Thursday, February 16, 2012

A lesson in fairness from Barack Obama

Stephen Moore has penned a great piece on the skewed, distorted, perverse sense of fairness held by President Barack Obama, who uses "fairness" as a weapon to arouse further the discontent of the dependence-oriented segment of America that believes everyone owes them something.

Here's an excerpt from Mr. Moore's recent column in The Wall Street Journal:
President Obama has frequently justified his policies — and judged their outcomes — in terms of equity, justice and fairness. That raises an obvious question: How does our existing system — and his own policy record — stack up according to those criteria?
Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?
Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country's income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?
Is it fair that American corporations pay the highest statutory corporate tax rate of all other industrialized nations but Japan, which cuts its rate on April 1?
Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run, and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C. — but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools?
Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money — paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars — must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?
 The complete column is available here.

Comments are invited.


Rich said...

Fairness is such a slippery term. What's "fair" for you may be completely "unfair" for me. Is that fair to say?

Comment King said...

Income disparity has been growing dramatically since 1980, with those at the bottom having very little chance (if any) to achieve the American Dream and move up a few rungs on the social class ladder...

the only way to succeed in American is to have a healthy amount of starting capital as it takes money to make money... and those who actually work for a living have no chance of ever acquiring any true capital

the median income for a person in 2011 was less than $27,000, meaning 50% of all Americans earn around $500 per week.. and $500 isnt what is used to be this day and age...control for the cost of living in certain areas and you'll see just how small $500 truly is...

its only a matter of time before people realize how dire the situation is and how both parties try to pull votes by focusing on social issues (god, guns, gays, etc)... those americans who work hard each week, punching time clocks and making hourly wages will eventually realize how they been tricked into thinking they are "middle class" when they are really just "working poor" ...

James Shott said...

As far as poverty goes, people frequently are in poverty only temporarily.

According to the Census Bureau, "Poverty is not necessarily a permanent condition. While 29 percent of the nation's population was in poverty for at least two months between the start of 2004 and the end of 2006, only 3 percent were poor during the entire period."

And let's not discount industriousness as a factor in whether people succeed or not. Bill Gates dropped out of college and did pretty well for himself. I don't believe he had a pot of cash to help him get started.

A lot of those people earning less that $27,000 got thousands more in government assistance.

The picture is not as dire as you believe, in my opinion.

CK said...

Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard (not Blfd St.) and did have a chunk of capital starting out...ever heard of Horatio Alger? Perhaps you should post some of those stories...

oh.. and I agree about some of those making $27k receiving assistance, but it seems the GOP are ready to snatch that away as well and would rather see people starve in some circumstances. I think you'd be surprised at how many people you know actually receive assistance. You don't wear your welfare card on your sleeve so it can be hard to "eyeball" those who are struggling...

James Shott said...

Gates came from family with comfortable economic circumstances. The point I was making was that he didn't have big money of his own, but took an idea and with his partner built on it and became one of the most successful people of all time.

You really ought to research poverty in America. I'm not opposed to helping people in need, and in fact that's a lot of what my day gig is all about. But the government is not the proper, or even the most efficient vehicle, to do that, and often makes people more dependent, rather than teaching/helping them become self-sufficient.

How many of those people receiving assistance really NEED ALL that they get?

How many of them would work on their own to gain things they now buy with "government" money if they didn't get government money?

How many who wouldn't try to get that stuff they really don't NEED, but get it because they have "government" money?

What things and how much "government" money do people in need really NEED? How much is beneficial, and at what point does assistance do more harm than good?