Are "Republicans" Inherently Selfish? I Think They Are

[bobber205]

First off I would like to say there are issues occasionally agree with. Almost always however, I agree with the Democrats stance. I am not a tool for either party.

Here are my reasons why I see Republican supporters and their issues in general as selfish.

Most of the time, Republican "values" fall into two categories.

1) Fiscal conservatism: it's my money and you can't have it! I'm not sharing!!!! :mad:

We all need to be each others keepers and look out for each other. Too many taxes are bad but we do need some. (some = a % where most republicans would say it would be alot)

2) Social conservatism! Gays are marrying! Abortion is bad (in all cases)! People are doing things that aren't harming me but grosses me out! Yuck! You can't do that!!!! :mad: This also applies to guns. This is my gun dont' take it from me! What if Britian invades!?!?

Democrats, at the other end of the spectrum as always, tend to think the opposite. I think there's a reason why more well educated people tend to be Democrats and quote 'liberals'.

[rasmasyean]

First off I would like to say there are issues occasionally agree with. Almost always however, I agree with the Democrats stance. I am not a tool for either party.

Here are my reasons why I see Republican supporters and their issues in general as selfish.

Most of the time, Republican "values" fall into two categories.

1) Fiscal conservatism: it's my money and you can't have it! I'm not sharing!!!! :mad:

We all need to be each others keepers and look out for each other. Too many taxes are bad but we do need some. (some = a % where most republicans would say it would be alot)

2) Social conservatism! Gays are marrying! Abortion is bad (in all cases)! People are doing things that aren't harming me but grosses me out! Yuck! You can't do that!!!! :mad: This also applies to guns. This is my gun dont' take it from me! What if Britian invades!?!?

Democrats, at the other end of the spectrum as always, tend to think the opposite. I think there's a reason why more well educated people tend to be Democrats and quote 'liberals'.

I'm no expert, but I'll take a shot at giving light to these points.

For point number one, perhaps it is also because of the belief that the few should have power over the many. This stems from the belief that a more centralized government is a better way of operating a society. The money should go to those who have the means to attain it since on average, those are who should be leaders and knows whats best for everyone else to do.

For point number two, I would say it's really complicated, but one underlying root of it is that for society to propagate, you must produce offspring to bolster the numbers of a civilization. This ultimately gives the central rulers more workers and troops to command.

[63dot]

Your first point is seriously flawed, but I think your second point is very accutate, imho.

I think for the first issue, many people of both parties want to maximize their paychecks. It's not a republican issue any more than it is a democrat issue. Wanting the most from your paycheck is not selfish. What you do with your money, whether a democrat or republican, is what makes one selfish or not. Are you glad your taxes help others? Or do you feel they cheated you out of something and they never deserve any help from your taxes? Do you give presents? Or do you spend every penny on yourself? Do you give when you go to church or do you go to church to hook up with business contacts? Do you give a homeless person a dirty look or do you help them? And if you give to the homeless, do you feel like you have been taken advantage of or do you feel you helped a fellow human being?

On the second issue, this is where the republican party has lost its way with much of America. Bush followed the social conservative agenda and his numbers as president have been dismal most of his term. Americans simply don't agree most of the time with social conservatism and successful republicans know when it comes down to keeping popular, it's about the economy, *stupid, borrowing from a democratic party slogan. At least the GOP is smart in pushing the lower taxes issue and they win elections from time to time with that tactic. The problem is that the GOP can never deliver on lower taxes or reducing the national defecit, but they always talk a better game than the democrats do. Even when the democrats can do well with issues of the economy or the defecit, they can never make people remember it.

So in a nutshell, neither party is more "selfish" with their money, but the republicans are clearly "bigots" in some ways that they can't see more than the democrats. This has not always been the case and liberals like me would have been for Republican Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

[rasmasyean]

Democrats, at the other end of the spectrum as always, tend to think the opposite. I think there's a reason why more well educated people tend to be Democrats and quote 'liberals'.

You are wrong...hehe

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Fig_57_-_men_4-yr_college_degrees.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Fig_58_women_with_4-yr_college_degs.JPG

I thought there was something funny about that statement considering that Republicans tend to be "richer" (which rises with education). So I looked it up and found this.

[Wotan31]

1) Fiscal conservatism: it's my money and you can't have it! I'm not sharing!!!! :mad:

We all need to be each others keepers and look out for each other. Too many taxes are bad but we do need some. (some = a % where most republicans would say it would be alot)
LOL Here's the wikipedia page on Fiscal Conservatism. I'm sorry, but you're so far off base here I have no response for you. Know the definition of the words before you start a thread please! And vague ambiguous terms like "some" and "alot" when your talking about tax percentages is meaningless. Sharpen up your argument and please try again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism


This also applies to guns. This is my gun dont' take it from me! What if Britian invades!?!?
The numbers prove you quite wrong here. Look up crime statistics for every major city that's instituted a gun ban. Chicago, Washington DC, etc. Once the gun ban took effect, violent crime went through the roof! Why? Do you really think violent criminals are going to throw away their guns because they're illegal? Hahahaha! Of course only the law abiding citizens got rid of their guns in accordance with the ban.

Thieves and other criminals are opportunistic - they go for low hanging fruit. In a gun ban city, armed criminals can rob people with impunity - cause they know all the law-abiding citizens "ain't got one".

Plus now who's the greedy one trying to impose their morals on others? Hmmm? "I don't think you should have a gun, just because! so lets pass laws and take them away from you!!!111"

Democrats, at the other end of the spectrum as always, tend to think the opposite. I think there's a reason why more well educated people tend to be Democrats and quote 'liberals'.

Well, I think you just proved that one wrong on your own. :p

Rasmas posted charts showing that democrats are less educated than republicans on average. Funny how you can take your own (blatently wrong) perceptions about voters and their education level, and turn it into a statement of fact as part of your argument. FAIL.

Thanks for trying though! :)

[dukebound85]

I'm no expert, but I'll take a shot at giving light to these points.

For point number one, perhaps it is also because of the belief that the few should have power over the many. This stems from the belief that a more centralized government is a better way of operating a society. The money should go to those who have the means to attain it since on average, those are who should be leaders and knows whats best for everyone else to do.


conservatives tend not to favor a strong centralized government and instead, favor a more limited one. democrats on the other hand want a strong central government

for more reading on the topic, here you go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

[pseudobrit]

conservatives tend not to favor a strong centralized government and instead, favor a more limited one. democrats on the other hand want a strong central government

Bush

[Iscariot]

Humans are inherently selfish. Maybe Republicans are just more honest about it.

[Wotan31]

Humans are inherently selfish. Maybe Republicans are just more honest about it.
Unless you live under communism or dictatorship, YOU make your own success (or failure). It's up to YOU to earn a living for yourself.

In a capitalist economy, you make as much or as little as you're capable of. Your life is what YOU make it.

There's a difference between being selfish and being ambitious - and it has nothing with how much money you have. Look at Bill Gates for example. richest man in the world, worth Billions of dollars. Is he selfish? He also is the largest single contributor to charities in the world. Contributes hundreds of millions of dollars each year to charity. He's even stepping down as head of Microsoft to focus full time on his charitable activities.

How about Paul Newman? Yes, the Newman's Own brand guy. His entire company, now in the hundreds of millions of dollars of profits, is based entirely on giving that money away to charity. He built a business empire from the ground up and has hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue - is he selfish?

Selfishness is a trait that transcends partisan politics, I don't see how you can associate that trait with one party's voters or another. In fact, since Republicans tend to be better educated AND more wealthy than Democrats, I would wager that they also contribute more $$$ annually to charities than Democrats do.

[Bobdude161]

Humans are inherently selfish. Maybe Republicans are just more honest about it.

+1 Everyone is selfish to a certain degree, whether you admit or not. You can be selfish with time, money, relationships, etc.

[Iscariot]

Unless you live under communism or dictatorship, YOU make your own success (or failure). It's up to YOU to earn a living for yourself.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

In a capitalist economy, you make as much or as little as you're capable of. Your life is what YOU make it.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

There's a difference between being selfish and being ambitious - and it has nothing with how much money you have. Look at Bill Gates for example. richest man in the world, worth Billions of dollars. Is he selfish? He also is the largest single contributor to charities in the world. Contributes hundreds of millions of dollars each year to charity. He's even stepping down as head of Microsoft to focus full time on his charitable activities.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

How about Paul Newman? Yes, the Newman's Own brand guy. His entire company, now in the hundreds of millions of dollars of profits, is based entirely on giving that money away to charity. He built a business empire from the ground up and has hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue - is he selfish?

