I'm seeing various reports that Charlie Rose is poking up again, but nothing about anything worthwhile he might be saying.

"Disgraced journalist Charlie Rose is back conducting interviews — but this time it’s for his own website," The L.A. Times informs us.

“I’m proud to share this recent conversation with Warren Buffett,” the 80-year-old newsman wrote on his website. “It is his first interview on camera in almost a year, and the first I’ve done in more than 4 years. It is a step in a journey to engage the most interesting people and explore the most compelling ideas in the world.”

Rose is 80. That's 11 years younger than Buffett, but still, why not keep to your private life? Yes, the world has its "most compelling ideas" that could be "explored" and "most interesting people" to be "engaged," but you're not giving off the slightest ray of hope that you're the man to do it. You were disgraced, and we'd pretty much forgotten about you.

The article has nothing about the substantive content of that interview, which you can watch, here, at Rose's website. I'm certainly not recommending it.

"It’s only when the tide goes out that you learn who’s been swimming naked."

Said Warren Buffet, quoted in "It’s a ‘Swimming Naked’ Moment: The Financial System Has a Real Test/The coronavirus spread and its economic effects are stressing the U.S. system for the first time since the 2008 financial crisis" by James B. Stewart (in the NYT).

"You might ask yourself: 'What’s wrong with saying yes and keeping people happy?'"

"It might be a hard pill to swallow, but consider this: compulsive people-pleasing can be a form of manipulation. The teacher and author Byron Katie sums it up brilliantly: 'It’s the biggest fallacy that I can manipulate you to love me.' We kid ourselves that we’re just being decent people by acquiescing to others, but things can turn unexpectedly sour when our own needs aren’t met.... [T]he billionaire businessman Warren Buffet famously said: 'Successful people say no to almost everything.' Saying no allows you to say yes to what is important to you. It allows you to be a better person because when you say yes, it comes from a good place, not from resentment or fear. It creates space for what matters most to you, rather than drowning in busyness, like most of us are."

I'm reading "Want to improve your life? Just learn to say no/We are used to saying yes to please others but it can be harmful not to be more assertive. And imagine what you can do with all that free time" (The Guardian).

I'm reading that in spite of the fact that it's always been my instinct to say no. The author, Chloe Brotheridge, suggests that you remember all the times you found yourself doing things you didn't want to be doing — having coffee with people, going to weddings, sitting through meetings — to stimulate yourself to avoid things you're going to feel trapped in later. That advice is for other people. Is it helpful for you?

My instinct for saying no is so strong that I had to worry it would get me in trouble. I was concerned, in a professional setting, that hesitating when presented with invitations would make me look bad. You have to take a half second to realize going to lunch, say, would not be that interesting, and then concoct the excuse — at least another half second. At some point, people will notice. I had to overrule my own instinct and adopt the practice of saying yes. How'd that work out? Disastrously!

Wouldn't cheap + billionaire be the best combination?

Seen, just now, in a sidebar at Salon:



Of course, Salon wants to stoke its readers' loathing of Trumpov, but this one should backfire. It seems like the best combination for a political leader, because: 1. This person was able to acquire great wealth, and 2. He has systems in place to prevent waste, even in small things.

When it's not about Trumpov, the frugality of wealthy individuals is celebrated. Here's "The surprisingly frugal habits of 8 extremely wealthy people":

Warren Buffett, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, still lives in the same home he bought for $31,500 in 1958....

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, drives a manual-transmission Volkswagen hatchback....

Ingvar Kamprad, founder of IKEA, still flies economy and often rides the bus....

Judy Faulkner, founder of Epic Systems... has had only two cars in the past 15 years and has lived with her husband in the same Madison, Wisconsin, suburb for nearly three decades.

Then there's "10 of the Richest Cheapskates of All Time" at Money Magazine begins:

Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, is known for his frugality, living in the same unostentatious Omaha home he bought in the 1950s.... The Buffett diet includes five Cokes a day, as well as Cheetos and potato chips.

Sam Walton, the late billionaire co-founder of Wal-Mart, also lived comfortably, but without all the showy toys he could easily have afforded. “Why do I drive a pickup truck?” he asked in his autobiography. “What am I supposed to haul my dogs around in, a Rolls-Royce?”

