'Gates for President' Group Gives Up

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.

Why would he?

[macmastery]

Isn't it a pay cut?

Re:Why would he?

[Syro2000]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Stormwatch]

When the President of China came to Washington state, he met with Gates at his own home. The Governor was an 'invited guest'.

Maybe that was because he wanted to see Gates' place? You know, it sure is a really nice house. [itmweb.com]

Re:

[Skidge]

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 cap is one reason why the military has trouble holding onto its higher paid employees, such some specialties of doctors. Once their obligations are up, they can make much more in the civilian world.

Re:Why would he?

[rtb61]

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).

He was a criminal?

[smaerd]

"..but after three months of trying the group's leader..."
What was he charged with?

Re:He was a criminal?

[blueforce]

...violating, the rules, of grammar;

Re:

[caluml]

Is your sig from my site? :)

Bill Gates ain't the worst guy in the world

[Cracked Pottery]

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.

OF COURSE he does!

[brunes69]

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.

You don't have to be a billionaire

[everphilski]

...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.)

Estate tax deduction too high in the USA

[spun]

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.

Re:Estate tax deduction too high in the USA

[rossz]

$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:

[rossz]

The very rich will ALWAYS find ways around paying these taxes. It's the middle class small business owner who gets screwed.

As for leveling the playing field by stealing money. That's NOT the job of this government and is evil, plain and simple. Everybody should have equal opportunity, but to go all out to level the playing field is a system that was proven invalid by the collapse of communism.

Re:

[geoffspear]

Leveling the playing field was proven invalid by the collapse of a system in Russia that made no attempt to do any such thing, just because the system was put in place by people calling themselves "Communist"? Right.

If I form a government under what I call "The Mathematics Party" and it fails horribly, does that prove that math is fundamentally flawed?

Re:

[swillden]

Anyone who's net worth, including homes and small businesses is over $2,000,000 is very rich.

Are you sure about that?

You do realize that you're categorizing individual farmers as "very rich", right? Have you ever actually met and talked to such people? I have a bunch of them for neighbors, and I'll tell you that they're a lot poorer than me, regardless of what our net worths are. Estate taxes are big problems for farming families who want to pass the farm on to the next generation. There are some tax breaks (basically reduced valuation for "special use" land like farmland), but in many case

Re:

[spun]

Every dollar in circulation has been taxed umpteen times before. Every dollar of income you make was also income for your employer. It was taxed when your employer earned it, and taxed again when you earned it. Every time money changes hands, it is taxed. That is a very fair way of doing it.

Lottery winnings are income. Gifts are income. Money falling from the sky is income. So is inheritance.

Even a $200,000 deduction will allow anyone to keep running a small business unless it was on the verge of failing an

Re:

[Bassman59]

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.

Re:

[corbettw]

And don't forget that life insurance, while not taxable itself, also contributes to the size of your estate, and therefore indirectly influences how much your heirs have to fork over to Uncle Sugar upon your (un)timely demise.

The best way to avoid the estate tax is to place a chunk of your belongings in a trust and leave the trust to your heirs. That's how the truly rich do it, and it's why people like John Kerry are so in favor of a death tax (he knows his heirs won't be affected by one). See an estate att

Re:OF COURSE he does!

[Otter]

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).

Re:

[siliconwafer]

Bill may oppose the inheritance tax but he is a proponent of the estate tax, one that surely costs him dearly. The estate tax is paid by only the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

Re:

[operagost]

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.

By that logic, we should not have sales or luxury taxes as they discourage spending.

Yes! That's a horrible idea!

[encoderer]

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.

Re:

[king-manic]

Also the top % of america doesn't often pay much tax. There are enough loopholes that the seriously rich make a pitiful overall contribution. The majority fo the tax burden is carried by the middle and upper middle class. The upper and lower class either pay little or are such a minority that they do nto contribute significantly.

Re:

[tompaulco]

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.

Re:

[king-manic]

The net effect is the "rich" do not pay much tax themselves. So irregaurdless of the intention it results in a light tax burden up top.

