Gates, Buffett to megarich: Give 50% of your wealth away

[Ichingcarpenter]

SEATTLE - Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, America's two richest people, are embarking on a campaign to persuade their super-rich peers to give half their fortunes to charity in a move that could change the face of philanthropy.

The effort, if successful, could funnel a colossal amount of money into nonprofit groups. If the individuals on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans pledged half their net worth to charity, that would amount to $600 billion, Fortune magazine says.



Several of the megarich, including Los Angeles philanthropists Eli and Edythe Broad; Silicon Valley's John and Tashia Morgridge, whose fortune came from Cisco Systems; venture capitalist John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins and his wife, Ann; and media entrepreneur Gerry Lenfest and his wife, Marguerite, have already committed to the 50 percent pledge, according to program organizers. Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates are sending e-mails and making calls to other billionaires deemed likely prospects to contribute, Fortune reported.

Buffett said it's a good bet the super-wealthy have already thought about what to do with their money. "They may not have reached a decision about that, but they have for sure thought about it. The pledge that we're asking them to make will put them to thinking about the whole issue again," the Berkshire Hathaway chairman told Fortune.

"If they wait until they're making a final will in their 90s, the chance of their brainpower and willpower being better than they are today is nil."



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37731478/ns/us_news-giving/


I think this is what the robberbarons did in the late 19th and early 20 century.

But how about TAXING THE FUCKERS NOW so they don't get so fucking rich in the first place?

[Xipe Totec]

1. Or just pay living wages

If you're going to give money away, give it to the people that made you rich in the first place.

[JHB]

29. +1x10^1000000

That was the biggest benefit of pre-Reagan high marginal tax rates: not so much the direct govenment income, but in shifting the economic "landscape" so that it made more sense to pay people well than to siphon every last bit into the pockets of those at the top. "Fire half and make the rest work twice as hard" just to squeeze more money isn't as attractive when Uncle Sam stands to take a huge chunk of the gravy.

Something people need to be reminded of: "Trickle-down" economics removed the very mechnism that would ensure that it actually trickled down.

[laughingliberal]

154. Exactly! High tax rates on the wealthy forced them to invest or donate to avoid the taxes.

Exactly! High tax rates on the wealthy forced them to invest or donate to avoid the taxes or donate.

[Inuca]

35. You think Microsoft

is not paying "living wages"? Being able to be critical and think on your own is good, blind and automatic criticism... not so much.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

50. Xipe probably means the people he and Buffet plan to nag.

But you knew that already.

[Hannah Bell]

70. 2009 net income (profit): $14.6 Billion 2009 employees: 93K = $157K/employee

biggest importer of H1B labor in the US

biggest user of lower-wage, unbenefited "perma-temps"

sweat-shop overseas labor

If accurate, the report by the National Labor Committee, which bills itself as a human rights advocacy group that focused on global labor abuse, is far more damning than the information that surfaced about Foxconn, which builds many products for Apple.

The list of alleged abuses at the contractor KYE — which claims between 3,600 and 4,500 employees in China, depending on seasonal need — is long and damning:

workers reporting working 68 hours a week despite being at the factory for 83 hours

16- and 17-year-old students hired under the guise of work study who are put on the factory floor
for 15 hours a day, six or seven days a week

workers are unable to use the bathroom during working hours

security guards that sexually harass women workers

forced living in “primitive and dirty dorm rooms,” and workers must take sponge baths rather than
showers

violation of all Chinese labor laws

http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10007108/microsofts-chinese-labor-scandal-theres-more-trouble-ahead-for-the-rest-of-high-tech/

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/202041.asp.

[wolfgangmo]

72. Yes, microsoft does pay a living wage.

However a majority of their "employees" are either H1 visa holders or temporary contract workers with low pay and no benefits.

The salary and benefits are reserved for the connected.

[defendandprotect]

82. Certainly there is no widespread profit sharing with labor . . .!!

And wasn't all of the computer/software stuff developed by government research

and then turned over to Gates?

[BR_Parkway]

41. Exactly, think of how many non profits wouldn't even be needed in the first

place if everyone working made a living wage (with healthcare)

[Hannah Bell]

65. precisely. take a look at haiti as well. ngo's run the place privately -- vision

of the future your betters have planned for you -- privatization of government functions to unaccountable "charities".

[redqueen]

67. What a concept. (nt)

[defendandprotect]

78. Right . .. actually make minimum wage a living wage -- stop exploiting labor ...

[leftstreet]

129. +1

[Scuba]

2. The world's symphonies are in for a payday...

...I'm for taxing them down to just "fabulously wealthy".

[Hannah Bell]

3. those two gangsters never gave a dime away in their lives.

[BzaDem]

4. It is really like 1984 here.

:rofl:

[Hannah Bell]

5. the most orwellian item is gates-buffett-inc's billing as philanthropists.

[BzaDem]

6. You can call them whatever you want

but to say they haven't given away "a dime in their lives" can't get any closer to "up is down" and "war is peace."

[Hannah Bell]

8. it's not giving away when you get more back than you give.

[BzaDem]

9. Warren Buffet's estate will not be getting back more than he gives. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

16. i suggest you don't have any knowledge of those arrangements beyond the pr spin.

warren's endowed all his children with their own foundations, from which they and/or their spouses draw salary, plus they're trustee of their mother's foundation, endowed by warren, & i'd bet at least one of them will become a gates trustee when warren departs this world & voids his seat.

for starters.

foundations are great money-makers, in perpetuity. tax-free investments funds which you get to control.

[BzaDem]

21. Oh, OK, I'll just defer to you, because you ACTUALLY have knowledge of those arrangements

And my knowledge can't possibly compare to that of a person who claims that someone giving away 99% of his fortune before death isn't giving away a dime.