The article goes on to highlight actual stinginess, such as JFK — recipient of "a trust fund worth $170 million in today’s dollars" — allowing "his friends, flunkies, Secret Service agents, and even dates to pick up the tab wherever he went."

"My first job, believe it or not, was canning bacon for the Vietnam War. We would wrap the bacon up in little cans so they could ship it overseas."

"It really was a family company then. Oscar was still there. My father worked at Oscar Mayer. My father-in-law worked here. Two of my brothers. It’s like that with everybody. We were all family."

From an article in Isthmus about the closing of the Oscar Mayer plant in Madison, Wisconsin.

The fate of what will happen to the Oscar Mayer site is still unknown. Buckley hopes another employer takes over the facility.

“I’d love to see another company come in that would give people a living wage and benefits again,” Buckley says. “It was the people who made this place, and any employer would be lucky to have them.”

Here's an article from a couple years ago in Fortune about why Oscar Mayer closed "the site of the 132-year-old meat company's first expansion and, for the past 58 years, its headquarters—not to mention the home of the Wienermobile."

It’s hardly news that yet another old American factory is closing down, particularly one that makes processed meats, which have declined in popularity as millennials look for healthier options....

It is also less-than-shocking that Kraft Heinz, the food giant caused by the merger of Kraft and Heinz earlier this year, is closing yet another plant. This, after all, is what 3G, the Brazilian investor group behind Kraft Heinz — along with Warren Buffett— does, generally to the delight of its investors.

"Warren Buffet, climate change denier."

"The public has the impression that because there's been so much talk about climate that events of the last 10 years from an insured standpoint and climate have been unusual. The answer is they haven't."

So wrote the billionaire to the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway.

Warren Buffet has "devoted the vast majority of his wealth to those around the world who are suffering, or sick, or in need of help."

President Obama writes for Time Magazines "100 Most Influential People" list (which, of course, he also appears on).

Is it really true? The vast majority of his wealth? The majority would be >50%, but what's the vast majority? That would have to be something upwards of 90%, right? Buffet's given that much of his money away? Or does the truth of the statement depend on the meaning of the word "devoted"? A big old capitalist could claim that investing in your own burgeoning business is devoting your wealth to the greater good. And there's also room to maneuver inside the phrase "those... in need of help." Your friends and family and you yourself need help, right?

ADDED: Based on the comments to this post and a quick read of the "Philanthropy" section of Buffet's Wikipedia bio, I can see that the "devotion" to which our President refers is Buffet's announced plans for what will happen to his money after he dies. Buffet doesn't "believe in dynastic wealth." And there's also the "Gates-Buffett Giving Pledge," which is a pledge — not a legal obligation — to give at least 50% — the majority, possible not the vast majority — to charity. But Buffet has made statements of intent to leave 99% of his wealth to charity.

In the comments, Hoosier Daddy says: "Anyone ask Warren why he's not donating his wealth to the IRS rather than some private charity?" Quayle says: "So if Buffet voluntarily devoted his wealth, why do we need the government to take wealth by force?"

Obama wants to "make this country a little fairer."

With "the Buffet Rule": "If you make more than $1 million a year, you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle class families do... On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year – like 98 percent of American families do – your taxes shouldn’t go up."

Okay, well thanks for reminding me not to let my income spike up over $250,000. I want to remain in my safe cocoon of acceptably restricted income. I don't want to be one of those people who is making things feel unfair.

But the Buffet Rule would only raise $47 billion over a period of 10 years. $47 billion won't even cover 1 week of running the federal government. So it's nothing remotely approaching a serious effort at balancing the budget.

What is it then? Obama is telling us. Right there in the post title. Make this country a little fairer. The only reality is how everyone feels. Now, go to sleep children.

"Millionaires likely would find legal ways to avoid paying higher taxes under President Barack Obama's proposed 'Buffett Rule'..."

"... a new congressional estimate finds.."

The proposal—spelled out in Mr. Obama's State of the Union address—would impose a 30% minimum tax rate on those who make more than $1 million a year. It is named for the billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who advocates higher taxes on the very wealthy.