Is Paul Newman a human being?

I don't see how you can associate that trait with one party's voters or another.

I didn't, I associated it with everyone.

[rasmasyean]

conservatives tend not to favor a strong centralized government and instead, favor a more limited one. democrats on the other hand want a strong central government

for more reading on the topic, here you go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

Oh. I think I got a little mixed up with government and business. They both have power. :p

I was trying to explain why they want the money to stay with those who already have money. It is probably because those who are able to acquire wealth, are believed to be able to use that wealth in a more "useful fashion" for society and hence should have more power over those who don't have money. In that sense, the (business) leaders end up being able to control more of the populace. ...like a government. :o

[MacHipster]

No, but I know some Republicans that are voting purely out of greed. Politics is a personal thing and it's their choice and right to do so as much as it's mine to vote for people who want to help the poor rather than the rich.

[rasmasyean]

No, but I know some Republicans that are voting purely out of greed. Politics is a personal thing and it's their choice and right to do so as much as it's mine to vote for people who want to help the poor rather than the rich.

Well, you should watch how you use the word "greed". On one hand, some people just don't want what they worked hard for to go to someone else who didn't work for it. And sometimes the "poor" are there because they don't contribute in a fashion that will make them earn money.

The principle behind giving money to the rich is that often the already "resourceful" rich people will use that money to create jobs and spur the economy and that the "lazy" poor people would have just spent that money on booze otherwise. Well, that's a bit to the extremes, but you get the point. :)

[MacHipster]

Well, you should watch how you use the word "greed". On one hand, some people just don't want what they worked hard for to go to someone else who didn't work for it. And sometimes the "poor" are there because they don't contribute in a fashion that will make them earn money.

The principle behind giving money to the rich is that often the already "resourceful" rich people will use that money to create jobs and spur the economy and that the "lazy" poor people would have just spent that money on booze otherwise. Well, that's a bit to the extremes, but you get the point. :)

Trust me, I don't use the word loosely. An example is a friend of mine that said she's voting Republican because she had to write a check out last year for $500,000 in taxes and she doesn't want to have to pay more. Keep in mind that her husband made several million dollars last year. She, of course, is a housewife that hasn't held a job in her life. Do they contribute to charity? No. That is greed, I'm sorry.

[rasmasyean]

Trust me, I don't use the word loosely. An example is a friend of mine that said she's voting Republican because she had to write a check out last year for $500,000 in taxes and she doesn't want to have to pay more. Keep in mind that her husband made several million dollars last year. She, of course, is a housewife that hasn't held a job in her life. Do they contribute to charity? No. That is greed, I'm sorry.

Well from her point of view, she's paying the taxes of like 20 families. With progressive tax, the more you make the more you pay. So in a sense, they are "loosing out". So you have to see it from their point. Whether she works or not in a "conventional" sense is irrelevant. Maybe her "job" is to raise that guy's kids? I don't know, but what he does with his money is his business. Just because you have money, that doesn't mean you should give it to "charity". And giving to charity doesn't automatically make you a great person. It can make you a "sucker". Maybe that dude is saving up to produce a nano-tech company that will make nano-robots to destroy cancer cells. Is that better or worse than feeding the homeless?

If you distribute all wealth evenly, it's called communism. So is that what you think it the most charitable?

[blackfox]

If you distribute all wealth evenly, it's called communism.

That's not any communism I know. Perhaps in theory - but I've yet to see a real-world example of what you say.

As to wealth distribution - it seems common sense that the rich should to some extent subsidize the poor - as there are always costs in ignoring said segment.

[Much Ado]

If you distribute all wealth evenly, it's called communism.

You haven't read Marx, have you?

The principle behind giving money to the rich is that often the already "resourceful" rich people will use that money to create jobs and spur the economy and that the "lazy" poor people would have just spent that money on booze otherwise.

Yes, because the rich work hard and the poor are lazy, disease-ridden creatures that will steal your money and use it to fund their drug addictions and terrorism :mad:

What about the single parent working two jobs just to get her kid through school? What about the son of a billionaire who inherits all of his wealth from day one? Your generalizations are grating.

And giving to charity doesn't automatically make you a great person. It can make you a "sucker". Maybe that dude is saving up to produce a nano-tech company that will make nano-robots to destroy cancer cells. Is that better or worse than feeding the homeless?

Maybe that 'dude' is manufacturing weapons. Shall we generalize any more?

[calculus]

The principle behind giving money to the rich is that often the already "resourceful" rich people will use that money to create jobs and spur the economy and that the "lazy" poor people would have just spent that money on booze otherwise. Well, that's a bit to the extremes, but you get the point. :)

You understand life so well my friend...

[dukebound85]

That's not any communism I know. Perhaps in theory - but I've yet to see a real-world example of what you say.

As to wealth distribution - it seems common sense that the rich should to some extent subsidize the poor - as there are always costs in ignoring said segment.

i believe inheritance should be abolished and instead have the individuals wealth go into the community to better the whole

however, i tell this to my friends whos parents are well off and they do not like that notion one bit and tell me it should be the right of the individual to decide how to dispense his wealth. That's fine and dandy in my book while you are alive but once you pass away, i believe it should be given to the communities

[Agathon]

If you want to know why people vote for one or the other, it basically comes down to the kind of person they are.

Either high scorers on this scale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation

Or more likely on this scale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality

In fact there was a study of US lawmakers done some years back that plotted them on a graph according to their degree of authoritarianism. It turned out to be an almost perfect predictor. Almost all the Republicans scored more authoritarian than all the Democrats, and the dems from the coasts were at the Gandhi end and the Reps from places like Alabama were at the Hitler end. The author of the study suggests that Liberal/Conservative and Republican/Democrat are words that really mean Authoritarian/Anti-authoritarian

So when you put this together, the constituency of the modern Republican party is almost entirely composed of borderline sociopaths and protofascists.

No wonder there is trouble.

[Agathon]

Well, you should watch how you use the word "greed". On one hand, some people just don't want what they worked hard for to go to someone else who didn't work for it.

Are you endorsing the labour theory of value? Or are you just speaking rectally, as they say? ;)

[glocke12]

hmmm....I knew there was a reason I stay out of the PSRI forum...

First point: very flawed. I make just under 100k. I worked my butt off to get to that point, and believe me, that is not alot of money. Its not even enough to buy a decent house in my area. I dont consider me wanting to keep more of the 35-40% of the taxes I pay to be greedy. Its my money, I work hard for it, so Im the one that should be able to enjoy it.

That said, I do agree that some taxation is needed to maintain the local, state, and federal infrastructures, and to maintain SOME social programs. Its impossble to list here all the different needs here, but I do acknowledge that those truly unfortunate should get help, these would be the mentally ill, the abused, etc., but beyond that I have a hard time justifying anything. First off, I know too many people personally that exploit the system to get MY tax dollars.

Furthermore, rich people do far more for the country than poor people do. It is the rich that drive the economy by spending money. They also drive R&D by buying the newer, more expensive "toys" that make it to the market, and it is the rich that create jobs for the poor.

Second point: Id say its a safe bet that close to a majority of American really do find abortion abhorrent and disgusting. If it is a medical need, and the mothers life is in danger, thats one thing...

"i believe inheritance should be abolished and instead have the individuals wealth go into the community to better the whole"

Give me a break....Wait until you have children...You'll want to make sure they have all the advantages they can have. I grew up close to the poverty level, and I know that if I was well off, and had kids I would want to make sure they got every penny I was able to give them.

Alot of people on here sound very idealistic, almost as if they have no concept of how the real world actually works. Ill bet most of the people with these more liberal viewpoints are in the 18-30 age range. Wait until you get a little older and I can bet your views change dramatically.

[Peterkro]

hmmm....I knew there was a reason I stay out of the PSRI forum...

First point: very flawed. I make just under 100k. I worked my butt off to get to that point, and believe me, that is not alot of money. Its not even enough to buy a decent house in my area. I dont consider me wanting to keep more of the 35-40% of the taxes I pay to be greedy. Its my money, I work hard for it, so Im the one that should be able to enjoy it.

That said, I do agree that some taxation is needed to maintain the local, state, and federal infrastructures, and to maintain SOME social programs. Its impossble to list here all the different needs here, but I do acknowledge that those truly unfortunate should get help, these would be the mentally ill, the abused, etc., but beyond that I have a hard time justifying anything. First off, I know too many people personally that exploit the system to get MY tax dollars.

Furthermore, rich people do far more for the country than poor people do. It is the rich that drive the economy by spending money. They also drive R&D by buying the newer, more expensive "toys" that make it to the market, and it is the rich that create jobs for the poor.

