Liberal vs Conservative in USA

Subject: Liberal vs. Conservative

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many
others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other
liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more
government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that
her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he
thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes
on the rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the
truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she
was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a
very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy
classes,
she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on
campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the
parties
and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too
hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office
and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only
has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would
be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired
back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really
hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!
Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the
conservative side of the fence."

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between conservative
and liberal or progressive or neocon I'm all ears.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great
test!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his
situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for
it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a
good laugh.



A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."

Garry:drunk:



 
Gary my friend; You sir are GREAT!!!!!!! Thanks for that. I hope you don't mind if I P!$$ a few people I mean pass this on to a few people do you?
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Gary,

That a cute story.

I'm not so sure you are correct about the Liberals wanting high taxes and sharing the wealth. Sounds like you have been listening to FOX again.

Typically liberals just think the Govrnment should spend the tax money differntly.

I as a liberal would like smaller government, no one has grown government and government spending like Reagan and BushII.

Less money on usless military weapons and usless wars.

We always hear about "welfare state and wealth redistributuion"

Under Clinton welfare was drasticly cut.

As for wealth redistribution, from what I've seen that is just a catch phrase that riles up people who really have no idea how the government works.

Taxes today are almost as low as they have been in modern times, much lower than when Reagan was President.

But if you ask the average American about taxes they will tell you they are higher than ever (not close to true) but certin media folks tell them and the believe it.

Just my thoughts.
 
Yeah no question government is getting smaller. The 100 plus new agencies, bureaus, oversight committies etc. greated just by the health care bill won't take any funding and might even help the unemployment problem with somemore non productive jobs. And of course the trillions of dollars coming of the printing presses certainly haven't contributed to the major decline in the value of the US dolllar. We have never had it so good. Get out there and work hard, contribute more to the Fed so they can redistribute to those they think are most deserving. Life is good and Robin Hood really does exist! Maybe a little research into what percentage of jobs are in the private sector versus the government sector would enlighten you. Know I am not going to do the research for you, Jim. I already know.
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
I read the first paragraph and immediately recognized this feeble adaptation to once again label “liberal” with a most cynical anecdote. My guess is this young woman used influence and friends to game the system to obtain better grades than she deserved, while hapless Audrey never fully "got it". As the story goes, Audrey was colorful and very, very popular. For some odd and unexplained reason, our 4.0 "young woman", and her father, fell into an unexplainable fascination over 2.0 Audrey , resulting in them throwing huge sums of money at Audrey when she chose to run for public office. Oh and Betty...She studied her ass off, yet only came away with a 3.0, and was screw by both 4.0 young woman, and 2.0 Audrey.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
P><P><SPAN style=
<o:p></o:p>

I never liked the term "redistribution of wealth" when it is actually a readjustment of taxes collected. We all like to use terms that befit our beliefs rather than an objective description of what is really happening. The government is a charity, plain and simple. And just like a charity, we sometimes disagree with its distribution of the funds. Either way, it goes directly back into the economy. BTW, "young" woman's father was CEO of Haliburton, and deep down inside the only thing he loved more than is daughter was the high taxes that provided a very nice living for him, and his daughter's education. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

</SPAN>
 
Last edited:
Gary,

That a cute story.

I'm not so sure you are correct about the Liberals wanting high taxes and sharing the wealth. Sounds like you have been listening to FOX again.

Typically liberals just think the Govrnment should spend the tax money differntly.

I as a liberal would like smaller government, no one has grown government and government spending like Reagan and BushII.

Less money on usless military weapons and usless wars.

We always hear about "welfare state and wealth redistributuion"

Under Clinton welfare was drasticly cut.

As for wealth redistribution, from what I've seen that is just a catch phrase that riles up people who really have no idea how the government works.

Taxes today are almost as low as they have been in modern times, much lower than when Reagan was President.

But if you ask the average American about taxes they will tell you they are higher than ever (not close to true) but certin media folks tell them and the believe it.

Just my thoughts.

YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

There you go Jim, His words from his mouth. Just listen.
 

Pat

Supporter
Hmmm. Look at the "Earned Income Tax Credit..." and tell me there is no wealth redistribution programs.
Besides, Audrey's popularity could be related to the fact she could suck-start a Harley...
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
That crazy Earned Income Tax Credit! Damn those crazy liberals for giving folks with kids a tax break! Evil, evil, wealth redistribution!

Oh wait....passed by the Ford Administration and expanded by the Reagan administration in 86......
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Bud,

I checked for you. This chart shows, the BushII years and first part of the Obama years.


Who grew government Reagan/Bush!

For a number of reasons we all know, the private sector has taken a big hit, but

starting half way through 2008 the number of govenment jobs appears to be declining.

Bud, you are right, government is getting smaller.

Tell us again about big government.


jobs.jpg
 
Last edited:

Pat

Supporter
Jeff, the EIC is not a tax "break".

Accoring to the group MassResources.org, the EIC is a significant means by which the federal government redistributes income so that persons earning low wages receive additional income to provide them with a more "livable wage" so as to help cover needed household expenses and to pay job-related costs such childcare and transportation. In so doing, the EIC makes work more financially rewarding for individuals who earn low wages.

In the state of Massachusetts for tax year 2005, about 314,150 working families and individuals received the federal EIC. The total amount received by Massachusetts residents alone was about $507 million.

The question remains as to whether it is a legitimate responsibility of the government to redistribute income. Like health care, I certainly can't find a constitutional basis for it.

