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

[daveman]

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.

Just vote for "government" and be done with it.

 

[WillReadmore]

Libertiphobia: The fear among leftists that someone, somewhere, is making his own decisions.

You should change that.

I doubt anyone thinks you're making your own decisions.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, let's drag the train back on the track folks.

This thread is not about left wing or right wing by whatever labels are attached to those ideological perspectives. It is not about Democrats or Republicans or what President or Congress sucks or sucked most. It is not about specific government programs and their effectiveness or lack thereof even though it SHOULD be in the Politics Forum, and it is not about any specific company or any specific private charity. It is not about unions or the Fed or monopolies.

It IS about whether a rich guy's extra $100 million dollars and what he does with it that is most likely to produce the greatest benefit to overall society. And despite many many different ways the money could be spent, for the purpose of this discussion, we narrowed it down to three choices and ONLY three choices to choose from:

1. Pay it to the government as taxes
2. Donate it to a good charity
3. Invest it in a new successful business or grow or expand an existing one.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Okay, let's drag the train back on the track folks.

This thread is not about left wing or right wing by whatever labels are attached to those ideological perspectives. It is not about Democrats or Republicans or what President or Congress sucks or sucked most. It is not about specific government programs and their effectiveness or lack thereof even though it SHOULD be in the Politics Forum, and it is not about any specific company or any specific private charity. It is not about unions or the Fed or monopolies.

It IS about whether a rich guy's extra million dollars and what he does with it that is most likely to produce the greatest benefit to overall society. And despite many many different ways the money could be spent, for the purpose of this discussion, we narrowed it down to three choices and ONLY three choices to choose from:

1. Pay it to the government as taxes
2. Donate it to a good charity
3. Invest it in a new successful business or grow or expand an existing one.

I think my answer should have been suitable enough to answer your query

To much of anything is not good.
greed without sharing or creating is not good
sharing without the responsibility of the receiver to take care of themselves is not good
and BIG government is very bad everybody loses their rights in the process.

It somehow got by passed because others seem to want to make this thread left right.

 

[RKMBrown]

Okay, let's drag the train back on the track folks.

This thread is not about left wing or right wing by whatever labels are attached to those ideological perspectives. It is not about Democrats or Republicans or what President or Congress sucks or sucked most. It is not about specific government programs and their effectiveness or lack thereof even though it SHOULD be in the Politics Forum, and it is not about any specific company or any specific private charity. It is not about unions or the Fed or monopolies.

It IS about whether a rich guy's extra million dollars and what he does with it that is most likely to produce the greatest benefit to overall society. And despite many many different ways the money could be spent, for the purpose of this discussion, we narrowed it down to three choices and ONLY three choices to choose from:

1. Pay it to the government as taxes
2. Donate it to a good charity
3. Invest it in a new successful business or grow or expand an existing one.

And yet you can't define "benefit." It's like fairness, and change you can believe in.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Okay, let's drag the train back on the track folks.

This thread is not about left wing or right wing by whatever labels are attached to those ideological perspectives. It is not about Democrats or Republicans or what President or Congress sucks or sucked most. It is not about specific government programs and their effectiveness or lack thereof even though it SHOULD be in the Politics Forum, and it is not about any specific company or any specific private charity. It is not about unions or the Fed or monopolies.

It IS about whether a rich guy's extra million dollars and what he does with it that is most likely to produce the greatest benefit to overall society. And despite many many different ways the money could be spent, for the purpose of this discussion, we narrowed it down to three choices and ONLY three choices to choose from:

1. Pay it to the government as taxes
2. Donate it to a good charity
3. Invest it in a new successful business or grow or expand an existing one.

And yet you can't define "benefit." It's like fairness, and change you can believe in.

As an NRA member I have benefits through them, because I paid for them.

 

[RKMBrown]

Okay, let's drag the train back on the track folks.

This thread is not about left wing or right wing by whatever labels are attached to those ideological perspectives. It is not about Democrats or Republicans or what President or Congress sucks or sucked most. It is not about specific government programs and their effectiveness or lack thereof even though it SHOULD be in the Politics Forum, and it is not about any specific company or any specific private charity. It is not about unions or the Fed or monopolies.

It IS about whether a rich guy's extra million dollars and what he does with it that is most likely to produce the greatest benefit to overall society. And despite many many different ways the money could be spent, for the purpose of this discussion, we narrowed it down to three choices and ONLY three choices to choose from:

1. Pay it to the government as taxes
2. Donate it to a good charity
3. Invest it in a new successful business or grow or expand an existing one.

And yet you can't define "benefit." It's like fairness, and change you can believe in.

As an NRA member I have benefits through them, because I paid for them.

And that would be a defined benefit of NRA membership. I suppose donating to the NRA would be the best way to get that benefit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And yet you can't define "benefit." It's like fairness, and change you can believe in.

As an NRA member I have benefits through them, because I paid for them.

And that would be a defined benefit of NRA membership. I suppose donating to the NRA would be the best way to get that benefit.

I also pay into social security FICA those are also benefits. and it's not donating it's PAYING INTO.

 

[RKMBrown]

As an NRA member I have benefits through them, because I paid for them.