Re:

[operagost]

"The Internal Revenue Service has released data on tax year 2003 that show the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent of the whole, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent."

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18402 [heartland.org]

Re:

[RightSaidFred99]

Quit quoting this populist shit. What you just said is simply untrue and is a lie. Most of the tax burden in this country is paid by the upper-middle class and above.

Re:

[z4ce]

And you think that the Income tax is effective at taxing wealth on billionaires? Really? Most billionares can completely avoid paying taxes under the current system. It's not even very hard.. most of their wealth is in stocks typically.. sell the stock.. give same amount of stock to some charity.. total tax burden=0. Even without avoiding income tax, they would pay the %25 capital gains rate.

A consumption tax is MUCH more repsentative of wealth. If they just horde (i.e. invest their wealth back into the eco

Re:

[king-manic]

A sales tax is regressive, since the less you make the higher % of it you must spend to live. Rebates and what not will complicate things and will not change one wit the group that pays the majority fo the Tax now. The middle class. A consumption tax does nothing because the rich don't often spend like idiots like th elowe rmiddle class does. A major market for things like sean jean, SUVs, "luxury goods" is the lower class trying to buy economic respect. Undoubtly their principal cash cow is the upper middl

Re:

[king-manic]

Right now the principal reason we need accountants is because there are so many exceptions to the income tax system. Namely to address all the things that would also be wrong with a consumption tax (in addition to the ones that already exist). If you made it easy and simply had no tax on essential items then it changes nothing. The rich already hardly pay tax, the poor as well. The middle class foots the bill to run thigns and is often has their interests trumped by big business from the top end and liberal

Re:

[Bassman59]

What's so complicated about a rebate? I've heard they have these newfangled inventions these days that can transfer money to an account with very little human effort...

For starters, you give the government money, and some point in time later (a year later?), you get it back. And you get it back AFTER filling out paperwork, which can often be confusing (hey, it's tax time now ...). Do they have to keep receipts? Or does the gov't keep receipts? And many bottom-income people don't have checking or savings accounts, and there's no way to transfer money to a non-existent account.
And the low-income people need the money NOW to pay bills (like rent and food) and literall

Re:

[Viper Daimao]

For starters, you give the government money, and some point in time later (a year later?), you get it back. And you get it back AFTER filling out paperwork, which can often be confusing (hey, it's tax time now ...)

You have a point. On a completely unrelated note, boy I can't wait till I my tax refund.

Re:

[karmatic]

And the low-income people need the money NOW to pay bills (like rent and food) and literally can't afford to wait a year to get the money back.
The whole rebate plan is a non-starter.

That's why you make it a prebate, rather than a rebate. You know they either a) are going to spend under the poverty line, so they will not pay any taxes (in the end) anyway, or b), they are spending more than the poverty line (and now have a much harder time avoiding taxes), so you don't need to worry.

As for being impossible t

Re:

[Watson Ladd]

So why doesn't buying stuff pump money into the economy? And Europe has high corporate taxes but the Euro seems to be outperforming the dollar every day.

Re:

[Viper Daimao]

The relative value of a Euro to a Dollar is not the best indication of an outperforming economy. Look at GDP growth or the unemployment ratio among others

Re:Yes! That's a horrible idea!

[Viper Daimao]

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.

Obligatory FairTax plug

[Staale Nordlie]

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:

[hawg2k]

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:

[radtea]

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.

Yeah, this is why the Canadian economy is such a basket case. We've had a (visible) national sales tax on good and services for nearly twenty years. All the arguments you've trotted out were used to show that it would end the world up here. The world seems to be spinning along just fine, thanks, especially

Re:

[evanbd]

First, the income tax is progressive. This would be impossible to achieve with sales tax.

Not so. The Fairtax proposal (I'm not really a fan overall, but they have some interesting points) and plenty of others like it have a very simple solution to this. A sales tax with a per-person monthly rebate of a fixed amount, usually set as roughly the amount of sales tax a person at the poverty line would pay. So a person at the poverty line pays their sales tax at the same rate as everyone else, but gets all

Re:

[operagost]

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.

