Thursday, November 23, 2017

A Billionaire Wages War on Poverty

Inside a sun-splashed classroom, George Kaiser folds his lanky frame into a tiny plastic chair next to a blue mat. For the dozen-plus 3- and 4-year-olds sitting on the mat in various stages of squirming, it's afternoon story time. Kaiser is the billionaire benefactor behind this and other preschools for the poorest children in Tulsa, Okla., and he's the reason why this classroom looks the way it does -- cozy nooks, fairy lights, play kitchens, books everywhere -- and has two certified early education teachers. As one of them reads The Gingerbread Man, Kaiser's face has the rapt look of a child waiting for the page to turn.

Comments

That's what real charity is about. George Kaiser is the model other billionaires should emulate. Other millionaires should too. So should the rest of us.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-23 10:31 PM

Wow, Danni, touting private philanthropy over government programs...we will make a conservative out of you after all.

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-23 11:08 PM

Lets try private philanthropy for funding the US Military and see how that works out.

#3 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-24 07:57 AM

As long as these private efforts have no political or religious agenda they can serve a useful public purpose. But they almost always do and they fail to provide equal opportunity from coast to coast. Only Federal money and equal application of the law can achieve that.

#4 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-24 08:32 AM

"Wow, Danni, touting private philanthropy over government programs...we will make a conservative out of you after all."

Where did I tout it above government programs? Government programs like Medicaid, food stamps, etc. are the necessary fundamental base from which our society has decided all Americans are entitled to. You want to take food stamps away from a poor family? You're sick.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-24 09:02 AM

#2 - Why does it have to be one or the other?

#6 | Posted by schmanch at 2017-11-24 09:46 AM

#2 - Why does it have to be one or the other?

#6 | POSTED BY SCHMANCH

Because Conservatives live in a dream world where the government is evil and the poor will magically be taken care of by Billionaires, unicorns and fairies.

#7 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-24 12:01 PM

Fantastically inspiring. I thought this kind of Billionaire was dead. Thanks for this.

#8 | Posted by Bubba10 at 2017-11-24 12:27 PM

Lets try private philanthropy for funding the US Military and see how that works out.

No, the military is funded by the constitution. Charity, rightfully so, is not.

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-24 02:39 PM

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Because the Federal Government is not a charity.

#10 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-24 02:43 PM

If charities actually did what Boaz thinks they do, we wouldn't need food stamps and he wouldn't need his military pension either.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-24 03:00 PM

"Because the Federal Government is not a charity." - #10 | Posted by pfc. boaz at 2017-11-24 02:43 PM

Unless, of course, it is the freebies pfc. boaz receives.

Then the Federal Government is quite charitable.

#12 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-24 03:28 PM

No, the military is funded by the constitution. Charity, rightfully so, is not.
#9 | POSTED BY BOAZ

I think you mean the military is funded by taxpayers who are forced to underwrite a massive military complex that serves no useful purpose except enrich arms manufacturers and a host of contractors.

#13 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-24 03:39 PM

"Lets try private philanthropy for funding the US Military and see how that works out."
No, the military is funded by the constitution. Charity, rightfully so, is not.

#9 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Umm....no, it's not. The Constitution places the President in charge of the Army and Navy but it does not specifically designate a funding engine.

The Federal Government, if it so chose, could Constitutionally chose to not fund the military.

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-24 03:47 PM

No, the military is funded by the constitution. Charity, rightfully so, is not.
#9 | Posted by boaz at

You should learn a thing or two about the founding father's thoughts on a standing army.

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-11-24 03:51 PM

The military used to be funded by random rich people. You paid for everything, you were the general.

This was scrapped for a professional army.

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-24 05:23 PM

Though at times the rich-paid-for-it-battalions fought alongside government-funded-battalions, working hand in hand as it were.

#17 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-24 05:24 PM

we will make a conservative out of you after all.

#2 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

If conservative billionaires would put their mouths are, regarding the amount of private philanthropy that would be required to replace said government programs, you might have a point.

#18 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-11-24 05:45 PM

-money where-

#19 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-11-24 05:53 PM

Newsworthy

#20 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-25 07:15 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

The Humiliation of Aziz Ansari (116 comments)

Bloomberg: Food Stamps Should Be Spent on Food (108 comments)

Trump Doing Massive Damage to Federal Courts (82 comments)

California Bullet Train Cost $2.8 Billion (62 comments)

White House Doctor Says He's Not Nuts (53 comments)

Meet the Liberal CEO of Sonic Drive-In (42 comments)

$100,000 to Charity If Trump Steps on Accurate Scale (38 comments)

Feds Plot Massive NoCal Immigration Sweep (33 comments)