NBC's Ann Curry Rants: It's 'Fundamentally Unfair' Some Have More Money Than Others

reply to post by FlyersFan


Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I said the direct opposite in this post. How do you equate the statement "wealth does not necessarily make a person a productive member of society" to wealth distribution. There is nothing related with those two ideas.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anytime anyone says anything about helping other people on here people assume someone is communist. There is no in between to you people, if the person isn't die hard right wing then they're some sort of evil Marxist plotting to steal everyones money.

Life isn't white and black, there's a million shades of gray if you haven't noticed

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by jiggerj


For those with the ability to earn billions, the goal should be to contribute to society, not take away from it. A million per year is MORE than enough for anyone.

Once again, we have someone else determining what someone should have.

YOU decide a million per year.

Someone else may say 100,000.00 per year.

Someone else?
50K?

When you have an outside agency determining an individuals worth, you've said goodbye to freedom.

LOL That's what we have right now! A handful of people controlling the money, which means controlling how much you can earn. THEY are saying your factory job is only worth so much, and if you complain, we'll just move the company out of the country. What happened to all the Mom n' Pop stores? They went under because a handful of the greedy figured out that if they went really BIG with their stores, they could buy merchandise a lot cheaper than the Mom n' Pop stores, and then crush them.

No, controlling income has always been in use, only it was the rich and powerful controlling our pay. Yet, somehow most people think it unfair to control the income of the rich.

Well, then, I am sure Ann Curry wouldn't mind forking over 95% of that $2million annual salary of hers so that her wealth can be redistributed like she suggests.

I wonder what empty promises the elites have made to these useful idiots. Big house? Freedom to travel wherever they want? Immunity from the coming police state? What morons these talking heads are.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by xuenchen

 

There is a good point to what she says.

It is seriously unfair. Seriously, SERIOUSLY, unfair.

But anyone can see that. Unless they are willfully ignorant! But it's 2012, it should be apparent to everyone.

So instead of saying it's unfair, it's time people fix or at least think about fixing the problem. I'm sure that it will take decades if not hundreds of years to finish but, it will surely be worth it.

Being able to buy your way through airport security is indeed unfair. Making and having more money than someone else is not unfair. The guy that busts his butt and makes it to the top SHOULD have more than the guy that works at Best Buy and plays World of Warcraft all weekend in the makeshift apartment in his parents basement. For them to have equal financial worth is actually what is unfair to the guy with ambition and drive.

"Wednesday's NBC Today, co-host Ann Curry decried people being able to pay more money to get through airport security faster: "...there's an inherent unfairness to it....it's about those with money having an easier life than those who don't. And there's something fundamentally unfair about that"


the whole point of hoarding wealth is to be able to avoid the commoner, the lowly peasant I would guess


in fact, it's the very idea of "self" that is the root of the whole problem

reply to post by InfoKartel

But anyone can see that. Unless they are willfully ignorant!

I dont think anyone is that paralyzingly ignorant. It seems clear that the OP has taken her words out of context in an attempt to pander to lazy thinking conservatives.

NBC Today, co-host Ann Curry decried people being able to pay more money to get through airport security faster: "...there's an inherent unfairness to it....it's about those with money having an easier life than those who don't. And there's something fundamentally unfair about that."

She is clearly saying that there is one rule for the rich and another rule for the poor. Yet the sensational Headline that the OP has chosen to repeat from this so called "Media Research Centre" is obviously misleading and false. The OP would know this. Its not even posted in the news section. The OP didnt have to use this ludicrous headline.

Fail.


Edit- I spend more time watching Fox News than anything else on TV. I know my enemy. The so called 'Media Research Centre' talking head Brent Bozell is a regular on Hannity.
en.wikipedia.org...

