Gates-Buffett: Generosity Comes From Liberalism

[Anti-Polar Bear]

This is wonderful news. That is why I am posting it here.

Warren Buffett, the 2nd richest man in the world, is giving away over $30 billions to Bill Gates, the worlds richest man. The purpose? Philanthropy.

Long live the liberals!

[RashanGary]

Liberals are usually more educated. I think there is a rule that every red-neck moron with half a brain and a trailer has to be conservative.

Long live Liberals.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Liberals are usually more educated. I think there is a rule that every red-neck moron with half a brain and a trailer has to be conservative.

Long live Liberals.

Well said, Nick! :cool:

[PackerPro42]

How old are you guys?

[the_idle_threat]

:lol: Classic!

[RashanGary]

I'm 25. I'm not really a die hard liberal. I've just heard some of the most rediculously ignorant statements from conservative morons. I like to fuck with them becuase the die hard conservs seem so stupid. I take each issue one at a time, not really lib or conserv...A little of both with some libertarian thrown in there.

[SkinBasket]

Together they constitute half of one of those "trailer park conservative" brains. Nothing new here.

[SkinBasket]

Of course, as another example of how open-minded and deep thinking they are, they have once again insulted another large segment of the liberal machine - people living in trailer parks.

[GrnBay007]

While the cats away, the rats will play. I'm callin the cops! :razz:



-

[SkinBasket]

Fucking morons.

*edit: Obviosly (I hope) I didn't mean you 007.

[SkinBasket]

*nicki scurries away*

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Warren Buffett signs over $30.7B to Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
USA Today

Warren Buffett's contribution of about $1.5 billion a year to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will be used to seek cures for the world's worst diseases and improve American education, Bill Gates said Monday.
"There is no reason we can't cure the top 20 diseases," Gates said while appearing with Buffett during a donation ceremony at the New York Public Library.

The Buffett and Gates families, as well as onlookers, were beaming as the so-called Oracle of Omaha officially made his benevolence a reality.

"There is more than one way to get to heaven, but this is a great way," said Buffett. He presented the biggest gift to Gates, and $1 billion donations to his own foundation and the foundations run by each of his three children.

"I am not an enthusiast for dynastic wealth, particularly when the alternative is 6 billion people having much poorer hands in life than we have," Buffett said at the ceremony.

In a letter dated Monday, Buffett had informed Bill and Melinda Gates that the first donation of Berkshire Hathaway stock would go to the foundation next month.

The foundation, which has assets of $29.1 billion, spends money on world health, poverty and increasing access to technology in developing countries. In the United States, it focuses on education and technology in public libraries.

The money from Buffett, who is 75 but considered strong and healthy, comes with a significant catch. The letter says Buffett wants all his money to be distributed in the year it is donated, not added to the foundation's assets for future giving. The foundation gave away $1.36 billion in 2005, so the Buffett commitment would effectively double its spending.

Buffett had said he would give away 12,050,000 Class B shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock (BRKB) to the five foundations.

The gifts would be worth nearly $37 billion, which represents the bulk of the $44 billion that Buffet's stock holdings are worth today. Five-sixths of the shares, roughly $30.7 billion, will be earmarked for the Gates Foundation.

The donation doubles the Gates Foundation's size to $60 billion, five times larger than any other U.S. charitable group and larger than the gross domestic product of Kuwait.

"This is his life's work," Gates said at the ceremony. "Now that the money (in the foundation) is going to be as much Warren's as the money my job helped generate, it's almost scary."

He prompted laughter when he added: "If I make a mistake with my money, it doesn't feel the same."

In his letter to the Gates Foundation, Buffett said he admires the foundation and wants to extend its "future capabilities." Until now, all the money given away by the Gates Foundation has come from the couple.

In a statement over the weekend, Bill and Melinda Gates spoke of their relationship with Buffett over the past 15 years and his influence on their philanthropy.

"Warren has not only an amazing intellect but also a strong sense of justice. Warren's wisdom will help us do a better job and make it more fun at the same time," they said. The couple said they are "awed" by Buffett's decision.

The Buffett pledge also requires that Bill and Melinda Gates remain alive and active in the policy-setting and administration of the foundation. Buffett plans to give each foundation 5% of his total pledge each year in July.

Bill Gates, the world's richest man, announced earlier this month that he would be stepping back from his day-to-day responsibilities at Microsoft in July 2008 so he can spend more time on the Seattle-based foundation. The foundation followed his announcement by saying Melinda Gates would also be taking a more active role in their philanthropic work.

Buffett, the world's second-richest man, said in an interview with Fortune magazine that the timing of the two announcements — one week apart — was just "happenstance."

Buffett's gift is "really significant," not just for its size but for its potential to encourage other giving, said Diana Aviv, president and CEO of Independent Sector, a non-profit coalition of about 550 charities, foundations and corporate giving programs that includes The Gates Foundation.

"I'm sure there are lots of young, wealthy individuals who have made their fortunes and who are watching this very carefully," she said. "These business leaders are icons."

Buffett's donations of Berkshire shares means the ultimate value of his gifts will be tied to the company's share price.

"I would be surprised, disappointed, if we can't manage Berkshire well enough so the increase on value, on average, (isn't) more than 5% a year." Buffett said.

Berkshire owns large stakes in such blue-chip companies as American Express and Coca-Cola and owns some 50 businesses, including Dairy Queen ice cream, Fruit of the Loom underwear and Geico auto insurance.

Berkshire shares have lagged the Standard & Poor 500 index over the last two years, but have far outgained that benchmark since Buffett took over Berkshire, then a struggling textile maker, in 1965.

The shares fell as much as 2.9% on Monday as investors looked toward Buffett's eventual retirement, and the possible sale by the foundations of Berkshire stock to help fund giving.

"Those who are selling haven't thought this through," said Thomas Russo, a principal at Gardner, Russo & Gardner, which owns Berkshire stock. "Warren will no longer have to distract himself with charitable donations, and can focus on the company."

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, credited as prudent Buffett's decision to forgo establishing a charitable foundation in his own name although it is a departure from the legacies of such titans as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon and even Gates, whose names live on through their philanthropies.

