-
Conscripts in a Ponzi Scheme
June 13, 2011 | 127 comments
-
Social Security and the Ghost of Ephram Nestor
April 6, 2011 | 21 comments
-
Dracon for President?
February 22, 2011 | 48 comments
-
Mitch Daniels and the CPAC Moment
February 14, 2011 | 78 comments
-
The New America Firsters
February 7, 2011 | 43 comments
The Nation's Pulse
America the Generous
Forty billionaires must think otherwise.
Forty billionaires have just pledged to give away at least half their wealth to charity, concerning which a few observations.
Scripture says it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven (capitalized because, as Ralph de Toledano pointed out, it’s a place — you know, like Scarsdale). We could note in passing, but will not, that there is no suggestion that a rich woman would be similarly challenged.
Viewed from Scripture’s vantage point, the forty billionaires may simply be taking the necessary steps to make the needle’s eye larger or the camel, and their riches, smaller.
Is it fair — is it accurate — to say that these people who are giving away billions are being generous?
During the 1968 presidential campaign, William F. Buckley Jr. remarked that the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey, had already promised the American people everything and that, since beyond everything there is only nothing, Humphrey was now promising the people exactly: nothing.
There’s a bit of that here too. If we assume that even half a billion dollars is more than enough to live on, indeed more than enough to satisfy the dreams of avarice, then any additional wealth can mean to him that possesses it only nothing; in which case what these generous people are giving away is also: nothing.
At least nothing that means anything to them. Which again raises the question: What is generosity?
But perhaps that’s just being churlish. How is a rich man supposed to be generous? What can he do? Is it possible for him to sacrifice? Perhaps it is best just to understand that that’s his business.
There are other miscellaneous points. One of them is that the donors will get tax deductions for their gifts, the meaning of which is unclear since they have so much money that taxes have no impact on their lives — which, not incidentally, tends to diminish their resistance to high taxes, which is not good for the rest of us.
Another point is that it is almost certain that the country would be better served if these billionaires kept their money and continued to invest it. Investing is an activity at which they have proved to be exceptionally skilled, and their investments would be far more likely to produce jobs and products — real benefits — than anything any charitable institution could possibly do with the funds.
A third point is the curious collectivity of the operation. Why did they get together to make a joint announcement? Why not just make their decisions in the privacy of their privy chambers? Were they looking for glory (which would suggest that having billions is not satisfying), or setting an example (for whom?)?
There is at least one potential significant benefit of the gifts: the funds will be deployed by private people, not government, which would surely waste it. But this is only a potential benefit: most of the donors are liberals, and it is possible, even likely — perhaps certain — that the money will go to the usual left-wing causes. With good luck, it will be wholly wasted; with bad luck it will do significant damage to limited constitutional government (the only real hope of the poor). The relevance of either scenario to generosity being — what?
Still, the gifts do focus on one aspect of modern democratic life that the big-government types like to avoid. The donors are private people who will be fulfilling their own obligations to the poor.
It is part of liberal dogma that “we must look after the poor,” by which, of course, liberal politicians mean they will take our money by force and deploy in ways they see fit.
Joe Biden, Exhibit A, spoke in 1988 of “changing the attitude of Americans about what their responsibilities are to the poor, about what their responsibilities are to other people.”
Temper| 8.11.10 @ 7:41AM
How about those fabulously wealthy capitalists doing something great and long-lasting? How about the charitable gift that keeps on giving - and providing jobs, and keeping farmers/agriculture in business,and pays taxes and provides construction, manufacturing and retail jobs? Paul Newman showed them how with Newman's Own. I love his company's motto "Shameless exploitation in pursuit of the common good." After all expenses (employee salaries and benefits, ingredients' costs, manufacturing costs, etc.) and taxes, the profits are donated to charities - about $300 million so far I believe. Certainly not for all capitalists, but for those bleeding heart ones seeking some sort of twisted redemption, get to it!
Steve| 8.11.10 @ 8:04AM
I will limit my comments to Mr. Buffet. Charity has nothing to do with his actions; publicity has everything to do with it. Mr. Buffet is a ruthless pirate, not that there is anything wrong with that. I watched him dismantle a mid-sized company several years ago in conjunction with Leucadia Bank, trampling shareholders, bondholders, and other bankers into the dirt. Fine. It was all legal.
