# The Difference Between a Republican and a Democrat



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Fred Thompson and Hillary were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.

The Republican, Fred Thompson, gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of
his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless
person, she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Thompson's pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.

Now, do you understand the difference?


----------



## hagfan72 (Apr 15, 2007)

Good one!! Right on the nose.


----------



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

uke:


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

> He then took $20 out of
> his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.


Bullshi2


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Yeah right......The Republican gave the guy $20 :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

And the job was probably at $5.25 per hour. uke:


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Or possibly in some third world sweat shop for $.75 since the company moved overseas to increase the CEOs salary.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ya, I didn't see it as an accurate personal action of Thompson, but I did see it accurately portraying the difference between liberals and conservatives. You see conservatives want people to have jobs and work, and liberals don't want to give personally but take it away from others through taxation and give it to those they think need it. 
I don't see liberals as caring people. I see them pretending to be, to get votes from the poor. I think their real goal is power. When it comes to true compassion I think conservatives care much more than the liberals.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman if conservatives are so concerned about jobs..... then why are all these Republican bussiness executives sending millions of jobs to China and India?Talk about not caring and looking out for number 1.

Why would anyone who works for a large company even think about voting Republican?


----------



## Danimal (Sep 9, 2005)

Ken,

I really don't think it's as simple as Republican business owners outsourcing jobs while Democrat business owners not outsourcing.

If the company is a public traded company, the execs have a legal responsibility to maximize shareholder return. If the company can outsource some jobs to do make the company more profitable, then they are pressured to do that.

I'm going to use call centers to support my point.

Remember that many jobs that are outsourced are call centers, so it really doesn't matter where they are located. Do I like talking to someone "named" Peter when it is probably Samja or Poonja,...No, but as a consumer, if it helps with the cost of a product, I have to accept it.

Most call centers are moved to countries where a center can be opened with 3 to 5 times more operators for the same cost. More operators, less time on hold waiting to get through for help.

Now in an ideal world, anyone out placed should receive any training needed to move into other jobs within the company, such as a call center operator being trained as an on-site repair tech. Now, a service tech job is worth more to a company than an operator, therefore a higher pay scale for the employee. It's a win/win. I know this doesn't happen all of the time or probably even half of the time. But remember, publicly traded company execs have a legal responsibility to shareholders, not employees. It's part of our economy, no real way around that.

Now as a person who WAS displaced due to the subsidiary (whom I worked for) being sold to another company "FOR SHAREHOLDER benefit, did I like it as an employee, HECK NO. But as a shareholder, the stock of the parent jumped $20 the day of the announcement. Within 2-3 months the stock was $60 higher then pre-announcement. Of course I had to *compete* *with *about 50 of *my friends *for jobs that may or may not exist. That wasn't including the other 750 people that also lost their jobs. Am I doing the same job, no but am a doing something is related and I enjoy, yes. I started a new business unit for a company. It is tough going from salary + bonus to commission. But I don't have senior management reaching into my pockets at bonus time.

I agree with Plainsmen about the difference about Liberals and Conservatives.

I live in a Liberal state and can't stand how much we are taxed. I've said it before, I'm all for helping to get people BACK on their feet to be self sufficient. But I'm tired of busting my *** to support me and my family AND a whole bunch of people who don't WANT to work. I'm tired of politicians reaching into MY pockets because "they know how to spend it better than I do.' Yeah, they know how to take my hard earned money and buy votes....

Ok, I'll step down from my soapbox and give everyone else a turn. :soapbox:


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Ken, you think there is out sourcing now wait till the libs get toal control.... :******: 
From Nancy and crew......................

Read the last paragraph even if you skip the rest
~ this woman is a nut case! You aren't going to
believe this.
Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall
Tax on all stock market profits (including
Retirement fund, 401Ks and Mutual Funds! Alas, it
is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal
Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!