"Part of giving away money is you make mistakes along the way," said Palmer. She credits the Gates Foundation with establishing global competencies in health and educational grant giving, enabling Buffett to avoid squandering his wealth while bequeathing it.

However, Palmer cautioned, "There are also people concerned about this clustering of power and money in the hands of a very small organization.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

long live liberals !!!

[SkinBasket]

long live liberals !!!

So you are going to provide proof these people are liberals tank? Maybe you have access to their voting records? Very exciting stuff.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

long live liberals !!!

So you are going to provide proof these people are liberals tank? Maybe you have access to their voting records? Very exciting stuff.

Would a conservative disappoint anti-abortionists?

NEW YORK (AP) -- Warren Buffett's new philanthropic alliance with fellow billionaire Bill Gates won widespread praise this week, but anti-abortion activists did not join in, instead assailing the two donors for their longtime support of Planned Parenthood and international birth-control programs.

[SkinBasket]

long live liberals !!!

So you are going to provide proof these people are liberals tank? Maybe you have access to their voting records? Very exciting stuff.

Would a conservative disappoint anti-abortionists?

NEW YORK (AP) -- Warren Buffett's new philanthropic alliance with fellow billionaire Bill Gates won widespread praise this week, but anti-abortion activists did not join in, instead assailing the two donors for their longtime support of Planned Parenthood and international birth-control programs.

You'll have to do better than that. remember, John Kerry is a Catholic after all. Condi Rice (or Aunt Jamima to slobs like you) is also pro-choice. Do You consider her liberal?

[GrnBay007]

skin, that new avitar scares me. :cry:





-

[MJZiggy]

long live liberals !!!

So you are going to provide proof these people are liberals tank? Maybe you have access to their voting records? Very exciting stuff.

Would a conservative disappoint anti-abortionists?

NEW YORK (AP) -- Warren Buffett's new philanthropic alliance with fellow billionaire Bill Gates won widespread praise this week, but anti-abortion activists did not join in, instead assailing the two donors for their longtime support of Planned Parenthood and international birth-control programs.

You'll have to do better than that. remember, John Kerry is a Catholic after all. Condi Rice (or Aunt Jamima to slobs like you) is also pro-choice. Do You consider her liberal?

There is also a growing contingent of Democrats who oppose abortion. Also, support of Planned Parenthood and birth control programs could be supporting, oh, say, birth control?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Is Bill Gates a closet liberal?
By Andrew Leonard, The Culture of Technology

In 1997, Bill Gates contributed $35,000 in support of a Washington state ballot initiative supporting gun control. In 1993, he ponied up $80,000 to fight a conservative initiative seeking to roll back state taxes. And ever since 1994, the William H. Gates III Foundation, Bill's private philanthropic funnel, has been busy channeling millions to groups that specialize in "reproductive health and family planning."

Gates is far from the first plutocrat to turn his attention to social welfare -- the tradition goes back at least as far as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. But Bill Gates has always enjoyed a singularly apolitical reputation. Unlike the dynamo tycoons of yesteryear, Gates is a cipher, a platitude-spouting uber-entrepreneur who is indistinguishable, in the public eye, from his alter ego -- the formidable, and rapacious, Microsoft corporation.

Indeed, given Gates' current obsession with prying the Department of Justice off of his corporate back, one might assume that if the man has any political sympathies, they would most likely be of the techno-libertarian bent. Certainly, his struggle with the federal government has been adopted as a cause célèbre by many Net-based libertarians.

But for once let's try to separate the man from the Microsoft. Look at the personal checkbook record: pro taxes, pro birth control, against guns. The evidence is clear -- Bill Gates is a bleeding heart do-gooder liberal.

Of course, you'll never hear him say so, nor are you likely to find any of the recipients of his largesse eager to utter the dreaded L-word. His own father, Bill Gates Sr., who administers the approximately $300 million William H. Gates III Foundation, summed up the situation most succinctly: "If you think you're going to get me to characterize what he does as liberal or conservative, you're crazy." Bill Jr.'s politics are not for public consumption. (Ignore those Roman numerals after Bill's name; to avoid confusion we'll refer here to Gates pere as Sr. and Gates fils as Jr.)

It's the very opacity of Bill Jr.'s politics that makes them intriguing, and the money trail of his gift-giving sheds the only light available on them. Gates' more grandiose gestures -- $20 million for a computer center here, $12 million for a biotechnology building there and a whopping $200 million for wiring up rural libraries to the Internet -- get the headlines. But his smaller philanthropic statements give us the few clues we have to what Gates, the man -- as opposed to Gates, the software marketing machine -- really cares about. And we ought to pay attention to what the richest man in the world thinks is socially important -- especially if he lives up to his own oft-made promise to give away nearly all of his wealth before he dies.

To be sure, judging Bill Gates' politics by what he gives away is an exercise in tea-leaf reading that teeters on the brink of absurdity. After all, 35 grand for gun control adds up to about .000001 percent of his total current wealth. Until just a few years ago, the rap on Gates had always been that of the skinflint supreme, our nation's leading subscriber to the miser persuasion. Especially locally.

"There has been a lot of pressure to have him make donations that impact the region that has allowed him to become so wealthy," said Don Chalmers, a fund-raising consultant and editor of the Northwest Nonprofit newsletter.

Few people in a position to know the details will go on record criticizing the pattern, or lack thereof, of Gatesian charity. Seattle Foundation president Anne Farrell dismisses local sniping as generated "more out of ignorance than anything else." But the facts are hard to ignore. Sure, Bill Gates has given away close to $600 million. But more than 90 percent of that sum has been disbursed since 1994, and more than half the total was given away in 1997 alone.

1994, incidentally, was the year Bill Gates' mother, Mary Gates, died of breast cancer. A longtime United Way board member, Mary Gates, by all accounts, persistently encouraged her son to do more with his wealth than simply accumulate it. After years of single-minded, voracious focus on the Microsoft bottom line, Bill Gates appears to finally be heeding his mom's advice. Charity does, it seems, begin at home.

