salary of $950k, that's clearly malfeasance. I think we can all agree on that?

Now what if those running the charity also own businesses whose goods or services they purchase with charity money? This starts to get a lot thornier but at a minimum, what's charged should be provided at a fair price, consistent with what would be paid to a competitor.

What is clearly unacceptable is when those running the charity use the money to purchase goods or services from their own businesses at a grossly inflated price. I think that most reasonable people can agree that's the case? After all, they're essentially colluding with themselves in a price gouging scheme.

That appears to be what happened here. The Trump-run charity's only recipients for this $1.2 million in expenses were Trump-owned business that were paid much more than fair market value.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Do you not get tired of peddling opinions and assuming some crime when there is no evidence of such.
Easy to write or push a story - a little harder to substantiate it - but that is not important to you... am I right?



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Just more honor bestowed upon us by the first family.




posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
someone thinks charity has something to do with helping people?
well if that was true Hattie would have bran new citys by now .
the schools here would all have kids each have there own pc and class size would be 5 kids to one teacher .
what planet are you guys from anyway ?



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
here is how charity really works .
step one find drunk dum dress him in red hold a pale people put money in he slips some in his pocket gets drunker.
step two get said money pay ones self step 3 repet step 4 be sure you have adollar left so you can say it helped someone .
stop on side of road give teh drunk ( now holding a sign a dollar )



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Let's be honest, we need charity reform in this country.

We also need to put pressure on Canada. In Canada you don't have to disclose where the money came from, mix that with America's lax laws on what constitutes a charity organization and you have an environment for misuse and money/power laundering.

If this was a thread about Hillary the left would point to Trump and vise versa.

But let's be clear, just because one may be worse than the other doesn't make either admirable.

But the faux outrage by both in either case is telling of those who use it to further their political beliefs.

I'd like to ask everyone, what's worse, the fact those in power do this, or the fact that people cherry pick to further their politics?

It will continue as long as people pick sides and defend their side.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Justso

The Red Cross charged for donuts and coffee in WWII because they were asked to do so by the US Secretary of War. The reason for this was that the Red Cross was asked to setup these facilities that were open to all Allied troops and the non-Americans were being charged. They weren't making a profit off soldiers — the charges were nominal — it was done so there wouldn't be this disparity in treatment, therefore removing an opportunity for disunity to fester among allied troops.

I take exception to you repeating anti-Red Cross smear propaganda in an attempt to normalize the sleaziness of Trump.

My mother served in the Red Cross in Vietnam and I can assure you that she and others were there out of sense of civic duty, a love of country and a genuine concern for US servicemen. In later life, she organized, on a completely volunteer basis, countless events for veterans. I can assure you from my own interactions with those vets that none of them had anything but praise for the work of the Red Cross.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: theantediluvian

Do you not get tired of peddling opinions and assuming some crime when there is no evidence of such.
Easy to write or push a story - a little harder to substantiate it - but that is not important to you... am I right?


What a sad, unfunny joke. As if YOU worry about subsantiating anything. You've never researched anything past what's trending on Drudge Report and the opinions you express are given to you, wholly formed, from propagandists.

All your post shows that no matter the venue, you're incapable of debating with me beyond baseless personal attacks because you're a useful idiot with only the most superficial understanding of the issues.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
What the USA article neglects to state is the fact that 11 million dollars was donated St Jude's and another 5 million from non-golf events as well.

Another hit piece.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

That's just the only example I'm aware of, which to me isn't mere deflection it's an important POV in terms of public figures how they use they money, as well as the liberal hypocrisy herein.

From what I can see with those quick data's (I'm no accountant):
from the look of it the Trump's sent out over 85% of the money they took in for the benefit. The Clinton's kept nearly 95% of all the money they were taking in the period referenced.

But the Lib's ignored that during the campaign, and now in here they're ignoring it again while having meltdowns about the poor cancer children whom were RIPPED OFF by Trump. The poor children in Haiti whom Hillary supposedly raised money for, F em.

According to the ATS lib's I recall reading all last year about it, the CF feathering it's own bed with all that percentage was supposedly typical. I see todays thread title and was ready to be pissed off with them. Instead I find its one of the most blatant examples of double standard hypocrisy possible. And that's the thing, it seems like every time there's some big thing they expect me to freak out about, it never seems to stack up to reality let alone not show their brazen hypocrisy. This kind of stuff is what drives people in the opposite direction (away from them). And they keep it up. And they want people to take them seriously. I mean, seriously? I get as well as one could that there's always a certain degree of this kind of thing in a paritsan society, which irritates me the whole shell game, but the levels its been taken to by the lib's even when their Obama was still in office and all the MSM polls screamed that Trump didn't have a chance...
"This is mass madness you maniacs." - Howard beale

But yeah, no doubt about it: we need charity reform in this country.
edit on 7-6-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: zosimov




You might want to keep in mind that several of our members are battling cancer right now, and that others of us have very close family members suffering, before you accuse people of empty sentiment.


You worry about your own thoughts, and I'll worry about mine.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




You're right, what they should do is form a charity for sick kids, collect a bunch of donations and then use those donations to pay themselves lots of money. Then they'd have your respect.


What they should do is not be Donald Trump, then they'll have your respect.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Then Von Drumpf used the money to pay russians to put special cancer causing drugs in cheetos that he gave to orphans!



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

so 10 -12 % is acceptable charity-skim-off funnel....
let's compound that by 30 - 50 million, and maintain the same ratio.
and the Eric Trump foundation has say 70% less "employees" than the crooks at the Clinton's. let's gauge how much would go directly in the pockets of the Trump foundation crooks....

_ what's the moral of the story here? trumpaholics are ok with slush funds as long as it's slightly less disgraceful as the Clinton's.... nice.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: theantediluvian




You're right, what they should do is form a charity for sick kids, collect a bunch of donations and then use those donations to pay themselves lots of money. Then they'd have your respect.


What they should do is not be Donald Trump, then they'll have your respect.


Hubris.

The world is not binary.

The cultish attitude is baffling.




top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join