He and his 'Media Research Centre' are a joke. They actually make the terrible Liberal Media like MSNBC look good. Unless you are a lazy thinking conserative of course.

reply to post by xuenchen

Is it "fundamentally unfair" that a national network broadcast co-anchor or staffer gets paid more than his or her local station counterpart? Is it unfair that someone who bats .350 and hits 50 HRs makes more money than someone who is batting .175 with 10 HRs? Is it unfair that someone who is beautiful gets offered a high paying modeling contract when someone homely is not even considered? The answers are obvious. Life is unfair in many aspects but someone who is a baseball star, national tv anchor or celebrity model should not be given preferential treatment in other areas besides salary. Getting out of traffic tickets for example.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by InfoKartel

 

Life isn't fair.

In trying to make life "fair" you end up making it unfair to a large part that were succeeding elsewhere.

Again, progs are great at evening the playing field to the lowest common denominator.

If not by force, then by coersion, or by guilt.

Artificial "fairness" is as phoney as any system devised, because people aren't all the same. Some have drive, talent, looks, height, abilities that makes them excel.

Let's punish those that can. For those who can't or won't.

edit on 28-4-2012 by beezzer because: sp

so let me get this striaght
you want middle class people to pay out more and more for their healthcare, even if it means selling their home or emptying their savings...that's fair
but, if the wealthy have to pay more in taxes...that's punishment
and the poor, if they cannot pay for any healthcare, and they get ill, let them die...that's tough love

Originally posted by jimmyx

so let me get this striaght
you want middle class people to pay out more and more for their healthcare, even if it means selling their home or emptying their savings...that's fair
but, if the wealthy have to pay more in taxes...that's punishment
and the poor, if they cannot pay for any healthcare, and they get ill, let them die...that's tough love

Huh?

I've always wanted healthcare reform, just not government mandated oversight.

And stealing from the wealthy and trying to justify it with quaint terms like "redistribution", "social justice" just is wrong.

Finally, personal responsibility means just that. I know many of you want government cradle to grave.

I'm not one of them.

Bullshiz...but...let's pretend the naive idiot said so.....she is new to mainstream...she has been a support role for years....

Who cares? Are you upset because she is right? Are you upset because lame ass f*cks need to die and their money stolen for the greater good? I think you are...I think you are afraid that sooner or later...the real humanity is going to kill you and take your illusion treasure...you have no treasure...it is a lie...an illusion....you have no wealth....but a whole ton of people think you do...better join the truth now and tell everyone who the masters really are...so when the # hits the fan....you will be spared...or else....

I have a hard time believing dip#s like Kevin Costner will lay down and do his part...he seems to be just stupid enough to fight and die for all the wrong reasons.....he is an idiot and prob needs a bullet in the head anyway.....

With every change or movement someone comes along with a stupid comment. Lately there is an awareness about the corruption of the 1 Percent and people are discussing how horrible it is to horde billions while so many suffer needlessly from starvation and illness, just for the sake of their ego. So now of course someone will speak out and take it a lot further: why should anyone have more money than anyone else? From one extreme to another.

It’s just a dumb comment and doesn’t mean much, but what I hate about it is how it will tip people back to the way of thinking that “life is unfair, suck it up”. I like the moral awareness being stirred lately as people take in how bad things have become, but comments like this will scare some people away from such change. One extreme should never replace another. We need a sane world, not one of such extremes.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by xuenchen

 

There is a good point to what she says.

It is seriously unfair. Seriously, SERIOUSLY, unfair.

But anyone can see that. Unless they are willfully ignorant! But it's 2012, it should be apparent to everyone.

So instead of saying it's unfair, it's time people fix or at least think about fixing the problem. I'm sure that it will take decades if not hundreds of years to finish but, it will surely be worth it.

What the hell are you talking about? it's time people START fixing it now? What the hell do you think the entire 20th century was about? Bolshevism, Nazism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, WWI, WWII, Chinese Revolution, Social Security, Medicare, The Great Society, The European Union!!!!!! The entirety of the 20th century was in large part the attempt by those in the know (supposedly - ie left wing tyrants) to try and deal with "wealth inequality", and they all failed miserably, ending in the deaths of 10s of millions of people, 2 world wars, and arguably, even GREATER wealth inequality as a result!!!