:rofl:

[Hannah Bell]

24. i don't have knowledge of the specifics of the buffett arrangements, but

i have some knowledge of how other people have done it, & buffett's own & family history.

which hasn't been big on philanthropy, but has been big on public relations.

there's a reason every slimy speculator, every half-wealthy family, has a foundation these days -- it's because it's lucrative.

unless you believe rich people just *love* to give away money.

they don't.

[defendandprotect]

84. Traditionally, we know what happens -- see John D. Rockefeller --

but it may be a signal that the more outrageously wealthy -- like Gates, Buffet --

may be getting nervous?

[SkyDaddy7]

30. Some people have this idea in their heads that...

No one with money has a soul or heart and only does things for more wealth in return.

We both know what Gates & Buffet are doing is wonderful...Now they are trying to get others to follow along and that seems to be working as well!

Both men have called for higher taxes on the mega rich as well...So, the HOT AIR being blown on this thread is just that!

[Hannah Bell]

39. "we all know" - lol. wunnerful, wunnerful!

[HughMoran]

58. Got nothin'

Just BS class warfare politics.

[Binka]

130. You Don't Think Class Warfare Politics Is Real?

Class warfare is BS? Holy Moly another DU beauty school drop out down the tubes. You are so aptly named HughMoran. See ya. :hi:

[inna]

132. Class warfare is being waged unilaterally, against the working class.

Only those devoid of social consciousness are not able to see it.

[defendandprotect]

87. Isn't Gates controlling the Charter schools business bankrupting our public schools?

[Hannah Bell]

91. gates is one of the three top funders. school privatization benefits his interests in multiple ways.

he's also heavy into funding an alternate private education infrastructure, in which private corps rake off "rents" from various adminstrative, research & evaluation tasks related to education.

gates is all about "rents". he wants a cut of everything.

[defendandprotect]

126. Thank you -- never liked Gates, and sad to see such a trust of him here!!

The war on public education is simply another short cut to the government teat --

and, they certainly don't benefit from an informed well-educated citizenry!

:)

[SkyDaddy7]

138. I think he is...

And I am in support of what ever works...The current public school system is broke! You can't blame it on Charter Schools! I know there have been issues but we must try every possible solution to see what works. If Charter Schools are the answer then so be it!

I am no longer going to blindly support a system that has been broke for years just for political reasons! I want results.

[Hannah Bell]

145. charter schools *don't* work -- except for the rich. sorry you were misled.

PACE issues scathing report of charter schools
April 8, 2003

Charter Schools Suffer from Ill Prepared Teachers, Unequal Funding Reform experiment may reinforce achievement gaps, new study finds

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)

The nation's ballooning number of charter schools rely heavily on uncredentialed teachers, fail to acquire federal monies intended to aid low-achieving or disabled children, and display the same finance disparities that beset regular public schools, according to an unprecedented study to be released today.

http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/news-bureau/displayRecord.php?tablename=press&id=15


NEW STANFORD REPORT FINDS SERIOUS QUALITY CHALLENGE IN NATIONAL
CHARTER SCHOOL SECTOR

Report Recognizes Robust Demand, Supply and Exceptional Charters, Faults Quality Controls,
Authorizers and Charter Caps

Stanford, CA – A new report issued today by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes
(CREDO) at Stanford University found that there is a wide variance in the quality of the nation’s
several thousand charter schools with, in the aggregate, students in charter schools not faring as
well as students in traditional public schools.

While the report recognized a robust national demand for more charter schools from parents and
local communities, it found that 17 percent of charter schools reported academic gains that were
significantly better than traditional public schools, while 37 percent of charter schools showed
gains that were worse than their traditional public school counterparts, with 46 percent of charter
schools demonstrating no significant difference.

http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/National_Release.pdf

[HughMoran]

56. Or...

[defendandprotect]

86. Rockefeller also gave away "dimes" .... purely for propaganda purposes ...

[Chef Eric]

11. The Gates Foundation has given billions of dollars to non-profit organizations.

Read and learn:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/pages/foundation-fact-sheet.aspx

[BzaDem]

12. You can't argue with these people

and expect a coherent response.

Of course they gave billions. On most discussion boards there wouldn't be an argument.

[Hannah Bell]

20. lol. yeah, they'll tell you all about it. but not the interesting stuff, that they won't tell.

foundations = holding companies.

Ferdinand Lundberg, “The Rich and the Super-Rich”:

While the largest foundations and flotillas of foundation: have been mentioned, size is not alone important. Smaller foundations act as conduits and control points, useful in sorts of secret business affairs and especially in tax evasion. Nearly every large corporation and many of the large now have their own foundations. And small foundations often suddenly flower into huge growths.

Among other things, as Patman found, foundations can become tax-free receptacles for capital gains. An individual or corporation may have an investment it wishes to liquidate but which stands to incur a huge capital gain on large long-term appreciation. Payment of a capital gains tax may be avoided by turning the investment over to a foundation (no gift tax) and then having the foundation sell the investment (no capital gains tax). The foundation may now lend the entire liquid sum back to the donor at a nominal interest rate (no law requires that the foundations seek maximum earnings), or it may with the untaxed money obtain a controlling block of stock in some company the original donor wishes to control. With this control he can raise or lower the company’s] dividend rate, obtain power over its possibly large cash and management and perhaps even obtain for himself further low-interest loans.

