What's Better? Greed? Giving? Or Government?

[daveman]

When I want to give my assets away I do it for family members and charities of my choice, which are those that exercise prudence and focus on hand-ups over hand-outs. When I want to invest for future income I do it based on sound strategies, not greed. When I vote for and against government funding issues I do so with a focus on sound economic strategies that keep the scope of government within the confines originally intended for each level of government, not for greed or personal aggrandizement.

In short, there is no correct answer to the question posed. There is no correct answer because the question is flawed. It is the moral equivalent of asking someone when do they think they will stop beating their wife, this of course without there being any evidence of the accusation.

So you haven't made a choice. Too busy lecturing.

Huh?

You've been too busy lecturing Foxfyre about why her question is too simple to pick one of the simple choices she gave you.

 

[Papageorgio]

Wall Street has never been any kind of net benefit to society and never will be, the very concept runs counter to their mission of concentrating wealth in the hands of a few lucky people at the top of a pyamid of greed.

Apparently you can't read or comprehend. Maybe next year you'll get it down.

 

[WillReadmore]

I DID answer the OP.

I pointed out that it is one of the more stupid questions asked on this board, except in that it points out one of the central problems with right wing philosophy.

Today we have a Republican party that is entirely focused on the 1%.

And, we have a Pope who notices that this isn't just a problem in America and who is willing to point out that it is a strongly non-Christian attitude. Nobody who has ever honestly asked WWJD has ever suggested "trickle down".

And, no, I did not suggest charity may be better at providing "substantial and endearing (??) support towards the welfare of a community." It's very clear that there is a need both for charity and for government involvement.

So does that mean you think Government or Charity has the opportunity to show the greatest benefit?
I understand that you may want to answer both ... But my question would be which one you think is best and why?
It isn't a hard question ... And doesn't take anything away from one or the other ... Just which one do you think is best and why?

.

Read my post - I said both are necessary. It's not a competition. It's not either/or.

And, the right wing picks neither. The OP explains just one reason they don't believe in charity above the current level - it hampers their patriotic obligation to become as rich as possible. Data on charity shows that after the Bush tax cuts (where the wealthy got significant extra disposable income) the charities associated with the arts was the segment that saw an increase - not others.

And, right wing congressmen fight to cut food, housing and health care support regardless of the circumstances of those impacted, and at the same time promotes the economic features (such as trickle down) that have lead to our rapidly growing income disparity - thus exacerbating the problem. We had our last presidential election loser coming surprisingly close to being president on a platform of fighting for the rich and disparaging HALF of America!!

We have Walmart collecting food donations for those who are employed - at Walmart!!! What does THAT say about America?

 

[daveman]

I've known businesses that had every bit as much bureaucracy, every bit as much waste and inefficiency as our federal government does by scale.

Business that operate like that don't stay in business very long.

 

[daveman]

And what if that greed is directed to profit for your family or community? Is that, then charity?

Greedy is what people today without money call people with money.

It lost any meaning when the idea to loot the rich became more popular than the idea of spending money wisely.
To argue about it is irrelevant, as I have said before ... If someone has $100 million in their pocket to start with ... They have a better idea of what to do than anyone else.
That doesn't mean that they will do what is best ... Just that they know what they are doing and how it effects others.

They can either use it wisely or abuse it ... But the onus is on them, no one else ... And they are responsible for how it is distributed whether they choose to give it away or put it to work.

.

Greedy is what a lot of people call you when you won't give them all of your money. We see it here every day. If we won't give it, then by cracky they are going to fin a way to take it.

And the hell of it is, they think they're ENTITLED to what they didn't earn.

Pathetic, innit?

 

[daveman]

This thread consists of right wingers making a strong argument AGAINST charity, while the right wing also argues that taxes for social safety net should be cut, as private donations should be the source of aid for those in need.

Thus they argue against both private and public help for those in desperate circumstance.

In the end, the pope is right - the right wing worships money, and it's false trickle down ideas have to do with personal wealth alone.

