The real difference between Democrats and Republicans is...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by cosmictraveler, Jul 22, 2008.

  1. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    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 among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words 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 need for more government 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 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's a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I've 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'

    If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I'm all ears.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Very interesting analogy, however it is deficient. It only tells part of the story. The rest of the story is that the daughter did not really earn the 4.0 GPA although that is what she told everyone and whatevery one believed. Secretly she paid her professors large sums of cash from her trust fund to ensure that she would get the 4.0 GPA.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    Let's say your analogy holds. Why aren't the Republicans against people becoming rich by sitting on their asses? Kids who inherit enormous sums, people who get rich by investing money and playing the stock market - including selling short for example (betting that companies will fail) - people who negotiate in bad faith with foreign citizens and governments for their resources, etc.

    I see absolutely no interest on the part of Republicans to make any distinction between the rich who worked hard and the rich who do and have done very little.

    In fact it seems clear that the Republicans think that a sit on the ass rich person deserves more money than the hardworking poor mom with two jobs.

    That is a simple rebuttal to the hallucination you presented us with. I use this rebuttal because most Republicans are incabable of understanding how certain people having a lot of money is often connected to other people being poor or having their life energy or resources or choices reduced. Republicans are like the most dull Newtonians imaginable. If they can't see the billiard ball hitting the other one from their living room window, there was nothing causal present.

    The Democrats are also pretty terrible in this way, just not as terrible.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Would I give up going to an expensive college, so a poor person could have an opportunity to go to a college? Yes, I would. College in general should be free, since it is needed to make a decent living, just like High School used to be.

    The analogy is misleading, since government programs aren't rewarding laziness, they are giving opportunities to people so they have the same chance that you do to be sucessful. You don't have to give up something as valuable as an entire point on your GPA, only a percentage on the income you already recieve. For the wealthy, this is not a great burden. Going from 4 to 3 is a great burden, since it effects your future earning power.
     
  8. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    In a sense you are right. Republicans tell themselves the kind of poor story/analogy your story/analogy is an example of to justify their own behavior, lack of compassion, the 'way things are', their rights to money power services and the way their government behaves in relation to the citizens of other countries. As a few examples. Democrats would tend to use other rationalizations.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Funny thing the big capitalist swines who earned their billions by the sweat of their brows are Democrats (Allan, Gates, Buffet, etc). Those that acquire their millions through trust funds (Bush Sr. and Bush JR tend to be be Republicans...funny!
     
  10. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766
    This thinking falls flat in that once everyone has been brought to the same level of "opportunity", opportunity itself then fails to exist for even the hardest of workers.I don't think that's what Dems really want (unless they're communists).

    It is safe to say,though, that once given power both sides abuse it as they see fit.
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Back in the 80's liberal social programs did reward people for being lazy and irresponsible. But things have changed. I don't think anyone realistically wants to go back to those days for a variety of reasons.
     
  12. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    I think that the story seems to fall short in saying that people who don't have a lot a money don't work hard and although this a popular stereotype it is certainly not true for a majority of people. I work hard now and I'm barely making it, so I have no problem with helping out others who are in even worse situations than myself.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2008
  13. clusteringflux Version 1. OH! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,766
    Agreed,but what if it wasn't at your discretion. For instance, can I have some of your money to subsidize a "workers organization" in oil rich Saudi Arabia?...I promise they're poor, Really!
    No?
    Guess what, I'm taking it anyway. Don't pay and go to jail...That's taxes,baby.

    Truth be told, if we actually gave the poor in THIS country every dollar that's supposedly for programs that "help the poor", poverty would be eradicated in less than five years.The middle class subsidizes itself in program after program and the governments keeps the change. It costs money to move money even if it's on the up and up (and it rarely is).
     
  14. RubiksMaster Real eyes realize real lies Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,646
    Opportunity is property. All opportunity stems from ownership, and the freedom to act on the ownership of one's property. This property includes all types of capital, means of production, money, and intangible items such as skills and knowledge. In a completely free market, everyone has a chance to be successful automatically. That's the point of economic activity - for both parties to benefit. Redistributing my hard-earned property and giving it to someone else is not the way to go.

    Think about it. Why should anyone (the govt) be allowed to forcibly deny me of my opportunity, and redistribute it somewhere else? Shouldn't everyone have the rights to what they own?

