Do conservatives ever wonder WHY liberalism is prevalent in higher education?

[bripat9643]

Deregulated "free market capitalism" has cost millions of jobs and benefits.

Now THAT is a sweeping claim! Please explain how something that has in fact CREATED millions of jobs and provided heretofore unknown benefits for the average worker has suddenly become such a bad thing?

Well regulated capitalism creates jobs. Deregulated "free market capitalism" has lost millions of jobs. That is the distinction that needs to be made here.

We haven't had deregulated, free market capitalism since 1914.

 

[bripat9643]

Your erroneous allegation has been repudiated by credible sources including a nobel prize winning "liberal economist".

Paul Krugman: Raising The Minimum Wage Is 'Good Policy'[/url

Krugman is a communist. He ain't no "librul."

 

[Derideo_Te]

I know it's "heresy" to you progressives

Please refrain from dictating what you imagine to be my position.

...but YES...I am doing exactly that! Why? Because conservatism to me means doing things in a rational way...whether it be economics or with social issues. To claim that only liberals have the well being of the average person in mind is ridiculous.

What is "irrationa"l about the economic and/or social way of doing things that conservatives are proposing to do in a "rational" manner? Please provide actual concrete examples of each.

Let's take Welfare as the classic example. Liberals feel that giving people welfare will help them. So we've had fifty years of welfare programs. What's happened to the very people that were supposed to be "helped"? You've got generations of families where nobody has held a job. Generations of families where there is no work ethic because there has always been a government hand out waiting for them. Has that REALLY helped those people? Has it REALLY improved their lot in life? It's been shown in study after study that welfare is in fact a sort of "prison" of it's own...and yet we continue to not only pursue that course...many seek to constantly add to it. That to me is irrational.

Please provide links to these "studies".

The purpose of welfare is to reduce poverty because doing so is an effective way to reduce crime. The USA spends the least on welfare and has the lowest reduction in poverty amongst the western civilized nations.

Welfare's effect on poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Studies have shown that in welfare states poverty decreases after countries adopt welfare programs.[3][4]

Timothy Smeeding used data from the Luxembourg Income Study to determine the effectiveness of anti-poverty and welfare programs on poverty reduction. The data for all the countries was from the year 2000 with the exception of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands for which the data was from 1999.[5]

Two studies compare countries internationally before and after implementing social welfare programs. Using data from the Luxembourg Income Study, Bradley et al. and Lane Kenworthy measure the poverty rates both in relative terms (poverty defined by the respective governments) and absolute terms, (poverty defined by 40% of US median income) respectively. Kenworthy's study also adjusts for economic performance and shows that the economy made no significant difference in uplifting people out of poverty.

The studies look at the different countries from 1960 to 1991 (Kentworthy) and from 1970 to 1997 (Bradley et al.). Both these periods are roughly when major welfare programs where implemented such as the War on Poverty in the United States. The results of both studies show that poverty has been significantly reduced during the periods where major welfare programs were created.

Excluding the anecdotal noise of "generations" of people on welfare the objective of the programs to reduce the poverty level has been achieved. Had they been properly funded they would have had even better results.

 

[kaz]

Your erroneous allegation has been repudiated by credible sources including a nobel prize winning "liberal economist"

You need to read these with a critical mind. Most of it's just opinion. Not sure who the nobel economist you're referring to, but the article just referenced a study, we have no idea based on this if it was a reasonable interpretation of that or not.

As for 21 million people being benefitted, as we're a country of 300 million plus that doesn't logically prove it's not a net harm logically at all. And as you are probably not aware, most minimum wage workers today did not earn minimum wage 3 years ago. There is a huge flagrant and largely innaccurate assumption that minimum wage workers stay the same.

As for Obama's moronic quote that the minimum wage can't support a parent of two kids, why on earth would a high school kid in their first job be earning a wage that would support two kids. It's the MINIMUM wage. Which something like 5% of workers earn. We all know that more than 5% of workers are terrible and unreliable and probably overpaid at any rate they are paid.

 

[petro]

Now THAT is a sweeping claim! Please explain how something that has in fact CREATED millions of jobs and provided heretofore unknown benefits for the average worker has suddenly become such a bad thing?

Well regulated capitalism creates jobs. Deregulated "free market capitalism" has lost millions of jobs. That is the distinction that needs to be made here.

Where does free market capitalism without regulation exist?

