«

Why don't the rich and famous give some of the millions they earn to
charity instead of shouting at the masses to pay up?

"Brian H¹©" <> wrote in message
newsa_ve.4955$...
> Why don't the rich and famous give some of the millions they earn to
> charity instead of shouting at the masses to pay up?

Some do both.

--
Ian.

Brian H¹© wrote:

> Why don't the rich and famous give some of the millions they earn to
> charity instead of shouting at the masses to pay up?

Most of them do. Perhaps just for the write-off, but regardless of the
weighing of the reasons the charities still get the money.

--
Blinky
International Thank Your Developers Week - June 20-27, 2005
Say thanks to your favorite Open Source team one way or another.
http://blinkynet.net/comp/tydevs.html Yes, Eight Days A Week.

"Brian H¹©" <> wrote in message
newsa_ve.4955$...
> Why don't the rich and famous give some of the millions they earn to
> charity instead of shouting at the masses to pay up?

They are probably under a very lucrative contract, arranged by their
agent with some charity's PR department, to do their 'heart rending'
appeals. Good publicity as well.

--
I could go on and on

Brian H¹© wrote:

> Why don't the rich and famous give some of the millions they earn to
> charity instead of shouting at the masses to pay up?

First that's somehow a henn-and-egg problem. Giving away too much (even a
little too much) won't make one wealthy. Once rich, it's easy to become
even more famous spending a little bit of the earnings for good reasons and
relationships.
--
Longhorn error#4711: TCPA / NGSCP VIOLATION: Microsoft optical mouse
detected penguin patterns on mousepad. Partition scan in progress
*to*remove*offending*incompatible*products.**Reactivate*MS*software.
Linux woodpecker.homnet.at 2.6.12-mm2[LinuxCounter#295241,ICQ#4918962]

"Brian H¹©" <> wrote in message
newsa_ve.4955$...
> Why don't the rich and famous give some of the millions they earn to
> charity instead of shouting at the masses to pay up?

I'm assuming that you are referring to the Live8 concerts. I have a
couple of points I would like to make here. First of all, visit
www.live8live.com, and you can see clearly on the homepage the words:-
'We don't want your money - we want you!'

Secondly, think about it. Imagine all the acts were to give £10 million
each to the charity. Say, in total, there are 100 acts playing at all
the concerts. That's £1bn. A LOT of money, by anyones standards. Or take
the other side of the coin. What the Live8 project is about is
cancelling third world debt. Any donations are going to be a drop in
ocean compared to how much money it would take to write off third world
debt. But there are 8 nations meeting in Scotland next week who have the
power to do that. The rich and famous have a great deal of influence
over the public. There will be approx 1 million people gathered between
the 10 concerts, along with a worldwide TV audience of 2 billion. This
shows a great deal of support for this cause. So, somebody like Bob
Geldof could give half his fortune to charity. Or he could bring half
the worlds population together to do pressure the worlds great powers to
do something significant. The governments have already started to
listen; they have agreed to drop the debt for some countries, but more
needs to be done.

One final point. Many stars do give a great deal of money to charity.
David Gilmour, of Pink Floyd (who are re-forming for Live sold a house
for a 7 figure sum recently, and gave ALL of the money to charity. There
are many other examples of stars giving to charity.

A bass-players contribution to politics for the week

George

"Brian H¹©" <> wrote in message
newsa_ve.4955$...
> Why don't the rich and famous give some of the millions they earn to
> charity instead of shouting at the masses to pay up?


Aw, did they forget to put whiny lil you on the charity list?

Brian H¹© wrote:
> Why don't the rich and famous give some of the millions they earn to
> charity instead of shouting at the masses to pay up?

