|
Post by 2peaornot2pea on Nov 29, 2016 18:07:40 GMT
|
|
peabay
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,630
Jun 25, 2014 19:50:41 GMT
|
Post by peabay on Nov 29, 2016 18:12:40 GMT
It should concern all of us. We can't have the President of the United States making decisions from which he could benefit monetarily. I'm a PTA president and I can't do that - we should allow the President of the United States to do it? It's insanity!
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Nov 29, 2016 18:13:39 GMT
reminds me of when my dh worked for a company called tmi. just the initials.. we used to kid that it stood for "trust me idiot"...if the republicans don't hold him to the same standards as everyone else.. we know who the idiots are.
|
|
|
Post by 2peaornot2pea on Nov 29, 2016 18:16:45 GMT
I have many concerns but foremost is what the author of "The Hill" article I linked to above wrote about. I have a son who is a high school senior and his current plan is to attend college. We've discussed advantages and disadvantages to enlisting in the military or going the ROTC route but after Trump was elected I told him he will serve in the military over my. dead. body.
I refuse to allow my son to get sent into a battle to protect a rich men's business interests.
|
|
carhoch
Pearl Clutcher
Be yourself everybody else is already taken
Posts: 2,992
Location: We’re RV’s so It change all the time .
Jun 28, 2014 21:46:39 GMT
|
Post by carhoch on Nov 29, 2016 18:18:09 GMT
I personally think that it is a big problem but I am not sure that it's against the law . I don't believe for a second that he will not be involved in the business of his companies and I really don't see how he can do both jobs well there is not enough hours in a day for that.
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Nov 29, 2016 18:19:13 GMT
I didn't have time to read all of the Atlantic article you posted but I'd like to. Some of these I'm familiar with and some not.
First, we need a law that requires Presidents and candidates for the Presidency to disclose their tax returns. An audit, if there even is one as he wouldn't prove that either, is no excuse. Without his tax returns, we have no way of truly knowing how much he profits from his position as President and how he profits.
I also think there should be an oversight committee to review presidential assets and income quarterly. Essentially Trump and his businesses need to be audited regularly to determine if he is benefiting from his policies while in office. All past Presidents have benefited after leaving office from speeches and book deals. Jimmy Carter was $1 million in debt when he left the White House but I would assume he is financially well off today. No one begrudges Presidents these benefits.
Trump has the potential to far outpace anything he accused Clinton of doing at the State Department. He has more wealth currently and will have far more influence than any Secretary of State.
|
|
|
Post by 2peaornot2pea on Nov 29, 2016 18:27:27 GMT
I personally think that it is a big problem but I am not sure that it's against the law . I don't believe for a second that he will not be involved in the business of his companies and I really don't see how he can do both jobs well there is not enough hours in a day for that. As the author states, "There is still time for Congress and President Obama to enact conflict of interest provisions for the president akin to what Cabinet members and other high-level government officials are held to."
I think anyone/everyone who is concerned about this needs to call their reps in congress NOW and put pressure on them to enact these provisions NOW!!
I'm calling my senators, my rep, and the leadership in D.C.
Spread the word people and start dialing. Our elected officials take calls very seriously.
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Nov 29, 2016 19:28:20 GMT
a part of me thinks Trump is using his stupid and constant Tweeting to distract people from issues such as his conflict of interest. people will be too incensed and distracted by the little stuff that the big stuff slides by unnoticed.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Nov 29, 2016 19:43:48 GMT
I have many concerns but foremost is what the author of "The Hill" article I linked to above wrote about. I have a son who is a high school senior and his current plan is to attend college. We've discussed advantages and disadvantages to enlisting in the military or going the ROTC route but after Trump was elected I told him he will serve in the military over my. dead. body. I refuse to allow my son to get sent into a battle to protect a rich men's business interests. My son is legally blind (although he has some vision). It's the first time I've ever felt relief due to his disability. Yes, he will have to register for the draft. But I'm hoping they are smart enough to realize that blind people aren't the best soldiers if it comes to that.
|
|
melissa
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,912
Jun 25, 2014 20:45:00 GMT
|
Post by melissa on Nov 29, 2016 20:02:01 GMT
there are numerous serious issues with his future presidency that are being overlooked and not talked about. Some of us are talking about daily. It's being talked about in certain FB groups and definitely in the more left leaning press as well as the more neutral press. I believe his conflicts of interest will be his ultimate downfall.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 29, 2016 20:05:20 GMT
I'd take all of this a whole lot more seriously if the people here who are sooooo concerned about Trump's conflicts of interest had expressed even a fraction of the same concern about Billary's foundation and it's improprieties.