Second point: Id say its a safe bet that close to a majority of American really do find abortion abhorrent and disgusting. If it is a medical need, and the mothers life is in danger, thats one thing...

"i believe inheritance should be abolished and instead have the individuals wealth go into the community to better the whole"

Give me a break....Wait until you have children...You'll want to make sure they have all the advantages they can have. I grew up close to the poverty level, and I know that if I was well off, and had kids I would want to make sure they got every penny I was able to give them.

Alot of people on here sound very idealistic, almost as if they have no concept of how the real world actually works. Ill bet most of the people with these more liberal viewpoints are in the 18-30 age range. Wait until you get a little older and I can bet your views change dramatically.

Jesus wept! (plays worlds smallest violin)

[dukebound85]

edit

[glocke12]

Jesus wept! (plays worlds smallest violin)

thats intelligent.

[Peterkro]

thats intelligent.

Thank you.I'd like to know what was in your post before you edited it.:)

[glocke12]

Thank you.I'd like to know what was in your post before you edited it.:)

sorry, i did no editing....i think dukebound did though.

[Peterkro]

sorry, i did no editing....i think dukebound did though.
Fair enough,my bad.:)

[glocke12]

Seriously, when I was in my late teens/early 20's, and to some extent even into my early 30's, I had many more liberal views than I do now, but as I started working more, and as I got older, they changed as I realized how things actually worked.

The title of this thread could easily be changed to "Are Poor People LazY"???? Its all a matter of perspective.

Why? Well, I know plenty of poor people. Some work hard, provide for their families the best they can (sometimes with the help of tax dollars )and dont complain. Im fine with that.

Others complain alot, and some I know think that because I make 100k a year I am rich and loaded (I am far from that), and ask me for money and dont understand why I dont have any to GIVE them (no loan, but GIVE). Alot of these people had plenty of chances to get ahead in life by going to college, finding a good company to work for and sticking with it, etc...instead they spent their early years (early 20's), without any direction in life, doing lots of partying, etc....oh, and trying to find ways to not work.
Some people I know faked injuries and applied for S.S. or disability, and are still getting it to this day, others I know somehow end up working for 6 months, getting fired or laid off, and somehow collect unemployment for 4-5months or whatever, than repeat the process....These people complain to no end , and expect to live off of the fruits of labor of other people...

In recent years however, I have started to veer back towards "liberalism" to some extent. I think that there are some basic needs that need to be met in order to maintain a healthy, functioning society, and that these should be provided free, or at greatly reduced cost.
Electricity, heat, water and some basic food supplies No one should go without these.

[Queso]

I don't think that social and fiscal conservatism are necessarily linked. Balancing the books should be important, interfering in the lives of others with authoritarianism (of all sorts, left-wing governments can also be accused of this) shouldn't be.

[Much Ado]

Alot of people on here sound very idealistic, almost as if they have no concept of how the real world actually works. Ill bet most of the people with these more liberal viewpoints are in the 18-30 age range. Wait until you get a little older and I can bet your views change dramatically.

"University of life, me' lad, it's what you can't learn in a book, you youngsters wouldn't understand..."

People only become more conservative when older because by then they've made their money and don't want to lose it.

[glocke12]

"University of life, me' lad, it's what you can't learn in a book, you youngsters wouldn't understand..."

Sorry, Ive been to regular University, and the "University of Life"..Spent 4-5 years post high school in the latter school until I realized that unless your extremely lucky, a "real" education is essential to have a comfortable life where you can afford the basics. When I think of the "University of Life", all I can think of are the people I know from high school who went that route and are now unemployed, working labor jobs at 40-50 years of age, etc....


People only become more conservative when older because by then they've made their money and don't want to lose it.

Hardly. I know plenty of people that do not have money that became conservative later in life. As they got odler and had families some of them became more conservative because they were attracted to the "family values" that conservatism (supposedly) stands for, or they became more aware of other things that led them to conservatism.

I dont have alot of money, but I do wish to hold onto as much of what I make as possible. I invested alot of time and money in myself to get educated so I would have a better chance at a decent life that I otherwise would not be able to have. As I said before, some form of taxation is needed to support infrastructure, provide for those who truly need help (mentally/physically disabled, edlerly, etc..), but wholesale redristibution of wealth? Sorry...Thats just wrong.

As I said before, I dont know how old some of you posting are, but I suspect some of you are very young. Wait until you get your first real job, are married, have kids, or try to buy a nice house in a nice neighborhood. I can bet all this talk about redistribution of wealth comes to an end.

[Agathon]

hmmm....I knew there was a reason I stay out of the PSRI forum...

First point: very flawed. I make just under 100k. I worked my butt off to get to that point, and believe me, that is not alot of money. Its not even enough to buy a decent house in my area. I dont consider me wanting to keep more of the 35-40% of the taxes I pay to be greedy. Its my money, I work hard for it, so Im the one that should be able to enjoy it.

Why? Do you think that people should be rewarded proportionally to how hard they work? If you do, then congratulations, you are now a Marxist.

Honestly, you can't appeal to the idea that hard work should be rewarded to defend a system that rewards people for usury, benefits those who inherit wealth and encourages rent seeking behaviour.

I fail to see, how by your argument, some dope addled trust fund baby who lives off of profit from his investments that your labour creates for him, is any worse than some welfare mom. In fact, I don't think he is.

That said, I do agree that some taxation is needed to maintain the local, state, and federal infrastructures, and to maintain SOME social programs. Its impossble to list here all the different needs here, but I do acknowledge that those truly unfortunate should get help, these would be the mentally ill, the abused, etc., but beyond that I have a hard time justifying anything. First off, I know too many people personally that exploit the system to get MY tax dollars.

Do you actually know the economic reason why you pay tax?

Furthermore, rich people do far more for the country than poor people do. It is the rich that drive the economy by spending money.

Wrong. Simply give the money to poor people and watch them spend it. Same outcome.

They also drive R&D by buying the newer, more expensive "toys" that make it to the market, and it is the rich that create jobs for the poor.

It's also the rich who prevent the poor getting jobs by insisting on policies that generate structural unemployment.

Most worthwhile R&D is not done to make toys for rich people. Most is funded by government (including the US which has an incredibly high rate of government funded R&D - I was shocked to find out how much).

Second point: Id say its a safe bet that close to a majority of American really do find abortion abhorrent and disgusting. If it is a medical need, and the mothers life is in danger, thats one thing...

It's really none of your business. I find religion and authoritarianism abhorrent and disgusting. Does this give me the right to close all churches and liquidate the Republican Party?

Give me a break....Wait until you have children...You'll want to make sure they have all the advantages they can have. I grew up close to the poverty level, and I know that if I was well off, and had kids I would want to make sure they got every penny I was able to give them.

And this makes your whole argument collapse. You whine about people living off of unearned income, and then you want to perpetuate the system that allows people to live off of unearned income. God give me strength...

Alot of people on here sound very idealistic, almost as if they have no concept of how the real world actually works. Ill bet most of the people with these more liberal viewpoints are in the 18-30 age range. Wait until you get a little older and I can bet your views change dramatically.

And we could call you a silly old coot in return, but it would be a pointless and unfair ad hominem attack. I wasn't aware that being of a certain age suddenly made one's arguments magically valid or one's claims magically true. I happen to think that daft old Tories have their heads up their backsides, but I wouldn't offer this up as an argument for the falsehood of their views.

BTW I am over 30 and well on the way to coothood myself. ;)

[Agathon]

People only become more conservative when older because by then they've made their money and don't want to lose it.

The funny thing is that this is often the result of social engineering.

In my own country, government policy was set up to deliberately discourage public housing and to encourage suburban sprawl and the private ownership of individual houses. Vast sums of public money were spent on creating the infrastructure to support it (which was a massive backhander to politically connected property developers).

The whole point was to create a sizeable property owning middle class who could then be counted on to vote conservative. We're now paying for this idiocy in the form of environmentally unsound cities that are dependent on cheap energy.... aw shucks...

Thatcher did the same 25 years ago when she sold off council housing.

See, the tories love social engineering when it suits them.

[glocke12]

Why? Do you think that people should be rewarded proportionally to how hard they work? If you do, then congratulations, you are now a Marxist.

Not exactly what I said, but nice twist. Anyway, those that have the foresight early on to educate themselves and work hard are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor.


Honestly, you can't appeal to the idea that hard work should be rewarded to defend a system that rewards people for usury, benefits those who inherit wealth and encourages rent seeking behaviour.

