Equality vs. equity

[DrPhilly]

 

"Every agency will place equity at the core of their public engagement, their policy design, and program delivery..." - at about 2:19

 

The new admin has been pretty consistent with replacing the word "equality" with the word "equity".  Certainly sounds like we've take a step towards "equality of outcome".  I'm a big fan of managing the wealth gap as a means of keeping society stable so I suppose I should be rejoicing but wealth distribution isn't the answer.

 

[ToastJenkins]

its always been about engineering the outcome. when has it ever not been? thats why it constantly fails and the morons scream we just need more of this.

[Talkingbirds]

Not sure if this is right place, but here goes. " The Body” for maximum wage.

https://www.newsweek.com/jesse-ventura-should-no-billionaires-calls-maximum-wage-1565701

[EaglesRocker97]

8 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

but wealth distribution isn't the answer.

Wealth is already redistributed from the bottom upward. Time to reverse the flow.

[Gannan]

8 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

 

"Every agency will place equity at the core of their public engagement, their policy design, and program delivery..." - at about 2:19

 

The new admin has been pretty consistent with replacing the word "equality" with the word "equity".  Certainly sounds like we've take a step towards "equality of outcome".  I'm a big fan of managing the wealth gap as a means of keeping society stable so I suppose I should be rejoicing but wealth distribution isn't the answer.

 

Just remember republicans... you did this to yourselves. I'm not saying I told you so but... wait that's exactly what I'm saying. I F'n told you so. He can also do it regardless of republicans taking the house back. Let's take a look into the past...

Trump: I am diverting congressional funds to pay for the wall!

Me: Wow this sets a dangerous precedent.  Just remember Trumpbots sooner or later there's going to be a liberal president you won't like in office and they can do the same thing to fund any liberal project completely bypassing congress.

CVON Trumpbots" Rheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee MAGA forever! Rheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[DrPhilly]

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

Just remember republicans... you did this to yourselves. I'm not saying I told you so but... wait that's exactly what I'm saying. I F'n told you so. He can also do it regardless of republicans taking the house back. Let's take a look into the past...

Trump: I am diverting congressional funds to pay for the wall!

Me: Wow this sets a dangerous precedent.  Just remember Trumpbots sooner or later there's going to be a liberal president you won't like in office and they can do the same thing to fund any liberal project completely bypassing congress.

CVON Trumpbots" Rheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee MAGA forever! Rheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

This. Dems should be wary of continuing the spiral. Getting rid of the filibuster, packing the SCOTUS, etc are not sound and will come back to bite the implementer down the road. 

[Gannan]

Just now, DrPhilly said:

This. Dems should be wary of continuing the spiral. Getting rid of the filibuster, packing the SCOTUS, etc are not sound and will come back to bite the implementer down the road. 

They should not get rid of the filibuster. The gop played dirty pool big time with the supreme court. Hard to put that tooth paste back in the tube.

[DrPhilly]

41 minutes ago, Gannan said:

They should not get rid of the filibuster. The gop played dirty pool big time with the supreme court. Hard to put that tooth paste back in the tube.

Might be hard but they shouldn't make it worse.

[Gannan]

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Might be hard but they shouldn't make it worse.

I don't see it as disastrous even if they do put new justices on. The court leans way right. Though in reality, it would probably be better off for the democrats to let the courts overturn Roe v. Wade. Republicans would never win another national election again. 

[DrPhilly]

5 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I don't see it as disastrous even if they do put new justices on. The court leans way right. Though in reality, it would probably be better off for the democrats to let the courts overturn Roe v. Wade. Republicans would never win another national election again. 

It would start a never ending arms race of # of SCOTUS justices.  That's not what we want and it is detrimental to the country.  The Dems should take the higher ground with this one.

[VanHammersly]

10 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I don't see it as disastrous even if they do put new justices on. The court leans way right. Though in reality, it would probably be better off for the democrats to let the courts overturn Roe v. Wade. Republicans would never win another national election again. 

This.  I've always thought the biggest balls move a Democratic President with a Republican Congress could ever do would be introducing a repeal of R v W.  It would make it through and he'd be leading the Reps into obscurity, and they would know it, but they'd have no choice but to follow him.  It's kind of like healthcare on the other side of the coin.  If Trump was actually the populist his supporters think he is and not just a self-serving criminal, he would've introduced a real universal healthcare bill.  The Democrats would've had no choice but to vote for it and he would've stolen the issue for the Republicans, and completely severed the Democratic Party.  A Dem President could do the same with abortion and there's basically no counter move by the right (and on top of that it's a much more innocuous issue for the left than universal healthcare is for the right, since most red states have basically banned abortion anyway even with Roe in place).

[Gannan]

32 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

It would start a never ending arms race of # of SCOTUS justices.  That's not what we want and it is detrimental to the country.  The Dems should take the higher ground with this one.

It’s already been started.

[DrPhilly]

5 minutes ago, Gannan said:

It’s already been started.

I still see 9 justices. Yes the Repubs used a dirty tactic. 

[Gannan]

54 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I still see 9 justices. Yes the Repubs used a dirty tactic. 

They started the "war". That tooth paste isn't going back in the tube. 

[DrPhilly]

28 minutes ago, Gannan said:

They started the "war". That tooth paste isn't going back in the tube. 

The better side would find a way to end it and restore sensibility and, you know, actually do things that are good for the country long term.  Otherwise, the spiral just continues and the lock&load becomes less of an analogy and more live bullets based.

Michele Obama had the right idea with her "they go low we go high" quote.  You're advocating a "they go low we go lower approach".

