From The Department Of You Can’t Make This Up
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Terry Savage is really proud to be an douchebag. Read this charming story of encountering girls with a lemonade stand who weren’t actually selling lemonade but instead giving it away.
His fiancee smiled and commented, “Isn’t that cute. They have the spirit of giving.”
That really set me off, as my regular readers can imagine.
“No!” I exclaimed from the back seat. “That’s not the spirit of giving. You can only really give when you give something you own. They’re giving away their parents’ things — the lemonade, cups, candy. It’s not theirs to give.”
I pushed the button to roll down the window and stuck my head out to set them straight.
“You must charge something for the lemonade,” I explained. “That’s the whole point of a lemonade stand. You figure out your costs — how much the lemonade costs, and the cups — and then you charge a little more than what it costs you, so you can make money. Then you can buy more stuff, and make more lemonade, and sell it and make more money.”
I was confident I had explained it clearly. Until my brother, breaking the tension, ordered a raspberry lemonade. As they handed it to him, he again asked: “So how much is it?”
And the girls once again replied: “It’s free!” And the nanny looked on contentedly.
This is important to Mr. Savage because it has a very important lesson.
No wonder America is getting it all wrong when it comes to government, and taxes, and policy. We all act as if the “lemonade” or benefits we’re “giving away” is free.
Apparently the girls are actually members of Congress. Who knew? Has Mr. Savage never heard of charity?
BTW, I call shenanigans on this story. Surely this guy isn’t this much of a douchebag.
Tags: Republican Crazy, WTF?
I’m with you, UI. Savage is lying.
I love the nanny reference. How exactly does he know that the woman with the girls was their nanny?
Also, I thought Conservatives/Republicans were big on don’t tell me what to do with my money. I’ll decide on who I give to.
I caught those nanny references, too and wondered the same thing. His column makes absolutely no sense anyway. There’s nothing strange about setting up a lemonade stand and giving it away. It’s scary this guy has a business column. His understand of economics is poor – the U.S. economy is like a lemonade stand! – and he’s a douchebag as well.
maybe he has a bigger problem with females running a business. It is un-‘merican for woman-folk to be anywhere other than preggers, bare-foot, and in the kitchen. (unless you are a wolf-hunting MILF from alaska)
Also how would he know that lemons, the cups, the candy don’t belong to the girls? Perhaps they did chores to earn money.
I think you hit the nail on the head, a.p. How dare those girls discard his wisdom. Don’t they know he’s smarter than them?
As is pointed out by others this morning, this is a perfect picture of modern economic punditry.
Lesson: When life gives you lemonade, make a douchebag.
If I was writing a parody of a “compassionate conservative” I’d write something like this.
If this is made up, it is crapily done. (not that i would expect much more from a conservative) I would have included a Boy-Scout lemonade stand selling for 45cents being shut down by this socialist “refreshment for all” Feminazi libation-welfare hut. Make sure to mention the Prius in the driveway with the Obama sticker on it. While im at it i notice the nanny wearing hippie pants, hairy pits, no bra and a “safe dafur” tank top.
when life gives you lemons, make lemonade… then find someone who’s life is giving them vodka, and have a party.
The rich kids, by not selling the lemonade, are fucking it up for the real kids who want to sell the lemonade.
I’ll agree with you that it is a dumb column — but there is a valid point there that those who are generous with the resources and riches of others are not charitable at all.
Seriously? Do you guys charge your lemonade stand age kids for their meals and clothes? Gotta love those family values.
And FBH is full-on nuts.
I don’t know how you reached that conclusion, pandora.
Let’s break it down for you.
If I give my money to the poor, it is charity — I’ve done a good thing.
If I take your money and give it to the poor, then it is theft — and I’ve done a bad thing, no matter what my motives were.
I’m sorry but Observer’s clarification is still in crazytown. Comparing Congress to a lemonade stand is stupid. Comparing the Congressional budgeting process to theivery is also crazytown.
There is certainly a lot of reasons to criticize the Congressional budgeting process. Especially the Republicans, who still think that tax cuts magically cut deficits and wars are free.
“The rich kids, by not selling the lemonade, are fucking it up for the real kids who want to sell the lemonade”
rich kids arent real kids?
OR
arent the rich kids doing their civic duty by giving back some of their un earned wealth?
OR
if a kid is actually selling lemonade and relying in any way on the profit from selling lemonade, they have a much bigger problem than someone a few neighborhoods over giving it away.
Observer, are you suggesting the kids stole from their parents? that their parents are greedy and would not give up their hard earned 45 cents for a can of condensed lemonade to then give away to neighbors on a hot day? i hope we dont live near each other, you sound like a dick neighbor.
once again, FBH with the dumbest post of the day.
ooooo he was comparing congress to a bunch of little girls…. well, id have to agree with you there.
Congress acts like little girls.
Stop insulting girls. Girls are much smarter than most Congresspeople.
a.price asks, “rich kids aren’t real kids”
Of course the little crumb snatchers are real kids, but they don’t “really” have a lemonade stand.
I’ll take a guess and say that the kids were just cheating a little bit in their pursuit of a successful lemonade stand for the day.
As pandora has noted, serious money is not the issue here.
The whole point of the lemonade stand is to pour a nice glass of lemonade to a happy customer in completion of a small business transaction.
By giving the lemonade away for free, they have bypassed the first step and gone directly to the last step, which is getting rid of the lemonade. It would appear that the kids had a successful day at the lemonade stand, but in fact they just took a short cut.
The whole point of the lemonade stand is to pour a nice glass of lemonade to a happy customer in completion of a small business transaction.
Who says? That obviously wasn’t the purpose if these kids are giving away free lemonade. Perhaps their purpose was to give away lemonade, why do adults have to assign all this seriousness to it?
BTW, I feel sorry for any kid who has a parent like the columnist. The columnist sounds like someone who lives vicariously through their children.
The whole point of a lemonade stand is to give kids an activity. And anyone who has ever helped their kids put one together knows that “making money” isn’t what it’s about.
The columnist is an idiot. Bet he doesn’t have kids.
What’s the point of school sponsored door-to-door fundraising? If the point is to instill in children a deep distrust of capitalism, I think is is working. It worked in my case anyway.
Observer: “Take” is a broad, not-very-specific verb. If I give my kids the makings of lemonade and find them giving it away instead of selling it, isn’t it theirs to do with what they will? I’d be proud of a kid who did that. “Give” and “take” are two sides of the same action.
Or did you mean “steal”? In that case, your simple-minded analogy still fails if it’s just another conservative complaint about paying taxes. I’m more proud of a government that gives money to the poor than one that buys weapons to kill people.
Some other kid should have re-branded and re-sold it.
I’m more proud of a government that doesn’t buy an unneeded weapon OR give money to the poor, but instead allows me to spend my money as I see fit, especially as regards dispensing so-called charity after extracting the cash from my at the point of a gun.