DescentBB

Seems over the last couple of years we have been hearing the mantra of people paying their fair share in taxes. Seems I heard a lot of negative stuff about the 1% getting all sorts of flack for getting all sorts of deductions and paying less effective tax rates than the poor working stiffs like you and me. I am now waiting to hear from all those loudmouths dissing the rich to start ragging on Obama who only paid a effective tax rate of 18% on income of over 600k (which puts him as a 1%'er). This on top of the fact Obama doesn't have to pay one thin dime while he is POTUS. Everything from housing to food down to transportation is paid for by you and me. So tell me, how soon do any of you think Obama will start complaining about himself?

Obama hater

This country was founded on the principals of freedom, liberties and justice…not “fairness” & “equality”.

I’m still waiting for someone to take my challenge and prove the validity of the social concepts of fairness and equality, by showing them to compliment each other when applied to the same issue, instead of in-validating or conflicting with each other.

To me the true test of a social concept is its ability to enhance other social concepts, not conflict with them.

One of the examples I often use is voting…

In voting “equality” is the concept applied, but what’s so “fair” about someone that contributes little or nothing to society, getting the same vote as someone that contributes a lot more.

In fact, I’ve done this “thought experiment” with many issues from taxes to incomes, housing and many more…and keep coming to the same conclusions.

I’m dead serious…if fairness and equality are so great…why don’t they get along?

Oh yea…the OP…sorry Woody…the answer is never, but thanks for giving me another opportunity to rant on the two evil stepsisters of lady liberty.

Spidey wrote:In voting “equality” is the concept applied, but what’s so “fair” about someone that contributes little or nothing to society, getting the same vote as someone that contributes a lot more.

Let's see, the Constitution mentions "the right to vote" five times. I think the founding fathers intended voting to be a "right". It's not about "privilege" or "equality".

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ge/262511/

Duh…way to miss a point…

Take the challenge, instead of pointing out the obvious.

CUDA wrote:Obama hater

oh, that one was beyond Obama hate. It was sheer stupidity. Since when do people whine(and that is all it is, childish whining) about the perks of holding what might be the most difficult, underpaid job on the planet. His 18% net is more than Romney's 13% and more than my 11%, and the man, in any other job that might come his way, given his skillset, is MASSIVELY underpaid. He won the election, again, folks.....GTF Over It!

Spidey wrote:This country was founded on the principals of freedom, liberties and justice…not “fairness” & “equality”.

I'm seeming to remember the phrase 'All Men are Created Equal' pretty early on the list written.....

I’m still waiting for someone to take my challenge and prove the validity of the social concepts of fairness and equality, by showing them to compliment each other when applied to the same issue, instead of in-validating or conflicting with each other.

To me the true test of a social concept is its ability to enhance other social concepts, not conflict with them.

One of the examples I often use is voting…

In voting “equality” is the concept applied, but what’s so “fair” about someone that contributes little or nothing to society, getting the same vote as someone that contributes a lot more.

so, to validate your view of a political world, you give us this Ayn Rand-ish piece of oligarchal claptrap? Really?

In fact, I’ve done this “thought experiment” with many issues from taxes to incomes, housing and many more…and keep coming to the same conclusions.

given the train of thought outlined in your one example, I see no reason why you wouldn't make the same conclusions.

I’m dead serious…if fairness and equality are so great…why don’t they get along?

frankly, ABSOLUTE fairness and equality are but ideals to strive for, to aspire to, to hope for. As for 'getting along', they will work just fine together.
For example, voting: Look at the classical New England town meeting. Everyone in town votes, has a voice, and is treated equally. What could be more fair? We all live in a SOCIETY, where folks rich and poor, talented or not, have to blend together and be functional. To maintain a civil society, striving for fairness and equality of respect seem to me to be necessary.

All men are “created” equal…has to do with rights…not outcomes.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Obama hater

oh, that one was beyond Obama hate. It was sheer stupidity. Since when do people whine(and that is all it is, childish whining) about the perks of holding what might be the most difficult, underpaid job on the planet. His 18% net is more than Romney's 13% and more than my 11%, and the man, in any other job that might come his way, given his skillset, is MASSIVELY underpaid. He won the election, again, folks.....GTF Over It!

Perhaps you'd have a point if Obama hadn't incessantly berated all those 1%'ers for not paying their fair share.
As to overworked, you might have a valid point if we didn't see him holding gala parties, golfing with luminaries like Tiger Woods and taking lavish vacations every other month. I'm really waiting to see the guy working hard aside from running his mouth trying to make himself look like he is working.

Underpaid? Are you delusional? The money he will make from speeches after he is out of office will make him a multimillionaire. There isn't a politician around who wouldn't work that job for free given the chance.