But Mr. Buffet aspires to some level of public acceptance and even popularity. Why? Bring on the shrinks, I don't know. But Mr. Buffet charitable? Spare me. He's a tax dodging hypocrite who sounds the alarm to raise your taxes while avoiding all the taxes that he can. Typical lefty.
Alelrt1201| 8.11.10 @ 8:12AM
I am not an expert on Buffet but does the company he run buy businesses that are failing, revamps them to build up their stock and then sell them? I've read that many of the companies he buys have to be quickly and cheaply sold because the families that own them cannot pay estate taxes. If that were true no wonder he is a shrill for the estate tax.
David March| 8.11.10 @ 1:58PM
An example of Buffett’s operations. His MidAmerican Energy Company owns electric and natural gas utilities, throughout the US and Britain. In 2006 it paid just 4 percent of its US Profits in Federal Corporate Income Taxes. In the UK it paid 21 percent. Through deferred payment of taxes it will only have paid half of its income taxes by 2035. Half of 666 million dollars. Think what you could do if your company could deffer paying taxes on its profits for decades.
DM
Alert1201| 8.11.10 @ 8:06AM
These men are giving out of their wealth not their poverty. The widow Jesus praised gave out of her poverty, not her wealth. That means she actually sacrificed something of her own to help others. These men do not give up anything. The billions they give away are just numbers on a balance sheet.
The people who are true givers are those who actually give up something for others. I know families who live in houses 1000 sq feet less then their co-workers and/or drive 10 year old cars because they chose to give 10% of their paycheck to their church. So me a person who will forgo fancy vacations to help a friend in need, and I'll show you somebody with far more character then a 100 billionaires who dump their earnings on the lap of a (mostly liberal) foundation.
SouthernGirl| 8.11.10 @ 1:18PM
Amen! Well said and true!
Mark 99| 8.11.10 @ 8:38PM
Forgotten is the #1 reason why it is immoral for the left to take other's money and "give" (through the beneficence of government) to the "poor". It removes our RIGHT, our ABILITY and our RESPONSIBILITY to be generous. That is clearly evil in nature.
Spooneman| 8.11.10 @ 8:06AM
Isn't it ironic that these billionaires do not want to donate the money to the current liberal government that they so love and defend - doesn't that make you pause and ask why not?
Alan Brooks| 8.11.10 @ 8:07AM
"Investing is an activity at which they have proved to be exceptionally skilled, and their investments would be far more likely to produce jobs and products -- real benefits"
You are mistaken. Products, services, and careers are of course crucial.
But most jobs today are counterproductive.
alert1201| 8.11.10 @ 8:13AM
Alan,
Please explain what you mean by "most jobs today are counterproductive."
Alan Brooks| 8.11.10 @ 8:40AM
I did not write careers are counterproductive, but jobs today are. IMO if-- and I say if (this is hypothetical naturally) unskilled jobs were to be automated we would be better off.
But there is no way to prove such, which is why we use write "IMO": if we would could prove our hypotheses, they wouldn't be hypotheses-- and then we wouldn't have to write "IMO."
Caretaker| 8.11.10 @ 10:05AM
So if we automate all unskilled jobs, where does that leave the unskilled labor force? It would logically fall on the government to take care of them and make them dependent on government for their survival. This would greatly reduce their self esteem unless they wish to coast on the back of others.
loulou| 8.11.10 @ 12:15PM
They would go back to Mexico.
You're kidding about the self esteem of the unskilled, right?
David March| 8.11.10 @ 3:07PM
You dont think the esteem and the useful employment of the vast majority of the population is of use to a Republican form of government?
Rememember 50 percent of the population is below average. Thats a fact. That means 150 million of the people of the states will never get any meaninful benefit from University education, and thats its cruel and humiliating to expect it of them and to try to force them to do it. When 50 percent of a population is treated cruelly and repeatedly humiliated thats a key sign for revolution and disaster. One only has to look at the countries south of your border, for the results of such policies.
Alan Brooks| 8.11.10 @ 8:26PM
I think you got it, David: even if all poverty & racism were terminated in a few decades time, that still leaves hundreds of years of bad memes. Anyhow, that is what soured me on futurism; material progress can lead to great blessings, unfortunately the bad memes don't merely wither away. Like for instance with the Beverly Hillbillies, the old-fashioned ways were stuck in their minds.
