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

[G.T.]

This thread is still jumping, and thats cool and all - but the question is not answerable because there are situational ills that can come from all three and so it highly depends on the particular circumstance. In a bubble though private investment is the answer.

 

[rdean]

I'm going to ignore your bullshit that's derailing the thread.

Go throw your little I-hate-Republicans-because-I-hate-them hissy fit elsewhere.

Bullshit? You are such a dumbass. No really. So many of the right wingers on this site are. All the "Obama this" and "Obama that" and the "liberals are......" nonsense. I only point out what Republicans actually do and say. In real life. I don't need to make anything up. And if I did, prove I was wrong. Only we both know you can't.

You have difficulty distinguishing reality deany....That much is true. Before you go asking Me to prove it, why don't you list the sources of information YOU would fine acceptable for that proof. I'm guessing that you would not accept anything that proves you wrong, regardless of where it came from. So why not just accept the fact that you're a partisan hack with a tenacious grasp on reality at best, and an imagination that is quite active.

I constantly post links from reputable sources. Like video taped speeches from Republican leaders. GOP state party platforms. Direct quotes not taken out of context. It's the right wing that's in denial.

As further evidence, look at this thread:

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

A thread worth debating would have been more like this:

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

Now you have something worthwhile to debate.

 

[daveman]

What makes you think I'm not calm?

What's better... Greed, Giving, or Government? ...

What's better is not making the implied suggestion that people are having a problem choosing between greed, giving, and government.

I seem to have missed your choice. Have you made it?

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.

 

[daveman]

You call me dumb yet you don't even know the difference between "giving" and "teaching". Hilarious. You don't even know you just got "taught". Obviously it didn't "take". I didn't think it would. You have met expectations.

I'm going to ignore your bullshit that's derailing the thread.

Go throw your little I-hate-Republicans-because-I-hate-them hissy fit elsewhere.

Bullshit? You are such a dumbass. No really. So many of the right wingers on this site are. All the "Obama this" and "Obama that" and the "liberals are......" nonsense. I only point out what Republicans actually do and say. In real life. I don't need to make anything up. And if I did, prove I was wrong. Only we both know you can't.

I've proven you're wrong many times, Mr. "The Fen River is in Dallas!"

You refuse to accept it.

Run along now.

 

[RKMBrown]

I seem to have missed your choice. Have you made it?

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?

 

[Foxfyre]

This thread is still jumping, and thats cool and all - but the question is not answerable because there are situational ills that can come from all three and so it highly depends on the particular circumstance. In a bubble though private investment is the answer.

But the question IS answerable for those who are able to see a big picture concept apart from the anecdotal illustrations.

The critical thinker can appreciate that there are components of government that are necessary and essential for a democratic republic such as ours in which the first and foremost emphasis is on individual liberty. And he/she understands that the fact that some government is necessary and helpful does not negate the fact that way too much of the federal government is currently self serving, wasteful, corrupt, extravagant, improperly intrusive and producing far too many unintended negative consequences.

As a result, despite necessary functions, much of $100 million in taxes collected is swallowed up in the beaurocracy or wasted and does little or nothing to benefit society plus the additional disadvantage that it must remove the $100 million from the private sector economy before it can use it.

The critical thinker can appreciate that there are self serving and corrupt charities that are doing only enough to benefit society to keep their 5013C license intact and such do not deserve our money nor our respect. But the fact that such organizations exist does not negate the fact that there are wonderful, caring, selfless, and truly giving people running wonderful charties that are doing wonderful things. And such organizations do deserve our money, our encouragement, and our gratitude and respect.

Even when we give to the very best charities, however, they can only accomplish so much and have only so much reach however virtuous that reach is. And, like the government, the $100 million must be removed from the private sector economy before they can have it to use.

The critical thinker can appreciate that there are corrupt businessmen and woman running organizations that have little to commend them. But such organizations are fairly rare with the vast majority of private sector commerce and industry consisting of people trying to create and/or produce a product or service that is attractive and useful enough that people will buy it. And all the money toward that end boosts the economy via buying, providing useful products and services, and providing income for others to earn.

So the $100 million invested in starting, growing, or expanding a successful business is far more likely to benefit society overall by boosting the economy, via buying and paying taxes and creating other consumers and taxpayers, and creating the wealth that promotes more commerce and industry, funds the government, and creating sufficient expendable wealth of which some will go to good charities and, more importantly, making charity less necessary.

The critical thinker understands that there is good and bad in all things. But he/she can appreciate that on average, overall, and in the final analysis, the $100 million is far more likely to benefit society as a whole when invested in successful commerce and industry no matter how crass, greedy, selfish, or self serving is the person engaged in it.

 

[Foxfyre]

We should all ask ourselves and I wonder how many can answer honestly?

What is better? To help out those who are out of work or supplement those who are underemployed? - or - create an economy where all who want to can find work and earn a living? Full employment produces such an economy.

What is better? To give of our bounty to help out somebody in need? - or - create coditions so that the person is no longer in need?