And how can you support the idea that those who work hard for their money, have invested time and money in themselves to have some kind of assurance of a decent job, should be expected to have their money taken away and given to someone who doesnt want to work.

I fail to see, how by your argument, some dope addled trust fund baby who lives off of profit from his investments that your labour creates for him, is any worse than some welfare mom. In fact, I don't think he is.

Not all trust fund babies are dope addled, but the point is, that money belonged to that persons parents or whatever, and it is theirs to do with as they wish. Sorry if you disagree with that..[/QUOTE]




Do you actually know the economic reason why you pay tax?..

Pay for infrastructure, defense, etc....



Wrong. Simply give the money to poor people and watch them spend it. Same outcome.

Give Give Give..why should I, or anyone else be obligated or forced to give money to someone else if I dont want to?

[Queso]

Give Give Give..why should I, or anyone else be obligated or forced to give money to someone else if I dont want to?
Missing the point much? Nobody is being forced to give their money away, but you made the point that the rich spend their money and therefore benefit the economy. The response that the poor could benefit the economy by spending the same money if they had it shared between them is quite correct. As long as the money is changing hands somebody is being kept in employment, whether it be spent on a single swimming pool or furniture, food and clothes for several families.

[leekohler]

I feel the need to chime in.

First of all, this thread is utterly ridiculous. The premise is leading and insulting to everyone involved. And in this 41 year old's eyes, everyone in this thread is acting fairly childish, including you glocke12.

[Anuba]

People only become more conservative when older because by then they've made their money and don't want to lose it.
I don't think that's why they become republicans. I think it comes down to the fact that your resistance to change increases with age.

Let me illustrate that with the political situation here in Sweden.

Like in the US, we have a blue side and a red side. Like in the US, the blue side is the liberal side, and the one that has had very few shots at running the country (11 of the last 100 or so years, to be precise). Like in the US, the liberals attract the well educated, while the red block attracts old people and narrow-minded hicks, rednecks and other inbreds.

But that's where the similarities end, because our red block is the far left, not the far right. The red block is made up of the social democrats, the green party and the left party. The social democrats are the principal architects of the nanny state and our extreme taxes. The refer to the blue side (which is made up of the liberals, the moderates, the christian democrats and the center party) as extreme right-wing, neo-liberal scum who want to "turn Sweden into USA", who only cater to the rich and who tear the country apart by lowering taxes and privatizing government owned companies, schools and hospitals. So in Sweden, Obama would be a right-wing dude taking a lot of heat from the left-wing. McCain can't really be placed anywhere on our scale. Maybe as a nazi.

And since old people in Sweden are big fans of the tax crazy social democrats but hate the fiscally conservative liberals(!), we can conclude that it has nothing to do with old people wanting to keep their money. What they do want to keep is the Sweden they grew up in, i.e. the nanny state Sweden with the highest taxes in the world (currently only the second highest after Denmark, as the liberals have lowered them a bit). The social democrats have run Sweden forever, including the time when it was the richest country in the world per capita.

Therefore, to be a social conservative in Sweden means, ironically, to want to preserve socialism. Old people in the US want to conserve the US they grew up in, the US where you go to church, carry a gun, shoot trespassers (and people who don't go to church) and marry your cousin.

So in the end it's not about money or ideology. The right wing in the US and the left wing in Sweden are the exact same kind of people. The common denominator is that they're allergic to change and want to preserve the status quo, whatever it happens to be.

[Desertrat]

Queso, try not-paying your taxes, and you'll eventually meet an Official Person with a gun. If that's not force, what is?

Generosity? Rich folks are pretty generous, regardless of their politics. Carnegie wasn't a liberal; neither were Ford and Mellon. Bill Gates, Ted Turner and Warren Buffet are also in the billion-dollar charitable world. Then there are the "little" millionaires who endow chairs at universities and set up scholarship funds.

It's not greed which makes people resent taxes. First off is resentment at the percentage which is taken. Second is the use to which the money is put. A large part of it is a person's belief that he has some right to say where his money goes, when "good deeds" are undertaken.

My experience in Austintatious city hall politics and Texas state government is that liberals in general are far more authoritarian than conservatives. The phrase, "We can't let them..." came far more often from liberals. By and large, conservatives just want to be let alone and are quite willing to leave others to their own business.

On social issues, I've found that my main difference from most liberals is that in my mind, for every right there is a responsibility. E.g., on abortion, my view is that the behavior which led to the need was irresponsible. Same for AIDS; there was voluntary, irresponsible behavior. Personally, I'm indifferent to others' sexual behavior, but they do indeed have some responsibilities in the enjoyment thereof. I'm not interested in giving orders about how to behave, but I'm also not interested in paying for their screwups. Pun intended.

Sure, I'm a fiscal conservative. I'm not gonna pay $10 for a $3 item, in my personal life. Why should I approve of it on the part of government? I'm not going to purchase things which don't function properly, so why should I approve of spending tax money on failed programs?

Wipe out inheritances? That's just the whine of the typical loser who's jealous of those who went out and created wealth. I've already paid the taxes on whatever I've accumulated, so what I do with it is nobody's business but mine and my kid's. I don't need some thief trying to steal from my kid. And the stupidest part is that if such a policy came about, a helluva lot of money would move to Dubai and be invested in industry and jobs outside the U.S.

People came to this country because it was a place where they could enjoy greater liberty and could create wealth. We've had a couple of centuries of an influx of the world's most imaginative brains. Now, we're trying to reverse the flow...

'Rat

[glocke12]

I feel the need to chime in.

First of all, this thread is utterly ridiculous. The premise is leading and insulting to everyone involved. And in this 41 year old's eyes, everyone is thread thread is acting fairly childish, including you glocke12.

ugh..probably, thats why I try to stay out of PRSI

[leekohler]

ugh..probably, thats why I try to stay out of PRSI

Yeah well, fair enough. ;)

[pseudobrit]

Queso, try not-paying your taxes, and you'll eventually meet an Official Person with a gun. If that's not force, what is?

God forbid you eventually be arrested for breaking the law.

[Anuba]

The whole point was to create a sizeable property owning middle class who could then be counted on to vote conservative.
Yeah, there's that... but there's also the fact that in an increasingly globalized economy where assets move across borders quicker than the eye, governments are concerned about their tax base eroding. Making people buy houses is a way of literally tethering assets to the ground, I mean you can't well pick up your house and run off to Cayman islands. It's all about securing future taxation.

[kavika411]

Every human is selfish. Man didn't first leave the cave to offer himself up as lunch to a T-Rex; he left the cave to obtain a better quality of life. To obtain a better quality of life, he used his mind, his skills, his tools, wars, trickery, deceit, hard work, drugs, altruism, building materials, words, weapons, benevolence and everything else. Some of those methods panned out, some didn't.

The question of whether Republicans are selfish is insipid. Of course they are. Of course Democrats are. Of course Mother Teresa was. (Yes - I hate to break it to everyone - but Mother Teresa enjoyed ... yes, found pleasure in ... helping other people.)

A more interesting question is whether it is Republicans or Democrats who are more honest in their selfish intentions. In other words, the members of which party are more honest with the American people about what they are Really (with a capital "R") trying to achieve?

[Queso]

Every human is selfish. Man didn't first leave the cave to offer himself up as lunch to a T-Rex; he left the cave to obtain a better quality of life.
Someone's been to the Creation Museum then :D

[kavika411]

Someone's been to the Creation Museum then :D

Not sure what the Creation Museum is, but if deals with Creationism, I doubt I'll be getting a ticket.

When I typed that I was actually picturing Mel Brooks in History of the World getting eaten by the T-Rex. Good movie.

[atszyman]

A more interesting question is whether it is Republicans or Democrats who are more honest in their selfish intentions. In other words, the members of which party are more honest with the American people about what they are Really (with a capital "R") trying to achieve?

At this point I'd say the Democrats are more honest. They want to raise taxes and pay for social programs. The GOP keeps talking about fiscal conservatism and giving us back our money but they are still growing the government and spending like kids in a candy store, they're just borrowing money to do it.

I'd argue any politician that vows to cut government's powers and spending is lying more than one who claims that taxes must be increased, since the ultimate goal of both parties is to cement a hold on power and try to usher in a golden age in which they and their friends can rule for a long time over content people and push a few of their beliefs/programs on the country's citizens.

Both parties talk about smaller, more efficient government, at least the Democrats are honest enough to admit we have to pay for what we're not going to get.

I doubt any citizen in the United States wants a bloated government that spends money on what we see as stupid things. The biggest debate right now, that we're not having, is about what that government should be offering. Healthcare or not? Defense or not? Regulations on industry X or complete free market rule?