Mark99| 8.11.10 @ 9:09PM
In the purest sense of overall efficiency you could be correct, but you should quit thinking like a leftist collectivist and realize that the INDIVIDUAL benefit is more important than the collective benefit, as are our freedoms.
Louis Jenkins| 8.11.10 @ 8:23AM
The billionairs have given half of their holdings to charity. Now I don't claim to know a whole lot, but half a billion still leaves another half to play with. So where the beef? We can throw figures around until we're dizzy, but after the gift these people are still filthy rich.
Curly Smith| 8.11.10 @ 8:34AM
In 2006 Americans willingly gave $296 billion to charity and another $600 billion was forcibly taken from them by the likes of Joe Biden.
Biden and his ilk talk endlessly about my responsibilities to the poor but don't the poor have a responsibility to not be a burden on society? The record of the War on Poverty is pretty clear: More Welfare = More Poverty.
From: http://www.raymondvillechronic.....s/039.html
"In 2006, welfare spending totaled almost $600 billion. That trailed only the big entitlement programs Social Security and Medicare ($878 billion) and combined government spending on education ($683 billion). American governments spend more on welfare than on defense, law enforcement and transportation. Total welfare spending amounts to $28,000 per year for each lower-income family of four."
It's clear that the old saying is true... Being poor is a financial condition but poverty is a way of life. And it's a pretty good deal for the politicians who take money from the productive elements of society and give it to non-productive elements with the intention of keeping them non-productive. Why be productive if you can live almost as well and not have any responsibilities plus you don't get relentlessly criticized for not doing your "fair share".
Harry the Horrible| 8.11.10 @ 8:41AM
Got a better idea. Invest in research, develop a product, find your customer base, build factories to build your product, and sell it to the public.
The creates jobs and wealth, which is what this country needs most.
Ooops. Forgot. The current regime would not approve...
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.11.10 @ 8:50AM
Hillary Clinton just gave $10 to the Pakistan Flood Relief Fund. Whoopee! That's right before she and Bill spent a million on their daughters wedding. And 10 years after they tried to steal the White House furniture.
In the meantime Michelle (Moochelle) Obama is blowing $400,000 of taxpayers funds for a trip to Spain.
The problem is not with the wealthy. The problem is with the professional political mooching class.
Alan Brooks| 8.11.10 @ 9:08AM
Actually, the problem is not only with the professional political mooching clas, it is at all levels of 'society'; please don't forget the Bible was written thousands of years ago, a poor man today would have been a rich man back then. The following quote (by J.O McGinnis) explains it succinctly: "Our nature assures that we will simultaneously be obsessed with our relative status in society and possess unequal abilities for acquiring higher status. Thus individuals will always seek to use the government as a means to rearrange their relative positions. No matter how much wealth free trade produces, no matter how much information the Internet transmits, the central problem of politics will remain: how to empower the government for safeguarding life and property, and yet simultaneously constrain it from eviscerating civil society and expropriating property."
Alan Brooks| 8.11.10 @ 8:57AM
This is fairly good, Curly;
however the denying of access to markets would then have to cease. In the past blacks were not allowed to compete, and this still goes on today, albeit to a lesser extent than in the past. Or take housing: in the past redlining was common, so dignified black families often couldn't get into choice neighborhoods. Again, this has diminished greatly, but it illustrates what those higher up the food chain can do if they are clever enough, they can do anything they can get away with-- within reason--yet they react aggressively if those lower down the food chain or with less pull do the same.
Turnabout is not usually considered fair play... people don't like the worm turning, especially if the 'worm' is not white. Curly, I don't care much anymore, politics has become so empty, so stale, but it continually surprises me how people do what they want to others, but when payback comes they are so surprised. Like, say (and you might very well have experienced this) a hooligan curses in public, and if you do the same back to him, he goes ballistic.
'Screw Unto Others Before They Screw Unto You'
Curly Smith| 8.11.10 @ 10:43AM
The lesson isn't "screw others before they screw you", it's "take care of yourself and help others to help themselves". Keeping others permanently dependent on your largesse is merely another form of slavery.
What's the principle difference between private charity (being your brother's keeper) and public charity (welfare)? You have every incentive to help your brother become self-sufficient and a valuable, productive member of society. The welfare system has every incentive to keep your brother dependant on it and to institutionalize his non-productive nature. The more "clients" they have the more power they have.
What is the most important factor in ensuring that markets work? Competition. What's the single largest impediment to competition? Government. Everywhere that markets fail you'll find the heavy hand of government regulation and intervention. It's no secret that "big business" uses the power of government to stifle competition. And that's nothing new, the Founders were well aware of the corrupting nature of government, which is why they specifically limited the scope of the Federal Government. They knew that corruption close to home, where those impacted can see the payoffs, is much easier to spot and stop while corruption in the centralized seat of power is impossible to stop but it can be limited if you limit the power.
Alan Brooks| 8.11.10 @ 8:31PM
"the Founders were well aware of the corrupting nature of government"
The founders lived in an era of frontier values:
frugality above all. Whither is frugality in the 21st century?
Tim*| 8.11.10 @ 6:19PM
Alrighty then !
Now we "Payback " Obama .
Petronius| 8.11.10 @ 9:43AM
There go the unholy 4 again, trying to buy sainthood.
If these plutocrats get into heaven I don't want to go anywhere near it. They are capitalists with their own money, but they are not going to force me to be socialist with mine; as opposed to Joe Biteme, who believes my money is his to whore losers for votes anyway. Just once, I would like to see a billionaire give a piddly million to a working class white guy who wants to get rich the hard way, buy earning it. The sight of him tearing up that check, throwing it to the ground and spitting on it might open some eyes. I don't want one penny that belongs to anyone else, least of all Gates, Buffet, and Co. I want them, Joe Biteme,
all of government, and their legions of supplicants and parasites out of my way. Nobody can climb the social food chain with the hands of others constantly in his pockets.
To all socialists, obstructionists, prigs, nannys, weenies, and altruists: Keep your hands to yourselves, and mind your own damned business.
Alan Brooks| 8.11.10 @ 10:02AM
"I would like to see a billionaire give a piddly million to a working class white guy who wants to get rich the hard way, buy earning it. The sight of him tearing up that check, throwing it to the ground and spitting on it might open some eyes."
That's a fairy tale. Do you older guys remember "The Millionaire", a '50s TV drama? not one of the recipients of the million dollar check, delivered from John Bairdsford Tipton by Michael Anthony, ever refused the check, none of 'em. And that was in the '50s when people were halfway dignified; today a guy would grab the check out of Michael Anthony's hand before Anthony could open his mouth.
Petronius, you are quite the romantic!
Bill Husein O'Stalin| 8.11.10 @ 10:21AM
One clarification. Not only would they take the check, they would then sue the giver after they blew it all, claiming the gift wrecked their life.
Bill Husein O'Stalin| 8.11.10 @ 10:21AM
One clarification. Not only would they take the check, they would then sue the giver after they blew it all, claiming the gift wrecked their life.
Petronius| 8.11.10 @ 3:44PM
In very truth! I am one of the few who hold that man's capitol is his integrity. The memory of an eccentric benefactor seeking out and making such a gift to benighted individuals who all had a flawed view of wealth went straight over the heads of most who watched it. On the surface, Mr.'s Tipton and Anthony were indulging in a parlor game. But the denoument of each episode always exposed the recipient's concepts of value. Like Richard II in the tower of Flint Castle they stood before their peers stripped of their psychological masks. I could easily take that money as anyone else. But it would never be Mine. Legitimacy still matters in the hearts and minds of those who do not covet the wealth of others nor attempt to dominate them pro forma like Gates, Buffet, and co. do to me and mine.
Alan Brooks| 8.11.10 @ 8:39PM
Now you're cooking with gas, but it's something similar to the scene in Patton where his adjutant admonishes, "jousting? it's like your poetry, Sir, it doesn't belong in the 20th century."
"you're right, Dick", answers Patton, "the world grew up; it's a hell of a shame...'
Mark99| 8.11.10 @ 9:15PM
Yo Allen. The "Millionaire was a made up TV show. It was fiction dude!
blotto| 8.11.10 @ 10:26AM
They are doing this to forestall any talk of a "wealth tax." This way they can give to their left-wing charities, ruin the nation and still collect tax write-offs. If we instituted a wealth tax, they would be forced to pay and not get the accompanying tax write offs and MSM applauds.
George S| 8.11.10 @ 10:47AM
What can billionaires buy that we can't? If you look at it, not things with critical significance. A hundred years ago, you could easily tell the difference between millionaires and the common man. Today, not so. Everyone has air conditioning, color TV's, cars and access to the best health care system. What were once luxuries have now become common place due to the free market's economies of scale. A new Mercedes, thanks to the capital market leasing has made that affordable to drive (hell, in some cities, even a bus driver can afford to buy one new).
So what can they buy? A new yacht, private plane, a Picasso or a 100k rug? Big deal -- lots of non-billionaires have those. Peace of mind?... well yes. So as it becomes harder to distinguish yourself from others with the yardstick of material possessions, you seek to find something that sets you apart, that tells the world you have money...
... Political Power. That is something that not everyone can put in their backyard. Why do billionaires fund all these environmental groups, these 521c's, or get in bed with government? It buys them power over our lives. Why does Soros get involved with US elections? Because there's no more room for another piece of original artwork on his walls.
These guys are trying to set themselves apart from one another. The only avenue left is control over each other's lives.
Petronius| 8.11.10 @ 4:02PM
Billionaires enjoy social autonomy. Leftist social engineering does not get near their front doors and invades their lives, unlike where I have to live. Can burglars beat their security systems? Are their children terrorized in public schools by inner city lowlife? Face it George. These F***ing plutocrats hate us because we aspire to accumulate enough wealth on our own to become as they are; a law unto themselves. So long as there is one other person on this earth who can tell you what you can or cannot do excluding felonious conduct, You are Not Free.
Alan Brooks| 8.11.10 @ 8:44PM
"So what can they buy?"
If they know what they are doing they can live longer lives, perhaps 3-5 percent longer lifespan-- or more.
Derek Leaberry| 8.11.10 @ 12:15PM
The problem is that Misters Gates, Buffett and company will give their money to groups that are worthless. Better fund camps for poor black kids out in the countryside where retired black marines can mentor them.
FWB| 8.11.10 @ 12:25PM
There is NO redemption for being generous in the light. There is no redemption in being generous at all. Redemption does not come from works, acts, or deeds. Redemption comes solely from faith. Works, acts and deeds that help others are good moral actions but they are not required for redemption.
But one's acts demonstrate one's faith and commitment to Yeshua. Open acts receive all the reward that will be generated here and now. Helping others with the other knowing you are helping is better. Helping others where the act is between you and God is best.
If you brag on what you do, it is not "good". And remember this:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions!
Mark99| 8.11.10 @ 9:17PM
BINGO!!!!
Dixie Pixie| 8.11.10 @ 1:01PM
I have lost count.
Is this the 7th or 8th time that Warren Buffett has promised to give away his billions.
Now his new plan is to bundle his billions with other billionaires money.
Has anyone else noticed he gives mostly to Liberal causes.
I am the only who noticed that Buffett always retains control of his billions.
Apparently Buffett feels it is better for others to give in name thereby multiplying the effect of Warren Buffett's apparent generosity.
I will believe in Buffett's generosity when I know where the money is going, who gets it and what strings were attached.
Believer| 8.11.10 @ 5:31PM
Between the filthy rich moving our Manufacturing base overseas and the Govornment giving them tax deductions to do it, its hard for me to feel anything but contempt for both the Rich, and the Govornment. As one commenter asked" who gets the charity"? Im sure it will be like the Red Cross with over 80% going to management, Let Buffett show us some real charity and give a Billion to St. Judes.
Mark James| 8.11.10 @ 9:22PM
It's not the "filthy rich" who move businesses overseas, my friend, it is corporate bean counters who are highly paid by their stock holders (Which likely could include you if you have ANY savings, retirement or investments) who make decisions on whether or not it is cheaper to move out of the US or cheaper to pay US taxes. That brings it right back to the politicians. IT"S ALWAYS the politicians.
Jeremiah| 8.11.10 @ 7:57PM
I love to note sometimes how much I enjoy Dickens book, 'A Christmas Carol.' I especially love noting it when among liberals. Watching their eyes go wide when I explain how it touches me to see a cranky old liberal turn into such a warm-hearted conservative. After they stop spluttering long enough to demand an explanation I tell them:
"Gosh, Scrooge started out believing government should take care of everything. Remember, he started out demanding to know from the charities that solicited him what his taxes went for and didn't the governemtn run workhouses for the poor? He also was a population control enthusiasts - 'if they would rather die they should do so and decrease the surplus population.' And he hated religion - he loathed Christianity and Christmas. Shoot, beginning-of-the-book Scrooge would probably be the leading liberal candidate for Congress in any modern American district.
But by the end, he came to believe that each of us is our brother's keeper - not government. He completely lost his enthusiasm for population control, going so far as to personally subsidize an inferior physical specimen (Tim Cratchit), something the ever-eugenics leading left would not approve of. He came to believe in universal brotherhood rather than universal grievance-mongering and division. And best of all, he became a devoted Christian who '...kept Christmas as well as any man alive."
(I have never had a liberal able to quit spluttering long enough to offer an alternative interpretation to that of a magnificent tale of a cold, heartless liberal who, through the intervention of three spirits becomes a warm, loving conservative. Try it at cocktail parties. I promise it will amuse your friends and amaze your enemies.)
Zero | 8.11.10 @ 11:02PM
Cool
Yosemeti Sam| 8.12.10 @ 12:31AM
Oh - the humanity!
Why, I've used up two boxes of tissues to wipe the
tears of joy away at the totally empathetic pledges - the utter UNSELFISHNESS of these STRICTLY BUSINESS titans.
May one view their respective BINDING legal documentation(s)/particulars - somewhere?
Given all employ(ed) stables of lawyers to wring out maximum financial benefits in the zero-sum arena where their great white companies chomp away at the minnow companies.
These showtime pledges are - AS IS.
Just like the software especially from Microsoft which is sold AS IS - i.e. no promises as to FITNESS for use/purpose(s).
jack| 8.12.10 @ 6:03AM
What a waste. Buffett and some of these guys seem to be completely ignorant of capitalism and its benefits. Amazing.
Jerry C| 8.12.10 @ 12:42PM
You need to read some history about unfettered capitalism say around 1900. Child labor, sweat shops, segregation, no middle class, crushing poverty, rampant desears, polution, and all kinds of wonderful benefits of capitalism.
Jerry C| 8.12.10 @ 12:35PM
If you are very wealtehy and progressive you think up a system to effectively give your money away for the betterment of mankind and the earth. If you are conservative you spend the extra money trying to buy votes and get elected Senator.
Jerry C| 8.12.10 @ 12:43PM
Sorry, my typing sucks.
Stan| 8.12.10 @ 2:15PM
Another scripture I'm reminded of from viewpoints like this: Jesus said, "the poor you will always have..." ALWAYS!!! Not "sometimes," "from time to time," "occasionally," but ALWAYS! So the Gates & Buffets who have the ability to help those that want help, create more jobs for workers who can then use their charitable contributions to help those who are content with the crumbs of everyone else's labors.
JefFT| 8.12.10 @ 4:27PM
I read a lot of class envy in some of these comments. It doesn't matter why they are giving the money away. I do care where the money goes. Most private foundations have been taken over by the Left and the money is likely to be targeted to their pet constituents. None of this largesse will create any wealth. In effect, it is no different than government money being thrown at problems which never go away. We've done that with The War on Poverty. The results speak for themselves.
...winter| 8.13.10 @ 10:55PM
If Africans natural resources weren't siphoned off
by multi national mining companies and enriched foreign countries for centuries it wouldn't be in need of charity. Class envy? The high school cheerleaders argument.
Boogliodemus| 8.14.10 @ 8:05PM
I seem to recall reading about Buffet's "charitable" donation when he first announced it some time ago. It went something like this: put 10% of his wealth into a highyielding fund which would pay out at 8% and mature in twenty years at which time it would go to some charity of his choosing. Assuming the power of compound interest, the amount of the fund would worth his present holdings. I'm sure the 10% coughed up now would be offset by tax deductions and glory. I remember Bill Gates had the same deal going with his claimed amount for the African de-worming scheme. He's certainly gotten plenty of positive PR for that.