It's really very simple: a liberal will give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. A conservative will give massive tax breaks to the manufacturer of fishing poles, huge government subsidies to the owner of the lake, and pass favorable legislation for fish breeders, all in the expectation that this will take care of the starving man through the magic of "trickle down economics."
McGentrix wrote:I've always thought that the difference was that liberals "feel" while conservatives "think".
The difference is that liberals both think and feel. Feelings are totally missing from the conservative mindset.
I know where you live, Joe. (Used to live a dozen blocks west and a couple blocks south.)
Carry on.
joefromchicago wrote:It's really very simple: a liberal will give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. A conservative will give massive tax breaks to the manufacturer of fishing poles, huge government subsidies to the owner of the lake, and pass favorable legislation for fish breeders, all in the expectation that this will take care of the starving man through the magic of "trickle down economics."
More likely, a liberal will create a senate oversight committe to investigate why there aren't enough fish for everyone, then they will demand that those people that already have fish will now be forced to subsidize those people without fish by giving more fish to the government who will then distribute the fish. Then, they will give the fish out to the people who need them, who will then become dependant on the government to supply them with fish everyday. This will create generations of people who can't fish, but rely of government subsidies of fish who get their fish from the people that CAN fish. Eventually, those that can fish get tired of subsidizing everyone elses fish eating that they decide to not fish anymore, but to become farmers or ranchers. When the supply of fish runs out, another government committee is brought together to figure out who to continue the handouts to those they could have instructed how to fish earlier.
McGentrix wrote:Eventually, those that can fish get tired of subsidizing everyone elses fish eating that they decide to not fish anymore, but to become farmers or ranchers. When the supply of fish runs out, another government committee is brought together to figure out who to continue the handouts to those they could have instructed how to fish earlier.
Here we have the obvious problem: conservatives think that the people who fish
create fish. That's the flaw in supply-side economics.
The tale here regarding fish predates 'liberals' and 'conservatives'. It's a sound way to live, to teach a man to fish, symbolically, but quite frankly, I have a hard time accepting that it fulfills any current political agenda for either side. However, if you want to get semantic about it, the original thought was clearly written by forward thinkers, i.e. liberals. The conservative take on this particular phrase would sound something like this, IMO:
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, feed him his entire life."
"Give a man a fish? What fish? Trout? Scrod? Herring? Fresh-water? Salt-water? Pickled? Could you be more specific? Can one fish feed a man for an entire day? Depends on the fish I guess. We need clarification. And come to think of it -- what man? Who is this guy?
Now about this 'teaching a man to fish' nonsense. I don't have time to teach a man to fish. I have enough crap going on in my life. I have bills to pay. I don't need the increased responsibility of running a fishing class for grown-ass men who don't have fish.
There are a lot of tricks to fishing too. Selecting the right pole, the right reel, fishing line, hooks, bait. It's complicated! And he's going to have to put down a deposit in case he breaks something. Does he have a credit card? I'm not getting stuck with repairs. What am I, UNICEF? I should run a background check to make sure he isn't likely to cut my throat with a paring knife.
And I have to be honest; I don't know squat about fishing. I was raised in the city. My dad used to take me to museums, not lakes. We went fishing once. We didn't catch anything so we went to Vons. Grilled up some T-bone steaks instead.
But let's pretend I know how to fish. I'm a regular fishing expert. Where's this guy gonna go fishing? He's going to have to arrange for transportation. "...Teach a man to drive, get him to his destination his entire life." That's a little better. I can teach a man to drive. But what, I gotta rent him a car now too? Screw 'im!
About the best thing I can do for this guy is to teach him how to pick out a fish. You want a fresh fish - that's rule #1. It shouldn't smell. If it smells, the fish isn't fresh. Fresh fish should be kept on ice -- they go bad quickly. You also want a fish that's been cleaned, unless you already know how to clean it. Does this man know how to clean a fish? Oh, he knows how to clean a fish, but he doesn't know how to catch one? That's the trouble with today's educational system. They teach you half of what you need to know. That's not my problem.
This guy should become a vegetarian. In sixty seconds I can teach him how to catch a celery."
joefromchicago wrote:McGentrix wrote:Eventually, those that can fish get tired of subsidizing everyone elses fish eating that they decide to not fish anymore, but to become farmers or ranchers. When the supply of fish runs out, another government committee is brought together to figure out who to continue the handouts to those they could have instructed how to fish earlier.
Here we have the obvious problem: conservatives think that the people who fish
create fish. That's the flaw in supply-side economics.
