To Help US Veterans Charity, George W. Bush Charged $100,000

[Batman]

That net gain would have happened if he waived his fee too. Those additional donations happened merely because he was there. They would've happened the same way if he'd done it for free.

[Patroklos]

My Google-fu has proven to be weak on this topic, but at least one former president has effectively sold his speaking services to a charity in exchange for a six-figure donation to his charity. But other than this one event I can't provide evidence which would trigger your charitable (ha!) offer to concede. My impression, though, is that while celebrity speakers may choose to reduce or even omit their fee, this is not universally or even generally the case. Like you, I would be glad to hear evidence which would refute my impression.

Some of my google Fu results:

Hillary Clinton charged 200K to the Boys and Girls club of Los Angles for a fundraising speech.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/t ... 19030.html

The same article says that between them Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea took in 11.7 million since 2001 for the Clinton Foundation by speaking to non-profits. That a bit ambiguous, "non-profit" is not necessarily what the average joe would call a charity as they include things like trade associations and universities. Presumably if its done through the foundation its may be going to some sort of charity but maybe not as their finances are questionable. That's just for the speeches they were hired for through the Clinton Foundation, apparently there is 139 million more in speaking fees that they collected on personally that includes things a lot of voters would call charity like synagogues and espeicailly Bill's 100K fee to speak to The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Bill also charged the Boys and Girls Club 150K.

As for the charity in question here is the latest financials I could find (2013)

http://www.helpingahero.org/financials

You can parse that if you want but here are three widely used resources from within the industry regarding charitable giving.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... aBqh_knQk4
http://www.guidestar.org/ViewPdf.aspx?P ... 20-5433598
http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/hous ... n-tx-17225

The first shows all the advisories for the lawsuits in the article, the second is another breakdown and the third gives it an expense ration of 85%, or in other words $.85 of every dollar goes to the actual programs as opposed to administrative costs like salaries or fundraising costs like the gala in question or say signage and mailings to perspective donors. My wife is professional charitable fundraiser (she has worked for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and American Heart Association) and she says anything over 80% is good, though 90% is better. That's assuming of course their numbers are up and up but those come straight from the their 1090s so if they are not we are the least of their problems.

[Ralin]

Why should we give a shit about his marginal daily profits? Are we Ferengi?

It's an excellent reason for Bush to care about it

Does the concept "He owes veterans far far more than the extra revenue generated by his visit" just not compute for you?

No, he really doesn't. And I'll invite you to prove otherwise.

Irrespective of what the board calculated the extra revenue would be during the negotiation phase, the simple fact my opinion is, he should not have charged them money at all.

There, I fixed it for you.

My normal position regarding that particular ex president is that he can go fuck himself, but this time no. He can go eat a pile of rancid dicks.

Yeah, goddamn that fucker for raising millions of dollars for disabled veterans and donating $150,000 in services himself.

He should have done the speaking engagement for free. That would have let the charity spend an additional $120,000 to help someone.

You are remarkably open handed about how other people should spend their money.

[The Romulan Republic]

How the fuck is that a non-issue?

Because it's very common for ex presidents to do this sort of thing to raise money, the group in question choose to do so, he gave them a steep break on the fee and only afterward is one of their board members getting pissy about Bush not being charitable enough to them?

Common does not equal right. Their are all sorts of inexcusable things that are horribly common, of course. Likewise, that the group in question chose to pay a fee they shouldn't have been asked to pay and that Bush chose to screw them over less than he might have doesn't make it right.

I mean, Bush may have every legal right to ask for this fee, but that doesn't mean he isn't a dick for doing it. Its not like he needs the money.

[biostem]

How the fuck is that a non-issue?

Because it's very common for ex presidents to do this sort of thing to raise money, the group in question choose to do so, he gave them a steep break on the fee and only afterward is one of their board members getting pissy about Bush not being charitable enough to them?

Common does not equal right. Their are all sorts of inexcusable things that are horribly common, of course. Likewise, that the group in question chose to pay a fee they shouldn't have been asked to pay and that Bush chose to screw them over less than he might have doesn't make it right.

I mean, Bush may have every legal right to ask for this fee, but that doesn't mean he isn't a dick for doing it. Its not like he needs the money.