Wealth inequality is inherently human. Yes, it sucks. LIFE sucks. The problem is, what do you do about it? As Margaret Thatcher so brilliantly pointed out, the problem with Socialism, ie wealth distribution is, eventually you run out of other people's money. I'm all for a social Utopia where everyone can live comfortably and the haves will graciously give to the have nots, but we've had several millenia of human existence now, and it hasn't worked yet. How do you force the ultra wealthy to give up their dough and give it to the poor peons like me? I'd really like to know.

reply to post by Drew99GT


You seem to be very confused. The thread is not about 'socialism'.

This is a thread where the OP has taken a statement out of context and implied that she said its unfair for some people to have access to more money than others. She says nothing of the sort. She is making the point that society is making one rule for the rich and another for the poor. She is right,it is unfair for 'peon's'. And it is only getting worse.

This has nothing to do with 'wealth re-distribution' and it has nothing to do with your flawed idea of 'socialism'.

I'm all for a social Utopia where everyone can live comfortably and the haves will graciously give to the have nots, but we've had several millenia of human existence now, and it hasn't worked yet.

Edit- Even Pagans looked after their own. It takes a village friend. Not every society spits on those in need.

And on top of taking her out of context,the key/operative words that the OP left out are "to get money,to work for money"

I think what Ann Curry was getting at was that it's unfair that people use money to put themselves in a position that's unfair. Some people with money think they have the right, since they have the money, to put themselves above and beyond everyone else. As if money is the deciding factor of that. As I've said many times before, I have no problem with rich people, I have problems with a**holes, and that 's basically what Curry was getting at I think.

She's a mainstream anchor who sounds like she's getting tired of the mainstream. That's good. She been doing what she's been doing all her adult life and I think she knows she's had a good run at it but that it's time for a change. The things she said are indicative of that, and since I like her I'd like to expand upon what she said so maybe people can get a better understanding of it.

My neighbor has more money than I do.

I have more God given talent than my neighbor.

Is that fair?

It's neither fair nor unfair. We both chose the live the lives we were born with in the ways we chose. What's "unfair" is that my neighbor may feel that since he has more money than I do he can buy his way into positions that my lack of money cannot. What he fails to realize though is that since he has no God given talents of his own, aside from the fact that he can make money ( but who can't?), there will come a time when the only talent he has left will be that of spending money (and who can't?)

I on the other hand was born with the talent that I have and I'm going to die with it. It can make me money, and it does, but the talent I have has afforded me the insight to see that there's more to life than money. His money can buy his way into things. His money can open doors. He may have worked hard for his money, but his attitude towards it has made him a prisoner of his own creation. He's at the point now where him and his money are inseparable.You can't tell the difference between the two. His only identity is the money that he has and he makes it obvious by buying his way to the front of an airport line. Now that in and of itself isn't bad if the ends justify the means. If what he was doing was going to have a positive outcome for someone other than himself. But that obviously wasn't the case. He didn't get to the front of that line because of who is but rather because of what he has. He himself has no influence. His money does.

If that's the way people want to live, without an identity outside of the almighty dollar, I feel sorry for them, and I'm not the only one. Ann Curry feels the same way based on what she said. So she's worth 10 million dollars. That doesn't make her a hypocrite for saying what she did. She'd be a hypocrite if she felt the same way as that guy did. Me and Ann Curry may be worlds apart in many ways but we do have one thing in common. We both have a God given talent that lets us influence people in a positive way. And that's something money can't buy.

