These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read:

• Con_Alma

  I have never disputed that. Why you continue to focus on it as if our opinions differ on who has the will I do not understand.
  
  Of course the government has such a will. tI increases their power, control, revenue and volume of the people who will rely on it. They, the government, do not have a greater means than their source of revenue. It's a critical point, for when the government is reminded that the collective people are the source of all service through their revenue it is then and only then that your word "will" becomes relevant...because such will is "permitted" to be present in the republic by the source of the revenue the people.
  
  The will is not forced by the government upon the people is permitted to exist by the people.
  
  Simply put that "power" you speak of is granted and can be revoked.
• Con_Alma

  http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0214-01.htm
  
  "...My son is sympathetic," he said, "but he wants to stay focused on three things: his family, Microsoft and world health," which is the main interest of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ...
  
  "Ever since I heard that somebody was trying to repeal the estate tax, I have been angry," Mr. Gates said, adding that if it were not for his full-time job, he would organize a group called Millionaires for the Estate Tax. Mr. Gates is president of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has an endowment of $20 billion. ..."
  
  So indeed he won't be part of a faction but rather one who is simply against the repeal.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;396359 wrote:http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0214-01.htm
  
  "...My son is sympathetic," he said, "but he wants to stay focused on three things: his family, Microsoft and world health," which is the main interest of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ...
  
  "Ever since I heard that somebody was trying to repeal the estate tax, I have been angry," Mr. Gates said, adding that if it were not for his full-time job, he would organize a group called Millionaires for the Estate Tax. Mr. Gates is president of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has an endowment of $20 billion. ..."
  
  So indeed he won't be part of a faction but rather one who is simply against the repeal.

  It might help if you look at the sites listed, lobbying
  "Dozens of the Wealthy Join to Fight Estate Tax Repeal
  by David Cay Johnston
  
  SEATTLE, Feb. 13 � Some 120 wealthy Americans, including Warren E. Buffett, George Soros and the father of William H. Gates, are urging Congress not to repeal taxes on estates and gifts."http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0214-01.htm
• LJ

  

  Footwedge;396276 wrote:I seriously doubt that anyone posting on OC...or any family member of said posters will have to worry about paying an estate tax. Well, maybe to the state of Ohio...but not the Fed boys.

  
  I wouldn't put money on that
• isadore

  Con_Alma;396354 wrote:I have never disputed that. Why you continue to focus on it as if our opinions differ on who has the will I do not understand.
  
  Of course the government has such a will. tI increases their power, control, revenue and volume of the people who will rely on it. They, the government, do not have a greater means than their source of revenue. It's a critical point, for when the government is reminded that the collective people are the source of all service through their revenue it is then and only then that your word "will" becomes relevant...because such will is "permitted" to be present in the republic by the source of the revenue the people.
  
  The will is not forced by the government upon the people is permitted to exist by the people.
  
  Simply put that "power" you speak of is granted and can be revoked.

  The idea of using means with the private sector is ridiculous. Because those means have never been used for a united purpose. The private sector is by very nature ruled by self interest of hundreds of millions of people and those self interests are so often conflicting that puts the idea of a united means beyond the pale of our system. The government thru its constitutionally granted power to tax and borrow plus its ability to generate some revenue has the mean. It has sanction through the electoral process. So it has both the will and the means something the private sector demonstrably lacks. In times of extreme need acting on individual self interest the public sector has not had the will or the compassion to alleviate the suffering of an extreme economic catastrophe.
• jhay78

  

  isadore;396321 wrote:the private sector has in times of extreme economic distress that it lacks the collective will to alleviate the suffering of the needy. The government of the United States as shown it has the means and the will to do it. In the 1930s and in the present.

  
  The government of the United States showed in the 1930's the means to prolong a Depression that could've ended in the mid-1930's. World War II ended the Great Depression.
  
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html
  
  http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
  

  "The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

  isadore;396376 wrote:It might help if you look at the sites listed, lobbying
  "Dozens of the Wealthy Join to Fight Estate Tax Repeal
  by David Cay Johnston
  
  SEATTLE, Feb. 13 � Some 120 wealthy Americans, including Warren E. Buffett, George Soros and the father of William H. Gates, are urging Congress not to repeal taxes on estates and gifts."http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0214-01.htm

  
  I almost took you seriously until you mentioned George Soros. For a minute, I thought you were talking about rich people who weren't rabid communists.
  

  isadore;396398 wrote:The idea of using means with the private sector is ridiculous. Because those means have never been used for a united purpose. The private sector is by very nature ruled by self interest of hundreds of millions of people and those self interests are so often conflicting that puts the idea of a united means beyond the pale of our system. The government thru its constitutionally granted power to tax and borrow plus its ability to generate some revenue has the mean. It has sanction through the electoral process. So it has both the will and the means something the private sector demonstrably lacks. In times of extreme need acting on individual self interest the public sector has not had the will or the compassion to alleviate the suffering of an extreme economic catastrophe.

