> Also, the claim that it's "like the neighborhood park... [e]veryone
  > wants one, but no one wants to pay for it" is absurd. We see many
  > examples of charitable contributions made by the rich and the middle
  > class which are used to purchase public goods such as museums, nature
  > preserves and the like.

We also see many cases of governments which have much higher tax rates than ours and provide fantastic public services.

  > When push comes to shove, what Buffet really wants -- and what you are
  > advocating when you say that no matter how much money he donates, it
  > "will not be enough to solve our budget issues" -- is an increase in the
  > size of government fueled by higher taxes, rather than a diminution of
  > its scope by reducing the funds made available to it.

Being blunt: How do you know what Buffett really wants, or what orijing is really advocating? You've just described how you perceive Buffett's motives and orijing's assertions.

And why present this as a "lower taxes vs. smaller government" issue? That seems incredibly disingenuous. What is truly being advocated by many is a combination of both. What's the best way to solve a debt issue? Increase income while also decreasing spending. Why cripple the process by ignoring half the solution?

  > A bigger government benefits crony capitalists like Buffet, because they
  > have sufficient power and influence to ensure that the goodies that can
  > be redistributed by the Leviathan are steered their way. I wish Buffet
  > would be honest enough to say that, rather than bloviating about how
  > terrible it is that he doesn't pay enough taxes when he is unwilling to
  > take the obvious direct action necessary to rectify that unfortunate
  > situation.

What evidence do you have of Buffett benefiting from government programs, or having taken advantage of cronyism? Honest question – he very well may have significantly increased his wealth from connections with other "crony capitalists". I have no evidence either way.

That said, do we need to look at past examples of when aggressive government spending has helped individuals or small companies? Once again, this doesn't need to be a black and white world – as the spender of last resort, the government can provide liquidity and resources to individuals, small companies, and large companies when no one else is willing to take the risk. Yes, some people may profit immensely as a result. Does that mean those programs were wrong? And a bigger government doesn't have to only benefit "crony capitalists"...

I don't understand why a holistic view is so rarely considered in these discussions. Rather than making this an "right vs. wrong", "rich vs. poor", "liberal vs. conservative", "communist vs. capitalist" argument, let's make it a discussion to find the best solution to our problems. Only then will we actually solve the problems our country faces.