I think that should be applied to people in the lower classes, but if you’re finally making more money than usual … why share with other people? I know that sounds selfish, but a family’s gotta live.
Not to mention you’d give the slackers more reason to slack … 
Like my sister and her boyfriend. 
woah. glad I’m not part of this.
Do I have a comment on the Fairness Doctrine?
Sure. I think it’s a good law, and should be reinstated.
And it’s pretty obvious you still don’t know what it even is. Because it has absolutely nothing to do with Barack Obama.
Just a comment here (don’t take this the wrong way, but it goes to the heart of things because you asked for people’s thoughts on it), your opinions here would be taken a lot more seriously if you actually knew what the words you were using meant, instead of sounding like you’re doing nothing but parroting uninformed right-wing talking points you happened to see online or hear on the radio. So I pointed out in the Sarah Palin thread (where you also mentioned it) that the Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with Barack Obama – and politely suggested that you might want to look up what it actually is. I was hoping to get into a legitmate discussion of it with you (because for years I’ve been hoping this law would be reinstated). But instead, from the reply I received (“How…isn’t he the one supporting it…do you know what it will do to the economy?”), it’s obvious you didn’t even bother to look up what the Fairness Doctrine actually is, and still don’t know. It’s not difficult to look things up. Really. Type “fairness doctrine” into a website called “google” and press “Enter.” Then you get about a million results that explain what it is, as well as people’s various thoughts and views on it. You can even look up things in the dead of night in secret, when no one’s looking. I’m really trying not to sound condescending, but how else can I reply to this? To anyone who actually knows what the Fairness Doctrine is, it sounds like you’re doing nothing but parroting right-wing talking points without even knowing what it is yourself. It takes literally 15 seconds for anyone to type “Fairness Doctrine” into google and find out what it is (and I invite anyone still left reading this thread to do so. It’s a good law that I feel should be reinstated).
If I sound hard on you, sorry. But think about this.
What would you think of me and my opinions if I did the following?
If I started a new thread with the title "What do you think of NASCAR wanting to take your babies away?" and then asked people what they thought of McCain supporting an organization called NASCAR’s efforts to take people’s babies away?
Well, you’d probably suggest that first I might want to look up what NASCAR actually is. And then what if my reply to your suggestion was “How…isn’t he the one supporting it…do you know what it will do to our babies?” Would you honestly take my opinions seriously and bother with this anymore?
Don’t worry though… you’re now qualified to be a Fox Propaganda Machine anchor. Just make sure your hair is quaffed and blowdried though, and that your FAX machine has enough paper to keep receiving those talking points… 
This is my reply:
It didn’t work for the Russians, won’t work for us.
How the heck would a doctrine saying that someone who didn’t try as hard to succeed can take money from people who did and earned it be fair?
I know people are going to argue with this, so let me say this: Quoting Ego: Not everyone can be successful, but a successful person can come from ANYWHERE. Lower class, if they work hard, can go to collage (actually they have an advantage, since they will probably get a larger scholarship) and get a good job. My mom, for example, grew up in the country without either parents having gone to collage and also with three brothers. She worked hard and went to collage. Now she’s a chemist. Anyone who tries and uses common sense can get a good job. So why do we cater to the people who didn’t?
Hey-Joehisa
could you state why Obama has nothing to do with it and the reasons why you support it and i’ll look up a wiki definition for it…deal.
sorry for the double post…
Joehisa
I went ahead and looked it up and its worse then i thought…it talked about the media coverage…boy is that unfair alright…have you seen NBC. Man that place is full of bias people…
now with all these contradictory idea between Joehisa and me you may be saying what definitions are there of the fairness doctrine…
1-Coverage of the media
2-Wealth…this is the one i’m talking about. What Obama wants to do is give your money to joe so that he has as much wealth as you do.
I don’t have much time now, so this will be short.
Thanks for looking it up. I’m glad you did.
Surprising though, since from your comment about NBC I’d have thought you’d be for it. What the Fairness Doctrine says (in a nutshell) is that if you have someone from one point of view on the public’s airwaves, you should have someone on to represent the opposing view as well.
Your complaint about NBC being full of biased people (as if Fox isn’t either) would be well served with the Fairness Doctrine. It was the law of this land for over 30 years until it was rescinded. It would mean that since the airwaves are the public’s airwaves, a station couldn’t just non-stop, all-the-time broadcast one point of view only. They would be compelled to air the opinions of those who disagree. That’s what was “fair” about it, whether you’re left or right. It would help get rid of what liberals see in Fox, and conservatives see in MSNBC. It doesn’t favor one side over the other. It says if you use the public airwaves (and make money off of it), you have a responsibility to show opposing points of view. Wouldn’t you like to see MSNBC more balanced? Wouldn’t liberals like to see Fox more balanced? Anyway, I’m surprised you’re against it, because from your statement it sounds like we kind of agree on the issue of wishing media coverage wasn’t so biased one way or the other.
yah…balance would be good if only democrats would buy into radio and republicans buy into tv naturally…that is my problem. It shouldn’t take government to make things “fair”. What will happen to the radio? Will the government get rid of people?
