Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

'Gates for President' Group Gives Up

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Mar 08, 2007 01:51 PM
from the know-when-to-fold-them dept.
netbuzz writes "Dilbert creator Scott Adams had done his best to make this fantasy (or nightmare, depending on your point of view) a viable notion, but after three months of trying the group's leader has acknowledged that it's unlikely Gates will give up his current gig. They've tossed in the towel." Here is our original coverage of this ill-conceived plan.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Get on the 'Gates for President' Bandwagon 654 comments
netbuzz writes "Dilbert's Scott Adams kicked off the idea in his November 19th blog post, saying there isn't anything wrong with this country that President Bill Gates couldn't cure in less time than it takes to get a new operating system out the door. Today, the idea is moving forward with a brand-new 'Bill Gates for President' Web site. Adams is also back on the campaign trail, flogging the site and Gates' candidacy." A blog post at Network World includes a lot of eye-rolling about this idea, but neither Adams nor the folks at the 'Gates for President' website seem to be taking this lightly.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by macmastery (600662) on Thursday March 08 2007, @01:53PM (#18279162) Homepage Journal
    Isn't it a pay cut?
    • Re:Why would he? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Syro2000 (948558) on Thursday March 08 2007, @01:58PM (#18279234) Homepage

      According to wikipedia, the President's salary traditionally serves as the cap for all government employees, and is currently near half a million dollars. That said, most everyone who runs for President is already independently wealthy, so I don't think pay is a major concern.

      A more appropriate question -- given who we are talking about -- would perhaps be, "isn't it a power cut?"

      • Re:Why would he? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:18PM (#18279486)
        Seriously. When the President of China came to Washington state, he met with Gates at his own home. The Governor was an 'invited guest'. Gates has more power as a businessman than he ever would as a politician.
        • Re:Why would he? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by rtb61 (674572) on Thursday March 08 2007, @09:27PM (#18284768) Homepage
          Now doesn't that really depend upon how much you can supplement you basic presidential salary whilst in office. Even the current vice president currently makes far more from his previous and current business associations than his base pay and that the current presidents decisions, that seem to some how, accidentally, for no real reason at all, favour those business associations, has nothing at all to do with the vice presidents new found wealth.

          I mean rumour has it, that the goal of a war with Iran has more to do with cutting off the supply of Iranian oil and achieving a price target $90 barrel for oil (which for no real apparent reason accidentally favours the current presidents business relationships) rather than WMDs which autocrats love to make lots of noise about but fear to use because they will end up being personally targeted by those same weapons.

          Now of course Bill would make no money from M$ software being made compulsory in every US government department, every US school and every US business. Personally I don't see Bill being interested in any kind of silly nonsense like that, but billy goat ballmer would be whole different story, he would leap at the opportunity and just think how entertaining he would end up becoming, an all new, all singing, all dancing US president, and as a bonus, chair throwing would become a new national sport, cool ;-))) (well at least it is funny from my point of view, not being an American).

  • by smaerd (954708) on Thursday March 08 2007, @01:54PM (#18279172)
    "..but after three months of trying the group's leader..."
    What was he charged with?
  • He opposes the inheritance tax, like his dad, and he gives his money to decent charities. He ain't a politician in more that the corporate sense. He isn't competent to rule a country, although M$ earns more money than most countries.
    • He is a massively multi-billionaire. What billionaire would not oppose the inheritance tax?

      Some form of inheritance tax is required because not having just encourages hoarding of capital, which is bad for the national economy in the long term.

      • ...to oppose the inheritance/estate tax. Anyone who has a halfway decent job and saved money rather than spent money will most likely have to file. Remember, it isn't just cash holdings that go towards your estate, but property as well.

        (There are a lot of financial advisors that will help to help you manage your estate so that you are below the legal limit before Uncle Sam comes in, by donating money to worthy causes you supported in life, etc.)
        • You don't have to pay ANY estate tax unless you have over $2,000,000. That is far too high. Every other form of income is taxed without a two million dollar deduction. Why is the estate tax so limited? Think of how few people have over two million saved. Yet so many people who this tax will never effect want it eliminated entirely. I say reduce the deduction to $200,000 or less.
          • $2,000,000 is easily surpassed if you run a small family business. You die, and to pay the taxes your wife/kids have to sell the business you spent all your life building. The death tax isn't just on the cash on hand. It's on everything, property value, inventory, stocks, bonds, etc. It's an evil tax that hasn't been completely repealed because people like you are naive enough to believe only the very rich benefit from it.
                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  To me, it makes sense to tax the value created by building a house once and call it good, rather than making a societal grab every time someone else starts using it(Property taxes are o.k., I'm talking about the 'income' from selling the house).