I 100% agree that, just because a certain practice is common, doesn't make it right. Now let's move on. I did not like Bush as president, but even with his $100K fee, if he brought in enough to cover his cost and then some, (let's say, at least another $100K above that), then he brought in more money than would have been generated otherwise...

[Ralin]

I mean, Bush may have every legal right to ask for this fee, but that doesn't mean he isn't a dick for doing it. Its not like he needs the money.

You don't get 20 million dollars in the bank with that sort of thinking

[Mr Bean]

I mean, Bush may have every legal right to ask for this fee, but that doesn't mean he isn't a dick for doing it. Its not like he needs the money.

You don't get 20 million dollars in the bank with that sort of thinking

You get it by being born with it, George W Bush is an excellent example of someone who without the privileges of birth would have never ascended they heights reached. It's not by being a successful businessman (Every company he ran failed) or a great team owner but by trading on his name and backing to fail over and over again until he managed his first win in nabbing the Texas governorship.

Such a run would have been impossible without the backing of the Bush legacy.

[Ralin]

I mean, Bush may have every legal right to ask for this fee, but that doesn't mean he isn't a dick for doing it. Its not like he needs the money.

You don't get 20 million dollars in the bank with that sort of thinking

You get it by being born with it, George W Bush is an excellent example of someone who without the privileges of birth would have never ascended they heights reached. It's not by being a successful businessman (Every company he ran failed) or a great team owner but by trading on his name and backing to fail over and over again until he managed his first win in nabbing the Texas governorship.

Such a run would have been impossible without the backing of the Bush legacy.

And the Bush legacy would never have existed if Bush's forebears had thought that way

[Flagg]

I wonder how much was raised, as a result of him being the speaker, though. Regardless of his wrongdoing, if he brought in $1 million, even with his fee, it's still a net gain for the charity...

I'm sorry, I'm trying real fucking hard not to go off on people full blast, but that is euthanasia stupid. If he hadn't charged a $100k (and his wife, Laura "Vehicular Homicide" Bush got a cool $50 grand for her own speech) speaking fee, would the charity have raised less money? Of course not, dipshit! They'd have made whatever they made, plus $150,000 that didn't go up George W Bush's nose.

I really don't get what's so fucking hard to understand about this. I mean are you alleged people defending this bullshit because you don't understand simple logic and math (and I suck at math, but this one's so easy even I get it), playing devils advocate (very poorly), or just fucking trolling because you want to sniff George and Jebs underwear?

[biostem]

I wonder how much was raised, as a result of him being the speaker, though. Regardless of his wrongdoing, if he brought in $1 million, even with his fee, it's still a net gain for the charity...

I'm sorry, I'm trying real fucking hard not to go off on people full blast, but that is euthanasia stupid. If he hadn't charged a $100k (and his wife, Laura "Vehicular Homicide" Bush got a cool $50 grand for her own speech) speaking fee, would the charity have raised less money? Of course not, dipshit! They'd have made whatever they made, plus $150,000 that didn't go up George W Bush's nose.

I really don't get what's so fucking hard to understand about this. I mean are you alleged people defending this bullshit because you don't understand simple logic and math (and I suck at math, but this one's so easy even I get it), playing devils advocate (very poorly), or just fucking trolling because you want to sniff George and Jebs underwear?

Let me say this again - I do not agree with him charging what he did. The question then becomes - your choices are A) Hold the event without G.W. or B) hold the event with G.W. Which will raise more money? I dislike Bush, and I will again reiterate that I do not think he should have charged the Veteran's group. If, however, the choices were Bush with his fee or no Bush, I will go with whatever one brings in more money for the Veteran's organization every time.

[Knife]

Hence why I said I blame the charity as much as Bush. Even if they had to pay, which I don't think they should have, I'm sure they could have found someone with some drawing power to do it free or for cheap. It's a double damn on them for getting the guy who started the damn war, drug it out for 5 years of his presidency, and to boot give him 100k to speak to them.

It's wrong.

[Ralin]

I really don't get what's so fucking hard to understand about this. I mean are you alleged people defending this bullshit because you don't understand simple logic and math (and I suck at math, but this one's so easy even I get it), playing devils advocate (very poorly), or just fucking trolling because you want to sniff George and Jebs underwear?

