Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I wish we could talk sanely about the Clintons and their long history [View all]OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)152. Okay.
Perhaps the most important modern institution in the field of group power-and it contrasts dramatically with Maitland's picture of clubs, religious associations, and charities preferring the hedge of the trust and the anonymity of unincorporated status- is the "foundation" which flourishes in contemporary America.
The foundation is largely an American creation. No doubt the accumulation of vast wealth was one reason for its rise; another-at least in the days when Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others perpetuated their names through their now world famous bequests-was unquestionably a desire of wealthy and successful men to purge their consciences before God and man and to justify the acquisitive society which had enabled them to accumulate enormous riches by leaving a vast proportion of their wealth for the benefit of mankind.6 But in recent years these reasons for the earlier foundations have become less important, and the incorporated foundation or trust has become predominantly a business device, a paramount instrument in the struggle between the demands of the modern Welfare State and the wish of the individual entrepreneur to perpetuate his fortune and his name. The greatest and most influential of the foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) are the creations of individuals or families, but the large foundations of the future will increasingly be the creations of corporations. The desires to give and to perpetuate the name of the individual or corporate donor are undoubtedly still important motivations, but the immense growth in the number and size of foundations in recent years7 suggests that business considerations play an increasing role. By either bequeathing or giving during his lifetime a proportion of his estate to a permanent institution established for officially recognized charitable purposes, the donor, usually the controller of an industrial or business empire,8 achieves a number of purposes.9 In the United States gifts to such organizations are exempt from gift taxes, and bequests to them are deductible for estate tax purposes. The organizations themselves are normally exempt from income tax, property tax, and other taxes. A charitable gift intervivos is an allowable deduction from the taxable income of the donor.10 The absence of the latter privilege in English law may be one reason why incorporated charities are not so widespread in Britain (apart, of course, from the vastly greater capital wealth of United States business). Otherwise, motivations for the establishment of charitable companies are very similar." The arithmetics of these benefits vary from year to year and are, of course, subject to legislative changes. Unless, however, there were to be a fundamental change in legislation in regard to charitable gifts,12 the advantages of transferring both capital and annual income away from the personal estate of a taxpayer in the high income brackets or away from a corporation are very considerable.13 But in the age of the managerial revolution and the Welfare State, a motive at least equal to that of providing a suitable mechanism for philanthropy and a tax free reservoir for an otherwise highly taxable income is the power which the foundation gives to the controller of a business or industry to perpetuate his control.14
Friedmann, W. G. (1957). Corporate power, government by private groups, and the law. Columbia Law Review, 57(2), 155-186.
The foundation is largely an American creation. No doubt the accumulation of vast wealth was one reason for its rise; another-at least in the days when Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others perpetuated their names through their now world famous bequests-was unquestionably a desire of wealthy and successful men to purge their consciences before God and man and to justify the acquisitive society which had enabled them to accumulate enormous riches by leaving a vast proportion of their wealth for the benefit of mankind.6 But in recent years these reasons for the earlier foundations have become less important, and the incorporated foundation or trust has become predominantly a business device, a paramount instrument in the struggle between the demands of the modern Welfare State and the wish of the individual entrepreneur to perpetuate his fortune and his name. The greatest and most influential of the foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) are the creations of individuals or families, but the large foundations of the future will increasingly be the creations of corporations. The desires to give and to perpetuate the name of the individual or corporate donor are undoubtedly still important motivations, but the immense growth in the number and size of foundations in recent years7 suggests that business considerations play an increasing role. By either bequeathing or giving during his lifetime a proportion of his estate to a permanent institution established for officially recognized charitable purposes, the donor, usually the controller of an industrial or business empire,8 achieves a number of purposes.9 In the United States gifts to such organizations are exempt from gift taxes, and bequests to them are deductible for estate tax purposes. The organizations themselves are normally exempt from income tax, property tax, and other taxes. A charitable gift intervivos is an allowable deduction from the taxable income of the donor.10 The absence of the latter privilege in English law may be one reason why incorporated charities are not so widespread in Britain (apart, of course, from the vastly greater capital wealth of United States business). Otherwise, motivations for the establishment of charitable companies are very similar." The arithmetics of these benefits vary from year to year and are, of course, subject to legislative changes. Unless, however, there were to be a fundamental change in legislation in regard to charitable gifts,12 the advantages of transferring both capital and annual income away from the personal estate of a taxpayer in the high income brackets or away from a corporation are very considerable.13 But in the age of the managerial revolution and the Welfare State, a motive at least equal to that of providing a suitable mechanism for philanthropy and a tax free reservoir for an otherwise highly taxable income is the power which the foundation gives to the controller of a business or industry to perpetuate his control.14
Friedmann, W. G. (1957). Corporate power, government by private groups, and the law. Columbia Law Review, 57(2), 155-186.
