- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
NEW YORK — Forty of America's billionaires and their families pledged Wednesday to give more than half of their fortune to charity in a drive organized by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
The group includes CNN founder Ted Turner, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison and Hollywood director George Lucas, as well as Microsoft mogul Gates and investment guru Buffett.
The idea, announced just six weeks ago as "The Giving Pledge," was thought up by Gates and Buffett to convince billionaires to give most of their money -- 50 percent or more -- to charity.
Who the hell needs the government, when the money they collect is squandered on operating expenses? Want to end hunger in America? I think Gates and company have found the perfect way to do it.
$600 billion eh? That's less than what we're spending on SS this year.
I hope a good portion of this charity dough is going towards health research or something similar. I like to see a sustainable return when real money is actually thrown around, not that play money Washington thinks they're using.
Those "operating expenses" you bemoan just go to stimulate the economy, so I don't really see them as a problem. What do see as a problem is forty rich people have that sort of money to give or withhold. Wouldn't it be better if we did something to prevent such obscene amounts of money from pooling into the hands forty people in the first place?
The total from this drive alone totals well over half a trillion dollars, if the rest of the billionaires follow suit. With that in mind, I ask this? Who the hell needs the government, when the money they collect is squandered on operating expenses? Want to end hunger in America? I think Gates and company have found the perfect way to do it.
Now, about ending those Bush tax cuts?. A few years down the road, I believe that Gates and others will ask "How's that working out for you?"
Article is here.
Those "operating expenses" you bemoan just go to stimulate the economy, so I don't really see them as a problem. What do see as a problem is forty rich people have that sort of money to give or withhold. Wouldn't it be better if we did something to prevent such obscene amounts of money from pooling into the hands forty people in the first place?
I haven't been here that long, but this is one of the most absurd (yet serious) posts I've read on DB. That's just plain scarey.
Like an incurable disease research organization funded with $600 billion?
Not to be callous but for most incurable diseases there simply aren't enough people effected by them to be worth putting $600 billion towards it. Two exceptions are probably Alzheimer's and AIDS (the latter particularly in Africa).
Personally, I think this is a great example of one thing: people are basically good and you don't need to force people to be so through government power. Nobody was holding a gun to these people's heads to force this like they do with taxes for welfare. This just illustrates a key difference between false and real generosity. False generosity is a politician establishing welfare programs with other people's money. Real generosity is people giving their own money to help others.
Uhhhh, cancer?? Otherwise, great post!
Edit: Maybe that's a very good USE for their money...funding research on those orphan diseases that don't "pay" for pharma to go after.
Depends on the type of cancer. Many cancers already have very successful treatments with high survival rates (especially if caught early), like prostate cancer for example. Others have very low survival rates. However, I will have to concede that I have no idea whether the high survival rate cancers are more, less, or about the same in terms of abundance as low survival rate cancers.
Many of the people pledging to donate are for ending Bush tax cuts, and specifically George Lucas, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Ted Turner have all supported democrats in the past.
Lol at the original poster suggesting that 600 billion will solve all of America's problems, and not reading the article more.
Bill Gates is an awesome guy, and Warren Buffet makes so much damn money he is giving away 99% of it to charity. Several of the billionaires they called though gave them the ole "got to get off the phone and catch this private jet" excuse though. Don't you hate when that happens? Still glad the nations 2 wealthiest aren't assholes.
Also the money isn't pooled together, each donator gets to put their money where they want to.
without raping the constitution, destroying freedom or creating an even more parasitic government, how do you propose ending such "obscene" concentrations of wealth?
I agree, the fascist or totalitarian sentiments are enough to cause me to buy another 1000 rounds of Israeli Armor piercing 7.62 ball for my Sniper rifle:mrgreen:
There's really nothing unconstitutional about wealth redistribution, as much as your might think its a dirty word. Destroying freedom is letting trillions in wealth collect in a handful of individuals. How can someone be truly free if they don't know where their next meal is coming from, or if they are going to have a roof over their head next month? The problem with the Tea Party definition of "freedom" is that it extends only to the freedom to starve.
The trouble with vigilante justice is that it's seldom just. But, hey, at least all that useless firepower makes you feel safe... right?
Rights don't cost anyone else anything. Learn that please
the death confiscation tax (which Buffett and Gates will avoid altogether) doesn't hurt the truly super wealthy because their wealth will regenerate itself in less than 20 years after the tax hits because so little of it is spent. The death confiscation tax really crushes small businesses, family farms and modest estates in the 2-30 million range-especially if a large amount of the assets are non-revenue generating (such as an art collection, non-farmed land or an expensive home)
Mr. Buffett, the Omaha investor who ranks fourth on the Forbes magazine list of the richest Americans, said in an interview that he had not signed the petition itself because he thought it did not go far enough in defending "the critical role" that he said the estate tax played in promoting economic growth, by helping create a society in which success is based on merit rather than inheritance.
Depends on the type of cancer. Many cancers already have very successful treatments with high survival rates (especially if caught early), like prostate cancer for example. Others have very low survival rates. However, I will have to concede that I have no idea whether the high survival rate cancers are more, less, or about the same in terms of abundance as low survival rate cancers.
There's really nothing unconstitutional about wealth redistribution, as much as your might think its a dirty word. Destroying freedom is letting trillions in wealth collect in a handful of individuals. How can someone be truly free if they don't know where their next meal is coming from, or if they are going to have a roof over their head next month? The problem with the Tea Party definition of "freedom" is that it extends only to the freedom to starve.
The trouble with vigilante justice is that it's seldom just. But, hey, at least all that useless firepower makes you feel safe... right?
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Obama propose to tax charitable contributions?
I agree, the fascist or totalitarian sentiments are enough to cause me to buy another 1000 rounds of Israeli Armor piercing 7.62 ball for my Sniper rifle:mrgreen:
There's really nothing unconstitutional about wealth redistribution, as much as your might think its a dirty word. Destroying freedom is letting trillions in wealth collect in a handful of individuals. How can someone be truly free if they don't know where their next meal is coming from, or if they are going to have a roof over their head next month? The problem with the Tea Party definition of "freedom" is that it extends only to the freedom to starve.
The trouble with vigilante justice is that it's seldom just. But, hey, at least all that useless firepower makes you feel safe... right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?