With low-interest loans received, a donor can make lucrative investments. He could, for example, with a loan which he paid 1 percent, itself tax deductible, go out buy tax-free local government bonds paying him a tax-exempt 3 percent. Let us suppose that an original investment of $10 million was now valued at $100 million. If it were sold it would incur a capital gains tax of approximately $22.5 million. But if were all given to a foundation the foundation could sell and pay no gains tax. Now if the foundation lends the whole sum back to the donor at 1 percent he pays it $1 million a year. And if he makes $3 million on a tax-free investment in government bonds he keeps $2 million annually, tax free. But if he had sold the original amount he would have had only $77.5 million after-tax capital which, invested at 5 percent, would have brought him $3,875,000. After payment of about $2,712,500 (or 70 percent) income tax, he would have remaining $1,162,500 annually or almost a half less than by the first procedure. It was clearly financially advantageous to filter the money through the “charitable” foundation.

If he so desires he can in fifty years build the original sum in his personal name back, all tax free. After fifty years he or his family can possess, in fee simple, $100 million in free new assets and also control the disposition of the original $100 million in the foundation, which may satisfy legal requirements by using its small income to assist crippled newsboys or homeless dogs.

[BzaDem]

22. Your points don't mean anything and don't claim to mean anything.

You are talking about how it is possible to use foundations for tax-evasion.

You provide no evidence that Buffet/Gates/etc. are actually using a fund to "evade taxes" and not to give (such that the amount given isn't greater than the amount saved on taxes).

Using your logic, no one ever gives anything, because the method they use to give could be used by other people to evade their taxes.

[Hannah Bell]

25. it's not "tax evasion". tax evasion is illegal. & legal tax evasion isn't the only

benefit of having a foundation.

that's why almost every person or family with any amount of real wealthy has one.

they can be real money-makers if you know what you're doing.

[BzaDem]

28. So therefore, Buffett hasn't ever "given a dime?"

If you are going to make that assertion, it is best to back that up with evidence. Posts about how people could do this or that do not constitute evidence.

[Hannah Bell]

31. if the dime benefits you, i don't call it "giving". the nature of a *private* foundation

means only the basic information is public, not the intricacies of the finances.

another of the benefits.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Documents/2008-gates-foundation-trust-financial-statements.pdf


investments "loaned". under "secured lending transactions".

i wonder to what or who.

one of the ways to make money. you can act as a private bank, with less scrutiny.

[onpatrol98]

48. hmm...interesting

If the giving helps me AND helps the giver...I don't think I have a problem with it. In fact, it should mean (but might not), that if you're willing to give...the more you get, the more you'll give to others.

Bill Gates and his foundations may benefit him...but, they benefit others as well. And, not every wealthy mean gives, even if it will benefit him. Some just don't bother one way or the other. You can see it when they post the IRS info on politicians. And, sometimes, people who have really little, give a lot...

I remember reading where Biden gave $369 to charity. He probably gives a lot more now, because who would want that number out there for long. My mother on a retirement check with half of it eaten away by her insurance payment dwarfs his charitable giving for that year.

But, essentially, my mother is a giver. When her finances as good, she gives...when they're not so good, she gives. Some people are just like that, and it doesn't change if they become rich. They just learn ways to give in ways that benefit them financially.

[defendandprotect]

88. Remember "anonymous" giving and that kinda collides with PR giving . . .

over which the wealthy maintain strict controls -- lifetime --

[defendandprotect]

81. See: John D. Rockefeller and PR . . .

[Chef Eric]

32. Fine. If you don't believe the Gates Foundation, maybe you'll believe its recipients.

Here's one of them:

http://www.gavialliance.org/about/donors/index.php

[Hannah Bell]

34. so what? do you really think i don't know what gates funds?

as i said, i don't consider investments that return a profit "giving money away".

[Chef Eric]

37. Please explain the diabolical plan behind immunizing children from diseases. nt

[Hannah Bell]

38. cheap clinical trials.

http://somo.nl/html/paginas/pdf/Examples_of_unethical_trials_nov_2006_NL.pdf

investors in the companies which benefit from it...

[Chef Eric]

40. Oh, I see. Bill Gates is in cahoots with UNICEF and the United Nations...

in order to fund the evil Gavi Alliance, which "uses" child immunization as a front in order to enrich the pharmaceutical industry.

Have I got that right?

[Hannah Bell]

60. you forgot the world bank & glaxo.

[snagglepuss]

85. I agree with you. The following Palast article cuts thru the PR bs about Gates.

http://www.morphizm.com/politix/palast/palast_gatesaids.html

[redqueen]

92. Thanks for that link... seems like many could stand to read it. (nt)

[Hannah Bell]

118. not to mention that gates set up the gavi alliance. that's why the foundation has a permanent seat.

typical tactic.

[snagglepuss]

83. You'll find Greg Palast's critique of Gates eyeopening. Not all is as it seems.

snip

... let me let you in on a little secret about Bill and Melinda Gates so-called “Foundation.” Gate’s demi-trillionaire status is based on a nasty little monopoly-protecting trade treaty called “TRIPS” -- the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights rules of the World Trade Organization. TRIPS gives Gates a hammerlock on computer operating systems worldwide, legally granting him a monopoly that the Robber Barons of yore could only dream of. But TRIPS, the rule which helps Gates rule, also bars African governments from buying AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis medicine at cheap market prices.

snip

Gates knows darn well that the “intellectual property rights” laws such as TRIPS -- which keep him and Melinda richer than Saddam and the Mafia combined -- are under attack by Nelson Mandela and front-line doctors trying to get cheap drugs to the 23 million Africans sick with the AIDS virus.