It's called the Black Market. It exists in every country. Although it has some regulation, usually in the form of violence. Call it self-regulation.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Please refrain from dictating what you imagine to be my position.



What is "irrationa"l about the economic and/or social way of doing things that conservatives are proposing to do in a "rational" manner? Please provide actual concrete examples of each.

Let's take Welfare as the classic example. Liberals feel that giving people welfare will help them. So we've had fifty years of welfare programs. What's happened to the very people that were supposed to be "helped"? You've got generations of families where nobody has held a job. Generations of families where there is no work ethic because there has always been a government hand out waiting for them. Has that REALLY helped those people? Has it REALLY improved their lot in life? It's been shown in study after study that welfare is in fact a sort of "prison" of it's own...and yet we continue to not only pursue that course...many seek to constantly add to it. That to me is irrational.

Please provide links to these "studies".

The purpose of welfare is to reduce poverty because doing so is an effective way to reduce crime. The USA spends the least on welfare and has the lowest reduction in poverty amongst the western civilized nations.

Welfare's effect on poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Studies have shown that in welfare states poverty decreases after countries adopt welfare programs.[3][4]

Timothy Smeeding used data from the Luxembourg Income Study to determine the effectiveness of anti-poverty and welfare programs on poverty reduction. The data for all the countries was from the year 2000 with the exception of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands for which the data was from 1999.[5]

Two studies compare countries internationally before and after implementing social welfare programs. Using data from the Luxembourg Income Study, Bradley et al. and Lane Kenworthy measure the poverty rates both in relative terms (poverty defined by the respective governments) and absolute terms, (poverty defined by 40% of US median income) respectively. Kenworthy's study also adjusts for economic performance and shows that the economy made no significant difference in uplifting people out of poverty.

The studies look at the different countries from 1960 to 1991 (Kentworthy) and from 1970 to 1997 (Bradley et al.). Both these periods are roughly when major welfare programs where implemented such as the War on Poverty in the United States. The results of both studies show that poverty has been significantly reduced during the periods where major welfare programs were created.

Excluding the anecdotal noise of "generations" of people on welfare the objective of the programs to reduce the poverty level has been achieved. Had they been properly funded they would have had even better results.

you lier, you could give each a million dollars and they still would blow though it and be poor today.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your erroneous allegation has been repudiated by credible sources including a nobel prize winning "liberal economist"

You need to read these with a critical mind. Most of it's just opinion. Not sure who the nobel economist you're referring to, but the article just referenced a study, we have no idea based on this if it was a reasonable interpretation of that or not.

As for 21 million people being benefitted, as we're a country of 300 million plus that doesn't logically prove it's not a net harm logically at all. And as you are probably not aware, most minimum wage workers today did not earn minimum wage 3 years ago. There is a huge flagrant and largely innaccurate assumption that minimum wage workers stay the same.

As for Obama's moronic quote that the minimum wage can't support a parent of two kids, why on earth would a high school kid in their first job be earning a wage that would support two kids.

Ironic that you cite a "critical mind" while making erroneous assumptions about those who earn minimum wage.

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012

Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.0 million had wages below the federal minimum.2 Together, these 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 4.7 percent of all hourly paid workers.

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less.

Ergo half of all minimum wage earners are not a "high school kid in their first job".

It's the MINIMUM wage. Which something like 5% of workers earn. We all know that more than 5% of workers are terrible and unreliable and probably overpaid at any rate they are paid.

Who is this "we" you are talking about?

 

[Oldstyle]

Deregulated "free market capitalism" has cost millions of jobs and benefits.

Now THAT is a sweeping claim! Please explain how something that has in fact CREATED millions of jobs and provided heretofore unknown benefits for the average worker has suddenly become such a bad thing?

Well regulated capitalism creates jobs. Deregulated "free market capitalism" has lost millions of jobs. That is the distinction that needs to be made here.

In what way has deregulated capitalism lost millions of jobs?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Now THAT is a sweeping claim! Please explain how something that has in fact CREATED millions of jobs and provided heretofore unknown benefits for the average worker has suddenly become such a bad thing?

Well regulated capitalism creates jobs. Deregulated "free market capitalism" has lost millions of jobs. That is the distinction that needs to be made here.

In what way has deregulated capitalism lost millions of jobs?

The Impact of the September 2008 Economic Collapse - The Pew Charitable Trusts

Jobs – 5.5 million more American jobs were lost due to slower economic growth during the financial crisis than what was predicted by the September 2008 CBO forecast.

