TexasCHLforum.com

I have a problem with the term – “give back”, as in, “I have made millions, and now I want to “give back” to the community.”

To me it implies that something was taken without consent. When I was five I stole some gum from a store and when my mom found out I was made to ‘give back’, and apologize to the clerk, (not that that was the end of it.) Now when someone makes a nice living honestly there seems to be a need to have them ‘give back’ a portion of their success as if they took it while no one was looking. That is not the case, the store owner, independent contractor, business mogul, whoever, that makes their lives successful and earn a whole lot of money have nothing to ‘give back’ unless they were dishonest. But the term seems to have replaced ‘give’ in modern lexicon and I find this insulting and inaccurate.

Say someone wishes to fund a new wing of a hospital since he worked hard, earned a large sum of cash, and something happened in his life where he believes in the cause he is willing to fund. Modern news reporters will say he is ‘giving back’, when really he is just ‘giving’. It cheapens the gift to say ‘give back’ because it implies it wasn’t really his to begin with.

Which brings me to the reason for the rant. Looters in New York broke into Rent-A-Center and were stealing televisions. According to the New York Daily News, it seems that the looters had a feeling what they were doing was justified because the store had not ‘given back’, so they were ‘taking back’ what was owed them.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bro ... z2AybapCxk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Look, they've been looting our wallets for too long," said a young male who claimed he helped himself to a TV at the Rent-A-Center.

“It's about time we start taking this sh—back," the youth, who identified himself as Jesse James, told the Daily News.

So there you go. Since the term ‘give back’ has replaced the word ‘give’, it implies that somehow the original loot was stolen, taken without consent, or otherwise obtained, thus ‘taking back’ is completely justified. If we went back to the term ‘give’ it would leave the looters saying that they are ‘taking’ and that, as everyone knows, is never justified. If I loaned my neighbor my lawnmower and he did not return it, everyone would say I was justified in ‘taking it back’. If I see my neighbor’s new lawnmower and I ‘take it’, I doubt I’d have much sympathy.

This relates directly to the philosophy behind the "You didn't build that" line. Libs believe that any success you have is the result of what society has done for you. So when you give to society, you are only giving back part of what they have provided for you.
The thug quoted claims his wallet was "looted" by RAC when reality tells us that he willingly opened his wallet and chose to pay RAC.

Jaguar wrote:I have a problem with the term – “give back”, as in, “I have made millions, and now I want to “give back” to the community.”

To me it implies that something was taken without consent. When I was five I stole some gum from a store and when my mom found out I was made to ‘give back’, and apologize to the clerk, (not that that was the end of it.) Now when someone makes a nice living honestly there seems to be a need to have them ‘give back’ a portion of their success as if they took it while no one was looking. That is not the case, the store owner, independent contractor, business mogul, whoever, that makes their lives successful and earn a whole lot of money have nothing to ‘give back’ unless they were dishonest. But the term seems to have replaced ‘give’ in modern lexicon and I find this insulting and inaccurate.

Say someone wishes to fund a new wing of a hospital since he worked hard, earned a large sum of cash, and something happened in his life where he believes in the cause he is willing to fund. Modern news reporters will say he is ‘giving back’, when really he is just ‘giving’. It cheapens the gift to say ‘give back’ because it implies it wasn’t really his to begin with.

Which brings me to the reason for the rant. Looters in New York broke into Rent-A-Center and were stealing televisions. According to the New York Daily News, it seems that the looters had a feeling what they were doing was justified because the store had not ‘given back’, so they were ‘taking back’ what was owed them.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bro ... z2AybapCxk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Look, they've been looting our wallets for too long," said a young male who claimed he helped himself to a TV at the Rent-A-Center.


“It's about time we start taking this sh—back," the youth, who identified himself as Jesse James, told the Daily News.

So there you go. Since the term ‘give back’ has replaced the word ‘give’, it implies that somehow the original loot was stolen, taken without consent, or otherwise obtained, thus ‘taking back’ is completely justified. If we went back to the term ‘give’ it would leave the looters saying that they are ‘taking’ and that, as everyone knows, is never justified. If I loaned my neighbor my lawnmower and he did not return it, everyone would say I was justified in ‘taking it back’. If I see my neighbor’s new lawnmower and I ‘take it’, I doubt I’d have much sympathy.

