basic Amercian question- freedom or equality?

[Ted Hoppe]

At a recent speech Rick Santorum's at the Detroit Economic Club stirred a bit of controversy when he said: “I’m not about equality of result when it comes to income inequality. There is income inequality in America. There always has been, and hopefully—and I do say that—there always will be.” clearly Santorum (though irrelevant now) is not a great intellectual but he does put out a position different than Obama pitch for equality and makes for a good troll piece too!

so it begs the fundamental basic American question. Do we want equality while being encumbered with lost liberties Or do we want freedom without being concern for equality or fairness or is thier realistic room for the center? (the answer you provide really does help put you in the box of liberal, conservative or libertarian.)

[TANSTAF1]

If George Soros will equalize his income with mine I will abandon all my former principles and go for equality. JK.

[Gerarddm]

"Lost liberties". Pious nonsense. What unadulterated claptrap.

Hey -> there have always been poor people. Greece, Rome, whoever. That's the way the world works. There is great economic incentive to move those poor up the economic ladder though- that what helps spur growth. So Santorum is, as usual, full of baloney.

[Norman Bernstein]

A certain degree... even a substantial degree.... of income and wealth inequality is absolutely inherent in the capitalist system... and far from being objectionable, it is both necessary, and a good thing.

However, notice I said 'a certain amount'. When the amount gets too large, capitalism becomes plutocracy.

I don't have a problem with rich and poor. Some of us are luckier than others (and luck has FAR more influence in our position in life than hard work and individual initiative EVER did). We don't all have a right to wealth.

What matters is where you draw the line. When the inequality reaches the level where working people cannot afford decent health care... when poor people are nutritionally deficient.... when ordinary people can't get the benefits of a quality public education.... then you know we've gone too far.

I really think it is as simple as that. When the game of life is rigged so that MOST people see their standard of living stalled and declining, while a very small percentage of the population sees their fortunes skyrocket, we've past the point where we need to be concerned.

Freedom is not at stake here. For the most part, we pay for our freedom by voluntarily giving up a little bit of it; without societal control, unregulated capitalism is essentially a suicide mission. We can differ in the amount of freedom we voluntarily give up, but the libertarian notions of freedom are indeed suicidal for America.

[BrianY]

I think that the problem with this kind of thing is that the question is always framed as an either/or proposition and people tend to think in absolutist terms. For example, when talking about "equality" do you mean "100% equality in all ways" or a broader sense of equality where everyone has the same opportunities and the same potential but not absolute equality in a strict sense?

Obviously, if you define equality in an absolute sense, then there's going to have to be a loss of liberties -no doubt about it. And I think this is the kind of thing that Santorum and others think about when they disaparge the Left's efforts to promote "equality". I don't think, however, that very many people on the Left actually belive that 100% equality is a worthwhile goal. At least not anyone with half a brain.

The Founding Fathers believe in the second vision of 'equality" - equality of opportunity and potential and I think that conservative used to believe in that as well. The problem is now that becasue our society has become so un-equal in terms of economic status and political power, that there is no longer true eqaulity of opportunity and potential. At least, that is how many on the liberal end of the spectrum see it. To many of us, it seems that the conservative ideas and policies are heading toward "freedom without being concerned for equality or fairness" (an idea that seems especially prevalent among Libertarians) - which is fine as long as you're well off and have some degree of power. If you don't have these things, you're screwed.

The real point is to return to that mythical time when "equality" meant "equality of opportunity". To do this, we have to give up the Libertarian notion that people should have absolute liberty 100% of the time and accept that sometimes individual liberty must be compromised for the sake of the common good. Of course, we have to be extremely careful about when and how individual liberty is compromised.

[ccmanuals]

I believe people basically wanted to be treated fairly and equally in our society regardless of your income or social status and have an equal opporunity for advancement. Isn't that the American way?