I can tell you haven't been reading this thread.

 

[BlackSand]

I DID answer the OP.

I pointed out that it is one of the more stupid questions asked on this board, except in that it points out one of the central problems with right wing philosophy.

Today we have a Republican party that is entirely focused on the 1%.

And, we have a Pope who notices that this isn't just a problem in America and who is willing to point out that it is a strongly non-Christian attitude. Nobody who has ever honestly asked WWJD has ever suggested "trickle down".

And, no, I did not suggest charity may be better at providing "substantial and endearing (??) support towards the welfare of a community." It's very clear that there is a need both for charity and for government involvement.

So does that mean you think Government or Charity has the opportunity to show the greatest benefit?
I understand that you may want to answer both ... But my question would be which one you think is best and why?
It isn't a hard question ... And doesn't take anything away from one or the other ... Just which one do you think is best and why?

.

Read my post - I said both are necessary. It's not a competition. It's not either/or.

And, the right wing picks neither. The OP explains just one reason they don't believe in charity above the current level - it hampers their patriotic obligation to become as rich as possible. Data on charity shows that after the Bush tax cuts (where the wealthy got significant extra disposable income) the charities associated with the arts was the segment that saw an increase - not others.

And, right wing congressmen fight to cut food, housing and health care support regardless of the circumstances of those impacted, and at the same time promotes the economic features (such as trickle down) that have lead to our rapidly growing income disparity - thus exacerbating the problem. We had our last presidential election loser coming surprisingly close to being president on a platform of fighting for the rich and disparaging HALF of America!!

We have Walmart collecting food donations for those who are employed - at Walmart!!! What does THAT say about America?

Read my post ... I read yours.
I didn't ask you if they were all beneficial ... I asked you which one you thought was best?
They are not equal ... Whether or not you want it to be a contest.
I even acknowledged you would want to avoid the answer and choose both.

Choosing one over the other doesn't mean the other is wrong ... But failure to choose is an indication of how your idea doesn't work at all.
The fourth most difficult thing to do when trying to get businesses to alter their processes in attempts to improve work conditions and implement improved practices ... Is teaching them how to make a choice when choosing is necessary but not easy.

I am not asking you to betray or neglect anyone ... Just which choice you think is better and why it is better?
You can leave trickle down out of your answer (it is some talking point of yours ... and has nothing to do with charity of government) ... I am not asking you why you don't like business ... Just make a choice and support it like real people have to.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This thread consists of right wingers making a strong argument AGAINST charity, while the right wing also argues that taxes for social safety net should be cut, as private donations should be the source of aid for those in need.

Thus they argue against both private and public help for those in desperate circumstance.

In the end, the pope is right - the right wing worships money, and it's false trickle down ideas have to do with personal wealth alone.

I can tell you haven't been reading this thread.

He thinks the government is charity.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I've known businesses that had every bit as much bureaucracy, every bit as much waste and inefficiency as our federal government does by scale.

Business that operate like that don't stay in business very long.

yep they don't have the parachute of taxes to pick up any short fall they may have.

 

[WillReadmore]

Read my post ... I read yours.
I didn't ask you if they were all beneficial ... I asked you which one you thought was best?
They are not equal ... Whether or not you want it to be a contest.
I even acknowledged you would want to avoid the answer and choose both.

Choosing one over the other doesn't mean the other is wrong ... But failure to choose is an indication of how your idea doesn't work at all.
The fourth most difficult thing to do when trying to get businesses to alter their processes in attempts to improve work conditions and implement improved practices ... Is teaching them how to make a choice when choosing is necessary but not easy.

I am not asking you to betray or neglect anyone ... Just which choice you think is better and why it is better?
You can leave trickle down out of your answer (it is some talking point of yours ... and has nothing to do with charity of government) ... I am not asking you why you don't like business ... Just make a choice and support it like real people have to.

.

I read your post and responded.

