Why “Equity” is unfair and will bring the country down further

[Mr. Friscus]

Equity means helping those who need help, not necessarily everyone gets the same

It is not a difficult concept

That’s not what equity means.

You’re describing charity, which is good for individuals to do for others of their own free will

 

[Mr. Friscus]

View attachment 708616

The correct portrayal would be for in the R panel the tallest was standing in a deep hole dug by the left so he’s at the same level as the shortest, and the second tallest standing in a small hole at the same level as the shortest.

Everyone’s equal, and worse off. That’s equity.

 

[task0778]

Equity at it's core is all about taking something from somebody who earned it and giving it to somebody else who didn't. Obviously, there are some people who start out in a better situation than others, that is a long-standing human condition. Which does not mean that a civilized society shouldn't support those who for some reason cannot support themselves, but not those who could support themselves but decide not to. If that is their choice, then they should have to live with the consequences of poverty. And I also believe that a civilized society ought to strive for equal opportunity so that nobody is cheated out of a chance to succeed. We have numerous laws on the books already toward that effort and rightfully so. IMHO, we should always be trying to create as many opportunities as possible in our economy, which begins with lower taxes and less regulation. It is not society's responsibility to ensure anyone's success or to support them permanently if and when they fail.

 

[Concerned American]

The correct portrayal would be for in the R panel the tallest was standing in a deep hole dug by the left so he’s at the same level as the shortest, and the second tallest standing in a small hole at the same level as the shortest.

Everyone’s equal, and worse off. That’s equity.

And the stolen boxes would still be with their rightful owner.

 

[rightwinger]

Equity at it's core is all about taking something from somebody who earned it and giving it to somebody else who didn't. Obviously, there are some people who start out in a better situation than others, that is a long-standing human condition. Which does not mean that a civilized society shouldn't support those who for some reason cannot support themselves, but not those who could support themselves but decide not to. If that is their choice, then they should have to live with the consequences of poverty. And I also believe that a civilized society ought to strive for equal opportunity so that nobody is cheated out of a chance to succeed. We have numerous laws on the books already toward that effort and rightfully so. IMHO, we should always be trying to create as many opportunities as possible in our economy, which begins with lower taxes and less regulation. It is not society's responsibility to ensure anyone's success or to support them permanently if and when they fail.

Not at all

Equity relates to how society should allocate its resources.
Society helps those who need the help the most

You help the handicapped more than you help the healthy
You help those who are struggling more than you help those who are well off
You provide educational assistance to those who are poor vs those who are wealthy

 

[Calypso Jones]

Because I don't accept that you get to define the unborn as children.

Then don't bore us to death with your bullshit about you caring for children.

 

[Calypso Jones]

I have no clue what country's history you're talking about. Certainly not the same country that fought a Civil War. BTW, I was born here.

i'm TALKING about the founding and early days of this country. And YES...the same country that fought the civil war.

That’s not what equity means.

You’re describing charity, which is good for individuals to do for others of their own free will

They don't know the difference in equality and equity and social justice.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Not at all

Equity relates to how society should allocate its resources.
Society helps those who need the help the most

You help the handicapped more than you help the healthy
You help those who are struggling more than you help those who are well off
You provide educational assistance to those who are poor vs those who are wealthy

except society isn't doing it. Government is doing it. And gov't has no money and no way to get money unless it confiscates it from US.

 

[Foxfyre]

Kamala Harris, among others, has stated that “equity” - equal outcomes - rather than equal opportunity is a desired goal. The problem is that in order to achieve equity, one must treat people unfairly.

Let‘s look at two people. The first one…..oh, let’s call her Lisa….worked hard in high school, won two academic scholarships to college, and paid for the remainder with part-time work during semesters and full-time in summers. Upon graduation, she chose an employer with a tuition-reimbursement plan (for B and above) and spent five years at night getting her grad degree. She then continued her professional career for another 35 years, and was able to buy a nice home in an upscale community and lives well.

Then we have Linda. Linda was a party girl in high school with no intention to go in to college, but even so, she got preggers in 11th grade and dropped out, eventually earning a GED. She’s had a series of jobs, mostly clerical and retail, and never earned even $50,000 a year.

Equity would dictate that other people GIVE Linda the same nice lifestyle that Lisa worked for, and earned. So what happens? Pretty soon, the Lisas of the country see no sense in sacrificing for their future and putting in all that hard work if all the Lindas are just going to be given the fruits of other people’s labor and end uo just as well off. Conversely, the Linda’s won’t even attempt to put forth the effort to better themselves because they are guaranteed equity with the Lisas!