What is better? To give our money to government that will return a fraction of it to folks government deems to be needy or worthy? - or - Create conditions that reduce such need and making determination of who needs and/or is worthy to receive our charity ourselves?

 

[Mertex]

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.

The idiot gallery gives its two cents.

Yet you didn't bother to argue his opinion.....at least he expressed it....all you could do was criticize him, but you probably don't even know why!

 

[Mertex]

Actually any of the three would be beneficial....but giving it to the government would probably be the least beneficial (to the individual, at least), unless he just wants to be free of the responsibility of using it wisely.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

The idiot gallery gives its two cents.

Yet you didn't bother to argue his opinion.....at least he expressed it....all you could do was criticize him, but you probably don't even know why!

You know I love you g/f, but aren't you doing the same with your response here?

I am trying to ignore the ones who are seriously trying to divert the focus of this thread to something it is not. The ones who aren't even trying to grasp the concept of the thesis. the ones who don't want to discuss the topic but rather want to engage in a pissing match.

I put this in the politics forum just to avoid that syndrome, but alas it was not allowed to stay there.

Anyhow the questions of the OP remain as well as my subsequent questions just above.

 

[Mertex]

The idiot gallery gives its two cents.

Yet you didn't bother to argue his opinion.....at least he expressed it....all you could do was criticize him, but you probably don't even know why!

You know I love you g/f, but aren't you doing the same with your response here?

Not really, I gave my opinion - even if it wasn't on the same post.

I am trying to ignore the ones who are seriously trying to divert the focus of this thread to something it is not. The ones who aren't even trying to grasp the concept of the thesis. the ones who don't want to discuss the topic but rather want to engage in a pissing match.

Yep, and posts like his, don't add anything to the thread....just vitriol for no reason.

I put this in the politics forum just to avoid that syndrome, but alas it was not allowed to stay there.

It probably won't matter to people like him where you put it....they have hatred for someone and just spew it no matter what the subject is or where the thread resides.

Anyhow the questions of the OP remain as well as my subsequent questions just above.

If you look further down, you'll see that I gave my opinion on it.....

 

[RKMBrown]

This thread is still jumping, and thats cool and all - but the question is not answerable because there are situational ills that can come from all three and so it highly depends on the particular circumstance. In a bubble though private investment is the answer.

But the question IS answerable for those who are able to see a big picture concept apart from the anecdotal illustrations.

The critical thinker can appreciate that there are components of government that are necessary and essential for a democratic republic such as ours in which the first and foremost emphasis is on individual liberty. And he/she understands that the fact that some government is necessary and helpful does not negate the fact that way too much of the federal government is currently self serving, wasteful, corrupt, extravagant, improperly intrusive and producing far too many unintended negative consequences.

As a result, despite necessary functions, much of $100 million in taxes collected is swallowed up in the beaurocracy or wasted and does little or nothing to benefit society plus the additional disadvantage that it must remove the $100 million from the private sector economy before it can use it.

The critical thinker can appreciate that there are self serving and corrupt charities that are doing only enough to benefit society to keep their 5013C license intact and such do not deserve our money nor our respect. But the fact that such organizations exist does not negate the fact that there are wonderful, caring, selfless, and truly giving people running wonderful charties that are doing wonderful things. And such organizations do deserve our money, our encouragement, and our gratitude and respect.

Even when we give to the very best charities, however, they can only accomplish so much and have only so much reach however virtuous that reach is. And, like the government, the $100 million must be removed from the private sector economy before they can have it to use.

The critical thinker can appreciate that there are corrupt businessmen and woman running organizations that have little to commend them. But such organizations are fairly rare with the vast majority of private sector commerce and industry consisting of people trying to create and/or produce a product or service that is attractive and useful enough that people will buy it. And all the money toward that end boosts the economy via buying, providing useful products and services, and providing income for others to earn.

So the $100 million invested in starting, growing, or expanding a successful business is far more likely to benefit society overall by boosting the economy, via buying and paying taxes and creating other consumers and taxpayers, and creating the wealth that promotes more commerce and industry, funds the government, and creating sufficient expendable wealth of which some will go to good charities and, more importantly, making charity less necessary.

The critical thinker understands that there is good and bad in all things. But he/she can appreciate that on average, overall, and in the final analysis, the $100 million is far more likely to benefit society as a whole when invested in successful commerce and industry no matter how crass, greedy, selfish, or self serving is the person engaged in it.

WOW

So you agree your original questions were bogus and to prove that you hypocritically call anyone who disagrees with your generalized views on spending as people who are not critical thinkers like you.

 

[RKMBrown]

We should all ask ourselves and I wonder how many can answer honestly?

What is better? To help out those who are out of work or supplement those who are underemployed? - or - create an economy where all who want to can find work and earn a living? Full employment produces such an economy.

What is better? To give of our bounty to help out somebody in need? - or - create coditions so that the person is no longer in need?