[Peerie Maa]

The vital and over arching equality is equality of opportunity. The American cliché is that any native born American can become president, nice idea but at the moment pure cowchips because money rules, America is no longer a meritocracy.
Norman mentioned two of the keystones that facilitate equality of opportunity. Equality of access to good quality education, and equality of access to good quality health care. Without a trained mind and a healthy body you will not be able to compete effectively or maximise your opportunities.
Around about 2005 I watched an interview with a wealthy southern American church goer. The interview was on charity. The interviewer was probing on the concept of using charitable donations to fund education and things like help to startup businesses, thereby helping the poor to work their way out of poverty. The subject of the interview was adamant that his bible taught him to use charity to provide material assistance like food and clothing. The back story being his (possibly unconscious) desire to keep the poor in poverty. Not a pretty picture, and one that I hope for America's sake is a minority view.

[skuthorp]

Probably the most, and possibly the only respected politician in Australia's Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbul, said this about the US political setup the other day:
"He likened America as "looking like a country that is barely governed" and remarked on the corrupting power of money in politics.
Links to full copyright texts here.:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pol...skin=text-only

[ljb5]

clearly Santorum (though irrelevant now) is not a great intellectual but he does put out a position different than Obama pitch for equality and makes for a good troll piece too!

It's definitely a troll piece.

Obama has not said he wants to make everyone equal.

Move along.

[Ted Hoppe]

In another thread...i considered the founding fathers intent. Hamilton chose a path of inequality over freedom. Paine advocated a human approach of civil responsibility for the promotion of equality. I see myself leaning toward agrarian justice and the rights of man in a Paine prospective. Personally noting nothing that is free is never appreciated; we must work to earn our contributing right as there is a social compact to be build a better place for oneself, ones family and sustaining a better community.

As i see it, a middle road must be taken. It is everyone's duty to be good industious citizens, be charitable, be vigilant on challenges on liberty, be cognizant of the tyranny of wealth oligarchy and build a society with a sustainable democratic republic. How we work to treat our wretched or downtrodden tell us much about us - a promised nation under God. As we act toward those ideals, it further gives us tacit permission to treat each other similarly.

[Ted Hoppe]

It's definitely a troll piece.

Obama has not said he wants to make everyone equal.

Move along.

can you answer the premise or do you want to challenge the question?
I think it easier for the latter as it might be an economy of mind, energy or the inability to cut and paste a personal belief

[WX]

Thanks for that link Jeff.
I heard an interview with Santorum the other day and in my book he's a nut case. There's far too much religion in US politics.

[skuthorp]

In another thread...i considered the founding fathers intent. Hamilton chose a path of inequality over freedom. Paine advocated a human approach of civil responsibility for the promotion of equality. I see myself leaning toward agrarian justice and the rights of man in a Paine prospective. Personally noting nothing that is free is never appreciated; we must work to earn our contributing right as there is a social compact to be build a better place for oneself, ones family and sustaining a better community.

As i see it, a middle road must be taken. It is everyone's duty to be good industious citizens, be charitable, be vigilant on challenges on liberty, be cognizant of the tyranny of wealth oligarchy and build a society with a sustainable democratic republic. How we work to treat our wretched or downtrodden tell us much about us - a promised nation under God. As we act toward those ideals; it further gives us tacit permission to treat each other similarly.

There's a big difference between that and robber baron oligarchy that some sections of the GOP seem to either ignore or be ignorant of.

[ljb5]

can you answer the premise or do you want to challenge the question?

I think I did answer the question. Your premise is flawed because it suggests a conflict where none exists.

No one has taken the side of 'equality of result.' No one. It was wrong of Santorum to suggest it. It was wrong of you to relay it.

So, you're a troll; Santorum is wrestling a staw man, Obama isn't Karl Marx and this thread is pointless.

[Glen Longino]

Thanks for that link Jeff.
I heard an interview with Santorum the other day and in my book he's a nut case. There's far too much religion in US politics.

Why must you demean Santorum by calling him a "nut case"?
At least give him credit where it's due and call him an egomaniacal sociopath!

[Ted Hoppe]

There's a big difference between that and robber baron oligarchy that some sections of the GOP seem to either ignore or be ignorant of.

