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 ...
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.
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.