It's a nice thought, but realistically I really don't think most people would or they would have already!

Now Seriously………

"There's no reason to be the richest man in the cemetery. You can't do any business from there".
Colonel Sanders KFC.....(Right on Colonel)

"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if the Americans themselves reiterate it thoughtlessly".....(You've taken note)
Albert Einstein

"The more I see of the moneyed classes, the more I understand the guillotine"....... (Me too)
George Bernard Shaw

The jocularity and wild waste of time (read life) for the pure pursuit of money is somewhat likened to madness if one studies Henry David Thoreau. If fortune and luck finds you I think it best to do as Warren Buffet has and take care of your loved one's and give the rest to charity. We leave this earth as we entered butt naked, except the clothing you are draped in for those that want one last look at your corpse. I intend to be cremated and cards sent out to my friends and loved one's informing them I have passed. No ceremonies please, give everything I have away to my loved ones and the rest to the Salvation Army, it's in my will.

"I'm living so far beyond my income that we may almost be said to be living apart".....(Hey are you talking to me?)
e e cummings

"No matter how rich you become, how famous or powerful, when you die the size of your funeral will still pretty much depend on the weather"...... (Need anymore be said?)
Michael Pritchard

I think no one should tell womeone else how they should spend their money - its theirs - not ours.

It really doesn't matter how much you "need" the bottom line is they earned it, and should handle it as THEY see fit.

We are still a free country.

I think it is a private matter that should be left to the individual who earned or inherited the fortune. If Bill Gates and Warren Buffet want to leave half or more of their money to charity that is great. You also should do your homework on any charity you give too because some so called charities are nothing of the sort. If you are not careful you donate to causes that funnel funds to entities that will use that donation for nefarious purposes.

If someone wants to leave their fortune to charity I think that is a very noble ideal, but that is the choice of the fortune holder not Gates, Buffet, MSNBC, government, or popular opinion.

I love the voters whom said that they don't believe in charity and to tax 95% of earnings above $1M. What do they call that kind of taxation, patriotic? It's charity people, Robin Hood style! You are taking from the rich to give to the poor (and your friends). If that's not charity, I'm not sure what is.

Also, it's hard to live on millions today- take NBA players for example. Didn't one say that it was very hard for their family to live on $10M per year? I though that was funny too. Anyway, a million isn't a million anymore when the taxes, costs of living, inflation, etc. rise quickly too. Talk to a financial manager and they'll tell you that you need to have saved $2-3M to have a comfortable lifestyle in your retirement. That's a lot of discipline folks.

half of the wealth was taxed, then half of whats left will be taxed at death, and now they want the rich to donate half to charity. whats left for future generations? isn't the point of being powerful to create a family dynasty? so you and your family work hard and you have like 15% to 25% left to let your kids and grand kids inherit? I worked hard for that money and gave generously I'm not going to haphazardly toss half my wealth to the wind. most charities blow the money and it never makes it to the place you intended anyways. I'd rather give directly.

ecto

AGREED!!!!!

The only way I give to charities is with specific instructions on who gets the money that I want to get it. How many times do we hear even the mainstream charities with fraud and corruption.

Even the March of Dimes only has a 2 out of 4 star rating from the Charity navigator (an organization that rates charities for fund usage and financial filings).

I've discussed this with a lot of my friends, most people say if they were to win the lottery they would take the smaller payments so their families can live from it for future generations. But every source of wealth has the possibility of drying out at some point. I would always take the lump sum and focus on helping my family now and making a better world around me. What's the point of a "family dynasty"? The world doesn't need any more over priviledged Paris Hiltons to grow up a complete mess without a conscience because they've never had to work or suffer deprivation a minute in their lives. That's a great disservice to future generations.