What is better? To give our money to government that will return a fraction of it to folks government deems to be needy or worthy? - or - Create conditions that reduce such need and making determination of who needs and/or is worthy to receive our charity ourselves?

Can you not form questions that are obvious straw-men?

Your statements indicate you assume giving money to government always results in waste, all investments improve our lives, and all charities are hand-outs...

Huh?

 

[RKMBrown]

My point to you Fox, is if money is wisely spent, that is better than money poorly spent, irregardless of whether it is through Government, Charity, or Greed.

 

[Sunshine]

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

For the sake of the discussion, please define 'greed' as you intend it in the OP. How would you distinguish between the poor person who is greedy and the rich person who is greedy? And I do believe there are some of both. But I'd like your definition. I think that among the wealthy 'giving back' is some kind of talisman to them. I believe a lot of them fear if they don't show their gratitude for their wealth by 'giving back' they will lose it.

I read a research article a few years back regarding wealth and perceived need. In this study, no matter how wealthy the person interviewed was, he/she always felt that they didn't have enough to last their lifetime. I can't deny that, even with my anticipated abbreviated existence, I tend to feel the same way from time to time. I AM working my bucket list, though. Prolly spending more than I would if I didn't have the PH.

 

[Foxfyre]

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

For the sake of the discussion, please define 'greed' as you intend it in the OP. How would you distinguish between the poor person who is greedy and the rich person who is greedy? And I do believe there are some of both. But I'd like your definition. I think that among the wealthy 'giving back' is some kind of talisman to them. I believe a lot of them fear if they don't show their gratitude for their wealth by 'giving back' they will lose it.

I read a research article a few years back regarding wealth and perceived need. In this study, no matter how wealthy the person interviewed was, he/she always felt that they didn't have enough to last their lifetime. I can't deny that, even with my anticipated abbreviated existence, I tend to feel the same way from time to time. I AM working my bucket list, though. Prolly spending more than I would if I didn't have the PH.

"Greed" as intended in the OP is what Walter Williams calls 'silly talk' for working for your own benefit regardless of whether you or others would think you 'need' what you are working for or not.

 

[RKMBrown]

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

For the sake of the discussion, please define 'greed' as you intend it in the OP. How would you distinguish between the poor person who is greedy and the rich person who is greedy? And I do believe there are some of both. But I'd like your definition. I think that among the wealthy 'giving back' is some kind of talisman to them. I believe a lot of them fear if they don't show their gratitude for their wealth by 'giving back' they will lose it.

I read a research article a few years back regarding wealth and perceived need. In this study, no matter how wealthy the person interviewed was, he/she always felt that they didn't have enough to last their lifetime. I can't deny that, even with my anticipated abbreviated existence, I tend to feel the same way from time to time. I AM working my bucket list, though. Prolly spending more than I would if I didn't have the PH.

"Greed" as intended in the OP is what Walter Williams calls 'silly talk' for working for your own benefit regardless of whether you or others would think you 'need' what you are working for or not.

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

 

[Foxfyre]

My point to you Fox, is if money is wisely spent, that is better than money poorly spent, irregardless of whether it is through Government, Charity, or Greed.

And I have not here or anywhere else ever disputed that in any way. Nor have I made any kind of case that all taxes are unnecessary or that even most charity is not a worthy thing.

The thrust of the OP is to determine whether money well spent or poorly spent via taxes, charity, or via starting, growing, and/or expanding a private enterprise business is more likely to benefit society overall.

 

[PixieStix]

Invest in commerce and industry.
Creating more jobs so that others can make the choice as to whether or not they give to charity.

Right or wrong? I just know what would probably be the most logical and helpful to the economy and the people where the money is spent

Teaching a man to fish is better than giving him a fish

 

[RKMBrown]

My point to you Fox, is if money is wisely spent, that is better than money poorly spent, irregardless of whether it is through Government, Charity, or Greed.

And I have not here or anywhere else ever disputed that in any way. Nor have I made any kind of case that all taxes are unnecessary or that even most charity is not a worthy thing.

The thrust of the OP is to determine whether money well spent or poorly spent via taxes, charity, or via starting, growing, and/or expanding a private enterprise business is more likely to benefit society overall.

Ok, then by exclusion we would all agree money poorly spent benefits no one really. Thus only the wisest of the spending plans as done through any of these systems need apply right?

Thus we end up with a what if scenario in which we ask how would the same idea (or process) if implemented the same way under these three types of organizations (Government, Charitable, and Private) be better or worse. I also have to assume we mean the best form of Government, the Best form of Charitable Organization, and the best form or Private.

Sill, without picking a "topic" one is left without sufficient detail to surmise an answer but we are getting closer.

For example, I could pick out a topic suited to a republic, or one suited to a democracy, or one suited to private enterprise or even one suited to charitable organizations made entirely of volunteers.

Can we at least pick a general spending topic? I mean pick an industry, or problem that needs solving.

As another example, are we talking about the federal government as is or some optimized government?