Go Back   CurlTalk > Life > Politics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-16-2004, 04:37 PM   #1
 
Josephine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,555
Default Explaining the Republican Philosphy

A coworker sent me this... thoughts?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Father Daughter Talk

Father-Daughter Talk
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 for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich &the addition of more government welfare programs.
Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she studied all the time, never had 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 of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum. Her father listened and then asked, "How is your good friend Mary doing?" She replied, "Mary is barely getting by." She continued, "She barely has a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies." "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over." Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0." He continued, "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 worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party"
Josephine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2004, 05:35 PM   #2
 
NetG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 20,104
Default

I guess in some ways that kind of makes sense..... It's a very, very basic way of looking at it, but gets the point across, and is exactly how some Republicans think.


Of course, looking at the HUGE percentage upper brackets are taxed and realizing it's ridiculous to take that much of someone's money is another way of looking at it.


Personally, I don't think the higher brackets need to be taxed more-but I DO think loopholes should be closed, which would result in higher brackets paying more taxes.
__________________
The pews never miss a sermon but that doesn't get them one step closer to Heaven.
-Speckla

But at least the pews never attend yoga!
NetG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2004, 06:16 PM   #3
 
the doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,366
Default

Interesting, but incomplete. There is a big difference between splitting a GPA, and paying taxes. I want to see tax reform so that people are paying a fair share and I also want to see that revenue distributed to services that people need most. I'm for whatever helps the most people. Even if you COULD split GPA points and award them, that doesn't help either girl.

I think the next high-bracket person who complains about taxes should just hold their breath.. Because it's tax money that makes enforcement of the clean air laws possible. And we ALL breathe that air, damnit - why should they breathe clean air if they're not willing to pay for it. It's a public good, people!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by spring1onu
I like having something "down below"
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurfette
What would you call it, sci-fi guru?
don't click this. seriously.
the doctor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2004, 06:18 PM   #4
 
Layali's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,230
Default

The problem I have with this interpretation is that in real life the vast majority of "Marys" aren't playing. They're working their butts off to make ends meet.

The real inequality is in access to resources--money, education, people, facilities that can help a "Mary" improve her lot in life. Don't get me wrong, there are resources/programs out there that do target disadvantaged populations, but (a) people don't know they exist, (b) they are mediocre in their deliverance or (c) they're not funded well.

A lot of people claim to have pulled themselves up by their bootstrap, but I don't completely buy that...someone or something had to have helped you along the way. Why can't other people have that too?

I guess your anecdote might make sense from a republican standpoint, but it's too black&white and is based on a lot of generalizations and stereotypes.
__________________
naturally 3b/3c

Explanation by the tongue makes most things clear, but love unexplained is clearer. ~ Rumi
Layali is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2004, 12:25 AM   #5
 
steph_eina's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 217
Send a message via AIM to steph_eina
Default

That was the worst explanation of the Republican Party I've ever read. First off, slicing off a GPA and taking $5,000 from a person making over $200,000 a year is entirely different. What was with that comparison between the hard-working 4.0 student and the partying, popular 2.0 student? Is that implying that the reason people are poor or don't have healthcare or can't afford a nicer car is because they're out partying and not working hard? That's not very fair.

I, and my fellow Dems, recognize a need to help those that are less fortunate and trying to get on their feet. What happened to a general sense of community and the desire to help out your fellow (wo)man? I also recognize that there will always be a poor class of folks who aren't cut out for success like the Donald Trumps and Richard Bransons or even the regular upper class doctors of the world. That can't be helped, but what can be helped is keeping people content with their lives and a feeling of being well cared for. It prevents problems...and as you can see, we have a long way to go.
__________________
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.
-- Somerset Maugham
steph_eina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2004, 12:47 PM   #6
 
ScaryCurl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,272
Default

I think it's somewhat of an accurate analogy. I say this because unfortunately there are deadbeats sponging off the government, welfare moms that get pregnant for a paycheck, etc...a few bad apples. Why should a self made business owner that worked his way thru college, pay more taxes than Joe blow who didn't make the same choices who now works at McDonald's? Don't even get me started on earned income credit.