                  OK, so what about the people who make a living buying and selling houses? Real estate is an investment, no different from buying stocks or anything else whose value appreciates. So if there's a capital gain on that investment, then it should be taxed as such.

      • by Otter (3800) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:18PM (#18279496) Journal
        He is a massively multi-billionaire. What billionaire would not oppose the inheritance tax?

        Gates and his father oppose the repeal of the tax, not the tax. (Presumably the OP meant to say that).

        • by encoderer (1060616) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:11PM (#18279384)
          Seriously, a consumption task is a pretty horrible idea.

          This was brought up a couple days ago, so I'll copy and paste from my previous post on this subject:

          Forgoing the income tax for a sales tax is a pretty bad idea.

          First, the income tax is progressive. This would be impossible to achieve with sales tax. The only people that would benefit from a "flat" tax (sales or income) are those at the highest tax brackets. In order to replace the income lost from dropping taxes on the top 5%, taxes would have to be raised on the bottom 50%.

          Second, a sales tax puts a disproportionate burden on the lowest income families. Those with low incomes--even up to $50k/yr for a single man--spend a very large proportion of their income. The lower your income, the higher percentage of it is spent. People making minimum wage are spending 100% of their pay checks.

          Those making $1MM a year, on the other hand, may spend only a small fraction of their income.

          And you can say that you would simply not charge sales tax on the things that poor people are spending their money on -- food, shelter and utilities -- but doing so would drastically reduce tax receipts. It would be impossible to exempt those things and the suggestion that it is possible is just used by proponents to try to sell their plan.

          Furthermore, this is about Google. Corporations pay a pitifully small percentage of taxes in America. The percentage of taxes paid by corporations has dropped dramatically since the 1950's. Your notion that double taxation is a serious problem is just plain wrong. The tax code currently incentivizes businesses to invest in capital expenditures, R&D, etc.

          In summary, the only people that want a sales tax are those that don't understand it's implications and those that could pay less taxes by shifting the tax burden more on the lower & middle classes.

          The notion that there is tax injustice because the top minority of Americans pays the majority of taxes is absurd. The people at the top of the food chain reap the highest rewards of our society. Without our national infrastructure, they wouldn't be able to make and horde millions or billions of dollars. They SHOULD pay a tax burden that more closely resembles their share of the US pie, not necessarily their share of the US Population.
          • by Viper Daimao (911947) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:43PM (#18279856) Journal
            You really should read more about the actual proposals for fair (and flat) taxes. Most of your arguments are addressed there. Such as the national dividend that your child (and my brother/sister) poster mentioned. Your other arguments seem to be attacking supporters which is generally bad form. As always, wikipedia [wikipedia.org] is a good place to start.
          • by Staale Nordlie (943189) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:51PM (#18279948)
            The FairTax proposal addresses most of your objections.

            Everyone gets a monthly prebate covering the tax on spending up to the poverty level. This eliminates taxes altogether for the truly poor, and makes the tax effectively progressive.

            True, there's a limit to how hard you can punish success and productivity with such a tax, but the overall effect on the economy and, dare I say it, fairness, more than makes up for that.

            Website: http://www.fairtax.org/ [fairtax.org]
            Summary: : http://www.fairtax.org/fairtax/thumbnail.htm [fairtax.org]
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            I believe there are a few states that generate there spending capital via sales tax, and not income tax.

            It seems to work for those states, so at the very least it's worth consideration, no?
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Also the top % of america doesn't often pay much tax. There are enough loopholes...

              Loopholes certainly exist. But the vast majority of the deductions taken by wealthy people are not loopholes at all but are purposely written tax code to encourage wealthy people to invest their money in ways that the IRS is confident will lead to them incurring more revenue in the future than if they had just taxed the initial monies.
    • He isn't competent to rule a country

      he may not be able to run a decent country, but his considerable holdings are proof that he has done a decent job of running the united states thus far :-)

    • by jafiwam (310805) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:18PM (#18279482) Homepage Journal
      Uhm... No.