Bottom line: Making a lot of money doesn't define you. If it does then you did it wrong.

no, what's unfair is constantly realizing you have no money.

i couldn't care less if someone had $300 million.

i do care that it's thrown in your face 24/7 and have to watch people buy their 15th bentley, while most people would just be happy with a new car.

i do care that the american dream, a dream that is shared by many around the world, is a road paved to hell.

which wasn't its original destination.

reply to post by jiggerj

The Communist Party in Europe wants 100% taxation above 250,000 Euros....but they have not objected to members of the European Parliament exempting themselves from the 20% VAT for eurozone purchases.

I Hate, absoultutley Hate Ann Curry...

But that's not what she said, the thread title is misleading, She is saying it is unfair for people to be able to pay to get through TSA faster.

Very similar argument how Rich people can afford better lawyers so they get off no matter what.

reply to post by Germanicus


Your point is fine with the single quote you cite.

But she did go further with:

Curry went on to indict American society: "...not everyone has access to being able to get money, to work for money.... until America becomes fair in terms of how able people are – can be to make money, until the playing field is fair, it is unfair."

And

...it's about those with money having an easier life than those who don't. And there's something fundamentally unfair about that."

^^ Hence, the "misleading" thread title !


And remember who was the "guest":

In a supposed discussion of financial ethics with left-wing Harvard professor Michael Sandel on Wednesday's NBC Today

The reference to the TSA was an example, not necessarily the main focus.

Also, if a rich person can pay and extra bribe, fee, service charge or whatever it would be called to get through a "situation" faster, that also means Somebody Accepts the "extra fee".

Is that any different than paying extra "taxes" and "accepting" "free" services ?

The article has a video. Did she not make those comments ?

I heard it like she did.

The TSA comment was the bait.

More than one issue was created by Ann, that's why we are getting different comments on the thread.

So, in your opinion, would all this have been better if the thread was never started ?

Originally posted by Drew99GT

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by xuenchen

 

There is a good point to what she says.

It is seriously unfair. Seriously, SERIOUSLY, unfair.

But anyone can see that. Unless they are willfully ignorant! But it's 2012, it should be apparent to everyone.

So instead of saying it's unfair, it's time people fix or at least think about fixing the problem. I'm sure that it will take decades if not hundreds of years to finish but, it will surely be worth it.

What the hell are you talking about? it's time people START fixing it now? What the hell do you think the entire 20th century was about? Bolshevism, Nazism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, WWI, WWII, Chinese Revolution, Social Security, Medicare, The Great Society, The European Union!!!!!! The entirety of the 20th century was in large part the attempt by those in the know (supposedly - ie left wing tyrants) to try and deal with "wealth inequality", and they all failed miserably, ending in the deaths of 10s of millions of people, 2 world wars, and arguably, even GREATER wealth inequality as a result!!!

Wealth inequality is inherently human. Yes, it sucks. LIFE sucks. The problem is, what do you do about it? As Margaret Thatcher so brilliantly pointed out, the problem with Socialism, ie wealth distribution is, eventually you run out of other people's money. I'm all for a social Utopia where everyone can live comfortably and the haves will graciously give to the have nots, but we've had several millenia of human existence now, and it hasn't worked yet. How do you force the ultra wealthy to give up their dough and give it to the poor peons like me? I'd really like to know.

And my point is that the 20th Century also made all the con artists connected with the "ism's" very very rich.
All at the expense of the "followers" and "supporters", millions of whom, were killed in the process !!!

The wealth re-distributions were "distributed" to the ultra fanatics, whoever they actually were.

The general populations got chicken feed and bird dirt.

How Fair was That reality ?

What's unfair is to have someone take half of your money that you've worked so hard for

reply to post by xuenchen

So, in your opinion, would all this have been better if the thread was never started ?

Im very happy you made the thread. I give an assist in on your Score Sheet. Nice pass edit- or was it a Turn Over?

And of course I watched the 38 second clip. I also read the transcript. That is how I know you took her out of context and left out the words 'work for money'.

She never says its unfair that "some have more money than others' like your ludicrous headline infers.