Comment Re:How would you promote job growth (Score 1) 238
> "their fair share" is nebulous on purpose, because if they actually specified, then it could be argued against. By
> keeping it undefined, there is no argument that can be made. The people making that argument win by default,
> because you can't argue against it.
Its worst than that, you can't argue against it because it is absolutely correct in its nebulosity.
By saying their "Fair Share" they can invoke not just anything but...whatever YOU think. If you think $1 is fair, then that is what they just said isn't it? If you think $1million is, they said that too.... they just didn't explicitly say either because they let you fill in the blank!
How can anyone be againt one paying their "fair share"? Clearly if its fair, and its their share, they should pay it by definition right?
Its kind of like "tax reform". You can't be against "reform" without being regressive right? So once something has been called reform, anyone againt it is stuck with more complicated arguments trying to explain why it isn't actually reform, and usually has to use the word reform in its name, this implicitly contradicting himself via raw terminology.
A "Fair share" that isn't fair is a contradiction in terms, so it puts anyone who disagrees with it on automatic uphill footing.