Of course the right answer lies somewhere in the middle on most questions, both sides play the game that their opponent wants the extreme end of the spectrum which ends up dividing the parties and just leads to bickering. Combined with the average voters lack of interest in the intricate policy details we end up in elections like we have now where anything and everything is fair game and it's even better if it involves lots of sex/crime/money and can be summed up, or exaggerated in 30 seconds or less.

[kavika411]

The biggest debate right now, that we're not having, is about what that government should be offering. Healthcare or not? Defense or not? Regulations on industry X or complete free market rule?

Excellent, excellent point. It may be one for a different thread. Although I bet you and I would answer the question differently, I completely agree with the idea (if this is in fact what you mean) that we need to start by honestly drawing a line - if only in our own heads - marking off the items we believe government should provide and those which it shouldn't. My experience is that many people believe such a dialogue is beneath them, that the answers are "obvious." I believe such conversations simply don't hold enough opportunities for hyperbole and, therefore, don't interest people enough.

[atszyman]

Excellent, excellent point. It may be one for a different thread. Although I bet you and I would answer the question differently, I completely agree with the idea (if this is in fact what you mean) that we need to start by honestly drawing a line - if only in our own heads - marking off the items we believe government should provide and those which it shouldn't. My experience is that many people believe such a dialogue is beneath them, that the answers are "obvious." I believe such conversations simply don't hold enough opportunities for hyperbole and, therefore, don't interest people enough.

I'm sure we'd disagree, but as I said the answer lies somewhere in the middle and while both parties talk about reducing government spending neither has outlined what their smaller government should provide for the citizenry. But unfortunately neither party really wants this as much as they talk about it since a smaller more efficient government would also mean a bunch of cushy government jobs would be lost for their friends and cronies.

Of course one of our problems right now is the greed of everyone. When the economy is good and the government runs a surplus, we elect leaders who promise to cut taxes and give us back the money that the government will only spend irresponsibly, but then when the economy falters and revenue decreases, we no longer have the surplus to pad the deficit.

Kind of like if you barely make enough to get by and get paid every two weeks. You get those 2 months of the year where you get 3 paychecks (yippee a bonus) but if you don't use it to cover the shortages in other months you only push yourself further into debt.

[Agathon]

Not exactly what I said, but nice twist. Anyway, those that have the foresight early on to educate themselves and work hard are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor.

Same problem arises. People who live off of rents and investments are living off your labour just as much as the welfare moms you complain about. You can't use the "fruits of their labour" argument in this way without being forced to admit that.

And how can you support the idea that those who work hard for their money, have invested time and money in themselves to have some kind of assurance of a decent job, should be expected to have their money taken away and given to someone who doesnt want to work.

Awesome, so you're a communist then. Great. Let's get rid of the property owners and capitalists!!!

Not all trust fund babies are dope addled, but the point is, that money belonged to that persons parents or whatever, and it is theirs to do with as they wish. Sorry if you disagree with that..

But you said you didn't want people profiting from the work of others. You can't have it both ways bud. Get some consistency, huh? :)

Either people reap the full fruits of their labour, or they do not. It's quite simple.

Pay for infrastructure, defense, etc....

Why don't we pay for these things privately?

Give Give Give..why should I, or anyone else be obligated or forced to give money to someone else if I dont want to?

I agree. Why should I be forced to work under a system that allows people to profit from my labour when they do no work? Every time I work, some trust fund baby effectively taxes me by taking some of the value my labour creates while he does no work. This is no different than what the welfare system does (the fruits of my labour are alienated from me). I know this because I haven't been brainwashed into thinking one is acceptable when the other is not, because they are the same.

What you need to realize is that capitalism does not reward hard work because it is not set up to do that. If you want an ethos where people are rewarded for their labour, then become a Marxist. Otherwise find some other argument against welfare.

I personally find it hilarious that the usual argument of right wingers against welfare is essentially a Marxist argument.

Priceless. ;)

[Agathon]

I feel the need to chime in.

First of all, this thread is utterly ridiculous. The premise is leading and insulting to everyone involved. And in this 41 year old's eyes, everyone in this thread is acting fairly childish, including you glocke12.

Hey look everyone. Once again it's Kohler trying to tell other people on the forum what they can and can't talk about.

Who made him king?

[dukebound85]

Wipe out inheritances? That's just the whine of the typical loser who's jealous of those who went out and created wealth. I've already paid the taxes on whatever I've accumulated, so what I do with it is nobody's business but mine and my kid's. I don't need some thief trying to steal from my kid. And the stupidest part is that if such a policy came about, a helluva lot of money would move to Dubai and be invested in industry and jobs outside the U.S.



'Rat

so im a loser eh? all i know is that some people are born at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage compared to others. what entitles your kids to a much better life than Joey down the street who couldn't help what family he was born into?

thats my argument. i know many people who growing up had wealthy parents and thus thought that they deserved everything from vacations to cars to anything at just the grace of their parents and no effort or work on their part. sorry if i sound bitter, its because i am.

inheritance is about passing down wealth to those who had little part in creating it and i think thats absurd imo. im all for those who create wealth to spend it as they wish while they are alive. this idea is far from practical but i do believe the issue of creating a more level playing field should be addressed. you may make the claim, well just work hard and you will succeed...well what if the schools are utter crap (and they are in many cities here in the US) and they cant even get a good education. or what if their family needs them to work full time to help their parents make ends meet and in effect has to make school a low priority while your kids goes to ballet lessons and gets private tutors. how can anyone say that is fair?

however, life's not fair and believe me i know that, so shoot me if i throw out an idea in which would level the playing ground a bit. never said the idea was perfect (and in fact not even close) but i think something should be done to help those who are less fortunate due to no fault of their own

[ucfgrad93]

inheritance is about passing down wealth to those who had little part in creating it and i think thats absurd imo. im all for those who create wealth to spend it as they wish while they are alive.

So when they are dead, everything should just go where? The government? Hari Krishnas? Skin heads? Your church?

An inheritance is about the freedom to decide what to do with your assets, and not have someone tell you what will happen to your assets.

[Iscariot]

so im a loser eh? all i know is that some people are born at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage compared to others. what entitles your kids to a much better life than Joey down the street who couldn't help what family he was born into?

thats my argument. i know many people who growing up had wealthy parents and thus thought that they deserved everything from vacations to cars to anything at just the grace of their parents and no effort or work on their part. sorry if i sound bitter, its because i am.

inheritance is about passing down wealth to those who had little part in creating it and i think thats absurd imo. im all for those who create wealth to spend it as they wish while they are alive. this idea is far from practical but i do believe the issue of creating a more level playing field should be addressed. you may make the claim, well just work hard and you will succeed...well what if the schools are utter crap (and they are in many cities here in the US) and they cant even get a good education. or what if their family needs them to work full time to help their parents make ends meet and in effect has to make school a low priority while your kids goes to ballet lessons and gets private tutors. how can anyone say that is fair?

however, life's not fair and believe me i know that, so shoot me if i throw out an idea in which would level the playing ground a bit. never said the idea was perfect (and in fact not even close) but i think something should be done to help those who are less fortunate due to no fault of their own

Interesting. Alternate perspective:

My parents are dirt poor. They grew up poor, my dad never graduated high school, etc. Not wanting the same fate for their kids, they saddled a tremendous amount of debt to ensure that we could be the first generation to go to college. My parents only hope to have their debts paid by 65, let alone retire, is inheritance.

[dukebound85]

Interesting. Alternate perspective:

My parents are dirt poor. They grew up poor, my dad never graduated high school, etc. Not wanting the same fate for their kids, they saddled a tremendous amount of debt to ensure that we could be the first generation to go to college. My parents only hope to have their debts paid by 65, let alone retire, is inheritance.

but most people that are poor do not have relatives that would bail them out with inheritance as they themselves are most likely poor

as i said, my idea is impractical but i do think something should be done

[rasmasyean]

You understand life so well my friend...

So do Republicans...

Many Republicans consider the income tax system to be inherently inefficient and oppose graduated tax rates, which they believe are unfairly targeted at those who create jobs and wealth. They believe private spending is usually more efficient than government spending.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

[bobber205]

It's sad. Some Republicans are so reasonable but their party has gone insane.

[rasmasyean]

What you need to realize is that capitalism does not reward hard work because it is not set up to do that. If you want an ethos where people are rewarded for their labour, then become a Marxist. Otherwise find some other argument against welfare.

To me capitalism in its ideal form rewards work that fills the need of a democracy.

You can work as hard as you want as a McDonald's employee forever, but you will not become rich easily as that job is not highly demanded.

