Actually just making it rain in general. She's donated over $6 billion to organizations so far this year, and more than $4 billion of that in the past 4 months.

Today it looks like she gave:
$40 million to Morgan State
$20 million to Delaware State
$15 million to Clark Atlanta
$50 million to Prairie View
$30 million to Virginia State
$5 million to Dillard
$15 million to Elizabeth City State

I may have missed some.

And recently she gave:
$20 million to Xavier
$20 million to Morehouse
$20 million to Tuskegee
And undisclosed amounts to Howard, Hampton, and Spelman




https://medium.com/@mackenzie_scott/384-ways-to-help-45d0b9ac6ad8

Dude's throwaway money can prop up a dozen+ 100 year old institutions.

but I believe his ex-wife became one of the 20th richest people in the world as result of the money Jeff Bezos gave her after their divorce.

That is pretty damn insane.

OK.

They don’t have to pay taxes on the amount of their income that they donated. So do the math.

Charitable deductions is mostly for the rich.

They even hiked up the standard deduction to make it even more exclusive.

“The way the charitable tax deduction is set up, lower-income Americans can’t really take advantage of it. Unless you earn a lot of money, it makes no financial sense to do your taxes in a way that lets you claim the charitable deduction. The 2017 Republican tax bill made even fewer Americans eligible for the charitable deduction by hiking the standard deduction. Critics responded that they’d made the tax deduction a deduction just for the rich.”

.
.

Life is Good.

because this is absolutely, in no way, something to point to in support of billionaires.

we need billionaires to help the poor!

lol

as proof that people are "too hard" on the mistreated wealthy.


Just stupidly doing their work for them.


We all better hope the billionaires take pity on us or invest in the right pet projects cuz this shows that billionaires aren't evil.


Praise capitalist jesus. A multi-billionaire has found a cause.

But ALL too broad of a Broad Stroke for me. There are no absolutes regarding this topic. We're going to agree to disagree on that matter.




.
.

Life is Good.

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

So Rev, who are you disagreeing with again?

https://cdn.britannica.com/71/118771-050-C1CFADBA/Dromedary-rider.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Sewing_needle_eye_with_thread.jpg/800px-Sewing_needle_eye_with_thread.jpg

Anything from it being a metaphor, to the "eye of the needle" being a reference an actual gate that was only narrow enough for the person and their camel to get through, and so the passage is supposedly referencing the fact that someone traveling with too much would be unable to get through.

Of course, that nonsense isn't helped by the fact that jesus, in the passage right before the one you mentioned, was asked what one must due to gain eternal life, and he said to keep the commandments (nothing at all about accepting him as their savior, but I digress).

The man asked which ones, Jesus said don't murder, commit adultery, or steal, and honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself. The man said he's kept all those, and then Jesus says to sell all your possessions and give to the poor- and *then* follow him (Jesus).

Case will have another ridiculous contortion to explain that too.
Indoctrination is basically cancer. That shit is hard to kill.

I said, "And people say there should be no Billionaires or that they are evil"

And you ran literally ran off and made up an entire conversation in your miserable head. But as always, you failed to do the first basic thing - ask a clarifying question. But do you. It's a regular routine that you play out all the time.


.
.

Life is Good.

Have you sold all your possessions?

A simple yes or no is sufficient.

>Have you sold all your possessions?
>

My Answer: No.

My comment: Jesus didn't ask me to sell all of my possessions, becasue my possessions was not a stumbling block in the way of me following him.



.
.

Life is Good.

>>Have you sold all your possessions?
>>
>
>My Answer: No.
>
>My comment: Jesus didn't ask me to sell all of my possessions,
>becasue my possessions was not a stumbling block in the way of
>me following him.

...and, in my previous post, I said you'd have some apologetic gymnatic routine ready to go for that question.

I then listed candidate apologetics often used by christians.

I didn't make up a goddamned thing.
That you didn't use one of the specific examples (niether of which I said you'd use specifically, because again, they were exmaples) and went with another bullshit contrortion to allow you to rationalize why you're not doing what you're convoluted myth tells you to do, doesn't change anything.

You don't like the fact. That's your problem.

.
.

Life is Good.

Not that it matters, post hoc rationalizations are pretty much necessary to be religious.

Again, arguing just to be arguing.


.
.

Life is Good.

i'm assuming that your usual logical lapse leads you to believe that others would not have this money if there were no billionaires.

is that your unlogical leap for today, Einstein?

d

"But rest assured, in my luxurious house built on the backs of people darker than me, I am sipping fine scotch and scoffing at how stupid you are." - bshelly

How's it working for you?




.
.

Life is Good.

You say you do, but you really, very clearly, do not.

