Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for September 20, 2010

Busted!

Is that Mr. Warren Buffet or Mr. Jimmy Buffet?

Warren Buffett: a traitor to his class.

(And don’t think the Fat Cats don’t see it like that.)

I personally think it is noble that Buffett and Gates are donating half their fortunes to charity. Maybe you think we should raise their taxes instead and have those wise men in Washington give it to the spotted owl. After all,why should you give to the charity of YOUR choice when congressmen will give it to generous political contributors?

If Gates had to borrow 5 grand to start his dream, what’s stopping any American dream? Ambition? Guts?

non sequitur

Anybody ever watch mega-yachts on the travel channel? What a wast of money. And they cry because of the cheney tax-cuts being allowed to expire.

Philanthropy is a truly great thing. I’m thoroughly in favour of the State providing essential services (police, healthcare, basic old age pension ec… yes, I’m a European) but I’m even more pleased by people being able to make shedloads of money and then choose to spend it for the benefit of others. As its their own money, they tend to manage it more efficiently than state employees or religious organisations other charities who rely on other people’s money.

I think that is one half of their income goes to charity. The last I saw, there were 40 billionaires who had pledged this along with Mr. Buffett.

It takes brains along with money and guts to make a success of a business. I’d rather see them bring their enterprises back to the U.S. and pay that money into taxes to get this country back on solid footing. We need to support our country rather than tear it down.

Alabama_Al said:

“Warren Buffett: a traitor to his class.”

I know – a billion just doesn’t go as far as it used to.

He may be a ‘traitor to his class’, but he has much more class than those who have more than they could possibly spend in their lifetime.

I gave 9 dollars to an elementary school fundraiser last week. That’s 9 dollars more than I made; I’ve been out of work for 3 of the last 4 years. How much did you give?

So much wiser for Buffet/Gates to chose where their hard earned money should go rather than government bureaucrats giving to where it will get them the most votes.

vanpelt: let me guess. You will not have to pay an inheritance tax. Typical. Envy, a deadly sin.

I’ve worked on my local United Way board for years, helping to raise millions for worthy local charities that have proven track records of doing good work in the community. United Way agencies must prove results.

The government, on the other hand, is a black hole. Giving that same money to government to do good work would be like flushing it down the toilet. Even worse than that, because at least if it were used as toilet paper it would have been useful for something.

Nemysys,, Do you consider paying down the national debt to be an evil thing to do? Are you a follower of our previous President who said that a large deficit is a good thing?

I guess you believe that the Repubs in the Senate who have blocked practically every bill sent to them by the House are doing a good job?

Libertarians resent expenditures by the bureaucracy but, for some reason, they admire the socially irresponsible plutocracy. Do they really think that social responsibility is an empty concept? And do they imagine that they are independent of society, like Alaskans who pretend they don’t rely on Federal handouts?

A plutocrat regards her wealth as her own. Buffet on the other hand knows that his wealth was given him to manage for the benefit of others. Buffet is an aristocrat who understands the responsibility that wealth brings. Plutocrats, even while they denounce social entitlements like Medicare and Social Security, lay claim to a special entitlement—-possessive individualism—-which they imagine is more fundamental than society.

This Libertarian principle of possessive individualism was long ago exploded by Hobbes, who showed that without society we’d all live in a state of nature where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Without the laws (and the bureaucracy) that only society brings, everyone would be “free” to struggle against everyone else. It takes laws to create “rights” including the “right” to property and wealth.

At the opposite extreme from the Libertarians stands Paul Krugman, who IMO rather too easily dismisses Hobbes. But yesterday he wrote an excellent piece exposing the plutocrats’ sense of entitlement. See “The Angry Rich” at

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/opinion/20krugman.html?hp

Buffett and Gates (especially Senior) have noted often it is ludicrous that tax law lets, in fact forces, them to “skate” on taxes when so many Americans are on thin ice. Yes, donations to charity are good, but if it weren’t for the tax advantage of same, many, if not most, who DO contribute to “charity” would not. “Conservative” argument to the contrary don’t hold up. MOST folks doing most for charity are middle to low income themselves, not in that “upper echelon” of wealth.

Justice, you make the classic assumption that adding more money to the pot would be used to pay down the debt, but I make no such generalization with this admininstration. Given more slush money to spend would simply mean that the current crew would spend more of it on “simulus” pet projects that reward their political cronies, not pay down debt. Have you seen the numbers re: jobs “saved or created” vs. the billions spent on them? Indefensible.

