I copied this from another forum. I have no idea what the orginal source is ----------- A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying. Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing ?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over." Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA." The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!" The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, " Welcome to the Republican party."
Good one! Great! Ahh, yes, sometimes reality has a way of fuckin' up all those ideals, huh? Baron Max
But they both pay the same tuition, that's like the same tax. In fact, a poorer student could pay less tuition, that's like a proportional tax system. The Republican would want to show off their GPA and not pay any tuition. In this case the university is like the commons; the roads, public schools, legal system...everything that makes success possible...
Audrey doesn't have any booze. She leeches it off of other people who pay for it with their parent's hard earned money. ~Raithere
Republicans are responsible for adding the last zero to the national debt, so the party can hardly be categorized as fiscally responsible. The Democrats have enacted numerous restrictions on free speech, so the party can hardly be categorized as socially liberal. Both parties are dragging us toward an authoritarian dystopia in which everyone works for the government, all services are rationed by scarcity, every activity is regulated by bureaucrats whose only familiarity with it is either academic or financial, everyone is a snitch, and America gets to tell the whole world what to do. The only difference is minor and short-term: the Republicans concentrate slightly more on taking away our rights, while the Democrats concentrate slightly more on taking away our money. Once we have none of either, they will probably merge. The battle between the two wings of the Republocrat Party is as real as those in "professional" wrestling.
because of the way your 'democracy' works. the popular vote is ignored, so unless all the supporters of a minority party were to gather in a single state, they dont stand a chance of getting an MP for their party. when people see that they have almost no chance of getting a third party into government because of this, most will just give up. look at the statistics for voter turnout in your country. another problem encountered is that parties in the US arent able to form coalitions like in numerous other countries. therefore if you take a vote away from the lesser evil in order to vote for a good party, the greater evil gains power. people are forced to vote for the mainstream parties.
That is a pretty rediculous analogy of the disparities of the demorcat and republican party as well as the redistribution of wealth. Furthermore, it only shows the weakness of the flawed educational grading system. This analogy is meant for people who abide by what is typically called, boxed thinking. Their brains cannot register anything beyond what is in front of their faces in a box. Take a box sitting on a planet amidst a huge universe of lightyears of stars, and all these morons can see is what is in an irrelevant box. Next?
For a country as big as the US its still suprising how that came about. I'm in the UK: there are 3 "major" parties, Labour (37%), Conservative (33%) and Liberal Democrats (22%) based on the last election.
This analogy fails horribly. When we say redistribution of wealth, we mean accessing monies that have been passed down from generation to generation by taxation. Monies that you and I will never see, but the grandchildren of these rich, white, bastards will. What did they do to deserve that money? Let me rephrase that, what did Paris Hilton do to deserve her inheritance? Nothing. The woman in the analogy earned her 4.0 with her own brain, two hands, and/or mouth in more ways than one. It's not like she get's her 4.0 because her father earned a 4.0 from that same institution. And assuming that to be true and a scarce number of 4.0's, then of course they should be redistrubuted than passed down to unworthy, lazy, student inheritants. That's why the Senate will never completely get rid of the Estate Tax. Come 2011, it will be back into action.
This analogy fails, but that is not the reason. Never say never. The taxes are clearly unfair. The more money you have, the more you are taxed. That is not equality. That is not free market. There is no ethical basis for it. The grading system is worthless. The economic system is worthless. Democrat VS Republican is the most rediculous thing ever created. 2 sets of ignorant wacktards that argue worthless points. Somebody joining one of those party has nothing to do with what those parties stand for. Joining those parties are all about profit. How about getting off of the nonsense, and join something worthwhile like movements against transnational corporations?
Whoever claimed the more money you have the more you get taxed? The last time i checked, tax liability is determined by a rate meaning that it is directly proportional to your income. So it's not the more money you make the more you get taxed; it's the more money you make the more money you owe! And as for the Estate Tax. Why is it unfair? Upon the death of the wealthholder, some of the money is returned to the goverment where it is spent and redistributed outward.
Are you saying that the person who earns the money has no right to pass that money on to their children? Because I think that this is precisely why so many people work as hard as they do. They want to provide more for their children. But you think that giving money to your kids is wrong? It should go to the government, so they can give it to the kids of people who don't work hard, or at all? This has been tried. It results in nobody working. People will not work for other people's children. It ignores our biological imperatives. It attempts to create social systems while ignoring the social sciences. If you don't understand evolution, psychology, and anthropology, you have no business meddling in political science. You can't, with the stroke of a pen, turn people into self-sacrificing martyrs. You must give them a reason to work. In the societies where people get to keep more of their spoils, they work harder. The Pilgrims almost starved to death working communal farms. As soon as they gave each family their own plot, they had a surplus. From starvation to having excess corn to trade for other goods. If you don't understand why this is the case, and why it will always be the case, you will never have a valid argument in the political and economic arenas.
