Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Barry Obama is for wealth distribution. He believes in Collective Salvation. Yet the many who constantly defend Obama at every turn fail to show up. This thread is a great opportunity to discuss "fairness" and how you feel about it and why.
This deals with one of the biggest criticisms of Obama and Social Justice and none of you can come in here discuss it? Are you ashamed? Do you know that "fairness" is all a crock and social justice is wrong but afraid to admit it? Seriously, I want to hear what they have to say.
Commentators on the right are suggesting that the Administration's agenda will hurt our prosperity. Commentators on the left seem focused on fairness issues, including income and wealth disparities, and support the Administration's approach.
Granting that each side has valid points, where do you come down?
Would you be in favor of enforcing the outcome of more equal slices of a smaller pie that grows more slowly?
Or do you prefer policies that increase the vitality of the economy, with faster growth, but greater inequality of incomes and wealth?
I'm convinced there is a trade-off, but neither side presents the underlying issue as such.
What do you think?
Your posting sounded nice, but it ignores a single fact. Prosperity in itself, is fairness. EVERYONE has the opportunity to prosper, regardless if you do or dont, its fair. I was homeless 15 years ago after my home burned to the ground and I had no insurance (couldnt afford it).. I could have sat back and proclaimed life is unfair (especially considering it was due to arson), or I could get off my butt and make sure it never happened again. I chose the latter, but regardless of the choice, either decision I made would have been fair because it was MY decision..
Your posting sounded nice, but it ignores a single fact. Prosperity in itself, is fairness. EVERYONE has the opportunity to prosper, regardless if you do or dont, its fair. I was homeless 15 years ago after my home burned to the ground and I had no insurance (couldnt afford it).. I could have sat back and proclaimed life is unfair (especially considering it was due to arson), or I could get off my butt and make sure it never happened again. I chose the latter, but regardless of the choice, either decision I made would have been fair because it was MY decision..
I salute you, PGHQ. The original post was intended to frame the question as the "fairness" crowd would see it, because I hoped to get comments from them. Their program involves a tradeoff, and it would help everybody to know if "fairness" is an informed choice that acknowledges the tradeoff--or is based on ignorance of fundamental truths.
So far, no one from the "fairness" side has come close to addressing the tradeoff.
Commentators on the right are suggesting that the Administration's agenda will hurt our prosperity. Commentators on the left seem focused on fairness issues, including income and wealth disparities, and support the Administration's approach.
Granting that each side has valid points, where do you come down?
Would you be in favor of enforcing the outcome of more equal slices of a smaller pie that grows more slowly?
Or do you prefer policies that increase the vitality of the economy, with faster growth, but greater inequality of incomes and wealth?
I'm convinced there is a trade-off, but neither side presents the underlying issue as such.
What do you think?
Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome. People have to be responsible and hungry enough to go for that brass ring themselves, not depend on government to hand it to them.
Commentators on the right are suggesting that the Administration's agenda will hurt our prosperity. Commentators on the left seem focused on fairness issues, including income and wealth disparities, and support the Administration's approach.
Granting that each side has valid points, where do you come down?
Would you be in favor of enforcing the outcome of more equal slices of a smaller pie that grows more slowly?
Or do you prefer policies that increase the vitality of the economy, with faster growth, but greater inequality of incomes and wealth?
I'm convinced there is a trade-off, but neither side presents the underlying issue as such.
What do you think?
The great thing about this country's past is, everyone had an equal ability to achieve what they wish, with little to nothing to begin with and build their wealth, through hard work and determination.
The great thing about this country's past is, everyone had an equal ability to achieve what they wish, with little to nothing to begin with and build their wealth, through hard work and determination.
The nanny state has ruined that drive to succeed.
Just look at Europe. It has hit stagnation and especially in the UK the extreme nanny state there is driving out millions of Britons to Spain, Australia, and other countries. Course I'm afraid that're gonna ruin once nice countries by bringing their political correct liberal culture with them and be in denial about it by saying they are just escaping the dull grey weather. When in fact it's the system they yearn to be free from but don't realize it.
Commentators on the right are suggesting that the Administration's agenda will hurt our prosperity. Commentators on the left seem focused on fairness issues, including income and wealth disparities, and support the Administration's approach.
Granting that each side has valid points, where do you come down?
Would you be in favor of enforcing the outcome of more equal slices of a smaller pie that grows more slowly?
Or do you prefer policies that increase the vitality of the economy, with faster growth, but greater inequality of incomes and wealth?
I'm convinced there is a trade-off, but neither side presents the underlying issue as such.
What do you think?
It seems to me that as wealth disparity increases, overall prosperity actually decreases.
Also, I would disagree that neither side presents a need for a trade-off. From my observations, conservatives (i.e. the tea party/libertarians) won't compromise and want no social programs at all, but liberals/progressives want some social programs but are not advocating pure equality (communism).
For me, I just think that there should be a minimum living condition for everyone, at least enough food and minimal health care, just to keep them above water. I do think that food stamps are misused and should be reformed so that the beneficiaries can't buy pop and junk food with the money. In WA there is the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children) which gives 'coupons' for free, specific items like bread, milk, cereal and juice - a food stamp system like that I would be in favor of.
Commentators on the right are suggesting that the Administration's agenda will hurt our prosperity. Commentators on the left seem focused on fairness issues, including income and wealth disparities, and support the Administration's approach.
Granting that each side has valid points, where do you come down?
Would you be in favor of enforcing the outcome of more equal slices of a smaller pie that grows more slowly?
Or do you prefer policies that increase the vitality of the economy, with faster growth, but greater inequality of incomes and wealth?
I'm convinced there is a trade-off, but neither side presents the underlying issue as such.
What do you think?
This Country knew it's greatest growth and well being, when there were a great many people holding small pieces of the pie.
So if one 4 year old has 5 dolls and another 4 year old has none, should we take it from the one who has and give it to the one who has not?
How about letting the 4 year old who has 5 freely give from her heart and guess what?
She will if you have taught her compassion.
If you just take her doll away and give it to the other, you may be setting her up to hate.
So if one 4 year old has 5 dolls and another 4 year old has none, should we take it from the one who has and give it to the one who has not?
How about letting the 4 year old who has 5 freely give from her heart and guess what?
She will if you have taught her compassion.
If you just take her doll away and give it to the other, you may be setting her up to hate.
Or worse..hoard and not tell anyone and hide them so she doesn't have to worry about someone taking them from her.
With everyone, including the government all the way to the top man, saying "tax the rich" I'm sure the rich are moving their money out of the country and hedging and doing whatever it takes to protect THEIR assets.
People wanted their cheap crap from China. Well they got it but at a price. The price is that now America is a nation of consumers and service providers. Service is typically low paying with not much room for advancement of wealth. Without easy access to debt, the reality of what people can afford is hitting them like a ton of bricks.
We reap what we sow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
