Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   American Budget Cuts
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 218 of 350 (606675)
02-27-2011 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by crashfrog
02-27-2011 2:01 PM


Re: Budget Cuts & Reality
Sorry crash
RAZD has this irritating phrase "inability to refute"; I think it applies here.
Not mine. Cold Foreign Object (Ray) I think.
Let's not add to the cacophony of arguments attributed to me that are not correct.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by crashfrog, posted 02-27-2011 2:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 02-27-2011 7:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 221 of 350 (606679)
02-27-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Phage0070
02-22-2011 11:34 AM


inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Hi Phage0070.
And remember if they were perfectly capitalistic and competitive those profit margins would shrink drastically wouldn't they?
So obviously it is not a "perfectly capitalistic and competitive" system, and as your whole argument is based on this false presumption there is no need to deal with it, other than to note that attacking me personally rather than my arguments means (to me) your failure to deal with the issues.
Note that, in parallel to crash's argument there is this information:
It’s the Inequality, Stupid – Mother Jones
quote:
HOW RICH ARE THE SUPERRICH?
A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.
Note: The 2007 data (the most current) doesn't reflect the impact of the housing market crash. In 2007, the bottom 60% of Americans had 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes. The top 1%, in contrast, had just 10%. The housing crisis has no doubt further swelled the share of total net worth held by the superrich.
WINNER TAKE ALL
The superrich have grabbed the bulk of the past three decades' gains.
OUT OF BALANCE
A Harvard business prof and a behavioral economist recently asked more than 5,000 Americans how they thought wealth is distributed in the United States. Most thought that it’s more balanced than it actually is. Asked to choose their ideal distribution of wealth, 92% picked one that was even more equitable.

Note that this last distribution does not mean that the rich don't get to keep being rich, just that the distribution of wealth should be more equal for those doing the work.
Now are you still going to argue that the bottom 60% of Americans have lost value compared to the top? That real income (= their share of the economy and their ability to participate in it) has not gone down for these people?
Those that benefit most from the American economy should pay the most (tax) to support it.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Phage0070, posted 02-22-2011 11:34 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Phage0070, posted 02-27-2011 9:00 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 259 of 350 (606794)
02-28-2011 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Straggler
02-28-2011 6:48 AM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Hi Straggler, you almost have it ...
If I have understood what you are saying then isn't it inevitable that wealth gets ever and ever more concentrated?
If money itself is equivalent to "effort" then the richest will expend the most "effort" and produce the most and make the most money. Then they will be even richer. So they can put in even more "effort" and produce even more and make even more money. And so on and so forth.
Except that they cannot put in more effort in any one day than they were capable of the previous day. They can buy more effort but it isn't their effort. That effort potentially exists whether it is bought or not, so buying it does not increase the amount of effort available.
This is why money is not equivalent to effort. That same amount of effort can exist without being bought by anyone, and produce just as much.
Don't we just end up in a self-re-enforcing spiral whereby wealth is inevitably concentrated almost exclusively amongst a tiny minority?
No, you don't necessarily end up with a self-reinforcing spiral, unless the wealthy control the means to become wealthy and keep taking a cut of the value of the production of other peoples effort, whether they earned it or not.
And if this wealth is then passed down the generations within a family you end up with a situation where the tiny minority of people who own practically everything have never actually put in any real effort into anything.
Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?
It seems you understood this part very well. It puts them in the position of purchasing effort rather than expending it. And as long as they can continue to steal a portion of the value of that effort from the workers then they can continue to increase their wealth.
In Catch-22 a character named Milo Mindbender was involved in several financial schemes of questionable character. Humour is often very close to the truth. He kept saying that everyone benefited because they all had a share in the company. Obviously if one thing is sold in a circular arrangement and everybody makes a profit there is something wrong in the model.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Straggler, posted 02-28-2011 6:48 AM Straggler has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 264 of 350 (606816)
02-28-2011 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Phage0070
02-27-2011 9:00 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Hi Phhage0070,
Ok? Whats your argument exactly, that the rich are too rich? Can you define that in a way that isn't based on "I want their money"?
Easy: I want MY share of profits for MY share of the effort.
They have not lost value compared to the top. They have decreased in percentage share, but thats not really the same thing.
Except that they are not exclusive either. You do not get a decrease in value without a decrease in percentage because there is only so much value to go around at any one time.
The ability to purchase is dependent on the percentage of wealth owned by each individual so when that percentage decreases, their ability to buy decreases. That is a decrease in their percentage of value.
You seem to think that in an ideal world everyone can work happily and make a profit. The only way this works is for the value of money to change by the same amount as the overall average profit each and every person makes. Adjusting for actual value then shows that some gain and some lose.
They do. If you pay a percentage per dollar then those with more dollars pay more taxes. In actuality they pay more per dollar than the poor.
But thats not really what you were wanting was it?
Every one should have their first dollar taxed the same, but the 10th dollar should be taxed more and the 100th dollar even more, etc: those that earned those larger dollar amounts benefited MORE from the economic system that made it possible, and should support in proportion to their benefits.
Curiously, millionaires seem to pay less percentage overall than many in the middle class. So they are stealing from the government as well as from the workers.
That still sounds like you want to redistribute wealth. Why would you be OK with rewarding people freely for their effort, but then go back and change things about afterwards? Do you think they got that wealth illegitimately?
Dishonestly, certainly in many many cases. And as for your distribution argument, wealth IS redistributed already - from the poor to the rich - and that needs to be reversed.
Consider this: The rich presumably got that way because they are better at making money. That means they should be able to profit more per dollar than a poor person, ...
No, that means that they have benefited more from the economic system and should be grateful to support it with higher taxes on those who benefit more in order to support the system that allows them to benefit more.
And we still have the FACT that the US budget for the military is glutted with unnecessary costs and expenditures.
It is still a no brainer that budget cuts -- if we have to have them at this time -- should START where there is such profligate wastage.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Phage0070, posted 02-27-2011 9:00 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 1:27 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 277 by Coyote, posted 02-28-2011 3:10 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 288 of 350 (606879)
02-28-2011 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 1:27 PM


