Putting One's Money Where One's Mouth Is

from JoeUser Forums
I'm sure nobody who reads me regularly would be surprised to hear me say that I think that compassion should come from those who choose to be compassionate, not from the government forcing "compassion" (forced compassion is no compassion at all, IMO). I take issue with the current crop of celebrity liberals who are spending absurd amounts of money to implement a government that adds social programs and a tax burden to accompany it, especially when I consider the net worth of some of the people underwriting these ads. So, I did a little googling (I only highlighted those whose political affiliations I know). In the Fortune 400, I found the following individuals, followed by their respective net worths:

George Soros, 7 billion; Steven Spielberg, 2.5 billion, Ted Turner, 2.3 billion, Oprah Winfrey, 1.1 billion.

These people have a combined net worth of $12.9 billion dollars. All but Soros have the entertainment/media industry as their primary source of income, and thus, possess incredible resources for change.

Add to these celebrities such as Alec and Billy Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, Michael Moore, Dave Matthews, and Bill Clinton that have been harshly critical of the social programs of the Republican party, and you have a celebrity base (these are just a few, by the way), who could very easily use their earnings potential to virtually eliminate poverty in this country, and yet they choose not to. Of the above list, none except Matthews and Mellencamp (Farm Aid) have been active contributors of their time and resources in a real way to impact and work to eliminate poverty. If Michael Moore made one movie a year whose proceeds were dedicated entirely to private social service organizations, I have no doubt people would flock to see it, knowing that their money was going to do some higher social good (assuming the movie wasn't crap). The same goes for Spielberg. If Mellencamp, Springsteen, and Matthews set aside a limited number of engagements in large venues whose proceeds were dedicated to those causes, again, I think there are a good number of people who would attend. The beauty of this approach is that it would not force involvement from those who do not want to be involved.

So the question must be asked: WHY? The answer, quite simply, is that these celebrities are as self serving as anyone else; in some ways more so. Because their words are inconsistent with their actions, they are hypocritical finger pointers, while the "less compassionate" ( I have a hard time believing there are many who have NO compassion; they just have different ideas about how to approach problems) aren't forced to give to charities that aren't consistent with what they believe. If someone has a pulpit with the visibility of these people, they have a choice in how they use that pulpit. It would be nice to see them use that pulpit to make a difference.

signing off,

Gideon MacLeish
politics
3,975 views 13 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

it's possible they--and others you didnt list because they arent prominent political donors or fund-raisers--also contribute equally generously as you suggest, but not publicly?  before soros became the lightning rod for bushite wrath--despite having bailed out george bush's failing spectrum7 oil biz--he was well known for his international philanthropy (on a scale approaching carnegie, gates, etc.). 

if youre going to castigate political donors, why not include perry, the wyly brothers and the membership of the bush pioneers? or are you giving them a pass because theyre backing rnc 'compassion'?  based on the fact that the 2000 and 2004 bush campaigns have raised much more money than any in our history--thus assuring future candidates will feel the need to achieve parity--bush contributors should have an even greater obligation by your reasoning.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why focus on the supporters. Why not focus ont he candidates?

Why don't both Bush and Kerry offer to give half their complete fund raising sums to charity?

Then both candidates could put their money where their mouths are!

That would be a gesture worthy of a president!

Paul.
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

That would be a gesture worthy of a president!


lets dont wander totally out into the zone

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
A select few group of people cant be expected to pick up the slack for everyone - even though that is generally the case.

It's a shame that the American political system relies on money rather than integrity.

BAM!!!
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's a shame that the American political system relies on money rather than integrity.


It's a shame that all political systems rely on money rather than integrity. George Soros is an especially nasty character - he's rumoured to have been involved somehow in the collapse of the Asian tigers (he sold off nearly his entire stock in Asian currencies almost overnight). There's probably lots of juicy rumours on the others as well.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you took your 12.9 Billion dollars and gave it out to the 35.9 Million people supposedly living in poverty in the US they would get a nice check for $368.57. That's if I am doing the math right, and I think I am. That is not going to help anyone.

You increase that to 100 times that amount and you are giving a nice check for $36,000.00. But then the question is what are they going to do with it? My bet is that a large number of them are going to invest in depreciating assets (big screen TV's, cars, etc.).

I think the American left knows this as well as the right. I think that all of us suspect that their really isn't a lot of poverty going on in this country. The only way to measure it is through some very shaky procedures. There are certainly kids going hungry in this country but I think the American left knows that is usually the fault of the parents buying other things (drugs and alcohol) than food. I think they also know that adding more fuel to the fire there is not going to help.

Some evidence for this is that two of the people you cite, Oprah and Ted Turner, give a lot of money to overseas programs. I believe at one time Ted Turner pledged a Billion dollars to some UN organization...I don't know if he ever gave it. They probably also give money out in this country too.

But I agree that it is an issue that the left beats the right up on. That's just politics.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
if youre going to castigate political donors, why not include perry, the wyly brothers and the membership of the bush pioneers? or are you giving them a pass because theyre backing rnc 'compassion'? based on the fact that the 2000 and 2004 bush campaigns have raised much more money than any in our history--thus assuring future candidates will feel the need to achieve parity--bush contributors should have an even greater obligation by your reasoning.


No, kingbee, my reason for selecting these individuals is because they want to appropriate our tax dollars for these social programs. The point is, they're quite good at spending others' hard earned cash, but want to choose how they spend their own.