I wish once and for all the IRS would be shut down completely and a flat tax would be implemented.
ScaryCurl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2004, 02:46 PM   #7
 
Scarlet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 12,422
Default

Society has an obligation to take care of the less fortunate. This includes, the elderly, infirmed, mentally ill, newly jobless, and those who lose the breadwinner in their family through accident or death. I could go on, but you get the idea. Anything else is inhuman.

Society, however, DOES NOT have the obligation to help those who do not help themselves when they are capable of doing so or those who refuse to act responsibly.

Redistribution of income? HECK.NO. I would love to make as much money as a neurosurgeon, but just because I make less I don't believe that part of his/her income should be given to me just for the sake of making things more equitable. Forget it.
__________________
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
Scarlet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2004, 07:02 PM   #8
 
ScaryCurl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlet
Society has an obligation to take care of the less fortunate. This includes, the elderly, infirmed, mentally ill, newly jobless, and those who lose the breadwinner in their family through accident or death. I could go on, but you get the idea. Anything else is inhuman.

Society, however, DOES NOT have the obligation to help those who do not help themselves when they are capable of doing so or those who refuse to act responsibly.

Redistribution of income? HECK.NO. I would love to make as much money as a neurosurgeon, but just because I make less I don't believe that part of his/her income should be given to me just for the sake of making things more equitable. Forget it.
You said it much better than I did. I agree with you 110%.
ScaryCurl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2004, 10:13 PM   #9
 
Josephine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlet
Society has an obligation to take care of the less fortunate. This includes, the elderly, infirmed, mentally ill, newly jobless, and those who lose the breadwinner in their family through accident or death. I could go on, but you get the idea. Anything else is inhuman.

Society, however, DOES NOT have the obligation to help those who do not help themselves when they are capable of doing so or those who refuse to act responsibly.
How do you feel about paying taxes for those who abuse government programs such as welfare? Do you think the system needs to be changed so this happens less or do you not believe in giving your hard earned money to the government to help people who don't work hard(if you think that is the case)?
Josephine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2004, 06:01 AM   #10
 
Scarlet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 12,422
Default

I don't mind paying taxes for social programs that actual help citizens who can't help themselves, or to provide a safety net for those who need time to get back on their feet.

For abusers of programs, I really do think they should be cut off. The government shouldn't be an enabler when it comes to individuals who refuse to do things for themselves.
__________________
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
Scarlet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2004, 11:03 AM   #11
 
the doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,366
Default

Quote:
The problem I have with this interpretation is that in real life the vast majority of "Marys" aren't playing. They're working their butts off to make ends meet.
Or they're really trying to be good students and still just not getting the grades.
I love studying politics, but when it comes to test time in my PoliSci class, I get blah grades. Why? Because I have always sucked at tests. Give me an essay, a project, a group discussion any day, but give me a form with Q's and A's and I'm hopeless.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by spring1onu
I like having something "down below"
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurfette
What would you call it, sci-fi guru?
don't click this. seriously.
the doctor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2006, 09:34 PM   #12
 
Rheanna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,440
Default I somewhat agree

While it's a very simple analogy I do somewhat agree. And I am by no means in a high tax bracket. When my husband and I got married two years ago, we both made minimum wage. We both went to school full-time. We lived in a crummy apartment, barely had any money... Rent was 300 (the cost of living here is very low compared to a lot of places) and that was my hubby's paycheck.... every two weeks... When bills were due and it wasn't payweek for me, we were screwed. We managed to get by, no thanks to anyone else. Now I know, we didn't have kids, etc etc, but still. We were right at the local cut-off point. We thought we'd have to live in a housing project, but we were told we would have to pay 400 a month to live there, and at the same time we were working, supporting all the ones who lived in the same place as us but living there for free, not working. I'm not saying everyone in that situation is a lazy bum, but I live in Kentucky. In case you didn't know it is basically the welfare capital.