Since 1994, the philanthropy tap has been jacked wide open. Hardly a soul in the wired world can have escaped hearing the much-ballyhooed pledge from Bill and Melinda Gates to spend $200 million over the next five years on library Internet access. Less well publicized has been Bill's 1997 gift of $115 million worth of Microsoft stock to the Gates Foundation, which has brought the total endowment of the foundation up to around $300 million. After a slow start, the foundation gave away some $40 million in 1997, a big jump from 1996's $6.5 million.

Microsoft spokesman Greg Shaw said that in addition to the library grant and the foundation endowment, Gates has also given away at least another $100 million. This includes large-scale donations, such as $12 million for a law school library at the University of Washington (to be named after his father), $10 million for student scholarships in the name of his mother (also at Washington) and $1 million to Ursuline Academy in Dallas (where his wife, Melinda French Gates, was high school valedictorian) and smaller scale grants to museums, theaters, playgrounds and even a Seattle area rowing club.

The big-ticket donations do not come without associated waves of skepticism from Gates' stable of critics. That $12 million grant for the new biotech building at the University of Washington? Just the price tag necessary to lure a star biotech professor to the Seattle area, where he can serve as Gates' informal advisor on biotech investments. Last year's $20 million pledge (through the Gates Foundation) to Cambridge University for a new computing center? A fine way to keep a close eye on one of the world's most illustrious centers for cryptography research -- and an investment sure to pay huge dividends as digital security becomes ever more paramount. And that oh-so-noble deal to wire up the libraries? An insidious scheme: Hook the poor kids on the Net, and then make sure that they're all using Internet Explorer as the browser of choice. Future generations of Microsoft market domination will be assured.

No businessman as famous for being as ultra-competitive as Bill Gates can ever escape cynical accusations that his every move is motivated by greed. Nor should he. But the smaller details of Gates' giving lead us to a different truth. It is much more difficult to discern strategic Microsoft advantage in his support for handgun safety. And his cold-cash concern for family planning could even be construed as asking for trouble. The groups that the Gates Foundation is giving money to have close ideological and organizational ties with pro-choice bastions like Planned Parenthood. Religious right zealots are already beginning to pay attention. Who needs that kind of controversy today?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

The first overtly political statement on the Bill Gates balance sheet is his $80,000 contribution to a coalition working against the passage of Washington state ballot initiative 602. Robert Edie, a lobbyist for the University of Washington who also fought the initiative, recalled that its demand of an immediate, "really large" tax rollback was overwhelmingly supported by Washington business leaders.

But not by educators, who led the fight against 602, worried that passage of the initiative would hurt the quality of public education in Washington -- just as Proposition 13 had similarly gutted public schools in California decades earlier.

Bill Gates has frequently emphasized the importance of education -- both in speeches and in his book "The Road Ahead." Seattle political reporter Mark Gardner argues that even here his motivations were selfish: Microsoft needs quality programmers and expects universities to provide them, and will oppose anything that could hamstring the university system. Gardner even suggests that all of Gates' huge donations to universities are aimed at improving relations with potential sources of programming talent.

But the personal reasons explaining Gates' support of the fight against the 602 tax cut turn out to be somewhat more complex. Gates has always been protective of the University of Washington: Both of his parents attended, and his mother served as a member of the Board of Regents. Furthermore, Teresa Moore, a spokeswoman for the Washington Education Association, remembered that Gates had been alerted to 602's potential negative impact on the University of Washington by a professor named Leroy Hood.

And who is Leroy Hood? None other than the William H. Gates III chair of the UW biotechnology department -- which is housed in the brand new biotech building that stands as Gates' first multimillion-dollar act of philanthropy.

Was Gates just trying to keep Hood happy? Or was he really concerned about ensuring state support for public education? Microsoft spokesman Shaw couldn't respond to the question and Gates himself was unavailable for comment, so there's no real way to know. But the pattern is clear: The direction in which Gates' money flows satisfies a network of personal connections and concerns; it is as natural as water going downhill.

The anti-602 campaign was victorious. Gates' next foray into initiative politics met with less success. Initiative 676, a handgun safety bill in 1997 that would have increased licensing and training requirements for new handgun purchasers, went down to overwhelming defeat. In a campaign where the National Rifle Association spent $4 million, $35,000 turned out not to be enough. Still, Gates had made his stand on a classic hot-button issue -- gun control.

Did that classify Gates as a liberal? Joe Waldron, chairman of WeCARE, a coalition of anti-gun control activists that led the local opposition to 676, refused to speculate.

"I don't want to put it in those terms," said Waldron. "It's like kicking Superman in the kneecap: You can do it, but you may not like the consequences."

And $35,000 doesn't add up to chump change for Bill Gates, anyway, added Waldron. "I wouldn't read too much into it. You must recognize that with the money that Mr. Gates has, that he is going to give to any number of causes, and in this case the amount of money is relatively small."

Yes, the sum was small. But no, Gates does not give to "any number of causes." Although the past few years have seen him rapidly increase dollar totals devoted to building computing centers, wiring up libraries or funding student scholarships, the instances in which one could say he was contributing to a cause are extremely rare. And there is absolutely no evidence of Gatesian financial support for measures that could be considered "conservative" in a political sense.

But again the specter of personal motivation rises. Was this really Bill Gates' own issue? After all, his own father contributed $150,000 to support Initiative 676 -- more than four times as much he did.

"I suspect it was as much his father asking for it as anything else," said Waldron.

"That's dead wrong," snapped Gates Sr. when asked about Waldron's speculation -- clearly unappreciative of any supposition that Gates Jr. isn't his own philanthropic man.

But Gates Sr. did acknowledge that he and Mary Gates exerted pressure on their son to do more with all his billions.

"His mother and I always pushed a little," said Gates Sr. Like Mary Gates, Gates Sr. has long been involved in philanthropy -- ever since "I first gave a nickel to the Salvation Army man," he joked.

Ultimately, separating out what is attributable to the parents and what to the son may be pointless. It's a joint venture. Nothing better illustrates that fact than the William H. Gates III Foundation.

Gates Jr. created the foundation in 1994, the same year his mother died of breast cancer. One of the first two grants made by the foundation was to the Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, for a "cancer pain management" study.

