Be Prepared for the F-Bomb!

[Gaspar]

So what's the problem with fairness?  As a campaign theme and as an economic idea it has a long and respectable history in American politics.  Presidents beginning with TR (an, ahem, Republican) have championed "a fair shake" for more than a century.  

And TR, as progressive as he was, was certainly no Commie.  Was he, Gaspar?  

EDIT: and lest we forget, there're plenty of good verifiable, measurable reasons to think that our economic system, as it stands, is unfair.

Income disparity during times of economic growth are typically when the subject of fairness arises as a contentious divider between those amassing wealth and those who are not.  It's an excellent footing to build a push for more social programs to be funded by those who are producing, and awarded to those who are producing votes.

In an economic contraction like the one we are in now, where the incumbent President has spent trillions in tax payer money bailing out the ultra-rich, and engaging in stimulus grants that most of the private sector will never have access to, it becomes rather whimsical that he would then adopt "Fairness" as a theme to continue his policies.

To his credit, he is courting a different base than he had in the first election.  I'm not sure if that is because his base has changed, or because he has changed his base, but the young, ambitious, liberal base he had in 2008 has been replaced with the hordes of hopeless we see him courting at OWS.

I'm not sure how wise it is to replace Hope, with Fairness.  To me that seems like a downgrade of his original message, but at least fairness is a tangible concept.  "Somebody has something that you do not.  Vote for me and I will make them give it to you."  Very visceral, and very easy to understand.

[Conan71]

Income disparity during times of economic growth are typically when the subject of fairness arises as a contentious divider between those amassing wealth and those who are not.  It's an excellent footing to build a push for more social programs to be funded by those who are producing, and awarded to those who are producing votes.

In an economic contraction like the one we are in now, where the incumbent President has spent trillions in tax payer money bailing out the ultra-rich, and engaging in stimulus grants that most of the private sector will never have access to, it becomes rather whimsical that he would then adopt "Fairness" as a theme to continue his policies.

To his credit, he is courting a different base than he had in the first election.  I'm not sure if that is because his base has changed, or because he has changed his base, but the young, ambitious, liberal base he had in 2008 has been replaced with the hordes of hopeless we see him courting at OWS.

I'm not sure how wise it is to replace Hope, with Fairness.  To me that seems like a downgrade of his original message, but at least fairness is a tangible concept.  "Somebody has something that you do not.  Vote for me and I will make them give it to you."  Very visceral, and very easy to understand.

He didn't deliver on "hope" or "change" so they needed a new buzzword they could market to those who didn't get their hoped for change.  Or perhaps, he's asking voters to be fair with him when evaluating his job before they go to the polls.

I'd hope most voters can see he's set new records for doing so little and blaming so many.

Here comes Ruf in 3, 2, 1....

[Teatownclown]

Just for you Tea.

Bravisimo!

[heironymouspasparagus]

Conan,
Here are classic examples of doublespeak from Gaspar in the first post and in one just a few above this.  He gets it and uses it perfectly.  Say one thing that is either the direct opposite of what you mean, or even better, if it is the direct opposite of reality.


It has already begun, but be prepared to hear it a lot more during this election.  The president does not have a track record with the economy, jobs, foreign relations, domestic relations, or growth, so it is expected that his entire platform will revolve round his new theme of "Fairness."  With OWS as his brownshirts and a slew of new graphic design, monikers, posters, and effigies, he will push the concept of redistribution and fairness as his primary platform.  According to the New York Times, this is his road to success, and as long as people remain unemployed this will resonate with them.


This doublespeak event really starts up strongly with the comment about no track record.  There is actually a pretty significant amount of track record, mostly in the first two years of his term - most of it surprisingly better than not.  This was detailed in depth in a post Nathan made quite a while ago.  Calling OWS brownshirts is a little sideline exercise, where he takes the characteristics of the group he is promoting in the background and ascribes it to the opponent.


In an economic contraction like the one we are in now, where the incumbent President has spent trillions in tax payer money bailing out the ultra-rich, and engaging in stimulus grants that most of the private sector will never have access to, it becomes rather whimsical that he would then adopt "Fairness" as a theme to continue his policies.

In this one, we see how he uses the comment of being in an economic contraction, trying to get an implied agreement to that first false premise so that his follow on comments are just automatically accepted, since they follow that first falsehood.  This President in actuality did NOT spend trillions in taxpayer money bailing out the rich - it was in fact his predecessor that did exactly that.

[Gaspar]

Conan,
Here are classic examples of doublespeak from Gaspar in the first post and in one just a few above this.  He gets it and uses it perfectly.  Say one thing that is either the direct opposite of what you mean, or even better, if it is the direct opposite of reality.


It has already begun, but be prepared to hear it a lot more during this election.  The president does not have a track record with the economy, jobs, foreign relations, domestic relations, or growth, so it is expected that his entire platform will revolve round his new theme of "Fairness."  With OWS as his brownshirts and a slew of new graphic design, monikers, posters, and effigies, he will push the concept of redistribution and fairness as his primary platform.  According to the New York Times, this is his road to success, and as long as people remain unemployed this will resonate with them.


This doublespeak event really starts up strongly with the comment about no track record.  There is actually a pretty significant amount of track record, mostly in the first two years of his term - most of it surprisingly better than not.  This was detailed in depth in a post Nathan made quite a while ago.  Calling OWS brownshirts is a little sideline exercise, where he takes the characteristics of the group he is promoting in the background and ascribes it to the opponent.