Of course, if you live in a "collective" then you are taking, and giving is giving back. Let's not forget that the collective manifesto calls for those who "have" to give it to those who "need" --and those who "need" tend to need a lot. It's no accident that this terminology is in use....it's subtle conditioning. I also have a problem with "fair share" --where, for example, the United Way wants me to donate "my fair share" and then proceeds to tell me exactly what "fair" is, without knowing a thing about me. This is all the language of collectivism, and we've been inundated with it for at least four decades. I think FDR's welfare state was the first active assault on traditional American values.

VMI77 wrote:I also have a problem with "fair share" --where, for example, the United Way wants me to donate "my fair share" and then proceeds to tell me exactly what "fair" is, without knowing a thing about me.

This really burns me up.

I'm going to semantically disagree, in that the use of the phrase depends entirely upon the heart of its user. Here's why.....

Here is an example: I have been mightily blessed by my Lord Jesus Christ. I have accepted MUCH grace from him and been the beneficiary of many blessings. I love the Lord, I love my faith walk, I love my church, and so on and so on. I very naturally want to "give back" by being available for ministry opportunities, charity, etc. And to the extent that the Lord has blessed me financially, I want to "give back" the first fruits of that blessing to be used for kingdom purposes.

So when it comes to financial statements in the secular realm, when a billionaire says he wants to "give back," he may mean nothing more than wanting to express gratitude in some tangible way for living in a system which made it possible for his hard work to reward him financially, and that by "giving back" in the form of charitable contributions (Boys Club, homeless ministries, building community playgrounds, founding a scholarship fund....whatever) he is expressing his gratitude to his community for helping him to get to where he is today. They could have maybe taken their business elsewhere, but they didn't. They chose HIS business, so he is expressing gratitude for that by doing something to benefit the community. But at all times, it is the giver's choice to do that or not; he is not compelled to do it by threats and the force of law.

I am a libertarian leaning conservative, but Ayn Rand, through the voice of John Gault in Atlas Shrugged, tried to make the argument that altruism is a destructive and hateful thing. I strongly disagree, for entirely spiritual reasons.....

....there is a parable of the waters of the Jordan river, the Sea of Galilee, and the Dead Sea which goes something like this: The Jordan river, which is full of nutrients, flows into the Sea of Galilee at one end, and it flows out at the other end. All around the shores of the Galilee, there is rich famland and prosperous towns. The waters of the Galilee are full of fish and support a vibrant fishing industry. Everyone who lives in, on, or near the Galilee is blessed by that richness, precisely because the Galilee does not hold onto the nutrient bearing water that flows into it. Then the waters flow south and down to the Dead Sea, from which there is no exit. The Dead Sea holds onto its waters. It not only does not support life in its waters, it kills the life around its shores and nothing grows there.

So the parable means that like the Jordan river, God's blessings flow into our lives, we take what we need, and we don't hold on so tightly to those blessings so that we cannot in turn bless others. We become conduits rather than repositories for the Lord's blessings.....which includes financial blessings as well. So the blessings that flow into our lives should also, at least to some extent, flow out of our lives also. We can be "Galileans."

OR.... we can be like the Dead Sea. All blessings flow into us, and we hold onto all of it with a tight grasp, pinching up every last penny in a clenched fist, and we are spiritually dead inside, and we bless nobody around us.

I choose to be a Galilean.

Now, the flip side of a "Galilean" mindset is the entitlement mindset, and I think THAT is what you're objecting to, more than the idea of "giving back" in and of itself. The entitlement mindset is the same as the Dead Sea mindset. When Obutthead says that millionairs and billionairs have to "give back" so that the middle class and the poor don't have to struggle so hard, that's the entitlement mindset....the mindset that says that because you are rich, you owe me some of your wealth and it should be "PAID back" (which is what they really mean by the words "GIVE back"), because you got to your exalted financial status on my back.

Usually, it is my experience that the REAL meaning underlying the words "give back" depends on whether they are uttered from the mouth of the giver or the receiver, from the heart of a Galilean or the spiritually dead. When it means "give back," it's a Galilean mindset. When it means "paid back," it's a Dead Sea mindset. Whenever you begin to think that your right to my wealth exceeds my right to my wealth, you're not just floating in the Dead Sea, you're drowning in it.

Some will regard that as sort of romantic claptrap, but that is the filter through which I view the world. Ayn Rand would likely disagree, but I think she was a sociopath in some regards.

VMI77 wrote:I also have a problem with "fair share" --where, for example, the United Way wants me to donate "my fair share" and then proceeds to tell me exactly what "fair" is, without knowing a thing about me. This is all the language of collectivism, and we've been inundated with it for at least four decades. I think FDR's welfare state was the first active assault on traditional American values.