Bill Gates Sr., with the part-time help of one private secretary, administers the foundation from the comfort of his home. It is, he said, "the thing that occupies the largest percentage of my time."

The foundation does not accept unsolicited requests for funding nor does it give out grant-giving guidelines. But a review of its tax returns, which are public record, reveal some clear points of social concern.

All told, the foundation has disbursed about $55 million, with some $40 million, according to Gates Sr., having been "committed" in 1997, mainly for the establishment of academic computing centers.

The grants fall into three categories. First, there are the big-ticket donations -- the general fund grants, the grants allocated to building improvements and all the money distributed to institutions that the Gates family has personal connections with (like Gates' own high school, or the Seattle Art Museum, where Gates has sponsored an exhibition of Leonardo Da Vinci's notebooks). Second, there are a large number of penny-ante donations -- $10,000 for refugee relief, $6,000 to the Magnolia Adult Day Center in Seattle and so on. But the third and smallest group, medium-sized donations, stands out: They're the only ones with political import.

The Gates Foundation has given $750,000 over three years to the Seattle-based PATH (Program for Appropriate Technology in Health) -- funding that has in part been used for such work as "a quality assurance survey of contraceptives in 22 countries." The Alan Guttmacher Institute received $1 million over three years for "an international examination of issues facing young women around the world." And finally, most recently, the Department of Population Dynamics at Johns Hopkins University received $2.3 million for an array of programs aimed at training international specialists in "reproductive health and family planning."

"Reproductive health and family planning" is a buzz phrase that emerged out of the 1994 United Nations Cairo conference on population issues, said Dr. Gordon Perkin, president of PATH. In the past, the research topic used to be referred to as "population control" -- though, said Dr. Perkin, "the words 'population control' are not used any more, except by people who don't know the field."

Billionaires have always had a fond spot in their hearts for population control: Ted Turner is a big supporter, as is Warren Buffett, a Gates family friend.

"If you think about what people like Buffett, Turner and Gates all have in common -- they are more global in their thinking, more risk-taking, more revolutionary in their business practices," said Beth Frederick, development director at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, "and as such they look for larger answers to some of the problems that seem so close to home."

But whatever you call it -- "population control" or "family planning" -- this isn't just a billionaire fad for the Gates family.

"Bill Gates Sr. has been deeply involved in this issue for decades," says Laurie S. Zabin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Zabin, who served with Gates Sr. on the national board of Planned Parenthood, was instrumental in getting the Gates Foundation grant for Johns Hopkins.

But that doesn't mean Gates Sr. is the only one who cares about overpopulation, said Zabin: Gates Jr. "has supported issues of real social concern and certainly this is one of them."

Gates Sr. agreed: "It's an interest he has had since he was a kid. And he has friends who are interested in supporting research into world population problems, people whom he admires -- it's just a matter of a fit between his proclivities and mine."

A "proclivity fit" is one way to put it. Or one could surmise that Bill Gates is growing up to be the man his parents raised him to be.

"His parents were involved in charitable activity, and I've heard him talk about it quite a bit," said Microsoft spokesman Shaw. "I think that set a strong tradition and ethic of giving back and I should say that we are only seeing the beginning of that now."

One can always count on corporate public relations executives for a positive spin, but Shaw's point is not without merit. Gates has spoken many times about how he intends to give away 95 percent of his wealth before he dies. So far, he has loosened the reins on a mere fraction of his massive bank account. But just this week, on a Silicon Valley tour, he repeated his promise: "I'm just a steward of this wealth and someday I will return it to society."

The Gates Foundation is likely to be the vehicle for most future Gatesian philanthropy, at least according to Gates Sr. If it continues to give away money according to the principles by which it was established, the possibilities for social impact are spectacular.

"The potential is enormous," said Anne Farrell, president of the Seattle Foundation.

We may never definitively pin Gates down as "liberal" -- but actions speak louder than words.

"When we start to look at labels we miss the significance of individual action," says Bryce Gryniewski, executive director of Washington CeaseFire, the leading sponsor of Initiative 676. "Obviously he is concerned about the society he lives in. He's not only a business owner but he's a father and a family man, and he's concerned about the kind of world he's going to raise his daughter in."

[Bossman641]

Tank I just found this article that you may be interested in

Revisiting Bill Gates
By Chris Martin, The Liberal Utopian staff writer
cmartin@liberalutop.news

Bill Gates is conservative

[MJZiggy]

ROFL!!

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Tank I just found this article that you may be interested in

Revisiting Bill Gates
By Chris Martin, The Liberal Utopian staff writer
cmartin@liberalutop.news

Bill Gates is conservative

Yes, I will admit I made up the Utopian. But the article i just posted about Gates is legit.
(http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/01/cov_29feature2.html)

Obviously, when defeated, one's opponent can merely turn to ridiculous (that's you!). MJZiggy can merely write, and I quote, "ROFL"

I feel good. :cool:

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Is Bill Gates a closet liberal?
By Andrew Leonard, The Culture of Technology

In 1997, Bill Gates contributed $35,000 in support of a Washington state ballot initiative supporting gun control. In 1993, he ponied up $80,000 to fight a conservative initiative seeking to roll back state taxes. And ever since 1994, the William H. Gates III Foundation, Bill's private philanthropic funnel, has been busy channeling millions to groups that specialize in "reproductive health and family planning."

Gates is far from the first plutocrat to turn his attention to social welfare -- the tradition goes back at least as far as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. But Bill Gates has always enjoyed a singularly apolitical reputation. Unlike the dynamo tycoons of yesteryear, Gates is a cipher, a platitude-spouting uber-entrepreneur who is indistinguishable, in the public eye, from his alter ego -- the formidable, and rapacious, Microsoft corporation.

Indeed, given Gates' current obsession with prying the Department of Justice off of his corporate back, one might assume that if the man has any political sympathies, they would most likely be of the techno-libertarian bent. Certainly, his struggle with the federal government has been adopted as a cause célèbre by many Net-based libertarians.

But for once let's try to separate the man from the Microsoft. Look at the personal checkbook record: pro taxes, pro birth control, against guns. The evidence is clear -- Bill Gates is a bleeding heart do-gooder liberal.

