What's wrong with this analogy? It's too simplistic.
For starters, houses don't cost $5. Before someone jumps up to shout that this is not the point of the story, let me point out that many people work full time at jobs that pay wages so low that they can't afford to buy a house. The main problem is that even with payments spread over many years, the compounding of interest makes it impossible to afford simple decent housing.
An organization called Habitat for Humanity (which some of you may have heard of) addresses this problem by selling houses to those who qualify (that's right, they don't give houses to poor people as some believe .. the people qualifying for Habitat homes must work and be able to pay for the house) at cost with zero interest loans. The owners are required to put in 500 hours of sweat equity into the house (that is, they are required to work on the construction of their house .. of someone else's house .. or if they are unable to do the construction work, they are given other work to do that furthers the goals of Habitat for Humanity -- I'm not sure of the details of this other work, but you can probably find those details at their web page). By approaching the problem in this way, Habitat makes housing available to those who would otherwise be unable to afford it.
Now, my question to you: Is this a Democratic solution or is this a Republican solution?
My follow-up question is this: Isn't it time that we just start looking for solutions rather than looking for Democratic or Republican solutions?
Derek
· 1 year ago
I agree these kinds of analogies are too simplistic. It doesn't take into account any past history and experiences. Why doesn't the homeless guy clean up the poop? 1) that can be considered somewhat of a humiliating "job" for an adult 2) there are too few people that would offer $5 to a homeless band to clean up poop in their yard
And even though I disagree with the legitimacy and accuracy of the analogy, if I were to accept it for the point its trying to make, it shows me: 1) The Republican Party makes decisions on issues based in their microcosmic view of the world. If you aren't in their microcosm, you should be in it whether you agree or are capable of it in the first place. 2) The Democratic Party realize that people come from different backgrounds/life experiences/situations and that holding every personally responsible for their well-being would disregard the diversity of human existence.
Derek
· 1 year ago
...or rather would be unsympathetic to the diversity of human existence.
Jonathan S.
· 1 year ago
That homeless guy doesn't clean up poop most likely for the same reason my alcoholic uncle would rather stay in jail than go to rehab. Existence of rules and submission to authority. In rehab he has to follow someone else's rules, while in jail it's different. 99% of those homeless guys can find work. There are plenty of opportunities to "go clean up poop." But then again, doesn't stop me from throwing some dollars their way usually.
I recognize the diversity of people by all means. I also recognize some people are dealt a bad hand from the start, but I shouldn't be forced give my money and resources away to those people. There's too much room for corruption and laziness (ie. welfare). There's no incentive to get a job or "do better".
I like this analogy better. A little more depth to the "analogy" than Daniel's:
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, but her father was a staunch Republican. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to high taxes and welfare programs.
He stopped her and asked her, "How are you doing in school?"
She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA, but it was really tough. She had to study all the time and ever had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because she was spending all her time studying. On top of that, the part-time job her father insisted she keep left absolutely no time for anything else.
He asked, "How is your friend Mary?"
She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, didn't have a job, and went to all the parties. She was always complaining about not having any money, but didn't want to work. Why, she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.
Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and request that 1.0 be taken off her 4.0 and given it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a respectable 3.0 GPA. Then, she could also give her friend half the money she'd earned from her job so that her friend would no longer be broke.
The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair. I worked really hard for my grades and money, and Mary just loafs. Why should her laziness and irresponsibility be rewarded with half of what I've worked for?"
The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party".
Maxo
· 1 year ago
I don't think that's a good place to start a conversation at all. The little girl didn't represent a Democrat POV and the narrator did not represent a Republican POV. It's also worthy to point out that the problem of homelessness is much more complicated than people who refuse to work. The above story is only good at trying to paint over simplistic pictures of complicated issues.
ncloud
· 1 year ago
Actually, either way the girl chooses, she's acting like a Libertarian, and here's why: no authority is compelling her to work and give her money away. If she scoops the poop and gives it to the homeless guy, she's making a non-coerced decision to do so. If she doesn't scoop the poop and believes the homeless guy should do it, she's also making a non-coerced decision.
If we really wanted to represent Democrats and Republicans, the little girl's mother would say, "Aw, look at all the homeless people. Betty, unless you go scoop poop and give your money away to the poor people, I will ground you in your room for the rest of your life. You want to be a compassionate little girl, don't you? Now you just run along and scoop that poop. What's that Betty? Why don't I give some of my money to the homeless people? Well Betty, I need all my money in order to be able to tell you and your brothers and sisters what to do. If I weren't here to direct you, we would have goddamn Lord of the Flies on our hands, now wouldn't we? If you weren't forced to go scoop that poop, you would be hard-hearted little monster that wouldn't be compassionate towards anybody, so I'm here to make sure that doesn't happen. For the good of society of course."
No one talks about the fact that if you choose not to pay taxes for charity programs that you think are a waste, you WILL spend a lot of time in jail. Both Republicans and Democrats subscribe to charity by coercion, which is despicable thievery.
