Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

so buffett is giving away his $$$ hell, I only need 200 thous

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
greenbriar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 11:55 AM
Original message
so buffett is giving away his $$$ hell, I only need 200 thous
that would pay off my house and student loans and jeep.


I would LOVE that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think what he is doing is outstanding. I wish more supremely
wealthy people would follow his example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenbriar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. he isn't going to give it to those that need it
have him give it to people so they in turn can make a difference.


exp: If my house and student loan were paid off, I could volunteer more time to my local Dem Headquarters ect...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yes, he is. The bulk is going to the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, which has, over the past few years, given away the most money of any foundation. And, some to his wife's, some to his daughter's and some to both sons'.

Those foundations have done really great work. I think it is totally appropriate to give it to those folks.

Bill Gates came a little late to the philanthropy game, but he has more than made up for it by giving away the amount he has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. Buffett is a liberal and has frequently spoken out against Bush
economic policies. Interesting but not surprising that some of the largest donations have come from liberals such as Buffet and Turner. I suspect Melinda Gates is also. Does anyone know? People say that Bill got very philanthropic because of her.

Buffett is one of the few corporate heroes out there. His statements about tax cuts for the wealthy and the problems with dynastic wealth are direct jabs at the Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jrandom421 Donating Member (367 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Actually
Much of Bill philanthropy started just after the birth of his daughter Jennifer. In a Time article a few years ago, he talked candidly on how becoming a parent changes everything, including your outlook on the future. Notice how much of the foundation's focus has been on immunization of children?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zonkers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. Buffet & Gates are about to learn that 200 billion dollars is not enough
to save the world, let alone make a dent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. Isn't he worried about going bankrupt after he dies?
What's the matter with Buffett? He's making the other overrich robber barons look bad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jrandom421 Donating Member (367 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Actually, he's following Andrew Carnegie's advice
On dying rich:

The man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during his life, will pass away "unwept, unhonored, and unsung," no matter to what uses he leaves the dross which he cannot take with him. Of such as these the public verdict will then be: "The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced."

On "the duty of the man of Wealth":

First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after that doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community - the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren.

On conspicuous consumption:

We are met with the difficulty of determining what is modest, unostentatious living; what is the test of extravagance. The answer is that it is as impossible to name exact amounts or actions as it is to define good manners, good taste, or the rules of propriety; but, nevertheless, there are verities. The rule in regard to good taste in the dress of men or women applies here. Whatever makes one conspicuous offends the canon.

On "indiscriminate charity":

It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy. Of every thousand dollars spent in so called charity today, it is probable that $950 is unwisely spent, indeed, as to produce the very evils which it proposes to mitigate.

On a "two-bit" mistake:

A well-known writer of philosophic books admitted the other day that he had given a quarter of a dollar to a man who approached him as he was coming to visit the house of his friend. He knew nothing of the habits of the beggar; knew not the use that would be made of this money, although he had every reason to suspect that it would be spent improperly. The quarter-dollar given that night will probably work more injury than all the money which its thoughtless donor will ever be able to give in true charity will do good.

On estate taxes:

Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for public ends would work good for the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of the rich man's estate which should go at his death to the state, and by all means such taxes should be graduated, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell.

On waiting until death to give away one's money:

Knowledge of the results of legacies bequeathed is not calculated to inspire the brightest hopes of much posthumous good being accomplished. The cases are not few in which the real object sought by the testator is not attained. In many cases the bequests are so used as to become only monuments to his folly. Besides this, it may fairly be said that no man is to be extolled for doing what he cannot help doing, nor is he to be thanked by the community to which he only leaves wealth at death. Men who leave vast sums in this way may fairly be thought men who would not have left it at all, had they been able to take it with them.

On why the wealthy should not leave great fortunes to their children:

Generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Great sums bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients. It is not the welfare of the children but family pride, which inspires these enormous legacies.

http://www.raisingmoremoney.com/stories/storyReader$377
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Oh sure, easy for Carnegie to say
He didn't have to face losing his family's farm to the Death Tax!

You know, I've thought it over, and Republican talking points just flat don't make any fucking sense at all. How do we keep losing to these assholes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 03:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC