Hard to believe that a bunch of pinheads like the Republicans would play politics with their loyalist goose steppers isn't it?? Serves them right for following the Party Line.

And these are the same Republicans who famously introduce bills on the floor allowing only a day for lawmakers to examine it (cf Patriot Act) who are now complaining they don't have time to review a proposal?

Shameless bastard these snakes be.

Ha Ha!

Ah, Kevin.

The Republicans were right to scuttle this obvious PR ploy. It's called playing politics, what Washington does. But Kevin wants us to think that in Washington everyone is all "please" and "thank you" and "please be nice to me."

You know damn well that if the shoe were on the other foot you'd be all in favor of scuttling this deal, too!

But her offer was scuttled -- by Republican lawmakers, who complained they didn't have the opportunity to study the proposal and look at costs.

Congratulations to the Republican lawmakers. Republicans legislators are proving themselves once again to be the party of fiscal conservatism while liberals like Nancy Pelosi are the party of tax and spend liberals.

What, did she give them 10 minutes or something?

So will the Repubs pay the staffers themselves since they are refusing the Dems offer? Or are the staffers just SOL?

Make a note, College Repubs. YOYO.

The Republicans were right to scuttle this obvious PR ploy.

Oh, yeah. Right. It's brilliant PR to deny your staffers a severance pay when your opposition offers. Absolute genius!

Based on egbert's comment, I think we can understand why Iraq is a mess. Brilliant PR! Masterful thinking! Winning hearts and minds!

Sheesh.

But Kevin wants us to think that in Washington everyone is all "please" and "thank you" and "please be nice to me."

LOL! egbert's comment needs no further elaboration. What an incredible observation! Wow! Keep it up, egbert, and please run for office.

LMAO!

Republicans like egbert and the Al-bot are running for office and they are making it onto the ballot in Kansas. This is driving everyone sane to vore for Democrats and allowing them to win key elections every cycle. So please carry on fellas. You are almost as good for us as Iraq is for terrorist recruitment. If you lot can turn Kansas purple, your idiiocy is some powerful stuff.

This is payback from the Republican Party to the so-called "velvet mafia" that covered up Rep. Foley and a score of other scandals just long enough for them to explode in time to cost the Republicans control of Congress.

Taking it out on the "staffers" is how the GOP takes care of future "velvet mafia" activities.

Did you just criticize republicans for being fiscally responsible? Is there no pleasing you?

Every five seconds this war you lot are so hot for eats up more money than it would take to pay two months severence for those staffers. Just FYI. So if you want to discuss the issue of fiscal responsibility, please, lets do.

HELLO! It's because a lot of the staff are gay! HELLO!

(that is a per-staffer estimate. sorry I didn't make that more clear).

Since you brought up "fiscal responsibility" lets talk about cutting taxes at a time wars are being prosecuted on two fronts. Lets talk about funding a war with continuing resolutions. Lets talk about the birth tax - the fact that every American newborn comes into this world owing $30,000 as their share of the national debt.

Oh yes. Yes, yes, yes. Please lets do discuss fiscal restraint and responsibility.

This makes no sense. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Oh wait, it's someone else's face. In that case it makes perfect sense.

Bye bye 109th, you won't be missed.

So, Democrats are the Party of tax and spend while the Republicans are the Party of borrow and spend. Hmmm?

Is there no pleasing you?

Okay, I am just non-plussed that Hawk, who to my knowledge has never agreed with a single work Kevin has ever written - including and and the - would actually say is there no pleasing you?

Dude it's a miracle you can walk with balls that big.

SOP. This is just one of millions of examples of Republicans eating their own.

Fiscally responsible Repubs?!

ROTFLMAO! You can't make this shit up! LOL!

Please - now that they're out of power in the House and Senate, all we're going to hear about is how fiscally responsible the Republicans have always been.

This is why you have to watch the ascendancy of Rep. Pence from Indiana--probably one of a handful of true fiscal conservatives who was consistently marginalized and thrown under the bus by the Republican Party for the last few years.

Shockingly, the Hawk has declined to further defend Republican fiscal responsiblity....must be bed time.

Whatis truly sad is that the workers at the bottom weren't able to get in on the graft and feather their nests like most Republicans at the top always do. They actually believed what they preached and this is their reward.

Hey, not to blog-whore, and I appologize in advance, but there was a Friday News Dump that they held up just for this very three-day weekend, when we aren't paying attention.

Who's the jerk who keeps feeding you that stuff?

By the way, speaking of blog whoring, let's all give Digby some love and keep her around.

Here in the holiday season, we have to be mindful of the good people who give us these forums and to the people who really are out there kicking ass and taking names. Two woefully under-appreciated bloggers are definitely Globe and Digby, so please show them some love and if there are others out there that are neglected, please share them.

Thanks, PR. the love is appreciated. I owe Kevin big time. By the way, I thanked my source publicly. :)

Globe:

Not to mention this little gem:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush signed an executive order Thursday
to raise the pay of federal workers, members of Congress and Vice
President Dick Cheney in the new year.
=-=-=-=
Bob

I always see Digby's (last) name cited. Who does she write for?

