The World Thru My Eyes - I speak my mind and man does it like to talk.
Published on October 23, 2008 By CharlesCS In Politics
I am very interested in Barack Obama's ideas about fairness. I would like to take a  moment and talk about the word fairness.

Fairness - The property of being fair

Basically, to be fair, like having the same amount of players on each team when playing a game or sport or to split earnings 50/50 for equal work. But lets take the concept of playing a sport and explorer fairness a bit further.

Let's take a basket ball game scenario. You gonna play a game of B-ball with some  friends but realize there are 9 players
. To be fair, everyone agrees to make 2 teams of 4. To take fairness one step further, rather than picking players possibly leaving out the one with the least skills, everyone put their names on pieces of paper and drew them from a hat, the one left would be referee till the next game. So I guess you can say fairness played nicely in this scenario. Or did it? You see, whether you believe is God or not, fairness is not fully part of our human nature. Some people are smarter than others, some are faster and others are better B-ball players. So when the 2 teams of 4
were formed, just how fair was it really when one of the teams possibly had the player with the least skills and maybe one of the teams had 2 really good players? The  Chicago Bulls won 6 Championships thanks to Michael Jordan. A look back at those seasons would make some believe those other teams never really stood a chance. But the truth is Michael Jordan brought out the best in those who wanted to beat him so bad and when he left, this spirit of competition continued as more and more players got better and better.

Another example would be the New York Yankees winning 26 championships because they basically got the best of the best. Was it fair for the New York Yankees to be able to afford the best players while other teams had to settle for the 1 or 2 players they were able to acquire? In the end each team that played against the Yankees or the Bulls had the same amount of players on the field or court.

It would seem fairness is only applicable when the one who wants it is the one on the losing end. But then one could also say that fairness could be interpreted as you get what you deserve because it's what you earned. Is it fair to award a child with an A if they got all the answers on a test correct? Is it fair to give a B or a C if they have a
few answers incorrect? One would have to accept that some kids are smarter than others and some work harder than others to get the best grades they are capable of getting. Is that fair? Absolutely. 

Even when one becomes part of the workforce, one does not get a job to earn the same amount of money for the rest of their lives. Companies usually award employees with raises and promotions based (usually) on performance (though it can't be denied that favoritism, ass-kissing and friendship often play a role in these awards, which is obviously not fair). Competition is the key word here. This country was founded on
the notion that everyone had the right and equal opportunity of reaching the American Dream (although one can not deny, yet again, that there was a time when this did not apply to all races but I like to believe we are almost past this ignorance) by what ever legal means they chose (farming, medical, athlete, acting, singing, etc). Now,
again, nature plays it's role and not everyone will reach this American Dream be it by physical or mental disabilities, laziness, ignorance, or bad luck. So is it fair for them to fail to acquire the American Dream? Criminals get punished for breaking laws, athletes have to settle for 2nd or 3rd place and those whose work performance was lower that others will get little or no raises. It's just the way life works. It's what is considered fair, unless you are on the losing end. Fairness becomes subjective when the one getting the raise things it fair since he earned it while the one who didn't get the raise things it's not fair because he should get it anyways, even if their performance was less
than satisfactory.

So we come to the main point of my article. Democrats believe in fairness. They believe rich people have too much money and that those who were not so fortunate to be rich deserve to have more, whether they earned it or not. Why do I say that? Because Obama clearly stated he plans on giving 95% of the workforce tax cuts, but with 1/3 of them not paying taxes at all, that could mean only 1 of 2 thing:

1) Either Obama is lying about giving tax cuts to 95% of working Americans since 1/3 does not pay taxes anyways.

or

2) A tax cute to people who don't pay taxes means a tax refund. In other words they get money they did not work for (since it's not part of their wages) from someone who did earn it but was forced to give it up thru higher taxes.

Obama's own words:

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everyone"
 
Even a child can understand that spreading the wealth means taking from one and give to another. Ask a child to spread the wealth of his toys and see how many will say "OK" once they understand their toys are no longer theirs.

I work very hard for my money and I accept my wages because I know I did not try hard enough to earn higher wages. But I am working on earning more money, not thru Gov't help and higher taxes, but thru education, working harder and improving my performance in order to earn raises and promotions or even finding a better paying job somewhere else.

Fairness is a subjective word,  the meaning depends on the persons perpective of what fairness is. Wendy's restaurant believes 5 pieces of chicken nuggets for $.99 is fair, Birger King believes 4 chicken tenders $1 is fair. McDonalds doesn't even have a $1 chicken nugget deal. What do you think?

Keep in mind, when heading to the voting stations this election year, educate yourself before you vote. make sure you understand the policies of you candidate. For you never know when their policies will make you feel good today and bad tomorrow. Fairness is not fair when someone believes they are getting the short end of the stick, you never know when that someone may be you.