    This is why charity exists, but it should be private. The government has no right to force us to redistribute our wealth - whether hard earned or inherited. It's not the government's responsibility to tell us what is a "just cause" and what isn't.

    And back to the main point:
    I think that analogy is a little shallow, and somewhat inaccurate. If it were true, it would mean taxes should have gone down with a republican president, and the scope of the government should have decreased. This is obviously not the case. It just tends to grow and grow no matter which party is in office.

    So while I agree with the main message in the analogy, I don't see either party following that ideal.
     
  15. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    I have a serious problem with 5% of the population owning 95% of the wealth.

    We have many more people born into poverty then into wealth and if you dont think this is a problem then your perspective is whack.
    Why should one child get a better chance at life over another?
    Everyone should at least have the necessities before the rich people start getting the accessories (which feeds materialism/capitalism?).
     
  16. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    that was elegant. You get a gold star!
     
  17. RubiksMaster Real eyes realize real lies Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,646
    Why should somebody forcibly deny me of the wealth that I've earned?

    Without the incentive of profit, innovation doesn't happen. All of our modern technology that we take for granted exists because someone was "greedy" and was only thinking of the profits he would earn. Society is much better off when everyone does what is best for them.

    When one person is rich, that doesn't mean everyone else is poor. By the logic of several members here, if Bill Gates weren't rich, there would be fewer poor people, as if he is somehow unfairly "stealing" their money out of their pockets. That's absurd. Economic activity happens because both parties benefit.

    If you think forcibly redistributing a person's own property isn't a problem, then your perspective is the one that's "whack".

    And I'm not saying that charity is a bad thing. People should be encouraged to give to those less fortunate, but it shouldn't be forced with the threat of imprisonment. People will do it, without government mandate, because it makes them feel good.
     
  18. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    I don't think you know many innovators or inventors.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    The only one in this thread that has said Gates does not deserve the fruits of his labor is you. And you were doing so to create a strawman arguement to support your position. This is a very common ploy with those who share your views.

    I assume by your comments that you have never taken a course in economics...macro economics more specifically. Because if you had, you would know that income redistribution is a vital function of government. Why, because in a totally lazie fare system (hands-off capitalist system) capital/wealth tends to clot (accumulate in the hands of the wealthy few).

    Gates deserves the fruits of his labor. But the fact is we have a government. We have communal needs that must be paid for and those best able to pay should pay. Ask the poor to pay what they don't have just does not make any sense. So the question is how much wealth is incentive enough. And I think anyone will agree, including Gates that he has had more than enough financial incentive. That is why those that really understand economics and business (Gates, Allan, Buffet, etc) are supporters of the Democratic position as opposed to the Republican position to which you subscribe.

    And it has been my experience that while money is important, it is not the key motivating factor of most successful businessmen. It is too often the case that money is primary motivation of corporate managers...but not true business leaders. The leaders and innovators have a mission and a purpose that transends money.
     
  20. RubiksMaster Real eyes realize real lies Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,646
    Everyone who agreed with the "democrat" position in the example situation said it! Instead of students, it's businessmen. Instead of GPA points, it's property (money in this case), and instead of the Dean, it's the government. Not a straw man, but a direct substitution from make-believe to real life.

    I have, and that's why I feel the way I do.

    Yes, they "should" pay, but that doesn't mean they should be required to.

    No it doesn't, but forced charity doesn't make any sense either.

    That's not really a valid point. It might be true for a handful of huge business leaders, but there are also many smaller businessmen and average Joes who know plenty about business, yet subscribe to the "republican" position. Many economists do too.
     
  21. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    except its done to minamize the demacrats position and empower the republican one inside of correlating to the logic behind the 2 idealogoies. I could make one just as bullshity for the dems to win out.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    In the story, Aubrey's the Republican.

    She's obviously not worried, so her family's probably fairly wealthy. She's going to pull her "gentleman's C" as it used to be called, get a lucrative job with her family connections, move into the house her folks buy for her, and hire the "young woman" to find her tax loopholes so none of her money is "redistributed".

    Some day, she may be President.

    Meanwhile the college, dependent as it is on disappearing government grants etc, is going to have to raise tuition and make some cuts.
     

Share This Page