And that would be a defined benefit of NRA membership. I suppose donating to the NRA would be the best way to get that benefit.

I also pay into social security FICA those are also benefits. and it's not donating it's PAYING INTO.

Well to get that benefit you have to have a SS number and pay taxes.

This is fun! I think the OP has some other benefit in mind.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And that would be a defined benefit of NRA membership. I suppose donating to the NRA would be the best way to get that benefit.

I also pay into social security FICA those are also benefits. and it's not donating it's PAYING INTO.

Well to get that benefit you have to have a SS number and pay taxes.

This is fun!

You wanted to define benefits. I'm pointing you into the correct direction.
Anything else is welfare or charity
One is government through mandated taxes the other is freely given.

 

[RKMBrown]

I also pay into social security FICA those are also benefits. and it's not donating it's PAYING INTO.

Well to get that benefit you have to have a SS number and pay taxes.

This is fun!

You wanted to define benefits. I'm pointing you into the correct direction.
Anything else is welfare or charity
One is government through mandated taxes the other is freely given.

I think she thinks benefits are a return on investment. That or she was talking about health care benefits. Maybe she meant the kind folks throw for fund raisers? Unfortunately no matter how many times I ask, she won't give us the benefit of doubt to benefit us with her explanation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, let's drag the train back on the track folks.

This thread is not about left wing or right wing by whatever labels are attached to those ideological perspectives. It is not about Democrats or Republicans or what President or Congress sucks or sucked most. It is not about specific government programs and their effectiveness or lack thereof even though it SHOULD be in the Politics Forum, and it is not about any specific company or any specific private charity. It is not about unions or the Fed or monopolies.

It IS about whether a rich guy's extra million dollars and what he does with it that is most likely to produce the greatest benefit to overall society. And despite many many different ways the money could be spent, for the purpose of this discussion, we narrowed it down to three choices and ONLY three choices to choose from:

1. Pay it to the government as taxes
2. Donate it to a good charity
3. Invest it in a new successful business or grow or expand an existing one.

I think my answer should have been suitable enough to answer your query

To much of anything is not good.
greed without sharing or creating is not good
sharing without the responsibility of the receiver to take care of themselves is not good
and BIG government is very bad everybody loses their rights in the process.

It somehow got by passed because others seem to want to make this thread left right.

I did see this when you posted it, but, while it is a valid comment suitable for another context, I did not see it as responsive to the question in this one. I wasn't really interested in discussing the merits of sharing here and the only 'creation' involved in this concept was if the businessman chose to create a new business with the $100 million. And the concept did not include the issue of rights but strictly focused on benefit as in being beneficial to society.

And, rather than choosing one of the three options, you appeared to reject all three as being beneficial to society.

 

[RKMBrown]

Okay, let's drag the train back on the track folks.

This thread is not about left wing or right wing by whatever labels are attached to those ideological perspectives. It is not about Democrats or Republicans or what President or Congress sucks or sucked most. It is not about specific government programs and their effectiveness or lack thereof even though it SHOULD be in the Politics Forum, and it is not about any specific company or any specific private charity. It is not about unions or the Fed or monopolies.

It IS about whether a rich guy's extra million dollars and what he does with it that is most likely to produce the greatest benefit to overall society. And despite many many different ways the money could be spent, for the purpose of this discussion, we narrowed it down to three choices and ONLY three choices to choose from:

1. Pay it to the government as taxes
2. Donate it to a good charity
3. Invest it in a new successful business or grow or expand an existing one.

I think my answer should have been suitable enough to answer your query

To much of anything is not good.
greed without sharing or creating is not good
sharing without the responsibility of the receiver to take care of themselves is not good
and BIG government is very bad everybody loses their rights in the process.

It somehow got by passed because others seem to want to make this thread left right.

I did see this when you posted it, but, while it is a valid comment suitable for another context, I did not see it as responsive to the question in this one. I wasn't really interested in discussing the merits of sharing here and the only 'creation' involved in this concept was if the businessman chose to create a new business with the $100 million. And the concept did not include the issue of rights but strictly focused on benefit as in being beneficial to society.

Water is beneficial to society.. so is religion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Okay, let's drag the train back on the track folks.

This thread is not about left wing or right wing by whatever labels are attached to those ideological perspectives. It is not about Democrats or Republicans or what President or Congress sucks or sucked most. It is not about specific government programs and their effectiveness or lack thereof even though it SHOULD be in the Politics Forum, and it is not about any specific company or any specific private charity. It is not about unions or the Fed or monopolies.

It IS about whether a rich guy's extra million dollars and what he does with it that is most likely to produce the greatest benefit to overall society. And despite many many different ways the money could be spent, for the purpose of this discussion, we narrowed it down to three choices and ONLY three choices to choose from:

1. Pay it to the government as taxes
2. Donate it to a good charity
3. Invest it in a new successful business or grow or expand an existing one.

I think my answer should have been suitable enough to answer your query

To much of anything is not good.
greed without sharing or creating is not good
sharing without the responsibility of the receiver to take care of themselves is not good
and BIG government is very bad everybody loses their rights in the process.

