My sister emailed me this:

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

>
> 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 for distribution of all wealth.
>
> She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch
Republican which she expressed openly. One day she was challenging her father
on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & the
addition of more government welfare programs. Based on the lectures that
she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor she
felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even
selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
>
> The self professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be
the truth and she indicated so to her father. He stopped her and asked
her point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather
haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to
maintain. That she studied all the time, never had 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 of spending all her time studying. That she was
taking a more difficult curriculum. Her father listened and then asked,
"How is your good friend Mary doing?" She replied, "Mary is barely
getting by." She continued, "She barely has a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all
she takes are easy classes and she never studies." "But Mary is so very
popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the
parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes
because she is too hung over."
> Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's
office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your
friend who only has a 2.0." He continued, "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 wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I
did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I
worked real hard!"
> The father slowly smiled, winked and said, "Welcome to the Republican
Party."

I don't recall Democrst ever saying that people should give their GPA to anyone.

[Howedar]

Wow, what a revelation

[Shinova]

Haha, funny.

[Bugsby]

Bullshit. My brother, who despite my best efforts is a budding right-wing nutcase, gave me this exact same example. I gave him a counter proposal:

Say you have a good friend who is popular, funny, a nice guy.... all good things. You are glad to know him, and think he is a credit to the human race. But it turns out that your friend isn't doing too good in school. He's just not too good at buckling down and studying and doesn't fit in too well with the educational system. At the end of the semester, his GPA is at 1.96. He needs another .4 to make a 2.0 and stay in school. You have a 4.0. Do you lose 1/100th of your GPA to give your friend another shot at his education?

At this point, my brother got irritated and left the conversation.

The original post assumes that the Dem. platform is for full equality, to give over everything that you own to people who haven't worked for it. That's not the case. The idea is to take from people who really can spare it and give back to people who really do need it. Now there are some people (like utilitarian nutcase Peter Singer, a prof. at Princeton), who believe that the only really good way to do things is full redistribution. I think Singer is a nut, but I'm still a democrat.

To that email, the most horrid strawman I have seen in some time, I say this....
"HOW 'BOUT A LITTLE FIRE, SCARECROW?"

[J]

Now there are some people (like utilitarian nutcase Peter Singer, a prof. at Princeton), who believe that the only really good way to do things is full redistribution. I think Singer is a nut, but I'm still a democrat.

Ah yes, I remember that nutcase, there was quite the uproar when he was made a tenured prof during my first year there. At least they stuck him in Human Ethics IIRC, where most people are of more or less the same mindset as him, that way he doesn't infect the rest of the campus too much with his loony ideas.

[Bugsby]

Yeah, shuffle him into a corner. He is a true believer in utilitariansim, that happiness is the only thing that is good. I have always wondered what he thinks of Brave New World.

[Darth Wong]

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 for distribution of all wealth.

She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & the addition of more government welfare programs. Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

The self professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

I do like the way she is portrayed as a mindless ideological slave of her university professors. This is like a Chick tract in its caricatured portrayal of all who disagree with its ideology as brainwashed fools.

He stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she studied all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew.

Ah I see, this is supposed to be analogous to people who are wealthy, right? People who worked their asses off for their money, right? People who absolutely deserve every single penny, right? People like George W. Bush?

She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum. Her father listened and then asked, "How is your good friend Mary doing?" She replied, "Mary is barely getting by." She continued, "She barely has a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies." "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

OK, and I imagine this person is supposed to be analogous to people who are poor, right? People who are useless and lazy? People who party all night long and sleep all day? People like the average minimum-wage worker who has no benefits, works 12 hour shifts for a pitiful salary that's barely adequate to keep a roof over his head, cannot afford to visit the doctor or pay for medications, and will never be able to send his kids to college unless they're at least 6'8" and good at basketball?

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0." He continued, "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 wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said, "Welcome to the Republican
Party."

This is actually a beautiful description of what's wrong with right-wing thought: they sincerely believe that every single poor person and every single rich person fully deserves their status in life.

I take it back: this is not just like a Chick tract; it is a Chick tract.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Say you have a good friend who is popular, funny, a nice guy.... all good things. You are glad to know him, and think he is a credit to the human race. But it turns out that your friend isn't doing too good in school. He's just not too good at buckling down and studying and doesn't fit in too well with the educational system. At the end of the semester, his GPA is at 1.96. He needs another .4 to make a 2.0 and stay in school. You have a 4.0. Do you lose 1/100th of your GPA to give your friend another shot at his education?

The only difference I can see in the two is one of scale. One is about a 0.04 equlization, the other is a full equalization.

Here's my answer (I'd assume we both worked hard to simplify the equation): If I volunteered for it, I might not mind giving him enough GPA (depends on whether I like him) to equalize with me (not only 0.04). But forcefully tax my GPA? Sorry pal, you ain't getting 0.01 of my GPA if I can help it.

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

All three of my siblings have said I'll grow out of being liberal when I get out of school, after I have said such things that I am concerned about the environment, the national debt, and the war in Iraq.

[Loner]

If I were to have recived that, I would have replied kindly that should they ever send me right-wing delusional wank material again, that I will break their nose.

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

If I were to have recived that, I would have replied kindly that should they ever send me right-wing delusional wank material again, that I will break their nose.

Your own sister?

[Loner]

Your own sister?

You don't know how much I hate chain mail.