There have been many times in world history where people of good concience should have voted “no” much more often. This is one of them. As Hillary Clinton has reminded us recently, our debt is endangering us internationally. Any Senate Repub who voted “no” on these irresponsible (and dishonest) spending bills is indeed doing a great job.

United Way charities are the best example of responsible management getting things done. The government is the best example of irresponsible management not getting things done. Advocating for the latter puzzles me, unless one’s real objectives are to milk the system whether anything gets done or not. Is that you?

Obama’s stimulus package. 11 million dollars to the city of Hell-A. Result 55 jobs.

Nemesys,

Do you admire the plutocrats (see my note above) who are voting “no” on letting Bush’s tax cuts expire?

Nemesys,, Hmm, Giving tax breaks to small businesses is an irresponsible spending bill? As for stimulus moneys spent, sometimes the results are not directly seen and most of what has been spent was spent by local and state governments. So, paving a section of road may have created 45 jobs directly but it kept the paving company going, the gravel quarry in business, the oil company producing fuel and asphalt, and the truck and paving equipment manufacturers going a little longer. I think too that the retailers where the workers from each of these spent that money they earned, appreciated it too.

Maybe if the gas company in San Francisco had spent some of their record earnings from the last 30 years on their infrastructure, some people would still be alive and many homes would still be standing. Do we need more stimulus? Yes, We do. Think of the rotten sewer systems that need replaced along with waterlines, many more bridges, roads widened and straightened, levees strengthened and even built, etc. etc. How about bringing our ports and rail systems up to European and Oriental standards?

palindrome

An independent non-partisan society just polled their membership re effectiveness of keeping the Bush tax cuts. Shockingly found a large majority said that was best for our economy. What do you know that professional economists don’t know?

palindrome, it may be true that Plutocrats regard their wealth as their own, but so do most of the people I know, regardless of how much wealth they happen to have or not. Conversely, most people I know also regard their debt as their own, something that our government service employees refuse to do.

I cannot accept your premise that Buffet is not a plutocrat, any less than is George Soros and his ilk. I would argue that he is exercising his power quite profoundly through his money to affect change, which is all that a good plutocrat can aspire to. Had he donated his money to the government instead, I would change my mind about him.

I do admire those such as Buffet and Gates whose biggest problems are how to best give their wealth away (a problem shared also by Tony Montana, and not for entirely dissimilar motivations), but I admire more living in a country where such decisions are left to individuals to make on their own.

No Political Administration in recent history, going back to WWII, has actually “paid down the debt”. A few, a rare few, Congresses have passed “balanced budgets”, but never have they actually paid back any of the debt.

If you give them $700B by allowing any of the current Tax Cuts to expire, they will spend it on new programs and the current deficit will continue.

Bottom line, individuals are much more responsible about how to spend their own money, including giving to charities than Government, which is only focused on it’s own power, wealth and special health and retirement benefits.

The rest of us get to pound sand.

The “independent, nonpartisan” group that Libertarian cites are willing to increase the debt (i.e., not collect taxes to pay for spending) because they feel the responsible thing to do is to stimulate the economy.

By contrast, jrholden would define responsibility as paying your debts.

Obviously these two notions of responsibility are in conflict. As any economist knows, when wealthy people save and working people pay down their debts (that’s what both groups are doing right now), the broader economy is going to slump.

The only way to spend money you don’t have is to pretend that you will have it in the future—-a trick recently perfected by States like Illinois to “balance” their pension liabilities.

^ I have another suggestion. Cut spending by several hundred billion dollars. That will lead towards a balanced budget. My guess is you personally don’t spend more than you earn.

I’m happy for you who think the men in Washington are smarter than you on what charitable organization deserves your money. Did you always have such low self esteem?

Libertarian,

I’ll let President Obama respond to your suggestion. Here’s what he said a few hours ago to the Tea Partiers who want to balance the budget:

“The challenge for the Tea Party movement [sc. Libertarians] is to identify specifically: What would you do?” the president said. “It’s not enough to say ‘get control of spending.’ I think its important for you to say, ‘I’m willing to cut veterans’ benefits,’ or ‘I’m willing to cut Medicare or Social Security,’ or ‘I’m willing to see taxes go up.’ ”

^ Per Grace Commission several years ago. Across the board 10% cut.

Also total complete freeze on all government hiring. During the current recession private sector jobs down 10% and government jobs actually up 3-4%.

Nemesys,

Are you telling the truth about working on your local United Way board for years?

Alabama_Al - “Warren Buffett: a traitor to his class.

(And don’t think the Fat Cats don’t see it like that.)”