I'm not saying all this to get pity. We're doing a whole lot better now. We both finished school, just bought a house and we've worked for everything we have, although we still are making under $30,000 which isn't exactly rich last time I checked. I resent paying so much in taxes while other people get my hard-earned money without working at all. What they don't realize is that welfare doesn't really help anyone, not when its used long term. Teaching people self-reliance is what should be going on. Welfare is not supposed to be a life-long career. It is great to help someone in a tight spot - TEMPORARILY. Almost everyone where I live "gets a check" and waits for it desperately to come at the "first of the month". It makes me ill, because when we were on the cut-off line of getting any help or not, they couldn't seem to see that all the "poor poor low income people" were actually BETTER OFF than the middle class. When a middle class person works all the time and brings in 1,000 a month it sounds better at first than someone who gets a check for 600, but when you consider the person getting a check for 600 also gets 300 of food stamps and free living (while the other pays 3 or 4 hundred) and free healthcare... they're doing a heck of a lot better.

But I know I'm rambling. It just makes me sick to see it so much. I am a Republican for many reasons.. Yes I do believe we should get to keep what we earn. This is not communism. Of COURSE we have to pay taxes. I understand that, but I think people should be taught to support themselves, not to rely on others all the time for handouts. That's not my only reason for how I believe. And no, I don't agree with everything this administration is doing. No administration has ever been perfect, but I definitely don't regret my vote. I can only imagine where we'd be if Kerry had won..

But I digress. I'm sorry to ramble so much! Lol. And hope I didn't offend anyone with my post.... I know that our system helps a lot of people, but it's by no means perfect.
__________________
Rheanna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2006, 12:21 PM   #13
 
katethegreat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 847
Send a message via AIM to katethegreat
Default

Scarlet, you hit the nail on the head!
__________________
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate, but that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us."
-Marianne Williamson
katethegreat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2006, 07:15 AM   #14
 
Scarlet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 12,422
Default

Track them down, and if it takes them the rest of their lives to pay it back, so be it.

Congressional audit uncovers widespread fraud in Katrina, Rita aid
LAST UPDATE: 6/14/2006 7:21:50 AM

CAPITOL HILL (AP) - From luxury vacations to a sex change operation, much of the money meant to help victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was lost to fraud.

An audit by congressional investigators concluded that up to [b]$1.4 billion[b/] of hurricane assistance funding was spent for bogus reasons. A House committee looks at the fraud issue today.

The audit found that people lodged in hotels after the storms often were paid twice, since FEMA gave them individual rental assistance and paid hotels directly. In one case, the agency paid California hotels $8,000 to house one person, who received three rental assistance payments for both Katrina and Rita.

The findings are the latest black eye for FEMA, which took widespread criticism for its handling of the hurricanes last year.
__________________
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
Scarlet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2006, 02:08 AM   #15
 
FidoGwen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 399
Default

Okay, let me talk about how things would be in my perfectly messed up world.

Welfare (and the like) would be privately run and funded. Less overhead, more accountability. There would be some sort of time limit. At the least there would be an audit/investigation every so often. People would be on welfare until they got back on their feet. There would be levels of assistance - not this, "oh, you have a job? Then you don't get any aid at all!"

There would be a flat tax - no deductions or anything like that. More tax dollars would go to things that really "should be" government funded.

That's all I can think of right now.

It's good to finally see some vocal Republican Curlies!!! Not that long ago I was the only one here defending the president!
__________________
I'm a 2something/3something. Started modified CG routine on 6/6/05
Cut more than ten inches from my BSL hair on 8-10-05 and growing it long again
But we're STILL adjusting.
FidoGwen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2006, 06:14 AM   #16
 
Scarlet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 12,422
Default

You're definitely not the only Republican curlie here! I've come to the conclusion that it's pointless to try to even discuss some of these issues because there are so many - as the brilliant columnist Charles Krauthammer says - who have BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome.


This is the issue. In this crazy world ,trying to help individuals and families stand up on their own is looked at as being cruel and dehumanizing. Really? Making people dependent on the govt for basic means of support seems more dehumanizing. But, I think that's the goal. Erase individuality and make The State the end all be all of our existance. Creating program after program, after program accomplishes nothing, except to create a cycle of dependence. Program isn't working? Problem isn't being solved? Why, let's throw more money at it! Foolishness.
__________________
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
Scarlet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2006, 03:59 AM   #17
 
