Read this College Story

College Life
1

<p>A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.</p>

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

<p>One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 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."</p>

<p>The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have 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!"</p>

<p>The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."</p>

2

<p>false analogy fallacy...</p>

3

<p>LOL.</p>

<p>What's false about it, cwatson?</p>

4

<p>uh...</p>

<p>no.</p>

5

<p>Have you posted this as a funny anecdote or do you actually think its a valid analogy?</p>

6

<p>although it is a rather trite analogy, why would you say that it's false? If you want to say that people have an unfair advantage regarding income couldn't the same be said for athletes in the college realm?</p>

7

<p>nice eye-opening story.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
although it is a rather trite analogy, why would you say that it's false? If you want to say that people have an unfair advantage regarding income couldn't the same be said for athletes in the college realm?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Athletes don't automatically get good grades though...at most they have the advantage of having teachers pressured into not failing them.</p>

<p>It's not valid because in college, basically, if you work hard, you'll likley get pretty good grades, and bad grades are most likley a sign of not working hard. In the real world, a single mother could work three jobs at minumum wage and barely get by, while someone coming from a well off family could more-or-less cost through life and still end up with a nice enough office job, etc. etc. etc.</p>

<p>Basically, in a given college, everyone is starting from more or less the same place when it comes to getting grades. That's not true in the real world.</p>

9

<p>It's obviously trite. But it does address a problem with higher taxes for the rich, welfare, and other liberal financial and social constructs...basically, yes, a rich person may not have worked hard to get where they are. But what if they did? Yes, a poor person may be working hard. But what if they aren't?</p>

<p>If you feel you're a hardworking rich person, and you deserve all of the money you get, just like the daughter believes she's a hardworking student and deserves the grades she gets...Well, you tend to look at some liberal policies in a different light.</p>

<p>It is basically just a warning to understand the full implications of your ideas, not an all-encompassing "This is why Republicans are always right!" warning. Haha.</p>

10

<p>


</p>

<p>That is absurd. If you believe this analogy to be even remotely accurate you don't simply believe that you are a hard working rich person who deserves your money. You must believe that all rich people are hard working and deserve their money. Similarly you must also believe that all poor people are lazy and deserve not to have any money.</p>

11

<p>Did you even read my first paragraph?</p>

<p>This story isn't meant to be taken literally. It's meant to expose one issue with liberal policies, and that is that money is being taken away from some people who worked hard to get it, and given to some people who didn't work hard to get it. It is merely saying there is a fine line between extreme leftism in capitalism and socialism. </p>

<p>I agree with this story in that I do not think the answer to equipping poverty-ridden people with the tools to succeed is taking from the rich to give the poor bigger welfare checks. I'd like to think if politicians cared about us, they'd think of more innovative ways to approach the issue than to merely redistribute existing income within the populous. I'm more of a proponent of improving inner city education, innovative programs designed to help foster entrepenuership/new business, rebuilding neighborhoods by introducing opportunities for jobs, combating crime and idleness (esp. in youth)...etc.</p>

12

<p>


</p>

<p>You're not sticking to a point of view. On the one hand you say that you don't think income redistribution is a good idea, then you say that we should develop education, entrepreneurship programs, etc. To what end do you want to develop these programs? Isn't the ultimate aim of these programs to uplift the financial situation of the poor people and bridge the gap between the rich and poor? Just a method of income redistribution.</p>

<p>I don't think that money should be taken away from rich people and given to the poor Robin Hood style. I too think that it is a good idea to improve education, rebuild neighborhoods and develop entrepreneurship programs but where is the money for these programs going to come from? Do you want to take away money from a poor man who can barely make ends meet so that you can develop entrepreneurship programs? Of course not, this money eventually has to come from the rich people themselves in the form of taxes.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
You must believe that all rich people are hard working and deserve their money. Similarly you must also believe that all poor people are lazy and deserve not to have any money.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And for this to be valid evidence disproving the analogy, you must believe that all wealthy people are Republicans. Similarly, you must also believe that no poor people can see the need for the welfare of the State beyond their own needs/wants.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You're not sticking to a point of view. On the one hand you say that you don't think income redistribution is a good idea, then you say that we should develop education, entrepreneurship programs, etc. To what end do you want to develop these programs? Isn't the ultimate aim of these programs to uplift the financial situation of the poor people and bridge the gap between the rich and poor? Just a method of income redistribution.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"If you give a man a fish..."</p>

