Difference Between a Conservative and a Liberal

[ltorlo64]

A Conservative is someone who will teach a man to fish. A Liberal is someone who will take that man's fish and give it to someone who will not learn to fish, so that he won't go hungry. (Not mine, but I liked it)

[az_paul]

Well said!

[Schuetzenman]

Yep, that describes it.

[LAGC]

That's odd. I thought conservatives were generally against public education, teaching people anything. Sure its not the liberals teaching the kids how to fish? (Or maybe its just those evil teacher's unions.)

[mriddick]

I tend to think conservatives just fish, liberals stand on the bank and complain no one is sharing their catches with them. That is until the conservatives reach age 65 then they want to stand on the bank and complain they worked hard enough that they too deserve someone elses fish, all the while maintaining they aren't like those dirty liberals... :)

[Sergis Bauer]

That's odd. I thought conservatives were generally against public education, teaching people anything. Sure its not the liberals teaching the kids how to fish? (Or maybe its just those evil teacher's unions.)

No, the liberals teach the kids how to act entitled to fish and force others to give up their catch.

[LAGC]

No, the liberals teach the kids how to act entitled to fish and force others to give up their catch.

I think the biggest problem right now, if we want to stay true to this analogy, is that the pond (economy) is flat out of fish (jobs). The people who came first (have jobs) over-fished it, and now there's nothing left for those who came later (don't have jobs) to do but beg for scraps.

[ltorlo64]

That's odd. I thought conservatives were generally against public education, teaching people anything. Sure its not the liberals teaching the kids how to fish? (Or maybe its just those evil teacher's unions.)

Never heard of a Conservative against public education. Heard of plenty of Conservatives against waste in public education. Conservatives don't want to get rid of public education, they don't even want larger class sizes, but they do want less bureaucracy. We see no reason that the administrative burden on schools cannot be lessened. We see school as a place to learn the 3-Rs (Reading, Writing, and 'Rythmatic), basic skills that will help throughout life, not a place to be taught how to put on a condom.

Or this

No, the liberals teach the kids how to act entitled to fish and force others to give up their catch.

[mriddick]

I think the biggest problem right now, if we want to stay true to this analogy, is that the pond (economy) is flat out of fish (jobs). The people who came first (have jobs) over-fished it, and now there's nothing left for those who came later (don't have jobs) to do but beg for scraps.

Not out of fish just smaller then those on the bank think is worth working for and they aren't going to take a cut in the amount of scraps thrown their way. In fact for some reason the've decided they deserve more while most everyone else is taking less.

[Sergis Bauer]

I think the biggest problem right now, if we want to stay true to this analogy, is that the pond (economy) is flat out of fish (jobs). The people who came first (have jobs) over-fished it, and now there's nothing left for those who came later (don't have jobs) to do but beg for scraps.

I think the analogy in its simple form is flawed because in a pond there are a finite number of fish, and as you say it could quite easily get fished out. That's the kind of simpletonian, zero-sum crap that you seem to continuously spout here, and that is just not reflective of real-life economics.

The analogy has to be a bit more complicated to come close to reflecting the US economy. This still isn't perfect, but it's better: let's say it's not a pond, but a bay on the sea. You have big commercial shark fishers out there, as well as regular joes working with rods and reels. The big boys chum the water to draw in more sharks, and that in turn brings in more small fish as well, and those small fish act as a food source which in turn also bring still more big fish. So the commercial fishers and the regular fishers actually indirectly help each other and make this particular bay a great place to catch fish, whether for your own family or make a business out of fishing. The more they fish, the richer the waters get.

Meanwhile the liberals stand on the banks, look out at the fishing boats with their commercial tackle, and the private fishers with their nice rods and reels, all of were bought with the sweat of the fishermen's brows, and bitch and moan that THEY don't have such great equipment, and look how greedy they are pulling in more fish than they can eat themselves, that it's all an inside job that is intended to cut them out and leave them hungry, and those rich fishermen OWE them some fish, just out of a sense of justice.

It never occurs to them to pick up a stick, some twine, bend a paperclip and put a worm on it, and try to catch the family dinner through their own effort and initiative. But these grounds are definitely NOT fished out-- there's plenty of fish in there for anyone who wants to work for them.

[El Jefe]

I tend to think conservatives just fish, liberals stand on the bank and complain no one is sharing their catches with them. That is until the conservatives reach age 65 then they want to stand on the bank and complain they worked hard enough that they too deserve someone elses fish, all the while maintaining they aren't like those dirty liberals... :)

So, you're all for means testing, even if it means you don't qualify for SS and medicare? Is that what you're saying? :)

[O.S.O.K.]

I tend to think conservatives just fish, liberals stand on the bank and complain no one is sharing their catches with them. That is until the conservatives reach age 65 then they want to stand on the bank and complain they worked hard enough that they too deserve someone elses fish, all the while maintaining they aren't like those dirty liberals... :)

NO, they reach 65 and want some of their fish back that they gave (under threat of law) to be preserved for their retirement. AGAIN - your argument about getting more than they put in is specious because you ignore the time value of money invested. Figure just 5% return average - over 35 years - adds up.