  
  No government has ever alleviated the suffering of the entirety of its citizenry. The Marxist utopian quicksand is burying you pretty fast there Isa.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;396376 wrote:It might help if you look at the sites listed, lobbying
  "Dozens of the Wealthy Join to Fight Estate Tax Repeal
  by David Cay Johnston
  
  SEATTLE, Feb. 13 � Some 120 wealthy Americans, including Warren E. Buffett, George Soros and the father of William H. Gates, are urging Congress not to repeal taxes on estates and gifts."http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0214-01.htm

  
  
  In might help in what way??
  
  I have stated an opinion regarding the point that Bill Gates will not be part of a faction fighting against the repeal of the estate tax.
  
  You have listed a an article whereby his father states that he indeed won't.
  
  Not being part of such a faction further solidifies my belief that his opinion is not greater than his one vote and is equivalent to mine as it relates to the electing of a legislative representative who will directly act on any potential initiative to change our estate tax levels.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;396398 wrote:The idea of using means with the private sector is ridiculous. Because those means have never been used for a united purpose. ... The government thru its constitutionally granted power to tax and borrow plus its ability to generate some revenue has the mean. It has sanction through the electoral process. So it has both the will and the means something the private sector demonstrably lacks. In times of extreme need acting on individual self interest the public sector has not had the will or the compassion to alleviate the suffering of an extreme economic catastrophe.

  
  The private sector has united to provide billions of dollars for many social causes. I'm not sure how it is that you believe that's ridiculous.
  
  The will of the people is afforded to and through the government. Without the peoples approval the government could not do anything. To suggest that the people did not have such will is expressing a lack of understanding of our government.
  
  We the people decide what will and will not be carried out. Our will is seen as the output of the government. Our will is present and becomes unified through our democratic republic. Private dollars make the government work and can be increased or decreased when we the people decide.
  
  If a government has means it's because that is the will of the people.
  
  If our government acts through social programs it's because that is the will of the people.
  
  When the day comes that the government takes means not desired by the people or acts socially in a way that is not the will of the people then we are no longer the United States of America.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  LJ;396378 wrote:I wouldn't put money on that

  
  Me either.
• isadore

  jhay78;396421 wrote:The government of the United States showed in the 1930's the means to prolong a Depression that could've ended in the mid-1930's. World War II ended the Great Depression.
  
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html
  
  http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
  
  
  
  
  
  I almost took you seriously until you mentioned George Soros. For a minute, I thought you were talking about rich people who weren't rabid communists.
  
  
  
  No government has ever alleviated the suffering of the entirety of its citizenry. The Marxist utopian quicksand is burying you pretty fast there Isa.

  Numbers soon proved the optimists incorrect. The depression steadily worsened. By spring of 1933, when FDR took the oath of office, unemployment had risen from 8 to 15 million (roughly 1/3 of the non-farmer workforce) and the gross national product had decreased from $103.8 billion to $55.7 billion. Forty percent of the farms in Mississippi were on the auction block on FDR's inauguration day. Although the depression was world wide, no other country except Germany reached so high a percentage of unemployed. The poor were hit the hardest. By 1932, Harlem had an unemployment rate of 50 percent and property owned or managed by blacks fell from 30 percent to 5 percent in 1935. Farmers in the Midwest were doubly hit by economic downturns and the Dust Bowl. Schools, with budgets shrinking, shortened both the school day and the school year.
  The breadth and depth of the crisis made it the Great Depression.
  
  No one knew how best to respond to the crisis. President Hoover believed the dole would do more harm than good and that local governments and private charities should provide relief to the unemployed and homeless. By 1931, some states began to offer aid to local communities. FDR, then governor of New York, worked with Harry Hopkins and Frances Perkins to begin a direct work relief program. This helped only a very few. By 1932, only 1/4 of unemployed families received any relief. In 1932, only 1.5 percent of all government funds were spent on relief and averaged about $1.67 per citizen. Cities, which had to bear the brunt of the relief efforts, teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. By 1932, Cook County (Chicago) was firing firemen, police, and teachers (who had not been paid in 8 months). Breadlines and Hoovervilles (homeless encampments) appeared across the nation.
  http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/great-depression.htm
  The New Deal was presented with horrendous economic situation. Worse than any other administration. After having the economy buried for 4 years, a quick turn around is unreasonable expectation. They did lower unemployment and alleviate the suffering Two of the three authors you site are from the rightwing Ettinger Family Foundation.
  Their great bugaboo the National Recovery Administration lasted less than two years and was gone by June, 1935.
  The statement about the workweek are ridiculous gage of prosperity at the time because in 1929 there was no legislation about the length of the workweek. The 50 plus hour workweeks of the 1920s were no more permanently because of the 40 hour workweek legislation. If you went on that statistic as a measure of prosperity, we never regained prosperity because we never went back to the average workweek being over 50 hours.
  http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.work.hours.us
  
  
  George Soros is only one person in that group of super rich. Buffett is of course one of the most respected financiers in our nation. All this group realize the threat to our nation of these lingering fortunes.
  