Secondly, for some reason in this country we have the notion that because a person is rich and powerful they've worked harder than everyone else and deserve it. I've known people who've worked their fingers to the bone and because of the cards they were dealt in life they could never get ahead and died with nothing. The rich exist because there's an immense pyramid of people supporting them and if that crumbles they're gone too. We've seen it happen in this day and age with all the powerful banks and auto makers that took advantage of their customers to make more and more, only to find out they were setting themselves up for failure. I've always supported a good work ethic, but guess what, there's only so many skilled jobs out there, and only so many slots for people of power. Those fortunate few who happened to play their cards right and land in the right place at the right time are at the top of the totem pole. Everyone else plays a supporting role and if the masses are not taken care of, even the largest of empires will fall.

Toolate, ultimately the dying realization for every billionaire who has tried to live a live responsible to his money is that he wasted his life in slavery to the little piece of paper that defined his entire worth as a person and those surrounding him trying to chip off their chunk. Those of us who make things for a living wield the power, because, though we tend to have little money, we hold the power that separates us from the primates, while the rich just stand around, watching us using our tools, scratching themselves and grunting...

The point a lot of you are overlooking is no man ever earned a billion dollars, if they have acquired it, then it came from the rest of us in one form or another, usually market manipulation or selling back our public natural or refined resources back to us at huge markups.

No I wouldn't only cuz I don't trust many charities to use money wisely.. there are a lot of charities out there who spend most of the money they get on socalled administrative expenses.. I'd rather build people housing, schools, etc. myself and I think I'd do a good job of it

If a billion dropped in my lap I'd use it to seed SUSTAINABLE small businesses in tiny towns. A recycling network for instance. These seed businesses would employ local people, recycle and educate others, AND utilize the existing trucking hauling system (now in place to haul junk to landfills!) to be hauling recyclables to processing locales.

Charity is all well and good but teaching someone how to use resources wisely and make their own progress is infinitely better than a mere handout.

In fact, Bill and Warren, if you're reading this why not consider something along these lines in addition to the charitable works you wish to support?

From a small mid-west village dweller living on $6,000 per year . . .

but not to Bill Gates or some foreign country like most these rich people do. All they do is donate to the rich and to hell will all others. Look at Buffet that donated to the Gates foundation that takes care of the people in Africa. What about the American people. They are doing this mostly out of fear I believe. They see what's coming their way and they feel it's time to donate after stealing from the poor taxpayers that work their azzes off for these rich people that have been getting tax breaks year after year. The money is going to go go to some charity that will keep 90% of it and the other 10% will go to the people.

We live in a corrupt USA where all charitiable organizations are looking out for themselvs and not the people they are suppose to be helping. Goodwill, Salvatione Army, and even the homeless shelters steal from the people that they are suppose to be helping.

The more people get or have, the more they want. All these people are overpaid and all the money they have was made off the back of the people they pay minimum wage salaries too and offer them no health-care benefits. Look at Walmart that told the people to go to Welfare and the States for medical insurance. They steal from the American taxpayers every chance they get, and now they feel it's time to give a little back...

What a feel-good fluffy crock. These people are investing in a huge tax write off (Charitable contributions) in order to side step O's huge tax increases on them. They didn't earn all this $ being stupid or by giving anything away. It's not just coincidence that they've decided to give this away right before the tax increases take effect.

I don't believe these billionaires are even talking about giving to the mainline "charities" I see mentioned here. I think they are setting up their own foundations and managing them themselves to do things like building homes for the poor, new schools, medical facilities, scholarships for poor kids and others. That way they ensure that the money is used wisely in the way they want it used. If I were a billionaire that's what I would do. I would not (and do not now) donate to the charities that call you on the phone during dinner time asking you to mail out 10 envelopes to your neighbors asking them to donate.

Chunky, Some of what you've said I agree with but this: "All these people are overpaid and all the money they have was made off the back of the people they pay minimum wage salaries too and offer them no health-care benefits" is a steamy pile o' b.s. Gates made his money by consistantly being a pioneer in his field (as did most of the rest) not by taking advantage of his employees (who by the way have said they love working for his company- look it up). Also, one of the things that make this coutry great is the freedom to conduct business however a business owner sees fit within the law. If your poor-me employees of say...Walmart don't like the way they're treated, they can look elswhere for employment, or, they can stick it out, gain a job skill, and work their way up the labor chain. No one is entitled to anything. All free men must earn what they seek to acquire.