Gate’s brilliant and self-serving solution: he’s spending an itsy-bitsy part of his monopoly profits (the $6 billion spent by Gates’ foundation is less than 2% of his net worth) to buy some drugs for a fraction of the dying. The bully billionaire’s “philanthropic” organization is currently working paw-in-claw with the big pharmaceutical companies in support of the blockade on cheap drug shipments.







http://www.morphizm.com/politix/palast/palast_gatesaids.html

[redqueen]

93. Thanks for the excerpt. (nt)

[defendandprotect]

95. Wow . . . read the article-- thank you!! Even more despicable than I thought--!!

This particular expose re Africa and AIDS, however, makes me ever more suspicious

that the introduction of the polio vaccine -- grown in monkey glands in Africa --

may have actually been a way to introduce AIDS into Africa!!

Something really, really wrong with the right wing --

and we'd better get something done about it soon!!

Thank you for your efforts !!

:)

[snagglepuss]

108. An LA Times article is even more damning. Well worth the read.

snip



Using the most recent data available, a Times tally showed that hundreds of Gates Foundation investments totaling at least $8.7 billion, or 41% of its assets, not including U.S. and foreign government securities” have been in companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially concerned philosophy.

This is "the dirty secret" of many large philanthropies, said Paul Hawken, an expert on socially beneficial investing who directs the Natural Capital Institute, an investment research group. "Foundations donate to groups trying to heal the future," Hawken said in an interview, "but with their investments, they steal from the future."

Moreover, investing in destructive or unethical companies is not what is most harmful, said Hawken and other experts, including Douglas Bauer, senior vice president of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, a nonprofit group that assists foundations on policy and ethical issues. Worse, they said, is investing purely for profit, without attempting to improve a company's way of operating.

Such blind-eye investing, they noted, rewards bad behavior.

At the Gates Foundation, blind-eye investing has been enforced by a firewall it has erected between its grant-making side and its investing side. The goals of the former are not allowed to interfere with the investments of the latter.


snip


Much of the rest of philanthropy, however, is beginning to address contradictions between making grants to improve the world and making investments that harm it. According to recent surveys, many foundations, including some of the nation's largest, have adopted at least basic policies to invest in ways that support their missions.




http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14309

[Hannah Bell]

110. ask who the trust loans money to, & about its derivatives business as well.

[defendandprotect]

123. Thank you -- will have to try to get back to the full article . . .

[Hannah Bell]

153. life is cheap in the third world; US research subjects rules observed in the breach.

Gates Foundation-funded PATH was trying out an HPV vaccine in India. Oops.

http://gateskeepers.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2010/4/12/4503352.html


cheap research subjects; don't complain so much if you kill them + lower payouts, less exposure in the developed world.

[Xithras]

94. Forget money. Current projections are that they'll save more than 7 million lives by 2030

They've already saved more than a million through their African vaccination and agricultural development programs.

As a computer science professor, a software developer, and an occasional contributor to various open source projects, I have plenty of reason to dislike Microsoft and Bill Gates actions as it's CEO. That said, anyone who speaks against the generosity of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation merely reveals their ignorance of the real good it is doing, and the lives it saves every single day. If more billionaires spent their money on projects like that, the world would be a LOT better place.

People need to remember the adage, "You don't have to like the giver to like the gift".

[defendandprotect]

96. "Only fools never doubt" -- You may have missed this post . . . ??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8577691&mesg_id=8581303

[laughingliberal]

155. I think a careful reading of the article at the link in #85 can clear up some of the myths. nt

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KonaKane]

61. Are you stoned? Bill and Melinda Gates alone have given away over 58 billion to date

Do you people even read the news?

[Hannah Bell]

89. i'm not sure which news you're reading. gates has not given away $58 billion.

he's promised to put that much into his foundation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1027878/Bill-Gates-pledges-58-billion-fortune-charity--children.html

quite a different matter than giving that much away in grants.

[defendandprotect]

98. Here's the news . . . from another post here --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8577691&mesg_id=8581303

[Sherman A1]

7. Well has been the new gilded age

of the robber barons since about 1980 so this is not too much of a surprise. Just as the uber wealthy of that era did charitable things to assuage their conscience so are these robber barons looking at the same.

[Hannah Bell]

10. they make money on the deal; it's nothing to do with their consciences.

they don't have consciences.

if they did, they wouldn't be the richest people in the world.

[maryf]

13. Tax the rich...

Leona Helmsley said (and at least she wasn't disingenuous, maybe her only good side), "only the poor pay taxes". If we had the tax base at 90% for these folks, that'd be more like it...

Could be they're reading the writing on the wall; Bastille Day is around the corner...

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. Buffett even said he paid less taxes than his secretary

Good they're giving some their obscene wealth away but it doesn't address the problem of having obscene wealth in the first place.

Hell, Buffett said he's giving away 99% of his and he will still have a $billion left.
The interest on a billion dollars alone is obscene.

[FailureToCommunicate]

74. I'm telling every well off person I know (not many) to re-read "Tale of Two Cites"

DIckens was trying to tell them something...

[FailureToCommunicate]

76. Damn Reagan and his tax cuts for the wealthy! Been downhill (even faster) since then.

[defendandprotect]

99. Believe the SENATE is extending the Bush tax cuts today . . . ?????

Think that's what I saw as I went by C-span 2 ??


The tax cuts for wealthy and the unemployment extensions seem oddly connected --

did Dems make a deal on this?

[inna]

136. Are you serious?? Why is it not all over the place then?

I do hope that you're wrong. That would be just too f'ng obscene.

[defendandprotect]

137. Working on HR 4213 - - quorum call right now . . .

that bill has something to do with tax regulations ---

I hope I'm wrong --

AND it was also lumped together with extensions on unemployment --

When do Bush tax cuts for wealthy expire?

[inna]

143. I think I got it:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6116/senate_fights_for_billionaire_fund_managers_tax_breaks_blocks_jobless_

(the whole article is well worth reading, found via this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8582796 )



"When do Bush tax cuts for wealthy expire?"