Why don't you put your energy into critisizing those who are too fucking lazy or gaming the system instead of trying to portray hard working, tax paying people as evil?

[Kadmos]

A burger is also nice on occasion.


In reality you all know that liberals fish also, right?

One could use the same metaphor and say conservatives rarely are willing to teach anyone to fish (except perhaps their own kids), and are generally unwilling to share the catch, except for payment or trade with other specialists. The idea being that each individual becomes self sufficient, is required to have some mastery over a trade in order to survive. This is supposed to create a strong society of diverse and useful skill.

While liberals will divide the catch to make sure everyone eats, often to the detriment of their own portion. They will make every attempt to find the best teacher who will try to teach the others to fish (as well a 1000 other things). The idea being that those most skillful in a particular endeavor will gravitate to that after having experimented with many other skills. This is supposed to create a societal bond of sharing, where each individual works at the trade which makes them most happy.



Neither really works all that well in reality. But they make for nice theories.

[El Jefe]

At least conservatives are willing to raise their kids, teach them to hunt and fish, whatever. Democrats, not so much.

[Sergis Bauer]

Going off the fish analogy for a minute, I think a big part of the problem is that liberals assume that conservatives are only out for themselves, are completely selfish, and have no social conscience whatsoever. I'm sure there are conservatives (just as there are liberals) who can be described in such terms. But it doesn't describe the vast majority of conservatives that I know.

Speaking for myself, I am all in favor of social justice, I am cognizant of the fact that not all poor people are necessarily there by their own design, and I actively give of my time and money to help those less fortunate than me. The problem is that since the government has gone into the business of "helping" the poor, they have both created a permanent underclass that is entirely dependent on the government for their well-being, and vastly increased my and every other hard-working American's tax burden to support that flawed system.

I would gladly give more to private charities to help the poor, but I can't afford it: the government has already skimmed that money off the top to pay for their welfare state. It's too bad, because if my money went to private charities instead of Uncle Sam, it would actually be used to improve the lives of poor people. One reason for this is that private charities are in a position where their resources are limited, so if they are going to help another 1,000 people coming in, they need to get another 1,000 people on their feet, on their own, and out the door. They need to be in the business of making poor or needy people independent and self-supporting. Not so the federal government... if another 50,000 go on welfare, they just tax the rest of us enough to cover their nut, simple as that.

Take a good look at history, and you'll see that there are some direct correlations: The more the federal government has done to "fight" poverty, the harder it has been for private charity to make an impact, and the bigger and more permanent the poverty underclass has grown. It's a shame, because the welfare rolls are full of men and women who, given the right mindset, might seize any number of opportunities and contribute to our society. But they're so indoctrinated into their slavery to the federal government that they are content to game the system and collect their EBTs.

[Kadmos]

At least conservatives are willing to raise their kids, teach them to hunt and fish, whatever. Democrats, not so much.

Ridiculous.

First off most teachers are democrats.

Secondly most people attempt to raise their kids well, really doesn't matter what politics they favor.

But yes some people will get shitty parents, I'm sure there are plenty of drunk asshole republican fathers who beat or ignore their wife and kids, it happens in all political parties, it happens at all socioeconomic levels.

[Sergis Bauer]

First off most teachers are democrats.

You might be surprised by just how many are not.

[mriddick]

So, you're all for means testing, even if it means you don't qualify for SS and medicare? Is that what you're saying? :)

Not at all, completely against it.

NO, they reach 65 and want some of their fish back that they gave (under threat of law) to be preserved for their retirement. AGAIN - your argument about getting more than they put in is specious because you ignore the time value of money invested. Figure just 5% return average - over 35 years - adds up.

Why don't you put your energy into critisizing those who are too fucking lazy or gaming the system instead of trying to portray hard working, tax paying people as evil?

I have done the math, it's more like 16% return on average (and that's not including medicare). Tough to do over 35 year in any economy. I think you just like to think a select few are gaming the system, I tend to view it as the majority (how else did we get to the point of 200 million checks sent out a month). My philosophy is simple if we want it we need to pay for it, if we won't pay the costs then we really don't want it. I'm OK with taking less, I'm ok with paying more, I just maintain that we need to fully fund it if we want it. That said don't you think entitlements will have to be cut back on furture generations or not regardless?

[El Jefe]

Not at all, completely against it.


I have done the math, it's more like 16% return on average (and that's not including medicare). Tough to do over 35 year in any economy. I think you just like to think a select few are gaming the system, I tend to view it as the majority (how else did we get to the point of 200 million checks sent out a month). My philosophy is simple if we want it we need to pay for it, if we won't pay the costs then we really don't want it. I'm OK with taking less, I'm ok with paying more, I just maintain that we need to fully fund it if we want it. That said don't you think entitlements will have to be cut back on furture generations or not regardless?

Explain to me how we get our fiscal house in order without implementing means testing?

[Kadmos]

You might be surprised by just how many are not.

It would have to be over 50% for me to be surprised. I did say "most" not "the vast majority" or "nearly all".

I had some excellent teachers who were obviously conservatives.

