Skip to comments.The dark side of Warren Buffett
Posted on 12/17/2008 1:19:29 PM PST by GreaterSwiss
I can understand why Warren Buffett wanted to teach Nicole Buffett, who gets by on $40,000 a year she earns as an artist and reportedly goes without health insurance, that she should not act like a spoiled brat. But the punishment did not fit the crime.
The letter he wrote Nicole seems especially cold: "I have not emotionally or legally adopted you as a grandchild, nor have the rest of my family adopted you as a niece or a cousin," the magazine quotes the letter as saying. "He signed the letter 'Warren'."
(Excerpt) Read more at bloggingstocks.com ...
Warren: just another ‘rat, depending on the gov’t to take care of his family.
Woah... That’s cold. Are sure his name is not Warren E. Scrooge?
did he find out she was a conservative?
Okay, write a tell all book on the guy and make a few $$$ on his wrinkled ass.
What she said was ill advised, and he has the right to do what he wants, but his outburst was cruel.
her is a commie rat bastard who only wants elites like himself to have money or power...another Soros-esque @$$wipe.
Nobody said it wasn't. And I don't know that she's asked for any. As for whether it's any of our business, he makes it our business when he lobbies for more taxes to be taken from the families of the USA.
And money aside, the comments about her adoption (or lack thereof) comes across as cold, heartless, and ruthless, the reaction of a bitter old man who can't believe someone dared make a comment about him without his blessed sanction.
MM (in TX)
He was for the death tax, and then made sure that his fortune would be exempt by passing it to Bill and Melinda Gates’s charitable foundation.
He is a hypocrite.
His father was Senator Howard Buffett, who was a strong supporter of libertarian views and was friends with the first libertarian economist, Murray Rothbard.
He comes off as a very small little man, with a parched, black heart. This was a woman who was adopted by one of his sons, IIRC. Maybe's he's not super close to her, but that meets the definition of family, in my book.
Captain Obvious = Buffett is a control freak...
What a small, mean and vindictive little man he is. I guess being a billionaire doesn’t make one a class act afterall.
He sounds extremely stingy with his money when it comes to his own family, then he bails out Goldman Sachs and whines about how the government should foot the bill for the lower-income folks through taxes on people who earn a little more. Yet he won’t provide health insurance for his own adopted granddaughter or the rest of his family for that matter. Buffett is obviously very smart knowing how to make money, but his value system is a little twisted. I wouldn’t be surprised if he leaves nothing in his will to his kin. I guess I just don’t understand why if he wants his own family to earn or do without, why not apply that same attitude toward everybody else.
Stark raving socialist. Rather than lobby government to change policies, establish real private solutions.
"The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and, in the United States, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology...To maintain its status as a charitable foundation, it must donate at least 5% of its assets each year. Thus the donations from the foundation each year would amount to over US$1.5 billion at a minimum." ($1,500million a year MINIMUM to maintain their status).
"The plan to close the Foundation Trust is in contrast to most large charitable foundations that have no set closure date. This is intended to lower administrative costs over the years of the Foundation Trust's life and ensure that the Foundation Trust not fall into a situation where the vast majority of its expenditures are on administrative costs, including salaries, with only token amounts contributed to charitable causes"
Rich people like the Buffster control people around them by controlling their purse strings. The best thing she can do is let him know that (1) she’s her own person, (2) she’ll make her own money, and (3) she cares for him but grandpa doesn’t rule her roost.
Laws are for little people. There is no reason he couldn’t VOLUNTARILY give up his estate if he thinks his family does not deserve it more than government.
He has no RIGHT to impose his beliefs on Marxist redistribution on your own private property.
Gee, I had no idea that a man who made his fortune on sugar, starch, fat, salt, forced sales from the death tax, and abortion could have a “dark side.”
Typical ‘successful progressive’, once they reach the top they use government to ‘pull the ladder up behind themselves’ insuring their ‘position’ at the top.
Politicans say they will raise the taxes on the ‘rich’ but the ‘rich’ know that with the help of the very same politicians, accountants, tax lawyers, and lobbyists, they will be ‘bulletproof’.
That leave us, the ‘makers’ to be the ones ‘punished’.
He has every right to be a jackass. Let the world herald him as such.
We have every right to defend our liberty as protected by the US Constitution. Or what’s left of it.
The is no dark side of Warren Buffet, in fact it is all dark.
typical lib mentality - fret about ‘the people’ while dreaming about ways to control them because they know better and being an absolute jerk to real people close to them.
He made all of them go to public school, live a pretty modest lifestyle, etc. In many ways that sounds good.
But he’s also a control freak, and a very cold man. She was deeply moved when he once told her that he appreciated her accomplishments, because for him to show such “emotion” was so unusual. Also everyone was shocked when she huuged him on Christmas.
If it has anything to do with being a lib, I can only add I’ve been around a lot of these rich libs and they are almost all SOB’s.
It’s our business when he chooses to mind our business on matters of taxation.
Buffett sort of marches to a different beat, not only as an investor, but also in his personal life.
Legally, she is indeed his granddaughter. She was adopted by one of his sons.
Of course, Buffett’s troubles with his children are a whole other article. His whole “homespun salt-of-the-earth” schtick is just for public relations. What Warren wants, Warren gets.
I don’t see the problem - she isn’t taking Buffett’s $$ and is only telling her own story (if anyone cares), and unless she is making wildly untrue accusations about Buffett, why should he care?