There isn't a "best", and suggesting we should pick one over the other is just plain stupid. We ave no need to make such a choice and we very clearly need both. Your business analogy is also rather ridiculous, as diversification and appropriately selecting channels are key elements of success and resiliency.

Once again, we need both. Charity is absolutely inadequate to the whole task for a good number of very obvious reasons. On the other hand, in niches charity can be more efficient in terms of overhead - a church can be effective in helping an individual for a day or two to get that person hooked up with sustained support, for example. Also, some charitable organizations (including churches) are worth supporting with public money (since charity is inadequate and some of these organizations are efficient).



The whole point in the right wing OP was to attack charity - something I certainly oppose. AND, the rest of the right wing response to need is to cut government involvement as well!

Your "don't like business" thing is just you not having a clue. In fact, not for profit businesses are significant in how the federal government carries out some of its social safety net work.

 

[RKMBrown]

I've known businesses that had every bit as much bureaucracy, every bit as much waste and inefficiency as our federal government does by scale.

Business that operate like that don't stay in business very long.

yep they don't have the parachute of taxes to pick up any short fall they may have.

They do if the government allows them a monopoly. Look at how crappy windows is... Look at the drug company with their monopoly products. Look at cable companies. Look at how fat and bad ma bell got before the breakup.

 

[Foxfyre]

Under Clinton, because of the robust economy and the investments made in the economy, employment was increased by nearly 30 million people....

So there is no doubt that due to this....employment was up, crime went down, and welfare spending went down, and abortions went down....

putting people to work is good all around for everyone....in the general sense.

Our problems today, are that those that are prosperous.... with the 100 million to spend, are refusing to invest in our economy, many are hording their money and not reinvesting it or creating jobs in our Nation....it's the main reason why unemployment is still so high.....(topic for another thread?)

With all that being said, there are still things this person could do with the $100 million investment that could and would bring more to a community than let's say, 1000-1500 jobs at a low wage....

Or this business could put out of business all the mom and pops carrying the same goods this millionaire is opening shop with, so the net employed is not as good as it may appear....

Or for charity he could build a well needed bridge to connect two major cities, that would last 100 years, which would bring more to that community for the millions in that community and their grand children, than the 1000 people getting jobs...

Really? If there are not 1000 jobs for a thousand people who need them, what good does a bridge do them? But if a $100 million dollar new or expanded industry provided employment for 1000 people who needed them, those 1000 people would be paying a lot of taxes that could be used for a bridge and there would be 1000 fewer people needing government assistance freeing up even more money for that bridge. And out of 1000 people grateful to have jobs, it is a near certainty that at least some of them would be contributing to charity to help the significantly fewer people or causes that would need it.

Once we establish which of three options is most likely to provide the most benefit to society as a whole, then it becomes much easier to know where the government emphasis needs to be. And if we choose private sector investment in commerce and industry, instead of policy discouraging investment of all that sidelined money, we should be demanding policy that provides encouragement and incentive for all those rich people to reinvest it in the economy.

 

[daveman]

This thread consists of right wingers making a strong argument AGAINST charity, while the right wing also argues that taxes for social safety net should be cut, as private donations should be the source of aid for those in need.

Thus they argue against both private and public help for those in desperate circumstance.

In the end, the pope is right - the right wing worships money, and it's false trickle down ideas have to do with personal wealth alone.

I can tell you haven't been reading this thread.

He thinks the government is charity.

All hail kindly, beneficent Government, hallowed be its name!

Yes, I've seen progressives claim that donating to charity is not being generous. Only paying taxes is.

And I bet you can guess who said that, too.

 

[RKMBrown]

Read my post ... I read yours.
I didn't ask you if they were all beneficial ... I asked you which one you thought was best?
They are not equal ... Whether or not you want it to be a contest.
I even acknowledged you would want to avoid the answer and choose both.

Choosing one over the other doesn't mean the other is wrong ... But failure to choose is an indication of how your idea doesn't work at all.
The fourth most difficult thing to do when trying to get businesses to alter their processes in attempts to improve work conditions and implement improved practices ... Is teaching them how to make a choice when choosing is necessary but not easy.