Spidey wrote:All men are “created” equal…has to do with rights…not outcomes.

Is anyone here suggesting equal outcomes? Because all I'm seeing is people pushing for as much equality in opportunity as possible, which has nothing to do with whether or not the outcomes are equal.

Top Gun wrote:

Spidey wrote:All men are “created” equal…has to do with rights…not outcomes.

Is anyone here suggesting equal outcomes? Because all I'm seeing is people pushing for as much equality in opportunity as possible, which has nothing to do with whether or not the outcomes are equal.

The President has based a number of his goals on equal outcomes. To fund these goals he wants to raise taxes on the "rich". He has said that someone who makes as much as he does should pay more than he did.

Well he knows that the IRS has the mechanism to accept more than the minimum amount his accountants have reduced his legal obligation to. He is free to send in more than he did. He just doesn't want to live up to his own criticisms of others. Otherwise he would surely lead by example and pay whatever percentage he thinks someone earning his wage scale should pay!

Funny how he can go around demagoguing the point that rich people like him should pay more... referring to this unspecified number as "their fair share"... yet he can't seem to come up with that number even when he's sending in his own tax payment! Some leader.
He's good at being the leader of a class envy movement but not of a representative republic.

And Spidey is dead on target in my view. Equality and fairness are diametrically opposed in the context of legislation. Fairness is a nebulous, arbitrarily defined at best, metric. Equality is easily measured with simple math or comparisons.

I earned the money I pay my phone bill with on an equal playing field with all my fellow countrymen. We are all equally free to earn a living. I wasn't born into the ability to go work as a helper in a HVAC company and build my skill level up to where I now own my own business....I just did it the same way anyone else is free to do.
Yet my bill has a tax hidden as a federal "fee" to pay for the phones for people that the government has deemed to be unfairly able to earn that income. Yet the metric they use to determine the "fairness" isn't any measure of fairness you can discover...it is simply based on how much they earn. So if someone chooses to earn so little that they don't disqualify themselves from receiving all sorts of financial assistance they also get their phone bill paid for.
Now, who exactly is unfairly "earning" money for their phone bill again?!?! Where is the equality in that legislation?!?! The equality was trumped by "fairness" that isn't fair at all!!

Top Gun wrote:

Spidey wrote:All men are “created” equal…has to do with rights…not outcomes.

Is anyone here suggesting equal outcomes? Because all I'm seeing is people pushing for as much equality in opportunity as possible, which has nothing to do with whether or not the outcomes are equal.

That’s a tough one…when banks were giving loans to lesser qualified applicants was that…

A) Equality of opportunity.

B) Equality of outcome.

The answer depends on your perspective.

But the people pushing for banks to give loans to under-qualified applicants are the people who believe in equality of outcome...

So I did some reading on this “Ayn Rand” person…doesn’t really sound much like the oligarchy type to me.

Some of her ideas sound good to me…some don’t…very typical of just about every philosopher I have ever read.

I guess since she is anti big government she must be evil personified.

Spidey wrote:I guess since she is anti big government she must be evil personified.

only if you're a Democrat

Ayn Rand believed in a society run by the 'successful', determined as the economically most 'successful'. That would essentially be an oligarchy. Of course, the great irony is that Rand died, essentially penniless, after subsisting on Social Security for several years.

callmeslick wrote:Ayn Rand believed in a society run by the 'successful', determined as the economically most 'successful'. That would essentially be an oligarchy. Of course, the great irony is that Rand died, essentially penniless, after subsisting on Social Security for several years.

No irony unless you happen to know she aspired to run the society instead of simply having an opinion on who was more qualified.

To get some traction to these principles, we should enact them on the E&C. The font size of your post will now be proportional to your net worth so that those who have better opinions can be more easily distinguished from those who don't.

★■◆●, guess I'll be writing in sub-pixel size.

CUDA wrote:I find that suggestion highly offensive

lol

Jeff250 wrote:To get some traction to these principles, we should enact them on the E&C. The font size of your post will now be proportional to your net worth so that those who have better opinions can be more easily distinguished from those who don't.

hilarious

Ok, all of the ponderings of Rand aside…I’m still left with trying to figure out how what I said has anything to do with an oligarchy.

I stated that voting was based entirely on equality, and the notion of fairness was left out of the equation, because people that don’t contribute to society have the same vote as people who do…how does that equate to an oligarchy?

Keep in mind…I never said anything about rich or poor…I said contribute or don’t, and the last time I checked, those who contribute are in the majority, and an oligarchy by default is a small group…look it up.