The Clinton Foundation - About
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/our-work/by-initiative/clinton-foundation-in-haiti/about.html
The Clinton Foundation has been actively engaged in Haiti since 2009, focusing on economic diversification, private sector investment and job creation in order to create long-term, sustainable economic development. After the devastating earthquake in 2010, President Clinton formed the Clinton Foundation Haiti Fund and raised $16.4 million from individual donors for immediate earthquake relief efforts. Since 2010, the Clinton Foundation has raised a total of $34 million for Haiti, including relief funds as well as projects focused on restoring Haiti's communities, sustainable development, education and capacity building. In 2012, the Clinton Foundation concentrated on creating sustainable economic growth in the four priority sectors of energy, tourism, agriculture, and apparel/manufacturing, working to bring new investors, develop and support local organizations and businesses, and create access to new markets. The Clinton Foundation also continued working to support government efforts to improve Haitis business environment and supported programs in education and capacity building.
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/our-work/by-initiative/clinton-foundation-in-haiti/about.html
The Clinton Foundation has been actively engaged in Haiti since 2009, focusing on economic diversification, private sector investment and job creation in order to create long-term, sustainable economic development. After the devastating earthquake in 2010, President Clinton formed the Clinton Foundation Haiti Fund and raised $16.4 million from individual donors for immediate earthquake relief efforts. Since 2010, the Clinton Foundation has raised a total of $34 million for Haiti, including relief funds as well as projects focused on restoring Haiti's communities, sustainable development, education and capacity building. In 2012, the Clinton Foundation concentrated on creating sustainable economic growth in the four priority sectors of energy, tourism, agriculture, and apparel/manufacturing, working to bring new investors, develop and support local organizations and businesses, and create access to new markets. The Clinton Foundation also continued working to support government efforts to improve Haitis business environment and supported programs in education and capacity building.
Washington Backed Famous Brand-Name Contractors in Fight Against Haitis Minimum Wage Increase
http://www.haiti-liberte.com/archives/volume4-47/Washington%20Backed%20Famous.asp
The U.S. Embassy in Haiti worked closely with factory owners contracted by Levis, Hanes, and Fruit of the Loom to aggressively block a paltry minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables.
The factory owners refused to pay 62 cents an hour, or $5 per eight-hour day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. Behind the scenes, the factory owners had the vigorous backing of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Embassy, show secret U.S. Embassy cables provided to Haïti Liberté by the transparency-advocacy group WikiLeaks.
The minimum daily wage had been 70 gourdes or $1.75 a day.
The factory owners told the Haitian parliament that they were willing to give workers a mere 9 cents an hour pay increase to 31 cents an hour 100 gourdes daily to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for U.S. clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica.
http://www.haiti-liberte.com/archives/volume4-47/Washington%20Backed%20Famous.asp
The U.S. Embassy in Haiti worked closely with factory owners contracted by Levis, Hanes, and Fruit of the Loom to aggressively block a paltry minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables.
The factory owners refused to pay 62 cents an hour, or $5 per eight-hour day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. Behind the scenes, the factory owners had the vigorous backing of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Embassy, show secret U.S. Embassy cables provided to Haïti Liberté by the transparency-advocacy group WikiLeaks.
The minimum daily wage had been 70 gourdes or $1.75 a day.
The factory owners told the Haitian parliament that they were willing to give workers a mere 9 cents an hour pay increase to 31 cents an hour 100 gourdes daily to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for U.S. clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica.