Let's face the reality, it's about POWER- obtaining it and keeping it. When one robs Peter to pay Paul, you rarely hear an objection from Paul. And if the Pauls outnumber the Peters, you get more votes, keep power, even though you may set Paul up to be a government dependent for generations and force Peter to find a skilled tax attorney to hide his wealth in multi-layerd offshore investments - unless Peter is a Democrat elected official or nominee for an Obama administration office. In that case, he pays no taxes.

Remember President John Kennedy proposed a tax cut lowering the top marginal rate by 20%, from 91% to 71%, which was enacted in February 1964 (three months after Kennedy's assassination) by Lyndon Johnson. Gross National Product then rose 10% in the first year of the tax cut, and economic growth averaged a rate of 4.5% from 1961 to 1968. Disposable personal income rose 15% in 1966 alone. Federal revenues increased dramatically from $94 billion in 1961 to $150 billion in 1967.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I used the wrong term. It is a tax credit for low income families. Yes, that means if the credit exceeds their tax liability they get a check like a tax refund.

But my point is that liberals and conservatives alike thought this was a good idea, and apparently still do. So that puts you in a pretty extreme minority.

Our top marginal tax rates in the 60s were probably too high. But to say the growth in the 60s -- fueled mostly by defense spending -- was the result in the drop of the top marginal rates (when most taxpayers didn't see much of a cut) is wrong, really.

Our marginal rates run from what 15% to 35% and may go up to 39%? Likely no real net effect on growth with that type of increase.
 

Pat

Supporter
I used the wrong term. It is a tax credit for low income families. Yes, that means if the credit exceeds their tax liability they get a check like a tax refund.

Our marginal rates run from what 15% to 35% and may go up to 39%? Likely no real net effect on growth with that type of increase.

Jeff, it's about economic stimulation. The government taking money to grow simply drains the money supply versus leaving individuals to spend and invest which grows the economy, creates jobs and generates more tax income for the government (as I mentioned earlier with the effect of the Kennedy tax cuts).

But the liberal view is not to just use taxation as a way to fund government, but to conduct redistributive social engineering.

Jim, It would be interesting to see your numbers excluding the military. Regan grew it to win the cold war (enabling Clinton to downsize it), The Bush presidents had the wars in the middle east.
Before President Roosevelt’s New Deal, the federal government was just 3% of the economy. Today, it’s over 26%. And when you add in state and local governments, plus the cost of regulatory compliance, plus the cost of all the business that provides goods and services that support all the government agencies, it’s more than 50% of the U.S. economy.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
So government money that is spent in the economy doesn't count (it does)?

That's the problem with all of the "taxes don't create growth" rhetoric without substance. Yeah, we all hate taxes, but they get SPENT on things that also help fuel the economy.

Governmnet spending is as much a part of the ecomony as private. And taxes are used to fund things that the private sector can't, won't or shouldn't do -- it's not all some conspiratorial "redistribution of wealth."

While you are at it, go look up some estimates of the costs to society of NOT having social safety nets like social security, Medicare, etc. You might be surprised that some of that spending on those programs not only is the right thing to do from a societal perspective, but also saves us money in the long run.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I am sorry you think it is really that simple.

Because it is really like this. We have a society. It costs money to have a society. To have a society, we need roads, and schools, and defense and a space program and ways to take care of those in society who on occasion need a hand or the die. So, we band together and decide that all of us are going to pay some portion of what we make into a pot so that we can do things collectively that none of us could do alone, and that that private industry doesn't want to touch.

It's like that. And it's not simple.

When you take my money, and give it to my neighbors, its wealth redistribution.

Its that simple.
 
When I lived in inner city Saint Louis, I used to see many families (in a mediacal situation) where nobody had ever held a job, and the family lived entirely off government handouts...for three or four generations.

Familiar with the term "baby mama"?

Let me fill you in...See, if I were an aspiring young man, I'd find myself several like-minded young women. The ladies would get pregnant, have babies, and suddenly be awash in government handouts (WIC, wellfare etc). "Daddy" gets a kickback, and the more mothers he's associated with (baby mamas), the more money he gets. Everyone is taken care of, and nobody has a job.

You wouldn't believe how common this is. Of course, they're all convinced that this is a perfectly reasonable way to live a life...and guess what, they all vote for those than enable this lifestyle. Wanna take a guess which party has a stronghold on innner city St Louis?

But of course, this whole system is built on "compassion" for the less fortunate. Right.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
It's so common that....on average 90-95% of the people in the US are gainfully employed.

Actually, it's an overblown bunch of mess. Are there some folks who abuse the system? Sure. Is it an epidemic that outweighs the good of that same system? No. That's right wing blog myth completely unsupported by the numbers.

P.S. -- My dad/grandparents are from St. Louis. I know East St. Louis too well. I can tel you now, you couldn't pay me $500k a year to live there, much less some food stamps and some rent assistance.

For all you folks who talk about 'wealth redistribution" and how so many people in our country live on 'cradle to grave entitlements" -- I'd challenge you to go spend a month living in these fine establishments. I'm sure you'd love it and want to stay there for the rest of your live, on the dole.
 
So, are you saying that the government should be limited to building roads, schools, national defense, and maybe the space program?

I agree completely. But please tell me where I can find it, because its nolonger America.

Instead, we now live in a society that trys to figure out how to game the system, make others pay for our mistakes, and above all, avoid any responsibility for our own actions. And our government is doing its best support that by being the end all, be all of safety nets. Our founding fathers would be ashamed.
 
I lived in downtown STL (not the good part) for 5 years while in school. I used to count the shells I would find as I walked to work.

The police raced though my back alley with regularity. My first year there were 5 murders within a mile of my house. I stopped counting after that.

Of course, I'm now paying to support that "society."
 
Back
Top