Because what you feel is "equality" is different for everyone. hate to break the news to you Spidey, but you do not have all the answers in this world. You may feel like you have a good insight onto how life should be in this country, but as a liberal person I look at you as someone that has no answers for the future. And you view me the exact same light. That's the nature of our society, so many people with so many different viewpoints. Fairness and equality would work quite well together if humans weren't a variable in the equation. As white men Spidey, I don't really think we can have a complaint about anything. We own the world. The rest are trying to catch up.

CobGobbler wrote:Because what you feel is "equality" is different for everyone. hate to break the news to you Spidey, but you do not have all the answers in this world. You may feel like you have a good insight onto how life should be in this country, but as a liberal person I look at you as someone that has no answers for the future. And you view me the exact same light. That's the nature of our society, so many people with so many different viewpoints. Fairness and equality would work quite well together if humans weren't a variable in the equation. As white men Spidey, I don't really think we can have a complaint about anything. We own the world. The rest are trying to catch up.

Well you certainly affirmed the notion that fairness can't be legislated.

And white people have a right to complain just like brown and red and yellow and green and etc. etc do.
Your logic that we are disqualified from having complaints by virtue of what we have relative to others is really flawed unless you think the only way to live is in a pure communistic society.

I'm white and I hereby complain that the bombing today was terribly wrong no matter what advantages white people might have over others. The bomber no doubt agrees with you though. Why do you want to support that extreme view? Does it make you feel compassionate? Looking for some righteous high ground to look down on someone from?

Lol, good ole one track minded Cob…I wasn’t complaining about a damn thing, my point is simply fairness and equality are not the end all ★■◆● they are cracked up to be.

In my opinion…Freedom is the more valuable condition.

LOL…Spidey’s moment of Zen…

“Fairness and equality would work quite well together if humans weren't a variable in the equation”

HaHaHaHaHa…

I was merely saying that white men shouldn't be allowed to say that fairness and equality aren't all that great simply for the fact that we've never experienced what women or minorities face on a daily basis. Of course you would think freedom is the more valuable, I feel the same way, but that's because we've always been on the positive side of equality. It's never worked against us.

And nice try Will. White men enjoy social privileges that other people do not. Has nothing to do with people setting off a bomb. We may disagree on a lot of things, but white man social privilege is not a debatable topic.

Spidey wrote:Duh…way to miss a point…

Take the challenge, instead of pointing out the obvious.

I was commenting on your "gripe".

Spidey wrote:In voting “equality” is the concept applied, but what’s so “fair” about someone that contributes little or nothing to society, getting the same vote as someone that contributes a lot more.

That's what a "right" is for, to protect people from those who don't think that something is "fair" based on some emotional reason or another and thus want to "deny" them something on that basis. You don't like the fact that some dumb ass idiot can have their vote weigh the same as your far superior vote. It's a Democracy laid down by our Founding Fathers, so live with it.

CobGobbler wrote:..
And nice try Will. White men enjoy social privileges that other people do not. Has nothing to do with people setting off a bomb. We may disagree on a lot of things, but white man social privilege is not a debatable topic.

Regardless of whatever "social privilege" you think white men have over others I disagree with your assertion that it means we white men can't complain, take issue with, etc. etc.
You implied our fortune in life disqualifies us from that 'right'.

I think you haven't thought that through very well because that kind of ill-logic is exactly the same kind of reasoning that is used to rationalize all sorts of oppression and tyranny and terrorism throughout history!

You seem to be so hung up with a ridiculous case of white guilt that you don't bother to test your own reactions and theories to see if they stand up to the test of reason and logic before you express them.

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:Duh…way to miss a point…

Take the challenge, instead of pointing out the obvious.

I was commenting on your "gripe".

Spidey wrote:In voting “equality” is the concept applied, but what’s so “fair” about someone that contributes little or nothing to society, getting the same vote as someone that contributes a lot more.

That's what a "right" is for, to protect people from those who don't think that something is "fair" based on some emotional reason or another and thus want to "deny" them something on that basis. You don't like the fact that some dumb ass idiot can have their vote weigh the same as your far superior vote. It's a Democracy laid down by our Founding Fathers, so live with it.

Didn't they leave you women out of the vote in that founding? So really you should shut up and go bake us a pie or something

You’re still missing my point tc, so I’m not even going to try anymore to explain it to you.

But I have to point this out, as being total BS…

“You don't like the fact that some dumb ass idiot can have their vote weigh the same as your far superior vote.”

You need to learn how to read…far as you know…I just might be one of those non-contributors.

Is that why, my statement is being seen as a gripe, because you all think that I consider my vote more valuable than some others…lol…just lol. NO I was just making an example.