 

[Oldstyle]

Please refrain from dictating what you imagine to be my position.



What is "irrationa"l about the economic and/or social way of doing things that conservatives are proposing to do in a "rational" manner? Please provide actual concrete examples of each.

Let's take Welfare as the classic example. Liberals feel that giving people welfare will help them. So we've had fifty years of welfare programs. What's happened to the very people that were supposed to be "helped"? You've got generations of families where nobody has held a job. Generations of families where there is no work ethic because there has always been a government hand out waiting for them. Has that REALLY helped those people? Has it REALLY improved their lot in life? It's been shown in study after study that welfare is in fact a sort of "prison" of it's own...and yet we continue to not only pursue that course...many seek to constantly add to it. That to me is irrational.

Please provide links to these "studies".

The purpose of welfare is to reduce poverty because doing so is an effective way to reduce crime. The USA spends the least on welfare and has the lowest reduction in poverty amongst the western civilized nations.

Welfare's effect on poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Studies have shown that in welfare states poverty decreases after countries adopt welfare programs.[3][4]

Timothy Smeeding used data from the Luxembourg Income Study to determine the effectiveness of anti-poverty and welfare programs on poverty reduction. The data for all the countries was from the year 2000 with the exception of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands for which the data was from 1999.[5]

Two studies compare countries internationally before and after implementing social welfare programs. Using data from the Luxembourg Income Study, Bradley et al. and Lane Kenworthy measure the poverty rates both in relative terms (poverty defined by the respective governments) and absolute terms, (poverty defined by 40% of US median income) respectively. Kenworthy's study also adjusts for economic performance and shows that the economy made no significant difference in uplifting people out of poverty.

The studies look at the different countries from 1960 to 1991 (Kentworthy) and from 1970 to 1997 (Bradley et al.). Both these periods are roughly when major welfare programs where implemented such as the War on Poverty in the United States. The results of both studies show that poverty has been significantly reduced during the periods where major welfare programs were created.

Excluding the anecdotal noise of "generations" of people on welfare the objective of the programs to reduce the poverty level has been achieved. Had they been properly funded they would have had even better results.

Does it come as a surprise to you that giving people "free money" increases the amount of income they have subsequently lowering poverty levels? Sorry but that's one of the more laughable explanations I've ever heard as to why welfare is a good thing for the poor.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Now THAT is a sweeping claim! Please explain how something that has in fact CREATED millions of jobs and provided heretofore unknown benefits for the average worker has suddenly become such a bad thing?

Well regulated capitalism creates jobs. Deregulated "free market capitalism" has lost millions of jobs. That is the distinction that needs to be made here.

Where does free market capitalism without regulation exist?

Deregulation does not equate to zero regulation.

 

[Billy000]

Who cares about Mitt Romney? Am I suppose to like you because you respect him? I didn't vote and I don't respect you at all.

Now you are trying to hide from the implications of your post, you said liberals are smarter that conservatives on the aggregate, you said those with college degrees are intelligent, and that high concentrations of liberals at universities speak to this intelligence. You were obviously trying to stroke your ego and put conservatives down, or you were, until I put you in your place.

I had scholarship offers(not fully by any means though) to some schools, but thankfully didn't have to restrict myself in that regard .

Of course you have no regrets, you are a moron, either that or you lie to yourself about the financial situation you are in because of your own doing to make yourself feel better.

You idiot me mentioning Mitt Romney just paints the obvious picture that I don't hate the rich yet you are still harping on this idea that i do. You just like the idea of entertaining liberal stereotypes which shows you lack basic critical thinking skills.

Put me in my place? You are such a fucking teenager.

I take that back. I got a $5000 scholarship from AmeriCorps.

You know i am not lying. Don't give me that shit.

Dude, seriously, reading through your posts, it becomes quite clear that you're not very intelligent.

Look, there ia a little thing called a comma.....Educate yourself, and learn how to use them.

Christ, the quality of education being provided by these liberal "professor" types, is absolutely atrocious.

If you can't explain why I am not intelligent then don't bother saying it. Pointing out my grammar? Really? That is so weak.

 

[Billy000]

Who cares about Mitt Romney? Am I suppose to like you because you respect him? I didn't vote and I don't respect you at all.