still worse on the bottom than on the top.
Hi Phage0070, sorry, but I don't\can't agree.
You are getting it. Without the invested money your efforts are not terribly profitable.
So you assert without any evidence of it being true.
On the other hand I KNOW that I have done things in my life that have not been adequately recompensed especially by comparison to the top company execs. Nor did I have any means for redress (the "you can always quit" somehow doesn't cut it).
WRONG! You could get a decrease in value without a change in percentage if the overall value available decreased. You are trying to compare a reduction in overall percentage share from one year to the next with a static view of the overall value available, which is simply wrong.
Nope. The overall real value of things does not change that dramatically year to year. The biggest changes occur when parts of the economy crash, such as the housing market recently -- and in that case the poor lost out way more than the rich, especially when they got bailed out by the rich bought politicians with tax money from everyone, including the poor.
Personally I would have let them crash, even though it would have hurt my investments at a time when I am getting ready to retire.
I also would never have given money to the rich\corporations to improve the economy in the first place -- that is another republican lie based on the falsified myth of the trickle-down theory. I would have given it to the poor or at least distributed the same $$ amount to every taxpayer.
NNNNoooooo, it also depends on the amount of stuff out there available for purchase. You are leaving out massive elements of the equation.
Which also does not vary that much year to year, and for all intents and purposes is relatively insignificant. Whether growth is static or steady doesn't make a significant difference to the equations: you'd have to show wild swings in productivity to justify that.
Of course when you look at the stock market, you do see wild swings in apparent value.
The problem is that stock values are artificial, manipulated and not based on real value of products, hence the trading and margins and other games brokers and investors use to fabricate value, and try to buy below value and sell above value. Stocks are a way that big companies use to print new money.
Real value is what some product sells for. You can ask $300,000 for your house, but if it sells for $100,000 then that is - and was - the value of the house.
If someone's share of the total money supply decreases by 1% but the amount of goods available to purchase doubles... their purchasing power dramatically increased.
(A) - Which we very very rarely see in reality.
AND, (B) - their ability to buy still goes down 1% unless the prices change. The vast quantity of items you can't afford does not increase your ability to afford them. I can't suddenly afford a $3,000,000 house because more of them are on the market.
RAZD writes:
You seem to think that in an ideal world everyone can work happily and make a profit.
Yes they can, your poor understanding of economic notwithstanding.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Every time someone makes\takes a profit somebody else loses, because they are taking money out of the process of exchanging production labor for money and money for the product of labor.
Your denial shows that you don't seem to understand the underlying reality. The value of a gallon of milk does not change because the price changes, rather the price changes because the value of the money to be able to buy the milk changes - the supply and demand for milk stays about the same every year, yet the price keeps escalating. Every time the value of actual products increases like this it is due to the change in value of the money to buy the product, and the reason the value changes is due to people trying to extract a profit from the exchange of milk for the same amount of labor needed to produce the milk.
This discourages investment, making it harder for the poor to find investment capital. Being unable to buy equipment or labor which they can leverage into increased profit is hurting them, not helping them.
Another rote learned bit of pro big business propaganda unsupported by any evidence. If anything challenges your greedy profits, claim it is bad for the economy.
Amusingly the economy is made by the exchange of money not the having of it. Curiously having more money in the coffers of state and federal governments from the greedy profit takers means they need to take less from the poor and are better able to spend those funds on services that provide benefits for all - poor and rich alike - like roads and healthcare, and thus improving the economy.
Pensioners can still buy milk and pay their property taxes.
The top 5% of earners paid far more than the bottom 95%. Where on Earth are you getting your data?
The Tax Foundation, a "pro-business" organization:
Millionaire's tax rates:
1945 - 66.4%
1965 - 55.3% (LBJ tax cut)
1982 - 47.7% (Reagan tax cut)
2000 - 36.4% (before Bush)
2010 - 32.4% (with Bush cuts)
The tax rate increments stop at 35% for $379,150 and up, no matter how high.
In 2002 the top bracket was 38.6% for $307,050 and up, no matter how high.
Above $379,150 the tax rate is regressive not progressive and works like a fixed tax rate for the ultrarich.
The tax system benefits the ultrarich way more than the poor, not just in the structure of the tax rates but in the exclusions that don't apply to poor.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 1:27 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 7:40 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 289 of 350 (606880)
02-28-2011 7:27 PM


