PDA

View Full Version : American Politics in One Easy Lesson



Chris
02-18-2012, 12:00 PM
American Politics in One Easy Lesson (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/american_politics_in_one_easy_lesson.html)
Michelle, a citizen of France, was visiting an acquaintance, Paul, in New York City. Years ago Michelle's sister went to graduate school with Paul, and the three have kept in contact. Michelle was able to spend all afternoon with Paul while she was in New York for business. They were walking in Central Park, enjoying a beautiful, early spring day. Michelle, anxious to learn more about America, asks Paul a question about American politics.


As they sit down on a bench together, Michelle brushes back her hair, looks at Paul, and asks: "I have always been interested in government. What can you tell me about the government of America?"


"Well," Paul answers, "it's like this. We have two big political parties, and the elections are always about their two views of society and the economy."


"Yes?" Asks Michelle. "Can you tell me what those views are?"


"Well," says Paul, "to put it briefly, one party, the Democrats, is interested in helping people, and the other party, the Republicans, is only interested in themselves. They don't want to help people. They are wealthy and don't pay enough taxes."


"Really?" Asks Michelle. "So how do the Democrats go about helping people?"


"Oh through food assistance, housing, education, health care; that sort of thing. Helping people who can't afford to help themselves," answers Paul.


"And how are the Democrats able to help people? Is this based on charity?" Asks Michelle.


"Oh no," says Paul, "The government taxes people and the Democrats give it to people in need."


"Where does the tax money come from?" Asks Michelle. "Does it come from ordinary working people?"


"Well the government says that the top 10% of taxpayers pay 70% of the taxes," Paul responds.


"Oh I see," says Michelle, "The people who earn the most money are the ones who pay to help the poor."


"Well, the Republicans are the richest people, they have the most money, but it's the Democrats who extend the helping hand to the poor." Says Paul.


"Didn't you just say that the wealthiest people pay 70% of the taxes?" Says Michelle, "so doesn't this money then go to help the poor? So aren't the wealthy really the ones who help the poor?"


"Well no, that's not how it is. You see the rich are greedy, and they don't want to help the poor." Says Paul.


"What does 'greedy' mean?" Asks Michelle.


"Well," says Paul, "greedy means you want more and more money, you never get enough."


"So then the wealthy keep paying more and more taxes, and help the poor more and more all the time?" Asks Michelle.


"Yes, you could say that. But the Democrats point out that the Republicans should pay more. They are always holding back. They don't want to pay their fair share," states Paul.


"Oh I see. The rich pay 70% of the taxes, they pay the lion's share of the money that goes to help the poor, but the Democrats always want more and more money." Michelle asks.


"I thought you said greedy was wanting more and more?" Asks Michelle. "Then if the Democrats always want more, aren't they acting like they're greedy?"


"No not at all," interrupts Paul. "You see the Democrats want more money from the rich, not for themselves, but so they can help the poor overcome their challenges in life. The poor are not as fortunate, they always need a helping hand."


"So there is no limit to the needs of the poor," Michelle says quietly. "I understand. No matter how much money the rich pay in taxes, it can never be enough."


"Now I'm confused," says Michelle, who's beginning to feel a little frustrated. She stands up, walks a few feet away from the bench, then comes back and says to Paul: "Let's see: the government never gets enough, but the Republicans, who pay for it all, are portrayed as the greedy ones? How does that make sense to you?"


"You don't understand," says Paul, who is now beginning to feel frustrated himself. He likes Michelle but senses that she just doesn't get it. "The needs of the poor must be met, so the rich must always pay more to help them."


"Well you already said that," asks Michelle. "Then you said there is no limit to how much money Democrats want to take from the rich to help the poor. How much money do the rich have? Do they have an infinite amount of money?"


"Well, I haven't thought about it," says Paul. "I guess it's not infinite, but they certainly can pay in more than they are now."


"Well, I don't mean to sound argumentative," says Michelle, "but there's something missing in the explanation you give. You said the needs of the poor are unlimited, and the Democrats have no limit to the amount of money they want for the government. If the amount of money the rich have is not unlimited, won't it run out some day? What will you do when the rich have no money left to satisfy the Democrats and take care of the needs of the poor?"


