Laura Flanders: Charity or Philanthro-Feudalism?

[marmar]

Published on Wednesday, August 11, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Charity or Philanthro-Feudalism?

by Laura Flanders


Twenty nine million unemployed or looking for work, that's the latest estimate, and you'd think it'd concentrate the mind in Washington. Twenty-nine million, or over 16 percent of us, need jobs and services and help to stay afloat, to pay mortgages and grocery bills and - sigh - private health insurers.

With an election coming up, the pundit-class are brow-beating politicians to look away. The panic in their voice is all about -- you got it -- deficits. And while they're famously unworried about the condition of the unemployed, they won't tolerate any talk of new taxes to solve that problem. The unemployed get lazy when you give them extended benefits; the rich give back, they say. Except they don't, or they haven't. As we've commented before. This so called recovery's been accompanied by tremendous hoarding by super affluent.

Paul Krugman wrote this week, "In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - literally...- they're choosing the latter."

And just when you might begin think ill of billionaires, headlines trumpet 40 of them are taking a pledge from Warren Buffett to give half their wealth to charity. The Oracle of Omaha's getting plaudits from the investor-invested media, but his timing couldn't be more deadly.

What's the message of Buffett's "greatest givers" plan? Massive wealth's alright, as long as those who have it share some. Some even have a word for it: philanthro-capitalism. But it's a face-saver, not a state-saver. ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/11-7

[RandomThoughts]

1. Hard to make the arguement that those that make money

should decide how it is spent, based on the observations of how money is made.

Long arguement, but really not possible to disagree with.

A short part of it, explain what actions a person actually did that makes them worth billiions?

What attribute or characteristic makes them claim they actually earned the money.


And actually the money was 'made' by people working for them, so the only thing they did is get people to agree to give them money, many times by manipulation, but mostly by system structure.

So a person that gets someone to agree to give them money, should they really make decisions about giving money? They are in the opposite form.



See how funny it is that people have not given me money, nor have I ever convinced anyone to do that :) See why I find that so funny.

(note I do get contributions of food and board. Which is much appreciated)
(disclaimor, a couple times people have bought be a beer when asked also)

[txlibdem]

2. How many

How many people's lives did they destroy during their vicious climb to the top.

Billionaires are murderers and thieves and they will reap what they have sown, in this life or the next.

[blindpig]

3. If we didn't have the rich we wouldn't need charity. n/t