You can spend 1 year to produce the next wizbang gadget that no one ever knew they needed but subsequently can't live without, and be set for life. Prime example is that Bill Gates did just this...and then some.

[bobber205]

To me capitalism in its ideal form rewards work that fills the need of a democracy.

You can work as hard as you want as a McDonald's employee forever, but you will not become rich easily as that job is not highly demanded.

You can spend 1 year to produce the next wizbang gadget that no one ever knew they needed but subsequently can't live without, and be set for life. Prime example is that Bill Gates did just this...and then some.

So you basically need luck to be successful? Most of the time, big breaks come from yes hard work but also alot of luck.

[Agathon]

So do Republicans...

Many Republicans consider the income tax system to be inherently inefficient and oppose graduated tax rates, which they believe are unfairly targeted at those who create jobs and wealth. They believe private spending is usually more efficient than government spending.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

Unfortunately, these Republicans didn't take economics 101, where they would have learned that this is tosh.

Still I don't mind if they run things. Like most foreigners I consider your country a sad annoyance, and would happily see it messed up internally so it can't bother the rest of us.

[Agathon]

To me capitalism in its ideal form rewards work that fills the need of a democracy.

No it does not. It encourages people to seek goods that have a high exchange value. Sometimes these are skills employed in work, but intrinsically scarce resources like land are better because it is almost impossible to increase supply.

In practice, capitalism has generated all sorts of nefarious schemes to limit supply. The Doctors' and Lawyers' Unions are obvious ones (although they don't get called that). The increasing credentialism in employment is another symptom.

You can work as hard as you want as a McDonald's employee forever, but you will not become rich easily as that job is not highly demanded.

You can spend 1 year to produce the next wizbang gadget that no one ever knew they needed but subsequently can't live without, and be set for life. Prime example is that Bill Gates did just this...and then some.

Bill Gates is a poor example, because he didn't invent anything and gained most of his wealth from an anticompetitive monopoly that any genuine capitalist ought to detest.

Capitalism serves one purpose and one purpose only: it enables the efficient organization of production in certain sectors of the economy (anywhere from half to about two fifths of the economy in advanced countries these days). It has nothing to do with being fair or allowing people to keep the products of their labour. That's all rubbish.

[atszyman]

Unfortunately, these Republicans didn't take economics 101, where they would have learned that this is tosh.

Still I don't mind if they run things. Like most foreigners I consider your country a sad annoyance, and would happily see it messed up internally so it can't bother the rest of us.

Unfortunately if we get too messed up internally we still have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, which I imagine could be very bothersome to the rest of you.

[kavika411]

Like most foreigners I consider your country a sad annoyance, and would happily see it messed up internally so it can't bother the rest of us.

Since you've opened this door, perhaps you can share from which country you come. I am interested in learning how the United States has bothered your country over the years.

[leekohler]

Hey look everyone. Once again it's Kohler trying to tell other people on the forum what they can and can't talk about.

Who made him king?

You can talk about whatever TF you want, man. But I also have the right to say what I want as well. If you don't like it, fine.

Starting a thread with the specific intent to simply bash Republicans is silly and beneath this forum. And I don't like the GOP- at all.

[obeygiant]

You can talk about whatever TF you want, man. But I also have the right to say what I want as well. If you don't like it, fine.

Leek, you should change your avatar. That sith character is so 1999. :)

[leekohler]

Leek, you should change your avatar. That sith character is so 1999. :)

It's not a sith character, It's me with my face painted and glued on horns for halloween one year.

[sushi]

Since you've opened this door, perhaps you can share from which country you come. I am interested in learning how the United States has bothered your country over the years.
Yes, I would be curious to know as well.

Hey look everyone. Once again it's Kohler trying to tell other people on the forum what they can and can't talk about.

Who made him king?
Uh, why do you say this.

BTW & FWIW, while not the King of MR, Lee is well known and respected around these parts. He is an active member and has been around MR for a long time. He usually provides good input to the discussion at hand, and in this case, is more right than wrong IMHO.

Starting a thread with the specific intent to simply bash Republicans is silly and beneath this forum. And I don't like the GOP- at all.
Agree. A thread started to bash either party is a waste of time.

Leek, you should change your avatar. That sith character is so 1999. :)
Personally, I like it. Easy to recognize. :)

[hogfaninga]

Unfortunately, these Republicans didn't take economics 101, where they would have learned that this is tosh.

Still I don't mind if they run things. Like most foreigners I consider your country a sad annoyance, and would happily see it messed up internally so it can't bother the rest of us.

Most likely you come from a nation that leaches off of us for security, money, ect..

I always find it funny how foreigners bash America. News Flash: Most Americans could careless what you think of us. Most likely we don't like you either.

Want us destroyed? Well if your nations leaders/people feel as you do, then man up and declare war on us. Talk is cheap especially acting like a internet bad---.

[obeygiant]

It's not a sith character, It's me with my face painted and glued on horns for halloween one year.

Yeah, i always thought it was you dressed up as darth maul. Just the star wars geek in me I guess.

[sushi]

Yeah, i always thought it was you dressed up as darth maul. Just the star wars geek in me I guess.
I thought the same.

Okay, Lee, what the heck is your outfit supposed to be?

[leekohler]

Yeah, i always thought it was you dressed up as darth maul. Just the star wars geek in me I guess.

A lot of people think that, it's cool.

I thought the same.

Okay, Lee, what the heck is your outfit supposed to be?

We were angels and devils for Halloween one year at the office. Guess which one I was? ;)

[Eric Piercey]

I believe the difference is a psychological one. I know this says nothing, but since I have no science to back me up regardless I'll just say it.

The right is non-introspective whereas the left is in a perpetual state of reevaluation. Those are the two extremes of course, but that's the defining characteristic in my opinion.

The fundamental weakness of extremity is self evident:

One is too reactive, the other too slow to react.
One is too rigid, the other too malleable.
One is too violent, the other too passive.
One is too callous, the other too sensitive/sympathetic.
One is too thrifty, the other too frugal.
---Etc.
The problem with societies leaning too far right rather than too far left is that the right commits [the entire society] to atrocity without compunction, not necessarily out of ill will and often with the best of intentions, but nevertheless.

[sushi]

We were angels and devils for Halloween one year at the office. Guess which one I was? ;)
Uh, that's a tough call? :p

BTW, thanks for clearing that up. However, I think that I will continue to view you as Darth Maul if that is okay with you. :)

[stagi]

Here are my reasons why I see Republican supporters and their issues in general as selfish.

Most of the time, Republican "values" fall into two categories.

1) Fiscal conservatism: it's my money and you can't have it! I'm not sharing!!!! :mad:




Most republicans that I know don't believe that you can't have my money and don't want to share. The real Republican "values" is that government should be smaller, we shouldn't live in a welfare society where the government takes care of everyone. Throwing money at badly managed programs does not help people. The real republican "values" that I have seen are when people are in need we the people should pitch in to help out. I know so many more republicans vs democrats that give a lot of money to charity or organizations to help out people in need. (that is just people I know so who knows what the national average is on giving, but my gut says republicans give more)
If there is a study out there that someone can shed some real facts on this I would love to see it, I did a quick google search but couldn't find anything.

I remember looking up Bushes tax returns during the last election and saw that he gave a lot more of his personal money to charity compared to Kerry. Peoples pocketbooks can really show where their heart is at.

Also as a side note, I think instead of bashing each other and saying this is what I think is wrong with the other side why not just get outside and help someone out. If we all spent less time fighting about republican vs democrat and just went to spend a few minutes helping out a neighbor this country would be a much better place

[leekohler]

Uh, that's a tough call? :p

BTW, thanks for clearing that up. However, I think that I will continue to view you as Darth Maul if that is okay with you. :)

Whatever fantasy gets you through the night. ;) I aim to please. :D

[ghall]

In my opinion, humans are inherently selfish, some more than others and it seems that most republicans are more selfish, but I have met a few (emphasis on few) not-so-selfish republicans. I think it has less to do with political affiliation and more to do with how much of a jack-ass somebody is. There are plenty of selfish democrats, FYI. :)


We were angels and devils for Halloween one year at the office. Guess which one I was? ;)

Angel I'm sure. :rolleyes:

[KingYaba]

1) Fiscal conservatism: it's my money and you can't have it! I'm not sharing!!!! :mad:

This will be my only post in this thread. There was an article that came out pointing to a study about conservatives and charity. MacRumors had a thread that mentioned it & you can read about it here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3653905&postcount=16) and here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=253055&highlight=conservatives+charity). Who knows, maybe things changed over the past few years.