And your point that this news somehow invalidates the 'no billionaires'point is, frankly, willfully ignorant and/or shockingly stupid.

So basically you came in here to poorly dunk on an argument that you clearly don't understand, accuse OTHERS of operating under absolutes, and accused others of being the ones who make assumptions.

How is all of that working out for you?

My point is that not all Billionaires are inherently evil. Bezo's ex inherited the Billions via a divorce settlement. How does that make her evil? It doesn't. That's the point I was making on an individual moral level.





.
.

Life is Good.

You really think you do, but you absolutely fucking don't.
This is just comedy.

>You really think you do, but you absolutely fucking don't.
>This is just comedy.

And you're here with me in the same boat and don't even know it.

.
.

Life is Good.

you got several people right here telling you that you don't understand, but you just keep typing dumb shit. It's comedy.

First: I don't agree that all Billionaires are inherently evil.
Second: See the First.

Are there valid arguments about the exploitation of people, resources, social and economic structures by people who are Billionaires? YES! YES! YES! There are some evil, raggedy, unethical, people who are Billionaires. But I can't say that all Billionaires are inherently evil. That doesn't negate my understanding when it comes the atrocities that some Billionaires have committed. In fact the number is some made up benchmark that's being used, becasue again, as I said in my comments below, many of these jokers were evil before they reached a Billion.







.
.

Life is Good.

It is what it is.
.
.

Life is Good.

Shit is just a fucking word, for fuck's sake.

Par for the course.


.
.

Life is Good.

.
.

Life is Good.

And you're never able to substantiate those dumb assertions with facts or sound logic.

If her assumptions were off base, you *could* choose to expound in a way that clarifies your meaning and intent. We all say shit flippantly from time to time that could stand a little clarification in order to complete a thought that sounded one way at first, but becomes something different once clarification is given.

The problem you have is, when you do expound, you tend to double down on everything that was wrong in your initial statement.

.
.

Life is Good.

Because you're a dishonest interlocutor, all the time, every time, when your opinion is challenged. You do not discuss anything in good faith, unless you're preaching to a choir.

Otherwise?

It's this disingenuous nonsense.

Nobody said you owe anyone anything.

What you "owe" is immaterial to whether or not the things you say comport with reality.

And you tend to lean heavily toward opinions that do not comport with reality at worst, and deal in gross oversimplifications at best. You routinely demonstrate that you are not in step with logic and observable facts, and view things consistently through low common denominator lenses.

And so often, when you're challenged with logic and facts that dispute your opinion, you go straight into that dip/dodge/duck/deflect/divert mode.

You are incapable of having an honest, sincere discussion on any topic where your thoughts aren't in line with the other party.

In this particular case, you were spectacularly loud and wrong, and absolutely didn't want to hear about how or why.

before you made this goofy comment. But do you.



.
.

Life is Good.

You doubled down on the ignorance of your original statement.

By explaining more, you further illustrated that you genuinely don't understand.

See how that work. We're talking about two different things. But keep arguing. That Frog is wet.


.
.

Life is Good.

consistently stupid

https://www.businessinsider.com/tax-cuts-rich-trickle-down-income-inequality-study-2020-12?utm_source

no one needs nor deserves nor works for that kind of money.

I love it.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>I love it

She's the one responsible for keeping the company afloat in the early days for that pizzle faced cyclops anyway, so she understands better than anyone the value of that dough. I may even buy her next novel.

jeff prob look at that 38b settlement like "thats cute"

That might as well be a Billion to them...

any word on how they came up w/ how much to give each school?

i saw on local news A&T got 45m and WSSU got 30m here
looks like Central missed out.

Upgrade them campuses and dorms.

It would be even doper if they centralized the construction efforts with oversight by a project manager who makes sure none of the money is wasted.

ANND the construction is done by black businesses that employ black people.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

and not just checks

hbcus are unfortunately notorious for gross money mismanagement

Endowment is over 150 million now…puts them in the Top 5 of HBCUs and the top Public HBCU…

A&T was already on a building spree prior to this…they have been growing at crazy numbers over the last decade…


Google just donated 5 million to the school last week

Barnes and Noble announced they are paying for all of the books for students for the next two years…

We got a good squad up in Gift office to stay the least…

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

kev

First, for some, the topic Billionaires being evil for is a charged emotional matter, and it's hard to have a coherent conversation about the subject. If you can read, then you can find tons of articles that position why Billionaires shouldn't exist or why they are the scum of the earth and the negative impact that their quest for monetary domination causes for the world. So, if you can read you can understand why people think and feel they way they do about the matter. But again, understanding why someone feels the way they do does not validate the absolute end-all assumption or position. Life is not BLACK and WHITE. That's the fact.

