Are "Republicans" Inherently Selfish? I Think They Are

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bobber205, Sep 1, 2008.

  1. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #1
    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'.
     
  2. rasmasyean macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #2
    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.
     
  3. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #3
    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.
     
  4. rasmasyean macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #4
    You are wrong...hehe

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  5. Wotan31 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    #5
    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

    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"

    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! :)
     
  6. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #6
    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
     
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #7
    Bush
     
  8. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #8
    Humans are inherently selfish. Maybe Republicans are just more honest about it.
     
  9. Wotan31 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Bobdude161 macrumors 65816

    Bobdude161

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Location:
    N'Albany, Indiana
    #10
    +1 Everyone is selfish to a certain degree, whether you admit or not. You can be selfish with time, money, relationships, etc.
     
  11. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #11
    This has nothing to do with what I said.

    This has nothing to do with what I said.

    This has nothing to do with what I said.

    Is Paul Newman a human being?

    I didn't, I associated it with everyone.
     
  12. rasmasyean macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #12
    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. :eek:
     
  13. MacHipster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago/London/Sydney
    #13
    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.
     
  14. rasmasyean macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #14
    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. :)
     
  15. MacHipster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago/London/Sydney
    #15
    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.
     
  16. rasmasyean macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #16
    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?
     
  17. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #17
    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.
     
  18. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    You haven't read Marx, have you?
    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.

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

    calculus

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    #19
    You understand life so well my friend...
     
  20. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #20
    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
     
  21. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #21
    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.
     
  22. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #22
    Are you endorsing the labour theory of value? Or are you just speaking rectally, as they say? ;)
     
  23. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #23
    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.
     
  24. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #24
    Jesus wept! (plays worlds smallest violin)
     

Share This Page