Of course, you'll never hear him say so, nor are you likely to find any of the recipients of his largesse eager to utter the dreaded L-word. His own father, Bill Gates Sr., who administers the approximately $300 million William H. Gates III Foundation, summed up the situation most succinctly: "If you think you're going to get me to characterize what he does as liberal or conservative, you're crazy." Bill Jr.'s politics are not for public consumption. (Ignore those Roman numerals after Bill's name; to avoid confusion we'll refer here to Gates pere as Sr. and Gates fils as Jr.)

It's the very opacity of Bill Jr.'s politics that makes them intriguing, and the money trail of his gift-giving sheds the only light available on them. Gates' more grandiose gestures -- $20 million for a computer center here, $12 million for a biotechnology building there and a whopping $200 million for wiring up rural libraries to the Internet -- get the headlines. But his smaller philanthropic statements give us the few clues we have to what Gates, the man -- as opposed to Gates, the software marketing machine -- really cares about. And we ought to pay attention to what the richest man in the world thinks is socially important -- especially if he lives up to his own oft-made promise to give away nearly all of his wealth before he dies.

To be sure, judging Bill Gates' politics by what he gives away is an exercise in tea-leaf reading that teeters on the brink of absurdity. After all, 35 grand for gun control adds up to about .000001 percent of his total current wealth. Until just a few years ago, the rap on Gates had always been that of the skinflint supreme, our nation's leading subscriber to the miser persuasion. Especially locally.

"There has been a lot of pressure to have him make donations that impact the region that has allowed him to become so wealthy," said Don Chalmers, a fund-raising consultant and editor of the Northwest Nonprofit newsletter.

Few people in a position to know the details will go on record criticizing the pattern, or lack thereof, of Gatesian charity. Seattle Foundation president Anne Farrell dismisses local sniping as generated "more out of ignorance than anything else." But the facts are hard to ignore. Sure, Bill Gates has given away close to $600 million. But more than 90 percent of that sum has been disbursed since 1994, and more than half the total was given away in 1997 alone.

1994, incidentally, was the year Bill Gates' mother, Mary Gates, died of breast cancer. A longtime United Way board member, Mary Gates, by all accounts, persistently encouraged her son to do more with his wealth than simply accumulate it. After years of single-minded, voracious focus on the Microsoft bottom line, Bill Gates appears to finally be heeding his mom's advice. Charity does, it seems, begin at home.

Since 1994, the philanthropy tap has been jacked wide open. Hardly a soul in the wired world can have escaped hearing the much-ballyhooed pledge from Bill and Melinda Gates to spend $200 million over the next five years on library Internet access. Less well publicized has been Bill's 1997 gift of $115 million worth of Microsoft stock to the Gates Foundation, which has brought the total endowment of the foundation up to around $300 million. After a slow start, the foundation gave away some $40 million in 1997, a big jump from 1996's $6.5 million.

Microsoft spokesman Greg Shaw said that in addition to the library grant and the foundation endowment, Gates has also given away at least another $100 million. This includes large-scale donations, such as $12 million for a law school library at the University of Washington (to be named after his father), $10 million for student scholarships in the name of his mother (also at Washington) and $1 million to Ursuline Academy in Dallas (where his wife, Melinda French Gates, was high school valedictorian) and smaller scale grants to museums, theaters, playgrounds and even a Seattle area rowing club.

The big-ticket donations do not come without associated waves of skepticism from Gates' stable of critics. That $12 million grant for the new biotech building at the University of Washington? Just the price tag necessary to lure a star biotech professor to the Seattle area, where he can serve as Gates' informal advisor on biotech investments. Last year's $20 million pledge (through the Gates Foundation) to Cambridge University for a new computing center? A fine way to keep a close eye on one of the world's most illustrious centers for cryptography research -- and an investment sure to pay huge dividends as digital security becomes ever more paramount. And that oh-so-noble deal to wire up the libraries? An insidious scheme: Hook the poor kids on the Net, and then make sure that they're all using Internet Explorer as the browser of choice. Future generations of Microsoft market domination will be assured.

No businessman as famous for being as ultra-competitive as Bill Gates can ever escape cynical accusations that his every move is motivated by greed. Nor should he. But the smaller details of Gates' giving lead us to a different truth. It is much more difficult to discern strategic Microsoft advantage in his support for handgun safety. And his cold-cash concern for family planning could even be construed as asking for trouble. The groups that the Gates Foundation is giving money to have close ideological and organizational ties with pro-choice bastions like Planned Parenthood. Religious right zealots are already beginning to pay attention. Who needs that kind of controversy today?

Repost for this page.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

The first overtly political statement on the Bill Gates balance sheet is his $80,000 contribution to a coalition working against the passage of Washington state ballot initiative 602. Robert Edie, a lobbyist for the University of Washington who also fought the initiative, recalled that its demand of an immediate, "really large" tax rollback was overwhelmingly supported by Washington business leaders.

But not by educators, who led the fight against 602, worried that passage of the initiative would hurt the quality of public education in Washington -- just as Proposition 13 had similarly gutted public schools in California decades earlier.

Bill Gates has frequently emphasized the importance of education -- both in speeches and in his book "The Road Ahead." Seattle political reporter Mark Gardner argues that even here his motivations were selfish: Microsoft needs quality programmers and expects universities to provide them, and will oppose anything that could hamstring the university system. Gardner even suggests that all of Gates' huge donations to universities are aimed at improving relations with potential sources of programming talent.

But the personal reasons explaining Gates' support of the fight against the 602 tax cut turn out to be somewhat more complex. Gates has always been protective of the University of Washington: Both of his parents attended, and his mother served as a member of the Board of Regents. Furthermore, Teresa Moore, a spokeswoman for the Washington Education Association, remembered that Gates had been alerted to 602's potential negative impact on the University of Washington by a professor named Leroy Hood.

And who is Leroy Hood? None other than the William H. Gates III chair of the UW biotechnology department -- which is housed in the brand new biotech building that stands as Gates' first multimillion-dollar act of philanthropy.

