Rep. Giffords of Arizona shot

It means each person in every other country is giving more.

Roughly, that translates into the virtue some call "generosity."

But greed is virtue now.

So please enlighten us with how much you gave overseas in 2010.

And I'm pretty sure your data goes against every stat I've ever read.
 
no it doesn't mean that every person in every other country is giving more, not in the least.

Government given gifts as generosity? Awesome standard.

Final statement is as stupid now as it was when you started.

Yes it does.

It is certainly a metric of a country's overall generosity. By no means the only one.

Final statement is received wisdom over the last forty years, perhaps best epitomized in Alan Greenspan.
 
Been away for a few days and will be dropping in very infrequently for the foreseeable future (was laid off this past Friday). The very moment I first heard about this I was convinced LG was already posting a thread about Beck and Rush driving this impressionable person to the brink resulting in this trajedy. LG I am dissapoint son!
 
Been away for a few days and will be dropping in very infrequently for the foreseeable future (was laid off this past Friday). The very moment I first heard about this I was convinced LG was already posting a thread about Beck and Rush driving this impressionable person to the brink resulting in this trajedy. LG I am dissapoint son!

sorry to hear it bro. Let us know how we might help.
 
Yes it does.

It is certainly a metric of a country's overall generosity. By no means the only one.

Final statement is received wisdom over the last forty years, perhaps best epitomized in Alan Greenspan.

No it doesn't.

It is a metric and a poor one. Size of my shoes is also a metric of a country's generosity, but a poor one as well.

Final statement is still just garbage.
 
That's a phrase I've never seen.

I've got to ask, what is intellectual greed? Is that another way of saying "thirst for knowledge?"

It's mind boggling how clueless you can be. But keep on driving along. You have plenty of open space ahead of you.
 
If you factor in private citizens' international charity donations, which would make sense to do in a capitalist republic, the US is by far the most generous country. Maybe even to the detriment of some our fellow Americans with needs, such as in rural Appalachia or the thousands of mentally disabled homeless across the country.
 
And I feel like our federal international aid programs need to be retooled to make them more efficient. We've made a lot of tyrants rich over the last 60 years.
 
If you factor in private citizens' international charity donations, which would make sense to do in a capitalist republic, the US is by far the most generous country. Maybe even to the detriment of some our fellow Americans with needs, such as in rural Appalachia or the thousands of mentally disabled homeless across the country.

and there is no debate about this. Government funded international aid as a measure of generosity is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on here.
 
If you factor in private citizens' international charity donations, which would make sense to do in a capitalist republic, the US is by far the most generous country. Maybe even to the detriment of some our fellow Americans with needs, such as in rural Appalachia or the thousands of mentally disabled homeless across the country.

That would depend on if you think "charity" has to pass through government hands to be considered such.
 
That would depend on if you think "charity" has to pass through government hands to be considered such.

of course it does. Government is the root of all things good, except that the cost of providing the aid is likely the highest on earth.
 
It means each person in every other country is giving more.

Roughly, that translates into the virtue some call "generosity."

But greed is virtue now.

Does your stat leave out gov't aid? There is nothing "generous", noble, or charitable about giving away money that you didn't earn and that doesn't belong to you.
 
of course it does. Government is the root of all things good, except that the cost of providing the aid is likely the highest on earth.

I think the government would be better off starting seed programs and organizations that will ultimately depend on nongoverment funding. They could then target specific issues, problems, or locations, but could mitigate the apparently inevitable financial excesses that follow government programs.

But I suppose that isn't the sort of paradigm our politicians think in.
 
If you factor in private citizens' international charity donations, which would make sense to do in a capitalist republic, the US is by far the most generous country. Maybe even to the detriment of some our fellow Americans with needs, such as in rural Appalachia or the thousands of mentally disabled homeless across the country.

That would be a good metric as well. Bill Gates is very generous. I believe Ted Turner is as well.

Could we see some data? I'm genuinely curious.
 
Last edited:
Does your stat leave out gov't aid? There is nothing "generous", noble, or charitable about giving away money that you didn't earn and that doesn't belong to you.

Thank you for making very clear the received wisdom of the last forty years. :hi:

It's great to know I can always count on those who rail against me the most to support my stance.
 
Does your stat leave out gov't aid? There is nothing "generous", noble, or charitable about giving away money that you didn't earn and that doesn't belong to you.

liberals consider government handouts are the only form of generosity. liberals think the government is the gold standard for compassion.
 
liberals consider government handouts are the only form of generosity. liberals think the government is the gold standard for compassion.

Liberals don't view handouts as a form of generosity. They believe they are entitled to these "handouts" for various reasons.
 
liberals consider government handouts are the only form of generosity. liberals think the government is the gold standard for compassion.


Assuming you identify me as a liberal, I can speak for myself and tell you that is absolutely not true. I think that the most generous institutions by an enormous amount in this country are churches. Remember Bush's 1,000 points of light theory? I agree with a lot of that.

I think government should be involved in and interested in relatively short term stop gap measures that save a person from a tragedy, their fault or not. Reason being that if you are homeless or have no food or whatever, you are going to have to be taken care of, anyway, in a compassionate society.

But I also believe in the adage about teaching a man to fish. And I think the conservative movement makes its very best argument when it says that government ought to encourage and motivate people to improve their own situations.

Where I get off the train, is when people assume that ignoring others in need is the best way to encourage them to do better. I think we have to face the fact that some people don't respond well to necessity as the mother of invention.

We're better off spending up front on education and similar programs than we are in dealing with the aftermath of an entire class of millions of people who rely on crime and day to day survival to drift through life, imo.
 
Liberals don't view handouts as a form of generosity. They believe they are entitled to these "handouts" for various reasons.

Those on the receiving end yes.

In the real world, those that are handing it out (through collecting it from others) are driven by the greed of power.
 

VN Store



Back
Top