Billionaires poisoning our politics was the central theme of the protests. But nothing is quite as it seems in modern politics: The protest's organizer, the nonprofit Common Cause, is funded by billionaire George Soros.

Common Cause has received $2 million from Soros's Open Society Institute in the past eight years, according to grant data provided by Capital Research Center. Two panelists at Common Cause's rival conference nearby -- President Obama's former green jobs czar, Van Jones, and blogger Lee Fang -- work at the Center for American Progress, which was started and funded by Soros but, as a 501(c)4 nonprofit "think tank," legally conceals the names of its donors.

In other words, money from billionaire George Soros and anonymous, well-heeled liberals was funding a protest against rich people's influence on politics.

When Politico reporter Ken Vogel pointed out that Soros hosts similar "secret" confabs, CAP's Fang responded on Twitter: "don't you think there's a very serious difference between donors who help the poor vs. donors who fund people to kill government, taxes on rich?"

In less than 140 characters, Fang had epitomized the myopic liberal view of money in politics: Conservative money is bad, and linked to greed, while liberal money is self-evidently philanthropic.

See, that Fang guy perfectly sums up the problem, here. LIberals truly think that their influence is different.

So playing devil's advocate here. Since money in an of itself is a thing, and not good or bad, isn't the way in which you use it what determines it's moral value if any?

Or to put it in the form of a question:

Is 1 million dollars spent on charities better or more moral than 1 million dollars spent on trying to reduce your own tax burden?

Is 1 million dollars spent on charities better or more moral than 1 million dollars spent on trying to reduce your own tax burden?

The Kochs argue, with plenty of evidence, that economic freedom and the prosperity it yields are the best things a government can offer to the poor.

It's a false dilemma Aizle. Conservatives and libertarians spend more money on both ironically enough.

Plus I don't decide what's moral and immoral with other people's money. That's ultimately their decision to make as the earned/inherited it.

So playing devil's advocate here. Since money in an of itself is a thing, and not good or bad, isn't the way in which you use it what determines it's moral value if any?

Or to put it in the form of a question:

Is 1 million dollars spent on charities better or more moral than 1 million dollars spent on trying to reduce your own tax burden?

But what it really comes down to, is this: Who determines what's a moral use of the tool? And, more importantly, is it right for them to get to dictate whether the tool can be used at all based on their judgement? Because what's happening here is that you've got people saying "I believe I'm right, so it's okay for me to use the tool; but it's not okay for other people to use the tool to oppose me because I believe they're wrong."

99% of money expenditures are morally good because they drive the economy. Without people spending money, everyone would starve to death.

The best part about taxes is that they redistribute the wealth more so that more money is spent overall, thus driving economic growth. The second best part is they can be used to protect the environment.

Without money being spent, charities would be worthless. Charities need a strong economy to do anything.

99% of money expenditures are morally good because they drive the economy. Without people spending money, everyone would starve to death.

Bill Gates has 50 billion in constantly reinvested assets which expand the economy exponentially, not 50 billion in a Scrooge McDuck-like money bin that he swims in and never circulates.

This is totally untrue of wealth redistribution. Bill Gates has 50 billion in constantly reinvested assets which expand the economy exponentially, not 50 billion in a Scrooge McDuck-like money bin that he swims in and never circulates.

The fact that Gates is business and investment savy leads to far more economic growth than 50 billion spent by those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Spending in and of itself does not grow the economy, well directed spending does.

...

No.

99% of spending is well-directed because people generally don't do stupid things with money.

Some wealth redistribution is needed so that rich people don't sit at the top of the ladder while everyone else is ultra-poor and wage slaves.

Technological innovation is stunted when there isn't a high enough demand for consumer goods. There needs to be some wealth redistribution in my opinion.

99% of spending is well-directed because people generally don't do stupid things with money. Some wealth redistribution is needed so that rich people don't sit at the top of the ladder while everyone else is ultra-poor and wage slaves.

Technological innovation is stunted when there isn't a high enough demand for consumer goods. There needs to be some wealth redistribution in my opinion.

No, that's not the case. As Rynar pointed out, investment helps drive the economy and provides a means of growth that the people eating hand to mouth do not. Even if money isn't invested, it still sits in a bank account which the bank can leverage against for loans.

That's assuming they're investing the money here instead of in Asia and aren't spending it on things like gold bullion which definitely doesn't grow the economy.

That's assuming they're investing the money here instead of in Asia and aren't spending it on things like gold bullion which definitely doesn't grow the economy.

The only economies that "tax the rich" grows are foreign ones.

Which is one of the things that actually drives wages, unlike the horse **** you listed above.

Please provide a counter-argument instead of adding white space to this thread.