|
|
scorpeao
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,521
Location: NorCal USA
Jun 25, 2014 21:04:54 GMT
|
Post by scorpeao on Nov 29, 2016 20:07:38 GMT
a part of me thinks Trump is using his stupid and constant Tweeting to distract people from issues such as his conflict of interest. people will be too incensed and distracted by the little stuff that the big stuff slides by unnoticed. This is what I am thinking as well. He's so corrupt it just isn't funny...it was until he became the President-elect.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 2:16:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 21:05:50 GMT
I'd take all of this a whole lot more seriously if the people here who are sooooo concerned about Trump's conflicts of interest had expressed even a fraction of the same concern about Billary's foundation and it's improprieties. What you mean the part where the foundation has donated millions to get clean water and HIV medicine to the poor in third world countries? Or concerned with Charity Watch's assessment that for every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation $.88 is used for charitable programs which leaves $.12 used for overhead. Pretty good compared to other well know charities. Or the part where the Clinton's donated $1M + to the Clinton Foundation. We know that because it has on their last tax returns. Unlike somebody else who has yet to release any tax returns never mind the last one. But the word is Trump hasn't donated any of his own money to his foundation since 2009. But then I guess you are ok with Trump using donations to the Trump foundation to buy portraits of himself that he then graciously offers to "store" said portraits by hanging them for public display in his various hotels or whatever. Whatever you think the Clinton's have done Trump has done over and over and over again with his business and charitable activities.
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Nov 29, 2016 21:07:13 GMT
a part of me thinks Trump is using his stupid and constant Tweeting to distract people from issues such as his conflict of interest. people will be too incensed and distracted by the little stuff that the big stuff slides by unnoticed. This is what I am thinking as well. He's so corrupt it just isn't funny...it was until he became the President-elect. yup. it was all fun and games until Carrie got elected Prom Queen.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 29, 2016 22:01:19 GMT
I didn't have time to read all of the Atlantic article you posted but I'd like to. Some of these I'm familiar with and some not. First, we need a law that requires Presidents and candidates for the Presidency to disclose their tax returns. An audit, if there even is one as he wouldn't prove that either, is no excuse. Without his tax returns, we have no way of truly knowing how much he profits from his position as President and how he profits. I also think there should be an oversight committee to review presidential assets and income quarterly. Essentially Trump and his businesses need to be audited regularly to determine if he is benefiting from his policies while in office. All past Presidents have benefited after leaving office from speeches and book deals. Jimmy Carter was $1 million in debt when he left the White House but I would assume he is financially well off today. No one begrudges Presidents these benefits. Trump has the potential to far outpace anything he accused Clinton of doing at the State Department. He has more wealth currently and will have far more influence than any Secretary of State. One issue is how much he can make off of policies, but the other issue is what he has to lose. This is important, particularly in regards to foreign policy. He has businesses in many countries around the world. How do we know how much his business dealings/loans/practices/etc are affecting his decisions as President?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 2:16:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 22:40:36 GMT
The minute Trump takes office he will 2 problematic conflicts. Unless something changes.
First one is citizen Trump leased the space in the Old Post Office in DC. Where he recently opened that fancy new hotel. The lease is with the Feds. This is a hotel that where foreign dignitaries are flocking to stay at because you know the president elect of the US runs it. So now Trump is the landlord and tenant and benefiting financially because those who think they maybe able curry favor with the new president are staying the hotel.
Second - If the pipeline dispute in North Dakota is not settled by the time President Obama leaves office then it falls on Trump's plate. Who happens to have money invested in one of the companies involved and one of his largest donors owns another one of the companies involved in the dispute.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Nov 29, 2016 22:40:51 GMT
What you mean the part where the foundation has donated millions to get clean water and HIV medicine to the poor in third world countries? Or concerned with Charity Watch's assessment that for every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation $.88 is used for charitable programs which leaves $.12 used for overhead. Pretty good compared to other well know charities. Source please. I've found conflicting information. I am happy to be proven wrong if that may be the case.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 29, 2016 23:00:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by micheley on Nov 29, 2016 23:05:55 GMT
it was all fun and games until Carrie got elected Prom QueenOkay politics aside, I think I've found my new catchphrase.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 2:16:32 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 0:10:50 GMT
What you mean the part where the foundation has donated millions to get clean water and HIV medicine to the poor in third world countries? Or concerned with Charity Watch's assessment that for every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation $.88 is used for charitable programs which leaves $.12 used for overhead. Pretty good compared to other well know charities. Source please. I've found conflicting information. I am happy to be proven wrong if that may be the case. link
The Daily Wire is your conflicting source? Do you honestly believe in today's toxic political atmosphere that a conservative outlet would provide an unbiased report on the Clinton Foundation? Especially at the time Hillary was running for president? I see iamkristinl16 was kind enough to post an article. Charity Watch has given the Clinton Foundation an "A" rating. As one of the main charity watchdogs I would think that would count for something. But I guess not in the minds of some. link
Here is a CNN article to go with the FactCheck article.
