4 ms·
They’ve now since used that donation and through smart investing, our involvement had a hand in pushing forward a proposition that would increase funding
by temphn 15y ago
They’ve now since used that donation and through smart
investing, our involvement had a hand in pushing forward a
proposition that would increase funding for “at risk”
schools in Colorado by $5m forever
This is presented as if it is unambiguously a good thing. Phrased in a less complimentary way, the nonprofit spent a significant amount of money on political lobbying to get the taxpayer to involuntarily fork over $5M/year to a cause the original guy supported ("at risk" schools).
Some people think that schools for the gifted are more necessary than schools for the "at risk", and that for profits that build real products create far more value for society than nonprofits. If you are one of these people, you will take that 1% and use it to invest in self-sustaining businesses rather than on permanently dependent nonprofits.
- mattdeboard 15y agoClassic case of "missing the forest for the trees." Unchecked myopia and frankly just kind of a stupid point.
- alexkearns 15y agoI presume you are referring to your own comment here, because when you strip away the insults, the mixed metaphors and the cliche, you are saying a whole lot of nothing. Why bother even posting it.
- mattdeboard 15y agoI presume you are referring to your own comments here, because when you strip away the condescension you are saying a whole lot of nothing. Why bother even posting it.
- alexkearns 15y agoHappy to fling it, it seems, but not so happy to receive it. Anyway, congrats on writing a coherent sentence. It reads really well.
- mattdeboard 15y agoThanks! I've been working hard on it.
- Andrew_Quentin 15y agoThe two are not mutually exclusive. You can have both. He chose "at risk", you can invest in "the gifted". He chose not for profit, you can chose for profit.