Bob

Digby is the force behind Hullabaloo

I thanked my source publicly. :)

Better keep an eye on that jerk.

I think I'd be comfortable with him covering my back.:)

Pale Rider: Taking it out on the "staffers" is how the GOP takes care of future "velvet mafia" activities.

Offers a new meaning to getting scrooged.

Please - now that they're out of power in the House and Senate, all we're going to hear about is how fiscally responsible the Republicans have always been.

I'm sure you're right. And Dems need to prepare for the incoming propaganda.

PAYGO (pay as you go) amendments introduced by Senate Dems were rejected not once but twice. Every one of the 45 senate Dems of the 109th voted for PAYGO. The usual Repubs, four of them and the lonely Independent, Jeffords from Vermont, crossed over to join the Dems.

Globe,
I read your Friday News Dump. CNN's 7 PM broadcast lede was whether the draft was making a comeback and reported on the Selective Service test. With Bush calling for a bigger military, does it make sense to bring back the draft was the question. Blitzer had Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) on who said we don't need a draft for a 30,000 increase in the entire armed services providing that we can get the enlistments. But nobody addressed why the Slective Service test if the Pentagon is committed to an all-volunteer army.

They are talking about an increase in troop strength across the services, but they aren't saying anything about the fact that the Army as it stands is short 3500 officers and the Reserves are short 11,000 lieutenants and captains. Oh, and then the little inconvenient fact that they are already taking 17% of all recruits on waivers.

So yeah, George's splendid scheme is just playing out perfectly.

Well, maybe they actually had enough time and decided that it was a raw deal because it would push back the waiting period before staffers took jobs in the defense, energy, and pharmaceutical industries.

Al and Hawk have hit their fuckwittery quotas for 2007 already. These are the same Republicans who couldn't be bothered to pass standard appropriations bills. As well as, as other folks have noted, distributing 600-page bills a day before they're supposed to be voted on.

All that said, it's pretty sweet to see larval GOP scumbags getting shafted in the one department they really care about, their wallets.

It's nothing the little criminals don't deserve.

Shockingly, the Hawk has declined to further defend Republican fiscal responsiblity

You know, the resident cranks like the Al-bot and RDW and ex-liberal and egbert and (I really don't want to omit any worthies here) orwell and Jay - especially Jay - bring to mind something said by that great American humorist and favorite of our own Divine MsN, Samuel Clemons:

Everything has its limit - iron ore cannot be educated into gold. --Mark Twain

But lead can be beaten stupid — which explains a lot.

Everytime a Republican gets dinged an angel gets her wings.

The GOP has been the enemy of working Americans since Herbert Hoover. Now, if it involved giving severance to displaced executives, the Republicans would be all over that. I think Nancy Pelosi's gesture was very gracious. Dems should always take the high road, regardless of what our political counterparts do.

Just how is it that refusing severance pay to a handful of Congressional staffers counts as "fiscal responsibility" after the boondoggles they've been passing for the last 6 years? They don't run the budget numbers to enough decimal places for this to show up in the deficit.

But I'm glad they're doing it. It's always nice to see the carnivores turning on themselves.

Hey, political junkies...swear of the dope and get a life! So many inane comments, so little thought behind any of them.

Let's do the math..shall we? Assume a salary of 52k a year. To keep it simple. So two months severence is 8k. Say each office has 20 staffers, and there's 31 defeated republicans.

8k*20*31 is roughly 4.8 million.

Drop in da old bucket. Fiscal responsiblity my ass.

Samuel *Clemens*

Ah, yes, inanity - Lift a nog to more inanity of the varity displayed supra.

Even little trools have a right to get more than a lump of coal in their socklets - Why rdw has found a new hero deposited in his argyle - Rep Virgil Goode of Virginia - He and woot - Two peas in a pod - The cult of Mark Steyn grows as stupidity rises as cream in the Bizarro world of the wingnuts.

Five, count them, five more of our troops killed in Iraq. I'm sure this will be well noted by the trools. Thirty Canadian troops have died in the past year in Afghanistan - You all remember that place, do you not? That little country where we "won" and peace reigned on high. Taliban gone as well as poppie fields - Now, the poppie fields recall Flanders of old - More and more will be honored on Remembrance Day.

"Remember their names, boys, remember their names"

As the 20 staffers per and the 31 defeated Pubs would say, "We'll get by with the kindness of strangers, of the K Street variety"

Indeed, 'tis the season - As I sit listening to CBC Radio Two play that wonder of wonders of holiday music, Willie Nelson singing "Frosty the Snowman", I notice that the season has reached Glyn Lockhart - A post that was bigot and racist free.

Thanks for the Sam L. ....er...nugget, GC. Here's an appropriately misanthropic one back at ya:

"Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat." Samuel L. Clemens

Plus a freebie:

'Nothing is more conducive to peace of mind than not having any opinions at all.' - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

glyn: Growing the size of Government isnt the reason.