It is easier to be bought than build. Most of the oligarchy is lazy and from my understandings our patricians deplore the labor they need for sustainable nation building. That is why they work as best they can to rid it or profit from its export and lately from it's failure.

[Mrleft8]

yes

[ljb5]

What do you mean by "equality of result"?

Don't ask me... ask Santorum. That was the phrase he used in the quote above.

I suspect he really doesn't know what he meant by it. He's against it, so naturally, he implies that Obama is for it... and some people naturally believe that Obama is for it, because Santorum said he's agianst it.

But that don't make it so.

[Ted Hoppe]

I think I did answer the question. Your premise is flawed because it suggests a conflict where none exists.

No one has taken the side of 'equality of result.' No one. It was wrong of Santorum to suggest it. It was wrong of you to relay it.

So, you're a troll; Santorum is wrestling a staw man, Obama isn't Karl Marx and this thread is pointless.

I take you for a more intelligent person. Santorum statements are obviously divisive. with wealth inequities of the population changing the political landscape it is your ignorance to suggest otherwise. this new guided age where the majority of the population are being marginalized from unpresidented influence does not help the democratic republic.

[wardd]

a line should be drawn at the state instituting tax policies that exacerbate wealth inequality

[Chip-skiff]

How we work to treat our wretched or downtrodden tell us much about us - a promised nation under God. As we act toward those ideals; it further gives us tacit permission to treat each other similarly.

Could you restate this? I would like to get it, but I don't. The semicolon in particular.

[Paul Pless]

The vital and over arching equality is equality of opportunity. The American cliché is that any native born American can become president, nice idea but at the moment pure cowchips because money rules, America is no longer a meritocracy.

You say that even in the face of our current president???

[Ted Hoppe]

( ideals, it ...

I am an easy target as english is not my native tongue. I have no second written language skills either as I am a product of public education.

[Chip-skiff]

( ideals, it ...

I am an easy target as english is not my native tongue. I have no second written language skills either as I am a product of public education.

This is curious. When I clicked on Reply With Quote, what appears is different than the text in your message above, yet there's no note that it's been edited. I know this is a bit of a swerve. What's going on?

[Ted Hoppe]

This is curious. When I clicked on Reply With Quote, what appears is different than the text in your message above, yet there's no note that it's been edited. I know this is a bit of a swerve. What's going on?

I am writing via an old iPhone. I suffer from extreme dyslexia. Oftentimes the word when posted look scrambled to me and I try to be clear. I am sorry for the immediate changes less you think I am more stupid than my lame posts.

[Peerie Maa]

This is curious. When I clicked on Reply With Quote, what appears is different than the text in your message above, yet there's no note that it's been edited. I know this is a bit of a swerve. What's going on?

That happened to me when trying to respond to ljb5. I could only see half of his post, until I quoted it, which changed the meaning entirely. really odd.

[Peerie Maa]

You say that even in the face of our current president???

All of your recent presidents had some wealth of their own, and required the mobilisation of a lot of wealth to pay for the campaigns. I doubt that any one of moderate means but political talent would have come to the notice of and been able to mobilise the support of big money.
And that is a totally apolitical point of view, applicable to both sides of your political machinery.

[ljb5]

I take you for a more intelligent person. Santorum statements are obviously divisive. with wealth inequities of the population changing the political landscape it is your ignorance to suggest otherwise. this new guided age where the majority of the population are being marginalized from unpresidented influence does not help the democratic republic.

Are you using some sort of random word generator?

[Ted Hoppe]

All of your recent presidents had some wealth of their own, and required the mobilisation of a lot of wealth to pay for the campaigns. I doubt that any one of moderate means but political talent would have come to the notice of and been able to mobilise the support of big money.
And that is a totally apolitical point of view, applicable to both sides of your political machinery.