[Graeme Dice]

Ah I see, this is supposed to be analogous to people who are wealthy, right? People who worked their asses off for their money, right? People who absolutely deserve every single penny, right? People like George W. Bush?

The analogy is actually even worse that that, since in this case the maximum possible GPA is 4.0, and is only twice that of the lower person. Consider that a GPA of 2.0 corresponded to a wage of $20,000 are we seriously expected to believe that the maximum possible wage is $40,000?

[Darth Wong]

Ah I see, this is supposed to be analogous to people who are wealthy, right? People who worked their asses off for their money, right? People who absolutely deserve every single penny, right? People like George W. Bush?

The analogy is actually even worse that that, since in this case the maximum possible GPA is 4.0, and is only twice that of the lower person. Consider that a GPA of 2.0 corresponded to a wage of $20,000 are we seriously expected to believe that the maximum possible wage is $40,000?

Not to mention the fact that GPA cannot be inherited from your parents, nor can your parents use their connections to get you into cushy positions where you accumulate GPA for doing almost nothing ...

[Dalton]

Not to mention the fact that GPA cannot be inherited from your parents, nor can your parents use their connections to get you into cushy positions where you accumulate GPA for doing almost nothing ...

Bush should have worked on accumulating some GPA when he went to Harvard.

[Tzeentch]

Yeah, shuffle him into a corner. He is a true believer in utilitariansim, that happiness is the only thing that is good. I have always wondered what he thinks of Brave New World.

Mmmm... tastes like strawman. Singer != Bentham.

I'm in an ethics seminar led by the guy. He's a lot saner than he's made out to be. It's easy to forget that he's an academic first and a demagogue second.

Crazy is the guy who came to talk to us. Zell Kravinsky gave away $45 million and a kidney, told us that we were killing hundreds of people by going to princeton, and that if we were really good people we would have donated our living bodies to medicine so that our organs could save 5 people, like he fantasizes about doing.

[Master of Ossus]

Not to mention the fact that GPA cannot be inherited from your parents, nor can your parents use their connections to get you into cushy positions where you accumulate GPA for doing almost nothing ...

Oh, I don't know about that. There are lots and lots of legacies at major colleges and universities.

[Darth Wong]

Not to mention the fact that GPA cannot be inherited from your parents, nor can your parents use their connections to get you into cushy positions where you accumulate GPA for doing almost nothing ...

Oh, I don't know about that. There are lots and lots of legacies at major colleges and universities.

True, but even they can't get you a 4.0 GPA for doing nothing, whereas you can be filthy rich while being completely useless if your parents are rich enough. Let me introduce exhibit A: Paris Hilton.

[Patrick Degan]

Not to mention the fact that GPA cannot be inherited from your parents, nor can your parents use their connections to get you into cushy positions where you accumulate GPA for doing almost nothing ...

Oh, I don't know about that. There are lots and lots of legacies at major colleges and universities.

True, but even they can't get you a 4.0 GPA for doing nothing, whereas you can be filthy rich while being completely useless if your parents are rich enough. Let me introduce exhibit A: Paris Hilton.

And exhibit B: George W. Bush.

[The Cleric]

And exhibit C that refutes that: my father. He busted his ass for every penny that he owns, and I'll be damned if I let you sit there and say "oh, he can afford it, so we'll just take his money." And as the private owner of a small business, he pays more than probably anyone here. And whats more, he WRITES the check to the governement. Most people have it deducted so they don't actually write the MASSIVE checks for taxes like he does.

[sketerpot]

And exhibit C that refutes that: my father. He busted his ass for every penny that he owns, and I'll be damned if I let you sit there and say "oh, he can afford it, so we'll just take his money." And as the private owner of a small business, he pays more than probably anyone here. And whats more, he WRITES the check to the governement. Most people have it deducted so they don't actually write the MASSIVE checks for taxes like he does.

How does the fact that your father worked hard for all his money refute the fact that it's possible to be filthy rich without working for it? Unless I misread the comments you're replying to, they're talking about people like Paris Hilton and George W. Bush, who both inherited money from their parents.

[The Cleric]

And exhibit C that refutes that: my father. He busted his ass for every penny that he owns, and I'll be damned if I let you sit there and say "oh, he can afford it, so we'll just take his money." And as the private owner of a small business, he pays more than probably anyone here. And whats more, he WRITES the check to the governement. Most people have it deducted so they don't actually write the MASSIVE checks for taxes like he does.

How does the fact that your father worked hard for all his money refute the fact that it's possible to be filthy rich without working for it? Unless I misread the comments you're replying to, they're talking about people like Paris Hilton and George W. Bush, who both inherited money from their parents.

And using them as examples of why high taxes on people with money are just fine and dandy.

[HemlockGrey]

So how much does your father earn, exactly? Is he in the top few percent, wealth-wise? Since that's who the Bush tax cuts benefited, afterall, so any rollbacks on those tax cuts would only "hurt" them anyway.

[The Cleric]

My dad's salary is fluid depending on the year. 2 years ago, his salary was tiny because he sunk it into a house in order to avoid massive taxes. This year, he won't be so lucky. And his entire business is based on trickle-down econ. Very wealthy people build and remodel, and he makes a living off of it. So does everyone that works for him, including many members of what would be called lower class.

[Glocksman]

It's just a parable about the evils of forced redistribution, and like most parables, it oversimplifies everything, but to a certain degree has a valid point.

A nitpick on the story is that she sounds more like an out and out socialist than a Democrat. But calling her a socialist would detract from the attack on the Democrats.