[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 12:54:25 10/28/08 Tue
Author: Jeannine
Subject: Here is an interesting analogy
I read it in a poster comments on Huffington. Probably has been deleted or at least flagged as abusive by now!
A man is going to eat at a restaurant. Outside he sees a homeless man with a crudely made "Obama for President" sign. He goes in and loe and behold, his waiter is proudly wearing an Obama '08 button.
The waiter provides excellent service. As the man leaves, he tells the waiter "you did great. And I am going to tip you $20. But, I am going to give your tip to the homeless man outside in order to redistribute this to the person who appears to need it more."
That was the end of the poster's story, but just imagine that the man returns the next day and has the same waiter. The service sucks. No tip is earned - why should the waiter work hard for a tip he is not going to receive. No one gains anything. The man gets poor service, the waiter gets no tip, and the homeless man is still, of course, homeless.
Simplistic? Sure. Welcome to Obamanomics.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[>
Obamanomics. Hee! -- Katt, 18:19:23 10/28/08 Tue [1]
Love it!
[ Edit | View ]
[>
One could argue the same scenario -- SB, 18:44:41 10/28/08 Tue [1]
from 8 years ago with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest. Only the opposite would be true where the patron went out to the homeless guy and took money from his cup to pay the tip even though he had plenty of cash to pay it himself, and then stiffed the waiter.
It boggles my imagination that people all of a sudden think this is something new. Today's tax code is and has been an example of government 'taking' money from one taxpayer and giving it to another. Only in Bush's economic policy, it effecitvely redistributed the nation's wealth to the richest Americans.
Would it surprise you to see several instances where McCain indicated through the years that the wealthiest Americans SHOULD pay more taxes? It's on youtube - you can look it up but since you read HuffPo I'm sure you've seen it. ;-) I'd be happy to post it if anyone else wants to see it.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: One could argue the same scenario -- JosieJ, 18:36:58 10/29/08 Wed [1]
Why is the homeless man homeless? Was his job shipped overseas and there was no other job to be found? Did he lose everything to a hurricane or tornado with no meaningful help from FEMA? Is he mentally ill and not able to afford his meds because of the outrageous prescription costs so he cannot hold a job? Did he suffer an accident or illness that cost him his job and/or ability to work or keep a roof over his head? Or is he simply a lazy, soulless, drug or alcohol-addicted bum who is homeless cuz he likes the "freedom"?
VERY few folks on the public dole are there because they want to be. We MUST help out those who are more unfortunate and in need than we are. It is our duty as Americans and as human beings. "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Or, it might go like this. -- HF, 18:44:58 10/28/08 Tue [1]
The first day, the customer gives the waiter $18 and the homeless man $2. The waiter is impressed and gives the homeless man $2 more. Other customers follow suit and everyone starts giving the homeless man $2 of the tip. The homeless man soon has enough to rent an apt. The restaurant's image improves from the publicity and lack of homeless outside. The next year, the waiter has double the customers and tips. Waiter uses the increased income to go to college. Etc.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
That's a good one... -- JennyJenkins: everyone benefits now THAT's Socialism, 20:23:37 10/28/08 Tue [1]
Even though on principle, I'm opposed to tipping, I still tip for good service.
What's wrong with being satisfied with his salary and working hard for that?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Well, I wouldn't be satisfied with a waiter's salary. -- HF, 12:42:44 10/29/08 Wed [1]
They're paid less than minimum wage because they're *supposed* to make tips. If they don't get tips, they don't make much.
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: Here is an interesting analogy -- JennyJenkins: my 2 cents, 20:13:33 10/28/08 Tue [1]
The GOP has this tactic of using the ideology from the Christian Conservative side in order to get votes. They go after the bible-belt voters, meanwhile, the actual brains behind the GOP are the wealthiest people who are verrrry smart.
Have you ever asked yourself why Halliburton, Blackwater, healthcare insurance industry, Wall Street, big tobacco, big oil are all in support of the GOP? Maybe, because they're afraid of laws that might actually affect their profits. These corporations are so wealthy that they can afford to purchase the entire government, yet they get bailouts (GOP Socialism, that's OK ;-/), just to keep their own salaries and bonuses.
The most important issue is that middle America is not well off, and Democratic platform says that the taxes for this class will be reduced and a higher tax percentage will be put on incomes of over quarter of a million dollars. What’s wrong with that? Keep in mind that people at that tax level still will keep all of the write-offs that they had before, so in reality their take home pay won’t be reduced by a large amount per household, but combined, it will make billions of dollars of difference. The very wealthy, those over million dollars, will pay a higher tax percentage than that. This is the part that scares GOP and that’s why it started calling him a Socialist, which is laughable, because it doesn’t have anything to do with socialism, but it has to do with greed.
Why doesn’t the middle and poor America which supports GOP right now realize, that the policies of the GOP are actually making their lives more miserable and these same policies are lining the pockets of all the wealthiest families the most?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
re: my two cents -- Jeannine, 08:27:00 10/29/08 Wed [1]
You instantly dismiss my analogy as part of the tactics of the "GOP Christian Conservative side". After all I am not wealthy, so I must not be verrrrry smart.
How many people are employed by all those BIG EVIL corporations you mentioned? Are they all very wealthy? What happens to their jobs when they go under? When the Democrats mess up the entire structure of our economics through bad loans to people that CLEARLY cannot afford them, should the big bad Republicans just let everything go under? How would that help our economy?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
I guess I should just say "whatever" -- Jeannine, 09:04:53 10/30/08 Thu [1]
Since you and I will never agree on this. I am referring - as I said - to the current crisis which is directly traceable to Fannie and Freddie. I am attaching an article that supports my beliefs. Read it or not... whatever.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-10-05-1.html
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Jeannine: you will never get a whole picture if you only ... -- JennyJenkins, 10:12:33 10/30/08 Thu [1]
...read things that agree with your own point of view. ;-)
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
...but in spite of every... -- JennyJenkins: making up, 10:23:16 10/30/08 Thu [1]
...cantrary post, I still think that we have lots in common, outside of politics, that is... ;-)LOL
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Please explain how Democrats messed up -- scooter, 07:38:13 10/30/08 Thu [1]
the entire structure of our economy. In case you haven't noticed, the GOP has been running things for the past eight years. They had a huge role in de-regulating Wall Street and the banking system. The banks which gave bad loans are responsible for the mortgage crisis--not the Democrats. The Republicans inherited a budget surplus and a stable economy from the Clinton administration and then ran it into the ground. They wouldn't even pass the bailout bill which the Democrats had voted for until 150 billion dollars of pork was added. The fantasy that Republicans have been fiscally responsible is just that, a fantasy.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Scooter: you wrote my reply for me... -- JennyJenkins: wasn't here yesterday., 10:19:59 10/30/08 Thu [1]
...but I was remembering the same things. Bush did inherit an enormous surplus, which has been eliminated over the eight years and not only that the war has been pretty well financed by money borrowed from CHINA.
CHINA!!!
Obama and Co. have their work cut out for them.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Scooter - my "whatever" reply was for you - and Jenny -- Jeannine, 11:01:22 10/30/08 Thu [1]
Thanks for the tip.
[ Edit | View ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]
Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