"We have shrunk the size of this government." - Ton Delay 1/7/06

at least you admit its a lie..

A post that was bigot and racist free.
Posted by: thethirdPaul

Also free of spaces between sentences, doubtless to be offered up as an example of Republican frugality, and rife with spelling, punctuation and grammar errors of many kinds, as befits a semi-literate over his head in this forum in every way.

Newly collected:

"Trans fats is about a person making a trade-off between flavor and longevity. The point of life is not to maximize mortality reduction." - Harvard economist Edward Glaeser

Damn straight.

See that, as usual, my old traveling companion in the foothills of the Sierras is getting all the adoration. Well, Sam did write a tad more than I, but may I share with you,

"Never a lip is curved with pain that can't be kissed in smiles again."

Bret Harte

>>>

Most other employees receive severance pay.

Most other employees receive severance pay.
Posted by: Ack Ack Ack Ack

I'll put two bucks on the proposition that this is flat out not so. Prove 'most', as in a substantial majority. I dare ya.

Ghost: I saw a new review just the other day about the poetry of Brett Harte - whom most know only through 'The Luck of Roaring Camp' in Freshman lit review, if at all.

But for just flat out fun it's hard to beat Service.

I've changed my mind. I'm an open minded person and I've been persuaded by some of the comments here.

Your right, the Republicans should have voted for severance for their staffers. The staffers are loyal Americans who have worked hard to help Congress achieve the great successes of the past six years. They deserve everything they can get.

No severance package. K-Street laying off Republicans right and left. Going to be hard for some of these staffers to find work in Washington. It would sound like tough times for most of us, but don't worry they are all resilient young Republicans. They can all go home and ask Daddy and Mommy for an advance from their trust funds.

" There are strange things done in the midnight sun
By the men who moil for gold;
The Arctic trails have their secret tales
That would make your blood run cold;
The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,
But the queerest they ever did see
Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge
I cremated Sam McGee."

Robert W. Service

Hon, been a'molderin', one of my "Ts" must have fallen off.

"most employees get severance pay"

Never lived in an "at will" state, eh?

Maybe the Repub staffers should consider joining the US military. They could see the world--or a sandy part of it.

Good Mornin' MsN - When I hear the name Bret Harte, I think of Tennessee's Partner.

Samuel *Clemens* My typos know no bounds.

GC,

Howdy - For a delight, read the entire poem by Robert Service, a portion of which is posted supra.

Off thread, but WTF is it with Kansas law? - Kline is defeated by Morrision, the DA of Johnson County - Then, the Johnson County Pubs can move Kline into Morrison's old job??????
Now, Kline will have a vendetta against that clinic in Overland Park, especially as his latest attack against Tiller has been rebuffed by the Judge in Whicita.

Oh Paul, it is truly a glorious mess one county and state to the west of me. The heavy lifting on that issue has been done thoroughly by Diane Silver at the In This Moment blog. She is a former statehouse correspondent for the Wichita Eagle, and knows Kansas law better than I do as a result. She has covered the Kline fiasco so thoroughly that I have just linked to her and concentrated on other matters, like troop buildups and the possibility of a returned draft.

The GOP has been the enemy of working Americans since Herbert Hoover.

The Best economic manager among Presidents in the last Century was Ronald Reagan by a wide margin. Look at a logrithmic chart of all the market averages and 1981 is the sharpest upward inflection point. He dramatically and permanently made supply-side economics the law of the land via dramatic cuts in marginal tax rates and cuts in taxes on savings and investment. The USA is by far the wealthiest nation in the world heading into an incredible golden age of low inflation, low unemployment, fast economic growth and mind-boggling philanthrophy.

The amount of private wealth in the hands of USA citizens is greater than the wealth in the rest of the citizns of the world combined.

The wealth gap between the USA and Western Europe continues to surge while the vast superiority of the Reagan tax structure which promotes charitable giving, especially in the form of trusts and endowments, ensures dramatic increases in private sector contributions to improved schools, hospitals, environmental causes, etc.,

Consider for example it now takes $1B in wealth to be considered among the richest 400 Americans and thay was before a recent 15% stock market run up. These top 400 are worth $1.25T and the vast majority will follow the Gates / Buffet model of charitable giving. This $1.25T in charitable trusts will spend a minimum of $62.5B each year on charitable causes in perpetutity if so designed.

Best of all it's controlled privately. There won't be the massive graft we see in UN directed and other state directed programs. And these are merely to top 400 and this is merely a snapshot.

Consider the Roberts family of the Philadephia worth somewhere near $3B. They've been giving generously to worthy causes for many years having recently given $15M for a new cancer center at the U of P. In other words the families holding this $1.25T give huge amounts away each year and it's not counted in this $1.25T

Most of the Ivy League schools already have huge endowments with Harvard aproaching an almost obscene $30B and the top 25 schools all over $1B. We are entering a period where giving is going to surge and be directed to other less well funded charities such as other colleges, secondary schools and even elementary schools, environmental trusts, clinics, medical research.