Boy, are we in trouble... This woman is
 frightening. Take special note of the last
paragraph. Is she really this whacked out? Nancy
Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock
market as "just another example of Bush policies
helping the rich get richer". "First Bush cut
taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded
with new record low unemployment rates, which only
means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier
at the expense of the underpaid working class".
She went on to say "Despite the billions of
dollars being spent in Iraq our economy is still
strong and government tax revenues are at all time
highs. What this really means is that business is
exploiting the war effort and working Americans,
just to put money in their own pockets".

When questioned about recent stock market highs
she responded "Only the rich benefit from these
record highs. Working Americans, welfare
recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not
sharing in these obscene record highs". There is
no question these windfall profits and income
created by the Bush administration need to be
taxed at 100% rate and those dollars redistributed
to the poor and working lass". Profits from the
stock market do not reward the hard work of our
working class who, by their hard work, are
responsible for generating these corporate profits
that create stock market profits for the rich. We
in congress will need to address this issue to
either tax these profits or to control the stock
market to prevent this unearned income t o flow to
the rich."

When asked about the fact that over 80% of all
Americans have investments in mutual funds,
retirement funds, 401Ks, and the stock market she
replied "That may be true, but probably only 5%
account for 90% of all these investment dollars.
That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming
that if a corporation is successful that everyone
from the CEO to the floor sweeper benefit from
higher wages and job security which is
ridiculous". "How much of this 'trickle down' ever
gets to the unemployed and minorities in our
county? None, and that's the tragedy of these
stock market highs."

"We democrats are going to address this issue
after the election when we take control of the
congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax
rates on the rich and we will be able to take at
least 30% of all current lower income tax payers
off the rolls and increase government income
substantially." We need to work toward the goal of
equalizing income in our country and at the same
time limiting the amount the rich can invest."
When asked how these new tax dollars would be
spent, she replied : "We need to raise the
standard of living of our poor, unemployed and
minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12
million illegal immigrants in our country who need
our help along with millions of unemployed
minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes
 could go a long ways to guarantee these people the
standard of living they would like to have as
'Americans'."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman if conservatives are so concerned about jobs..... then why are all these Republican bussiness executives sending millions of jobs to China and India?Talk about not caring and looking out for number 1.


I have no idea if the business executives are republican. If you look at the ten richest congress people, nine are democrats. Maybe they are democrat business executivs, I don't know. 
The reason they are going is because liberals are taxing them out of existence. They also raised the minimum wage, and wages are cheaper in other countries. Keep up taxing those nasty big businesses that provide jobs for Americans and more will leave. It's a free country so they go where they want to. Tax them beyond their ability and they leave sooner rather than later. 
I suppose they would like to blame Bush again, but the truth is he has no control over them. If you owned a company and could double your profit what would you do. If someone told you that you had to stay in the United States would you call them dictators? If your taxes doubled what would you do. It can be passed on to the consumer, but then liberals would really be angry.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Zogman, people may try to pass this off as untrue, but I listened to that mad woman's speech. She is insanely liberal.



> We need to work toward the goal of
> equalizing income in our country


This is not socialism, this is communism. Now some liberals will not take this serious and will try say that calling Nancy P. a communist is just radical, but by her own statement that is her belief.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman......you are right about Pelosi.But the same can be said about Newt Gingrich when he was in control.....extremists on both ends as far as I'm concerned.I don't like either one of them.

I don't really know either if most business execs are Republican or not.Just going by the premise that everything that benefits business people is basically Republican.If not for Democrats we would still be making low wages,no benefits,12 hour days,7 days a week,no sick leave,etc and people like the Carnegies,Rockefellars,and Vanderbilts etc. would still be taking advantage of us.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Just going by the premise that everything that benefits business people is basically Republican.


I don't know. Look at how rich the Kennedy's are. And Nancy Pelosi wasn't her farms in California taking advantage of illegal aliens? Look at the income of those in Hollywood. They all talk about obscene rich, and they are the rich.