"Well, the needs of the poor are so important, I guess if we reach that point, we'll just have to borrow money." Says Paul.


"Who will you borrow it from?" asks Michelle, "...if you take all the money away from the rich they won't have any left to either pay taxes or loan money to the government, will they?"


"Well," says Paul, "I guess at that point in time, if we ever get there, we'll have to start borrowing money from foreign countries."


"Hasn't your government been borrowing money from foreign countries for the past three years?" Asks Michelle.


She finally gets enough of this conversation, stands up, and says to Paul. "Well, I'm getting rather confused: the people you say are greedy, the rich; are the ones paying for everything. And the ones who want more and more, like there's no tomorrow, are the responsible ones?"


Paul is staring off at a group of trees, and has no answer for her.


She stares at him speechless for a moment, breaks into a smile and asks: "Do you want to go get a cup of coffee?"


"Yes," he says, and gets up from the bench. "Let's take a break and get a cup of coffee.


"Who's buying?" He suddenly asks.

Conley
02-18-2012, 12:45 PM
This conversation just makes me dislike the French even more. :laugh:

In all seriousness though, it is an interesting subject of conversation. I would say there are a number of fallacies and oversimplifications but an entertaining anecdote nonetheless.

Mister D
02-18-2012, 12:50 PM
Funny article.

Elibe
02-18-2012, 02:48 PM
the needs of the poor are not unlimited - food shelter and medicine, that's it.

they don't 'always need a helping hand'. sometimes people fall on hard times.

Peter1469
02-18-2012, 02:56 PM
the needs of the poor are not unlimited - food shelter and medicine, that's it.

they don't 'always need a helping hand'. sometimes people fall on hard times.

Absolutely. And when government does help, it should be careful to not create dependency.

Conley
02-18-2012, 02:59 PM
Correct. Also I would add remove the corruption and waste in these programs. The reason some of the programs have such a bad rap isn't because people think others should be left to starve in the streets, it's because people abuse the system and get away with it.

Mister D
02-18-2012, 03:19 PM
Correct. Also I would add remove the corruption and waste in these programs. The reason some of the programs have such a bad rap isn't because people think others should be left to starve in the streets, it's because people abuse the system and get away with it.

Good point.

Chris
02-18-2012, 03:38 PM
Needs, or better, wants, are indeed unlimited. And there are economic means for the allocation of limited resources toward satisfying unlimited wants, and then there are political means. Giving a man a fish is the political means, or better, taking my fish and giving it to another is the political means. Teaching people to fish the economic means.

Conley
02-18-2012, 03:53 PM
Needs, or better, wants, are indeed unlimited. And there are economic means for the allocation of limited resources toward satisfying unlimited wants, and then there are political means. Giving a man a fish is the political means, or better, taking my fish and giving it to another is the political means. Teaching people to fish the economic means.

Needs and wants are two different things though. Sure, there's some overlap, medicine for example, but one has to look at the situation critically. Food stamps for example. Food is critical, alcohol and tobacco aren't. So if I were in charge, I'd cut off the booze and smokes. It doesn't need to be overly complicated.

Conley
02-18-2012, 03:54 PM
I agree with your idea of teaching to fish as a means of giving people a leg up, but how do you propose we do that? Public schools?

Chris
02-18-2012, 04:06 PM
I was just listening to H.S.H. Prince Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein, interviewed on his book, The State in the Third Millennium, and he advocates vouchers. My only idea regarding that is train people but have them pay it back. Say I write software with C++, and lose my job, today people want C# developers, it would be great to take a few classes in C#, then pay for them once I get a new job.



(I should put up the video of the Prince.)

Conley
02-18-2012, 04:07 PM
I was just listening to H.S.H. Prince Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein, interviewed on his book, The State in the Third Millennium, and he advocates vouchers. My only idea regarding that is train people but have them pay it back. Say I write software with C++, and lose my job, today people want C# developers, it would be great to take a few classes in C#, then pay for them once I get a new job.

(I should put up the video of the Prince.)

I like that idea a lot. Education would be a worthwhile investment for those who truly want to better their conditions.