      In fact, he defends the tax so much he wrote a book about it. The argument of the book is basically saying the law that is in place is too lenient and it should be repealed for something like the old one that didn't have loopholes. He wants the rich to pay more taxes when they die.

      From Wikipedia:

      Gates is co-author, with Chuck Collins, of the book Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes, a defense of the estate tax.[2]

      The book on Amazon.com Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes [amazon.com]

      I haven't finished it yet because I use it to fall asleep... however your statement is not true in fact and spirit.
    • by lawpoop (604919) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:18PM (#18279498) Homepage Journal
      "He opposes the inheritance tax, like his dad..."

      I don't know about Bill Gates, but William H. Gates Sr., the father of Bill Gates, supports the inheritance tax.

      From Now with Bill Moyers: [pbs.org] "There's a campaign to restore the inheritance tax. And it's being led, believe it or not, by some of the country's richest people including Bill Gates, Sr. ..."

      From Alternet.org: [alternet.org] "Case Against Inheritance Tax Is Bogus", By Chuck Collins and Bill Gates, Sr., AlterNet. Posted September 15, 2005.

      The reason is obvious -- without the inheritance tax, the US would develop a wealthy aristocratic class. This is one of the main reasons the founding fathers broke away from Britain and developed a constitutional Republic.
  • by Necreia (954727) on Thursday March 08 2007, @01:57PM (#18279214)
    No way he'd win, it would cost too much to bribe him.
  • Conflict of Interest....

    There is no way he could be seen as anything other than conflicted over what software government branches use. It just wouldn't work.
  • by zymano (581466) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:00PM (#18279260)
    -Microsoft shareholders.

    -Antivirus companies

    -Computer techs/Best Buy and pimped warranties.

    -Indian outsourcers.

    -Foreign charities.
  • by ghoti (60903) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:02PM (#18279286) Homepage
    This was a pure publicity stunt for Adams. He just picked a well-known person and made a big fuss to get his name into the headlines again. Gates is the perfect person for watercooler talk, since everybody knows him and has something (good or bad) to say about Microsoft. There was no chance this would ever lead anywhere, and now that they see that they won't get more publicity out of it, they're doing one last stunt (We give up! Too bad! We tried so hard!) and let it die with a bang.
  • He Just doesn't have the right charisma to do it. In in the end Chrisma is what makes you predident or not.
    • In in the end Chrisma is what makes you predident or not.
      No, in the US it seems whoever spends most money on the campaign usually wins. Why do you think GWB spent so much time on the fundraising circut rather than actually doing his job during his first term.
  • by ttg512 (221628) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:10PM (#18279374)
    This seems to be the problem...
    Server: Apache Webserver
    X-Pingback: http://www.billgatesforpresident.net/xmlrpc.php [billgatesf...sident.net]
    X-Powered-By: PHP/4.4.4
    Why would Bill support anything with this kind of response header?
  • POTUAC (Score:5, Funny)

    by Orange Crush (934731) * on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:15PM (#18279432)

    You're giving up on Mr. Gates's presidential aspirations.

    Cancel or Allow?

  • by BubbaFett (47115) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:15PM (#18279434)
    Gates: I'm not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I'm a huge believer in. There's a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very very positive impact.
  • by maynard (3337) <j.maynard.gelinas@gma i l . com> on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:17PM (#18279462) Homepage Journal
    Hey may author a funny comic strip, and more power to him. But his recent forays into defending Intelligent Design on his blog, as well as other poorly thought out posts, has left me wondering just who is he to throw around the epithet "dolt"? Dude should look in the mirror.

    Bill Gates would make a terrible President of the United States. Do we really need another Warren Harding or Calvin Coolidge?
    • Do we really need another Warren Harding or Calvin Coolidge?

      Yes, specifically another Coolidge. From one of his biographys:

      The political genius of President Coolidge, Walter Lippmann pointed out in 1926, was his talent for effectively doing nothing: "This active inactivity suits the mood and certain of the needs of the country admirably. It suits all the business interests which want to be let alone.... And it suits all those who have become convinced that government in this country has become dangerously

  • Dogbert is a much better and, in the long run, safer choice. The sooner we elect him the less severe our penalties for waiting will be.
  • by rlp (11898) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:27PM (#18279622)
    Adams could just switch his support to Steve Jobs. Jobs could run on a platform to:

    1) Change the name of the US to 'iCountry'.
    2) Ban Thanksgiving
    3) Replace ballistic missile defense with a national reality distortion field.
    • Adams could just switch his support to Steve Jobs. Jobs could run on a platform to:

      3) Replace ballistic missile defense with a national reality distortion field.