As to the Johnson kid - the best cure for your rich-kid guilt, my boy, is to go out and acheive something for yourself and on your own.
She only spoke the truth, “Money is the spoke in my grandfather’s wheel of life.”
He seems to love money for its own sake — and not for the good it can do for the real people in his life.
However, he does seem to be extremely generous with “other people’s money” like most liberals/Democrats.
So was Madoff — and look at the trail of pretty unemotional devastation he laid waste, mostly through the heart of Democratic liberalism.
Poetic justice — or the heart of the matter?
IIRC, Warren does not have good relationships with his children. A shame, really.
Warren chooses to let the rest of society be responsible for the choices of his offspring? This makes him less of a 'rat? How?
Warren is a public figure, big time.
His actions are consistent with his espoused philosophy? Please explain. Be specific.
A lot of do-gooders have no problem trying to help other people they don’t know. But they treat the people they do know like dirt.
Is that a racist comment?
That guys’ definitely cruisin’ for a bruisin’
I wouldn't trade places with him for all his billions!
Besides, her father Peter still likes her, and he will be able to take care of her if she really needs it some day. He didn't get disinherited.
I got along for most of my life on lots less than that. Tell the old goat to pound sand and make your own fortune, honey. This is America.
That said, Warren should understand the need to assure one’s money is able to be given or not given to whomever one may want to give.
Warren fights for governmental control over everyone elses’ inheritance while he the audacity to assign who and who can't have his. Why isn't he giving his money to the government, as he seems to think should be done?
Ok, there are the rich and there are the super rich = wealthy.
The rich can live pretty well off the INTEREST OF THEIR PRINCIPLE. (FIRST ORDER RETURN)
The wealthy can live extremely well off the INTEREST OF THE INTEREST OF THEIR PRINCIPLE. (SECOND ORDER RETURN)
The rich are often retired doctors, retired lawyers and retired business people.
The wealthy are the Buffets, Gates, etc.
The affluent are usually those that are working on high income. They appear rich but if their job disappears or they become disabled/die withuot adequate insurance, then they revert to middle class or poor conditions.
The wealthy have the tax code in their favor. The rich and affluent do not.
The wealthy are usually democrats, the rich and affluent are usually Repubicans or Conservative.
The wealthy want to control who becomes part of their class. They do this by pushing to tax the rich and affluent.
Nicole darling, Daddy Dearest told you again and again not to use wire hangers...
NOOOOO WIIIRRRREEE HANGERS!
Not giving someone money upon death is not like treating someone as though they were dirt.
She started it by lambasting him on a movie, then on Oprah.
My own older relatives have, as they’ve passed on, given money only to their direct descendants. Giving directly to grandkids is just not always done, in my opinion. So he hasn’t really done anything out of the ordinary now, has he? However, she did open her mouth as the liberal artist she is and spouted off about how bad he must be to have so much money.
I don’t have a problem with what has happened to her at all.
Is Warren a 'rat?
Is Warren a public figure?
Do 'rats encourage a dependent populace?
Do dependent 'rats always seek more milk from the teat?
Do the 'rats in charge try to diminish this dependent behavior?
Is Warren a hypocrite for trying to extinguish this behavior among his own?
I don’t know if it’s really about the money — or the lack of inheritance.
Would a well-adjusted person say to another, “I never accepted you emotionally or legally into my family, and neither did the rest of my relatives.”
This is not some deprived, depraved and deranged person yelling at their child in the projects — but somebody a lot of people look up to and revere as knowing the true value of things.
“Oh, and it’s none of our business!”
You are absolutely correct. I’m just surprised there’s anyone here that thinks otherwise.
Oh contraire, Warren has made himself a public figure by injecting himself and his money into the political process, on the 'rat side. This is evidence that he doesn't walk the soft, compassionate talk.
Interesting point. I think Warren Buffett is the only self-made wealthy man, other than those in sports and entertainment, who gets only very positive coverage throughout the MSM.
The whole thing is all about the dollars, and her sympathizers in the media, such as the author of the Marie Claire piece, Leah Goodman, and the blogger above, Jonathan Berr, are just galled that Buffet has all that money and isnt giving it to relatives so they can lay around eating bons bons all day.
If I had Buffets fortune, I wouldnt adopt as hardline an attitude as it appears he has when it comes to inheritance. But a fundamental principle of freedom is that we each get to choose how we want to manage our own property. Buffets stand is principled and morally defensible, and he should be left alone to conduct his family affairs, and the distribution of his property to the family, as he sees fit.
The purpose of money is to make it work. Money is intended to be spent. Not knowing Mr. Buffett, only hearing what others have said of him, I question his “smarts” in matters not directly involved in the acquisition of money. His grand-daughter, and that is exactly what she is....adopted by his spawn, thereby making her relative to Mr. Buffett. He can pitch a fit, insult and denigrate but the fact remains. When Mr. Buffett is finally in Hell, he may look back and wonder why his inner soul was not strengthened by how well he treated those he should have known as kin.
I think what so many see as the problem here is Buffett's hypocrisy and double standards. As the wealthiest man in the world, he refuses to provide his own granddaughter with health insurance, but wants the government to do so. Obviously, he shouldn't be forced to support anybody else, but why does he have a problem letting everybody else abide by that same principle?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.