http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...on-hp-samsung-hsbc-hp-mastio-column/72336094/ Obama admin, big businesses abandon Clinton Global Initiative: Column Amid controversy, slipping polls, the non-profit arm of the Clinton dynasty is no longer a safe bet More bad news for the Clintons. With Hillary's presidential campaign slipping in the polls against Sen. Bernie Sanders and facing a potential fresh challenge from Vice President Joe Biden, six giants of the corporate world are bailing out on the Clinton Global Initiative. On Sept. 26, CGI, a branch of the Clinton Foundation, convenes its 11th annual meeting with a star-studded cast. Bill and Chelsea Clinton will be joined by Ashley Judd, Charlize Theron, Edward Norton, Ted Danson, Tina Brown, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sir Richard Branson, Bill Gates and George Soros. What will be missing is more than a million dollars from a who's who of corporate behemoths that sponsored the meeting last year. Six high-profile firms ended their cash donations, to be replaced with only one similar high-profile corporate donor so far. USA TODAY has confirmed that sponsors from 2014 that have backed out for this year include electronics company Samsung, oil giant ExxonMobil, global financial firms Deutsche Bank and HSBC, and accounting firm PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers). Hewlett-Packard, which just announced major layoffs, will be an in-kind donor instead of a cash contributor, and the agri-chem firm Monsanto has cut back its donation. Dow's name is missing from the donor list as well, but the chemical company's exit is not confirmed. High-profile corporations might not be the only key supporters backing away from association with the Clinton family's charitable arm. In 2014, eight national leaders, kings, presidents and prime ministers, appeared on the program for CGI's annual meeting, including the president of the United States and the prime minister of Japan. This year, only leaders from Colombia and Liberia are currently on the program. The Obama administration is backing away as well. In 2014, the cabinet officials heading the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Commerce, as well as key White House adviser Valerie Jarrett spoke at the conference. This year no Obama administration appointees as prominent are on the program. In emails, Craig Minassian, chief communications officer of CGI, said that more speakers and sponsors are yet to be announced. The event will be attended by nearly two dozen heads of state. "Revenue is actually slightly better than last year ... so there isn’t a decline in support," he wrote. Unless there is a sudden surge in high-profile corporate support in the coming days, the exodus of well-recognized brands could represent a setback for the Clinton campaign's effort to maintain an aura of inevitability. Questions about ill-considered private email use while secretary of State and about the former first lady's honesty already dog her efforts in Iowa and New Hampshire, where she is no longer considered a sure winner. The corporate skittishness could be driven by a politically toxic atmosphere around the charity. Controversy over foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of State has tarnished the globally prominent foundation's reputation. Some reporting has raised concerns that corporations and foreign governments were trying to curry favor with Clinton in an effort to influence government decision-making. The sluggish global economy could be a factor as well. In any case, the corporate pullouts can't be a morale builder for Team Clinton, where personnel have shifted freely among campaigns, government service and the family foundation. It is not all bad news. According to the foundation website, Microsoft has increased its donation to the event and well-known retailer GAP, Inc. has joined the roster, but other names signing on are unknown to most Americans: Consolidated Contractor Company, a Middle East construction firm; Delos, a real estate company; and Cheniere, a natural gas pipeline and terminal company. As in years past, a number of widely known corporate brands are sticking with sponsorship of the Clinton event. Barclays, CocaCola, P&G, Cisco, Goldman Sachs and Western Union remain sponsors, as they were in 2014. Senior executives from other companies, including Sodexo and Unilever, will appear on stage. And non-profit support for the event has not dropped off. New details about corporate pullout from The Washington Examiner. Why are CNN, New York Times, Washington Post helping promote Clinton Global Initiative? from The Washington Post. A Clinton Foundation official told USA TODAY that the changes in sponsorship are not out of the ordinary and that this is not a new trend. But the high-profile turnover appears greater than usual. Last year, Samsung, Monsanto, PWC, HSBC and Blackstone were added as sponsors of the CGI meeting, while Duke Energy, Pfizer, Booz Allen, ApCo Worldwide and Toyota left. The companies that joined tended to donate at higher levels. For example, HSBC joined at the $1 million "Convening Sponsor" level, while Booz Allen, Toyota and Pfizerended donations at the lowest level of giving, "Meeting Sponsor," representing donations of $250,000.
electronics company Samsung, oil giant ExxonMobil, global financial firms Deutsche Bank and HSBC, and accounting firm PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers). Hewlett-Packard, which just announced major layoffs, will be an in-kind donor instead of a cash contributor, and the agri-chem firm Monsanto has cut back its donation. Dow's name is missing from the donor list as well... All of these companies have inflicted massive irreparable damage upon Real Americans and others worldwide, robbing hundreds of millions of money, livelihood, and life. They've poisoned the sea and fields, created the Great Recession to steal people's homes, exterminated thousands of species of plant and animals into extinction, and that's where their money was made. Sad that any American would touch their blood money.