The pursuit of “equity” guarantees a race to the bottom. The linked article explains it better.

Kamala’s thoughtless equality-equity confusion

[T]here’s a big difference between equality and equity. Equality suggests [that] everyone should get the same amount. [But] not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So, if we’re all getting the same amount, but you sta...

www.americanthinker.com

I was just reading about a recent scientific and peer reviewed study done and published in The Journal of Research in Personality that found on average conservatives/libertarians (small L) are happier people than progressives. There are always anecdotal exceptions because all people aren't the same, but on average I think they pretty well nailed it.

Paraphrasing the key findings:

Conservatives place responsibility for their happiness, well being and success in themselves and it is up to them to play whatever cards they are dealt. Some are dealt good hands, some crappy hands, but when the government allows all to equally aspire, work, and reach for the stars, anybody can achieve even though it takes longer or is more difficult for some. Also, conservatives are more likely to believe in some sort of higher power and be more morally centered and confident in their sense of right and wrong. Life isn't always fair, but the smart, inspired, motivated can generally overcome whatever obstacles stand in their way of happiness and success.

Further conservatives believe it is their responsibility to address needs and wrongs which is why it is almost always conservatives working the thrift shops, orphanages, leper colonies, private homeless shelters/soup kitchens and such and are more likely to contribute out of their own pockets. They will stick up for the defenseless and true victims and otherwise, as long as folks stay out of their faces, it is pretty much live and let live.

Liberals/progressives on the other hand tend to look at the unhappy and unsuccessful as victims of the rich or some oppressive factions or factors and feel that they themselves are victims. It is the responsibility of others and the government to correct the environment or factors that 'keep people down' and they are more likely to feel morally superior and righteous when they demand that others think, feel, speak, believe as they do, i.e. agree with them. They are far more likely than conservatives to punish or 'cancel' those who disagree with them and are far less likely than conservatives to have friends or associates to do not share their ideology. Unless it is a political foe, progressives don't blame bad choices/behavior that contributes to lack of equity, but instead put the blame on those who succeed. The lack of moral clarity in their perspective leaves them feel rudderless and incomplete and driven to find meaning in their life and results in general dissatisfaction and/or unhappiness.

To the progressive equity is social justice. The non-progressive successful must be punished for their success and the poor must be provided with the resources that everybody else already worked for.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Equal outcomes (i.e. Equity) is ridiculous. However, providing some baseline of existence to those who cannot excel should be guaranteed.

What has been called 'Equal Opportunity' has really meant 'some small degree of opportunity that is not equal at all'

We should have real equal opportunity.

 

[Foxfyre]

Equity means helping those who need help, not necessarily everyone gets the same

It is not a difficult concept

No dear. That is not equity. That is charity. Different things.

 

[martybegan]

Equal outcomes (i.e. Equity) is ridiculous. However, providing some baseline of existence to those who cannot excel should be guaranteed.

What has been called 'Equal Opportunity' has really meant 'some small degree of opportunity that is not equal at all'

We should have real equal opportunity.

When you pay for people to do nothing, you get more nothing.

 

[jc456]

I don't know the answer to your questions but I really doubt any family on government assistance is getting rich. I'm a liberal so I care more about caring for children than I do about punishing their parents.

How do you care for children exactly?

 

[Hum Dinger]

When you pay for people to do nothing, you get more nothing.

So, you'd rather have the less productive people starving and dying in the streets?

How about those that would be productive if given the chance, but can't find a job?

 

[Concerned American]

We should have real equal opportunity.

We do.

 

[Concerned American]

but can't find a job?

Walk down any street in any business district in America and you will find multiple help wanted signs. Indeed, even McDs has them up--paying $18/hr. If they can't find work--they aren't looking.

 

[Hum Dinger]

We do.

Really? I'm paying for one son's way thru Law school, while another is doing a combined major in Flight school and Computer engineering. All paid for in cash.

Everybody has those opportunities, right?

 

[martybegan]

So, you'd rather have the less productive people starving and dying in the streets?

How about those that would be productive if given the chance, but can't find a job?

They don't need to take the chance, they get paid to do nothing.

 

[Hum Dinger]

They don't need to take the chance, they get paid to do nothing.

Who are 'they'? Some little green men living between your ears?

 

[rightwinger]

No dear. That is not equity. That is charity. Different things.

Do rich people get charity?
Why should they?

That would be Equality