      The interesting thing is that the reality distortion field actually works.

  • by 8127972 (73495) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:27PM (#18279626)
    .... That is truly defective by design.
  • by HungWeiLo (250320) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:36PM (#18279756)
    When Chinese president Hu Jintao came to the U.S. for a state visit last year, he visited Bill Gates before going on to visit GWB.

    Mr Hu goes to Washington (after he's seen Bill Gates and the Boeing factory) [timesonline.co.uk]
  • by owlnation (858981) on Thursday March 08 2007, @03:26PM (#18280372)
    It seems that you're trying to invade Iran. I can help you with that...
  • by mkcmkc (197982) on Thursday March 08 2007, @04:12PM (#18280970)
    That line from Microsoft's past would fit right in at Gitmo...
    • by Aqua_boy17 (962670) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:06PM (#18279316)
      Spot on. The country would be in much better shape if we had more business people in politics and less politicians who are, by and large, mostly lawyers and career politicians. I'm not saying Gates is the right man for the job, but I do think we need more people with real business acumen in politics (not Neo-Cons with Ivy-league MBA's) before anything is really going to change.
      • The whole Iraqi war has nothing to do with terrorism. If is far easier to find a link between Bush's interests in the oil industry and destabilizing oil production to boost the income from Bush's oil buddies. In other words, like wars of long ago, this war is more about the leader's [ersonal interests than anything else.

        Would Gates declare war on Linux-loving nations?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          The whole Iraqi war has nothing to do with terrorism.

          I really don't understand why most people don't get this point, especially voters in the U.S. And where is Bin Laden and why are we no longer concerned with his capture? I believe that the last thing this administration wants to do is have Bin Laden captured or killed. Without him out there in the wild, there's no boogeyman and less reason to justify suspending our constitutional rights in the name of the "war on terror".

          • Most people do get this point. Well non-Americans anyway, and I beleive even Americans get this point since it underpins the change in congress. However many, particuilarly leaders of other countries, have been unwilling to say so openly. Love-me-love-my-war has been an important part of doing business with the USA and has been used extensively as a bargaining chip with trade agreements etc. Bush was very clever to mix in terrorism because he's able to put himslef on the good-guy side and everyone else on t
      • by rbanffy (584143) on Thursday March 08 2007, @03:36PM (#18280478) Homepage
        Seriously, you want an evil genius as president?

        Not only he is unbelievably rich and powerful, but he is responsible for nearly every kind of almost-but-not-quite criminal corporate misconduct in the book and then inventing some. He recklessly and shamelessly exploits everyone and everything he can to benefit himself and the company he sees as an extention of himself.

        And you want to give him, in addition to everything he already has, the position of commander of the armed forces.

        You gotta be kidding.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Look at what you have now. compare. Do you want austin powers #2 running things or doctor evil himself. Gates is borderline evil and unethical but compitent and successful. Cheney/Bush is openly evil and incompitent. choose the lesser evil or choose cthulu.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Gates is borderline evil and unethical but compitent and successful. Cheney/Bush is openly evil and incompitent. choose the lesser evil or choose cthulu.

            So who exactly are you endorsing? Hitler was evil and competent and I'm assuming he would be an undesirable candidate. Chaney/Bush only have a few tens of thousands of people in detention camps. So are you saying a competent Gates would nab millions and so be more evil, or are you saying the "borderline evil" means he would just put a video camera in every
    • by encoderer (1060616) on Thursday March 08 2007, @02:14PM (#18279424)
      The man who single handedly built the middle class in this country in 100 days was one of the wealthiest presidents we've ever had.

      Suggesting that anyone independently wealthy that reached the white house would use it to feather his own nest is just a gross oversimplification.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      While it's true that Gates is lobbying for these changes, the statement that the net effect would be "a reduction in our standard of living" and "fewer good paying jobs for US citizens" is probably still debatable.

      In the short-term, I absolutely agree. But it's the long-term view where I'm less certain. Sometimes, a change for the better involves some short-term pain. Are we *really* offshoring jobs that better our collective "standard of living", or are we just dumping a slew of jobs that are ultimately