[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
What you said about millionaires does not negate my statement at all. “I’d say in the upper middle class and lowest bracket of the upper class, you’ll find the people who actually made their cash.” If the upper middle class and lower upper class is 100k to 300k a year, and your millionaires are (I’m guessing mostly older and retired people) then that would be consistent with my statement. As the upper middle class and lower upper class do become millionaires within their lifetime should they save.
Also, simply earning several million within your lifetime does not mean were not the product of privilege. I wonder how many of these people got into more fortunate positions of privilege by way of nepotism?
Anyways, to go back to what I said about social justice. I should coin the term, ‘social integrity’ alongside it. I don’t believe the cure for the poor man, are the alms of the rich man, nor do I believe however, that man is allowed to be wolf to man.
Social justice is the idea that every man by his will, merit, work ethic and intelligence should be able to achieve in his lifetime what is his due share.[/quote]
Social Justice typically means “an equitable distribution of both benifits and hardships”. Usually with no consideration given to what is earned. The Center for Social Justice has in their definition : “a bid to narrow the gap in income, wealth and power”. The term usually includes an equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. That’s one of the problems with the term is that it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean, and then used as a club against whatever group they are against.
You might want to understand what a phrase means before you use it.[/quote]
You just said; the term has a loose meaning.
And; where in he CSJ definition does it refute my definition or imply obtaining Justice by abusive, unfair or exploitive methods? Implementation of social integrity and social justice per my method would result in said objective. You seem to read between the lines and create an invisible elephant of 'poor people robbing the rich through taxes.
You might want to reexamine your logic before posting patronizing statements like a condescending dick.
[/quote]
Ok, we’ll ignore how the rest of the world regards “social justice” and go with your definition. How do we determine what everyone’s “fair share” is?[/quote]
Never said anything about fair share, only about fair shake. There’s a big difference. Fair shake is a leveled playing field between the richies and the poories in terms of achievement.[/quote]
What you said was, “his due share.” So the question remains, who get’s to define what that is?
[quote]
Obviously it will never be perfect, but a huge step is not robbing the rich and giving to the poor, but rather, illegalizing the predatory practices of the rich over the poor and the gov’t preference to them.
You remember the mortgage bailout? How did that go down? Who did that benefit? The US gov’t took the tax payer’s money and bought the properties for the banks and gave it to them. So they remained the property owners with tax payer money, yet the common tax payer who owned the house from the bank, and might have been making his payments, was shafted with the same shyt loan. He has to pay back the bank on an overvalued house while the bank got a free ride. That doesn’t make sense, the f*up was systemic, it happened on all sides. Yet the homeowner got screwed and the bank got a free ride. Think about it.[/quote]
So basically you’re against crony capitolism? Why didn’t you just say so? I can agree with that. If we lived according to the Constitution the Fed Gov’t wouldn’t have the power to pick winners and losers as it currently does.