Wow, sometimes I really do hate this medium.

Sorry Spidey. Don't get your hair all kinked out of shape. It was late and I took your "example" as a "gripe" and I ass-u-me-ed, wrong obviously.

By the way, fairness and equality is a concept born out of "respect" for your fellow citizens. You can take as much liberty and freedom as you want. In fact, you can take anything you want as a red-blooded American, it is a free country and ingrained in our principles. But you will invariably encroach upon the liberty and freedoms of your fellow citizens when you take yours. To respect others, a person has to trade a little of their own freedom to make things work for everyone as a whole. That's the definition of fair.

Will, I'll bake you a pie all right. A nice, hot, fully loaded, tripe pot pie. Ummmm, barnyard flavor.

I wish someone was around to tell a young white boy how privileged he was while he had to fight his way to and from school each day, because he was the one of the few white kids left in North Philly…I wish that same young man had someone around to tell him how privileged he was when he got thrown off of the apprenticeship waiting list for the local sheet metal fabricating shop, for the sake of affirmative action…I’m really glad I have someone to remind me how privileged I am for working my ass off to be able to live in the home I do now, while just next door, and all the way down the block, people get to live here with their rents subsidized by my tax payments. And I will have to keep in mind just how privileged I am every night from here on, when I try to fall asleep with the god awful diabetic neuropathy I have in my feet, with no treatment, because I have no health insurance…yes god bless the fact I am a privileged white man.

Not, that I would ever complain…you see…because I’m a privileged white man.

Spidey, I'm sorry you're bitter and no, it's not fair. I can't apologize for a system, that at one time with the best of intentions, tried to rectify a horrible wrong perpetrated upon a minority group of people. It goes to show you that no good deed goes unpunished. Like all human foibles, once someone gets what they want, they tend to take it for granted. Why some people bite the hand that helps them I'll never know. Maybe bitterness knows no end.

Yah Spidey, I guess I didn't realize you're the only person in America that has to work. You are the only one. I'm so honored to be able to know your online persona. Can I have an autograph? Maybe a signed picture? All you did in that little diatribe was blame everyone else. You sound like the kind of person that tips 4 dollars on a 65 dollar check.

Changed my mind. Not worth the comment

CobGobbler wrote:... All you did in that little diatribe was blame everyone else. ..

No, all you managed to twist it into is that. Most likely because you can't face the truth behind what you and all the rest of us know he really meant.

CUDA wrote:Changed my mind. Not worth the comment

Well, I'll comment because I saw something just this morning and very relevant to Spidey's beef with the system. CUDA, you'll be interested too. It has to do with something that we were taught in school as youngsters, which is about being fair and sharing with others. Even though I'm leftie, I believe there is a point here and shows the root of the problem with our system. A problem which the left tries to fix by mandate and a problem the right thinks can be fixed by elimination of said mandate. This can be applied to any of our social programs.

When I was young, the mantra that was taught us in school was that we should share our toys and food with the other kids to be fair and nice. I quickly found that if I shared my toys, or food, they either were broken, or outright taken with NO apology or future reciprocation. The psychology, it seems, is that when someone shares, many recipients will gain a sense of "entitlement" instead of a sense of "thanks". Familiar Spidey? Kind of sounds like your beef with the current welfare system. You know what? I quickly learned TO NOT SHARE with just any other kids just for this reason. My friends, of course, received better treatment. The reason is that a lot of people don't have an "empathic sharing" mindset. But if you want a fair society for everyone, how do you "encourage" people to have empathy for others when they'd just as soon take what they want or expect to be given what they want? Especially when that person, or group of people, is the product of a dominant society that took from them everything they ever had for decades?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2 ... preschool/

I think you missed two very important message in that lesson.

1. you cannot force people to share, it either comes from the heart or it doesn't.
2. that people will take advantage of your generosity and abuse those privileges as rights.

CUDA wrote:I think you missed two very important message in that lesson.

1. you cannot force people to share, it either comes from the heart or it doesn't.
2. that people will take advantage of your generosity and abuse those privileges as rights.

No, I didn't. Nowhere did I say we should "force" sharing. I said, "how do you 'encourage' people to have empathy for others"? Once you have empathy, the sharing part will naturally follow. If you force people to do something, others will always take advantage of that. I learned that lesson a long time ago. Lefties in government never seem to get that, even though they keep trying. I only fault them for continuing to try to force sharing when it's clearly something that's going against an ingrained human condition. You can't force empathy any more than you can force sharing. One either feels it, or doesn't.

So then, how do you right a past wrong, say slavery and oppression of a particular race, when bitterness competes with empathy and entitlement competes with sharing?