TOPIC REDIRECT
And we are way off topic for reducing the budget by cutting military - specifically unnecessary military - spending.
Seems to me one or two years of taking $325 billion out of the budget would go a long way to balancing the budgets.
By contrast the Republican plan would cut services to people in most need of them and cost (estimates now range up to) 700,000 jobs, jobs that provide goods and services to the country.
GOP Spending Cut Plan Would Slash 700,000 Jobs: Report | HuffPost Latest News
quote:
A Republican plan to sharply cut federal spending this year would destroy 700,000 jobs through 2012, according to an independent economic analysis set for release Monday.
The Republican plan is just another scarcely veiled attempt to derail the improvements that Obama has accomplished.
If state and federal budgets don't have the cash to keep their programs in place, then it is time to repeal the tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, whose survival is not in jeopardy.
Stimulate the bottom of the economy and everyone will be able to survive.
Cut the military budget permanently and we can reduce the debt, not just the deficit.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Taq, posted 03-01-2011 3:14 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 293 of 350 (606904)
02-28-2011 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Omnivorous
02-28-2011 8:23 PM


Hi Omnivorous,
... they mostly go on at length about how they would never, never have sex with Nancy Pelosi.
And for which I presume Nancy is quite happy about not doing. The prospect of sex with a Limbaugh or Beck parrothead is not something to look forward to.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Omnivorous, posted 02-28-2011 8:23 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Omnivorous, posted 02-28-2011 11:54 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 311 of 350 (607084)
03-01-2011 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Taq
03-01-2011 3:14 PM