|
|
|
Post by dillydally on Nov 30, 2016 1:03:12 GMT
What you mean the part where the foundation has donated millions to get clean water and HIV medicine to the poor in third world countries? Or concerned with Charity Watch's assessment that for every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation $.88 is used for charitable programs which leaves $.12 used for overhead. Pretty good compared to other well know charities. Source please. I've found conflicting information. I am happy to be proven wrong if that may be the case. I'm going to address #2 of that link because it is one I can actually speak knowledgeably about, since I am CPA at a large non-profit, where I have worked for almost 20 years, and for the 6 years prior to that I was an auditor with a concentration in non-profit accounting. That particular claim gets under my skin because while their data is correct, they are not interpreting it correctly - whether that is on purpose or not, I don't know, but to me, it throws doubt on the rest of the article. The direct grants number they are pulling is from lines 1-3 (grant expense) of the foundation's Statement of Functional Expenses section of their 990. This statement breaks down expenses by type (compensation, travel, office expenses, grants, etc..) and by function (program, which is the purpose of the non-profit; Mgt & General and Fundraising). So yes, in 2013, the Foundation had $8.9M in direct grants out of $85M in expenses - and if the foundation were simply a pass-through (like the Trump Foundation is), that would be ridiculous. However, the Clinton Foundation is an operating foundation, so they do not simply pass through money, they also incur other expenses to implement their programs. So the more important information is total program expenses, which in 2013 was $68M of the $85M As an example, if you pull the 990 of a college or university, and look at the Program column of the Functional Expenses, grants will be high (since it represents scholarships to students), but you will see a very large figure for compensation - and I think we will all agree that paying professors is a pretty key expense of a college/university. And therefore, looking simply at the direct grants figure and making any conclusions based on that is not looking at the whole picture. All, as for this: 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.For accounting purposes, pledges are recorded as revenue in the year they are received (at the NPV of the pledge, but that's another long annoying story). For example, my organization got a $45M pledge last year, to be paid over 10 years. So the year the pledge was made, we actually had $4.5M in cash in hand. If that had been the only transaction that year, then on our 990, you would have see a very large amount left over. And if you go to the Clinton Foundation financial statements, you can see that in 2013, something similar must have occurred as their pledges increased from a balance of $12M in FY12 to $61M in FY13, with more than $45M of that collectible over 1 year from the date of the financials. Sorry for the soapbox! Like I said, that particular claim just really bugs me - I saw it thrown all over Facebook, with no one questioning it, yet using it as one other reasons Hilary was corrupt. (And at this point I feel I must point out that I am a Republican and wasn't a fan of Hilarys', but realizing that this fact had been manipulated made me question whether that dislike was legit or not)
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 30, 2016 1:17:41 GMT
What you mean the part where the foundation has donated millions to get clean water and HIV medicine to the poor in third world countries? Or concerned with Charity Watch's assessment that for every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation $.88 is used for charitable programs which leaves $.12 used for overhead. Pretty good compared to other well know charities. Source please. I've found conflicting information. I am happy to be proven wrong if that may be the case. C'mon. Even if three people above me hadn't already proven you wrong, you're smart enough to realize that an article that refers to the Clintons as a "sleazy power couple" is not a legitimate news source. This is frustrating to me because these allegations about the Clinton Foundation have been trotted out and legitimately refuted numerous times on this board during this election cycle, and people keep bringing them up like this is all new information no one has ever considered. It's like Groundhog Day around here every day, honestly.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Nov 30, 2016 1:20:06 GMT
Thank you, dillydally ! That puts a better light on things. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain it. ETA: This is frustrating to me because these allegations about the Clinton Foundation have been trotted out and legitimately refuted numerous times on this board during this election cycle, and people keep bringing them up like this is all new information no one has ever considered. It's like Groundhog Day around here every day, honestly. And this is one of the reasons I come to the Peas with this kind of thing. I knew my source was questionable (Ben Shappiro anyone?) but at the same time, it's really nice to see the reality next to the hyper-reality being portrayed by alternative online media. I wasn't kidding when I said "I'm happy to be proven wrong".
