TheBigDog Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 webenton, the statements you made are true. why do you think most educators do not understand these ideas?Because they can't or don't want to accept them as true is my quick answer. I will give it some more thought. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 My what a tangled web we weave. You realize of course that you are advocating classical Social Darwinism which was originally panned as being un-Christian and was of course a huge influence on the later eugenics and Nazi movements. Is "Christian Charity" out of favor all of a sudden? Or is charity *only* evil when it is provided by the government? If so, why? Many argue that the organism we need to pay attention to in this debate is *not* the individual, but the society. Louis XVI could tell you a bit about the perils of ignoring the poverty of great numbers of people in society. It can be easily argued that with rational limits, charity is *essential* to the health of a social group. We must all hang together or,BuffyToday's Christianity is a result of social darwinism. If that were not the case then there would be one denomination, and one interpretation of the bible. I read a good argument once that man is genetically predisposed to being religious, as it has been a tool for social advancement and genetic success for hundreds of generations. But to the point of this thread... Private charity and government entitlement are two different things. If someone grants charity to me in a time of need I am thankful. The charity is limited by the giving group's resources and tolerance for my use of their donation. A government entitlement means that there are no limits to my use of the money, or how I need to treat the entity that gave me the money. If a charitable group gives you money in a time of need and you say, "You cheap bastards, how am I supposed to feed my family on this?" you may not get another dime from them, they may cancel the check. If you say it to the government you get 15 minutes on CNN and a movement is started to treat you and those in your circumstance more humanely. Like anything in life you need moderation and bounderies, or as you put it, rational limits. Nobody in the US is remotely oppressed compared to the masses under Louis XVI. And people need to know the following axioms of life in the universe... 1) Life is not and cannot be made fair2) Luck is not with you or against you3) Your most important helping hand is at the end of your arm4) Action + Opportunity = Success There is plenty of opportunity in America. People need to take action before they succeed. Desperation breeds action. Taking away motivations toward action breeds lethargy and a recurring poverty. You cannot remove poverty from society because it will always have people who will not help themselves. If you make poverty more comfortable you will only make it grow. The impoverished in most other countries in the world would feel like kings on a throne if they lived in the US at half the US poverty line. The American poor don't know how good they have it. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 i'll tell you why charity is evil when provided by the government. it's really quite simple. the government does not own money. any money the government has comes from the taxpayers who have no say as to who receives the money or what is done with it. it is a forced redistribution of wealth. individual charity is voluntary and does not force others to contribute.does this distinction make sense to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Webenton, if you happen to find you are dealing with a liberal mind, do not be surprised if logic or cause and effect are treated like road kill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Private charity and government entitlement are two different things.Not if you're really for survival of the fittest! The excuses both of you are using is to try to associate the notion of "entitlement" with government sponsored charity. No charity has the scale to be able to help in a Katrina or Asian Tsunami situation. Thousands of little charities result in chaos (something that is seen rather widely in African "relief" efforts). That charity is given freely has nothing to do with the fact that it aids those who either should be sloughed off as weak or who would do better if they had to rely solely on their own hand (a key part of your thesis). Its really rather pointless to try to frame this as a conservative/liberal debate, because its really not. You should try to focus on how to solve the problems rather than sticking to your party's talking points of the month...Nobody in the US is remotely oppressed compared to the masses under Louis XVI.Not now, because we have a pretty darn good safety net, although you really ought to ask your grandpa what it was like during the labor unrest of the 20s and the Depression to see how close we've come to late 18th-century France. Has government largesse gone too far? Probably, but lets debate specific programs and levels and limits rather than simply saying "government entitlements are evil" which is basically advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Charity begins at home, and for some of us stays there!Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Webenton, if you happen to find you are dealing with a liberal mind, do not be surprised if logic or cause and effect are treated like road kill.Who's liberal? Me? I'm a card carrying Republican and always have been! You should note that this kind of post really just reflects on you, not the targets of your derision.... Chimerical,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 i'll tell you why charity is evil when provided by the government. it's really quite simple. the government does not own money. any money the government has comes from the taxpayers who have no say as to who receives the money or what is done with it. it is a forced redistribution of wealth. individual charity is voluntary and does not force others to contribute.does this distinction make sense to you? If you make a piece of art, do you own it? Doesn't the government print the money and say who gets to spend what on what and where and when and what they have to pay for it all?Reminds me of the drachma coin that Jesus referred to. Pay back Ceasar's things to Ceasar.... why? because it is theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Buffy, I think we are of a like mind on this issue and just need to clarify some points in our definitions. Relief efforts such as for Katrina are certainly the duty of a government to its people. What I am opposed to are social welfare programs sold as a hand up but engineered to perpetuate a dependant class. Society is and ever shall be evolving. It is my duty to help guide that evolution toward conditions that are best for the advancement of that society. And so we debate, even when we agree, so that we are doing proper mental due diligence for our choices in the future. Lets have a toast to civilized debate! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Lets have a toast to civilized debate!Amen! Caesar's Wife (therefore, its *my* drachma, and I'm going to Nordstrom!),Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 this thread was opened to discuss why some people are poor and others wealthy. we are now into charity and entitlements which is a different subject. i have no argument that the government should help the needy, but as in the Katrina disaster, the danger is where the money goes, what is done with it, and what is the end result. when the accounting is done, i think we will find that Katrina aid has been a hugely expensive boondoggle. rebuilding a city below sea level makes little sense unless it is done properly. there is no evidence that proper engineering studies are being done to prevent recurrence. it also seems that a majority of the people who are willing to work have left the area. rebuilding an area of dilapidated homes,stores and bars does not make much sense to me. what is the gain? as one who has visited New Orleans, i can speak from personal observance of the general condition of the area, and question the wisdom of pouring money into this blighted area. as far as entitlements generally, the same conditions are present. the government throws huge sums of money at problems with little regard to planning or knowledge of whose hands receive the money or what is done with it. on most programs, oversight is minimal to non-existant and there is no quid pro quo, which means the recipients do nothing to rectify their own shortcomings. all of this money comes from your taxes, with no recourse open to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 one of the main problems on any issue in this country is a lack of consensus. we have not agreed upon morality, defending the country, educating our kids, ''rights'', racial problems, same gender marriage, what constitutes charity, or even who owns the money if i read a post correctly. without consensus, there will alwys be a battle between liberals and conservatives. i don't think the appellations Democrat or Republican is descriptive of the thought chasm between people, but as long as this difference in analysis continues our problems will become more severe. the discussion about CNN polls is not difficult to understand when you know that approximately 40% of the people are liberal, 40%conservative, and 20% can't figure it out. that is why it only takes small numbers to reflect majority thinking. this dichotomy of thought is more than somewhat predictive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 There will always be poverty. It's just a matter of defining the border between poverty and wealth. A hundred-odd years ago, running water and electricity outlets in the average house was a rarity, and a sign of great wealth. Today, it's the norm, and the lack of it is a sign of great poverty. Within the next twenty or so years, we'll probably be seeing the first trillionaires. Bill Gates is already 10-15% of the way there. A couple of years ago, being a millionaire was considered the milestone of becoming 'wealthy'. Now, a million bucks might buy you a nice house, a car or two, and... er, that's about it. Becoming a billionaire is now the next step. So, even if the poor do manage to elevate themselves, whichever next, higher level they achieve, will be the next benchmark for poverty, and simultaneously, the benchmark for wealth will be moved further from their grasp. In short, I think the battle we have in shortening the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' is also in a big way attributable to our struggle in properly defining what 'wealth' and 'poverty' is, in actual