KrlyQ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 51
Send a message via Yahoo to KrlyQ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlet
But, I think that's the goal. Erase individuality and make The State the end all be all of our existance. Creating program after program, after program accomplishes nothing, except to create a cycle of dependence. Program isn't working? Problem isn't being solved? Why, let's throw more money at it! Foolishness.
You're exactly right in that aspect! This is a great time to mention the phrase that so many people love to use, or should I say misuse, in this day and age; "separation of church and state". Neither is doing their duty and has no clear idea of what those duties are. The government is not responsible for, nor should it be involved in feeding, clothing or housing it's citizens. If there are those who are not fortunate enough to have the necesities in life, it is the church that should be stepping up in those areas. The sole responsibility of the government is to protect it's citizens from harm, either foreign or domestic. Some of you may know what I mean, and where that distinction originates. Some of you may not... Plainly put, the government is taking on the role of "savior" and the church has allowed it.
__________________
3B/C in transition / John 15:18-19
KrlyQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2006, 10:16 AM   #18
 
ShrekLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 6,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KrlyQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlet
But, I think that's the goal. Erase individuality and make The State the end all be all of our existance. Creating program after program, after program accomplishes nothing, except to create a cycle of dependence. Program isn't working? Problem isn't being solved? Why, let's throw more money at it! Foolishness.
You're exactly right in that aspect! This is a great time to mention the phrase that so many people love to use, or should I say misuse, in this day and age; "separation of church and state". Neither is doing their duty and has no clear idea of what those duties are. The government is not responsible for, nor should it be involved in feeding, clothing or housing it's citizens. If there are those who are not fortunate enough to have the necesities in life, it is the church that should be stepping up in those areas. The sole responsibility of the government is to protect it's citizens from harm, either foreign or domestic. Some of you may know what I mean, and where that distinction originates. Some of you may not... Plainly put, the government is taking on the role of "savior" and the church has allowed it.
I totally agree with Scarlet and mostly with KrlyQ. Many years ago I worked with a woman who had gone on welfare for a short time because her husband died unexpectedly and she had two little kids. Once she got a job and got back on her feet it took her months to get off. They kept sending her checks even though she explained that she didn't want them anymore and sent them back. She was appalled at how difficult they made it to get off of the system.

As far as the churches "allowing" the governmnet to take care of people. I think part of the problem is, the more people feel that government is doing it the less they tend to contribute to charity. I have heard that Europe gives much less to charity than we do because they just assume that the government will take care of everyone. I don't have facts to back that up, it is just something I heard.
ShrekLover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2006, 12:57 PM   #19
 
curlyarca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 15,767
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlet
Track them down, and if it takes them the rest of their lives to pay it back, so be it.

Congressional audit uncovers widespread fraud in Katrina, Rita aid
LAST UPDATE: 6/14/2006 7:21:50 AM

CAPITOL HILL (AP) - From luxury vacations to a sex change operation, much of the money meant to help victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was lost to fraud.

An audit by congressional investigators concluded that up to [b]$1.4 billion[b/] of hurricane assistance funding was spent for bogus reasons. A House committee looks at the fraud issue today.

The audit found that people lodged in hotels after the storms often were paid twice, since FEMA gave them individual rental assistance and paid hotels directly. In one case, the agency paid California hotels $8,000 to house one person, who received three rental assistance payments for both Katrina and Rita.

The findings are the latest black eye for FEMA, which took widespread criticism for its handling of the hurricanes last year.
Sorry, but most people who received aid after those hurricanes did not get sex changes and go on any ****ing luxury vacations. I'm sure it sounds good on paper, though, especially if you want to convince yourself that most government monies are lost on fraud.

Hurricane Katrina caused close to 100 billion dollars in damages, total. For Rita alone in Texas alone the costs were close to 400 milllion. That's not including the damage done to Louisiana for Rita. Not to mention a major metropolitan area's infrastructure was totally desolated in Katrina. 1.4 billion would be roughly a drop in the bucket. Those few bad apples do NOT represent the majority.


http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/program...649340100.shtm if you'd like to do a fact check and see a small portion of what has been going on. Everybody's not sitting on their asses waiting on gov'ment checks.

"Widespread"? That's certainly relative. What a nice, misleading headline.
__________________

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
curlyarca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2006, 10:47 AM   #20
 
Scarlet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 12,422
Default

If you think $1.4b in potential fraud is no big deal, there's nothing left to say.
Scarlet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Trending Topics[-]hide

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com