Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's covered under estate taxes. Obama thinks the inherited A should only be a B and then when it gets passed down again it should only be a C, etc. Romney thinks that if a family has earned an A they deserve to be able to hand it down to their children.
Even though I don't think you explained their two positions correctly (i.e. the third generation child in Obama's world still starts off ahead of most of his peers and still has a great shot at an "A"), I would love to hear you try to explain to a child that someone else does nothing and gets an "A" while they start with nothing and have to work for an "A." This explanation would certainly contradict everything kids are taught about trying their best and working hard.
Despite claiming that you understand this isn't about vegetables you seem to be rather hung up on that point. Would this have worked better, is this a more accurate vegetable analogy?
Obama knows that vegetables are really good for you, so he made a rule that your school must provide you vegetables with every lunch even if you don't want them. The reason is that some kids families can't afford vegetables and the only time they may get them is when they are at school. In order to pay for those vegetables all the families in town had to pay a little extra money to the school.
Romney thinks that vegetables are really good for you. However, he doesn't think the school should be forced to give them to you and he doesn't think it's fair to make everyone pay a little extra just because some kids don't get vegetables at home. Romney thinks its a parents job to make sure that their kids eat healthy. If the parents can't afford vegetables, then they should work harder to be able to buy them.
Yes, that is absolutely a more accurate analogy for the vegetable situation and even for the way each candidate thinks about government's responsibilities, imo.
I get your presumed conflict between government providing and parent's providing and the philosophy.
However, I would say working harder isn't the only option for Romney. I think he would be ok with private charity buying the vegetables as well. And, he might say that the parents should sacrifice something else to provide the vegetables.
Sometimes, you cannot work harder since you cannot get a better paying job or you might not be able to sustain the effort physically. Sometimes charitable support comes with strings that are difficult to accept (just as government aid does). Sometimes, parents simply have nothing they *can* sacrifice.
As I just posted in my responses above, it was an analogy based on the rhetorical standards of the role of government in our lives as professed by the two parties. I fully well realize that the actuality of their claimed rhetoric, particularly in the case of the Republicans, is not the same as the reality.
I was attempting to get my son to think critically about the role of government, but do admit it was mostly lost on him do to the vegetable thing. Yes, I took the vegetable thing from the school lunch mandates, but since he buys his lunch a couple of times a week, it seemed like a good angle to go on. He had previously commented how stupid it is that they give all the kids vegetables that they just throw away.
My general "concept" was to get him to think about these two opposing ideas:
1. The government has a responsibility to make sure that we do what is "right" for ourselves and is free to compel that behavior.
2. The government has no right to tell us what choices we can make for ourselves as long as those choices do not negatively impact another.
If you or your school accept federal moneys to subsidize the cost of school lunches, than yes, the federal government has the right to dictate what the standards of those lunches will be.
You are complete FREE to choose to not partake in a federally funded school lunch and its mandates BY SENDING YOUR OWN LUNCH FOR YOU OWN CHILD.
Second, based on number "2", than the feds do have the right to tell us what to eat. After all there is a negative impact on everyone's finances when people are unhealthy.
^^Exactly! #2 has nothing to do with the school lunches that are provided by the school. In general, I actually agree with the verbiage in #2. I do not see how you can relate that to the school lunch program, whether you're talking about milk, protein, fruit or vegetables. That is the fallacy with this failed analogy.
As for this:
Quote:
Romney thinks that vegetables are really good for you. However, he doesn't think the school should be forced to give them to you and he doesn't think it's fair to make everyone pay a little extra just because some kids don't get vegetables at home. Romney thinks its a parents job to make sure that their kids eat healthy. If the parents can't afford vegetables, then they should work harder to be able to buy them.
You are introducing some new elements, such as an increased cost of having vegetables, that you didn't bring up before. And to tell the truth, school lunches are heavily subsidized and the inclusion of the vegetables probably does not raise the price at all.
Why not just admit the fact that it was a poor, overly simplistic analogy and as a result it prompted your son (whether intentionally or unintentionally) to come to a certain conclusion about the candidates using one very specific issue that if framed in a certain way appears to favor Romney.
It's like giving him the analogy that some people in his class prefer SpongeBob, while some prefer The Ninja Turtles. Romney wants to only give a KitKat bar to those that prefer SpongeBob, while Obama thinks that all students should get a KitKat bar if they want one. Which candidate do you think he would he support, particularly if he was one of the kids that wasn't eligible for the special snack based on his cartoon preference?
Honestly there are dozens of these that adults can frame, even unintentionally, in a manner that leads a child to a foregone conclusion. I understand and respect what you were trying to do, I'm just not sure it worked very well.
I freely admitted in several posts that it wasn't a "good" analogy per se, it was what I came up with on the spot. The only reason I continue to post back and forth about the analogy is because it seems that some people are still hung up on this being about school lunch programs, which I have quite clearly stated it was not.
What I have yet to get back though is an analogy that is both simple, captures the basic differences and doesn't lead them to a conclusion. I admit that what I told him, while not intending to lead him, certainly led him to his choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clevelander17
Even though I don't think you explained their two positions correctly (i.e. the third generation child in Obama's world still starts off ahead of most of his peers and still has a great shot at an "A"), I would love to hear you try to explain to a child that someone else does nothing and gets an "A" while they start with nothing and have to work for an "A." This explanation would certainly contradict everything kids are taught about trying their best and working hard.
It really wasn't my point to make, I was trying to be funny. I don't know how to explain it other then saying that some kids come from families that are very succesful and they have more money and connections which makes it easier for their kids to succeed. No, it isn't fair and if we want to achieve that same level of success we need to work hard to get there.