I wouldn't donate it to a charity, I would find people that needed the money. Giving it to a charity means the organization will get 90% of all the money and what's left over they will find friends and someone close to them to give it to.

People this rich are a luxury society can't afford. These people should have never been allowed to accumulate nearly that much money and the fact that they have means something is seriously out of wack.

In the 1950's the tax on the richest americans was around 90% and during that decade we had two terms of a Republican administration. Now even the Dumb Dembos would cringe at the idea of raising the income tax on characters like Gates and Buffet.

It's insanity for a society to leave wealth distribution up to the whims of the super rich.

Here's an article about the "Givers" from the Counter Punch website that may shed a little light on these philanthropists:

August 4, 2010

The Great Marginalization

Buffett, Gates, Rockefeller and the Conscience of the Very, Very Rich

By CARL GINSBURG

Of all the farcical notions put forth during this time of high farce, casting America as “broke” places way up there on the list, as trillions of dollars are being stockpiled in the face of a national downsizing and its attendant growth in misery. Here we sit, a captive national audience to the president’s seemingly daily farce, “We are all in this together”.

Instances of hoarding in U.S. history are many, but the current example stands out for its enduring quality, as Congress reaches deep into corporate pockets, with occasional forays into legislation of the extreme incremental variety. Profits are up 41 percent since Obama’s election; yet half of American workers have suffered a job loss or a cut in hours or wages over the past 30 months--- hardly the recipe for togetherness.

More farce: that irresponsibility is the root of poverty, a stalwart theme in American political theater, with the latest reminder from Treasury Secretary Geithner in a New York Times op-ed this month, saluting Americans for “saving more” and “borrowing more responsibly”. These instructions from the government’s top economic point man were imparted in the face of continued wage stagnation, high foreclosure rates and new forms of financial foolery.
Now enter stage left: the ”Great Givers”, they come in the form of American billionaires proposing to give away half their wealth. Beware strangers bearing gifts....

http://www.counterpunch.org/ginsburg08042010.html

I would have to be hands on with my donating. Give 500m to a charity and 350 of it ends up as travel expenses and legal fees.

To the charity of my choice, and on my schedule, absolutely!

#2.2: To the charity of my choice, and on my schedule, absolutely!

Ditto! Or, I would simply seek out people in need and give them what they need. No overhead, no advertising expenses, no nothing but giving to those who need it.

This is one that is easy for me philosophically. I know what groups I give to NOW, it would simply permit me to give more to them since the work on causes near and dear to me. Preservation of wild spaces for future generations and the plants and animals that depend on large contiguous expanses. Clean Water, Clean Air, birth control world wide to reduce the stress on earths ability to support life as we know it. Yeah I am a dirt digging, animal loving tree hugger. And those are the areas I do now, and were I fortunate to be a Billion-air, would do so then.

Apparently you failed to read the article. A pledge is a non-binding agreement between billionaires and the donating is a personal choice for each donator. All that is included in the article if you read it.

can you donate me to uplift my business please ? mail me st : surya_narayana2000@yahoo.com

Susan Sarandon speaks! Are you a woman, too? "As a woman and single mother..." Whatever.

Seriously, why that has anything whatsoever to do with your viewpoint is beside me. Are you a single mother living in Detroit and part of a 100K-worker layoff? Or tell me, a single mother fisherman whose livelihood, based on seasonal fishing, is about to be obliterated? Or perhaps a single mother whose husband has terrorized her for twenty years, prevented her from getting an education, and dumped her on the streets with 8 brats?

Get some perspicuity, honey. The system is designed for "extreme cases." Go hunting the abusers, the food stamp recipients who wheel off in Escalades. Not the principles of the system.

Those selfish poor people! How dare they not make enough money as you do!

They must be poor because they have inferior values that which you live by and taught your children, right?

I too am a single mother who worked two jobs at one point to make ends almost meet. There are plenty of "extreme" cases today with the state of our economy. There are also many programs designed to help single mothers work and provide for their children. Believe it or not, we are our brothers keeper. One thing wrong with some people today; the "I got mine, you get yours" attitude. Like the song says, "Think of your fellow man, lend him a helping hand. Put a little love in your heart" Diane. Peace!