Now you are trying to hide from the implications of your post, you said liberals are smarter that conservatives on the aggregate, you said those with college degrees are intelligent, and that high concentrations of liberals at universities speak to this intelligence. You were obviously trying to stroke your ego and put conservatives down, or you were, until I put you in your place.

I had scholarship offers(not fully by any means though) to some schools, but thankfully didn't have to restrict myself in that regard .

Of course you have no regrets, you are a moron, either that or you lie to yourself about the financial situation you are in because of your own doing to make yourself feel better.

You idiot me mentioning Mitt Romney just paints the obvious picture that I don't hate the rich yet you are still harping on this idea that i do. You just like the idea of entertaining liberal stereotypes which shows you lack basic critical thinking skills.

Put me in my place? You are such a fucking teenager.

I take that back. I got a $5000 scholarship from AmeriCorps.

You know i am not lying. Don't give me that shit.

Oh, so you just throw the money argument at people you don't like, gotcha. Shows your consistency buddy.

Yes, your very very low place as a largely indebted liberal arts grad, the only place for you from here is up.

It distresses me greatly that taxpayer dollars went to finance the pursuit of your degree.

I have good reason to throw it at you.

 

[Billy000]

The distinction is that career academics are highly left and non-career academics are not.


Not really, do you know how universities are run? BTW, pretty much every academic I knew no matter how left they were agreed that university systems are modeled exactly like socialism. The only disagreement is as to whether that's a good thing.



Not sure I believe that, but I'm not saying you're wrong. In 2008 though you had two candidates who were fiscally liberal, so it wasn't a good test. I realize you also were saying you were making no conclusion on that either, just commenting.

Its not the idea of a socialist structure that I question. I question the idea that a supposed socialist structure in universities would have any connection to the idea that is why educated liberals become professors.

What does them being left have anything to do with life experience?

Keep in mind I'm saying it's correlated, not applicable in every case. To be a professor, you typically have to go through that structure for 7-10 years. If you do not like the structure used in Universities to reward and advance people, you're less likely to stay. And vice versa. And if you stay and are comfortable, you're likely to continue to support the university using that structure and you're also likely to see it as a good "general" process, meaning government.

I don't buy that at all. Mostly because there are fundamental differences between liberalism and socialism. While they may be vaguely similar, they are too different to entertain the idea they are the same thing.

Anyone who has busted their ass for a Ph.d wants to be well paid. You also have to consider that only political science and economic professors would care about any sort of perceived socialist structure in universities, but even that is a big stretch.

 

[Oldstyle]

Well regulated capitalism creates jobs. Deregulated "free market capitalism" has lost millions of jobs. That is the distinction that needs to be made here.

In what way has deregulated capitalism lost millions of jobs?

The Impact of the September 2008 Economic Collapse - The Pew Charitable Trusts

Jobs – 5.5 million more American jobs were lost due to slower economic growth during the financial crisis than what was predicted by the September 2008 CBO forecast.

So now your contention is that deregulation caused the housing bubble and subsequent crash? It's amusing how you manage to totally ignore the part that regulations that LED to the housing bubble don't seem to come into play in your viewpoint of what caused the economic meltdown. Giving home loans to people that normally would have had a hard time qualifying as rental tenants is suddenly a conservative initiative? Really? It's tragic that bankers...a part of our system that were always characterized BY their being conservative...were coerced into making sub-prime loans by pressure from the Government...loans that wouldn't have even been considered by competent bankers a generation ago.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's take Welfare as the classic example. Liberals feel that giving people welfare will help them. So we've had fifty years of welfare programs. What's happened to the very people that were supposed to be "helped"? You've got generations of families where nobody has held a job. Generations of families where there is no work ethic because there has always been a government hand out waiting for them. Has that REALLY helped those people? Has it REALLY improved their lot in life? It's been shown in study after study that welfare is in fact a sort of "prison" of it's own...and yet we continue to not only pursue that course...many seek to constantly add to it. That to me is irrational.

Please provide links to these "studies".

The purpose of welfare is to reduce poverty because doing so is an effective way to reduce crime. The USA spends the least on welfare and has the lowest reduction in poverty amongst the western civilized nations.