It's really mind-boggling to consider how much wealth we have and how much good it can do. It's not just that the amounts are towering but the superiority of private management. This explains why there's so much investment is buying land to keep as open space, replanting forests, reclaiming stripmines, reclaiming watershed, creating fish habitat, etc.

The american working man is in the best shape of his life and it's only going to get better.

Well, The Grinch is back to steal not only the holiday spirit, but the thread as well.

Lies, and more lies, 24/7 from Chester County.
Enjoy hijacking and fucking up yet another thread, woot.

Glad to see that the intelligent folk have already commented before the thread was destroyed by garbage.

The 400 Richest Americans
Edited by Matthew Miller and Tatiana Serafin 09.21.06, 6:00 PM ET

A nine-figure fortune won’t get you much mention these days, at least not here. This year, for the first time, everyone in The Forbes 400 has at least $1 billion. The collective net worth of the nation’s wealthiest climbed $120 billion, to $1.25 trillion. Surging real estate, oil and other asset prices paved the way for 28 new members and 14 returnees. More...

**********************************************
The above is from Forbes and just a I said. I'm not sure what part is most amazing. The fact they control $1.25T in wealth or that they created $120B in one year! And that was before a very solid stock market runup that may have added anoher $80B.

Bill Gates is back up to $53B and he's already donated $50B in various trusts already distributing funds. Warren Buffet was at $46B. These two are likely to add $100B to Gates esisting trusts. With > $150B under management amd a requirement to spend $7.5B per year on charity these two will outspend most EU nations by themselves.

This doesn't account for the fact both are still making money and Buffett has another $5B in trusts for other causes.

Western Europe simply doesn't have this type of model. Wealthy Americans can target their favorite causes. This is one reason why environmental causes are so well funded in the US. Hunters and fisherman donate to preserve and create habitat in a far more intelligent way that any govt bureaucrat could hope to so.

It only makes sense that someone spending their own hard earned money would make sure it went to the best possible good.

Hopefully you caught the most relevent point. The best is yet to come. The creation of charitable trusts is sku-rocketing. You can't not be very optimistic on the future.

Why don't you just sku-rocket yourself right on outta here, twit.

The Republicans were right to scuttle this obvious PR ploy. It's called playing politics, what Washington does.

Yes that's right. Don't consider the proposal on its merits or whether it will benefit the recipients. It was proposed by Democrats so it must be PR. Can't let the Dems have any benefit from that, can you?

Plus it is good PR for the Republicans to oppose severance pay, isn't it??? Huh?

Anyone who can say "The american working man is in the best shape of his life and it's only going to get better" after citing information about the stock market and America's wealthiest families really doesn't deserve to have his/her comments read any longer.

How about 'Go sku-rocket yourself, Wooten'

heh

"We can have democracy in this country or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both." - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

after citing information about the stock market and America's wealthiest families really doesn't deserve to have his/her comments read any longer.

This is the 21st century. Everyone is invested in stocks whether they're buying directly or not. In fact, over 50% of Americans ARE investing directly in stocks. Anyone how has a pension is invested in stocks. This is so not 1950.

I love citing wealth statitics because it drives libs crazy. Somehow somewhere some fool told you that the rich get richer by stealing from the poor and unfortunately you're too dumb to figure out just how stupid that is. Most 3rd graders understand immediately poor people can't make any one rich. Libs have a genetic disposition for dumb theories like that one, socialism, global warming, etc.

The fact is Bill Gates is going to do more for Africa the next decade than the UN has done the last 50 years.

You really are not appreciating just how large these charitable trusts are going to be and how dramatic their influence will be.

St Joes University will within 10 years have an endowment that is large enough to permanently fund 500 full scholarships per year and most colleges will probably be doing better. No student with the drive and intelligence will be denied a college education. Every Ivy League school is already well above that level.

In the Phila area virtually every prep school is building the same type of endowment as well as the catholic high and elementary schools. More kids are getting access to better schools. This is win/win for every one.

The interesting part here is these trusts are being deigned to last forever. Using St Joes as an example a $100M trust must disperse $5M per year. If the trust can earn a modest 7% They'll end up with $102M after spending the $5M. If they collect $18M in more donations the $120M 'opening balance' will require $6M go to scholarships and a 7% return an ending balance of $122.4M. As St. Joe students become more successful in the booming American economy it's expected the endowment will exceed $1B by 2020 and $2.5B by 2030. Half the school could be on a full scholarship.

By 2040 it might be 2/3s of the school.

If you were to drive by Monsenior Bonner HS just outside Philly you would see a large construction site where they are building a state of the art athletic facility including two all weather turf football/soccer fields and olympic sized track. Two graduates who made it to pro football are financing the construction and have arranged for a fund for maintenance. Cardinal O'hara is another school about 5 miles away getting almost the same upgrade. It's a case of successful alumni, aware of the advantageous tax laws, getting together to create situations where donors can maximize their investments using tax breaks and matching fund programs.