I would agree it takes a lot of wealth to become president. One should never discount the power of Harvard Law School. the role it plays in support of its alumni is as good as cash. the connections are invaluable to the road of the Presidency.

i think the only exception of the presidents from the modern era who came from poor beginnings was Jimmy Carter, the oonly president to have lived in public houses. His best work was after his term in office. A role model for the discussion.

[B_B]

Detroit Economic Club

Another empty room for Santorum.

or

Is "Detroit Economic Club" like "Military Intelligence"?

[PeterSibley]

The vital and over arching equality is equality of opportunity. The American cliché is that any native born American can become president, nice idea but at the moment pure cowchips because money rules, America is no longer a meritocracy.
Norman mentioned two of the keystones that facilitate equality of opportunity. Equality of access to good quality education, and equality of access to good quality health care. Without a trained mind and a healthy body you will not be able to compete effectively or maximise your opportunities.
Around about 2005 I watched an interview with a wealthy southern American church goer. The interview was on charity. The interviewer was probing on the concept of using charitable donations to fund education and things like help to startup businesses, thereby helping the poor to work their way out of poverty. The subject of the interview was adamant that his bible taught him to use charity to provide material assistance like food and clothing. The back story being his (possibly unconscious) desire to keep the poor in poverty. Not a pretty picture, and one that I hope for America's sake is a minority view.

An interesting observation .

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

I would agree it takes a lot of wealth to become president. One should never discount the power of Harvard Law School. the role it plays in support of its alumni is as good as cash. the connections are invaluable to the road of the Presidency.

i think the only exception of the presidents from the modern era who came from poor beginnings was Jimmy Carter, the oonly president to have lived in public houses. His best work was after his term in office. A role model for the discussion.

President Obama was far poorer than President Carter in his earlier years. President Carter's father had a peanut business in a region where peanuts were the most dominant crop. Carter inherited the business when his father died. That didn't make him rich but he was a part of the local merchant class.
President Obama's mother was pursuing a doctorate and the marriages she contracted were short lived and unprofitable so a lot of assistance was needed from the grandparents who were a farm family who had relocated to Hawaii from the midwest. Obama's current wealth seems to stem from activites that occured after he got out of Harvard. Most likely the preponderence of it came from the books he wrote that were all well recieved.

[tigerregis]

A Farmer is not in the merchant class by definition.
One cannot "beg the question" unless you are discussing logic.
Education was started on a public basis because the industrial revolution required "skilled" workers, where reading and arithmetic knowledge was needed. The church and do-gooders brought this to fruition. Just think about the "school year" geared for agriculture necessity and nothing more.
I believe in public education and will defend it, even up to doctoral post grad work. However it is not a right unless you make it one.

[wardd]

The same working people who buy 40+ foot sailboats.... or iPhones ...or new cars ....or a $150/month cable TV package... and then want someone else to pay their medical bills? I say screw them. They should have NO right to have their hand in anyone else's pocket until their bones have been picked clean. Then, if the government pays their medical bills the government should be every bit as relentless in collecting from them as they are with people who don't pay their tax bills. Why should responsible people be on the hook to bail out irresponsible people?

does that include ge, oil companies and the banks?

[tigerregis]

Of course it does. Your SCOTUS made it so.

[Dan McCosh]

I would agree it takes a lot of wealth to become president. One should never discount the power of Harvard Law School. the role it plays in support of its alumni is as good as cash. the connections are invaluable to the road of the Presidency.

i think the only exception of the presidents from the modern era who came from poor beginnings was Jimmy Carter, the oonly president to have lived in public houses. His best work was after his term in office. A role model for the discussion.

How about Bill Clinton?