Some recent expenditures by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
They've got more money than anybody but they also give away more money
than anybody:

* $1 billion over 20 years to establish the Gates Millennium
Scholarship Program, which will support promising minority students
through college and some kinds of graduate school.
* $750 million over five years to the Global Alliance for Vaccines
and Immunization, which includes the World Health Organization, the
Rockefeller Foundation, Unicef, pharmaceutical companies and the World Bank.
* $350 million over three years to teachers, administrators,
school districts and schools to improve America’s K-12 education,
starting in Washington State.
* $200 million to the Gates Library Program, which is wiring
public libraries in America’s poorest communities in an effort to close
the “digital divide.”
* $100 million to the Gates Children’s Vaccine Program, which will
accelerate delivery of lifesaving vaccines to children in the poorest
countries of the world.
* $50 million to the Maternal Mortality Reduction Program, run by
the Columbia University School of Public Health.
* $50 million to the Malaria Vaccine Initiative, to conduct
research on promising candidates for a malaria vaccine.
* $50 million to an international group called the Alliance for
the Prevention of Cervical Cancer.
* $50 million to a fund for global polio eradication, led by the
World Health Organization, Unicef, Rotary International and the U.N.
Foundation.
* $40 million to the International Vaccine Institute, a research
program based in Seoul, South Korea.
* $28 million to Unicef for the elimination of maternal and
neonatal tetanus.
* $25 million to the Sequella Global Tuberculosis Foundation.
* $25 million to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which
is creating coalitions of research scientists, pharmaceutical companies
and governments in developing countries to look for a safe, effective,
widely accessible vaccine against AIDS.

Brian H¹© wrote:
> Why don't the rich and famous give some of the millions they earn to
> charity instead of shouting at the masses to pay up?

Personally, I think Geldof's gone too far this time. All this nonsense about
the masses "crossing the channel in rowing boats" to bring back people from
the continent. The man needs his head read. The English Channel is one of -
if not the - busiest shipping lanes in the world, and it is utter madness to
encourage the crossing of it in small craft. OK, more fool the people who
listen to him, but some will. Is he going to pay compensation out of his own
pocket when the inevitable happens? You can't expect shipping companies to
stop using it, even for a day, and so the inevitable *WILL* happen...

He should be locked up in my opinion. I read an article in some magazine (it
might have been one of the Telegraph colour supplements) with Fifi (poor
kid, celebs should go on a baby naming course before even being allowed to
conceive) and even she thinks her father's gone too far this time.

Power-crazed lunatic...

With foot jammed firmly in mouth on Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:43:44 +0100,
"George" <> mumbled:

>
>"Brian H¹©" <> wrote in message
>newsa_ve.4955$...
>> Why don't the rich and famous give some of the millions they earn to
>> charity instead of shouting at the masses to pay up?
>
>I'm assuming that you are referring to the Live8 concerts. I have a
>couple of points I would like to make here. First of all, visit
>www.live8live.com, and you can see clearly on the homepage the words:-
>'We don't want your money - we want you!'
>
>Secondly, think about it. Imagine all the acts were to give £10 million
>each to the charity. Say, in total, there are 100 acts playing at all
>the concerts. That's £1bn. A LOT of money, by anyones standards. Or take
>the other side of the coin. What the Live8 project is about is
>cancelling third world debt. Any donations are going to be a drop in
>ocean compared to how much money it would take to write off third world
>debt. But there are 8 nations meeting in Scotland next week who have the
>power to do that. The rich and famous have a great deal of influence
>over the public. There will be approx 1 million people gathered between
>the 10 concerts, along with a worldwide TV audience of 2 billion. This
>shows a great deal of support for this cause. So, somebody like Bob
>Geldof could give half his fortune to charity. Or he could bring half
>the worlds population together to do pressure the worlds great powers to
>do something significant. The governments have already started to
>listen; they have agreed to drop the debt for some countries, but more
>needs to be done.
>
>One final point. Many stars do give a great deal of money to charity.
>David Gilmour, of Pink Floyd (who are re-forming for Live sold a house
>for a 7 figure sum recently, and gave ALL of the money to charity. There
>are many other examples of stars giving to charity.
>
>A bass-players contribution to politics for the week
>
>George
>

I know it's not popular, but it needs saying:
If you borrow money you should pay it back.

I'm so sorry that these poor countries are so poor, but there is a
solution. Hint: it's *not* for the west to "help". It's for those who
want to live better to make their situation better themselves.

Nothing given and not earned is valued.

uh Clem

Join the expectant crowd now at [this area].
Don't crowd the wheels.

Talk and debate with me here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hale_Bobb/
Usenet:
alt.politics.libertarian.free-state-project