I am not asking you to betray or neglect anyone ... Just which choice you think is better and why it is better?
You can leave trickle down out of your answer (it is some talking point of yours ... and has nothing to do with charity of government) ... I am not asking you why you don't like business ... Just make a choice and support it like real people have to.

.

I read your post and responded.

There isn't a "best", and suggesting we should pick one over the other is just plain stupid. We ave no need to make such a choice and we very clearly need both. Your business analogy is also rather ridiculous, as diversification and appropriately selecting channels are key elements of success and resiliency.

Once again, we need both. Charity is absolutely inadequate to the whole task for a good number of very obvious reasons. On the other hand, in niches charity can be more efficient in terms of overhead - a church can be effective in helping an individual for a day or two to get that person hooked up with sustained support, for example. Also, some charitable organizations (including churches) are worth supporting with public money (since charity is inadequate and some of these organizations are efficient).



The whole point in the right wing OP was to attack charity - something I certainly oppose. AND, the rest of the right wing response to need is to cut government involvement as well!

Your "don't like business" thing is just you not having a clue. In fact, not for profit businesses are significant in how the federal government carries out some of its social safety net work.

Ayup.. the OP is "flawed" but it sure does draw in the my side is right your side is wrong crowd.

 

[WillReadmore]

He thinks the government is charity.

No, I'm pointing out that the right wing is interested in reducing the amount we do to help those in need regardless of whether it is taxes OR charity.

The OP (plus data from the effects of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy) demonstrates the attitude toward charity.

The entire GOP contingent to congress demonstrates the attitude toward the government component.


Ask the Pope what he thinks about this.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

he thinks the government is charity.

no, i'm pointing out that the right wing is interested in reducing the amount we do to help those in need regardless of whether it is taxes or charity.

The op (plus data from the effects of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy) demonstrates the attitude toward charity.

The entire gop contingent to congress demonstrates the attitude toward the government component.


Ask the pope what he thinks about this.

the right wing was not the one who just created the largest tax on the middle class and poor obama and his supporters are.

 

[WillReadmore]

Ayup.. the OP is "flawed" but it sure does draw in the my side is right your side is wrong crowd.

I'm hoping that this thread will help point out the fallacy that charity is a solution. Not even the right wing sees it as such, although we hear lip service to charity when government involvement is under assault.

We have seen a giant shifting of the tax load, with the wealthy tax brackets being reduced substantially. Yet, we see an ever more growing disparity between the wealthy few and the "rest".

It's time we start looking for solutions other than charity and "trickle down" approaches that suggest the best way to help those working at Walmart (who need food donations to live) is to made the rich even richer.



Under Reagan, we spent our time hating welfare mothers in Cadillacs. Today, we're being taught to hate those who have full time jobs.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Business that operate like that don't stay in business very long.

yep they don't have the parachute of taxes to pick up any short fall they may have.

They do if the government allows them a monopoly. Look at how crappy windows is... Look at the drug company with their monopoly products. Look at cable companies. Look at how fat and bad ma bell got before the breakup.

Look at how crappy windows is? That is a matter of opinion I have it and have never had a problem with it.

You want monopoly? Let's go with Federal reserve. You think it's run by the federal government?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I can tell you haven't been reading this thread.

He thinks the government is charity.

All hail kindly, beneficent Government, hallowed be its name!

Yes, I've seen progressives claim that donating to charity is not being generous. Only paying taxes is.

And I bet you can guess who said that, too.

Well, that could be a number of any liberals here.

 

[daveman]

He thinks the government is charity.

No, I'm pointing out that the right wing is interested in reducing the amount we do to help those in need regardless of whether it is taxes OR charity.

The OP (plus data from the effects of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy) demonstrates the attitude toward charity.

The entire GOP contingent to congress demonstrates the attitude toward the government component.


Ask the Pope what he thinks about this.

Funny how the left suddenly thinks the Pope is all cool and shit.