Report: State Department-Backed Garment Complex in Haiti Stealing Workers Wages
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/17/headlines#10179
A new report by the Worker Rights Consortium has found the majority of workers in Haitis garment industry are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally owed due to widespread wage theft. The new evidence builds on an earlier report that found every single one of Haitis export garment factories was illegally shortchanging workers. Workers in Haiti make clothes for U.S. retailers including Gap, Target, Kohls, Levis and Wal-Mart. The report highlighted abuses at the Caracol Industrial Park, a new factory complex heavily subsidized by the U.S. State Department, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Clinton Foundation and touted as a key part of Haitis post-earthquake recovery. The report found that, on average, workers at the complex are paid 34 percent less than the law requires. Haitis minimum wage for garment workers is between 60 and 90 cents an hour. More than three-quarters of workers interviewed for the report said they could not afford three meals a day.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/17/headlines#10179
A new report by the Worker Rights Consortium has found the majority of workers in Haitis garment industry are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally owed due to widespread wage theft. The new evidence builds on an earlier report that found every single one of Haitis export garment factories was illegally shortchanging workers. Workers in Haiti make clothes for U.S. retailers including Gap, Target, Kohls, Levis and Wal-Mart. The report highlighted abuses at the Caracol Industrial Park, a new factory complex heavily subsidized by the U.S. State Department, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Clinton Foundation and touted as a key part of Haitis post-earthquake recovery. The report found that, on average, workers at the complex are paid 34 percent less than the law requires. Haitis minimum wage for garment workers is between 60 and 90 cents an hour. More than three-quarters of workers interviewed for the report said they could not afford three meals a day.
Clintons' Pet Project for Privatized 'Aid' to Haiti Stealing Workers' Wages: Report
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/16-4
Haiti's Caracol Industrial Parkthe U.S. State Department and Clinton Foundation pet project to deliver aid and reconstruction to earthquake-ravaged Haiti in the form of private investmentis systematically stealing its garment workers' wages, paying them 34 percent less than minimum wage set by federal law, a breaking report from the Worker Rights Consortium reveals.
Critics charge that poverty wages illustrate the deep flaws with corporate models of so-called aid. "The failure of the Caracol Industrial Park to comply with minimum wage laws is a stain on the U.S.'s post-earthquake investments in Haiti and calls into question the sustainability and effectiveness of relying on the garment industry to lead Haiti's reconstruction," said Jake Johnston of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in an interview with Common Dreams.
Caracol is just one of five garment factories profiled in this damning report, released publicly on Wednesday, which finds that "the majority of Haitian garment workers are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally due as a result of the factories theft of their income." This is due to systematic employer cheating on piece-work and overtime, as well as failure to pay employees for hours worked.
...
Financers included the Inter-American Development Bank, the U.S. State Department, and the Clinton Foundation, who invested a total of $224 million with promises to uphold high labor standards. Its anchor tenant is the Korean S&H Global factory, which sells garments to Walmart, Target, Kohl's, and Old Navy, according to the report.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/16-4
Haiti's Caracol Industrial Parkthe U.S. State Department and Clinton Foundation pet project to deliver aid and reconstruction to earthquake-ravaged Haiti in the form of private investmentis systematically stealing its garment workers' wages, paying them 34 percent less than minimum wage set by federal law, a breaking report from the Worker Rights Consortium reveals.
Critics charge that poverty wages illustrate the deep flaws with corporate models of so-called aid. "The failure of the Caracol Industrial Park to comply with minimum wage laws is a stain on the U.S.'s post-earthquake investments in Haiti and calls into question the sustainability and effectiveness of relying on the garment industry to lead Haiti's reconstruction," said Jake Johnston of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in an interview with Common Dreams.
Caracol is just one of five garment factories profiled in this damning report, released publicly on Wednesday, which finds that "the majority of Haitian garment workers are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally due as a result of the factories theft of their income." This is due to systematic employer cheating on piece-work and overtime, as well as failure to pay employees for hours worked.
...
Financers included the Inter-American Development Bank, the U.S. State Department, and the Clinton Foundation, who invested a total of $224 million with promises to uphold high labor standards. Its anchor tenant is the Korean S&H Global factory, which sells garments to Walmart, Target, Kohl's, and Old Navy, according to the report.
The Clinton-Bush Fund has closed up shop in Haiti: Here are the fruits of neoliberal "charity"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415607
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415607
Discuss.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
198 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I agree with you. It's extremely naive to think there is no quid pro quo when
rhett o rick
May 2015
#101
No it's me. I usually have a chip on my shoulder just waiting to unload. nm
rhett o rick
May 2015
#188
I don't have a problem with them making money if they get a job and work for it.
rhett o rick
May 2015
#102
Then let's stop criticizing Republicans who do the same thing. People want to hear them also,
sabrina 1
May 2015
#162
Because that $25,000,000 was all because they are so entertaining, not that everyone knew
Dustlawyer
May 2015
#124
Perhaps the focus should on the efforts the Clintons do rather than the money issue.