Supposedly by the end of this year, but... I'll believe it when I see it. :(

[defendandprotect]

148. Scanned the link quickly . . .

but still not clear whether these are Bush's tax cuts for wealthy --

or whether it's part of the stuff the Financial Panel is working on --

I think if they were going to let this stuff expire, they'd be talking about it now --

Country will go to sleep for a few months now -- till September and school opens again!!

:)

[Xithras]

97. Bill Gates has spoken out in support of increased taxation of the wealthy.

And when the fight over the inheritance tax was going on, he was outspoken in support of the tax. In fact, here's an article by his FATHER (Bill Gates Sr.), in which he all but calls the Republican support of its repeal a sham. In his own words, "The estate tax — our nation’s only levy on accumulated wealth — is the fairest and most important tax we have." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6856.html

[defendandprotect]

102. See this report on Gates on this thread --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8577691&mesg_id=8581303

Gates may be getting nervous?

However, SENATE, I think, is reauthorizing the Bush tax cuts for wealthy today???

[Hannah Bell]

113. that's about *your* taxes, not *his*. that's about taxing smaller regional wealth, not the big boys.

[Donnachaidh]

14. they gain two things from this -- don't believe for a second they haven't thought this out

Both of them, giving away half their wealth and they are STILL extremely wealthy individuals. Doesn't really hit them where they should be hit --

Tax write-offs -- I'll bet their accountants will love structuring this *gift* so it can span several years - and bring their tax due to ZERO during all those years. And ALL those photo-ops, master of the universe galas using some of that charitable money to party with.

They also get to publically polish their own personal halos - which gives them cover if Washington suddenly realizes that the wealthy are not being taxed enough. "Oh golly gee -- how can we consider TAXING these people who 'gave so much' to charity"! So whatever deficits need to be fixed - it won't be on the back of the uber-wealthy who *gave so generously*.

Don't kid yourself -- this isn't some epiphany moment for either gent - they are working it so they are *untouchable* if the downturn continues and Washington finds the need to raise taxes.

This will wind up being a boost for their favorite people -- themselves.

[BzaDem]

17. So what?

Buffett has pledged to ultimately give away 99% of his fortune to charity.

So what if it's a tax write-off? Isn't that the point of allowing charitable contributions to be written off?

If he ultimately gives 99% of his fortune to charity, that is obviously FAR MORE than would be taxed had he given nothing.

[Donnachaidh]

18. so YOU are willing to pay the taxes he won't because he wants a write off?

:rofl:

Have at it.... :eyes: :rofl:

[BzaDem]

19. No, and luckily I won't have to. Nor will anyone else.

Nice try though. :)

Some posts here are really a sight to behold. He is donating 99% of his money to charity. If he were taxed, only about 40-50% of it would go to the government. So FAR MORE money is going to help people than would be otherwise. Yet you people are complaining?

[Hannah Bell]

26. "helping people". lol. that's why foundations carnegie, rockefeller, & ford are still in business

into the fourth (fifth, sixth) generation -- because they spent all their money "helping people".

[HughMoran]

55. No, you don't understand the logic

[Arkana]

77. Anyone who makes more than a living wage is evil.

Didn't you know that?

Hell, I made almost 65K last year--I guess that means I have to turn in my liberal card at the gate.

[Hannah Bell]

63. which is one of the reasons the us & other countries are cutting social spending.

because gates & others prefer to administer their benefice through their private fiefdoms, where the little folks have no say & no oversight - & starve government, which gives them more leverage & less competition.

putting the profits into their foundation is a cute way to keep the money in a lump sum where they can operate like a private bank.

among other scams.

[HughMoran]

54. Don't try to make sense of it

No amount of good could penetrate the bad.

[Hannah Bell]

23. "and bring their tax due to ZERO during all those years." - yes.

but it's not just about halo-polishing.

* The money they give away drives public policy - gates extensive funding of school "reform" (i.e. the establishment of a parallel private education infrastructure) is the most recent case in point.

* first dibs on patents/applications generated by funded research -- such as gates extensive genetic engineering funding.

* tax free investment fund - putting money in/pulling it out = economic leverage/speculative tool

* foundation salaries for children, friends, acolytes, persons one wishes to buy

* political & propaganda uses (as in ford foundation's interconnections with intelligence activity, or rockefeller foundations' alleged funding of mkultra research, or various winger foundations' funding of propaganda think tanks: heritage, cato, aei, etc.)

* besides which, there are multiple ways to generate private income using foundation capital, and you can read about some of them here (the rich & the super-rich, best-seller in 1968). some got shut down, new ones got opened up:

http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303critic/030304lberg/030304ch10.html

[JHB]

36. +1. All cognet points that people need to be reminded of.

"Never look a gift horse in the mouth" is:

A) an admonishment to "giftees" not to be grasping, ungrateful or overly-picky.

B) the "famous last words" of the Trojans....

[stray cat]

44. They are smart people so of course they thought it out - unlike many

who just blurt out platitudes and solutions with no real thought

[Hannah Bell]

64. lol. most big-time criminals are smart. the merit of smart criminals is?

[Lost4words]

53. Yeppers!

[defendandprotect]

105. John D. Rockefeller PR model . . .

Remember when giving used to be done anonymously???

But, just in case you missed this post on this thread re Gates --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8577691&mesg_id=8581303

[WinkyDink]

27. Noblesse oblige!

[hobbit709]

33. I can see the Bushes and their conservative ilk doing this-NOT!

[Hannah Bell]

80. lol. they also have their foundations. most rich people do. they're just not as rich as gates

& buffett.

e.g.

http://www.barbarabushfoundation.com/site/c.jhLSK2PALmF/b.4344531/k.BD31/Home.htm

http://www.laurabushfoundation.org/

aren't they nice?