[VanHammersly]

Just now, DrPhilly said:

The better side would find a way to end it and restore sensibility and, you know, actually do things that are good for the country long term.  Otherwise, the spiral just continues and the lock&load becomes less of an analogy and more live bullets based.

Restore sensibility around what?  Ya'll are talking about SC Justice appointments.  Republicans held a line that no new justices should be seated until a new Prez was elected.  Then he was and they completely changed their position 180 degrees and decided one needed to be rammed through before a new Prez was elected.  There's no restoring sensibility around that.  The new normal is crystal clear: when it comes to SC justices, anything goes.  If the situation arises and Republicans are in charge, they'll do it again, no matter what the Dems do right now.  So, while I'm not really a huge fan of packing the court, if they're going to play on the same field that the Republicans are already playing on (and will continue to play on), then they should absolutely pack the court.

[Gannan]

8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The better side would find a way to end it and restore sensibility and, you know, actually do things that are good for the country long term.  Otherwise, the spiral just continues and the lock&load becomes less of an analogy and more live bullets based.

Michele Obama had the right idea with her "they go low we go high" quote.  You're advocating a "they go low we go lower approach".

The counter argument, which I think is valid, is that the far right SC does not represent the values of the majority of Americans. 

No offense but Michelle Obama's approach was stupid. It loses. That approach is why liberals (to quote Jeff Daniels in "Newsroom") "lose so damn always".

[DrPhilly]

14 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Restore sensibility around what?

The spiraling escalation and need for revenge.  Everyone suffers in the end.

[DrPhilly]

13 minutes ago, Gannan said:

No offense but Michelle Obama's approach was stupid. It loses. That approach is why liberals (to quote Jeff Daniels in "Newsroom") "lose so damn always".

We are going to have to disagree on this one.  In any case, starting to just throw more justices in isn't a sound move if you extend the horizon out 20 years.

To be honest, I starting to think it doesn't really matter.  I think we are too far down the path now to avoid a reset via war, revolution, or depression.  I think we are no more than 10 and max 20 years out.

[VanHammersly]

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

The spiraling escalation and need for revenge.  Everyone suffers in the end.

But it isn't going to stop on the Republican side.  That's their brand.  It's far more anti-Democrat than it is pro-Republican.  Trump's proof of that.  So, Dems have a choice: either roll over and continue playing by the old rules while the Republicans play by a completely new set, or play hardball.  Now, I think there's a matter of degrees here.  They need to do things within the scope of the law and with precedent (the SC has expanded before and states have obviously been added), but it's pretty clear that simply rolling over for the sake of unity is only going to end with the Republicans ending democracy as we know it.  

Normally, I would consider that last line hyperbolic, but after the last couple months I really don't think it is.

[DEagle7]

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

To be honest, I starting to think it doesn't really matter.  I think we are too far down the path now to avoid a reset via war, revolution, or depression.  I think we are no more than 10 and max 20 years out.

[DrPhilly]

5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

hey need to do things within the scope of the law and with precedent (the SC has expanded before and states have obviously been added), but it's pretty clear that simply rolling over for the sake of unity is only going to end with the Republicans ending democracy as we know it.  

Normally, I would consider that last line hyperbolic, but after the last couple months I really don't think it is.

I hear you but it is either find a way or suffer the consequences.

2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Check a couple posts further up

[NOTW]

12 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

 

"Every agency will place equity at the core of their public engagement, their policy design, and program delivery..." - at about 2:19

 

The new admin has been pretty consistent with replacing the word "equality" with the word "equity".  Certainly sounds like we've take a step towards "equality of outcome".  I'm a big fan of managing the wealth gap as a means of keeping society stable so I suppose I should be rejoicing but wealth distribution isn't the answer.

 

When it comes to equality of outcome and diversity quotas, it will be interesting to see where the finish line is.  When has equity been achieved?  What is diverse enough?  When does the system/institution stop being racist?  There are women and POC in political positions,  executives in organizations and running/teaching educational institutions able to spread these ideas to the next generations.  There are companies with paid departments for diversity and inclusion and mandatory trainings.  There are mandatory inclusion and diversity programs being taught now at all levels of education.  Major corporations have promoted ideas such as increasing minimum wage, promoting BLM and LGBTQ calls for diversity and justice.

We have the first female/POC Vice-President, and the Democrats control the House and Senate and they have much more diversity than Republicans.  They are in position to "dismantle systemic racism" because they're running the system.  So I suppose the ball is in their court.  

 

[we_gotta_believe]

12 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

   

[DrPhilly]

3 minutes ago, NOTW said:

When it comes to equality of outcome and diversity quotas, it will be interesting to see where the finish line is.  When has equity been achieved?  What is diverse enough?  When does the system/institution stop being racist?  There are women and POC in political positions,  executives in organizations and running/teaching educational institutions able to spread these ideas to the next generations.  There are companies with paid departments for diversity and inclusion and mandatory trainings.  There are mandatory inclusion and diversity programs being taught now at all levels of education.  Major corporations have promoted ideas such as increasing minimum wage, promoting BLM and LGBTQ calls for diversity and justice.

We have the first female/POC Vice-President, and the Democrats control the House and Senate and they have much more diversity than Republicans.  They are in position to "dismantle systemic racism" because they're running the system.  So I suppose the ball is in their court.  

 

I certainly see plenty of merit in thinking based on equity but I don't see much chance for successful implementation of equity based measures thru a systematic manner.

Quotas to me work as ice breakers but then their value starts to erode.  So like getting some women or POC into power positions to get the ball rolling seems to add some value but once you have the example in place it is time to remove those measures.  We're beyond that now in the western world.