Not arguing.... just curious.... in what context have you heard United Way use the term "fair share?" I haven't seen that yet.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

VMI77 wrote:I also have a problem with "fair share" --where, for example, the United Way wants me to donate "my fair share" and then proceeds to tell me exactly what "fair" is, without knowing a thing about me. This is all the language of collectivism, and we've been inundated with it for at least four decades. I think FDR's welfare state was the first active assault on traditional American values.

Not arguing.... just curious.... in what context have you heard United Way use the term "fair share?" I haven't seen that yet.

I hate to butt in, but ... your "fair share" is 0.6% to 1.0% of your income ...

http://www.svymca.com/pdf/united-way/wh ... ed-way.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm going to semantically disagree, in that the use of the phrase depends entirely upon the heart of its user. Here's why.....

Here is an example: I have been mightily blessed by my Lord Jesus Christ. I have accepted MUCH grace from him and been the beneficiary of many blessings. I love the Lord, I love my faith walk, I love my church, and so on and so on. I very naturally want to "give back" by being available for ministry opportunities, charity, etc. And to the extent that the Lord has blessed me financially, I want to "give back" the first fruits of that blessing to be used for kingdom purposes.

I understand what you are saying, but allow me to take a look at it from another point of view. The good Lord blessed you with parents who taught you how to succeed in life. They instilled in you a sense of purpose, and a drive and work ethic to succeed, and succeed you have so you should be on your knees thanking the Lord for the opprutunity he gave you. Beyond that, I don’t buy into the Lord dropping customers at your door anymore than he caused a football player to make a great catch. He gave the football player parents who taught him to work hard and practice smart, don’t injure yourself during practice, and someday that great catch will come. Business is the same way, work hard, be smart, and someday you will have success. I don’t see the good Lord picking winners and losers in business anymore than in football games. Maybe it’s my Catholic upbringing, but the Lord helps them who help themselves.

The Annoyed Man wrote:So when it comes to financial statements in the secular realm, when a billionaire says he wants to "give back," he may mean nothing more than wanting to express gratitude in some tangible way for living in a system which made it possible for his hard work to reward him financially, and that by "giving back" in the form of charitable contributions (Boys Club, homeless ministries, building community playgrounds, founding a scholarship fund....whatever) he is expressing his gratitude to his community for helping him to get to where he is today. They could have maybe taken their business elsewhere, but they didn't. They chose HIS business, so he is expressing gratitude for that by doing something to benefit the community. But at all times, it is the giver's choice to do that or not; he is not compelled to do it by threats and the force of law.

The community did not willingly put the successful businessman where he is today beyond allowing him to make something they desired enough to cough up their hard earned cash for. Had this same businessman been in the business of selling cheap watches at ridiculous prices, I doubt he would be successful. His smarts, his business savvy, his drive and determination caused his success, not the good will of the community.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I am a libertarian leaning conservative, but Ayn Rand, through the voice of John Gault in Atlas Shrugged, tried to make the argument that altruism is a destructive and hateful thing. I strongly disagree, for entirely spiritual reasons.....

....there is a parable of the waters of the Jordan river, the Sea of Galilee, and the Dead Sea which goes something like this: The Jordan river, which is full of nutrients, flows into the Sea of Galilee at one end, and it flows out at the other end. All around the shores of the Galilee, there is rich famland and prosperous towns. The waters of the Galilee are full of fish and support a vibrant fishing industry. Everyone who lives in, on, or near the Galilee is blessed by that richness, precisely because the Galilee does not hold onto the nutrient bearing water that flows into it. Then the waters flow south and down to the Dead Sea, from which there is no exit. The Dead Sea holds onto its waters. It not only does not support life in its waters, it kills the life around its shores and nothing grows there.

Beautiful parable, and in a spiritual life it makes sense. In an economic sense I don’t agree. The thing is just because the miser hoards his wealth doesn’t mean that wealth is gone. Sure, it did not produce much during the miser’s life, but what about after, the heirs can do great things or stupid things with the wealth they inherit, just as reverse osmosis can filter even the Dead Sea.

The Annoyed Man wrote:So the parable means that like the Jordan river, God's blessings flow into our lives, we take what we need, and we don't hold on so tightly to those blessings so that we cannot in turn bless others. We become conduits rather than repositories for the Lord's blessings.....which includes financial blessings as well. So the blessings that flow into our lives should also, at least to some extent, flow out of our lives also. We can be "Galileans."