Re: TOPIC REDIRECT: reduce the military budget first if budget cuts necessary
Hi Taq, thanks for getting back to the topic.
but first
To sum up my thoughts on the off-topic bits, my view on capitalism is similar to the way Churchill viewed democracy:
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."--Winston Churchill
Indeed, and unregulated capitalism has time and again been proven to be disastrous, whenever it is tried. From the recent deregulation of banks, to previous deregulation of the health industry.
[rant] The purpose of government is to serve the needs of the people and not just some portion of them, like the wealthy. Government needs to encourage people behave for the social good, rather than their personal good. The provision of services like roads, hospitals, schools, fire departments etc clearly serves everybody. That social services like healthcare, social security and welfare also serve everybody is not as clear but just as true: the expense of such care is less than the social cost to not have it. This can be shown by reference to other countries.
Business needs to be regulated, and the bigger the business the more the regulation, they cannot be above the law. They also need to bear the costs of the regulations and for cleaning up the messes they leave behind.[/rant]
The excessive profit taking at the top of the money chain also needs to be regulated: they should pay more taxes than lesser incomes for the simple reason that they benefit more from the system. You benefit you pay. Simple equation.

The real question that we americans need to ask ourselves is if it is still in our best interest, and the interest of the rest of the world, to be the Global Police. Do we really need to have military bases in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc.? What is our role in the global politics in a post-Cold War era where Europe has solved most of their political problems?
Personally, imho, the pretense of America serving as a Global Police has done more harm to the values of America than any other program. Certainly the pretense of going into Iraq to save the world from terrorist attack has resulted in more terrorists around the world and more terrorists targeting the US: it has made the nation less safe than before (the political irony of unintended consequences).
We also see in Iraq, Egypt and Libya, and other nations around the world, that having supported undesirable leaders rather than the ideals of freedom, justice and equality, that it results in loss of face, loss of credibility, in the world when they either turn against the US or finally come tumbling down.
We had a chance when we went into Afghanistan to leave behind schools, hospitals, roads, and other systems that would allow a democratic cross-cultural society to bloom, but squandered it when Bush invaded Iraq on pretenses.
... and the interest of the rest of the world, to be the Global Police. ...
Personally, imho, I don't think any single nation can do this, for then who polices the police?
This should be the task of the UN (peacekeepers), and if they can't do it, then some other multinational association. Perhaps an expanded (to include all democratic nations) NATO could do this.
The point is that no nation should be above international law, and no leader of a nation should be above prosecution for acts in violation of international law: they should have their day in court.
The failure of the US to investigate possible criminal acts by the Bush administration only means that we - again - lose face, lose credibility, in the world.
See the real reason Bush canceled Swiss trip:
quote:
Bush was to be the keynote speaker at Keren Hayesod's annual dinner on February 12 in Geneva. But pressure has been building on the Swiss government to arrest him and open a criminal investigation if he enters the Alpine country.
Criminal complaints against Bush alleging torture have been lodged in Geneva, court officials say, and several human rights groups signaled that they were poised to take further legal action this week
Torture is against international law, laws that the US signed. If people in the US cannot be charged and have their day in court to answer the charges of the prosecution, then they cannot be the worlds police.
Any presidential candidate that even suggests moving towards a more isolationist position is going to be heavily criticized by opposing candidates, and it will work. You can not appear "weak" as a presidential candidate which means you have to be somewhat hawkish. I think there needs to be a real philosophical shift within the populace before we can really talk about large cuts in the defense budget.
I disagree. I think a strong case can be made for reducing redundant spending in the military: we don't need more atomic bombs for instance, nor do we need to do more testing.
We don't need to spend 1/3rd of the world military budget when we don't represent 1/3rd of the world nor have any enemies that are even spending half of our military budget.
In addition, I think a strong case can be made for an international approach to Global Police and that many Americans would be relieved to have less of a national exposure to the world violence, especially when it has no apparent benefit to the US. Ask the average person why we are in Iraq.
Finally, the purpose of the National Guard is simply put to Guard the Nation from within, they are the "state militia" described in the Constitution.
quote:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
...
Note that these are separate and distinct from the powers to raise support provide and maintain army and navy to fight wars.
I believe many people would welcome having the National Guard returned state-side.
In the days when Bush finagled his way into the National Guard it was common knowledge that people in the National Guard would not be sent to Viet Nam. Let us return to that policy.
Personally, I would give the National Guard a second task, that each unit select a specialty for providing an additional service in case of national emergencies or disasters. Whether the national emergency\disaster is flooding, earthquake, hurricane, tornado, medical epidemic, terrorist bomb attack, etc. there should be National Guard units at ready to offer near immediate assistance in providing:
  • Food for refuges\victims
  • Shelter for refuges\victims
  • Hospital care services
  • Police services
  • Firefighting services
  • House\business reconstruction
  • Search and Rescue services
  • etc etc etc
This would provide so much more than military defense should this nation be attacked, as it would help defend the nation against both natural and unnatural disasters.
Give people this option versus being the Global Police and I bet most Americans would take it.
One positive that we can take from the defense budget is the opportunity that kids have for receiving a vocational education and even attend university through the GI Bill. I think it would be a real positive if these programs were available without requiring service in the military. Perhaps we could move it more towards a Peace Corp type of service.
Indeed. Sadly, many Americans do not even have a high school education sufficient to qualify for higher education, so there could also be some remedial (science?) education built in - along with the lessons gained from service in other parts of the country.
This of course would also be like a return to the WPA jobs from the Great Depression (due, of course, to another failure of unregulated capitalism), and it could also provide much more than education.
This could also be a route for new immigrants to take into the country: work for the New WPA for two years, during which you learn the english language and the laws of the land, the provisions of the constitution, etc, so that at the end you are equipped to pass the tests for citizenship.
These types of jobs would pump service back into the country, and benefit the nation more than redundant military spending.
Certainly, to my mind, this would be a better economic incentive plan than to pour more dollars down the laps of the Bernie Madoffs in the banks and corporations.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Taq, posted 03-01-2011 3:14 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Taq, posted 03-02-2011 12:13 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 312 of 350 (607087)
03-01-2011 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Phage0070
03-01-2011 10:27 PM