I believe there is nothing wrong with having social programs and charities that act like safety nets to help people get back on their feet when tuff times hit them, however i absolutely don't believe in allowing those same charities and social programs to become crutches for society for people to rely completely on for the rest of their lives.

This is a stupid question that and expectation that if you have a billion dollars or even billions you should be obligated to give 50% away to charities, just because your rich. It would a hell of a lot smarter to open up a major company with 500 million dollars, that provides real good paying jobs for people and builds up the economic health of an area and maybe even the country if it gets large enough.

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." this statement i think hits it right on the head. If the super rich people just invest in charities then the problems aren't being fixed in society or with the economy, but if they give some to charity and instead use there vast wealth to create companies and businesses, then there making it possible for people to earn there living instead of just receiving it through charity.

The problem though with our capitalist society isn't capitalism, but that its become to much of an extreme version of capitalism, and many of the rich, and elite to the super rich, and elite are to detached from the rest of mainstream society, and its all about profits for them then actually creating a better quality of life for people that work for them. Its all about making money and who cares about those who cant make as much as you.

I personally would not give half a billion to charity, i would invest in a large business to create more jobs and a middle class standrad of living for as many people as i could employ through that business.

As a mother whose husband brings in more than a quarter million dollars a year. I look at my life, and realize that my family is blessed. My children want for nothing, they have food, shelter, security, healthcare, culture, and endless love (as I am able to stay home with them while they are young). I wish this life for all families, and we are more than willing help foot the bill so that others are not constantly struggling or going without, either through our taxes or by giving to charities. Thankfully, there are those more generous and kind-hearted than you, Diane. I hope that you are never the one who ends up in true need of the charity of others.

Its amazing how many people play the poor single mom card. Like you didn't have a choice on whether you had kids or a husband?

Give me a break. I am not responsible for your choices.

Pat8 , I am a single mom and not by choice. After18 years my ex husband split and he never looked back. We had one child he was eight at the time. I raised him by myself. My son's father is what you call a dead beat dad. Not my fault or my sons. I chose to have one child and only one and I also chose "until death do us part" which didn't happen. Not all single moms have a bunch of kids and some of us were married and know who the father of our kid(s) is.

Back to the article, as far as donating to charity I'd be very careful to which ones I donate to. I wouldn't want the people running the charity to be able to skim off of the top. Some of them make pretty good money themselves. I wouldn't want them to get rich off of my donation.

If you are a billionaire, you don't write a check to the red cross. You set up a foundation to benefit the cause that interests you. You get hands on. Hire an architect to build a school in a rural area. Buy a building in the city and staff a soup kitchen. Buy up rainforest and hire rangers, stuff like that.

This is a stupid question that and expectation that if you have a billion dollars or even billions you should be obligated to give 50% away to charities, just because your rich. It would a hell of a lot smarter to open up a major company with 500 million dollars, that provides real good paying jobs for people and builds up the economic health of an area and maybe even the country if it gets large enough.

It all depends. Is the company designed to make things better, is it filling a genuine need? Or is it just another company manufacturing things people might want, the latest fad, at the cheapest rate, just so everyone will work on it, buy it for ten times the price and make the company richer? Very few "innovative" companies now a days fit the first definition. They're geared to mass consumers, to our appetite for a little bit of entertainment to make our struggle bearable day to day. How about building non-profit colleges where education is free to all who apply and teachers are paid their worth? Could this nations' richest support such an institution? We desperately need more good teachers and doctors, yet one gets a salary that's barely enough to feed on and the other one's education takes thousands to achieve. We need our privileged few to put on their thinking caps and figure out the needs around them. We can all take this country from an economic rat race to an example for all to follow.