[rasmasyean]

Guy, do keep in mind that Republicans have/make more money to begin with and that the system is set up to give a tax incentive for charity. So I don't think that you can simply say that Republicans are less selfish than Democrats in this regard.

So you basically need luck to be successful? Most of the time, big breaks come from yes hard work but also alot of luck.

That is a way of chickening out. It's sort of like saying "Heck, I'm not going to try get rich and achieve my dreams. It's all luck anyway!". Yes, hard work comes into play too, but it also helps to have "vision" along with the hard work. I was just giving examples of extremes. Sometime you win the lottery too! But you can't look at individual scenarios. You have to look at the overall average of the sample. When you look at most of histories greatest entrepreneurs, most of them had a knack for providing what people need and want.

Unfortunately if we get too messed up internally we still have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, which I imagine could be very bothersome to the rest of you.

That's funny, because I started this thread World War III: USA vs. EU! (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=555732) for some fun discussions and it seems a common theme that ppl said indicated that European defense was made up in a large part by US bases and its products.

What some of the EU populace don't realize is that their leaders WANT USA/Canada it interfere with their matters probably in large part for the above reason. It's simply national interest. But of course, they claim Americans are the ignorant ones. :rolleyes:

[ZiggyPastorius]

I'm waiting for fivepoint to join this thread, so his libertarianism can band with my less-radical, somewhat-libertarian-esque ideals and we can insult both Democrats and Republicans.

:p :D :p :D

Edit: By the way, humans are inherently selfish, genetically. Our genes basically control us, and their purpose is nothing more than to propogate their own survival. However, as more intelligent beings, we have developed the ability to essentially over-ride our genes, and have found ways to make compassion and philanthropy beneficial to our survival as a species (other apes do this as well). Therefore, I will juxtapose my original statement by saying that I am not cynical, and believe humans are naturally good. Note the use of natural, rather than inherent. Selfishness is inherent to our genes, but kindness is natural.

[r.j.s]

I'm waiting for fivepoint to join this thread, so his libertarianism can band with my less-radical, somewhat-libertarian-esque ideals and we can insult both Democrats and Republicans.

:p :D :p :D


I'm here, what are we doing now? Something about libertarianism ...

[ZiggyPastorius]

I'm here, what are we doing now? Something about libertarianism ...

Ha! I didn't even notice your display picture. I started a thread on Libertarianism once, and fivepoint and I got trashed a lot :o I'm a lot less "radical," so-to-speak, than he is, but I'm still a Libertarian in many regards. Should start a Bob Barr thread and we can discuss why I don't support him :p

The post was a joke, though. I don't believe either Republicans nor Democrats care any more about our country and its well-being than the other. I think they both just care about keeping power away from the other party.

[r.j.s]

The post was a joke, though. I don't believe either Republicans nor Democrats care any more about our country and its well-being than the other. I think they both just care about keeping power away from the other party.

Definitely true, IMO.

[bobber205]

All Republicans should watch this:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

It exemplifies the double standards and hypocrisy of the GOP.

And Rove is the GOP most of the time these days. He practically runs it.

[r.j.s]

And Rove is the GOP most of the time these days. He practically runs it.

Source?

[bobber205]

Source?

Please. You know that was a more of a rheotorical statement than anything else. Try harder.

You'll be hard pressed to find someone (and before you post "yourself", not you), that doesn't think Rove and his way of thinking has changed the GOP.

[r.j.s]

Please. You know that was a more of a rheotorical statement than anything else. Try harder.

You'll be hard pressed to find someone (and before you post "yourself", not you), that doesn't think Rove and his way of thinking has changed the GOP.

I really couldn't care less about the GOP, but if you are going to make claims, you need to back them up. Some of your recent claims/threads (this one) have been a little out there ...

[bobber205]

I really couldn't care less about the GOP, but if you are going to make claims, you need to back them up. Some of your recent claims/threads (this one) have been a little out there ...

I was making a claim that can't really be backed up other than the life experience of living through GOP campaigns for the last 8 years.

What was I realistically supposed to post?

[ZiggyPastorius]

I was making a claim that can't really be backed up other than the life experience of living through GOP campaigns for the last 8 years.

What was realistically supposed to post?

So, what exactly is the point of making the claim, then, if it is impossible to back up, and is based on one candidate's term?

Your last sentence doesn't make sense.

[bobber205]

So, what exactly is the point of making the claim, then, if it is impossible to back up, and is based on one candidate's term?

Your last sentence doesn't make sense.

Last sentence corrected and I was added. Do you not agree with the statement I made? I used the word practically... that doesn't usually make someone think "This statement is the gospel truth and has evidence".
And it's based on two terms and how the current campaign is being run.

[r.j.s]

Last sentence corrected and I was added. Do you not agree with the statement I made? I used the word practically... that doesn't usually make someone think "This statement is the gospel truth and has evidence".
And it's based on two terms and how the current campaign is being run.

I bet this guy (http://www.gop.com/About/AboutBio.aspx?Guid=440ac9cd-8163-47f5-9c39-eb39d81a9b79) would disagree with your statement.

[sushi]

So you basically need luck to be successful? Most of the time, big breaks come from yes hard work but also alot of luck.
So folks like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Ross Perot, etc. made their wealth through luck.

Gee, to think I thought that they did it through hard work over time. Funny me. :p

Seriously, you make your own luck over time. A boss of mine once said that God helps those who help themselves. So very true.

[Thomas Veil]

I actually like this topic, and I think the question has some validity. While I know many Republicans who are good, honest people and are not greedy, the ones we see rising to power in the party are the politicians, media mouths and other ignoramuses who constantly whine about how they are being ripped off. Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay and all their ilk fall into this category. They seem to have developed, to a very fine degree, a kind of paranoia about money, coupled with a cognitive dissonance that justifies their advocacy of any position, no matter how wrong, that would make them richer at the expense of someone else.

But again, it's a subset. You can't generalize about all Republicans. But the ones who seem to have this pathological fear of anyone else getting a cut of the pie, those kinds of Republicans are usually found in the top echelons. At least that's my experience.

You are wrong...hehe...

I thought there was something funny about that statement considering that Republicans tend to be "richer" (which rises with education). So I looked it up and found this.First, who's "he"? (As in "hehe".)

Second, where's that data from? We usually source things around here.

Third, what exactly does it "prove"? That Republicans are smarter than Dems, or that too many people still don't have access to a college education?

LOL Here's the wikipedia page on Fiscal Conservatism. I'm sorry, but you're so far off base here I have no response for you. Know the definition of the words before you start a thread please! And vague ambiguous terms like "some" and "alot" when your talking about tax percentages is meaningless. Sharpen up your argument and please try again!You know, comments like "sharpen up your argument and please try again" are becoming way too common around here, on both sides. You can defend your position without being snide. Can't you?

The numbers prove you quite wrong here. Look up crime statistics for every major city that's instituted a gun ban. Chicago, Washington DC, etc. Once the gun ban took effect, violent crime went through the roof! Why? Do you really think violent criminals are going to throw away their guns because they're illegal? Hahahaha! Of course only the law abiding citizens got rid of their guns in accordance with the ban.....FAIL.

Thanks for trying though! :)You know, nobody I know who's quoted that gun ban trend has been able to explain how foreign countries all over the world manage to keep their crime low, much lower than ours, without guns.

And there you go again with the attitude. FAIL. Hahahaha!

hmmm....I knew there was a reason I stay out of the PSRI forum...

First point: very flawed. I make just under 100k. I worked my butt off to get to that point, and believe me, that is not alot of money. Its not even enough to buy a decent house in my area.I don't know where you live, but you could be quite comfortable in most of the country on $100K a year. And if you think that's not a lot of money, try living on the wages the rest of us live on. I'm not trying to be smart-aleck about it, I'm just saying I don't think the average person could relate to what you said.

Furthermore, rich people do far more for the country than poor people do. It is the rich that drive the economy by spending money. They also drive R&D by buying the newer, more expensive "toys" that make it to the market, and it is the rich that create jobs for the poor.But again, that sees only one side of the argument: money coming from the top down, as in the infamous "trickle-down" theory. Somehow nobody ever posits that if you put better wages into the pockets of workers, they'll actually go out and buy things, making businesses even richer. It goes both ways.

And even acknowledging the contributions of business owners, that doesn't explain the increasing gap between the rich and the poor and the resulting shrinking middle class. There has to be a point at which we realize that by grabbing all we can at the top end, we're killing off the middle class, which everyone agrees is the backbone of the country.