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#3
If you want to say this, it was also a time when Bernie was in Congress, what did
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#24
He was still a part of Congress which repealed the Glass-Steagal, he should be looked
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#34
So he's responsible for the Democrats that sold out and voted for it? That's really twisted logic.
think
May 2015
#45
Did he try to influnce others? Did he talk to other Congressional members?
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#47
"Did he try to influence others?" Why are you asking that. If you are trying to make
rhett o rick
May 2015
#187
I know Senator Clinton is not responsible for her vote. She's blameless. I get it.
neverforget
May 2015
#116
But just a few posts above that poster said Sanders was responsible for ALL of congress'
cui bono
May 2015
#160
Did I say she was blameless for her vote? Even Hillary has said she would like to
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#173
That vote had a consequence which you seem unable to acknowledge. It gave President Bush legal
neverforget
May 2015
#175
Okay, wait... so Sanders is responsible for all members of Congress' vote even though he voted
cui bono
May 2015
#158
He did actually, when he votes against a bill his habit is to use his floor time to speak forcefully
Dragonfli
May 2015
#117
Wow. So now one member of congress is responsible for the votes of all other members
cui bono
May 2015
#157
I did not say Bernie did not vote for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, he was a part of Congress
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#43
Oh, wow, they can never compromise, guess this is why we have a do nothing congress,
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#53
you are so full of.... nonsense that it's pointless trying to have a discussion with you
cali
May 2015
#65
Perhaps bringing up subjects such as Glass-Stegall may be overwhelming for some.
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#82
Jaw dropping Comment. Absolutely Devoid of Logic alone, forget pretense of intellectual honesty.
2banon
May 2015
#105
OK - let's start with NAFTA, Banking deregulation, brutal welfare "reform", offshoring
whereisjustice
May 2015
#79
yes, but that's not the only point. The Clintons are wealthy today because of their close
cali
May 2015
#21
You're right, but let's face it. Any attempt to discuss the intersection of money and politics
cali
May 2015
#22
She has already run for President and was a Senator, if her positions are so different then it
TheKentuckian
May 2015
#178
That is true but I seem to remember that during his term she was called one of his advisors. And
jwirr
May 2015
#41
Members of political dynasties forfeit to some degree their ability to be viewed as individuals.
tritsofme
May 2015
#55
Precisely...His dad set him and his siblings up with trust funds so they would never have to work...
DemocratSinceBirth
May 2015
#35
We have had many rich Presidents but how they made their money was not always okay with the
jwirr
May 2015
#44
Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband made at least $30 million over the last 16 months,
stonecutter357
May 2015
#10
I prefer to discuss the policy differences between Secretary of State Clinton, Senator
Agnosticsherbet
May 2015
#31
It comes down to the question of, do you want to continue this miserable status quo, or not.
Enthusiast
May 2015
#61
They couldn't wash the political stink off the "foundation" with bleach and a firehose. eom
whereisjustice
May 2015
#68
Paved the way for offshoring our jobs as well with NAFTA & China's PNTR's status.
RiverLover
May 2015
#78
Troll, is the right word for someone pretending to be Bernie supporter: It fits!
lewebley3
May 2015
#198
There is something wrong with how they earn their money. They take cash from corporations
whereisjustice
May 2015
#80
No there is not something wrong with earning money: Its what it takes to become President!
lewebley3
May 2015
#100
There is something wrong with the WAY they earn money. See the difference? Or are you
whereisjustice
May 2015
#176
There is no free market: Thats a GOP lie: but Senators are being hired and sold.
lewebley3
May 2015
#181
They politicians, they had to get their money from somewhere: They are for Sale too!
lewebley3
May 2015
#194
NAFTA, banking deregulation, throwing poor people into the street with brutal welfare reform? Both
whereisjustice
May 2015
#177
He signed the laws that nearly destroyed us with corruption and sent a million jobs away and
whereisjustice
May 2015
#183
Presidents are responsible for the laws they design to impact the next generation, the data
whereisjustice
May 2015
#189
I trust HRC will usher in another era of unprecedented peace and prosperity like her husband...
DemocratSinceBirth
May 2015
#190
I would say anyone if pretty accessible if you get past their handlers! WTF? nt
Logical
May 2015
#123