So, let's agree that there are some (I don’t have a number) Horrible and Unethical Billionaires. But we can also agree that many of them were horrible and unethical people before they became Billionaires. To my point, the dollar figure is not the issue. Evil people are the issue and many evil, horrible, and unethical people that have become Billionaires were evil before they made a Billion dollars.

The OP Post is about Bezos ex-wife MacKenzie Scott giving away money to HBCUs. My point is that although she was married to Bezos, she's not Bezos. Nevertheless, She's now an individual Billionaire that may have not been a Horrible and Unethical person. She's become the beneficiary of a financial marital asset. That's how divorces work.

Say she was a loving, caring, empathetic, upright and moral person in life. Does her new financial status make her a Horrible and Unethical person. I think not. To the point of my protest, not all Billionaires are evil.

But, I'm sure that someone will argue that MacKenzie Scott shouldn't even be in this situation because Billionaires shouldn't exist. Well, they do and that's a different conversation. My point is that not all Billionaires are inherently evil.







Rich People Are Greedy
Do you hate rich people? Come on, be honest.
BY: Brad Klontz Psy.D., CFP
Posted Mar 07, 2010

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-over-money/201003/rich-people-are-greedy




.
.

Life is Good.

You're arguing against the notion that the billionaire, the person, is the evil.

It's odd that you say, rather condescendingly, that life is not black and white, while you make a black and white defense of billionaires (the people themselves) not being evil.

A given billionaire may or may not be necessarily "evil", depending on definitions. Key word: Necessarily.

And I'm sure you'll out some article somewhere where people are railing against the billionaires specifically being the scum of the earth. but that's not what's happening here, in this thread, and that makes your entire argument here a straw man.

The evil of billionaires-the concept, not necessarily the specific person- lies in the fact that nobody earns a billion dollars. There's an argument for, say, someone who got in on bitcoin back in 2010 and held on, but even that speaks to the same broader issue.

Bezos is worth hundreds of billions on the backs of front line workers who, until recently, made a wage that was low enough that many still qualified for public assistance, and our taxes (very little of which is paid by Amazon) have to be used to subsidize those people into a a standard living that is still just treading water.

Then, Amazon upped the wages of those workers to a level that, in many cases, was just above the cutoff for public assistance, thereby moving the quality of life needle very little, if at all.

The system that allows for Bezos to exist as he does, is the system that allows for the front line workers who work their ass off under absolutely insane conditions, under an absurd amount of monitoring and scrutiny, to make a barely livable wage.

Further, the money that Bezos' wife is handing out, while great for those institutions, was made off the labor of those same workers.

The fact that she gave that much isn't evil in a vaccuum.

The fact that one person commands enough wealth, off the backs of innumerable workers who have not reaped a meaningful fraction of that same reward despite contributing the vast majority of the sweat involved in creating that wealth, to just give away that amount of money, absolutely IS evil.

Because the issue at hand is the concentration of immense wealth to a minuscule number of people is the problem.

That those workers will, by and large pay a significantly greater percentage of their income in taxes than Amazon does as a company, is evil.

That those workers do not make a wage high enough to allow them to actively participate in the stock market that billionaires such as Bezos use to expand their fortunes exponentially off the roller coaster created by a global pandemic that disproportionately impacts the workers who built the seed capital that allowed to be in the mix to receive those gains, is absolutely evil.

If those workers received a significantly greater portion of the profits- and by that, I mean all of them, and not the paltry stock options given as part of a benefits package, but a truly equitable wage- those workers would have substantially better economic situations.

Mind you, this is just amazon.

And it's just a scratch on the surface, because there is so much more to address on the subject.

And yet, you're here talking in black and white terms, defending the symptom of the problems inherent with billionaires, without once addressing any of the problems themselves.

and you made my point in your first sentence. I am not talking about the concentration of wealth or challenging that argument. I have heard people say that all Billionaires are inherently evil and immoral because they had to do immoral or unethical things in order to accumulate such wealth and that's what I'm challenging.

Again, I'm not arguing the position against s the concentration of immense wealth to a minuscule number of people. That's one problem. That's not that problem I'm contesting. '

So, why can't you understand that fact.




.
.

Life is Good.

And that's evident in my statements.

I addressed a particular issue, but that issue is arguably the top level shell under which the rest of the issues are nested, which is the system that not only allows, but facilitates and encourages poverty wages for frontline workers while creating staggering levels of wealth for those at the time- and I addressed several individual elements of how and why those were negative.

My post was anything but "narrow".

I then reiterated the fact that that particular post was only dealing with Amazon, before clearly stating that there is much more to address on the subject.

>and you made my point in your first sentence.