I've focused on the athletic side but each of these schools has active and shrewdly managed giving programs such that more than 20% of the students can receive partial or full scholarships. The reduced expenses for the athletic programs and the high quality facilities allows the schools to attract more students and the administration more spending on the educational side.

It's not hard to see these schools will eventually be permanently funded via endowments ensuring Catholic education will continue to have major influence.

This is what happens when the Federal govt stays with low marginal rates and promotes charity and the private sector. The European model of high tax rates and Govt control of so much has the exact opposite effect. The reason Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will eventually put > $150B into charitable trusts is because they were not taxed. They were able to grow their wealth.

There are no Bill Gate's in Western Europe and never will be.

I've also only focused on the top 400. The fact is there are thousands and thousands worth over $50M who are also quite generous. These are the people making annual $1M - $20M contributions to their favorite causes. We are entering a period when many wealthy people are passing on and leaving large parts of their estates to charities.

This is really a fantastic situation and it's uniquely American.

Johnny-feedback-loop, speaking to an empty auditorium after the lights have come up.

Carry on.

We can have democracy in this country or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."

The good judge, like so many others, had no appreciation of the wealth creation power of compound interest and capitalism. He could never have anticipated the great wealth of today where the typical poor family owns their own home with phone and cable service, several TVs, Stereo, DVD players and even a cell phone or two as well as a PC. We have more TVs than people.

Great wealth is not the same as concentrated wealth amd great wealth in the hands of people such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet isn't just a good thing it's a great thing. Over 90% of their wealth is tied up in the value of their companies and not accessible for spending. In fact the tax laws are structured such that people with too much more to spend are able to direct it all toward charity and devote their superior intellect to maximize the advantages to the respective charities.

Of the $1.25T held by the top 400 we already know the top 2 have already given $60B to charities and have committed $100B more. Larry Ellison (#4) and Michael Dell (6th I think) have already promised to donate the bulk of their estates to Charity and 5 of the Walton heirs are full time philanthropists.

The beauty of America and our tax code versus Western Europe is the amazing wealth creation and the incentives toward investment and charitable giving.

Take a walk on the Notre Dame campus and you're recognize an institution that has doubled in size in less than a decade with each building funded by a private donor, many of the professorships inside the new buildings funded by private donors and they still have > 2.5B in endowments and they're 'only' ranked 19th. One wonders why Harvard and the top 10 charge tuition.

The fact is the top recipients have so much money more will be directed toward early education and other causes. When Walter Annenberg passed away several years ago he made over a dozen specific contributions with just two ensuring the continued operation of his high school and elementary schools. A 3rd went to the U of P Annenberg school of communications. We're going to see more and more of this such that it's likely the private school enrollment will expand in relation to public schools, especially the prep schools. They'll be forever.

If Brandeis had any idea of the great wealth we have and the way it's being funneled into charities he would be thrilled.

Global Citizen

Admit it, you're as thrilled and as optimistic about the future as I am. I realize being liberal reqires a certain level of permanent pessimism as you carry the weight of the world on your shoulders but even libs realize it takes money to solve problems and among the many things we have more of is money.

I'm even willing to suggest even liberals agree wealth in private hands does dramatically more good than wealth in public hands.

Among the key lessons learned by Bill and Melinda Gates is giving away a lot of money is very hard if you want to document positive results. As a result they've followed a very methodical path in building up a bureaucracy designed to recognize, develop and reward successful progams. In many cases they've had to provide the infrastructure for medical clinics to track and document the great work they're doing because they would not otherwise qualify for a Gates grant.

In one example a medical clinic in a remote villiage in Africa served by one doctor and one nurse was to overloaded to document their work. An aid coordinator wanted Gates to relax his requirements and take their word for it. He decided instead to send a team to do an onsite real time audit to verify their activity and evaluate their needs. For less than $100K they were able to provide 2 extra generators, refigerators and one jeep/ambulance, with a PC scanner system and one office support clerk to then fully supply the facility and free up both the doctor and nurse from managerial issues to concentrate on medical issues including travel outside the villiage. The tracking system wasn't just critical for re-ordering but also collecting medical data used to track/control communicable diseases and other health monitoring.

Seems odd such a mechanism wasn't already in place but it's not common. Gates isn't just bringing money but business expertise and discipline. His trust has permanent staff dedicate to developing the modern infrastructure needed to support cost effective medicine. It's not about providing 2,000,000 vacines. It's about seeing them used properly.

Gates has been tremendous. This is why Warren Buffet agreed to donate the bulk of his estate, > $50B when it happens, to Gates with no strings attached. Warren wants to help the poorest people and Gates is the best at doing that.

It's not a reach to expect Gates to attract more such investment but he has so much money he might refuse it. It's not easy to give away $5B every year when you want to know it's being used wisely.

These uplifting stories are my gift to you. It's Xmas and we should all take time out to celebrate the good things in life. These stories of American exceptionalism should be shared and celebrated. Especially because so much more is to come.

The clip below is from the Philly daily news
12/5/2006 on the Roberts family $15M contribution.