So how can we vote for policies that imply fairness when the word fairness is a subjective word and not everyone will think these policies are fair? How is it being fair when one has to be forced to lose just to give the losers a chance toi win? Where is the incentive to improve when the road to victory is driven for you? Why even bother
to get an education when you will be a winner either way or a loser if you work too hard? Say what you want, this is what fairness thru Obama and the Democrats is all about.

Fairness is not fair when only 1 person gets to choose what is fair.

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Oct 23, 2008

Awww. more BS as usual!

Can you be more specific? Short answers like these can be very confusing and misunderstood.

 

on Oct 23, 2008

They see it as belonging to the country, the government, or the world, depending on the context of the moment, rather than the descrete property of individuals.

The irony is that this country was founded on the principals that people have the right to pursue happiness. That people had the right, ability and opportunities to reach the the American Dream. Since when did the American Dream become taking someone else Dream?

on Oct 23, 2008

As long as the difference in perception exists, discussions are useless.

And here in lies the point of my article, how can anything be fair when even the meaning of the word fairness is not absolute?

on Oct 23, 2008

They see it as belonging to the country, the government, or the world, depending on the context of the moment, rather than the descrete property of individuals. If that were true, they would be right that it is unfair that only a few controll it.

Disregarding the nonsense response to my comment, since they don't actually address the points i raised, here is a great comment that hits the matter at the core. Is it as CS says, 400 people "Own" the wealth in this country? and who said that? and who gave those people that great right? are they a new "Royalty", i thought this country is owned by all the people and MUST be governed by the people for ALL the people !!!!

as an example: all that oil being produced from public lands leased to oil companies. why are they getting the lion share of that oil's profits? isnt it originally owned by all of us? yes they developed it, they spent their capital on it .. and they should get good return on their investment. and they should be able to make as much money as they can ... with one little provision which they and the rest of the right forget... that is: the original owner should at least get an equal share of that resource's profits too and it should be used to benefit all the people.

the funny part of the right's philosophy is that if this was private ownership .. as in land or business they say the owner must get the lion share of the profit ... but when it comes to the "country's ownership" ... they reverse the principle and say the leasee should get the lion share of the profits!!!!!

it is always the double standard , the dishonesty and selfishness of the philosophy that is really at the heart of this whole split between Dems and Reps.

it sad really ... we can all be much better and wealthier if greed and selfishness is not holding the minds of some ...

the Really Old GOP knew better and was not that greedy or selfish. ... the current one? is hopeless and ... going down fast.

on Oct 23, 2008

And here in lies the point of my article, how can anything be fair when even the meaning of the word fairness is not absolute?

only in your mind charles ... only in your mind. nothing is absolute in this life ... that doesnt mean you cant judge and do the "fair" thing in any situation. being not an absolute is a measure that helps peopl who are "fair-minded" do their best to reach the right judgement in different situations. the same act can be fair in one cas and not in another ....

it has been a talent of the reps lately that they confuse the issue in order to abort or distarct the issues and the discussions.

abortion? is an absolute... gun control .. again absolute ... no regulations .. an absolute ..... all because therre is no way, in their opinion (and you seem to be of that opinion), to be fair or reasonable since all these things are not defined in an absolut way !!!!

there is such a thing that is called "reasonable" ... you can share the country's wealth reasonably, regulate things reasonably, fight in a campaign reasonably, be selfish reasonably, be generous reasonably... it exists charles ... it exists .... you ought to try it sometime ... nothing is absolute ... nothing ... and if you looking for it in order to be fair ... you will never be .... ever, and this may be the only absolute in this life... really.

on Oct 23, 2008

Disregarding the nonsense response to my comment, since they don't actually address the points i raised,

Now you know how I felt.

Is it as CS says, 400 people "Own" the wealth in this country?

Keepin mind your own words, "in this country" not "from this country".

and who gave those people that great right?

Hmmm, lets see, are you suggesting they somehow took this money from someone else? Are you saying this money was somewhere like a cave where the people of thisnation were saving it and they somehow waltzed in and took it? How ridiculous this question is. Since when is it a crime or a bad thing for some people to be good at making money? I didn't know there was some kind of limit as to how much one can make. Tell me ThinkAloud, why do some States have a lottery that grows by the millions every time no one wins it if people think no one should have that much money? Sounds like a lot of hypocritical people to decry how rich people should not have  so much money while buying that lottery ticket faithfully every week.

are they a new "Royalty"

LOL, sounds like envy coming fromyour comments.

on Oct 23, 2008

as an example: all that oil being produced from public lands leased to oil companies. why are they getting the lion share of that oil's profits? isnt it originally owned by all of us? yes they developed it, they spent their capital on it .. and they should get good return on their investment. and they should be able to make as much money as they can ... with one little provision which they and the rest of the right forget... that is: the original owner should at least get an equal share of that resource's profits too and it should be used to benefit all the people.