Your problem is that you are hung up on the fact that Bush charged a fee for speaking there and that's apparently keeping you from realizing that he donated a hundred and fifty thousand dollars in discounted services to the group. That is charity on Bush's part, because no matter how much you hate him and how stupid you think the concept is Bush's time and presence are very fucking valuable commodities. As demonstrated by the fact that people are willing to pay him $100,000+ to show up and wow everyone with his famously good public speaking skills and that him doing so apparently brings in ten times as much in donations.

Again, Bush did more for crippled vets in one day than you have in your entire life. And you are angry that he didn't do more.

[Simon_Jester]

If he got paid, he didn't donate the services, any more than Exxon "donated" the gas that's in my car's tank...

Ralin, am I just not understanding you? Or are you seriously claiming that it's "donating" a service if you get paid for it?

Can you point to an example of Bush's normal fees for public speaking? Maybe then we'd have some idea what his speaking is 'really' worth, which would tell us the value Bush 'donated' by speaking at a discount.

Also, you seem to be claiming Bush brought in a million or more for the charity with his speech. Can you document that claim?

If you can't support either your claim that Bush would normally charge more, or your claim that Bush brought in vastly more money than he charged, then I don't even understand what you're trying to argue here.

[Patroklos]

Charity /= free. Or at least it doesn't have to. Discounts are charity. The answers to your other questions are in the OP.

[Ralin]

Charity /= free. Or at least it doesn't have to. Discounts are charity. The answers to your other questions are in the OP.

Indeed. Performing a (valuable, expensive) service for substantially less than normal because you want to support a group or cause is in fact charity

Can you point to an example of Bush's normal fees for public speaking? Maybe then we'd have some idea what his speaking is 'really' worth, which would tell us the value Bush 'donated' by speaking at a discount

Did you even read the article? The organization itself says that Bush cut his fee from $250,000 as a show of support

Also, you seem to be claiming Bush brought in a million or more for the charity with his speech. Can you document that claim?

Again, did you even read the damned article? Because it lists the amount of donations the fundraiser made with Bush and how much they made the following year without him. Can't prove how much of it came from Bush since this is a fuzzy area but I'm assuming disabled veterans didn't become $1.45 million dollars less sympathetic in 2013

[Alyrium Denryle]

It's an excellent reason for Bush to care about it

Only if he has absolutely no shame or self-awareness whatsoever.

No, he really doesn't. And I'll invite you to prove otherwise.

...

He sent them to war in Afghanistan and bungled the occupation badly. He sent them to war in Iraq on what was at best bad intelligence and what was at worst deliberately fabricated intelligence for personal/corrupt reasons, without a plan for the occupation, letting private contractors run rampant with no bid contracts with zero accountability or legal responsibility thus undercutting the whole process, that resulted in said occupation being completely fucking FUBAR.

As a result of both of these fuckups, he got a whole new generation of veterans maimed, traumatized, or killed.

They did their fucking jobs. He did not do his.

In what sad pathetic universe do you live in where he does not owe them?

There, I fixed it for you.

Fuck you in the liver.

Yeah, goddamn that fucker for raising millions of dollars for disabled veterans and donating $150,000 in services himself.

He could have donated ALL of said services, it would have cost him as much as taking a day off (which he did plenty of while those men and women were having their legs blown off on his orders) after writing off the expenses on his taxes. Fuck him.

You don't get 20 million dollars in the bank with that sort of thinking

And your point is? Do you understand concepts like "obligation to others", or do you simply reject them? Does someone's desire for money in the bank override their ethical obligations?

Again, Bush did more for the crippled vets that he created in one day than you have in your entire life. And you are angry that he didn't do more so as to even begin to balance the scales and making right the harm he did to them.

Fixed that for you.

They are crippled because of him, his orders, and his policies. 150k does not even come close to the harm he cause to just the one dude with no hands. The very least he could do is talk at fundraisers for free. He did not even do that.

[Irbis]

You know, in a perfect world, public figures wouldn't be able to either A) be legally able to receive government funding and bodyguards if they choose to profit off charities and public good organizations if they were so morally corrupt to fleece them, B) have enough common fucking decency to choose not to.

Sadly, we're not living in perfect world, which you can simply observe by fact Bushy and Dick aren't on trial for war crimes and illegally invading several countries yet. Or by the fact they were actually voted into office. Pity.

[Ralin]

...