Also-The fairness doctrine that i was “trying to attach this too” was the wealth doctrine…the idea that since Joe doesn’t have $250,000 he can have some of yours until you both have the same amount.
This fairness doctrine?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine[/url]
Nothing about tax my friend, just trying to reduce the incredible bias of some media.
maybe i got it wrong…but my connection was the fairness doctrine and the leveling of wealth…it does seem like a fairness doctrine…maybe i’ll change the title.
Socialism is where the means of production are owned by the state in order to create an equitable society.
This tax policy is referred to as wealth redistribution. This does exist in a socialist state but that is not what makes the state socialist.
Now, nationalizing large corporations such as banks and other insurance companies is socialist… and where have we seen that lately?..
exactly my point…do both of our parties support this type of socialism??
They sure do…both do.
Al-Bob, there is more that just two parties in the US… just two major ones. 
As far as the wealth distribution is concerned, I don’t think it is fair. I agree with Rac_Rules. It isn’t fair to those who work hard to get where they’re at only to give some money to those who didn’t earn it. Anyone can be successful, but it takes work. And not everyone likes to work for things. Why reward that?
So we all mostly agree that…the idea of redistribution of wealth is wrong right?
I think he means well, but I don’t think that it’s fair at all.
As Hannahmation put it, why should the hard-workers give the money they earned to people who didn’t do anything? 
I know I wouldn’t like that at all.
yah…i see what you mean.
The idea is good and the intentions are good but its bad…its basically putting wealth into 45% of America who don’t work…that’s not going to work…
Problem with that is an example of people like Paris Hilton or others who are insanely rich. Mind you, they don’t even have to pay much tax because their team of lawyers and accountants can find every loophole in the book to get out of it. Many of these people have made fortunes off exploiting others.
If anyone is going to bring up the idea of the “trickle down effect” it simply doesn’t work, particularly now most of the jobs that would be created by that are now in China.
Who’s to say that Mr.X here deserves no benefits or support simply because he never had the opportunity to get the education to have the high paying job Mr.Y has.
The tendency for poor to stay poor and rich to stay rich over many generations is very real, so there is little to no incentive for the poor to work. Pay is also not performance based, some may work very hard and get little pay for the benefits they give to the community - look at CEOs as compared to nurses - who contributes more to the well-being of society? yet who gets paid grossly more?
I don’t like the idea of taxing the middle class or even upper middle class highly, but if you consider the benefits say $1mil gives to a multi-millionaire as compared to the benefits it gives to an impoverished family it is overwhelming. Even low levels of tax should help provide basic living conditions for the poor.
If you’re talking about the “free rider effect” one of the reasons that happens is because paying out insurance benefits is much easier than trying to solve the root of the problem by funding better schools or parenting support, therefore the government does it the easiest way.
Plus if some of the massive amount of tax revenue spent on wars ($200bil p.a.) and handouts to incompetent banks ($700bil) was spent elsewhere… but that’s another argument for a different day…
I don’t know the ins and outs of this, but as a whole, I’d say that it’s not a very good idea, and probably won’t work well. There are reasons why some people earn more money than others- because their skills are worth more, because they are more highly trained, and so on.
I think i understand what you mean…
Para-1
With today’s lawyers anything is possible…like saying a murder was not really a murder becuase the man was unaware of what he was doing. It is a sad thing.
Para-3 You know if Mr. X worked hard and tried with all his might to get an income he would have money to pay for an education. What has happened is that the government will pay that person becuase he needs money. This only teaches lazyness and the idea that the person doesn’t have to work. Get rid of social security…except for seniors and people who absolutely cannot work. My grandfather gets social security but he barely works and is in really good shape…he doesn’t work! Its sorta a disgrace to me.
Para-4 I don’t think CEO’s are really popular at the moment…try Presidents of baseball Companies…plus nurses are people who want to help people you can’t get much more socioly invovled then that. Try comparing The home-business owner versus the President of a auto store…do they both work hard?
Para-5 Just lower the taxes for the people who pay taxes!
Para-7 If you want an example of wasted money just look at the bailout package…800 Bill dollers to little organizations and oh yeah to the economy.
We paid some 20 Mill to wooden arrow factory in Phili??? WHY???
We almost paid 100 Mill or so to ACORN?? Why??
Al-Bob Yeah, what I’m saying is redistribution of income works if you tax people to provide adequate social capital for everyone plus the formation of groups that can give out grants and support to those who are actually willing to work and benefits to those who can’t work. Remember, economic conditions and other factors can affect why a person can’t work so it isn’t all down to just being lazy. Redistribution of income is good but how the government does it now is pretty inefficient.
Because you didn’t respond I’m thinking you agree with paragraphs 2, 6 and the beginning of 4.