I join with all of the 99% pledger's and also want to vet the organizations that I'm donating to. I chose to be a single mother and just finished raising my two perfect children. I am planning my next phase which has a lot to do with a very thin man I saw trying to hide behind a dumpster trying to eat whatever he'd just found. It was 90 degrees, and I guarantee that whatever he was eating wasn't fit for consumption. I haven't been the same since. I'm researching our local charities and shelters to see how I can assist them in taking care of this man and others like him.

Why don't they pay for kids college. I made $16000.00 last year, my son wants to be a dentist. He will be going to OSU in the fall. One year tution is $34000.00 in which we have to pay $22000.00 of. He is a good kid and a good student and I know there are other kids out there who are in the same boat as my son and I. Help them out after all they are our future.

Who is "they"? How about "we"? I agree, educating the next generation is important. But I shudder to read letters to the editor suggesting that parents be forced to pay for public elementary school education, because, after all I didn't have that child. I tell the idiots who think they shouldn't pay to educate their neighbor's kids. IF you must be totally selfish, hope at least the employees of the nursing home where you spend your last days can READ your prescriptions!

Wow! What's with the hostility to the single mom? Get some anger management Cynic.

I agree with you Cynic. I myself have been on welfare and had food stamps. It was needed only until a got a job. I personally know too many who keep pumping out kids, just to keep on the system with a larger check and more food stamps for each child they pump out. There needs to be a stop put to this, along with women on housing with a live in boy friend. The programs are needed, but the abuse needs to be reigned in.

THe last thing this world needs is more jobs. Corporate jobs that build widgets are killing us all. We need more people to stay at home creating a loving and nurturing environment rather than a bigger footprint on the planet. Everyone wants jobs jobs jobs. When I was a kid families could live on one persons income. We didn't all need jobs. Every job is another waste of natural resources for some corporate elites at the top to exploit. If these wealthy corporations want to give their wealth so some people don't have to work, thank God. But I don't really see charity as just a hand out. THe money is spend to relieve the pressure on people that have been less lucky and in the process these humans may develop new traditions and ways of living that require less of a footprint and more personal satisfaction. In short I have faith that humans can better themselves if given a chance. I not scared that some may get to stay home while I may still have to work. That type of thinking is just greedy and selfish. I am willing to work even for free if it helps society and if someone wants to feed me for my efforts then I welcome it. More charity less corporate greed sounds good to me.

Charity is not necessarily welfare. In many cases it is a non-profit organization set up to help people in various ways. Education, disaster relief and medical research are just a few things that come to mind.

Really?!? Could you possibly be more off topic?

@kenny g-1088249

May I see a copy of your birth certificate?

Kenny g 1088249

Regarding what you say, the words SELFISH, DESTRUCTIVE, BIGOTED, REPUBLICAN (RIGHT WING), come to mind.

Didn't keep his campaign promises? Healthcare reform and wall street reform---Promised and done. Thank you Obama.

Healthcare reform once again targets certain people. Not everyone enjoys benefits.

Washington always seems come up with programs to target groups they need to get votes from.

Self employed people that had insurance and had to give it up because of drastic policy increases during this economic downturn do not qualify for any benefits. If there are any pre-existing conditions, they are uninsurable. The only thing available is a high risk pool that cost more than the original policy that had to be dropped because of high cost.

they worked hard for their money, they should pass it to their kids. Family first. donate generously but not an, oh I'm reducing my wealth in half to a bunch of organizations that will blow the money before it even helps anyone.

My kids are getting a good education and I expect them to EARN their own wealth. I have provided well for them growing up. It is up to them now. Each will get a nice inheritance when I die, but they will get just a small part of what I have earned. Family Dynasties seem to produce off spring like August Busch IV. I have known him since high school and he is an idiot! He believes he is privileged in all matters of life because of his GRANDFATHER'S money! I also knew his Grandfather, Augie, he was a great man, who made his money through hard work. I am sure he would be ashamed of his sons and grandson!

I will donate my extra wealth to charities of my choice. And for some of the posters up above, such things as seed money for small businesses and building homes for other, are charities. Not all charities are like The Red Cross and United Way. There are thousands of other charities that help others in all type of needs.

ecto - Bill Gates made it very clear years ago that he was not going to leave the bulk of his wealth to his kids. He believes they will be better seved in life by getting out into the real world and making something of themselves instead of being handed billions of dollars. You have to give him much credit for this. Also, I don't beleive for a minute that these two will simply hand over billions of dollars to charities without knowing where the money will end up.