He sent them to war in Afghanistan and bungled the occupation badly. He sent them to war in Iraq on what was at best bad intelligence and what was at worst deliberately fabricated intelligence for personal/corrupt reasons, without a plan for the occupation, letting private contractors run rampant with no bid contracts with zero accountability or legal responsibility thus undercutting the whole process, that resulted in said occupation being completely fucking FUBAR.

As a result of both of these fuckups, he got a whole new generation of veterans maimed, traumatized, or killed.

They did their fucking jobs. He did not do his.

In what sad pathetic universe do you live in where he does not owe them?

No, he really doesn't. And I'll invite you to prove otherwise.

Sorry, you're going to have to do better than reiterating how much you hate Bush and what a bad president he was.

He could have donated ALL of said services, it would have cost him as much as taking a day off (which he did plenty of while those men and women were having their legs blown off on his orders) after writing off the expenses on his taxes. Fuck him.

How DARE Bush not donate EVEN MORE to this charity!

You are remarkably generous when it comes to how other people should spend their money. Quick question: how much have you given to charities for disabled vets? I'm willing to bet it's not as much as Bush.

And your point is? Do you understand concepts like "obligation to others", or do you simply reject them? Does someone's desire for money in the bank override their ethical obligations?

Oh, I understand. And Bush fulfilled them nicely what with speaking at this fundraiser at such a discounted rate.

They are crippled because of him, his orders, and his policies. 150k does not even come close to the harm he cause to just the one dude with no hands. The very least he could do is talk at fundraisers for free. He did not even do that.

They're crippled because shockingly enough people get crippled fighting wars. Wars which that apparently believed in enough to sign up for, meaning they're right up there with him morally.

But, you know. Keep raging because Bush didn't do even more to help them.

[AniThyng]

You'd think then that veterans would not be a republican voting bloc, but unless i'm mistaken, they still tend to vote republican?

[Patroklos]

They sure do.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118684/milit ... lican.aspx

Especially the age groups likely to have been in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Ralin]

They sure do.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118684/milit ... lican.aspx

Especially the age groups likely to have been in Iraq or Afghanistan.

And they also voted with their feet as it were by choosing to enlist with the knowledge that they could probably expect to be deployed there.

[AniThyng]

How do the party lines look if we compare rates for those who served in actual combat zones versus did not, and between injured/disabled veterans and non-disabled?

[Ralin]

I don't know, but I'd expect Iraq and Afghanistan aged vets to overlap pretty heavily with served in combat zone vets, and you can see how they lean.

[Patroklos]

Its about the same:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... publicans/

Though in this one if you go with conservative vs liberal you get an overwhelming conservative lean. This is probably a better measure because of how many say they are independent (thought article says when pressed they overwhelming go Republican, whatever that means). This can be explained by 1.) most service members are male and males are generally more conservative 2.) 49% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are Southern which is a conservative area anyway and 3.) they are very young compared to the general public which accounts for so many independents.

[Flagg]

I wonder how much was raised, as a result of him being the speaker, though. Regardless of his wrongdoing, if he brought in $1 million, even with his fee, it's still a net gain for the charity...

I'm sorry, I'm trying real fucking hard not to go off on people full blast, but that is euthanasia stupid. If he hadn't charged a $100k (and his wife, Laura "Vehicular Homicide" Bush got a cool $50 grand for her own speech) speaking fee, would the charity have raised less money? Of course not, dipshit! They'd have made whatever they made, plus $150,000 that didn't go up George W Bush's nose.

I really don't get what's so fucking hard to understand about this. I mean are you alleged people defending this bullshit because you don't understand simple logic and math (and I suck at math, but this one's so easy even I get it), playing devils advocate (very poorly), or just fucking trolling because you want to sniff George and Jebs underwear?

Let me say this again - I do not agree with him charging what he did. The question then becomes - your choices are A) Hold the event without G.W. or B) hold the event with G.W. Which will raise more money? I dislike Bush, and I will again reiterate that I do not think he should have charged the Veteran's group. If, however, the choices were Bush with his fee or no Bush, I will go with whatever one brings in more money for the Veteran's organization every time.

No, you don't have 2 choices. You have 3. The third being a press release saying that George W Bush is demanding a $100k speaking fee for himself and a $50k speaking fee for Vehicular Homicide Bush, and then they have people who aren't drenched in the blood of innocents volunteering to not just speak, but speak and donate. So Knife if 100% correct on this, it's the charitie's fault as well, they are both to be held in contempt.