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Nov 30, 2016 1:39:20 GMT
I'm going to address #2 of that link because it is one I can actually speak knowledgeably about, since I am CPA at a large non-profit, where I have worked for almost 20 years, and for the 6 years prior to that I was an auditor with a concentration in non-profit accounting. That particular claim gets under my skin because while their data is correct, they are not interpreting it correctly - whether that is on purpose or not, I don't know, but to me, it throws doubt on the rest of the article. The direct grants number they are pulling is from lines 1-3 (grant expense) of the foundation's Statement of Functional Expenses section of their 990. This statement breaks down expenses by type (compensation, travel, office expenses, grants, etc..) and by function (program, which is the purpose of the non-profit; Mgt & General and Fundraising). So yes, in 2013, the Foundation had $8.9M in direct grants out of $85M in expenses - and if the foundation were simply a pass-through (like the Trump Foundation is), that would be ridiculous. However, the Clinton Foundation is an operating foundation, so they do not simply pass through money, they also incur other expenses to implement their programs. So the more important information is total program expenses, which in 2013 was $68M of the $85M As an example, if you pull the 990 of a college or university, and look at the Program column of the Functional Expenses, grants will be high (since it represents scholarships to students), but you will see a very large figure for compensation - and I think we will all agree that paying professors is a pretty key expense of a college/university. And therefore, looking simply at the direct grants figure and making any conclusions based on that is not looking at the whole picture. All, as for this: 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.For accounting purposes, pledges are recorded as revenue in the year they are received (at the NPV of the pledge, but that's another long annoying story). For example, my organization got a $45M pledge last year, to be paid over 10 years. So the year the pledge was made, we actually had $4.5M in cash in hand. If that had been the only transaction that year, then on our 990, you would have see a very large amount left over. And if you go to the Clinton Foundation financial statements, you can see that in 2013, something similar must have occurred as their pledges increased from a balance of $12M in FY12 to $61M in FY13, with more than $45M of that collectible over 1 year from the date of the financials. Sorry for the soapbox! Like I said, that particular claim just really bugs me - I saw it thrown all over Facebook, with no one questioning it, yet using it as one other reasons Hilary was corrupt. (And at this point I feel I must point out that I am a Republican and wasn't a fan of Hilarys', but realizing that this fact had been manipulated made me question whether that dislike was legit or not) I'm not even sure I understood all of what you said, but thanks for providing some insight from somebody who does understand these things. Facts and knowledge are always good.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Nov 30, 2016 1:42:37 GMT
As for the OP's questions - yes, I'm very concerned about his conflicts of interest and how they will impact his decision making. My opinion is that Trump has only ever cared about Trump (the details of his foundation are pretty telling) and I worry that he will make decisions as president solely to benefit himself/family/cronies rather than what is best for America.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Nov 30, 2016 1:53:44 GMT
dillydally, I always enjoy when you stop by. Don't be a stranger.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Nov 30, 2016 1:54:52 GMT
it was all fun and games until Carrie got elected Prom QueenOkay politics aside, I think I've found my new catchphrase.
|
|
|
Post by txdancermom on Nov 30, 2016 2:05:35 GMT
It is a problem, but there are no laws that require him to distance himself from the businesses - and that is Congress' fault, they never enacted anything. But imho past presidents have realized the gravity of the office and have done what they needed to do to distance themselves from any business or other financial interests, placing all their assets in truly blind trusts where they had no control over the assets.
I hope that the media, congress and the american people keep a close eye on everything he and his businesses do, and how it relates to government policies that he is enacting. and when it is apparent that the two are intersecting in ways that scream special or unusual treatment, call him out on it.
|
|
tincin
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,368
Jul 25, 2014 4:55:32 GMT
|
Post by tincin on Nov 30, 2016 3:32:20 GMT
It is a problem, but there are no laws that require him to distance himself from the businesses - and that is Congress' fault, they never enacted anything. But imho past presidents have realized the gravity of the office and have done what they needed to do to distance themselves from any business or other financial interests, placing all their assets in truly blind trusts where they had no control over the assets. I hope that the media, congress and the american people keep a close eye on everything he and his businesses do, and how it relates to government policies that he is enacting. and when it is apparent that the two are intersecting in ways that scream special or unusual treatment, call him out on it. Would that be the same media, Congress and American people who have ignored all his illegal and dishonest behaviors to help elect him to be the next president? So far, I have seen very little monitoring of his behaviors, i.e. sexual assault, charity scams, etc. I can't believe it will improve once he has taken office. Of course, now that his children are running his "blind trust" and helping him on his transition team, I'm certain they will keep him out of the loop regarding any advantages he could play to make even more money. Save
|
|
melissa
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,912
Jun 25, 2014 20:45:00 GMT
|
Post by melissa on Nov 30, 2016 19:59:55 GMT
Whatever you think the Clinton's have done Trump has done over and over and over again with his business and charitable activities Thank you for saying this. All through out the election, I was saying the same thing. Some of the anti-Hillary talk had some foundation in reality. Much did not. But for every little thing people complained about, Trump did the same thing, if not worse. I do not understand why it was so hard to see even though he was a private citizen. Granted the email thing, which was truly trumped up considering it had been done before her, is no different than him using his private cell phone now that he is president-elect to call world leaders. This is not the same as calling your friend. These are conversations that should have some level of security. No matter how conservative a person might be and no matter how much they hate the Clintons and Obama, they should be alarmed at least at a modicum of what is going on.
|
|