You are looking at this in only one direction.

You used an example earlier where a rich persons greed fuels the economy, so will reuse your example.

"Let's establish my worth now...

In Cash and Stocks 10 million
In payroll 1 million (I have a golden parachute but the pay is low)
Capital Gains per year is 1 million
My stock market plays earn me a quarter of a million a year also
My house is worth five million, and my time share another million
I have assorted vehicles, art, antiques and valuables worth another million
I own a helicopter worth $500,000"

You also comment that "the Government is greedy with our money."

So, the rich think they are being taxed too much, so lets say the tax rates are cut in order to keep the rich happy. Now one of 2 things happens, the revenue created by the country in question (the US) drops OR the revenue is created elsewhere (by creating other taxes aimed at someone else. Politicians won't certainly take a pay-cut, it will end up costing the lower earners more in tax, or see public spending cut. Now for a country that has a debt problems, I have no doubt that there are problems with the tax system, but cutting taxes seems to be counter productive.

Also the same rich person wanting tax cuts is self greed, where as a socialist, in theory, are about equal level of input and spreading wealth evenly. The conservative is saying "let me keep more of my money" whilst enjoying the benefits of public expenditure, where the socialist is saying "let's have more input by EVERYONE in order to give everyone adequate/equal benefits". From a rich persons perspective it might appear socialists are greedy, but from a poorer persons perspective, the richer person is more greedy.

I personally stand somewhere in the middle, personal greed allows us to strive for more, whilst tax revenue should still be proportinate to the amount you earn in order to help the poorer person, as well as giving enough room for those who want to strive for better things are able to. BUT I don't personally know much about the tax system in the US, just thinking in general terms...

A socialist is willing to pay more taxes, and wants everybody to do the same, particularly the people who can afford to (the rich), in exchange for social programs that help the more needy people in society.

A conservative, in Einstein's words, believes that he is "taxed enough already".

Based on that definition, I don't think there's an argument in terms of greed.

Let's go on this assumption to

If I donate $50 I choose where it goes.

If you force me to give $50 I do not choose where it goes.

Which is more greedy?

> Einstein wrote:
>
>First let's look at the lowest levels. Socialists want other peoples monies
>to help fund programs they desire (and some of their own money).
>Conservatives just wish to allow people to keep what people earn except
>for defense level and emergency funding level stuff. A good example...
>The Tea Party... TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. We think that the
>Government is greedy with our money. The Occupy crowd wants their
>college education paid off by others. One person wants his own money,
>another person wants everyone elses money... I would have to say, by
>far socialism is more greedy.

I think the Occupy movement has a point to be made here though.  Back when most of the Tea Partiers were young adults many were afforded the advantage of attending college courtesy of deeply subsidized public schools.  That's not something that my generation gets to enjoy.  As state funding receives cut after cut after cut, student costs have skyrocketed.  My local university system is talking about an 81% increase in tuition over the next four years, and that's after similar increases over the past few.  There's complaints to be made that the universities have adopted a more corporate business model, less focused on education and affordability and more focused on revenues and marketing, and that has contributed to the problem, but a very large factor here is the reality that state subsidies for the university have collapsed in recent years.

The way I see it is that the Tea Partiers want to have their cake and eat it too.  Back when they were young they were the beneficiaries of a society that realized that investing in the youth was an investment in the future.  That society paid taxes so that college was very affordable and within reach for countless students who went a long ways in life because of the opportunities that were made available to them.  But the Tea Party crowd doesn't want to pay it forward.  They got their cake and they'll eat it too.  Subsidies for them, tax cuts for them.  In all due respect, I can't think of many better example of intergenerational greed... but I can think of a few.

Take the Paul Ryan plan for Social Security, another favorite of the Tea Party.  It basically says "Here dies Social Security, except for the age group that dominates the Tea Party.  Those Tea Partiers get to keep their Social Security benefits.  Everybody my age has to pay tax dollars to provide those benefits to them.  But someday far from now when I've spent a good many tax dollars providing old-age pensions for my elders, what do the Tea Partiers want?  They want to eliminate Social Security so that I never benefit from the old-age pension program that I paid tax dollars to support my entire life.  Once again.  A complete have your cake and eat it too attitude.

And they may very well manage to have their cake and eat it too.  But that doesn't mean their greed doesn't deserve my disgust.

How many students per a class?

Where is the money going.

When you think on it, you might understand why 81% increases can happen. And why you need to end some liberal practices.