Yea, and I guess all the taxes they currently pay isnot enough, right? Tell me ThinkAloud, if you open a business and you rent a place to from where to run it and you make huge profits. Do you think the owner of the rental place deservesmore than the money you pay for your lease?

on Oct 23, 2008

Tell me ThinkAloud, if you open a business and you rent a place to from where to run it and you make huge profits. Do you think the owner of the rental place deservesmore than the money you pay for your lease?

the discussion with you chales is useless i think. the land that has oil in it is just like renting a place to open ur busn? what can i say charles .... nothing i guess.... ok charles ... they just lease an emptyland ... like the one in Saudia arabia .. it is just empty desrt land ... isnt it?

and you expect me to answer that ....

the spin and the confusion is not working anymore buddy .... it is all more than obvious ... this is not a discussion ... it is just grabbing at straws ... .

sorry charles ... you all are correct. .... this mess that we are all in is all my fault and the fault of people like me.  you happy now?

i realy dont know how you guys sleep at night with clear concious. !!!!!

on Oct 24, 2008

 

the discussion with you chales is useless i think. the land that has oil in it is just like renting a place to open ur busn? what can i say charles .... nothing i guess.... ok charles ... they just lease an emptyland ... like the one in Saudia arabia .. it is just empty desrt land ... isnt it?

The point, which you failed to miss, was that the people renting these lands made a deal when the lease was made. If the Gov't chose not to take a cut from the oil that is being extracted, refined and sold to gas station (which I doubt they are not) then it's the Gov't who messed up. But then I have doubts they don't benefit from it, what you fail to understand is what is the point of having land with all that oil under it if no one wants to extract it with the money out of their pocket because then they would have to give, apart from the lease payments, (say) 50% of the profits to the Gov't? Will the Gov't extract the oil themselves? They probably could, but it would seem it was more profitable to let someone else do it for their share, regardless of how small it is, is basically almost 100% profitable. Not only are they charging for the lease, but they get taxes and probably a cut. I can't be certain since I have not currently researched this, but I can check to see.

the spin and the confusion is not working anymore buddy .... it is all more than obvious ... this is not a discussion ... it is just grabbing at straws ... .

sorry charles ... you all are correct. .... this mess that we are all in is all my fault and the fault of people like me. you happy now?

i realy dont know how you guys sleep at night with clear concious. !!!!!

Said the pot to the kettle.

on Oct 24, 2008

the discussion with you chales is useless i think. the land that has oil in it is just like renting a place to open ur busn? what can i say charles .... nothing i guess.... ok charles ... they just lease an emptyland ... like the one in Saudia arabia .. it is just empty desrt land ... isnt it?

Seriously dude, it's becoming difficult to understand you. Can you please invest a minimum of time checking if what you typed are actual words forming something resembling sentences?

 

on Oct 24, 2008

you would realize it was our country's wealth.

I'm sorry to say but you are wrong.  The only wealth that the country has is the taxes that we pay every year.  That's it, the rest of the wealth is earned or traded for by the American people.  Yes the Fed can put money into the system or remove it from the system but that just changes the value of each dollar through inflation and deflation.  Whether you like it or not the wealthy earned every dollar in their possession and it is theirs NOT the countries.

on Oct 24, 2008

Whether you like it or not the wealthy earned every dollar in their possession and it is theirs NOT the countries.

Now that is not quite correct.

 

on Oct 24, 2008

since they don't actually address the points i raised,

You raised some points?  Before or after you tried to insult everyone?  Your problem is that you dont know how to enter a room without crapping on all the hosts and guests.

on Oct 24, 2008

Is it as CS says, 400 people "Own" the wealth in this country? and who said that? and who gave those people that great right? are they a new "Royalty", i thought this country is owned by all the people and MUST be governed by the people for ALL the people !!!!

Who owns the wealth I earned?  DO you?  YOu blew it big time here.  YOu assume that 400 people own the US.  And that is not even accurate.

But instead of addressing the question - you instead create a straw man, that does not have anything to do with the article, but just your agenda.  As has been said many times, liberals do not debate the point, they change the point to what they want to debate.

land that has oil in it is just like renting a place to open ur busn?

You are ignorant of the Constitution and laws of the land.  DO you even believe the nonsense you spout?  And how stupid that statement is?

on Oct 24, 2008

YOu assume that 400 people own the US. And that is not even accurate.

Well to be fair DrGuy, he got the from me which I got from another article where someone tried to point that merely 400 Americans hold almost all the money in this country. I tried to use it as an example not as actual fact.

3 Pages1 2 3