Was Gates just trying to keep Hood happy? Or was he really concerned about ensuring state support for public education? Microsoft spokesman Shaw couldn't respond to the question and Gates himself was unavailable for comment, so there's no real way to know. But the pattern is clear: The direction in which Gates' money flows satisfies a network of personal connections and concerns; it is as natural as water going downhill.

The anti-602 campaign was victorious. Gates' next foray into initiative politics met with less success. Initiative 676, a handgun safety bill in 1997 that would have increased licensing and training requirements for new handgun purchasers, went down to overwhelming defeat. In a campaign where the National Rifle Association spent $4 million, $35,000 turned out not to be enough. Still, Gates had made his stand on a classic hot-button issue -- gun control.

Did that classify Gates as a liberal? Joe Waldron, chairman of WeCARE, a coalition of anti-gun control activists that led the local opposition to 676, refused to speculate.

"I don't want to put it in those terms," said Waldron. "It's like kicking Superman in the kneecap: You can do it, but you may not like the consequences."

And $35,000 doesn't add up to chump change for Bill Gates, anyway, added Waldron. "I wouldn't read too much into it. You must recognize that with the money that Mr. Gates has, that he is going to give to any number of causes, and in this case the amount of money is relatively small."

Yes, the sum was small. But no, Gates does not give to "any number of causes." Although the past few years have seen him rapidly increase dollar totals devoted to building computing centers, wiring up libraries or funding student scholarships, the instances in which one could say he was contributing to a cause are extremely rare. And there is absolutely no evidence of Gatesian financial support for measures that could be considered "conservative" in a political sense.

But again the specter of personal motivation rises. Was this really Bill Gates' own issue? After all, his own father contributed $150,000 to support Initiative 676 -- more than four times as much he did.

"I suspect it was as much his father asking for it as anything else," said Waldron.

"That's dead wrong," snapped Gates Sr. when asked about Waldron's speculation -- clearly unappreciative of any supposition that Gates Jr. isn't his own philanthropic man.

But Gates Sr. did acknowledge that he and Mary Gates exerted pressure on their son to do more with all his billions.

"His mother and I always pushed a little," said Gates Sr. Like Mary Gates, Gates Sr. has long been involved in philanthropy -- ever since "I first gave a nickel to the Salvation Army man," he joked.

Ultimately, separating out what is attributable to the parents and what to the son may be pointless. It's a joint venture. Nothing better illustrates that fact than the William H. Gates III Foundation.

Gates Jr. created the foundation in 1994, the same year his mother died of breast cancer. One of the first two grants made by the foundation was to the Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, for a "cancer pain management" study.

Bill Gates Sr., with the part-time help of one private secretary, administers the foundation from the comfort of his home. It is, he said, "the thing that occupies the largest percentage of my time."

The foundation does not accept unsolicited requests for funding nor does it give out grant-giving guidelines. But a review of its tax returns, which are public record, reveal some clear points of social concern.

All told, the foundation has disbursed about $55 million, with some $40 million, according to Gates Sr., having been "committed" in 1997, mainly for the establishment of academic computing centers.

The grants fall into three categories. First, there are the big-ticket donations -- the general fund grants, the grants allocated to building improvements and all the money distributed to institutions that the Gates family has personal connections with (like Gates' own high school, or the Seattle Art Museum, where Gates has sponsored an exhibition of Leonardo Da Vinci's notebooks). Second, there are a large number of penny-ante donations -- $10,000 for refugee relief, $6,000 to the Magnolia Adult Day Center in Seattle and so on. But the third and smallest group, medium-sized donations, stands out: They're the only ones with political import.

The Gates Foundation has given $750,000 over three years to the Seattle-based PATH (Program for Appropriate Technology in Health) -- funding that has in part been used for such work as "a quality assurance survey of contraceptives in 22 countries." The Alan Guttmacher Institute received $1 million over three years for "an international examination of issues facing young women around the world." And finally, most recently, the Department of Population Dynamics at Johns Hopkins University received $2.3 million for an array of programs aimed at training international specialists in "reproductive health and family planning."

"Reproductive health and family planning" is a buzz phrase that emerged out of the 1994 United Nations Cairo conference on population issues, said Dr. Gordon Perkin, president of PATH. In the past, the research topic used to be referred to as "population control" -- though, said Dr. Perkin, "the words 'population control' are not used any more, except by people who don't know the field."

Billionaires have always had a fond spot in their hearts for population control: Ted Turner is a big supporter, as is Warren Buffett, a Gates family friend.

"If you think about what people like Buffett, Turner and Gates all have in common -- they are more global in their thinking, more risk-taking, more revolutionary in their business practices," said Beth Frederick, development director at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, "and as such they look for larger answers to some of the problems that seem so close to home."

But whatever you call it -- "population control" or "family planning" -- this isn't just a billionaire fad for the Gates family.

"Bill Gates Sr. has been deeply involved in this issue for decades," says Laurie S. Zabin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Zabin, who served with Gates Sr. on the national board of Planned Parenthood, was instrumental in getting the Gates Foundation grant for Johns Hopkins.

But that doesn't mean Gates Sr. is the only one who cares about overpopulation, said Zabin: Gates Jr. "has supported issues of real social concern and certainly this is one of them."

Gates Sr. agreed: "It's an interest he has had since he was a kid. And he has friends who are interested in supporting research into world population problems, people whom he admires -- it's just a matter of a fit between his proclivities and mine."

A "proclivity fit" is one way to put it. Or one could surmise that Bill Gates is growing up to be the man his parents raised him to be.

"His parents were involved in charitable activity, and I've heard him talk about it quite a bit," said Microsoft spokesman Shaw. "I think that set a strong tradition and ethic of giving back and I should say that we are only seeing the beginning of that now."

One can always count on corporate public relations executives for a positive spin, but Shaw's point is not without merit. Gates has spoken many times about how he intends to give away 95 percent of his wealth before he dies. So far, he has loosened the reins on a mere fraction of his massive bank account. But just this week, on a Silicon Valley tour, he repeated his promise: "I'm just a steward of this wealth and someday I will return it to society."

The Gates Foundation is likely to be the vehicle for most future Gatesian philanthropy, at least according to Gates Sr. If it continues to give away money according to the principles by which it was established, the possibilities for social impact are spectacular.