Did you know that the vast majority of non-profits have annual budgets of less than $25,000 per year? Many have all volunteer staff and all their expenses are hard costs. Perhaps you are confusing corporations with charities? You may want to bitch about corporate CEOs and staff if you want to save significant money.

Perhaps you have forgotten that charities EMPLOY Americans? Give charities money and they put Americans to work. Very few charities export their jobs overseas. They hire your neighbors.

Sorry Marco. I must be wrong. I thought charities use volunteers. But, they do not pay taxes. And look around. Our schools are closing in Detroit and elsewhere. Jobs pay taxes....good jobs. My problem is I am vehemently against global trade. High income people can't compete with low income and viceversa.

OK, so it is alright to pay "employees" of charities nothing, since they are volunteers (YEECH, this is much worse than exporting jobs, where at least the employees get paid a paltry sum). But the charity workers do not have jobs, since they "volunteer?" IF charities had more money, they could PAY their employees and then the employees could pay taxes (which seems to be important to you), And IF the charities paid them enough, they would have GOOD jobs (which seems to be important to you). And, virtually all charities keep their jobs in the good old US of A (which seems to be important to you). It seems you are arguing the wrong side of this issue?!!

BTW, schools are charities (defined as a non-profit organization, which schools certainly are). If people donated to the Detroit schools, perhaps the schools could afford their expenses. Then, the taxpayers would not have to foot the entire bill. And, jobs (teachers) would generate taxes, which would further support the schools (which seems to be important to you). But the taxes are a secondary effect, with the direct contributions to non-profits being a much faster way to infuse capitol and get things moving.

Fear not! Soon the anti-American union zombies will be a thing of the past and we will all be equal, world-wide, just like the BoObama wants.

yes the media sheep will follow!

Could you kindly clarify what the h*** you mean by this comment?

Marco, your comment got ahead of mine to Dgibb.

What I'm trying to say is that the deep thinking, constitutional scholar in the WH, along with his anti-American union zombie throngs, are in the throes of punishing all Americans because of our blessings received from God, here in the Devil's world.

BoObama believes it is dispicable the we have only 2% of the oil reserves and use 20% of the world's oil resources. He does not recognize the "Christian" virtues of the founders. He hates America by continuing to violate the U.S. Constitution.

Because of his wreckless abandon, we will soon lose the blessings bestowed upon us. Accordingly, the destruction wrought upon so many other countries throughout history will become our own. Destruction will not come from without but from within, as it always does. We have begged for it since the FDR and we're soon going to get it.

Perhaps I missed this in the past few hundred years, but WHO bestowed blessings upon us (I assume you mean the US of A?)? Do you mean God? Really? God is pro-American? Not only that, but pro-conservative, pro-bigoted, pro-small minded? What God do you refer to? Obviously, not a Christian God, who is inclusive, caring, loving, accepting, and open-minded? Perhaps you are referring to the anti-god, who is masquerading as the real thing in many religions, internally referred to as the one and only, or messiah, or your highness?

Yes, we have fallen victim to many ills in our American society, many of them driven by greed and selfishness. But we will reap what we sow, not because some "God" decrees it, but because we failed to provide for our brothers and sisters. Or, perhaps we can salvage the situation and build upon the Christian foundation of love, compassion, acceptance, and turning water into wine. Which side are YOU on?

wow! glad i don't live on your planet.

oops! reply intended for abqThom - sorry!

And I applaud them for doing it while they are living and can oversee how it's done.

Jim, you are an impoverished soul indeed.

Jimbo, carolyn is right. YOUR view of the world is only that, your view. As a big person, you will acknowledge that each person has the right to determine their own view of the world. And then, not inflict it upon others. That is the principle that this country was founded upon. We wanted to get away from a country that had a state government (monarchy), state religion, and state beliefs. How dare you try to force your "state" views on the rest of us! Please feel blessed to be in America where you have the freedom to believe what you want. And then allow every one of the rest of us the SAME freedom.

