Define "Fairness" for us.

[Ishmael]

To the best of your ability anyway. When a politician throws out the word 'Fair' what is the mental image that word conjures for you?

Ishmael

 

[Saint Peter]

The rich, the white, and the religious fucking over the rest of us that are not.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A_J's corollary #11, “The New Age Liberal defines a fair share of taxes as, ‘When you pay your taxes, you have no more money left than anyone else has.’”

and

If you ask your government to treat someone "fairly," the only way it can ever accomplish that task is to treat someone "unfairly."
A_J, the Stupid

I could defer to the economic expert from Harvard:

Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%.” It’s now 15%. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.
A: What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.
Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

But I'm not as smart as Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The rich, the white, and the religious fucking over the rest of us that are not.

Oh gawd...



Pray for me Argentina.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The rich, the white, and the religious fucking over the rest of us that are not.

What he said

 

[fair_warning]

Political fairness will have a direct relationship to the number of votes it influences.

 

[Ishmael]

It really is one of those greasy, malleable, words.

Ishmael

 

[JoeRockStar]

Jealousy

 

[busybody..]

Jealousy

 

[Bidin~Time]

Political fairness is usually anything but to those of us who work our asses off everyday.

 

[busybody..]

The rich, the white, and the religious fucking over the rest of us that are not.

Losers like PUTZNIGGER sitting around doing nuthing, being able to do nothing and AXING for BLING BLING on my dime

 

[off2bed]

To the best of your ability anyway. When a politician throws out the word 'Fair' what is the mental image that word conjures for you?

Ishmael

http://www.readersstop.com/files/1298228546.jpeg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It really is one of those greasy, malleable, words.

Ishmael

Reminds me of the Peiking Duck in Beijing...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Jealousy

:nods:

 

[Ishmael]

It appears to be one of those words that those on the left love to use but either have a hard time, or just don't want to, define. Joe seems to have a good handle on the lefts Roget's Thesaurus entry for the word.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It appears to be one of those words that those on the left love to use but either have a hard time, or just don't want to, define. Joe seems to have a good handle on the lefts Roget's Thesaurus entry for the word.

Ishmael

But you'll see it used today, and alas, it seems to be a bit like pornography, people just "know" it wen they see it.

I think Laissez-faire is the fair thing, but that implies "winners" and we cannot have that because it leaves losers, even though the loser is usually left better off by the exchange than by giving the government its cut through the theft of the thing.

 

[rosco rathbone]

It's interesting that modern conservatives feel plagued by the word "fairness" and related notions. There's a "guilty conscience" thing going on, probably because "the right" today is just the conservative-leaning side of what was formerly "the left" (going back several hundred years of course).

My "sig" is old-school conservatism.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's interesting that modern conservatives feel plagued by the word "fairness" and related notions. There's a "guilty conscience" thing going on, probably because "the right" today is just the conservative-leaning side of what was formerly "the left" (going back several hundred years of course).

My "sig" is old-school conservatism.

No, it's an ad hominem.

The guilty paradigm is the Left which is currently trying to manufacture more hate out of the death of the kid Trayvon.

And in case you have not looked lately, I see a distinct trend on the right for a return to true Liberalism, that of a few centuries ago before the label was co-opted by Socialism and Marxism.

 

[rosco rathbone]

No, it's an ad hominem.

The guilty paradigm is the Left which is currently trying to manufacture more hate out of the death of the kid Trayvon.

And in case you have not looked lately, I see a distinct trend on the right for a return to true Liberalism, that of a few centuries ago before the label was co-opted by Socialism and Marxism.

What's an "ad hominem"....Richard ll's response to the leaders of the rebellion?

My point stands, irregardless of the antics of those who'd capitalise on the death of an innocuous youth at the hands of a vigilante wannabe cop.

The fact that the concept of "fairness" is something that "the right" needs to deal with and defuse, is proof of their guilty conscience. The "ancien regime" didn't care if you thought they were unfair.

 

[trysail]

When a politician throws out the word 'Fair' what is the mental image that word conjures for you?

I'm soon to be robbed.


The closet dictators are present.