Talk to a lot of Fat Cats, do you?

Potrzebie - “Anybody ever watch mega-yachts on the travel channel? What a wast of money. ”

Sure. Same with all professional sports salaries, in my opinion. As well as the money people pay to watch them and the inflated prices they pay for goods linked to their favorite athletes. What has Michael Jordan created or invented that he deserves a mansion? But then, I don’t want to control other people’s lives.

Palin drome - “Libertarians resent expenditures by the bureaucracy but, for some reason, they admire the socially irresponsible plutocracy.”

It’s not a matter of admiring or resenting. It’s a matter of looking at the world and NOT thinking that stuff other people earned is our ‘collective’ property. Historically, those societies which have taken a different path have been terribly non-productive, to the degree that the differed. The pilgrim’s failed socialistic experiment is just one example. You can add the Russian Mir, anything communist, the second generation kibbutzim, etc.

“And do they imagine that they are independent of society,”

Some do, fallaciously. Myself I’d just like the chance to be more independent. Though noone will ever become totally free of government mandated responsibilities.

“Without the laws (and the bureaucracy) that only society brings, everyone would be “free” to struggle against everyone else”

First, who do you think would do better in such a struggle? Those who already have power, or those who lack it? In a war of all vs. all, which side do you think the pinkertons would be on? Laws benefit the working poor even more than they benefit wealthy ones.

Similarly, the chance of getting robbed in a neighborhood seems to have a lot more to do with the neighbors than the local cops. Just my experience.

I’m fine with progressive income taxes for those things absolutely necessary for society; police, a military, courts, some measure of public education (possibly via vouchers), roads, etc. But can we at least agree that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the national endowment for the arts, the Dept. of Ed etc. are not vital to the creation of capital and thus a Hobsian argument does not apply to them?

Lets be clear; When Buffett gives to charity, he doesn’t donate to the government. That’s interesting testimony that the government is not the optimal recipient of charity.

Justice22 - “As for stimulus moneys spent, sometimes the results are not directly seen”

Very true, but the same goes for the harm caused by taxes and regulations.

Hey folks, why doesn’t everyone take a minute to understand the difference between Federal debt, that is, money owed under obligations of bonds, t-bills, t-notes, etc, and the Federal DEFICIT. These are two enitrely different animals. Federal debt is only one item in the entire budget of Federal spending. One need not pay down the Federal debt to reduce the Federal deficit. Federal debt, in that it provides sources of capital and investment opportunites is generally regarded as a good thing, whereas a Federal deficit which results from spending more than the sum total of revenues received may or may not be a bad thing, depending on what the excess spending consists of. If you can’t understand the differences between the two, you’ll ALWAYS muck up the argument as to whether the Federal DEFICIT is counterproductive to any economic recovery. Too large of a deficit requires too much in the way of increased taxation to leave sufficient capital for economic expansion.

The predominant way that deficit spending CAN help the economy is by being used on infrastructure and other items which help private businesses succeed by reducing cost factors such as transportation or energy costs. Witness many of the WPA projects during the Great Depression which not only created jobs for the construction of such projects as hydro-electric power plants from dams, but also helped make electrical power more affordable for businesses in the area (as an example).

I am not anti- government spending, not anti-tax. What I am against is profligate Federal spending with no real thought of any solid return on that spending. In line with that, my vision of the banking bailout bill would have been this : Return all Federal taxes paid by persons earning under $200k per year to the persons paying them, instead of giving the money directly to the banks. This would have allowed many Americans who are in trouble debt-wise, to ease some of their debt burden, while pumping those same funds back into the banking system, and for those who are financially sound, would give them more cash on hand to spend or invest. In addition, for those out of work, it would be a much more efficient manner of handing out unemployment benefits. As certain right-wing radio commentators often point out, most income taxes are paid by the highest earners anyway, so the difference in revenues versus the amount spent would be more effective in that scenario than simply giving the money to the banks, which then are no longer willing to lend that money and therefore creating no economic benefit other than the banks themselves being solvent.

You know, Libertarian, that the across-the-board cuts you want would immediately cause a double-dip. If the government pulls back that much right now, the resulting massive unemployment would hit the private sector hard.

The stimulus actually created 1.6 to 1.8 million jobs, preventing what would have been 12+% unemployment. No, the figures do not come from the Dems or the administration, but are backed by Moody’s, who are not a leftist group to say the least.

Yes, we are carrying too much debt, but for some reason, we ran deficits for years while the economy was booming and revenues were high. That’s the travesty.