Alot of people on here sound very idealistic, almost as if they have no concept of how the real world actually works. Ill bet most of the people with these more liberal viewpoints are in the 18-30 age range. Wait until you get a little older and I can bet your views change dramatically.Well, I'm in my early 50s, and I'm more liberal than ever. I think your view that people around here are idealistic and unrealistic isn't so much a problem with you, it's that the conservative media keep telling you that's what liberals are like.

Hey look everyone. Once again it's Kohler trying to tell other people on the forum what they can and can't talk about.

Who made him king?If lee's a "king" around here, it's because he's earned our respect. I, however, didn't see him telling anybody what to post or not post, he offered only his own opinion.

[bobber205]

I bet this guy (http://www.gop.com/About/AboutBio.aspx?Guid=440ac9cd-8163-47f5-9c39-eb39d81a9b79) would disagree with your statement.

Dude. I never meant it was a literal statement. A rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) statment.

And to comment on Steve Jobs and company. Yeah. They did ALOT of hard work. I am saying that Hard work doesn't make you have a 100% chance to be rich. Lots of people work hard every day and barely pay the bills. In your world, they would be rich too.

If the market hadn't been what it was at the time Steve Jobs did what he did, he wouldn't be where his is now. Right place at the right time kind of thing.

Edit: about guns. Japan has a no guns at all policy and has one of the lowest crime rates and murder rates in the world.

[r.j.s]

Dude. I never meant it was a literal statement. A rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) statment.

I knew it was rhetorical, I'm just giving you a hard time because of the accusations you've been throwing around here without backing them up.

Edit: about guns. Japan has a no guns at all policy and has one of the lowest crime rates and murder rates in the world.

Different cultures, Korea is the same way. Point a gun at them, they won't even flinch, pull out a police baton and they'll do whatever you say.

[bobber205]

I knew it was rhetorical, I'm just giving you a hard time because of the accusations you've been throwing around here without backing them up.



Different cultures, Korea is the same way. Point a gun at them, they won't even flinch, pull out a police baton and they'll do whatever you say.

Ok. Go to Japan and pull out a gun. Tell me what happens. The Japanese are extremely afraid of guns and would do more than "not flinch". What human being would, except one from the first century or something.

[r.j.s]

Ok. Go to Japan and pull out a gun. Tell me what happens. The Japanese are extremely afraid of guns and would do more than "not flinch". What human being would, except one from the first century or something.

Haven't been to Japan, just Korea. My point is that there are different cultures, and what works for one culture, doesn't for others.

[pseudobrit]

However, as more intelligent beings, we have developed the ability to essentially over-ride our genes, and have found ways to make compassion and philanthropy beneficial to our survival as a species (other apes do this as well).

Nonsense. Empathy and compassion are genetic, and we are not the only species (or order) to have developed these characteristics.

[63dot]

Well, I'm in my early 50s, and I'm more liberal than ever. I think your view that people around here are idealistic and unrealistic isn't so much a problem with you, it's that the conservative media keep telling you that's what liberals are like.


I am in my mid-40s and for some reason, I find myself a liberal democrat bordering on being a moderate democrat. Through some of my 20s and all throughout my 30s, I was so proud of being a moderate democrat right in the center, even with fiscally conservative ideas.

I don't know if being in law school, or being in a state with a once popular (but not anymore) republican governor is shaping my point of view. In California, Arnold got in mostly on his promise to balance the budget and rid us of the deficit in 100 days, or maybe half a year. Nothing close to that has happened and there was a lot of backlash of moderates, like me, moving to the left a notch or two.

I don't know if boomers like me are becoming more liberal or if it is largely a California "thing".

[ZiggyPastorius]

Dude. I never meant it was a literal statement. A rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) statment.

And to comment on Steve Jobs and company. Yeah. They did ALOT of hard work. I am saying that Hard work doesn't make you have a 100% chance to be rich. Lots of people work hard every day and barely pay the bills. In your world, they would be rich too.

If the market hadn't been what it was at the time Steve Jobs did what he did, he wouldn't be where his is now. Right place at the right time kind of thing.

Edit: about guns. Japan has a no guns at all policy and has one of the lowest crime rates and murder rates in the world.

The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the power of rhetoric than to any other force.

Now, don't get me wrong...there's not much I hate more, politically, than Republicans and Democrats and bi-partisan politics, but, rhetoric is really nothing more than a non-logical technique used to convince people of a certain viewpoint. It doesn't rely on all the evidence, like scientific theories, it simply relies on whatever you have on hand at the time. I think this is why people are calling you out on your statement...

And just for your information, I'm a libertarian-esque person, not a Republican, and I believe gun bans are stupid and ridiculous as well. Oh, and believe me, an invasion from England is one of the low-on-the-list reasons ;)

[.Andy]

Different cultures, Korea is the same way. Point a gun at them, they won't even flinch, pull out a police baton and they'll do whatever you say.
What :confused:

[r.j.s]

What :confused:

It was explained to me by a Korean soldier (KATUSA) when I was stationed there a few years ago, since guns are not a large part of their culture, many Koreans are not afraid of them. But they are afraid of the meter-long baton carried by the police there.

[Agathon]

You can talk about whatever TF you want, man. But I also have the right to say what I want as well. If you don't like it, fine.

Starting a thread with the specific intent to simply bash Republicans is silly and beneath this forum. And I don't like the GOP- at all.

Posting in a thread with the specific intent to bash people for asking the question whether Republicans are selfish without actually engaging with the issue or offering up some argument in support is not just silly, it's moronic.

Besides, it's a question legitimate enough for social psychologists to have investigated it, so you are simply wrong... again.

[Agathon]

It was explained to me by a Korean soldier (KATUSA) when I was stationed there a few years ago, since guns are not a large part of their culture, many Koreans are not afraid of them. But they are afraid of the meter-long baton carried by the police there.

You mean the riot police. The regular Korean cops aren't violent. The riot police aren't the regular cops (most are conscripts).

If you want to see why the Koreans need those batons just go on to Youtube and search for the video of the Korean protesters attacking the police with a flamethrower.

[r.j.s]

You mean the riot police. The regular Korean cops aren't violent. The riot police aren't the regular cops (most are conscripts).

If you want to see why the Koreans need those batons just go on to Youtube and search for the video of the Korean protesters attacking the police with a flamethrower.

I've been there, almost caught in two riots. I've seen the buses pull up, dozens of police get off and form a wall in front of the protesters.

I understand that not all the police are riot police, but most of the one's I've seen are - (when I was there) they were about every 100m or so around the Army base in Seoul.

[Agathon]

Most likely you come from a nation that leaches off of us for security, money, ect..

Uh... no. My country doesn't take a dime from you lot and told you to go away when it came to security. Works for us.

I always find it funny how foreigners bash America. News Flash: Most Americans could careless what you think of us.

I guess that's why you brag all the time. ;)

You wouldn't be disliked if you didn't behave badly in public or if you did and kept it at to yourselves. But keeping it to yourself is not the American way, no?

The problem is that your country simply can't mind its own bloody business. In this respect Ron Paul actually has it right.

Want us destroyed? Well if your nations leaders/people feel as you do, then man up and declare war on us. Talk is cheap especially acting like a internet bad---.

It's easier and cheaper to simply pile up IOUs like the Chinese are doing.

See how that works. :)

[Agathon]

I've been there, almost caught in two riots. I've seen the buses pull up, dozens of police get off and form a wall in front of the protesters.

Yeah. It's strange. Korean riots are insane. Most of the time they are pretty peaceful people in my experience.

I understand that not all the police are riot police, but most of the one's I've seen are - (when I was there) they were about every 100m or so around the Army base in Seoul.

Uh yeah. A sizeable number of Koreans don't really like the US presence (for various reasons, not all of them good reasons). It's not like they need it any more, but it would send the wrong signal to the North to just boot out the US (who wouldn't leave anyway, not even if the Koreas were reunited).

[63dot]

Uh yeah. A sizeable number of Koreans don't really like the US presence (for various reasons, not all of them good reasons). It's not like they need it any more, but it would send the wrong signal to the North to just boot out the US (who wouldn't leave anyway, not even if the Koreas were reunited).

I wouldn't worry about N. Korea that much being they are getting huge aid from the South, as well as from Japan and Taiwan, not to mention the United States. At a certain point, like the former communist countries of the '80s, they will have to move into a more democratic society. It's funny how the news sees someting like the recent Lebanon-Isreal war and suddenly consider it Armageddon (thanks Glenn Beck/CNN) and then other news agencies see the first stages of the war in Georgia and then call it the beginnings of WW III. As we speak, that war is winding down instead of spilling into neighboring countries thus causing a huge European-Asian region conflict.