What Is "Greed"?

[editec]

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

.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

"The fact is it is impossible to accumulate the kind of mega-million and billion dollar fortunes presently controlled by the smallest segment of American society. This kind of money cannot be accumulated without considerable exploitation, manipulation, scheming, and in many examples, criminal maneuvering."

what parasitic state welfare worker or dumb union thug wouldnt think so..............

 

[ClosedCaption]

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?

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

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.

 

[ClosedCaption]

.

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You're a hoot.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Exactly...

You claim something and back up that claim with more made up bull. Listening to Limbaugh yesterday he said that Maher was just a comedian. Then said that Maher is NOT just a comedian and the left holds him up. And his proof of the left holding Maher as being an important person in dem politics was "Dems are protecting him"

One made up claim backed up with another made up claim.

 

[dilloduck]

Greed is the behavior that results from believing a couple of myths. Money can provide you with security and if you have more money than someone else you are more successful than them. A winner.

 

[MikeK]

If the gov't confiscated all personal assets in excess of $20M (what an arbitrary number!)

It's a figure I settled on for the purpose of discussion -- if you are so inclined. It is subject to review and adjustment.

then you wouldn't have foundations like Ford and Gates, and all the good they do.

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

If the gov't confiscated all personal assets in excess of $20M (what an arbitrary number!)

It's a figure I settled on for the purpose of discussion -- if you are so inclined. It is subject to review and adjustment.

then you wouldn't have foundations like Ford and Gates, and all the good they do.

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?

You understand that foundations originally came from personal wealth, right?

 

[MikeK]

If the gov't confiscated all personal assets in excess of $20M (what an arbitrary number!)

It's a figure I settled on for the purpose of discussion -- if you are so inclined. It is subject to review and adjustment.

then you wouldn't have foundations like Ford and Gates, and all the good they do.

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?

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 understand that foundations originally came from personal wealth, right?

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?

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?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wanting more than a liberal thinks you should be allowed to have.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

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 understand that foundations originally came from personal wealth, right?

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?

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?

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.
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.

 

[MikeK]

Wanting more than a liberal thinks you should be allowed to have.

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?

The following analogy might make my position more clear:

As American citizens we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Technically that means weapons, which categorically includes such things as RPGs, SAMs, 105mm howitzers, hand grenades, etc. But in spite of the Second Amendment Government has seen fit to limit our access to such massively destructive devices. Do you believe this arbitrary constraint operates to the best interests of society? Or do you believe that members of a "well regulated militia" (which includes every able-bodied male citizen) should have the right to "keep and bear" any type of "arms" they wish to?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Wanting more than a liberal thinks you should be allowed to have.

You always feel like someones out to get you. Vicki Victim

 

[MikeK]

You settled on that number because you can spell it?

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 understand that foundations originally came from personal wealth, right?

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?

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?

I personally dont think $20M is reasonable for a very wealthy person.

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.

Then again I dont think it's anyone's business how much money someone else has.

You would if you fully understood the negative effects of unconstrained accumulation of individual wealth.

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.

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.

Now, how about answering the two questions I asked in the previous message, which are repeated below:

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?

 

[The Rabbi]

Your questions are irrelevant except in revealing your mindset, which is "I'll never make that much but if I did I'd find it plenty."
Fortunately we dont make public policy based on the beliefs of ignorant working class people envious of others' success.

Why do you think Bill Gates is one of the richest men in America?

 

[initforme]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Delta is ready when you are.

 

[bripat9643]

Wanting more than a liberal thinks you should be allowed to have.

You always feel like someones out to get you. Vicki Victim

Liberals are out to get us, dipstick. Obama himself said he wants to totally transform this country. What do you think that means if not to intrude on our lives and tell us what to do? Liberals simply will not leave people alone.