[hobbit709]

90. And how much have they given to RW think tanks.

It's not only how much you give away, it's WHO you give it TO.

[Hannah Bell]

109. gates gives to right-wing think-tanks too, e.g.:

...Hess also codirects AEI's Future of American Education Project, whose working group includes Washington, D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee and Michael Feinberg, the cofounder of KIPP....<117> Hess also coauthored Diplomas and Dropouts,<118> a report on university graduation rates that was widely publicized in 2009.<119> The report, along with other education-related projects, was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.<120>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

[defendandprotect]

111. Also, --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8577691&mesg_id=8581659

[defendandprotect]

107. Right wing wealthy post-youth revolution of 60's have been investing in

restoring right wing authority --

GOD, the first -- which underpins patriarchy

GOP gave start up funding for the Christian Coalition in 1980's --

Scaife financed Dobson -- and other right wing wealthy financed Bauer's organizaiton.

Using God/patirarchal religion is an old time pattern for right wing --

We also financed/created Taliban/Al Qaeda -- and US government wrote, printed, published

those violent Muslim textbooks we heard so much about here in America!!

The youth revolution was called the "sexual revolution" by the right wing to belittle it --

it was in part a sexual revolution, but it was also much, much more -- a challenge to all

authority --

Here's Mae Brussel on it --

"I realized that in this country we had a revolution--of housing, food, hair style, clothing, cosmetics, transportation, value systems, religion--it was an economic revolution, affecting the cosmetics industry, canned foods, the use of land; people were delivering their own babies, recycling old clothes, withdrawing from spectator sports. They were breaking the barriers where white and black could rap in 1967. This was the year of the Beatles, the summer of Sergeant Pepper, the Monterey Pop Festival, Haight-Ashbury, make your own candle and turn off the electricity, turn on with your friends and laugh--that's what life was all about."

http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Ballad%20of%20Mae%20Brussell.html






Here's the info, if you're interested . . .


----------

From my journal --


The right wing wealthy have kept right wing stuff going ---
Posted by defendandprotect in Latest Breaking News
Sun May 02nd 2010, 09:38 PM
from Bill Buckley's mag to all the right wing organizations --

After Bill Buckley died some right wing memos came floating out making clear

that the CIA had been financing right wing members of Congress -- two that were

named were Sen. Strom Thurmond and Rep. Gerry Ford.

CIA took right wing many from any right wing sources -- including KKK.

Pat Buchanan also was financed by them.

GOP gave start up funding for the Christian Coalition -- Richard Scaife financed

Dobson's organization -- and other right wing wealthy financed Bauer's organization.

Using religion as a tool of conquest is an old pattern for the right wing.

And, take a look at this . . .



The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h ...




If you're interested, US created Taliban/Al Qaeda . . .


The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i ... ...







:)

[Fool Count]

42. How about just asking the governments to adopt more reasonable

taxation policies which would not allow the super-rich to amass such obscene fortunes and use that money
for public purposes democratically decided on by the populace, rather than on fanciful pet projects thought up by
the billionaires? Wouldn't this project be much easier to implement? Better yet, it would not even rely on
unanimous agreement from a group mostly distinguished by their greed.

[defendandprotect]

112. We had progressive taxation in America . . . right wing overturned it . . .

[stray cat]

43. We could tax the middle class at 50% as well - and send more money overseas

as most of us have benefits those in poorer parts of the world can only dream of.

[defendandprotect]

114. Let's just reinstate progressive taxation . . . shouldn't tax the poor, or unemployment benefits....

or Social Security -- !!

[Lost4words]

45. I would rather they pay taxes regularly! High Taxes!!

These people are not our countrymen!

[Starry Messenger]

47. I think Buffet is leaving his money to the Gates Foundation

So much for "giving it away", lol. Tax the fuckers.

[cbdo2007]

49. These comments are hilarious!!

Even if they said they would give away all their money, people here at DU would still complain and be mad.

[tammywammy]

51. +1 n/t

[BzaDem]

52. +100000.

[HughMoran]

57. + 1 brazillion

This place can be mind-twistingly insane at times.

:crazy:

[redqueen]

69. If they're only 'giving it away' to their own foundation, then yes...

I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of why they would rather see the social safety net continue to be degraded than give up control of all their billions.

[warren pease]

59. Premption and self-defense

Better to give away half and shut the mob up than risk losing it all if the mob ever catches on to the warped rules of the game.

This is unlikely in the extreme, of course, given the media environment of non-stop corporate propaganda we live in. That's what Limpballs, Pawn Hannity, Cryin' Glenn Beck et al do for a living, and it's why liberals are demonized and corporate crooks are rewarded with the keys to the kingdom.

But when you kill hope and replace it with cynicism and despair, people are capable of virtually anything. All it takes is somebody they trust to point the finger and ID the culprits.

Flame away, allegedly rational people.


wp

[defendandprotect]

116. I'm guess Gates may be getting nervous ... ?

[Greyhound]

62. K&R. It's a double edged sword, but we need this now and Obama & Co. have made it clear

that they will not even try to do as much as is necessary.
:dilemma:

[Cleita]

66. Exactly.

Charity doesn't do the job. Let them pay 50% in taxes for education, health care and housing for the poor. It would reach those who need it.

[defendandprotect]

68. Charities they control . . . ???

How about making reparations to the native American?

to the African American?

to those capitalists have made homeless and unemployed?

And, how about the Vatican chipping in with 50% of their wealth?

"Shoes of the Fisherman"?

