greed/grēd/
Noun:Intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.Synonyms:greediness - avidity - avarice - cupidity - rapacity
More info »Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary
.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
greed/grēd/
Noun:Intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.Synonyms:greediness - avidity - avarice - cupidity - rapacity
More info »Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary
greed/grēd/
Noun:Intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.Synonyms:greediness - avidity - avarice - cupidity - rapacity
More info »Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary
.
greed/grēd/
Noun:Intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.Synonyms:greediness - avidity - avarice - cupidity - rapacity
More info »Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary
.
Just another instance of the right wing defending something by pretending they dont know the definition of common words...Also see: What is Rich? What is poor? What is torture? What is fair?
Just another instance of the right wing defending something by pretending they dont know the definition of common words...Also see: What is Rich? What is poor? What is torture? What is fair?
It's necessary to define these things because libs have screwed up all the definitions:
Greed: earning more than someone else
Rich: Anyone earning over 100k/yr
Poor: Anyone earning less than 100k/yr OR earning it in noble ways
Torture: Asking serious pointed questions that might embarass someone
Fair: Whatever it takes to induce class envy and get Dems elected.
Just another instance of the right wing defending something by pretending they dont know the definition of common words...Also see: What is Rich? What is poor? What is torture? What is fair?
It's necessary to define these things because libs have screwed up all the definitions:
Greed: earning more than someone else
Rich: Anyone earning over 100k/yr
Poor: Anyone earning less than 100k/yr OR earning it in noble ways
Torture: Asking serious pointed questions that might embarass someone
Fair: Whatever it takes to induce class envy and get Dems elected.
No one has said any of that unless you have proof. Dont respond with a bunch of bull just provide links.
It's a figure I settled on for the purpose of discussion -- if you are so inclined. It is subject to review and adjustment.If the gov't confiscated all personal assets in excess of $20M (what an arbitrary number!)
Why not? Such charitable donations do not derive from the personal assets of the principals of those (or any other) corporations. To begin with, charitable donations are excluded from the category of personal assets.then you wouldn't have foundations like Ford and Gates, and all the good they do.
It's a figure I settled on for the purpose of discussion -- if you are so inclined. It is subject to review and adjustment.If the gov't confiscated all personal assets in excess of $20M (what an arbitrary number!)
Why not? Such charitable donations do not derive from the personal assets of the principals of those (or any other) corporations. To begin with, charitable donations are excluded from the category of personal assets.then you wouldn't have foundations like Ford and Gates, and all the good they do.
Personal assets are not corporate or business holdings. They are separate.
I settled on that number because it seems to be a reasonable level of wealth occurring below the level of excessive wealth, i.e., the point at which wealth extends beyond the means of enjoying security and luxurious comfort to that of effecting a de facto aristocracy -- such as presently is evolving in America today (owing to the vertical distribution of the Nation's wealth resources brought about by the transition to Reaganomics).It's a figure I settled on for the purpose of discussion -- if you are so inclined. It is subject to review and adjustment.If the gov't confiscated all personal assets in excess of $20M (what an arbitrary number!)
Why not? Such charitable donations do not derive from the personal assets of the principals of those (or any other) corporations. To begin with, charitable donations are excluded from the category of personal assets.then you wouldn't have foundations like Ford and Gates, and all the good they do.
Personal assets are not corporate or business holdings. They are separate.
You settled on that number because you can spell it?
And you understand if you have $500 million in personal wealth and you donate $480 million to a charity or a foundation (for the purpose of compliance) you remain a very generous and beloved millionaire. Right?You understand that foundations originally came from personal wealth, right?
I personally dont think $20M is reasonable for a very wealthy person. Then again I dont think it's anyone's business how much money someone else has.I settled on that number because it seems to be a reasonable level of wealth occurring below the level of excessive wealth, i.e., the point at which wealth extends beyond the means of enjoying security and luxurious comfort to that of effecting a de facto aristocracy -- such as presently is evolving in America today (owing to the vertical distribution of the Nation's wealth resources brought about by the transition to Reaganomics).It's a figure I settled on for the purpose of discussion -- if you are so inclined. It is subject to review and adjustment.
Why not? Such charitable donations do not derive from the personal assets of the principals of those (or any other) corporations. To begin with, charitable donations are excluded from the category of personal assets.
Personal assets are not corporate or business holdings. They are separate.
You settled on that number because you can spell it?
And you understand if you have $500 million in personal wealth and you donate $480 million to a charity or a foundation (for the purpose of compliance) you remain a very generous and beloved millionaire. Right?You understand that foundations originally came from personal wealth, right?
Now I have two questions for you. What do you think your chances are of ever accumulating a twenty million dollar personal fortune? Presuming it is indeed possible, my question is how possible do you think it is? And why?
And if you did manage to acquire that level of personal assets would you be satisfied and content to lead the kind of secure, luxurious lifestyle that much money could afford. Or would you be compulsively driven to obtain more?
Your statement is a charge without a suggestion of motive. Why do you suppose the Liberal wishes to impose a limit on accumulation of personal assets? Do you not believe that at a certain point personal wealth ceases to be a means of enjoying security and luxurious comfort and becomes the source and substance of power?Wanting more than a liberal thinks you should be allowed to have.
Wanting more than a liberal thinks you should be allowed to have.
The objective of imposing a limit on asset accumulation is to eliminate the "very" wealthy category, which implies excessive wealth. Wealthy is good. "Very" wealthy is not.I personally dont think $20M is reasonable for a very wealthy person.I settled on that number because it seems to be a reasonable level of wealth occurring below the level of excessive wealth, i.e., the point at which wealth extends beyond the means of enjoying security and luxurious comfort to that of effecting a de facto aristocracy -- such as presently is evolving in America today (owing to the vertical distribution of the Nation's wealth resources brought about by the transition to Reaganomics).You settled on that number because you can spell it?
And you understand if you have $500 million in personal wealth and you donate $480 million to a charity or a foundation (for the purpose of compliance) you remain a very generous and beloved millionaire. Right?You understand that foundations originally came from personal wealth, right?
Now I have two questions for you. What do you think your chances are of ever accumulating a twenty million dollar personal fortune? Presuming it is indeed possible, my question is how possible do you think it is? And why?
And if you did manage to acquire that level of personal assets would you be satisfied and content to lead the kind of secure, luxurious lifestyle that much money could afford. Or would you be compulsively driven to obtain more?
You would if you fully understood the negative effects of unconstrained accumulation of individual wealth.Then again I dont think it's anyone's business how much money someone else has.
If a law were passed tomorrow calling for the voluntary disposal or federal confiscation of all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars you may rest assured that charities and foundations of every conceivable kind would become the immediate beneficiaries of veritable fortunes. So your concern is poorly conceived.And you dont start off with 500M. You build up to it until you're ready to establish the foundation. Which would be impossible if you confiscated all wealth over 10M.
Delta is ready when you are.Greed is what this country is founded on. Some say its founded on Christian principles. They use their religion as a guise. As a Lutheran who has practiced Christianity his whole 75 years, I can honestly say this country is so far from a Christian nation its unreal. This nation is a purely hypocritical one which I can honestly say I cannot find one ounce of pride in anymore.
Wanting more than a liberal thinks you should be allowed to have.
You always feel like someones out to get you. Vicki Victim