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 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 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.
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 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 father asked her, '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 Audrey, 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 Republican Party.'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reviving my lost Trackables.
Reviving my lost Trackables. BaytownBert 3-15-24 Over the last 20 years, I’ve purchased and in many cases released somewhere short of 150 T...
-
San Jacinto Memorial Hospital stands on a hill on Decker Drive and looks like a place the Munsters would inhabit. Here is the sad dem... -
Paddling children by school officials -are you for it or against it? In other words, should school teachers be allowed to paddle your chil... -
A cougar, commonly called a puma, panther, catamount, or a long-tailed cat. Rumors of a large mountain lion-like cat in Harris or Chambe...
3 comments:
As responded to in email:
First of all, I must say thank you for sending me the analogy outlined in the ‘father-daughter’ talk below. As much as it may not seem so, I enjoy being challenged in all facets of life – politics, religion, scholastics, and the list goes on, but I do feel like I must reply with a rebuttal that explains the flaws I see in your point of view. I’ve listened to your political analysis with open ears; now please take a moment to listen to mine.
I believe in the "redistribution of wealth." Not out of allegiance to the Democratic party platform, but because I try and take seriously the Sabbath principles of the Old and New Testaments.
That being said, I know very few liberal Democrats who are in favor of the "redistribution of wealth" in the sense in which the father in your story meant it, though I know a great many who would agree with the great Republican Oliver Wendell Holmes when he said "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society."
The idea that the rich should pay more than the poor is not socialism; the progressive tax system - which is what the father in this story is decrying - is as prevalent in Adam Smith as it is in Karl Marx. Smith believed that the necessities of life constitute a greater expense for the poor: "They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it." Smith also maintained that the rich demand more services from the government than the poor (one easy example is the amount of money spent by the government protecting private property, which is, of course, more concentrated in the hands of the rich), even as they spend most of their money on "the luxuries and vanities of life." He writes, "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." (This is all from Book 5 of "The Wealth of Nations.")
What Smith doesn't mention in Book 5 - maybe because it goes without mentioning - is that the great wealth of the rich is often built on the backs of the poor. The railroad baron of the 19th century and the steel magnate of the 20th century were not laying down tracks and processing iron ore themselves. They were paying low wages to people who were desperate for a job and willing to put in a hard day's work in order to make a better life for themselves and their families. This same state of affairs can be seen in the minimum wage workers taking jobs in today’s society.
In the story, both father and daughter decry Audrey's party lifestyle and low GPA. And rightly so. But when the father compares Audrey to the poor, he goes too far. The poor are often prejudiced as lazy and good-for-nothing people who are only too eager to take other people's money in order to support their hedonistic lifestyles. Such people do exist, though they are as likely to be rich as poor. More often, though, the "least among us" are the working poor, those who must toil at two full-time jobs because neither pays a living wage, straining marriages, families, and all of society.
As I read into the story a little more, I make my second point about the generalization that those in this country who don't have as much as others are lacking because they are shiftless and lazy. That, if they worked for it, they'd have exactly the same things that the powerful and affluent have. This completely eliminates the reality of things like inherited wealth and power (See Rockefellers, Kennedys, Hiltons, ad infinitum).
The story implies that the ONLY way that people have gotten to the "top" has been by good old fashioned hard work, and we all know that’s not true. It also implies that people in tragic circumstances (hurricane Katrina victims, cancer patients, the disabled, those displaced by massive factory lay-offs, people dealing with the impact of a deceased spouse, or a child who has lost both parents (for just a very few examples)) have somehow brought their lot on themselves because they were out partying all night instead of working harder. Again, we all know that this is not true.
There simply is no discernible correlation between the daughter "gifting" her friend a percentage of her GPA to make them equal across the board, and the rich paying a higher percentage of taxes to bring the lower and/or middle classes to a point of equality with them. And re-read that last part of that sentence and then rest easy knowing that this is never going to happen. Never. Such a proposition is ludicrous.
The trivialization of the very real economic hardship of millions of people being compared to a school GPA is beyond insolent. Yes, liberals advocate more social programs (both government-sponsored and otherwise) to help the less fortunate. And as much as we might dream of a more reasonable distribution of wealth, we're liberals, not communists. There is a difference.
To me the story is, at its best, a false dichotomy. The story lacked verisimilitude.
Over the past few months as debates have been had on taxing and healthcare, I have found it very disheartening to learn many conservatives make personal property paramount, even over life. I believe we should all (yes, even myself) re-evaluate our moral obligations to this world.
Someday, all of these issues will be resolved and we will live in a society that is truly, perfectly civilized - a day when we all be judged not by what can be seen or heard or touched or purchased, but by One who with righteousness shall judge the poor and decide with equity for the meek of the earth. Until that day comes, I'll try and side with the poor and the meek as often as possible.
Your Democratic Friend
Anonymous, your comments are well-thought out and well-written. However, you are forgetting one very fundamental point. Christ did not and will never force us to care for the poor. Part of that process of caring for the poor is the edifying of the giver. When government steps in and attempts this so-called redistribution of wealth, which is the very heart of socialism, it is denying the people the blessings that come from unselfishly giving to those in need. Of course the rich should pay more than the poor and they will pay more because they have more. Ten percent of 1 million dollars is a lot more than ten percent of ten thousand dollars. This idea of redistributing wealth is taking away the choice of individuals on how they will spend their money for the betterment of society. It is stating that the government knows better than the people how best to help the poor. America was founded on the principle of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not the other way around.
Your style is very unique compared to other
folks I have read stuff from. Thank you for posting when you have
the opportunity, Guess I'll just book mark this site.
Post a Comment