I'm all ears if you want to offer something different. Everyone is sitting here criticizing any option I toss out there and are only offering incredibly slanted "counter analogies" or simply poking holes in what I said. I'd LOVE to hear how other people would approach these topics versus debating politics, it was the point of the thread. If it's as simple as what Wmsn4life said earlier that it's impossible to do it without being slanted to some degree, then so be it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053
Yes, that is absolutely a more accurate analogy for the vegetable situation and even for the way each candidate thinks about government's responsibilities, imo.
I get your presumed conflict between government providing and parent's providing and the philosophy.
However, I would say working harder isn't the only option for Romney. I think he would be ok with private charity buying the vegetables as well. And, he might say that the parents should sacrifice something else to provide the vegetables.
Sometimes, you cannot work harder since you cannot get a better paying job or you might not be able to sustain the effort physically. Sometimes charitable support comes with strings that are difficult to accept (just as government aid does). Sometimes, parents simply have nothing they *can* sacrifice.
I agree with everything you said, the problem is how to encapsulate that into something a 2nd grader would understand. I think had I used that particular analogy that I posted, which again I was thinking on the fly and now have the advantage of having thought about it, it may have spurned these types of follow-up questions that could develop a more rounded view of the issue. Overall I think my son would think we should help people who can't afford things, but I don't think he would understand the "bigger" concept of how that is done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
If you or your school accept federal moneys to subsidize the cost of school lunches, than yes, the federal government has the right to dictate what the standards of those lunches will be.
You are complete FREE to choose to not partake in a federally funded school lunch and its mandates BY SENDING YOUR OWN LUNCH FOR YOU OWN CHILD.
Second, based on number "2", than the feds do have the right to tell us what to eat. After all there is a negative impact on everyone's finances when people are unhealthy.
Yet again, it was not about school lunches. I know what the mandates are, I know how they work, I know how the funding is done. I'm actually NOT AGAINST the school lunch reforms.
The second part I could argue, because that takes us into the classical slippery slope. When we acknowledge that the government "has the right" to tell us what to eat, what comes next. I get the healthcare ramifications and I'm sure we could debate both sides endlessly and I'm not even sure I know where the line is ultimately drawn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
^^Exactly! #2 has nothing to do with the school lunches that are provided by the school. In general, I actually agree with the verbiage in #2. I do not see how you can relate that to the school lunch program, whether you're talking about milk, protein, fruit or vegetables. That is the fallacy with this failed analogy.
You are introducing some new elements, such as an increased cost of having vegetables, that you didn't bring up before. And to tell the truth, school lunches are heavily subsidized and the inclusion of the vegetables probably does not raise the price at all.
It's not about school lunches, maybe we can move past that now. Perhaps you could offer an analogy that you approve of that captures the basic differences between the political parties that doesn't involve vegetables since you seem to understand what I was trying to get at regardless of how horribly I apparently failed at doing it.
It certainly raises the cost (that was a central element in the debate over refining the standards) and it's not as if federal subsidies are "free", the money still comes from taxpayers.
Honestly NJGOAT, it was a solid effort. I just think you found that it's very difficult to come up with a short, simply analogy that accurately portrays what each candidate really stands for. This is why it's so hard to talk to younger kids about political issues and why it's usually reserved for when they get a bit older.
Honestly NJGOAT, it was a solid effort. I just think you found that it's very difficult to come up with a short, simply analogy that accurately portrays what each candidate really stands for. This is why it's so hard to talk to younger kids about political issues and why it's usually reserved for when they get a bit older.
lol, very true. If I could come up with a short, simply analogy that was accurate and captured the differences in a non-biased way, I'd be putting my PoliSci degree to use as an analyst on CNN.
Up to this point, political discussions were few and far between other then when I went to vote and explained the process and why we did it or there was a major event/speech. We also had that time we talked about the school budget. Those were all "easy" lessons with the one on the school budget provoking real thought. Unfortunately the school didn't give me much choice about avoiding this topic. I suppose I should have let it go at him deciding between Obama already being president so he should stay or giving Romney a turn to be president.
I do appreciate everyone's replies, at the very least it seems to be clear that this isn't easy to talk about and bring down to his level quite yet.
Honestly NJGOAT, it was a solid effort. I just think you found that it's very difficult to come up with a short, simply analogy that accurately portrays what each candidate really stands for. This is why it's so hard to talk to younger kids about political issues and why it's usually reserved for when they get a bit older.
OP, after giving it some thought, here's what I recommend:
Wait until the next presidential election. Your son will then be in 6th grade. At that point tell him, "Each party has a "platform", in other words a document that says what they stand for. People vote for the person representing the party they most agree with." No analogy needed.
While I generally detest political discussions that want to require me to offer up my personal opinions as I believe they are exactly that - personal, I don't have any issues with discussion how to come to said opinions.
4 years ago my son, who would have been just short of 6, was almost obsessed with learning about government/politics and we had some if this very type discussion. It was not difficult for him to understand that there will be specific things he may find acceptable and specific things he may find unacceptable about each of the candidates but that in the end his support will go to the one who meshes the best with his personal priorities. It also was not difficult for him, though for many that age it is, to understand that interpretations vary widely on many issues and that people will sway an interpretation to their benefit.
What he couldn't quite do yet was to learn how to sift through all that is out there and make an informed decision.
One of the main things we try to teach our children is that focusing on one point/event/issue in an election is almost always a mistake and that you must think much more broadly in order to make a more informed choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