simple
Hi Phagee0070
WTF do I do with my money?
Retire, give to charity, fund hospitals, create scholarships to schools for disadvantaged kids that can make use of a good education, etc etc etc. I could fill a page.
Nobody says you need to keep making money, instead you can ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Phage0070, posted 03-01-2011 10:27 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Phage0070, posted 03-01-2011 10:50 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 317 by xongsmith, posted 03-02-2011 12:18 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 318 of 350 (607099)
03-02-2011 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by xongsmith
03-02-2011 12:18 AM


Re: simple
Hi xongsmith,
In order to keep it, you have to give it away.
I would say "in order to benefit from it you have to give it away."
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by xongsmith, posted 03-02-2011 12:18 AM xongsmith has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 319 of 350 (607100)
03-02-2011 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Phage0070
03-01-2011 10:50 PM


still simple
Hi Phage0070,
But again, gifting money would have to be off limits to avoid concentrating wealth. Suppose Grandpa Hilton only funds the hospitals owned by Father Hilton, Mother Hilton, Son Hilton, etc... Not quite what you were after was it?
Always amusing to see how people try to twist things around, attempting to make their position seem more tenable than it really is. Certainly those would not be the ONLY choices.
So you are relying upon these people who already tend to give massively to charity to become much more altruistic based on being able to retire from being so filthy rich they didn't need to work anyway.
I'm just pointing out several rather mundane and OBVIOUS replies to your question -- or did you forget what that was? Message 312 You asked, I answered: simple.
Enjoy,

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Phage0070, posted 03-01-2011 10:50 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Phage0070, posted 03-02-2011 7:46 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 323 of 350 (607129)
03-02-2011 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by Phage0070
03-02-2011 7:46 AM


still simple, still off topic
Hi Phage00700,
... but I do wish you had added something to the topic.
Says the poster who is the most off-topic member on this thread (74 posts, almost all off topic). Of course insult is the best answer when you have no other answer.
You didn't provide a plausible explanation for why people should take risks with their money simply to be more charitable than they already were, and you specifically ignored my points about giving away wealth being problematic.
but you only made up the problems post hoc, which don't really limit what you could do. Curiously, it's not a risk to give money away. Unless it's in your fantasy world, so
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Phage0070, posted 03-02-2011 7:46 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Phage0070, posted 03-02-2011 9:07 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024