[Durnik]

The vital and over arching equality is equality of opportunity. The American cliché is that any native born American can become president, nice idea but at the moment pure cowchips because money rules, America is no longer a meritocracy.
Norman mentioned two of the keystones that facilitate equality of opportunity. Equality of access to good quality education, and equality of access to good quality health care. Without a trained mind and a healthy body you will not be able to compete effectively or maximise your opportunities.
Around about 2005 I watched an interview with a wealthy southern American church goer. The interview was on charity. The interviewer was probing on the concept of using charitable donations to fund education and things like help to startup businesses, thereby helping the poor to work their way out of poverty. The subject of the interview was adamant that his bible taught him to use charity to provide material assistance like food and clothing. The back story being his (possibly unconscious) desire to keep the poor in poverty. Not a pretty picture, and one that I hope for America's sake is a minority view.

it most certainly is _not_ a minority view, tho it _is_ mostly an unspoken & somewhat unconscious view.

enjoy
bobby

[Norman Bernstein]

Of course, Norman ... no one else will agree ... as it goes against so many agendas!

Well, at least I have the supreme satisfaction of knowing that YOU agree, Brad

(The basis for my thinking about this issue was VERY strongly influenced by Malcolm Gladwell's book, 'Outliers', which demonstrates that many of the titans of our economic, industrial, commercial, and political scene were decidedly NOT 'self-made' men at all... but had incredible advantages of connections, influence, and help from outside themselves. Whether you consider those advantages to be 'luck' (which is how Milton Friedman described them) or fate, the simple truth is that there are NO 'self-made' men.... just ones who were 'luckier' than others. Gladwell's observations are in utterly stark contrast to the 'Atlases' of Ayn Rand... which is part of the reason I consider libertarianism to be a truly evil philosophy. )

[Keith Wilson]

“I’m not about equality of result when it comes to income inequality.

Wrong question. It's utterly disingenuous, in fact, because NOBODY is arguing for "equality of results". There are no communists to speak of anymore, and none running for office.

[Dan McCosh]

OK. So Romney was brought up in a mansion, expensive private schools and all that. Give him some credit. Even though his father was a millionaire chairman of a major corporation; as a stock speculator, Mitt has made about 100 times what his father ever earned.

[Norman Bernstein]

OK. So Romney was brought up in a mansion, expensive private schools and all that. Give him some credit. Even though his father was a millionaire chairman of a major corporation; as a stock speculator, Mitt has made about 100 times what his father ever earned.

It's a lot easier to turn $1M into $100M, when you start with $1M. Starting with $100, how hard is it to turn THAT into $100M... or even $1M?

As a father and husband, my #1 obligation is providing for my family. If I have to consume my entire earnings doing that, I don't have much of anything left over to take on 'entrepeneurial risk'.

If I had $1M, and my family's financial condition were secure, sure, I could take those kind of risks.... and reap those kind of rewards, if I was successful. Equality of opportunity is a myth, in practical terms; opportunity ALWAYS favors those with substantial assets.

[Dan McCosh]

I was just trying to keep this "inequality" thing in perspective. Lots of people think an open-heart surgeon scraping along on a million or so a year is wealthy.

[ljb5]

If I had $1M, and my family's financial condition were secure, sure, I could take those kind of risks.... and reap those kind of rewards...

Not to disagree with your conclusion, Norman, but you shouldn't be so quick to grant the premise.

Mitt did not become rich by taking risks. All of his major business dealings were structured as 'heads I win, tails you lose.' In fact, he often made more money by loading his companies with debt and pushing them into bankruptcy.

What's the opposite of 'risk'?... 'Rigged', perhaps?

[Concordia 33]

At a recent speech Rick Santorum's at the Detroit Economic Club stirred a bit of controversy when he said: “I’m not about equality of result when it comes to income inequality. There is income inequality in America. There always has been, and hopefully—and I do say that—there always will be.” clearly Santorum (though irrelevant now) is not a great intellectual but he does put out a position different than Obama pitch for equality and makes for a good troll piece too!

so it begs the fundamental basic American question. Do we want equality while being encumbered with lost liberties Or do we want freedom without being concern for equality or fairness or is thier realistic room for the center? (the answer you provide really does help put you in the box of liberal, conservative or libertarian.)

Thanks for acknowledging this as a TROLL. I vote for freedom and fairness. Does that make me a conservative or a Libertarian in your estimation?

[Nicholas Carey]

The vital and over arching equality is equality of opportunity. The American cliché is that any native born American can become president, nice idea but at the moment pure cowchips because money rules, America is no longer a meritocracy.

