Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Terminally ill “Simpsons” co-creator to leave entire fortune to charity [View all]Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)36. Odd. They seem not to care at all about dogs, well...certain dogs.
I wrote a letter to them about two years ago to ask if they could help me with my dog and his leg. They emailed me back that they would not.
I then called them and the person there said they were not "set up" to help just any dog, only dogs that were, well, under certain guidelines that she would not discuss.
Sad that he is dying. Maybe he should have different people run the dog charity part.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
108 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Terminally ill “Simpsons” co-creator to leave entire fortune to charity [View all]
octoberlib
Jul 2013
OP
he understands that money only matters if its used and using it for good makes him
roguevalley
Jul 2013
#37
Problem is, what we call "cancer" is actually hundreds of different diseases.
nomorenomore08
Jul 2013
#51
he's not giving away his entire fortune. he's setting up a rockefeller-affiliated foundation.
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#19
NO. A foundation needs only give away 5% of its total assets every year. Meanwhile, it can
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#31
he is setting up foundations that do good work. True, there will be trustees, but so what?
KittyWampus
Jul 2013
#40
no, *your* post is sickening, & the continued fraud upon the general public by big capital is
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#41
The entire set of assumptions underlying your post are so counter-factual that it's not worth
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#50
If that was his motivation, why not just give it to his friends and skip the 5%?
joeglow3
Jul 2013
#66
which is why he didn't just 'give it to his friends'. avoiding taxes while retaining indirect
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#84
has to give 5%/year of the assets. but can also make 5% or more off the assets.
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#100
he doesn't get to personally keep the money in any case, since he's dying. but foundations
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#102
that doesn't speak to the issue of retention of the principal. i said nothing about salaries for
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#104
1. the grammar is just an aside. 2. you weren't talking to 'someone else'. 3. 'tax evasion'
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#107
I who never agree with Kitty most certainly do, your post is disgusting and
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2013
#61
Why is his post disgusting? The only ever time I contacted a charity for help...for my dog,
Safetykitten
Jul 2013
#71
i call foundations a fraud on the public, and every one of these PR releases about rich people
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#78
Really? That seems so weird to me. I would have thought after one's death they no longer
cui bono
Jul 2013
#95
Part of the reason he set up a foundation was so that the foundation could be 'heir' to those
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#105
Well in my case, I asked for help. I have never asked for help in anything ever from charity...
Safetykitten
Jul 2013
#43
They have a mobile free vet clinic in Los Angeles but the emphasis is on rescue
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2013
#63
"The Simpsons" has been on the air since 1989. "Drew Carey" didn't premiere till '95.
nomorenomore08
Jul 2013
#52
Foundation capital is directed at particular charities that big capital uses to direct social
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#42
you don't think you can critique my post without putting your posting right on this site in
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#86
They rescue dogs to become assitant animals to Veterans and those with hearing
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2013
#64
So, because they did not give money to random person who sent them a letter they aren't charitable?
joeglow3
Jul 2013
#67
I know...it makes me sad when someone does good, but just not in the way other people would do it...
renate
Jul 2013
#53
Of course they do. If you don't believe in animal domestication, it makes sense
duffyduff
Jul 2013
#90