The Penn center would be one of only six in the nation.

The online magazine Slate maintains a yearly list of the 60 largest American charitable donations. Last year, gifts listed on the Slate 60 ranged in size from $404 million to several $20 million donations.

The Robertses' gift is not Penn's largest. That distinction goes to the late publishing magnate Walter Annenberg, who donated $120 million to Penn's communications school.

**********************************************

If I remember correctly Walter gave way hundreds of millions while alive and over $2B after he and his wife passed away. He would not be among the 200 richest Americans today.

If these stories don't make you feel good you've got a heart of stone.

I love private foundations. I live walking distance to both the Kauffman Foundation campus and the Stowers Institute for Biiomedical Research. The first paralyzed veteran who walks I predict will walk because of Jim and Virginia Stowers and their committment to finding cures to untreatable and intractable illnesses and CNS injury. I have been part of projects at Stowers on a contract basis. They are doing fabulous work and they put the campus right in the heart of the dity instead of fleeing to the burbs, so they have revitalized an entire area.

But I have also been part of research projects at KU Med. We developed the blood-substitute (Poly-Heme) that will save a lot of lives of traumas not only on highways and streets, but on the battlefield. That was public money.

There is a place for both. I have never argued otherwise.

Merry Christmas to you, too.

There is a place for both. I have never argued otherwise.

Perhaps not directly but you abhor the system we have which creates such amazing wealth and those the most successful at it. In so many liberal circles Bill Gates is hated with some passion, even by people aware of his charitable work.

There is a bizarre, common, reflexive reaction to the rich based, apparently, on a concept you espoused recently, that the rich get rich on the backs of the poor. To be rich is to be evil.

I am not sure if this is pure envy or it's derivative of old, discredited marxist / leftist
ideologies but it is obviously unserious. Even cartoonishly so.

The only semi-reasonable explanation I can come up with to explain the negative reaction to the wealthy and all of this money in private hands, is a sense 'we the people' can do a better job deciding how to spend it. It's natural for us to think we have better ideas for how money should be used. For example Harvard has over $25B. Why give them more? I personally would choose medical research over education but if I did choose education it would be elementary school education to ensure better reading and math skills. So while I can see questioning where the money is going I certainly don't question their right to make their own decisions. Liberals have a hard time with this.

Actually all of these things infect liberals. They cannot cut the cord to socialism. They do envy the success of the rich. and they think they should be in control of deciding how it gets spent.

As a conservative I recognize socialism is an evil disease, freedom is necessary for wealth creation as well as wealth distributon. If I were wealthy and the law was my estate was to go to the state for distribution I'd make damn sure there was no estate left.

Regurgitating what I learned in econ 101 is not hatred of capitalism. But thanks for continuing to ascribe me motives and think you know more about what drives and motivates me than I do myself.

Again, Merry Christmas.

Regurgitating what I learned in econ 101

That thread of a few days ago you describe as econ 101 had zero to do with econ. It was pure unadulterated political ideology.

Whenever anyone even hints of the rich getting richer on the backs of the poor, or even assuming that because the rich got richer the poor got poorer we know several things with certainty.

1. They are hard core liberals.
2. They are clueless regarding economics.
3. They still think socialism can work.
4. They have absolutely no business sense including any understanding of incentives, innovation or wealth creation.
5. They lack critical thinking skills. Even limited reasoning skills would lead to a clear understanding one cannot become rich stealing from those who have nothing.
6. They more negative they are of the rich the more likely they've never had any business responsibilities of any kind. Most likely they are academics or union members or bureaucrats totally isolated from any type of real world business decisions.

There are many signals we can use to show who we are quite simply but firmly. For example my embrace of low tax rates and supply-side economics immediately identify me as conservative. The rich getting richer on the poor routine is pure liberalism.

Wow! Talk about screwing your own. 2 months severence for committee and leadership staff is literally a drop in the bucket in a $2 trillion budget so this isn't about fiscal responsibility. It's about politics and there is nothing worse than playing politics with staff, especially those who will soon be unemployed.

I was on the Hill in '94 and thankfully didn't lose my job but I don't remember the Repubs extending the same thing to Dems after the House flipped.

Oh well Repubs. Easy come, easy go!

>>Most 3rd graders understand immediately poor people can't make any one rich.

Tell it to the Huttons (Woolworth's). Tell it to 'payday loan' sharks. Tell it to slum lords.

Look back at the enormous family fortunes built on selling candy bars (Mars), condiments (Heinz), cornflakes (Post), cigarettes (Duke), floor wax (Johnson), meats and other daily essential products mostly to ordinary poor and working class Americans.

Just a few pennies each day from millions of people add up pretty quickly.

You're an idiot.

Professor G. William Domhoff of the University of California at Santa Cruz wrote in 2001:
"In terms of types of financial wealth, the top 1 percent of households have 44.1% of all privately held stock, 58.0% of financial securities, and 57.3% of business equity. The top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America./"

You're an idiot.