Nor do I think the vast majority of conservatives have no social conscience, I know that many do, however the party has a pretty strong leaning towards self reliance and self improvement combined with, for lack of a better word, grumpiness, towards others who have not achieved the parties minimal requirement of self reliance.

As to your statemnts on charity, I wish that were true, but charity seems unable to give the support that it appears people need. The majority of those who do give tend to give at maximum the 10% which can be tax deducted and no more.

Also charitable contributions tend to be rather scattered in terms of social need. With people giving to everything from the red cross to cancer research to park benches and penguin habitats the resources needed to actually even feed the people would end up scattered rather thin.

[mriddick]

Explain to me how we get our fiscal house in order without implementing means testing?

I would tend to be more against means testing as a matter of philosophy then not. Means testing to me seems to punish those who work and save over their lives more then not. To go with means testing is to say social security is nothing more then socialized retirement, it really takes what ever legitimacy it had out of it (and IMO it doesn't have much to start with).

To me if cuts are how we want to save entitlements then we need to cut across the board and they ought to start now.

[O.S.O.K.]

Not at all, completely against it.


I have done the math, it's more like 16% return on average (and that's not including medicare). Tough to do over 35 year in any economy. I think you just like to think a select few are gaming the system, I tend to view it as the majority (how else did we get to the point of 200 million checks sent out a month). My philosophy is simple if we want it we need to pay for it, if we won't pay the costs then we really don't want it. I'm OK with taking less, I'm ok with paying more, I just maintain that we need to fully fund it if we want it. That said don't you think entitlements will have to be cut back on furture generations or not regardless?

Yes, I think we will have to do all sorts of things like means testing, etc. because of the OUT and OUT THEFT that has ocurred. Further, I will add that you are also not taking into consideration the poor bastards that die only a few years after they start collecting.

The problem is the theft of funds and all of the people that are drawing from it that never put a dime into it. That's just welfare by another name and pisses me off.

I will be screwed out a lot of hard earned money. :mad: :mad:

[El Jefe]

I would tend to be more against means testing as a matter of philosophy then not. Means testing to me seems to punish those who work and save over their lives more then not. To go with means testing is to say social security is nothing more then socialized retirement, it really takes what ever legitimacy it had out of it (and IMO it doesn't have much to start with).

To me if cuts are how we want to save entitlements then we need to cut across the board and they ought to start now.

It always was 'socialized retirement'. You are not going to fix our fiscal issues without screwing a lot of people over, you're just not. If you're going to get hung up over appearing to be unfair, the job won't get done. If you have the means, it won't matter if the whole system goes down over supposed fairness. You'll be in same boat as everyone else.

[El Jefe]

Yes, I think we will have to do all sorts of things like means testing, etc. because of the OUT and OUT THEFT that has ocurred. Further, I will add that you are also not taking into consideration the poor bastards that die only a few years after they start collecting.

The problem is the theft of funds and all of the people that are drawing from it that never put a dime into it. That's just welfare by another name and pisses me off.

I will be screwed out a lot of hard earned money. :mad: :mad:

Yep, out of the blue I got a statement from SS about two years ago detailing what my history was. Damn, I've been paying in since 1975, and I doubt I'll ever see a cent of it.

[mriddick]

It always was 'socialized retirement'. You are not going to fix our fiscal issues without screwing a lot of people over, you're just not. If you're going to get hung up over appearing to be unfair, the job won't get done. If you have the means, it won't matter if the whole system goes down over supposed fairness. You'll be in same boat as everyone else.

If cuts need to be done why not start now? Why is it most conservatives running today only support cutting it for the next generation?

[Schuetzenman]

No, the liberals teach the kids how to act entitled to fish and force others to give up their catch.

Exactly so. LAGC you are a gold plated tool. You will never learn, or you can't learn.

[El Jefe]

If cuts need to be done why not start now? Why is it most conservatives running today only support cutting it for the next generation?

Um, I don't know obviously, I also am not sure your claim is necessarily true.

[ltorlo64]

A burger is also nice on occasion.


In reality you all know that liberals fish also, right?

One could use the same metaphor and say conservatives rarely are willing to teach anyone to fish (except perhaps their own kids), and are generally unwilling to share the catch, except for payment or trade with other specialists. The idea being that each individual becomes self sufficient, is required to have some mastery over a trade in order to survive. This is supposed to create a strong society of diverse and useful skill.

While liberals will divide the catch to make sure everyone eats, often to the detriment of their own portion. They will make every attempt to find the best teacher who will try to teach the others to fish (as well a 1000 other things). The idea being that those most skillful in a particular endeavor will gravitate to that after having experimented with many other skills. This is supposed to create a societal bond of sharing, where each individual works at the trade which makes them most happy.



Neither really works all that well in reality. But they make for nice theories.

Your premise is not backed up by data. Conservatives are more charitable in their giving than Liberals, while Liberals are much happier taking other peoples money (taxes) to provide charitable services than Conservatives. Here is a great article complete with references on it.


Op-Ed Columnist
Bleeding Heart Tightwads
The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof
Published: December 20, 2008
This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html