Traditional values? Is that where the dad works and mom stays home? What if mom is a doctor and dad wants to stay at home. What if my son embraces another religion other than Christianity? Ibrahim-937361 had a wonderful idea that is not traditional, so should the idea be discarded because it isn't traditional? Pro Life - personally, I am against abortions, but I don't want anyone telling me how to live my life - so I am Pro Choice. Is it charity when one places such tight constraints on the recipents? Or is it control?

We must get back to American traditional values like family, hard work, not relying on the government to solve your problems. I don't care what your religion is or if a women wants or needs to work but there are somethings that are uncompromising like pro choice which is saying it's OK to kill unborn babies. Most bleeding hearts don't it because they never had it!!!

Let me guess...you're Pro Life, so you want every pregnancy, planned or unplanned, to result in the birth of a child. You don't care that that child may be born into crippling poverty or may have parents that cannot provide for its physical, mental, and emotional well-being. And since you won't give money to "socialist" programs to help these parents raise these kids that you insist be born, I think you (and others like you who go on a crusade to defend the unborn but won't give a thin dime to people who are actually struggling) ought to reconsider the label Pro-Life. Pro-Life should mean Pro-ALL Life, not just Pro-SOME lives. carolyn is right--you are an impoverished soul, indeed.

JB, what the H*** does this have to do with American values? Hard work, ethics, character, integrity, honesty, fairness, equality, love of fellow humanity have to do with HUMAN values, not American. Do you think we are somehow ahead of the world? Please, if so, you are SO ignorant. Go spend time in almost any European country. Or for that matter, any country in the far east. Our history is a few hundred years. Theirs is thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years.

If you believe that the "government" has the right to determine what we do with a pregnancy, then they (government) also has the right to determine what we do with conception. It is two sides of the same coin. Do you want the government in the middle of consential relations between adults? China did this. Do you agree with them? The government can not regulate termination of pregnancy any more than they can regulate beginning of pregnancy. Or, do you want to give them that option? It's your own American government. Don't you want that?

And what exactly are "our traditional values" and who defines them. This country is immensely diverse and we are all the better for it. I, personally, think I know what you consider "our traditional values" and, frankly, people like you scare me!

Jim - based upon your comments I guess we all know who will never be that rich. The whole point of the exercise proposed by Buffet and Gates is to demonstrate that we are all connected and as such we should help each other - its about sharing and ultimately, acceptance - something that is way over your head -

The things owned by the ultra rich are not a problem, in fact those trinkets we all love to criticize are frequently the one thing these guys are doing right. For example, say you go out and have built a 236 foot yacht, at a cost of like 127 million dollars. Most of that money goes to pay 50K / year craftsmen to build the yacht, and the rest goes to the suppliers of materials, electronics, (generally NOT the Chinese kind!), plus their employees and the services, restaurants to feed these folks etc, and usually for about 3 years or more. Once thew yacht is finished, dozens of people are need full time to operate it. The problem with the ultra rich is that, particularly now, the vast amounts of money that they will never spend simply churns in securities, where it is basically fictionalized. It's there , but it doesn't touch the economy at large, it becomes play money for real. So let's say you truly have everything. 150 million dollar boat, 150 million dollar house, a 737, a Rolls, a Ferrari, a Philippe Patik watch. A building or 2. You may actually be able to spend almost a billion dollars, but then what? It's the next 10 or 20 billion that are essentially wasted, and that should be put to good use.

Great point - guess when I get a billion I'll have to really think it through. Yep tough problem but; I'm willing to tackle it....

i am not a muslim but i agree with you, except i would make it a sustainable business that benefited the under-privledged both as a place of employment and life training as well as products that help those in physical need and the environment.

I am not a Muslim either. But what you say you would do is charity and that's what they are doing with their money. Giving to charity doesn't just mean giving to the Red Cross or American Cancer Society. It's all these other things you mentioned too. So you really should have answered yes, because that's what you really would be doing.