> If not for Democrats we would still be making low wages,no benefits,12 hour days,7 days a week,no sick leave,etc


I often do wonder about that. I do see the republicans having one fault and that is they think that business is the only answer and gets most of their loyalty. At the other end of the spectrum the democrats try to appeal to every fringe group out there. I wish there was a viable third choice. I am so disgusted with both that it's a offense to be considered either.

I do see the republicans as not fair with labor, but the democrats reserve true freedom for minorities, gays, illegal aliens etc. How dumb are hate crimes. Nobody murders someone they like. Stupid, just plain stupid. You could just see in the debates that Hillary wanted drivers license for illegal aliens, but she can't tell us what she really thinks or she would stand a snowballs chance in he!! of getting elected.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Say Ken, I have thought of this many times, and huntin1 brought it up today while we were hunting. Remember when you mentioned a job from Thompson would perhaps be $5.25 and hour. I have often thought that our welfare system is screwed up. When a person gets a job the drop them from welfare, and some people will not look for work because they can make more money from welfare.
My proposal is that we set a price scale. We do it for farmers, why not welfare. We give farmers price support and when wheat doesn't reach a target price the taxpayer makes up the difference. We should follow that system in other welfare programs. Lets say someone only made $5.25 and hour and we set a target of $8/hr. Then welfare would only have to pay $2.75 an hour. Then tax them like anyone else. I think welfare would cost us less, people would have their dignity back, and they would be contributing to the economy. What do you think?
I think this would do more than keep them warm and put food on their table. It would also give them dignity and a sense of self worth. There is more to meeting the needs of people than a full belly. Besides how many times can they stand to cry along with Oprah?


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

http://www.faireconomy.org/Taxes/HTMLRe ... _Cuts.html

I just think we need to go to a flat tax or the "fair tax" that BobM used to talk about. It is BS that I have to pay a greater *percentage* of my total earnings for a year than some ultra rich SOB that is hiding his/her income as capital gains and dividends.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Also, if we are to continue this war we dam well better raise the taxes to pay for it. Maybe the oil guys that are benefitting from it so much could whip out the old check book to help cover costs. Or better yet why arent we using that iraqi oil to pay for the war. The words republican and fiscal conservative have no business being in the same sentence.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Bill_C ... conomy.htm


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Ken W said: "If not for Democrats we would still be making low wages,no benefits,12 hour days,7 days a week,no sick leave,etc"





> Plainsman said: "I often do wonder about that".


The problem with that is the Democrats of way back in time that killed those sweat shops and brought labor under control are no longer around. They died with Kennedy or morphed into todays Republicans and the Democrats of those days have morphed into socialists. Roosevelt wouldn't make it in either party today and Kennedy could not be elected as a Democrat. Eisenhower and Truman would probable be labeled as baby killers and never bother to enter politics.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Plainsman :beer: I gotta hand it to you, you are a far more generous person than I. I am not sure how we can justify cash payments, I am there with ya with some assistance for food, maybe some heat, access to a doctor, ie lifes essentials. One side of my Wifes family are a bunch of welfare slobs that barely work and get all the above plus cash payments. From my experience ALL that cash finds its way into the bar for beer and cigarettes.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson, your right. If Kennedy was alive today he would be a conservative. Today's democrats have no more right to bring up John Kennedy's memory as linked to the democratic party than the republicans can say they are the party of Lincoln. 
JDPete your right about money making it into the bars. I don't know how you could stop that. If you provide the assistance in food stamps they just use their own money for beer. Anyway, I think it would end up cheaper to have a wage target system linked to welfare.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman maybe you have a good idea.The problem with minimum wage is that if you are a working mother or father and have to pay a babysitter.....you are losing money.Might as well collect welfare and stay home with the kids.

Plus to me welfare is no different than any other gov. program including subsidies or income tax breaks.If the gov't allows them.....you are foolish not to take advantage of them.

I also like Bob's flat tax.....no more business deductions for taking clients to a fishing lodge in Canada and paying for it with a tax write-off.No more executives having meetings in Hawaii and writing it off as a business expense.....total :bs:


----------

