the Repubs absolutely want to keep everyone down, especially the minorities. It's in their best interests, since broke people make good customers for their businesses and pay such high taxes. Speaking of taxes, you forgot to mention their candidates view of wealth redistribution.
The Republicans have had the White House for the last 8 years, if your happy the direction the country has been heading then you vote for them, I'm not.
The problem is, there's not much to indicate the Democrats will do better, but I can't imagine they will be worse.
It's a false analogy. It's apples to oranges. I posted in another thread, but in school, everyone theoretically can get the best grades possible. In a capitalistic economy, that ain't possible. In school, you don't need to have 50% of the population making lower grades for a few people to get a 4.0. In capitalism, you need more people earning much less for a smaller percentage to make a lot more money.
It's a mountain, and the higher up you go, the less room there is. But if the base of the mountain collapsed, would the top still stand as high?
they will undoubtedly make your tax expense go up, even if you don't ever make a dime more money.The Republicans have had the White House for the last 8 years, if your happy the direction the country has been heading then you vote for them, I'm not.
The problem is, there's not much to indicate the Democrats will do better, but I can't imagine they will be worse.
does it change the point that it's easy to be emotionally attached to the "helping" cause until "helping" begins taking something of significant and tangible value away from you???
I don't know a person on the planet who would disagree with that.
But I do know that if I had a 4.0, and someone told me I could give up .2 of my GPA to get into some parties I hadn't gotten into before and get a hot girlfriend and get a starting position on the baseball team and ensure that I could keep up that 3.8 for a pretty long while, I think I might be willing to make that trade. In other words, I'd be willing to help if I thought it actually helped me.
OK, here's an example...
The high school I went to posted something about a scholarship my senior year (it was for Roane State, people who live in East TN know it's a community college). To qualify for the scholarship, you had to have at least a 3.0 GPA, unless you were black, in which case you only had to have a 2.0. We're talking a small town here, with just as many poor whitte kids as black. is that fair?
OK, here's an example...
The high school I went to posted something about a scholarship my senior year (it was for Roane State, people who live in East TN know it's a community college). To qualify for the scholarship, you had to have at least a 3.0 GPA, unless you were black, in which case you only had to have a 2.0. We're talking a small town here, with just as many poor white kids as black. is that fair?
Probably deserves a separate thread, but at first glance it sounds like a terrible idea for all involved.
However, I'm not Roane State, and I don't know what their issues were. Perhaps they deemed that black students were more valuable to them than white students at the time, therefore they thought it the best way to attract them.
Supply and demand, no?
I don't know a person on the planet who would disagree with that.
But I do know that if I had a 4.0, and someone told me I could give up .2 of my GPA to get into some parties I hadn't gotten into before and get a hot girlfriend and get a starting position on the baseball team and ensure that I could keep up that 3.8 for a pretty long while, I think I might be willing to make that trade. In other words, I'd be willing to help if I thought it actually helped me.