>I am not
>talking about the concentration of wealth or challenging that
>argument.

>I have heard people say that all Billionaires are
>inherently evil and immoral because they had to do immoral or
>unethical things in order to accumulate such wealth and that's
>what I'm challenging.

Who is expressing that view in here, as you just expressed, for that to be challenged?

>Again, I'm not arguing the position against s the
>concentration of immense wealth to a minuscule number of
>people. That's one problem. That's not that problem I'm
>contesting.

>So, why can't you understand that fact.

You're contesting a problem that hasn't thus far been raised in the context of this discussion.

You're also contesting a problem that is symptomatic of the disease, but not the disease itself.

That those billionaires exist at all is demonstrably a far greater and more pertinent problem than the billionaires themselves. This is evident in the fact that, if we change the system in a way that prevents billionaires from existing at all, and instead works to distribute that wealth to workers as an equitable wage instead of the whims- be it tax shelter, from the heart, or otherwise- of a small handful of those who get to control it- those billionaires may still be able to do vile things, but not to the tune of a billion dollars while thousands beneath them have to eek out a meager existence.

The demonstrably narrow view here, is to go after the lowest branch of fruit available: people who think rich people are greedy and evil.

The thing your contesting is a joke.

Does not address the ethical problems with the existence of billionaires.

It's an absolutely useless entry to the discussion.

And, yet again, is a high-definition photograph that illustrates that you do not understand the ethical problems with the existence of billionaires.

I'm debating default character assumptions. But Carry in


.
.

Life is Good.

by anyone but yourself.

My initial post: "And people say there should be no Billionaires or that they are evil"

I'm responding to the people that have made bogus claims about my understanding of something that I never questioned or challenged. I posed a statement about the existence of Billionaires and then being evil. Folk ran with what they wanted. I clarified my comments after folks like you made up nonsense and tried to build a house on it.




.
.

Life is Good.

grabbing the lowest hanging branch imaginable with each entry.

As of now, you've said (more or less)that you don't disagree with the larger issues I've presented, and are debating the argument from people who aren't in this poast that all billionaires are evil.

Even if the billionaire is the kindest, warmest, most charitable person imaginable, you're still ignoring that their very existence is symptomatic of the evil people who are actually here are talking about.

Which, again, illustrates that you don't quite get it.

Again, arguing to be arguing.



.
.

Life is Good.

and in detail.

You can write whatever you want in the header, and you can pretend all you want that that isn't the case- but your assertion doesn't match the facts of reality.

I've been substantive the entire time, addressing specific points, in detail.

You can dip, dodge, duck, divert and deflect all day, but that doesn't change reality.

I stated my point and clarified the point. You seem to want to ignore that fact. I'm good.

Be Blessed.

.
.

Life is Good.

with these empty ass retorts

lol

But go ahead and cook

It's like Brewster's Millions at this point. She's trying to give it all away, but at the same time keeps getting richer

https://apnews.com/article/mackenzie-scott-donating-billions-8e06be7452b8c70f0d9802a6c10ca6a0


MacKenzie Scott, citing wealth gap, donates $2.7 billion

Scott, the billionaire philanthropist known for her impromptu multi-billion dollar donations to charities and racial equity causes, announced Tuesday, June 15, 2021, that she has given $2.7 billion to 286 organizations. It is the third round of major philanthropic gifts Scott has made, which together rival the charitable contributions made by the largest foundations. (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP, File)
MacKenzie Scott, the billionaire philanthropist known for her unexpected multi-billion dollar donations to charities and racial equity causes, announced Tuesday that she has given $2.7 billion to 286 organizations. It is the third round of no-strings-attached, major philanthropic gifts Scott has made, which together rival the charitable contributions made by the largest foundations.

Scott, the ex-wife of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, wrote in a Medium post that she and her husband, Dan Jewett, made the donations to enable the recipients to continue their work and as a “signal of trust and encouragement” to them and others.

And she made clear in her announcement that she is troubled by the increasing concentration of vast wealth among a small proportion of individuals. She and Jewett worked with a team of researchers and philanthropy advisors “to give away a fortune that was enabled by systems in need of change.”

and its a fucking SCIENCE TEACHER from the same school Bill Gates and his kids all graduated from.

Its obvious they had an open marriage or an understanding but can you imagine going from 80K a year to bagging a Billionaire with generous pockets?

This dude is a fucking winner!!!

its constantly expanding

its Science!!!

I shudder to think, as it definitely involves Jeff when he still had that terrible hair.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mackenzie-scott-communities-in-schools/

https://fortune.com/2022/02/03/jeff-bezos-historic-dutch-bridge-dismantled-koningshaven-rotterdam-500-million-superyacht/

.