- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,743
- Reaction score
- 19,392
- Location
- Rocky Mtn. High
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
It would work, if people were not greedy.
There is your logic error.
It would work, if people were not greedy.
He also tries to ingratiate himself with the dem leadership while pushing an agenda that would really rape those far less wealthy than he is but who are targeted as being "rich" by his dem allies
It would work, if people were not greedy.
I must have missed the run on the banks. Please point me to that run?
I've found that the wealthy are far less greedy than the poor at the end of the day.
I've found the opposite.
None of us is greedy. It is only the other fellow who is greedy. Pursuing a single dollar worth of profits sets any individual up for accusations of greed.
I've found that the wealthy are far less greedy than the poor at the end of the day.
No...but I'm also not a capitalist/corporatist. I think a modified capitalist/socialist system is the best.
I've found the opposite.
How many poor people volunteer and give to charities?
How many poor people volunteer and give to charities?
You mean people who are struggling to maintain enough money to pay their rent are more concerned about it than someone who can go skiing in Switzerland for a week on a whim? Wow... I would never have reached that conclusion... To regular folks, greed is getting that new car without having to give up something substantial. To the wealthy, greed is firing thousands of people to artificially inflate stock prices enough to sell out and make a fortune.
In 2001, Independent Sector, a nonprofit organization focused on charitable giving, found that households earning less than $25,000 a year gave away an average of 4.2 percent of their incomes; those with earnings of more than $75,000 gave away 2.7 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html
several studies also found that REpublicans of a given economic level gave far more to both religious and secular charities than did similarly situated dem/liberals and liberals, when they gave, were far more likely to give to "think tanks" that don't help the poor but produce studies advocating more government redistribution
You mean like the Bush library going up down the street here?
Are we talking about poor people?I would suggest a large number do
Giving time to their church or donating to their church for one example
Others would be donating time to causes like the Seirra Club or Green peace.
The elderly I believe donate more of their time then any other demographic group
Are we talking about poor people?
In 2001, Independent Sector, a nonprofit organization focused on charitable giving, found that households earning less than $25,000 a year gave away an average of 4.2 percent of their incomes; those with earnings of more than $75,000 gave away 2.7 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/research/giving focused on meeting needs of the poor july 2007.pdf
Here is a real study that completely obliterates your premise; as would be expected. The rich have always given more than their expected share to charity.
Trickle-Down
Actually he just slapped a new label on it. It was around in the late 1800's under the name "horse and sparrow" economics. Feed the horse all the berries, it leaves seeds for the birds. You can see why it was renamed
Actually he just slapped a new label on it. It was around in the late 1800's under the name "horse and sparrow" economics. Feed the horse all the berries, it leaves seeds for the birds. You can see why it was renamed