In an economic contraction like the one we are in now, where the incumbent President has spent trillions in tax payer money bailing out the ultra-rich, and engaging in stimulus grants that most of the private sector will never have access to, it becomes rather whimsical that he would then adopt "Fairness" as a theme to continue his policies.

In this one, we see how he uses the comment of being in an economic contraction, trying to get an implied agreement to that first false premise so that his follow on comments are just automatically accepted, since they follow that first falsehood.  This President in actuality did NOT spend trillions in taxpayer money bailing out the rich - it was in fact his predecessor that did exactly that.

Wow!  That's a lot of analysis to explain a simple observation.  I am either brilliant, or you are attempting to over-analyze reality to justify your own interpretation of President Obama's performance.

If you think he has done such an excellent job, than woe be it from me to steal your cheese.   I remember a rather positive thread from three years ago where we asked everyone to be non-partisan and express what their hopes for President Obama were beyond whether they supported him in the election or not.  I would be very interested in making that comparison from the "Hope" of 2008 to the reality of 2011.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wow!  That's a lot of analysis to explain a simple observation.  I am either brilliant, or you are attempting to over-analyze reality to justify your own interpretation of President Obama's performance.

If you think he has done such an excellent job, than woe be it from me to steal your cheese.   I remember a rather positive thread from three years ago where we asked everyone to be non-partisan and express what their hopes for President Obama were beyond whether they supported him in the election or not.  I would be very interested in making that comparison from the "Hope" of 2008 to the reality of 2011.

I wasn't here then.  But I had not particular hopes for his Presidency, given his history of attempted destruction of the Bill of Rights.  And did have some dread.  As for doing the job - well he hasn't hurt us nearly as badly as the previous clown (sorry, TTC).  And we actually are improving despite all the doublespeak.  Too bad it isn't faster.

[nathanm]

In this one, we see how he uses the comment of being in an economic contraction, trying to get an implied agreement to that first false premise so that his follow on comments are just automatically accepted, since they follow that first falsehood.  This President in actuality did NOT spend trillions in taxpayer money bailing out the rich - it was in fact his predecessor that did exactly that.

In all fairness, neither of them spent trillions of taxpayer dollars bailing out the rich. One could argue that the Fed did that, but even that's a distortion of the record.

[Gaspar]

In all fairness, neither of them spent trillions of taxpayer dollars bailing out the rich. One could argue that the Fed did that, but even that's a distortion of the record.

It was all George Bush wasn't it?

[nathanm]

It was all George Bush wasn't it?

You may want to try reading that again.

[swake]

Now almost 25% of Americans are in poverty or are low income.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9461848-dismal-prospects-1-in-2-americans-are-now-poor-or-low-income

If you don't see that as a huge problem, you are just plain stupid. Income inequality in the US is the worst in the developed world.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/08/news/economy/global_income_inequality/index.htm

We rank alongside countries like China and Sri Lanka, not Canada or Europe, that's very bad.

[Gaspar]

Now almost 25% of Americans are in poverty or are low income.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9461848-dismal-prospects-1-in-2-americans-are-now-poor-or-low-income

If you don't see that as a huge problem, you are just plain stupid. Income inequality in the US is the worst in the developed world.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/08/news/economy/global_income_inequality/index.htm

We rank alongside countries like China and Sri Lanka, not Canada or Europe, that's very bad.

Our accounting for poverty is wrong!  It is based on income only. As I've mentioned before, my parents are living in poverty, because the distribution they take from their retirement is about equal to their mortgage plus the minimum they can get by with, without additional tax penalties. In fact, most of the members of my father's country club would probably qualify as well under the poverty line, because they spend far more than their income.

[Conan71]

Now almost 25% of Americans are in poverty or are low income.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9461848-dismal-prospects-1-in-2-americans-are-now-poor-or-low-income

If you don't see that as a huge problem, you are just plain stupid. Income inequality in the US is the worst in the developed world.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/08/news/economy/global_income_inequality/index.htm

We rank alongside countries like China and Sri Lanka, not Canada or Europe, that's very bad.

I read this problem stated over and over again.  What do you propose as a solution to this?

[Townsend]

I read this problem stated over and over again.  What do you propose as a solution to this?

Education would be a good start.  That's a broad stroke but it seems pretty obvious to me.

[Hoss]

Education would be a good start.  That's a broad stroke but it seems pretty obvious to me.

Education, but you need to get parents involved as well.  They aren't like they used to be when I was growing up.  I'm a product of TPS and I turned out fine...wait,what?

 

[Conan71]

Education would be a good start.  That's a broad stroke but it seems pretty obvious to me.

I agree.

We also need trash collectors, diesel mechanics, landscapers, etc.  Who thinks hanging off the back of a garbage truck should be a $50 or $60,000 per year occupation?

How many people are willing to pay double for car or home repairs to remedy this problem?  Pay double for produce or meats to make sure the supermarket workers, truck drivers, cattle drovers and fruit pickers aren't living below the poverty line?

Anyone think the government should place limits on the amount of income someone should earn?  Think they should confiscate the wealth of the more fortunate?

Income disparity, long a favorite concern of liberals, is painted as being one of the worst problems with our country.  What's the solution?  I'd really like to hear some well-thought out solutions.

Gaspar makes a good point about our accounting for this is misleading.  There are also a lot of families who make the choice to be a single income family so the mother (or father) can stay home with the kids.  Those families aren't necessarily living in squalor.  They live in tidy little homes or apartments, they drive cars, have smart phones, computers, and flat screen TV's.  Our "poor" live a whole lot better than the poor of China, Mexico, India, or Africa.