 

[Ishmael]

But you'll see it used today, and alas, it seems to be a bit like pornography, people just "know" it wen they see it.

I think Laissez-faire is the fair thing, but that implies "winners" and we cannot have that because it leaves losers, even though the loser is usually left better off by the exchange than by giving the government its cut through the theft of the thing.

One day it's going to dawn on folks how they've been taken in.

Tying the 'Green' and the 'Economy' threads together here in the 'Fairness' thread. The current regime poured hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the 'Solar' industry. Of course that was ALL supply side stimulus so they needed to do something on the demand side as well and that was in the form of rebates for solar implementers.

Now, as soon as the rebates were mentioned China geared up for production and killed the whole supply side of the stimulus while sucking up the fruits of the rebates in the form of dollars flowing off-shore. The Solar debacle is merely the latest, and most crashing failure, in a long line of government attempts to manipulate markets via failed stimulus and even worse results on demand side stimulation.

And this model is going to continue until such time as this nation has been sucked dry of manufacturing jobs and the discretionary income required to take advantage of all those government giveaways (rebates). And this is because government regulations and taxes have made it virtually impossible for US industry to react fast enough, or efficiently enough, to compete with the Chinese. Or to put it another way the stimulus to the solar industry would have been completely unnecessary if not for the taxes and regs. The rebate alone would have been sufficient enough to mobilize those players to begin satisfying the 'demand' side of the market.

And the above provides an answer to those that criticize 'supply side' economics. That is exactly what the government is engaging in with each and every subsidy.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What's an "ad hominem"....Richard ll's response to the leaders of the rebellion?

My point stands, irregardless of the antics of those who'd capitalise on the death of an innocuous youth at the hands of a vigilante wannabe cop.

The fact that the concept of "fairness" is something that "the right" needs to deal with and defuse, is proof of their guilty conscience. The "ancien regime" didn't care if you thought they were unfair.

I cannot deal with it unless you define it.

If you accuse me of mistreating my wife, when I don't, is my denial then proof of my guilty conscience?

I think, in this case, your logic may fail; I would submit that their concern with the word fairness (as I quoted in my first post) is that is is being furled as a battle standard in a culture war aimed at ending their way of life by the Left with its parade of unassailable victims.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I can define FAIRNESS.

Many years ago us guys went camping. All of the guys but one brought along high quality ground steak in case the fishing sucked (it did). One guy brought along a pack of white colored ground something, which he refused to share (no one wanted any of it).

The rest of us grilled a platter of tasty burgers. The other guy cookedup a pan of grease. Then he looked at our burgers, then his grease, then dumped the pan of grease atop our burgers and announced that he reconsidered and wanted to share.

Thats fairness.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

One day it's going to dawn on folks how they've been taken in.

Tying the 'Green' and the 'Economy' threads together here in the 'Fairness' thread. The current regime poured hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the 'Solar' industry. Of course that was ALL supply side stimulus so they needed to do something on the demand side as well and that was in the form of rebates for solar implementers.

Now, as soon as the rebates were mentioned China geared up for production and killed the whole supply side of the stimulus while sucking up the fruits of the rebates in the form of dollars flowing off-shore. The Solar debacle is merely the latest, and most crashing failure, in a long line of government attempts to manipulate markets via failed stimulus and even worse results on demand side stimulation.

And this model is going to continue until such time as this nation has been sucked dry of manufacturing jobs and the discretionary income required to take advantage of all those government giveaways (rebates). And this is because government regulations and taxes have made it virtually impossible for US industry to react fast enough, or efficiently enough, to compete with the Chinese. Or to put it another way the stimulus to the solar industry would have been completely unnecessary if not for the taxes and regs. The rebate alone would have been sufficient enough to mobilize those players to begin satisfying the 'demand' side of the market.

And the above provides an answer to those that criticize 'supply side' economics. That is exactly what the government is engaging in with each and every subsidy.

Ishmael

Excellent summation.

Knowing they will fail, they cry, "We're doing Supply Side" at once gaining the double benefit of redefining it (as they so often do) and the declaring it a failure when it is in fact nothing more than Central Planning.