It somehow got by passed because others seem to want to make this thread left right.

I did see this when you posted it, but, while it is a valid comment suitable for another context, I did not see it as responsive to the question in this one. I wasn't really interested in discussing the merits of sharing here and the only 'creation' involved in this concept was if the businessman chose to create a new business with the $100 million. And the concept did not include the issue of rights but strictly focused on benefit as in being beneficial to society.

And, rather than choosing one of the three options, you appeared to reject all three as being beneficial to society.

I think I explained it fairly clear. To much of one thing does not benefit society
Greed without giving is bad
giving without the receiver being responsible for themselves is bad
And to much government is bad for everybody.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think my answer should have been suitable enough to answer your query

It somehow got by passed because others seem to want to make this thread left right.

I did see this when you posted it, but, while it is a valid comment suitable for another context, I did not see it as responsive to the question in this one. I wasn't really interested in discussing the merits of sharing here and the only 'creation' involved in this concept was if the businessman chose to create a new business with the $100 million. And the concept did not include the issue of rights but strictly focused on benefit as in being beneficial to society.

And, rather than choosing one of the three options, you appeared to reject all three as being beneficial to society.

I think I explained it fairly clear. To much of one thing does not benefit society
Greed without giving is bad
giving without the receiver being responsible for themselves is bad
And to much government is bad for everybody.

Well I'll accept that this is clear to you. I'm just not getting it as responsive to the OP. It still looks to me like you are rejecting all these options as none of them are more likely to be the most beneficial to society.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I did see this when you posted it, but, while it is a valid comment suitable for another context, I did not see it as responsive to the question in this one. I wasn't really interested in discussing the merits of sharing here and the only 'creation' involved in this concept was if the businessman chose to create a new business with the $100 million. And the concept did not include the issue of rights but strictly focused on benefit as in being beneficial to society.

I think I explained it fairly clear. To much of one thing does not benefit society
Greed without giving is bad
giving without the receiver being responsible for themselves is bad
And to much government is bad for everybody.

Well I'll accept that this is clear to you. I'm just not getting it as responsive to the OP. It still looks to me like you are rejecting all these options as none of them are more likely to be the most beneficial to society.

short answer To much of one thing does not benefit society

 

[Foxfyre]

I think I explained it fairly clear. To much of one thing does not benefit society
Greed without giving is bad
giving without the receiver being responsible for themselves is bad
And to much government is bad for everybody.

Well I'll accept that this is clear to you. I'm just not getting it as responsive to the OP. It still looks to me like you are rejecting all these options as none of them are more likely to be the most beneficial to society.

short answer To much of one thing does not benefit society

So you see all three options as being too much of one thing? I don't see anything about too much government or too much charity or too much private enterprise included in the concept.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well I'll accept that this is clear to you. I'm just not getting it as responsive to the OP. It still looks to me like you are rejecting all these options as none of them are more likely to be the most beneficial to society.

short answer To much of one thing does not benefit society

So you see all three options as being too much of one thing? I don't see anything about too much government or too much charity or too much private enterprise included in the concept.

Fox: choose which one of these three choices is best, and no I won't provide any detail at all or even explain what the goal of choosing is other than to say it's best.

Response: none is best at the expense of the others

Fox: I don't see anything about picking one and only one in my request to pick one and only one as the best.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I should have included it in the OP, but overlooked that one little word "successful" as it applied to the new business or the expansion of an existing one. I did include the word "successful" in the poll options. The unsuccessful business of course will provide only a temporary benefit to anybody as it won't be able to keep its doors open indefinitely and much or most or all of the $100 million will be wasted. So my focus was on a successful business.

Likewise the bad charity takes money out of the economy while putting almost nothing back or helping very few--the donor won't get much, if any, bang for his/her buck. So I specified a good charity that uses the huge lion's share of its resources to provide relief and help to people who need it.

And government could be the government we have or the sleek, efficient, effective, competent government that you or I would consider to be good government. And, in my opinion, the dynamics involved in the three choices in the OP would still apply.

 

[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.

I should have included it in the OP, but overlooked that one little word "successful" as it applied to the new business or the expansion of an existing one. I did include the word "successful" in the poll options. The unsuccessful business of course will provide only a temporary benefit to anybody as it won't be able to keep its doors open indefinitely and much or most or all of the $100 million will be wasted. So my focus was on a successful business.

Likewise the bad charity takes money out of the economy while putting almost nothing back or helping very few--the donor won't get much, if any, bang for his/her buck. So I specified a good charity that uses the huge lion's share of its resources to provide relief and help to people who need it.

And government could be the government we have or the sleek, efficient, effective, competent government that you or I would consider to be good government. And, in my opinion, the dynamics involved in the three choices in the OP would still apply.

Even successful business fail. Bad under funded governments and bad over-funded governments are examples of reasons for economic failure. When a business fails the worker bees of that business are probably gonna need some charity before they can create their own businesses and/or find another job. Investing in business is always a gamble, most businesses fail and usually because the investor was a know it all, who actually had no clue.

Your questions are still to generalized. You can't pick which is best because they are all necessary for each other. Spending wisely isn't picking one of these as best at the expense of the others.