As a laborer, I am appalled at the thought of paying out more in taxes just so I can beg the government to get it back. It is demeaning, and it is a way of kicking someone further when they're down. The problem with receiving "government" monies is that with it, you receive government control. The public trough is the government's way of leading people to the slaughterhouse. I know--I almost lost my kids through the mistake of accepting government assistance because a bunch of misguided friends told my wife and I it was in the "best interests" of the family.

As for Bush and his cronies, yes, they have preached compassion as well, but they're not trying to take my money to pay for their programs. Big difference there. And kingbee, you know me well enough to know that I detest the Repubs and the Dems equally.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you took your 12.9 Billion dollars and gave it out to the 35.9 Million people supposedly living in poverty in the US they would get a nice check for $368.57. That's if I am doing the math right, and I think I am. That is not going to help anyone.


Umm, no, but if they promoted fund raising events such as I suggested, the money could increase quickly.

As for how the money would be spent, well, I don't think that if they put stipulations as to how the money from their organizations should be spent, that most people would have a problem with that.

As for Turner and his UN donation, yes, I had thought about it. And most of the wealthy give to a number of philanthropic causes (even the most hardcore conservative of them). Again, my issue is with the FORCED "compassion" these people wish to see come about.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
Gideon,

The basic premise of your argument is that you feel people who believe in welfare should be the ones to provide it, not the government.

Let's use your logic in other scenarios:

1) The people who run up the deficit (Republicans) should be the ones who then owe the money.

2) The people who think we need to be in Iraq should be the ones who go occupy it.

3) The people who think the wealthiest Americans deserve even more money should give their own cash to them.

We are a nation with federal priorities and agendas. We could choose to elminate federal power and just be a confederation of states -- letting states decide, one by one, where they wanted to put their efforts. We could even just go back to a city council level of power and abolish state power. Or we could take it all the way to what you propose, just having individuals making decisions for themselves about their values and how they wanted to spend their money. I'd say you are pretty far in the minority in supporting that. Or maybe you only support that position when people advocate an idea you disagree with. In that case, your position would be, "If I agree, then we need the federal government to do it, but if I disagree, then only individuals should do it."
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
if they promoted fund raising events such as I suggested, the money could increase quickly.


They do. I just did a quick google search on Sarandon. I see Susan Saradon has traveled to Africa and raised money for Unicef. She may not raise as much money as you want her to, or devote her efforts to the cause you want her to, or donate as much of her time as you want her to, but she does indeed promote fund raising events (in contrast to your allegation, above, that she doesn't). I'm fairly certain Tim Robbins does as well. They put their time where their mouth is. They are not hypocrites. Now if they publicly decried poverty and spoke about the importance of compassion, but secretly they didn't care, that would be hypocracy. Do you have any evidence of that?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Inigo,

No, they specifically attack Bush's DOMESTIC policies. That's my issue.

As one of the working class, I am sick and tired of people using the government as their excuse for compassion. There are employers who will deny employees an honest wage and benefits, and, when the employees say something, basically tell them to go to the government and get it. What these ultralibs are doing is no different. To expect me to kneel at the public trough and to subject my family to the kind of scrutiny the wealthy don't have to endure just to get the basics of survival is extremely humiliating; what people who aren't on public assistance will never understand is that many who are on public assistance have NO AUTHORITY to discipline their children; because the leeway they are given in such discipline depends entirely on the philosophy of their case workers. They essentially have given up their rights to parent as they see fit in exchange for the public assistance. This is why I firmly believe in privatization.

Inigo, you believe the government has a responsibility to "fix" the economic plight of the citizens, I do not. I do not believe in a totalitarian government, and see the insidious end thaat can and WILL arise out of such a government. In fact, I have seen the abuses firsthand (and if you don't believe that the poor on welfare live under a totalitarian government, youve obviously never been poor and on welfare). With privatization, those contributing to the welfare pool are contributing by CHOICE. I have repeated this countless times, and will repeat it again. Forced compassion is NOT compassion, it is slavery, plain and simple. And the ones hit hardest are the ones who can least afford it.
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
I hear you, Gideon. It is terrible to be on welfare. I have never been there myself, but those I work with are. Just talked with a woman not five minutes ago who is on welfare. Last night her baby was taken from her because she didn't have formula. She meets with her caseworker later today to see if she can get her child back. Totalitarian is a spot on description. I would say I have seen the abuses secondhand.

Please do not put words in my mouth. Where did I say government has a responsibility to fix the economic plight of citizens? I don't think it is government's responsibility and I don't think you can "fix" the problem. But we can, as a collective society, have compassion and offer a helping hand. Ideally, it would be great if the government didn't need to step in. If there were a thousand points of light and churches, etc. took care of the poor that would be wonderful. But private contributors weren't enough in the past (thus the creation of government programs) and I don't see any evidence that they are currently.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
But private contributors weren't enough in the past (thus the creation of government programs) and I don't see any evidence that they are currently.


The reasons private contributors aren't there right now are multiple. For one, preachers in churches are fleecing the flock rather than being responsible stewards of the money and using it properly; I am reasonably certain church giving would increase if people saw the end result of the giving as being positive. Second, we have become too accustomed to the "let the government do it" mentality, and many people don't wish to help their fellow man (or woman) because they believe in the government safety net. Thirdly, I believe that is we implement a dollar for dollar tax CREDIT (not deduction) for all charitable donations, we will see a huge increase in such charitable donations; personally, I would even be willing to advocate for a $1.10 to $1 tax credit, as the "increase" would be added incentive, and more than offset by the reduction of burden on government programs.