"The potential is enormous," said Anne Farrell, president of the Seattle Foundation.

We may never definitively pin Gates down as "liberal" -- but actions speak louder than words.

"When we start to look at labels we miss the significance of individual action," says Bryce Gryniewski, executive director of Washington CeaseFire, the leading sponsor of Initiative 676. "Obviously he is concerned about the society he lives in. He's not only a business owner but he's a father and a family man, and he's concerned about the kind of world he's going to raise his daughter in."

Repost for this page.

[MJZiggy]

It's ROFL. At least pay attention to what you're doing. I could have argued it had I wanted to. I just don't care whether Bill Gates is a conservative, liberal or martian. The man has donated millions of dollars of his own money to put computers in classrooms of underprivileged schools and has now quit his job to make sure that this foundation and the money it manages are put to good use. I believe he will do just that.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

It's ROFL. At least pay attention to what you're doing. I could have argued it had I wanted to. I just don't care whether Bill Gates is a conservative, liberal or martian. The man has donated millions of dollars of his own money to put computers in classrooms of underprivileged schools and has now quit his job to make sure that this foundation and the money it manages are put to good use. I believe he will do just that.

And she changes the subject. Before she was arguing that such and such could also be such and such. Now she doesnt care. :wink:

[Packers4Ever]

It's ROFL. At least pay attention to what you're doing. I could have argued it had I wanted to. I just don't care whether Bill Gates is a conservative, liberal or martian. The man has donated millions of dollars of his own money to put computers in classrooms of underprivileged schools and has now quit his job to make sure that this foundation and the money it manages are put to good use. I believe he will do just that.


AMEN ! ! !

[MJZiggy]

All I said was support to PP & birth control could be just support to birth control. I did not say it meant Bill was either/or. I don't care if he's conservative, I'm just letting you know that there is more than one way to interpret that fact.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

long live liberals !!!

So you are going to provide proof these people are liberals tank? Maybe you have access to their voting records? Very exciting stuff.

Would a conservative disappoint anti-abortionists?

NEW YORK (AP) -- Warren Buffett's new philanthropic alliance with fellow billionaire Bill Gates won widespread praise this week, but anti-abortion activists did not join in, instead assailing the two donors for their longtime support of Planned Parenthood and international birth-control programs.

You'll have to do better than that. remember, John Kerry is a Catholic after all. Condi Rice (or Aunt Jamima to slobs like you) is also pro-choice. Do You consider her liberal?

There is also a growing contingent of Democrats who oppose abortion. Also, support of Planned Parenthood and birth control programs could be supporting, oh, say, birth control?

Before she was supporting Skinbasket (see Skinbaskets question coincides with her reply). Now she doesnt care.

:cool:

[MJZiggy]

Skinbasket did not say he thought Bill Gates was one or the other. He said the same thing I just did, namely that a person's position on individual issues does not mean you are able to categorize them as neatly as you seem to want to. I agreed with what he said. I stand by what I said and I still don't care about Bill Gates' politics as long as he keeps doing good things with his billions.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Before long she will be raging a war of terminology.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Whats next? Insults. Yep, I can see that coming from skinbasket. :mrgreen:

[MJZiggy]

Thank you, Mad.

[Bretsky]

Thank You Mad; if Tank would've been sober enough I'm sure he wouldn't have posted this in the football side of the forum :wink:

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Thank you, Mad.

Now she seeks alliance in the Mod.

[MJZiggy]

:roll:

[Anti-Polar Bear]

This will be my last reply to this thread because it has been moved. I dont reply to threads that has been moved, not even my own. :razz:

[Bretsky]

GOOD

[GrnBay007]

why did you post it in the Packer forum to begin with?



-

[MadtownPacker]

Will, I better shut up before this thread gets out of line. This will be my last reply to this thread because it has been moved. I dont reply to threads that has been moved, not even my own. :razz:

I take alot of shit from people over you TANK! I have had several, fucking several posters ask me to BAN YOUR ASS!!! I always tell them you are OK and that you have done nothing to be banned

You are still here, posting whatever you want so the LEAST you can do is show some courtesy and post your shit in the right room.

If you dont like it? Get the fuck on then cuz Im SICK of your crying, spoiled, lil bitch ass.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Ok Mad. You are the boss. No more off topic threads in the Packer Room.

But make a point clear to me: what about the Ted Is Trapped in the Closet. Is that allowed?

[HarveyWallbangers]

There is an FYI thread on this forum.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

There is an FYI thread on this forum.

Actually, if you dont like what I writes, don t read them. I will never go after any other posters, the way LJ did. Dont like what I write about thompson, dont read it. Simple as that. I am not forcing anybody to read my threads/posts.

But I will show some "courtsey" and stop posting off topic threads in the Packer room. :neutral:

[Scott Campbell]

Mad must be a Liberal too. He protects Tank like an endangered species.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Mad must be a Liberal too. He protects Tank like an endangered species.

C'mon, admitt it. You will miss me if i leave. :oops:

[Scott Campbell]

Mad must be a Liberal too. He protects Tank like an endangered species.

C'mon, admitt it. You will miss me if i leave. :oops:

You ain't going anywhere as long as I have anything to say about it. Not that I have any say about it. Still, you're an unbelievable pain in everybodys ass.

[GrnBay007]

Scott = softy :razz:



-

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I real reason I dont want to get banned is because Mazzin post here also. That is the goddamn truth. I would be lying if I didnt say so.

Ok, Madtown. I will do as you wish. :)

[Bossman641]

Tank I just found this article that you may be interested in

Revisiting Bill Gates
By Chris Martin, The Liberal Utopian staff writer
cmartin@liberalutop.news

Bill Gates is conservative

Yes, I will admit I made up the Utopian. But the article i just posted about Gates is legit.
(http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/01/cov_29feature2.html)

Obviously, when defeated, one's opponent can merely turn to ridiculous (that's you!). MJZiggy can merely write, and I quote, "ROFL"

I feel good. :cool:

Ironic that you would use ridiculous to describe someone else's posts. Congratulations on backing up one of your statements for once.

Like MJ said, I could care less what Gates is labeled. He is a generous man that does a lot of good for the underprivileged. I respect and appreciate that.