Norman mentioned two of the keystones that facilitate equality of opportunity. Equality of access to good quality education, and equality of access to good quality health care. Without a trained mind and a healthy body you will not be able to compete effectively or maximise your opportunities.

+1. That is the American Promise: equality of opportunity. As TJ put it in his rough draft of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable,that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; ... it is the right of the people to ... institute new government, laying it’s foundation on such principles & organising it’s powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness.

Equality of opportunity, of course, doesn't conflict with "freedom", unless by "freedom" one means not being bound by the social contract that ties a community or nation together. Of course, a lot of the people arguing that the government is trying to take their freedom away by improving health care mean exactly that.

[Ted Hoppe]

Thanks for acknowledging this as a TROLL. I vote for freedom and fairness. Does that make me a conservative or a Libertarian in your estimation?

It makes you an idealist. Frankly it is the secret sauce in this American dream. Most constantly trade them back and forth to get control of private and personal property.
Those who don't play by the standard norms either become powerful elite with support or criminal without support.

[Norman Bernstein]

Mitt did not become rich by taking risks. All of his major business dealings were structured as 'heads I win, tails you lose.' In fact, he often made more money by loading his companies with debt and pushing them into bankruptcy.

That simply isn't true... but it depends on the kind of risk you're referring to.

As a venture capitalist, Romney took significant risks. Having had some involvement in venture capital, I can tell you that it is, indeed, a risky business.... out of 10 investments, venture capitalists expect one or two to fail outright and lose every cent.... another 8 or so to survive, but only barely so (they're called 'the walking dead', in the VC industry)... and they hope that one or two become stellar successes, which compensate for all the money lost on the other eight or nine. As venture capitalists, and even to a degree as turnover specialists, Bain Capital did have failures.... but they had more successes.

However, as I said earlier, it depends on the kind of risk. There's risk in which failure affects someone on a personal level, some of which can be catastrophic... and there are business risks in which there is no personal risk at all. If Romney had failed at Bain Capital, he suffered no possiblity of personal risk... he was already wealthy. He didn't have to worry about paying the mortgage, providing food, clothing or hjealthcare for his family......

....the risks Romney took on were business risks which did NOT involve personal risk, and on THAT basis alone, the 'merit' of the risk deserves very subastantial discount.

[ljb5]

I still think you're being far too generous with Mitt and Bain by lumping them together with other venture capitalists. I really don't think they were 'venture capitalists' in the vein that you and I are used to dealing with in start-up companies.

They did not invest in small, start-up companies and help drive them to success. That's an admirable activity which entails risk and seeks success... but it's not what Bain specialized in.

They sought out desperate, beleagured companies, forced them into arrangements that were in Bain's interest, against the interest of the small companies, loaded them up with debt, transferred assets out of the company (sometimes by making them purchase stock in Bain)... and then stood back as the company failed. This is not driving for success... this is capitalizing on failure.

In their defense, Bain points out that these companies were in trouble before Bain got involved -- and likely would have gone bankrupt (and cut jobs) with or without Bian. This is true, but it does not justifiy Bain's activities.

At least some of Bain's activities can definitely be described as 'vulture capitalism.' It's no different than running up a huge bill on the credit cards right before declaring bankruptcy. Worse: it's like making someone else run up a huge bill on their credit card, buying stuff for you, right before they declare bankruptcy. You get to walk away with the assets and leave the debt for someone else.

[Norman Bernstein]

Norman, that sounds like the excuse of a not-very-successful entrepeneur.

Get a clue, Smitty.. MOST 'entrepeneurs' are unsuccessful. The ones who make it are a tiny fraction of the ones who try.

If you had any reasonable idea how to turn $1M into $100M you would have venture capitalists lined up at your door. But you don't.

Do you? Then what makes you think you know what you're talking about?

[Tom Montgomery]

I am so tired of demogoguery.

"Equality" means under the law. The rest is political BS.