fact. Maybe, by the end of the 21st century, a person having a day job and owning only three houses, two of which have opening roofs in the garage for flying cars (the third unfortunately having only a shaded rooftop port), who goes on holiday to the Moon only twice a year (the shame!), and who travelled the globe only five times in their lives (having had a bad experience in the Central South American Desert (which used to be the Amazon) would be considered desperately poor by 2101 standards. And then the debate would still rage amongst the electorate of how to alleviate this criminal poverty in our midsts. I think the 'haves' assume too much in discussing the problems of the 'have nots', from their priviledged position. Maybe somebody should ask the 'have nots' what the deal is. In my personal opinion, I think the biggest issue with poverty is access to capital. The irony! If you want to borrow money from the bank for your brilliant new venture, you first have to convince the bank that you don't need the money in the first place. Wealth (in our current understanding) perpetuates. Rich mommy or rich daddy can sign surety for soon-to-rich little brother's loan to get his business up and running. Me, with poor parents, I'm stuffed. Regardless of how my brilliant plan can revolutionize A, B or C. Nobody will loan me the bucks I need in order to become wealthy myself, and thereby increasing the size of the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 The irony! If you want to borrow money from the bank for your brilliant new venture, you first have to convince the bank that you don't need the money in the first place. Wealth (in our current understanding) perpetuates. Rich mommy or rich daddy can sign surety for soon-to-rich little brother's loan to get his business up and running. Me, with poor parents, I'm stuffed. Regardless of how my brilliant plan can revolutionize A, B or C. Nobody will loan me the bucks I need in order to become wealthy myself, and thereby increasing the size of the economy. So sadly true. And worse yet, even if you can scrape up the money for a venture, you probably need twice that much for it to succeed. Most new businesses fail because they are undercapitalized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted January 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 if you have a revolutionary idea or invention that is sensible or marketable, you will have no trouble getting money. venture capital is plentiful. the rich get richer because they make more money and can invest more. why is this difficult to understand? the poor stay poor because they only make enough to pay monthly expenses. would you prefer a modest salary, modest house and a modest life, but have many interests and many friends-- or would you prefer a full bank account with a bad marriage,and no social skills or friends? as i stated at the beginning of this thread, poverty is in the mind and the attitude, not just in the wallet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 if you have a revolutionary idea or invention that is sensible or marketable, you will have no trouble getting money. venture capital is plentiful.Uh, you've never raised any have ya? The VCs are all looking for a "cure for cancer". If its not going to be a $5B company in 3 years, they won't touch it. I've raised tens of millions from VCs, but they won't come near my latest company because we're targeting a "niche" market. Its not as easy as it looks!would you prefer a modest salary, modest house and a modest life, but have many interests and many friends-- or would you prefer a full bank account with a bad marriage,and no social skills or friends? as i stated at the beginning of this thread, poverty is in the mind and the attitude, not just in the wallet.No question about the attitude part, but the trade-off isn't as black and white as that: there's luck and hard work and realizing you do have to balance your priorities involved in how it all shakes out.... Cheers,Buffy Boerseun 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 if you have a revolutionary idea or invention that is sensible or marketable, you will have no trouble getting money. BS. (And that's not short for 'BoerSeun', by the way - that's just plain an' simple bovine excreta). I've had a brilliant idea once, which I've patented, and then marketed around the globe based on the basic advances this idea has over current technology. This idea was ignored by Big Money (BM) until my provisional patent expired, and then that one hugely big mofo US company Synaptec shafted me through the eyeballs and stole my patent. The bastards. Getting money isn't the problem - bypassing entrenched money is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted January 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 i live in Wash. DC. we have plenty of VC money. you need a couple of things:1. an idea which can make big money2. a protected idea ( patents) i personally have 8 patents. 3. willingness to give up part of your business to the VC company4. business plan-- marketing plan, target market, income and expense projections you must have everything properly projected before you present your proposal. this does not guarantee that you will get the money, but the money is there. it is true that if someone can take your idea, they will do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.