OR.... we can be like the Dead Sea. All blessings flow into us, and we hold onto all of it with a tight grasp, pinching up every last penny in a clenched fist, and we are spiritually dead inside, and we bless nobody around us.

I choose to be a Galilean.

Now, the flip side of a "Galilean" mindset is the entitlement mindset, and I think THAT is what you're objecting to, more than the idea of "giving back" in and of itself. The entitlement mindset is the same as the Dead Sea mindset. When Obutthead says that millionairs and billionairs have to "give back" so that the middle class and the poor don't have to struggle so hard, that's the entitlement mindset....the mindset that says that because you are rich, you owe me some of your wealth and it should be "PAID back" (which is what they really mean by the words "GIVE back"), because you got to your exalted financial status on my back.

Usually, it is my experience that the REAL meaning underlying the words "give back" depends on whether they are uttered from the mouth of the giver or the receiver, from the heart of a Galilean or the spiritually dead. When it means "give back," it's a Galilean mindset. When it means "paid back," it's a Dead Sea mindset. Whenever you begin to think that your right to my wealth exceeds my right to my wealth, you're not just floating in the Dead Sea, you're drowning in it.

Some will regard that as sort of romantic claptrap, but that is the filter through which I view the world. Ayn Rand would likely disagree, but I think she was a sociopath in some regards.

TAM, I have come to deeply respect your opinions and views expressed on this forum, and feel l would love you like a brother in real life. I agree Ayn Rand is not someone to be exalted above others, she had many flaws both personal and private that are not worth emulating. However, many of her ideas do flow to the logical conclusion, what Thomas Sowell calls “thinking beyond phase 1.” She thought out her views unlike many of today’s political leaders, and have found them to be in agreement with the ends she was seeking.

I am for asterism, I believe that making the world a better place is a noble and just cause for spending your money on things that you believe in. But what I find disgusting is taking other people’s money for a cause you believe in, as not everyone has the same belief systems. I also believe as it was stated by MasterOfNone, the “you didn’t build that” line is straight from the “give back” idea, if you didn’t build that you need to give it back. Words have consequences, those who control the dialogue control the debate.

I believe people should “give” to charities they find worthy. If that charity once “gave” to the person now giving, maybe you can call it “giving back”; but that would attach strings to the original “gift”.

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

VMI77 wrote:I also have a problem with "fair share" --where, for example, the United Way wants me to donate "my fair share" and then proceeds to tell me exactly what "fair" is, without knowing a thing about me. This is all the language of collectivism, and we've been inundated with it for at least four decades. I think FDR's welfare state was the first active assault on traditional American values.

Not arguing.... just curious.... in what context have you heard United Way use the term "fair share?" I haven't seen that yet.

I hate to butt in, but ... your "fair share" is 0.6% to 1.0% of your income ...

http://www.svymca.com/pdf/united-way/wh ... ed-way.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bill, I'm not denying that this PDF is full of the sort of socialist dogma which makes us all queezy, but I saw the words "suggested donation" mentioned several times, but nothing about "fair share" in that document, and and I quickly read it over three times. Did I miss something?

I don't like United Way, and I don't donate to them (I do all of my charitable giving through my church and through the missionaries I support and other Christian ministries), but the words "suggested donation" appear almost anywhere you see pleas for charitibable contributions, including from some very conservative causes, and intellectual honesty compells me to point out that a suggested donation is not the same thing as claiming that it is your "fair share." I get "suggested donation" requests from the NRA all the time, for instance.

My personal belief on the matter is closer to TAM's, though perhaps not to the same extent from a religious angle. Mine is more of a patriotic level. We have ALL been blessed to be born, live, work, prosper in the Greatest Country on Earth. "Giving back" is simply an acknowledgement of that blessing/birthright - as in "giving back" to America, not necessarily to particular Americans. Could take this same logic and apply it to even smaller "communities" - blessed to live Texas, or a particular town/county.

Neither point of view is "wrong" - but I wholeheartedly agree with OP's assessment that the idiots "taking back" from a business are 100% dead wrong. That type of thinking is misguided and criminal at best, evil and surreptitious at worst

In support of TAM's argument, those of us who give credit to Our Lord God as the source of our blessings, we understand that all things, even our livelihood come from God. God owns all and supplies all. We are the stewards of His graces and blessings. Since God owns all we must give back to Him and His purpose a portion of what He provides us. This is proper stewardship. Since He has given us free will, He allows us to determine where this return of His gifts go.