There is the Bibical tradition -- based on earlier customs -- of the wealthy

returning their profits to the pot -- all of it!

Jubille years --

and the native American tradiiton of "Potlatch" --


Rather, we have reversed these traditions with removing the inheritance taxes!

[BrentWil]

71. Both are a model to follow

Both have lived the American dream and are giving back tremendously. The Gates Foundation is a great organization that continues to give back. There work is very effective in the short term, but more importantly, it has a great long term effect.

[KamaAina]

73. But which charities would benefit?

Several of the megarich, including Los Angeles philanthropists Eli and Edythe Broad; Silicon Valley's John and Tashia Morgridge, whose fortune came from Cisco Systems; venture capitalist John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins and his wife, Ann; and media entrepreneur Gerry Lenfest and his wife, Marguerite, have already committed to the 50 percent pledge,

The Broad (rhymes with "toad", not "laud") money is going into a largely successful effort to privatize our education system. That may technically qualify as a "charity", but it certainly doesn't benefit the public.

Meanwhile, as an employee of a nonprofit here in Silicon Valley, I can testify that, as with the Gates Foundation, 99.9% of that dough is going overseas, not to meet the needs of the place where the employees of Cisco and other tech firms llive and work.

[redqueen]

75. And meanwhile the social safety net here continues to be degraded.

It's weird how the mega-rich's priorities work.

[Nye Bevan]

104. Yes. How dare Bill fucking Gates give millions to help protect young people in Africa from AIDS!

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/701860.stm

[defendandprotect]

117. Did he? Read this . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8577691&mesg_id=8581303

[Spike89]

124. Yes, yes he did

I generally respect Palast, but that was a crappy piece of writing. Basically, Gates made lots of money because copyright laws protected his product. Those same copyright laws protect pharmaceutiocal companies, therefore Bill Gates is on their side? That is horrid logic. But to "back it up" Palast mentions that Gates "invested" in the pharmaceutical industries...but neglects to mention that the investment was in the form of buying millions of doses of vaccines and medicines that his foundation then gave away.

Other stories tar and feather the Gates foundation for investing in the companies causing many of the health problems in areas the foundation is working in. The truth is that a foundation must invest in order to continue to giving. More than 2/3 of all charities have seperatation policies between their giving and their "investing" arms. There are plenty of reasons for this, but one is that without the wall, investments tend to go to the giving areas and aren't true investment...leading to a foundation failing.

Bill Gates may be the devil, hell, he may be a saint, but his foundation is trying to do some good.

By the way - Gates set the foundation up in 1995, so it isn't about him all of a sudden "getting nervous" about higher taxes. Also, Gates and his wife are higher contributors to Democrats than republicans. Oh, Gates is firmly, consistently, and famously a proponent of high estate taxes and progressive taxation in general.

[defendandprotect]

127. Not at all believable . . . and certainly Palast isn't the only well telling the

truth about Gates --

the attacks by Gates on public education are but one more example of this

disgusting man's desire for wealth --

[Hannah Bell]

146. this is bullshit: "investment in the form of buying doses of vaccine"

the gates foundation investments included, until august 2009:

14.9 million shares in Schering-Plough Corp.
1 million shares in Eli Lilly & Co.
8.1 million shares in Merck & Co.
3.7 million shares in Wyeth
Allos Therapeutics Inc.
InterMune Inc.
Auxilium Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc.
3 million shares Seattle Genetics Inc
2.5 million shares Johnson & Johnson


Most of this reportedly sold off in late 2009 due to anxiety over health-care reform; some of it may have been bought back by now.

gates foundation also has private equity investments which are not as transparent as publicly traded stocks, & various other forms of investment which may or may not include health/pharma.

then there are bill's personal investments.

gates is both a big funder & big investor in biotech as well; probably the biggest. that's what most of his ag grants are about -- & many of the pharma/vaccine ones as well.

[KamaAina]

141. I didn't even mention Gates

I was slamming Charter-School Broad and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who give only a pittance locally. As I understand it, the Gates Foundation actually does donate in the Pacific Northwest as well as overseas.

[FailureToCommunicate]

79. Ted Turner tried this in the past (probably Jane's suggestion) but most rich friends yawned and

said "How quaint"

Raise taxes back at least to pre Reagan levels on the wealthy!

(A guy can dream...)

[defendandprotect]

119. And, then, something happened -- a market break -- and guess they didn't

give Ted Turner the signal . . . and

Turner lost a huge amount of money -- had to renege on his donations to

the United Nations!!

Jane also had to withdraw money she was giving to some college/university?

They lost billions as I recall --

[Nye Bevan]

100. Hey Bill and Warren, way to make DUers heads spin!

Rich fucking bastards....... $600 billion to charity..... DOES NOT COMPUTE! DOES NOT COMPUTE! DOES NOT COMPUTE!

I can practically hear the heads exploding.....

[redqueen]

101. Be sure not to miss post 85. (nt)

[defendandprotect]

128. Here's the link . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8577691&mesg_id=8581303

[defendandprotect]

120. Here's a post from upthread you might have missed . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8577691&mesg_id=8581303

[Hannah Bell]

121. $600 billion? charity? lol. the top 1% got over a trillion from george bush's tax cuts *alone*

[HughMoran]

140. WTF?

That's the dumbest statement I've read all week - are you really unable to comprehend the number of people 1% of the population is?

[Hannah Bell]

144. are you unable to comprehend it's the top 1% of tax filers?

or that this segment's tax cuts *alone* = about 1% of 10-year gdp?

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. The problem with that.

They're "giving" their money to the causes of THEIR choosing.

I prefer they give their money to the causes of society's choosing; e.g. taxes.