<p>Just because you don't understand someone's point of view does not make it invalid. </p>

<p>636</p>

14

<p>this is really an isolated example suggesting that there are rich people who have worked hard and get have their income redistributed to some poor person who hasn't. It is not saying that this is always the case only that it is the case in certain instances and is thus inherently unfair.</p>

15

<p>You know what, life's unfair. One of the government's jobs is to make sure that every citizen is living up to a certain standard of life, and they're failing at that. Money shouldn't be so important in ours lives, but rather that we have enough to keep ourselves healthy and happy and to support our family.</p>

16

<p>Let me add to this thread:</p>

<p>Subject: Taxation (very interesting)</p>

<p>When explained like this, it is much easier to understand our current tax code.</p>

<p>Taxing the People</p>

<p>Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim; "It's</p>

<p>just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But</p>

<p>what does that really mean?</p>

<p>Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the</p>

<p>following will help. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in</p>

<p>terms everyone can understand:</p>

<p>Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all</p>

<p>ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it</p>

<p>would go something like this:</p>

<p>The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.</p>

<p>The fifth would pay $1</p>

<p>The sixth would pay $3</p>

<p>The seventh would pay $7</p>

<p>The eighth would pay $12</p>

<p>The ninth would pay $18</p>

<p>The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59</p>

<p>So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the</p>

<p>restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until</p>

<p>one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good</p>

<p>customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20". Dinner for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the</p>

<p>first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what</p>

<p>about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"</p>

<p>They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted</p>

<p>that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)</p>

<p>The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)</p>

<p>The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)</p>

<p>The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)</p>

<p>The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)</p>

<p>The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings...</p>

<p>the least proportionate savings)</p>

<p>Each of the six paying customers was better off than before And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings:</p>

<p>"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed</p>

<p>to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the</p>

<p>fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times</p>

<p>more than me!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"</p>

<p>"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get</p>

<p>anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"</p>

<p>As a consequence, the first nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.</p>

<p>The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!</p>

<p>And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our</p>

<p>tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most</p>

<p>benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier</p>

<p>David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D</p>

<p>Professor of Economics</p>

<p>University of Georgia</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
One of the government's jobs is to make sure that every citizen is living up to a certain standard of life

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is?</p>

<p>
[quote]
To what end do you want to develop these programs? Isn't the ultimate aim of these programs to uplift the financial situation of the poor people and bridge the gap between the rich and poor? Just a method of income redistribution

[/quote]
. </p>

<p>The ultimate aim isn't to bridge the gap between rich and poor, but to give the poor opportunities to participate in our capitalist country. It is not merely "income redistribution" in which they are written a check for nothing. Also, this money should not all come from the rich; yes, it should come partially from the poor, and it should also come from all of the money the government is pouring into Iraq...hah (but that's another issue). Surprisingly, in my state, the most money goes to the poorest school districts, but the money is completely squandered and the schools still left in ruins. Obviously there are other issues besides "lack of funds" that create inequality, which is why merely throwing money at poor people and poverty-ridden neighborhoods in the form of welfare and pre-paid benefits is the wrong way to manage a problem. Of course that is a liberal's favorite way of doing things.</p>

18

<p>That was a pretty stupid analogy, considering that no one "transfers" GPA from one kid to another. What a dummy head.</p>

19

<p>Government's purpose is to ensure the rights of its citizens are not abridge upon by any outside non-consensual forces. Including government.</p>

<p>Or does no one here read the U.S. Constitution?</p>

20

<p>the constitution became irrelevant with the great depression</p>