Why? At least he can be trusted to tell the truth. Trump can't even admit that he fucked up when he had 4 BKs. He could easily talk about himself as the greatest comeback story ever and say that it couldn't happen in any other country but our exceptional America. But no. He'd rather be disingenuous and not credit his country as the reason for the comeback. Y'all say he's a straight talker but I don't trust that dude as far as I can throw him.
Disney went bankrupt twice. And trump actually didn't get personally bankrupt. It was the 4 casinos, which was 4 deals out of the thousands of ventures. Show me where the Trump Estate was ever bankrupt once As for Bernie... His plan cost roughly 18 trillion over the next 10 years. That is added to the existing budget. I'm curious how you think Bernie will be able to find this albatross?
According to this column by Joe Nacera, both Trump and Fiorina suck as business executives. http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/trump_vs_fiorina_who_has_the_b.html#incart_river Of course, he writes for the NY Time and NPR so I'm guessing that he's not a big fan of any Republicans.
The article in the opening post is from an opinion blog written by some no-name. It's not a news article in USA Today. That should be obvious from the first sentence, "More bad news for the Clintons."
we are talking about successful empires. Obviously trump is a very successful businessman. Anyone arguing it's not is foolish
business empires! Anyway, poor Hillary huh? She's up shit creek... Also, the Feds said they recovered most the erased files. Interesting to see if they do the right thing and send her lying ass to prison
That's the load of bullshit that you continue to push. That 18 trillion is not in addition to the current budget. Do your research. http://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-wsj-18-trillion Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) is pushing back on the eye-popping estimated price tag of his progressive wish list of proposals he has offered on the campaign trail. The Wall Street Journal reported in a front-page story on Tuesday that Sanders' proposals would total around $18 trillion over 10 years, which the publication said would amount to the "largest peacetime expansion of government in modern American history." That would include an estimated $15 trillion over a decade for a revamping of the federal healthcare system to a government-run, "Medicare for all" single-payer approach. In an appearance on MSNBC Tuesday, Sanders disputed The Journal's total. He argued that the paper did not take into account the spending reductions that would come with the enactment of a single-payer-type healthcare plan. "That is not the reality. We will be responding to The Wall Street Journal on that," Sanders told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell of the overall estimate. "I think most of the expense that they put in there, the expenditures have to do with the single-payer healthcare system," he continued. "They significantly exaggerated the cost of that, and they forgot to tell the American people in that article that that means eliminating the costs that you incur with private health insurance." Sanders, right now the main Democratic challenger to presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, has not released a detailed healthcare plan as of yet. The Journal relied on an analysis of similar legislation proposed by Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) and sponsored by 44 other House Democrats. The analysis, which was conducted by University of Massachusetts at Amherst economist Gerald Friedman, would "require $15 trillion in federal spending over 10 years, on top of existing federal health spending," according to The Journal. But the analysis has also been cited favorably by progressive advocates of a single-payer healthcare system, who note that Conyers' bill would purportedly save nearly $600 billion annually by eliminating administrative waste in the private-insurance industry and cutting prices of pharmaceutical medicine. "In 2014, the savings would be enough to cover all 44 million uninsured and upgrade benefits for everyone else. No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care," Friedman wrote in his 2013 analysis. The Washington Post's Paul Waldmanbacked up Sanders on some of his criticism. As Waldman pointed out, the US currently spends about $3 trillion a year — and will spend close to $42 trillion over the next decade — on healthcare. He argued that Sanders' proposal wouldn't add on to that total, but rather reallocate the way the US spends money on healthcare. "By the logic of the scary $18 trillion number, you could take a candidate who has proposed nothing on health care, and say, 'So-and-so proposes spending $42 trillion on health care!' It would be accurate, but not particularly informative," Waldman wrote.