As does using a graduated tax with high percentage brackets on high earners. When the top brackets were reduced in the 1980s, receipts rose. Besides, the poor already get their utilities, food, and clothing subsidized.
I still don't see a compelling argument for punishing those who are successful earne

Re:

[plantman-the-womb-st]

Billy didn't get rich by writing checks.

Re:

[teh_chrizzle]

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 :-)

Re:

[teh_chrizzle]

nah, 50 bil is about right once you take out all the taxes.

Re:Bill Gates ain't the worst guy in the world

[jafiwam]

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.

Re:

[truthsearch]

I haven't finished it yet because I use it to fall asleep...

What a shining endorsement of the book! I'm gonna run out and get it.

Re:Bill Gates ain't the worst guy in the world

[lawpoop]

"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.

Re:

[zymano]

People should pay taxes but inheritance taxes seem wrong.

Why not just raise rates on the rich.

Quit pilfering for every little cent with stupid taxes.

Re:

[Qzukk]

Personally, I think under the income tax system, inheritance should simply be considered "income" and taxed with your income taxes, and that's it.

Of course, I also like the FairTax sales tax system more and more as I think about it, assuming that after we lay off the IRS and pare down government we can get the sales tax rate to something under %20. Bonus points if we can convince companies to mark their prices with tax included.

Re:

[Bassman59]

Of course, I also like the FairTax sales tax system more and more as I think about it, assuming that after we lay off the IRS and pare down government we can get the sales tax rate to something under %20.

Some problems with this:

• We could pay for any of the big social programs, and have $$$$ to spare, if we stopped pissing away money in that clusterfuck called Iraq. How many billions has that been? How many trillions will it cost when all is said and done?
• Getting rid of the IRS and paring down the federal government won't reduce the tax burden significantly, as you also have state and local governments that provide the services everyone expects and in fact requires (roads, police force, fire department

Re:

[Blakey Rat]

I don't know anything about Bill Gates' dad, but Gates himself supports the inheritance tax. Which is kind of unusual for somebody mega-rich.

Re:

[NSIM]

He isn't competent to rule a country.

Since when did incompetence prevent people from running for President :-) Heck, anybody looking at the US for the last 8-years would think it was a job requirement!

Re:

[Mister Liberty]

Indeed he's not -- there's a guy in Lower Slobovia...

No way he'd win...

[Necreia]

No way he'd win, it would cost too much to bribe him.

Wouldn't work because of three words...

[zappepcs]

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.

Re:

[Hoi Polloi]

We elect lawyers and don't complain about the conflict of interest when the feds deal with legal matters.

Anyway, I think there are many much bigger issues facing a president than what software the government uses.

Re:

[misleb]

And besides, everyone knows that Oracle is better than SQL Server for keeping data on citizens, all of whom could potentially be terrorists.

Re:

[king-manic]

They elected a former oil exec and his CEO. Who then proceeded to fill the coffers of the company they once ran and started a war that looked like it was base don oil. You can't tell me they will not eventually get some benifit from this. I can imagine numerous and expensive speakign engagements in Bush and Cheneys future paid for by haliburton.

The current admin has as much conflict of interest as gates would. I don't hear washington screaming for impeechment yet.

Re:

[DeadChobi]

Because Dick Cheney doesn't have a massive conflict of interest over what nation building company we use in Iraq? I'll give you a hint. THe name starts with an "H" and ends with "alliburton."

Re:

[Mattwolf7]

Yeah since the Presidents main duty is selecting what operating system and office platform to run...

Re:

[whitehatlurker]

the Presidents main duty is selecting what operating system and office platform to run

Wow, the current guy really isn't doing his job, is he? With this being the case, it is really too bad that the Yanks require a native born "son" as President. Otherwise there could be a Linus Torvalds for Pres in, um, 2020 campaign.