  The New Deal acted to “promote the general welfare.”
• isadore

  Con_Alma;396442 wrote:In might help in what way??
  
  I have stated an opinion regarding the point that Bill Gates will not be part of a faction fighting against the repeal of the estate tax.
  
  You have listed a an article whereby his father states that he indeed won't.
  
  Not being part of such a faction further solidifies my belief that his opinion is not greater than his one vote and is equivalent to mine as it relates to the electing of a legislative representative who will directly act on any potential initiative to change our estate tax levels.

  
  you have a group (a faction) lobbying Congress for legislation.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;396455 wrote:The private sector has united to provide billions of dollars for many social causes. I'm not sure how it is that you believe that's ridiculous.
  
  The will of the people is afforded to and through the government. Without the peoples approval the government could not do anything. To suggest that the people did not have such will is expressing a lack of understanding of our government.
  
  We the people decide what will and will not be carried out. Our will is seen as the output of the government. Our will is present and becomes unified through our democratic republic. Private dollars make the government work and can be increased or decreased when we the people decide.
  
  If a government has means it's because that is the will of the people.
  
  If our government acts through social programs it's because that is the will of the people.
  
  When the day comes that the government takes means not desired by the people or acts socially in a way that is not the will of the people then we are no longer the United States of America.

  What social cause has the Private sector united to fund. What social cause has received contribution from all of the private sector or even a majority of people in the private sector. As we have seen in time of economic crisis, times when the need is greatest, charitable giving declines.
  We the People gave the power to tax and borrow to government in the Constitution. In the Constitution we also established a system to select our leaders. They have been selected and now they for the rest of their term in office exercise those powers from the Constitution. We elect, they make the laws and carry them out.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;396495 wrote:you have a group (a faction) lobbying Congress for legislation.

  
  ...and that group is not made up of Bill Gates which was the point I disputed ...not another.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;396512 wrote:What social cause has the Private sector united to fund. What social cause has received contribution from all of the private sector or even a majority of people in the private sector. ...

  I don't know for I have not commented on that issue in this thread. I did, however, state that private sources have and do contribute billions of dollars to social causes. It's not just one person but rather many people who contribute. It is not uncommon to find a social cause that has received contributions from more than one person meaning at least two people unified in their willingness to give resources to said cause.
  

  isadore;396512 wrote:...We the People gave the power to tax and borrow to government in the Constitution. In the Constitution we also established a system to select our leaders. They have been selected and now they for the rest of their term in office exercise those powers from the Constitution. We elect, they make the laws and carry them out.

  That's the same thing that I said earlier. The only thing I would add is that we did not give it to them permanently. We reserve and have the right to withdraw the privilege of acting on our behalf....and it's on our behalf that they act. It is our will that they carry out.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;396515 wrote:...and that group is not made up of Bill Gates which was the point I disputed ...not another.

  
  Bill Gates Jr, supports the estate tax
  "GATES: Yes, I -- I've paid over six billion in taxes. And, you know, I don't begrudge that at all. I think taxes being more progressive will be more important as things like medical costs are making it tough to balance things. The estate tax is only on large estates. And a lot of that wealth wasn't taxed at all because it was ownership of a -- of a business. And, you know, we -- we have tough budget problems. I do think that revenue source is probably the least distortive and it's not gigantic, but it's an important one."
  on larry king June 2, 2010
  http://www.pddnet.com/news-ap-interview-with-bill-gates-and-bill-gates-sr-part-060310/
• isadore

  Con_Alma wrote:The private sector has united to provide billions of dollars for many social causes.

  Again the majority of the private sector has not united behind one or more individual causes. And again in the worst of times they lack the will to provide the needed resources. Because the means of the Private Sector are never united for a purpose except self interest. So it can not be compared to the government that has both the will and the means to handle these extreme situations.
• Footwedge

  LJ;396378 wrote:I wouldn't put money on that

  Oh OK...probably you...but that's about it. LOL.
• Footwedge

  Let me add...the laws could change in the future...I'm talking about right now. Moreover, those that really want to avoid the feds getting a penny today, even if their estate is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. can easily have this done through the use of a good estate planning attorney.........thus circumventing the inheritance tax altogether.
• LJ

  

  Footwedge;396548 wrote:Oh OK...probably you...but that's about it. LOL.

