[Rational] egoism is a good thing. Altruism is quintessentially evil.Philosophers still study whether there is really such a thing as altruism, or whether it's just a manifestation of egoism.
[Rational] egoism is a good thing. Altruism is quintessentially evil.Philosophers still study whether there is really such a thing as altruism, or whether it's just a manifestation of egoism.
Oh what a utopia you have in your mind. Do you think it's proper for the President of the U.S. to beg each and every person to go to an assignment? I'm sure they are called "orders". Do you remember when Clinton sent troops into Bosina as part of a U.N. Mission? There was one young soldier who "refused" an order to wear the Blue UN cover. He was court martialed. They are not "invitations".I'm on the fence about getting shot at or getting blown up by IED's. Maybe if we can cherry-pick about what support we are willing to give to vets returning from war, it's reasonable for vets to cherry-pick which dangers they are willing to face. "OK, we'll man checkpoints in rear areas, but we won't travel through areas known to have IED's." Seems fair, right?
Agreed. However, charitable giving from your pocket to someone else is not the same as taxing you to give to someone else. There is no need to federalize everything, yet we continue to do so.@Brownout
Giving is one of the most moral things a person can do, if not the most moral.
Slush funds?Don't shoot me, but I kinda like what the Clinton Foundation does.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work
Seems good, but the problem is that it is grass roots. Maybe what we need is some like Gates and Clinton getting big chunks, but for America.@ronv
In the Annual Combined Federal Campaign brochure, they always have the "administrative" costs with each listed charity. Then you can choose whichever one you want to contribute that meet your standards.
I have no problem with people supporting the charity they want to support.
At the bottom of this page, you will find that 88.6 percent of your dollar goes towards the stated goals. Also mentioned is no taxpayer money is used to pay the staff. Of course if you designated where your money goes, by law, it is required to go to that specific area.
That's the problem with getting info from a political organization.
You know what they say about robbing banks.The problem will always be political. The tax law allows you to donate, and claim that donation once you exceed the standard deduction for your filing status. In fact, you can donate up to 50 percent of your income.
There are plenty of opportunity for people to give their money away ... from crowd funding sites to the millions of charities out there. If you want some charity to get BIG chunks, you can promote it until you get enough people where Big chunks can be available. Therein lies the problem. Who should decide who get's "big chunks".
Think about 7 percent of 100 million dollars. That avails 7 million to the administrative expenses. When does the 7 percent become too much?
And factcheck.org is non-political? Why? Because they say so?That's the problem with getting info from a political organization.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
And what does your mind say about how much of their money goes to charitable use?And factcheck.org is non-political? Why? Because they say so?
I use my mind to deduce facts. I don't need a self-proclaimed 'fact checker'.
My mind says that there are enough doubts about the purpose, activities, directors, participants, and conflicts of interest of the fund to steer clear of it. For one who is philanthropically minded (not me!), there are plenty of other far more transparent charities that perform far more obvious, and demonstrable, good than the Clinton Foundation.And what does your mind say about how much of their money goes to charitable use?
In this case I do agree with you.there are plenty of other far more transparent charities that perform far more obvious, and demonstrable, good than the Clinton Foundation.
What's that they say about a stopped clock?In this case I do agree with you.
To the contrary, my friend. It is correct -- twice a day!That it couldn't tell time while it was running and it can't tell time now
Humor is an acquired art. Keep working at it.I know the answer but a clock does not understand the concept of time so i just twisted the original joke...
Another view.That's the problem with getting info from a political organization.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
by Duane Benson
by Aaron Carman
by Jake Hertz
by Aaron Carman