[redqueen]

106. For anyone who might be tempted to take this news at face value:

http://www.morphizm.com/politix/palast/palast_gatesaids.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/07/nation/na-gatesx07/2

There is a class war going on. Don't forget it.

[Deep13]

115. While I applaud the generosity....

...it is still the ultrarich doing what they want to do with money that has been accumulated by their workers and public resources. Under a fair taxation system, much of that wealth would become public resources to be used for public purposes.

[Gormy Cuss]

122. Exactly.

While "giving away" half their fortunes is better than passing it all on to the next generation of little Paris Hiltons, had the tax code not evolved to remove the highest marginal tax brackets that money would have been available for public purposes long ago.

[Toucano]

125. I couldn't agree more!

Proper taxes will prevent the problem from occurring in the first place and not make the citizens subjects of the whims of "non-profits".

Thanks for posting.

[Nye Bevan]

131. What "problem"? (nt)

[Toucano]

142. Responded to the wrong post: see below. n/t

[Toucano]

134. The problem of 20% of the population having 93% of the wealth. n/t

[bobbolink]

133. No wonder the religious RW is rewriting the bible!

Gates and Buffet aren't even going as far as Matthew 25, and yet they will be skewn.

[Lorien]

135. Well, since no one is going to tax them it's a start.

[Overseas]

139. Heaven forbid the rich pay a fairer share of income taxes instead.

Oh no, they're super wealthy so they get to decide how to spend their billions.

We're the scummy poor so we don't get to choose whether we spend on war profiteering in Afghanistan and Iraq or would rather give to a more beneficial activity.

[WinkyDink]

147. In a just world there would be no billionaires possible.

[Kievan Rus]

149. If only most of the wealthy thought like them

Most (though clearly not all) wealthy people are obsessed with money and material possessions. And there's a lot of middle class folks who spend all their time aspiring to that lifestyle, and having drank the Horatio Alger-koolaid, honestly believe they'll be rich one day themselves.

[Hannah Bell]

150. lol. the two richest men in the world aren't obsessed with money? tell me another one.

[Ramulux]

151. What I dont understand about these guys..

is that if they are so super-rich and willing to donate billions of dollars why are they not able to donate that money to the state?

I am sure its a legal issue and I am not sure how they would go about doing it but if 3 or 4 super-billionaires gave a few billion dollars each to the state of California it would no longer have a deficit and could focus on creating jobs.

I realize that charities do great work but I feel like there are much better ways for these billions of dollars to be spent. If some of the richest people in this country were to focus on one state at a time and help them get out of massive debt, they could help fix the economy themselves.

When I see that California is like 20 billion in debt and I see philanthropists throwing billions of dollars at various charities it amazes me that these people haven't tried to directly donate money to the state.

[Hannah Bell]

152. they are perfectly able to donate their money to states, or to the feds. they don't *want* to.

[OneGrassRoot]

156. I've wondered the same....

The top 10 wealthiest here in the States could probably eliminate the national debt, enabling social programs to be funded as they should be, eliminating the need for many of the charitable organizations that exist.

I don't know about anyone else, but while I respect authentic charitable organizations that main true to their missions, there are just SO MANY OF THEM. It feels so very, very fragmented and becomes part of all the other white noise out there these days. It seems the fragmentation works against getting help for those in need.

:shrug:

[Posteritatis]

158. The US national debt is more than $13 trillion; the top 10 wouldn't dent that. (nt)

[OneGrassRoot]

159. Well, maybe the top 50 then....

;)

:hi:

[Posteritatis]

160. If the top 50 gave every dime they have that would cut $700B off it

That's a dent, but only a dent.

[nadinbrzezinski]

157. Your memory is correct

Carnegie died in relative poverty...

[Hannah Bell]

162. no, he didn't. that's a complete crock. he died one of the richest men in the world, with $30

million in his pocket, still owning multiple properties & having made provisions for his heirs.

complete crock.

his only child was a carnegie foundation trustee & "philanthropist":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Carnegie_Miller

she inherited little stuff, like, oh, a castle, an island, etc.

and $15 million dollars.

Margaret, Carnegie's only child, whom he called "Baba" and for whom he built Skibo Castle in Scotland, married Roswell Miller Jr. in 1919, when she was 22, he 24 and a Princeton undergraduate (Class of 1921). He was considered "an active man," theirs "a natural healthy union."

They have four children—Louise C., Barbara, Margaret, Roswell III. Mr. Miller maintains a real-estate office in midtown Manhattan and a home adjacent to the garden of the Carnegie Fifth Avenue mansion.

After Carnegie gave $190,000,000 to various philanthropies, $125,000,000 to the Carnegie Corporation and $10,000,000 to the United Kingdom Trust, $15,000,000 remained to be bequeathed in 1919 to Mrs. Carnegie and the Miller family. Son-in-law Miller's donation to Johns Hopkins financed the bed & board of 13 chimpanzees...

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770211,00.html#ixzz0rBYSUHtG


she married the son of a railroad president.

andy's grandniece (brother's grandchild) married james stillman rockefeller -- himself a product of a stillman (national city bank) & rockefeller (chase) banking families merger.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/23/obituaries/nancy-rockefeller-93-community-volunteer.html?pagewanted=1

more rich carnegie descendants in the news:

http://www.cimuseum.org/Line_in_the_Sand.pdf

[Frank Booth]

161. I notice Steve Jobs is always conspicuously absent when philanthropy's at issue.

I guess allowing millions of people to become cool through purchasing overpriced plastic doodads made by a behemoth corporation is charity enough.

[Ichingcarpenter]

163. the Gates Fund actually owns an astonishing 43 million shares of BP

So by giving to Gates Fund you give to BP...... see how it works?



http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/just-how-british-is-bp/