You are way too caught up in labels Tank.
Well I am this so the opposite of me is obviously my enemy.
Everything is not as black and white as you see it.

[RashanGary]

I just find it funny how bored everyone is that they are all ocncerned where tank posts.

Pretty petty IMHO.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Between tank's many posts, and the many posts talking about tank, I have to say I'm all tanked out. No offense, tank.

[MadtownPacker]

But make a point clear to me: what about the Ted Is Trapped in the Closet. Is that allowed?

I left the last TITITC. If new ones are about TT ruining the Packers and not about TT being gay then they stay too.

[SkinBasket]

Looks like Tank got fiesty after I fell asleep last night. Sounds like he had his mellow harshed. Maybe mom and dad's money dried up?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Looks like Tank got fiesty after I fell asleep last night. Sounds like he had his mellow harshed. Maybe mom and dad's money dried up?

You went "alseep" cos I got you big time. Yep, (edited; there may be sensitive people around) What happens to the counter-argument?

Though Gates may not say, through his action, hes a liberal. (Ever took a law course in college?; there is such a thing as implied action). Read the article. Its well written. MLA style and all. Of course, even if Einstein show you the initial draft to his theory of relativity , you'll still find an excuse to discredit him. Jealousy? Me thinks so. :)

[HarveyWallbangers]

Liberals like to give the disenfranchised other people's money--not their own.

Generosity Index:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923050.html

http://www.politicaldogs.org/2005/11/miserable-miserly-liberals.htm

There is a study which examines the amount of federal tax deductions for charitable donations as a function of relative wealth which takes place each year across the United States. The findings of that study repeatedly show blue states in an unfavorable light... A group in Massachusetts questions the analysis and claims it must be adjusted to recognize higher living costs.

It is certainly true that living costs are highest in the nation's but does this alter the analysis? The first, most obvious chink in this criticism is the fact that California and New York, while in the bottom half, are nowhere near the bottom 10. There are no more expensive states on the map than these two yet they are far above many of their liberal brethren. Also several states which are relatively expensive are in the upper half while some that are very inexpensive are near the bottom. And what exactly does cost of living have to do with the equation when salaries are similarly high in these places? If you only earn $25,000 annually but your rent is just $8,000 a year, you may have a slightly higher percentage of your earnings free for giving. But if you make $50,000 annually, your rent only costs you $17,000, and you actually give less money than your counterpart in the lower income bracket, you are a miser. The description fits. The charity study found just these sorts of results...

If liberals disagree with conservative principles advocating charitable giving over federal assistance, I suppose the reason is fairly clear. Democrats en masse to not give as much to charity as conservatives do so they think the only way to help the needy is to tax the rich and give to the poor. They assume everybody gives to charity the way they do so government simply must extract funds and apply them. But governments do not nearly do the efficient job charities do. In fact the only time charities are as bad at funneling money to the needy is when you are talking about the behemoth charitable organizations liberals love like the United Way. As soon as you say "faith based giving," a liberal's eyes will roll into the back of his head. But these organizations are very efficient at getting the money to the real need. They don't run huge professional bureaucracies. Much of their support work is done by volunteers. They don't own huge office buildings in every town or county the way the Red Cross does. There are examples of bad faith based charities but there is not the monumental waste there is at huge multi-national charities.

[SkinBasket]

Looks like Tank got fiesty after I fell asleep last night. Sounds like he had his mellow harshed. Maybe mom and dad's money dried up?

You went "alseep" cos I got you big time. Yep, (edited; there may be sensitive people around) What happens to the counter-argument?

Though Gates may not say, through his action, hes a liberal. (Ever took a law course in college?; there is such a thing as implied action). Read the article. Its well written. MLA style and all. Of course, even if Einstein show you the initial draft to his theory of relativity , you'll still find an excuse to discredit him. Jealousy? Me thinks so. :)

Wow. Zing. What am I jealous about again?

[pacfan]

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, to find that a conservative blog would disparage liberals. Will the horror never end.

[Partial]

long live liberals !!!

There is no either of those people voted democrat. Simple as that. Just because you care about other people and the future of society does not mean you're a liberal. It means you're a caring person. Name someone who started a business and was successful using liberal practices.


If anything, I think this proves that they made their wealth by following the conservative "what's mine is mine policy" and knowing that their money would go to better use privately donating it then having it taxed and pissed away by an oversized and huge government.

If he gave that 30 billion to the government instead of the private organization , it would have done 1/1000 as much good and been effectively pissed away.

Everything in moderation good friend.

[Partial]

I just find it funny how bored everyone is that they are all ocncerned where tank posts.

Pretty petty IMHO.

we strive for organization, unless I misinterpreted your post

[Sparkey]

Looks like Tank got fiesty after I fell asleep last night. Sounds like he had his mellow harshed. Maybe mom and dad's money dried up?

You went "alseep" cos I got you big time. Yep, (edited; there may be sensitive people around) What happens to the counter-argument?

Though Gates may not say, through his action, hes a liberal. (Ever took a law course in college?; there is such a thing as implied action). Read the article. Its well written. MLA style and all. Of course, even if Einstein show you the initial draft to his theory of relativity , you'll still find an excuse to discredit him. Jealousy? Me thinks so. :)

Good ole Tank. Eventually as you age and start to actually think instead of reguritating other people words, you will discover that there are very few people that can be strictly categorized as "liberal" or "conservative".

This crap about liberals being understanding and conservatives being closed minded is crap. It works both ways: basically, anyone that has an agenda that serves their own needs will be closed minded and ignore other possiblities. It is the rare person that can set his/her ego aside and be open to any/all ideas and thoughts.

[CaptainKickass]

Did you know that Buffet is an ackronym?

Big
Ugly
Fat
Fuckers
Eating
Together

[retailguy]

I real reason I dont want to get banned is because Mazzin post here also. That is the goddamn truth. I would be lying if I didnt say so.

Ok, Madtown. I will do as you wish. :)

If I recall, Mazzin lives in Alabama? If so, you're screwed. Good liberals don't last long in Alabama....

Find yourself a good liberal girl. Hang out at the local tattoo shop.