Secret list of committee to elect Gates

[zymano]

-Microsoft shareholders.

-Antivirus companies

-Computer techs/Best Buy and pimped warranties.

-Indian outsourcers.

-Foreign charities.

This was never about Gates anyway

[ghoti]

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.

Re:

[rblancarte]

He had to do something, Dilbert really sucks these days.

RonB

I dont think hell get elected.

[jellomizer]

He Just doesn't have the right charisma to do it. In in the end Chrisma is what makes you predident or not.

Re:

[Timesprout]

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.

Gates has 20 Charisma

[spyder913]

he has since 1997 -- even though he gave it to himself [theonion.com]

What, no Microsoft web server?

[ttg512]

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?

Is Bill Gates Good for the USA?

[Kamel Jockey]

Bill Gates is currently testifying before Congress and asking them to remove all limits on H1-B visas. Microsoft is also one of the leading offshorers of US jobs. The net effects of both of these measures is fewer good paying jobs for US citizens and a reduction in our standard of living. Do we want someone who seems to have no care for the very country that allowed him to become so rich to become our President?

Re:

[King_TJ]

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

Wow, deja vu

[Deadstick]

Interesting link on that page, about exploiting dead celebrities: Yet a new company by the name of KeepYouSafe.com has thrown caution to wind with its issuance of a press release headlined: "ANNA NICOLE SMITH WOULD BE SIX FEET UNDER IF SHE HAD KEEPYOUSAFE.COM."

Back in the day, the National Lampoon got sued over a spoof VW ad showing a Beetle floating in water (which they will do, for a while). Caption: "If Teddy Kennedy had driven a VW, he'd be President today."

rj

POTUAC

[Orange Crush]

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

Cancel or Allow?

He didn't stand a chance.

[BubbaFett]

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.

Scott Adams is a dolt

[maynard]

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?

Re:

[plantman-the-womb-st]

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

Re:

[maynard]

And where did those 'no nothing' policies lead? What was the outcome?

They're Right

[Shadow Wrought]

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.

Now we're left with Obama, McCain, and Romney

[gillrock]

...and there is much rejoicing.

Jobs for President

[rlp]

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.

Re:

[Bassman59]

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.

This is one idea......

[8127972]

.... That is truly defective by design.

Well...in some circles...

[HungWeiLo]

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]

oh come on

[khallow]

Scott Adams should have done a tearful press conference in which he explains that the enormous cost of running a successful presidential campaign is just too much for the world's richest man to afford. There's a certain tradition to these things.

Clippy for VP!

[owlnation]

It seems that you're trying to invade Iran. I can help you with that...

Bill Gates is Ineligible

[simpsond]

Bill gates is a "Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire." Which in turn makes him ineligible for presidency. Don't take my word for it. I simply trust my history professor.

"Let's cut off their air supply..."

[mkcmkc]

That line from Microsoft's past would fit right in at Gitmo...

Re:Not a Microsoft fan, but better than neo-cons

[Aqua_boy17]

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.

Who would Gates attack?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

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:

[Aqua_boy17]

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".

Re:

[EmbeddedJanitor]

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

Re:Not a Microsoft fan, but better than neo-cons

[rbanffy]

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:

[king-manic]

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:

[zenyu]

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

Re:

[dan828]

Gates is the neo-con artist par excellence.

Well, Gates is an athiest and a liberal, so I don't think he'd fit in so well with the neo-cons.

Re:

[AuMatar]

Not true- Bush never embraced. He doesn't do that hippy tree hugging crap.

Not the track record...

[encoderer]

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:

[whitehatlurker]

Okay, I give up - is this Jefferson or FDR? (I'm not an American, nor do I play one on Jeopardy.)

Re:

[Stanistani]

Making friends, hmm?

Let me help you - here's one of your recent comments [slashdot.org]:

I doubt there are 100,000 people who would watch Firefly for *free*. Much less PAY for it. I sure as hell wouldn't.

Enjoy.