  
  moreso my grandpa. Liquidating a company built from the ground up with over 4000 apartment units and 500 rental houses as well as land development will apparently leave your grandkids with a large tax burden. Oh, to go along with the college thread, my grandpa never graduated HS.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;396531 wrote:Bill Gates Jr, supports the estate tax
  "GATES: Yes, I -- I've paid over six billion in taxes. And, you know, I don't begrudge that at all. I think taxes being more progressive will be more important as things like medical costs are making it tough to balance things. The estate tax is only on large estates. And a lot of that wealth wasn't taxed at all because it was ownership of a -- of a business. And, you know, we -- we have tough budget problems. I do think that revenue source is probably the least distortive and it's not gigantic, but it's an important one."
  on larry king June 2, 2010
  http://www.pddnet.com/news-ap-interview-with-bill-gates-and-bill-gates-sr-part-060310/

  Yes, I believe I acknowledged his support of the estate tax or rather specifically his opposition of the estate tax repeal.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;396566 wrote:Yes, I believe I acknowledged his support of the estate tax or rather specifically his opposition of the estate tax repeal.

  
  so Mr. Gates is supportive of the efforts of his father, Warren Buffett and the others to support the estate tax.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;396536 wrote:Again the majority of the private sector has not united behind one or more individual causes. And again in the worst of times they lack the will to provide the needed resources. Because the means of the Private Sector are never united for a purpose except self interest. So it can not be compared to the government that has both the will and the means to handle these extreme situations.

  People have united to give to the American Cancer society significant dollars...often times in the name of a loved one who has passed.
  
  People have united to give millions to Compassion International.
  
  My wife and I created an endowement fund that is held in perpetuity at a Community foundation that funds a designated field of our specificity. People we don't even know have united with our cause and contributed to the fund because of a similar belief in the need of the field of interest we have deisgnated. That Community Foundation has several hundred million dollars endowed.
  
  These are just a few examples near me....unified beliefs of people giving to a cause.
  
  The timing of the use of the use of these assets is more of a stewardship issue than a statement of ability by the Private sector to provide. The funds in times of dire need do not have to be contributed precisely at the time of need to be of value. The can preempt disaster or need and often do.
  
  Finally, people approve the levy of taxes for the use through government for their will to be represented in time of need. It is the private sectors money that the government is using. It is a unified thought and contribution in it's own right.
  
  The government and private sector have not been "compared" by me as much as they have been separated to the point that the government is not an entity that truly creates or even has the ability to create on it's own. It is the people, the private sector that have made the ability of the government to act on their behalf the distribution of the means provided.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;396581 wrote:so Mr. Gates is supportive of the efforts of his father, Warren Buffett and the others to support the estate tax.

  If you read above you will find that answer for it has been displayed now several times.
  
  
  He is sympathetic but wants to stay focused on other things.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;396582 wrote:People have united to give to the American Cancer society significant dollars...often times in the name of a loved one who has passed.
  
  People have united to give millions to Compassion International.
  
  My wife and I created an endowement fund that is held in perpetuity at a Community foundation that funds a designated field of our specificity. People we don't even know have united with our cause and contributed to the fund because of a similar belief in the need of the field of interest we have deisgnated. That Community Foundation has several hundred million dollars endowed.
  
  These are just a few examples near me....unified beliefs of people giving to a cause.
  
  The timing of the use of the use of these assets is more of a stewardship issue than a statement of ability by the Private sector to provide. The funds in times of dire need do not have to be contributed precisely at the time of need to be of value. The can preempt disaster or need and often do.
  
  Finally, people approve the levy of taxes for the use through government for their will to be represented in time of need. It is the private sectors money that the government is using. It is a unified thought and contribution in it's own right.
  
  The government and private sector have not been "compared" by me as much as they have been separated to the point that the government is not an entity that truly creates or even has the ability to create on it's own. It is the people, the private sector that have made the ability of the government to act on their behalf the distribution of the means provided.

  Private Sector has never completely united behind any cause. Cancer society may have raised significant dollars but the large majority of the Private sector has not contributed to them, the same is true of Compassion International. The sums they raise come no near being the amounts need to solve the suffering of a nation or world wide economic disaster.
  I am sure the money you have raised with your foundation went for excellent causes but no private sector effort has the means in a system based on individual self interest or the will to provide the needs of a truly massive national disaster. Governments can create wealth. The United States does it on a relatively small scale, other nations on a larger scale.
  Our Constitution give our elected government the means to provide the funds necessary to fight major disasters that the private sector lack the will and the ability to amass the means necessary to stop the suffering.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;396586 wrote:If you read above you will find that answer for it has been displayed now several times.
  
  
  He is sympathetic but wants to stay focused on other things.

  he and buffett understand the threat these great fortunes pose to our nation.