TAM is right, in that you must understand the term in the context it is used.

Now, taxes, and all this sharing of wealth that the infected pustule in the white house is pushing is not part of the deal. There is a limit to what we have to tolerate of giving back to Caesar. Caesar the infected pustule is overstepping his bounds.

Anygunanywhere

The Annoyed Man wrote: Not arguing.... just curious.... in what context have you heard United Way use the term "fair share?" I haven't seen that yet.

Bill, I'm not denying that this PDF is full of the sort of socialist dogma which makes us all queezy, but I saw the words "suggested donation" mentioned several times, but nothing about "fair share" in that document, and and I quickly read it over three times. Did I miss something?

Wild Bill wrote:This is getting off topic, but do a search of the referenced PDF and you will find it. This particular document was not issued directly by UW. The PDF was linked only to show the just because you stated that you hadn't heard the UW using that term. In my personal experience, I have heard it used numerous times at the presentations at work. I am strongly opposed to using pressure tactics to solicit donations in my workplace.

You can help.
We have found most people to be willing to give when they recognize a good cause that is helping genuinely needy people right here in Mercer County. We appreciate every gift, and we encourage everyone to give their fair share.

BTW, I am not arguing with your post about "giving back". IMO -Charity should be given freely without any expectation of getting anything in return other than the personal satisfaction of giving to a worthy cause.

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Not arguing.... just curious.... in what context have you heard United Way use the term "fair share?" I haven't seen that yet.

Bill, I'm not denying that this PDF is full of the sort of socialist dogma which makes us all queezy, but I saw the words "suggested donation" mentioned several times, but nothing about "fair share" in that document, and and I quickly read it over three times. Did I miss something?

Wild Bill wrote:This is getting off topic, but do a search of the referenced PDF and you will find it. This particular document was not issued directly by UW. The PDF was linked only to show the just because you stated that you hadn't heard the UW using that term. In my personal experience, I have heard it used numerous times at the presentations at work. I am strongly opposed to using pressure tactics to solicit donations in my workplace.

You can help.
We have found most people to be willing to give when they recognize a good cause that is helping genuinely needy people right here in Mercer County. We appreciate every gift, and we encourage everyone to give their fair share.

BTW, I am not arguing with your post about "giving back". IMO -Charity should be given freely without any expectation of getting anything in return other than the personal satisfaction of giving to a worthy cause.

OK, I guess I just missed it when I was reading it.

Jaguar wrote:I understand what you are saying, but allow me to take a look at it from another point of view. The good Lord blessed you with parents who taught you how to succeed in life. They instilled in you a sense of purpose, and a drive and work ethic to succeed, and succeed you have so you should be on your knees thanking the Lord for the opprutunity he gave you. Beyond that, I don’t buy into the Lord dropping customers at your door anymore than he caused a football player to make a great catch. He gave the football player parents who taught him to work hard and practice smart, don’t injure yourself during practice, and someday that great catch will come. Business is the same way, work hard, be smart, and someday you will have success. I don’t see the good Lord picking winners and losers in business anymore than in football games. Maybe it’s my Catholic upbringing, but the Lord helps them who help themselves.

I wasn't meaning to imply that the Lord dropped customers off at my door. I was more like trying to equate gratitude for success among a community of people and how one might want to respond to it, to gratitude for God's blessings and how one might want to respond to his blessings.

I understand the point you were trying to make in your OP....that the word choice "give back" would seem to imply that you "took" something, and a "giving back" is consequently owed. Further, I would agree with you that, in that context, it's an incorrect use of the language. I just wanted to clarify between that paradigm, and the paradigm of recognizing that since I have accepted grace in whatever form, I then want to return grace in whatever form.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

VMI77 wrote:I also have a problem with "fair share" --where, for example, the United Way wants me to donate "my fair share" and then proceeds to tell me exactly what "fair" is, without knowing a thing about me. This is all the language of collectivism, and we've been inundated with it for at least four decades. I think FDR's welfare state was the first active assault on traditional American values.

Not arguing.... just curious.... in what context have you heard United Way use the term "fair share?" I haven't seen that yet.

It was on the form I just filled out for my employer --which came from and was printed by the local United Way: it asked you to give your "fair share" and then stipulated that a fair share equals one hour of pay per month. My current employer doesn't push it like my previous employer did --just passes out the forms and asks for 100% participation, without any coercion-- but many years ago my previous employer used to verbally promote the "fair share" language as well (and threatened employees who didn't want to contribute).