This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1oregonobsessionz
Now that Donald Trump finally decided to release the list of veterans' charities that were the beneficiaries of his $6 million (wait, make that $5.6 million) fund raising effort, I thought it might be interesting to check out a few of them at Charity Navigator. There are other charity rating organizations, but Charity Navigator is the one I use when I evaluate the charities available through payroll deduction where I work. Their rating criteria are explained here.
I don't have time to look up all of them, so I checked those with the largest contributions.
#1 Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation ($1,100,000) - Not eligible for rating, because it does not meet criteria for "nontrivial fund raising expenses"
#2 Navy Seal Foundation ($465,000) - rated 4* (highest possible rating)
#3 Green Beret Foundation ($350,0000) - Unrated because they have not filed 7 full years with the IRS
#4 - a 4-way tie at $200,000 each
22Kill - not rated because it does not file the full IRS 990 form.
Achilles International Inc. - not listed with Charity Navigator
Folds of Honor Foundation - potentially eligible to be rated
Racing for Heroes Inc. - not eligible for rating because revenues are less than $1 million
#8 Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund - removed from rating, due to an "atypical business model that can't be accurately rated"
#9 Veterans-In-Command Inc. - not eligible for rating because they are not required to file a full IRS 990 form. They list assets of $0, and income of $0
#10 - a 2-way tie at $115,000
Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust - rated 4*
Fisher House Foundation - rated 4*
Those 11 charities account for $3,270,000 or 58% of the total. Three of them have 4* ratings, which is commendable. The other 8 are unrated for one reason or another. The most "charitable" interpretation might be that Trump chose small charities where a large contribution could really make a difference. But if he really wanted to put the greatest possible amount to work for those veterans, it might have been better to select more of the 4* charities listed here.
ETA - The consensus figure for Trump's annual income seems to be somewhere around $250 million. If so, the $1 million he says he gave to the veterans' fundraising effort amounted to 0.4% of his annual income. Various online sources have estimated his annual charitable contributions at anywhere from $250,000 (a pathetic 0.1% of his annual income) to $3.7 million (1.48%).
And just to be fair, the Clinton Foundation is not rated by Charity Navigator, because "this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology". Same as Trump's #8 charity above.
I don't have time to look up all of them, so I checked those with the largest contributions.
#1 Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation ($1,100,000) - Not eligible for rating, because it does not meet criteria for "nontrivial fund raising expenses"
#2 Navy Seal Foundation ($465,000) - rated 4* (highest possible rating)
#3 Green Beret Foundation ($350,0000) - Unrated because they have not filed 7 full years with the IRS
#4 - a 4-way tie at $200,000 each
22Kill - not rated because it does not file the full IRS 990 form.
Achilles International Inc. - not listed with Charity Navigator
Folds of Honor Foundation - potentially eligible to be rated
Racing for Heroes Inc. - not eligible for rating because revenues are less than $1 million
#8 Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund - removed from rating, due to an "atypical business model that can't be accurately rated"
#9 Veterans-In-Command Inc. - not eligible for rating because they are not required to file a full IRS 990 form. They list assets of $0, and income of $0
#10 - a 2-way tie at $115,000
Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust - rated 4*
Fisher House Foundation - rated 4*
Those 11 charities account for $3,270,000 or 58% of the total. Three of them have 4* ratings, which is commendable. The other 8 are unrated for one reason or another. The most "charitable" interpretation might be that Trump chose small charities where a large contribution could really make a difference. But if he really wanted to put the greatest possible amount to work for those veterans, it might have been better to select more of the 4* charities listed here.
ETA - The consensus figure for Trump's annual income seems to be somewhere around $250 million. If so, the $1 million he says he gave to the veterans' fundraising effort amounted to 0.4% of his annual income. Various online sources have estimated his annual charitable contributions at anywhere from $250,000 (a pathetic 0.1% of his annual income) to $3.7 million (1.48%).
And just to be fair, the Clinton Foundation is not rated by Charity Navigator, because "this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology". Same as Trump's #8 charity above.
2theoria
It’s no surprise that Mr Trump stiffed the Veterans, got caught, and was forced to pony up.
3JGL53
Yes, trump is scum. His support of these "charities" is a scam.
trump is a piker and an amateur in comparison to HRC and WJC - and their evil spawn Chelsea- who have created a "charity" that is banking them hundreds of millions of dollars now and will bank them billions if and when HRC is elected POTUS.
So, which is worse?
Feeling charitable myself today, let's call it a draw.
However, if we let RAPE be the tie-breaker, then how many women to date have alleged Donald trump raped them? I'm unclear on the exact number. As for WJC there are something like THIRTY (30) women who have alleged he either raped them or groped them against their will.
I'm not sure having Bill the Rapist as our nation's First "Lady" is a hotshot idea. I know that most if not all feminists, especially members of NOW, do not give one shit about Bill having consensual sexual relations with a couple of hundred women over the years while married to HRC. They are probably ignorant of the rape allegations. I wonder if even that would get them off the Clinton bandwagon? Probably not - they seem to make a career of deep dark ugly hypocrisy.
trump is a piker and an amateur in comparison to HRC and WJC - and their evil spawn Chelsea- who have created a "charity" that is banking them hundreds of millions of dollars now and will bank them billions if and when HRC is elected POTUS.
So, which is worse?
Feeling charitable myself today, let's call it a draw.
However, if we let RAPE be the tie-breaker, then how many women to date have alleged Donald trump raped them? I'm unclear on the exact number. As for WJC there are something like THIRTY (30) women who have alleged he either raped them or groped them against their will.
I'm not sure having Bill the Rapist as our nation's First "Lady" is a hotshot idea. I know that most if not all feminists, especially members of NOW, do not give one shit about Bill having consensual sexual relations with a couple of hundred women over the years while married to HRC. They are probably ignorant of the rape allegations. I wonder if even that would get them off the Clinton bandwagon? Probably not - they seem to make a career of deep dark ugly hypocrisy.