"Despite a heavy tax burden, Warren Buffett’s secretary last year was able to purchase a second home in Arizona..."

"... a residence complete with a swimming pool and a 'professional PGA putting green'..."

Oh, now, now. I clicked through to the pictures of the house, pool, and putting green and it's not really that nice.

Should we be outraged at how little Mitt Romney (like Warren Buffet) pays in taxes?

The Wall Street Journal notes that Romney (like Warren Buffet) makes his money from investments, so the income he receives has already been taxed "at the corporate tax rate of 35%." The 15% tax he pays sounds unfairly low, compared to the tax rate on wages and salaries, but it's not low at all if you see it as a second tax.

All income from businesses is eventually passed through to the owners, so to ignore business taxes creates a statistical illusion that makes it appear that the rich pay less than they really do. By this logic, if the corporate tax rate were raised to, say, 60% from today's 35% and the dividend and capital gains tax were cut to zero, it would appear that business owners were getting away with paying no federal tax at all.

This all-too-conveniently confuses the incidence of a tax with the burden of a tax. The marginal tax rate on every additional dollar of capital gains and dividend income from corporate profits can reach as high as 44.75% at the federal level (assuming a company pays the 35% top corporate rate), not 15%....

[T]he average effective tax rate on the richest 1% is already twice as high as that of the middle class.

But Romney needs to be able to explain this persuasively to the American people. He needs to be able to explain this while his opponents are gleefully screeching "15%!" It's a good test of his ability to be persuasive, as a good candidate must be. So step up and take the test, Mitt!

Obama's bogus "Buffett Rule."

"Chart of the Day: 'Buffett Rule' Wouldn't Bring In Much Revenue."

"The Buffett Alternative Tax: The rich don't pay lower average tax rates."

What image would the NYT use to illustrate the op-ed "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" by Warren Buffet?

Try to guess before you look? Here at Meadhouse, we're still laughing at this silly black-and-white drawing. Laughing at. Not with. Use your first idea: What would represent coddling and what would represent the super-rich? Now, put those things together in one image.

Rush Limbaugh and Mickey Kaus: Is anybody listening to Warren Buffett anymore?

Mickey, last night:

First Time The MSM Has Ever Ignored Warren Buffett: The press accounts I've read have wildly underplayed Obama supporter Warren Buffet's criticism of the President on CNBC today. It's fairly pointed, and Buffett comes back to it, suggesting he has a message he's trying to deliver.

Rush, yesterday afternoon:

... Here's Warren Buffett. So far now, he's disagreed with card check, he has disagreed with cap and trade, and now he's disagreeing with Obama on the basis that Obama's demonizing CEOs.... These are profound disagreements from one of the smartest men in the world who voted for Obama, and then he said this about the war, the economy as a war.... He doesn't like this notion of "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste"? So here are four profound disagreements from Warren Buffett on the economy with President Obama — and then, after all of that, Warren Buffett said this about Republicans.

BUFFETT: The minority has... They really do have an obligation to support things that, in general, are clearly designed to fight the war in a big way. Republicans have a -- an obligation to regard this as an economic war and to realize you need one leader and -- and in general support of that. But I think that the Democrats -- and I -- I voted for Obama, I strongly support him, and I think he's the right guy, but I think they should not use this... When they're calling for unity on a question this important they should not use it to roll the Republicans.

RUSH: Um, somebody want to explain that to me? It sounded like a two-pronging answer but basically Warren Buffett, after offering four profound areas of disagreement on the economy, then says (summarized), "We need support the guy anyway, but the Republicans should not be rolled. I mean, the Democrats ought not be mean to the Republicans but the Republicans ought to support this anyway." Now, folks, this is what you call the absence of leadership. Here is a man, Warren Buffett, who clearly knows what's right and wrong for this economy, but will not stand up for it.

"He once liked all-night poker games and now plays bridge online under the handle 'Chalengr.'"

If I had $50 billion dollars and wanted to play bridge a lot, I be a patron of the bridge players. I'd build a little village for them off in some corner of my property.