'Fast economic growth, after all, is a means to an end--namely, higher living standards for most people. By any decent moral calculation, an economy that does not produce higher living standards for most people is not a good one. '

Over the last quarter century, the portion of the national income accruing to the richest 1 percent of Americans has doubled. The share going to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent has tripled, and the share going to the richest one-hundredth of 1 percent has quadrupled.

"If the rich control a growing share of the national income, they will turn their financial power into political power to protect their holdings. Untrammeled economic inequality will inevitably lock itself into place as the rich buy political influence and propagate policies that safeguard their wealth."

"Third, the whole pattern of rising inequality does not suggest a split between the educated and the uneducated. The rise in inequality isn't between the top one-fifth and everybody else; it's between the top one-hundredth and everybody else.

" Were Clintonites Wrong About the Economy?
Freakoutonomics
by Jonathan Chait

And you're still an idiot.

is literally a drop in the bucket in a $2 trillion budget so this isn't about fiscal responsibility.

You are quintessentially lib. Always generous with other peoples money.

As I stated in the prior post on global citizen. Often it takes just one sentence to know ones ideology and to know it with certainty.

MsNThrope.

Mars bars are an essential product?

MsNThrope,

It gets even better. The Forbes article was printed early September. The wealth calculations were probably mid-August or earlier. The Dow is up 15% since then. Microsoft is up 31%.

I'm fairly sure ALL of Bill Gate's wealth is in MSFT stock. Thus his $53B fortune is now up to $69B. Bill made $16B in 3 months. That's Michael Dells total net worth.

Actually that's not quite true. Dell is up 27% so he's now worth > $20B.

Buffett, using the Dow as proxy, is up to $53B, a gain of $7B.

We can at least agree these boys know how to make money.

Here's something to celebrate. Gates and Buffett and Dell have already committed their great wealth to charity. The poor kids around the world just made a quick $27B.

Gates has already contributed > $50B and has $70B to go and as we can see still making the bucks. Buffett is over $5B ad has $53B to go and still making the bucks. If both cash it in tomorrow the trusts would be $178B. They would be able to spend $7.8B per annum forever.

How can you not be thrilled?

This is something for us all to celebrate. We're seeing the two richest men of our age give everything to the poorest of the poor and working to see neither the UN or other governments steal it. This is America at it's best.

Give me just one example of a European coming close.

an economy that does not produce higher living standards for most people is not a good one. '

Agreed.

What does Bill Gates making a fortune have to do with my living standards?

You've got that liberal perversion in your head, "Bill has more money. I must have less" That's just stupid.

Bill has more money because I am using his operating system to access the internet which has absolutely raised my living standards. I have at least 5 items in my house I bought on ebay for half the price. My brother bought my Dad a DVD/VCR (good quality for $79 - tell me that's not amazing. my 1st VCR as $1,200). I called my daughter (cell phone - no LD), visiting her in-laws in Florida, went online on her PC using their wireless router, into ebay and bought 2 years worth of shows of my fathers favorite series, Inspector Morse (BBC), for 50% savings off retail.

Let me see. In 1980, pre-Reagan, I never heard of Bill Gates, or PCs, or cell phones or the internet,or wireless modems or ebay or fedex.

And you are saying our living standards have not improved?

This is like the stravation dolts. In 1984 according to Bill Moyers America had a starvation epidemic. As we always do when the GOP is in the White House. The simple bastard did a PBS series which no one watched and then took his show on the road. He wanted to make sure the rest of the world knew America was NOT the shining city on a hill. In Pakistan after showing one of his segments he decided to do a Q&A. The 1st gent he talked to wanted to know how to get to America. He said, "I want to live in a place where the poor people are fat".

This is how stupid ideologues can be. It never occured to Moyers if he was going to do a Documentary on the poor and wanted the world to know America starves it's poor NOT TO USE FAT PEOPLE in the visuals.

I actually saw the segment. It was used to mock Moyers. He picked a poor family in Mississippi on welfare. He found a single parent family with 5 young kids so Mama could not work. Bill introduced then by telling us how much she 'made' between welfare and food stamps and showed us the outside of a rundown house. Then he went into the living room to meet the family.

Mama was 220 if she was a pound. The kids were all over-weight. She had two couches, an easy chair and a shelf system with a TV, Sterio and a VCR. Moyers was comparing this family to his own. It never occured to him, poor or not, if someone is fat, they can't be starving. Pakistani's learned our poor had much more than they could ever dream. Bill has been getting mocked ever since and has become on of the most bitter men in media.

It amazes me liberals stick with his working class meme. It was so tired in 1980 and Reagan had made even more of a mockery of it.

Virtually everything we have now is of much better quality than in 1980 and it's dramatically cheaper. My VCR was $1,200 and 30 pounds. DVDs with much better quality pictures and durability are under $50. PCs are cheap. Food as a percentage of the budget is much lower and the quality and selection much higher. Supermarkets have 3x's as many items. Most Americans don't know foods have seasons. My next TV will be > 40", HDTV, will hand on my wall and be cheaper than my current 27".