Jason Sares
· 1 year ago
Seriously this doesn't even qualify for discussion.
All Comments
What's wrong with this analogy? It's too simplistic.
For starters, houses don't cost $5. Before someone jumps up to shout that this is not the point of the story, let me point out that many people work full time at jobs that pay wages so low that they can't afford to buy a house. The main problem is that even with payments spread over many years, the compounding of interest makes it impossible to afford simple decent housing.
An organization called Habitat for Humanity (which some of you may have heard of) addresses this problem by selling houses to those who qualify (that's right, they don't give houses to poor people as some believe .. the people qualifying for Habitat homes must work and be able to pay for the house) at cost with zero interest loans. The owners are required to put in 500 hours of sweat equity into the house (that is, they are required to work on the construction of their house .. of someone else's house .. or if they are unable to do the construction work, they are given other work to do that furthers the goals of Habitat for Humanity -- I'm not sure of the details of this other work, but you can probably find those details at their web page). By approaching the problem in this way, Habitat makes housing available to those who would otherwise be unable to afford it.
Now, my question to you: Is this a Democratic solution or is this a Republican solution?
My follow-up question is this: Isn't it time that we just start looking for solutions rather than looking for Democratic or Republican solutions?
I agree these kinds of analogies are too simplistic. It doesn't take into account any past history and experiences. Why doesn't the homeless guy clean up the poop?
1) that can be considered somewhat of a humiliating "job" for an adult
2) there are too few people that would offer $5 to a homeless band to clean up poop in their yard
And even though I disagree with the legitimacy and accuracy of the analogy, if I were to accept it for the point its trying to make, it shows me:
1) The Republican Party makes decisions on issues based in their microcosmic view of the world. If you aren't in their microcosm, you should be in it whether you agree or are capable of it in the first place.
2) The Democratic Party realize that people come from different backgrounds/life experiences/situations and that holding every personally responsible for their well-being would disregard the diversity of human existence.
...or rather would be unsympathetic to the diversity of human existence.
That homeless guy doesn't clean up poop most likely for the same reason my alcoholic uncle would rather stay in jail than go to rehab. Existence of rules and submission to authority. In rehab he has to follow someone else's rules, while in jail it's different. 99% of those homeless guys can find work. There are plenty of opportunities to "go clean up poop." But then again, doesn't stop me from throwing some dollars their way usually.
I recognize the diversity of people by all means. I also recognize some people are dealt a bad hand from the start, but I shouldn't be forced give my money and resources away to those people. There's too much room for corruption and laziness (ie. welfare). There's no incentive to get a job or "do better".
I like this analogy better. A little more depth to the "analogy" than Daniel's:
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, but her father was a staunch Republican. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to high taxes and welfare programs.
He stopped her and asked her, "How are you doing in school?"
She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA, but it was really tough. She had to study all the time and ever had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because she was spending all her time studying. On top of that, the part-time job her father insisted she keep left absolutely no time for anything else.
He asked, "How is your friend Mary?"
She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, didn't have a job, and went to all the parties. She was always complaining about not having any money, but didn't want to work. Why, she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.
Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and request that 1.0 be taken off her 4.0 and given it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a respectable 3.0 GPA. Then, she could also give her friend half the money she'd earned from her job so that her friend would no longer be broke.
The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair. I worked really hard for my grades and money, and Mary just loafs. Why should her laziness and irresponsibility be rewarded with half of what I've worked for?"
The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party".
I don't think that's a good place to start a conversation at all. The little girl didn't represent a Democrat POV and the narrator did not represent a Republican POV. It's also worthy to point out that the problem of homelessness is much more complicated than people who refuse to work.
The above story is only good at trying to paint over simplistic pictures of complicated issues.
Actually, either way the girl chooses, she's acting like a Libertarian, and here's why: no authority is compelling her to work and give her money away. If she scoops the poop and gives it to the homeless guy, she's making a non-coerced decision to do so. If she doesn't scoop the poop and believes the homeless guy should do it, she's also making a non-coerced decision.
If we really wanted to represent Democrats and Republicans, the little girl's mother would say, "Aw, look at all the homeless people. Betty, unless you go scoop poop and give your money away to the poor people, I will ground you in your room for the rest of your life. You want to be a compassionate little girl, don't you? Now you just run along and scoop that poop. What's that Betty? Why don't I give some of my money to the homeless people? Well Betty, I need all my money in order to be able to tell you and your brothers and sisters what to do. If I weren't here to direct you, we would have goddamn Lord of the Flies on our hands, now wouldn't we? If you weren't forced to go scoop that poop, you would be hard-hearted little monster that wouldn't be compassionate towards anybody, so I'm here to make sure that doesn't happen. For the good of society of course."
No one talks about the fact that if you choose not to pay taxes for charity programs that you think are a waste, you WILL spend a lot of time in jail. Both Republicans and Democrats subscribe to charity by coercion, which is despicable thievery.
Seriously this doesn't even qualify for discussion.