It's not that they
create fish. It's that they know how to
catch and
keep the fish.
McGentrix wrote:joefromchicago wrote:It's really very simple: a liberal will give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. A conservative will give massive tax breaks to the manufacturer of fishing poles, huge government subsidies to the owner of the lake, and pass favorable legislation for fish breeders, all in the expectation that this will take care of the starving man through the magic of "trickle down economics."
More likely, a liberal will create a senate oversight committe to investigate why there aren't enough fish for everyone, then they will demand that those people that already have fish will now be forced to subsidize those people without fish by giving more fish to the government who will then distribute the fish. Then, they will give the fish out to the people who need them, who will then become dependant on the government to supply them with fish everyday. This will create generations of people who can't fish, but rely of government subsidies of fish who get their fish from the people that CAN fish. Eventually, those that can fish get tired of subsidizing everyone elses fish eating that they decide to not fish anymore, but to become farmers or ranchers. When the supply of fish runs out, another government committee is brought together to figure out who to continue the handouts to those they could have instructed how to fish earlier.
I think Americans confuse liberals with socialists. Liberals are in favour of free trade and only necessary government intervention (anti-trust, etc). This doesn't include subsidizing or other regulation sugested in the first post.
When you look better, liberals want a society that is more fair than conservatives. For example: conservatives favour protectionistic measures that will stimulate fish to be caught in poor countries, shipped to the West, processed in factories over here, and sold for prices people in poor countries can not afford. This way people in poor countries will get dependent on the west.
A liberal doesn't favour subsidies and government intervention (like socialists) and also doesn't favour protectionistic measures (like conservatives; and socialists as well actually).
Outsourcing is another area where conservatives try to benefit the rich (the west) by government intervention.
McG, Your blind-side economics shows how your brain is washed in mud. You see, our family used to be very poor, and we were on welfare early in our lives. The government provided for some of our needs. Our mother raised four children - essentially without a husband or father. I'm now retired, but I have had a very satisfying career mostly in management positions. My older brother was a administrative judge in California. My younger brother is a ophthalmologist, and is now a state legislator. My sister is a registered nurse. I could bore you with the stories of our children, but I won't. Thank god for liberals.
So, because of hard work, education, and good parenting, you and your siblings made something of yourselves? Seems like a conservative dream come true. However, I doubt the liberals of the 1940's are comparable to the liberals in government now. They are a product of the 60's, not the 30's.
patiodog wrote:I know where you live, Joe. (Used to live a dozen blocks west and a couple blocks south.)
Carry on.
Sounds like Roscoe Village. Nice neighborhood.
So, um, where do ya sleep, exaclty? 1st base line or third base line?
teach a man to think Catsup is a vegetable and you can fill his stomach with cardboard thinking he is well fed.
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . . pass me that bottle of vegetables, there, Dys . . .
I always liked Wilso's sig line: something to the effect that Conservative sees a man in need and thinks, "Damn, he may try to take some of mine," while a Liberal thinks, "Damn, i may need to give him some of mine."
patiodog wrote:So, um, where do ya sleep, exaclty? 1st base line or third base line?
Well, to be honest, that's just what it says on my driver's license:
From what I've seen, a liberal would be the one giving the fish and teaching how to fish. Both the ideas of the social safety net and education are important to liberals.
The conservative would be the one who sits down and eats a stolen fish in front of the starving man, then lectures them on how their lack of faith in Gawd and the Invisible hand prevents them from getting fish.
Bleah.
Kraken wrote:From what I've seen, a liberal would be the one giving the fish and teaching how to fish. Both the ideas of the social safety net and education are important to liberals.
The conservative would be the one who sits down and eats a stolen fish in front of the starving man, then lectures them on how their lack of faith in Gawd and the Invisible hand prevents them from getting fish.
Bleah.
Signed in just to add this tidbit of information? How exciting it is to get highly educated users to participate at A2K! What a wonderful world we live in!
McGentrix wrote:Kraken wrote:From what I've seen, a liberal would be the one giving the fish and teaching how to fish. Both the ideas of the social safety net and education are important to liberals.
The conservative would be the one who sits down and eats a stolen fish in front of the starving man, then lectures them on how their lack of faith in Gawd and the Invisible hand prevents them from getting fish.
Bleah.
Signed in just to add this tidbit of information? How exciting it is to get highly educated users to participate at A2K! What a wonderful world we live in!
What a wonderful world indeed - Kraken, welcome and good first post! KP
Very good, Joe!