I think what drives so many liberals wild about Gates is he represents everything you hate. He's incredibly successful and wouldn't think of apologizing for it. I think for many libs it's even worse he's giving it all the way. So many have spent so much time trashing him and he's made it so abundantly clear he's a far, far better man than you are.

"Day by day, thousands of grifters are making huge digital dollar profits on abstract financial plays in a global virtual casino. None of these plays has much to do with anything of real and enduring value. They're just scoring points on consolidations of ailing industries, on turns of the interest and currency differentials wheel-of-fortune, abstruse shorting strategies, and similar non-productive shenanigans." - James Howard Kunstler

Now I simply walk away and leave you flailing at your strawmen. Nasty little GOP groupie that you are.

Have you noticed that after you commandeer a thread with your inane and erroneous gibberish you often end up talking to the walls?

The Republicans are promoting a kind of Robin Hood in reverse. They are trying to enrich their friends and donors. Along the way they're shifting risk from government's shoulders onto individuals. The Republicans are pretty much dividing the spoils among themselves and their donors and leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves. - Jared Bernstein

rich buy political influence and propagate policies that safeguard their wealth."

Chait knows less about creating wealth than you do. Gates and Jack Welsh and Buffett and the rest don't spend 20 minutes worrying about gaining political power in the USA. They sell their products all over the world. Intel gets 80% of it's sales outside the USA.

You think Intel has the time and money to lobby 100 governments? You think they can make signficant inroads politically in Japan and China and Korea and India and the UK and France and Germany and Israel and Russia.

You think getting 80% of sales outside the USA is a reason to focus on our govt?

These people are in competitive businesses. They spend too much time on politics someone is going to eat their lunch.

Jack Welsh has been on a crusade for almost 20 years telling corporate America they must prepare for the emergence of Asian markets and that they would dwarf European markets. It's not exactly rocket sceince. They were turning away from socialism toward capitalism meaning explosive growth was in their future.

Asia is what they're doing to safeguard their wealth. Developing new and better products is how one safeguards their wealth. Using govt is what a socialist does to safeguard their wealth. That's why they have so little wealth.

This is also why Western Europe is all but off the diplomatic and economic radar. Intel still gets 18% of sales from Europe but that's down from well over 30% and it's still falling. They are still big markets but they're far from top priority.

Liberals just don't get wealth creation. Fortunately, the traces of marxist ideology are disappearing. College profs are still in love with it but then we know to mock them for it. I think it's a case of familiarity breeding contempt. In a day when so many have college degrees the old image of the professor was the wise sage had been replaced by the image of a lefty holdover teaching because he could not hold a real job.

Reagan has defeated more than the USSR. He's crushed socialism and all of it's adherents. Just wait until Fidel does and we get to see what a Mess Cuba is. It's going to be great entertainment watching Fox play the clips of airhead libs delivering fawning compliments to the oh so charismatic Fidel. A man we know ot be a serial killing turd who turned Cuba into a prison with the lowest standard of living outside Africa.

Have you noticed that after you commandeer a thread with your inane and erroneous gibberish you often end up talking to the walls?

I notice no one is able to marshal real facts to counter my arguments.

I am aware blogs tend to attract like thinking people. Liberals like to talk among themselves because its much easier to argue with people who already argee with you. You get to reinforce your own beliefs. It's much easier than being challenged.

This is how the MSM is like Mom. They serve you what you want to hear so you'll come back. They might make you feel good but is it healthy?

Of course not.

You need to see the bigger picture.

I use the example of Western Europe often because it's such a good example. You really have no clue as to what is happening between US and Western European nations. You really think this is all about GWB. They're furious with George but understand it's just George and all will be normal the second he vacates the Oval office.

That is of course stunningly stupid.

The most important set of fact you need to understand concerns business. More specifically trade and economics. Intel gets 4x's as many sales from Asia as Europe and it will soon be 5x's.

That is extremely important. You've heard the statement in politics often, "follow the money". You know China and India are growing at 10% and trade is just exploding. Asia has over 3B consumers. Western Europe > 250M.

The US and Western Europe; specifically France, Germany, The Neherlands, Sweden, Belguim and a few others, have not been on the same diplomatic page for quite some time and especially regarding the most sensitive issue of the last few decades, Israel and Palestine. They in fact are more often opposing the US and as Colin Powell learned at the UN in the example of France, behind our backs and with great effort.

US public opinion for Western Europe and the UN is in the toilet. Public opinion in Western Europe for the US is in the toilet. This is not about GWB. This is about our approach to taxes, business regulation, environmental issues, the international courts, freedom and liberty.

Bill Clinton did not submit Kyoto to the Senate for approval because 95 Senators told him to stick it up his ass. GWB had zero to do with that.

This is my gift to you. Reality. You have been disabused of the notion we have this great alliance with Western Europe and it's all for one and one for all. We don't agree on much, we don't trust them much and we know for certain there's little they can do to help us. GWB has been doing what neds to be done. We are creating space between us and lots of it.