Welfare's effect on poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Studies have shown that in welfare states poverty decreases after countries adopt welfare programs.[3][4]

Timothy Smeeding used data from the Luxembourg Income Study to determine the effectiveness of anti-poverty and welfare programs on poverty reduction. The data for all the countries was from the year 2000 with the exception of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands for which the data was from 1999.[5]

Two studies compare countries internationally before and after implementing social welfare programs. Using data from the Luxembourg Income Study, Bradley et al. and Lane Kenworthy measure the poverty rates both in relative terms (poverty defined by the respective governments) and absolute terms, (poverty defined by 40% of US median income) respectively. Kenworthy's study also adjusts for economic performance and shows that the economy made no significant difference in uplifting people out of poverty.

The studies look at the different countries from 1960 to 1991 (Kentworthy) and from 1970 to 1997 (Bradley et al.). Both these periods are roughly when major welfare programs where implemented such as the War on Poverty in the United States. The results of both studies show that poverty has been significantly reduced during the periods where major welfare programs were created.

Excluding the anecdotal noise of "generations" of people on welfare the objective of the programs to reduce the poverty level has been achieved. Had they been properly funded they would have had even better results.

Does it come as a surprise to you that giving people "free money" increases the amount of income they have subsequently lowering poverty levels? Sorry but that's one of the more laughable explanations I've ever heard as to why welfare is a good thing for the poor.

The concept behind the social security welfare program was to ensure that the elderly did not fall into poverty when they were no longer able to work for a living. The plan put in place by FDR has been one of the most successful in the entire world. That you readily admit to not understanding this fundamental concept explains why you are having such a difficult time in this debate.

 

[Oldstyle]

Well regulated capitalism creates jobs. Deregulated "free market capitalism" has lost millions of jobs. That is the distinction that needs to be made here.

Where does free market capitalism without regulation exist?

Deregulation does not equate to zero regulation.

So tell me how forcing banks to write sub prime loans equates to "good" regulation? As I said earlier...there are far more bad regulations than there are good ones. Washington's ability to pass additional bad legislation to address a problem with prior bad legislation is legendary. Surely you realize THAT?

 

[Derideo_Te]

And would you agree that it is a tendency for progressives to over-regulate capitalism as well as strive for a cradle to the grave "nanny state" that has now brought us to a point where it ISN'T working well for the common worker?

That is one perspective. Another is that the past 30 years of incessant deregulation have caused the economic collapse that has placed the social safety net in danger.

Please tell me you're joking? 30 years of "incessant deregulation"?

Do the S&L crisis, the Contract on America, Enron, Arthur Anderson, Worldcom, the Mortgage Bubble, AIG, Lehman Bros, the 2008 economic collapse ring any bells?

We've added more regulation in the past 30 years than in the history of the world and we continue to do so now. The safety net is in danger because we've reached a tipping point where more people are taking out of the system than are paying in.

Incorrect.

Coping with the Demographic Challenge: Fewer Children and Living Longer

Consequently, the Social Security system is experiencing a declining worker-to-beneficiary ratio, which will fall from 3.3 in 2005 to 2.1 in 2040

The SS safety net can be fixed by simply removing the income cap.

 

[Oldstyle]

Please provide links to these "studies".

The purpose of welfare is to reduce poverty because doing so is an effective way to reduce crime. The USA spends the least on welfare and has the lowest reduction in poverty amongst the western civilized nations.

Welfare's effect on poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Excluding the anecdotal noise of "generations" of people on welfare the objective of the programs to reduce the poverty level has been achieved. Had they been properly funded they would have had even better results.

Does it come as a surprise to you that giving people "free money" increases the amount of income they have subsequently lowering poverty levels? Sorry but that's one of the more laughable explanations I've ever heard as to why welfare is a good thing for the poor.

The concept behind the social security welfare program was to ensure that the elderly did not fall into poverty when they were no longer able to work for a living. The plan put in place by FDR has been one of the most successful in the entire world. That you readily admit to not understanding this fundamental concept explains why you are having such a difficult time in this debate.

The program that FDR put into place was to cover the elderly for the last few years of their lives. At the time Social Security was introduced the average life span of an American was 58 years for a man and 62 for a woman with the retirement age being 65. Social Security in modern day America is NOT "successful" because the numbers from back in 1930 are no longer in play in 2010. The people paying in for Social Security now will not match the massive number of Baby Boomers taking out of the system as they live many years longer than those folks did back in the 30's. That you choose not to address that as a problem explains why YOU are flailing badly in this debate.

Much of liberalism is based on premises that aren't workable in the real world. Social Security as it is currently constituted is one more of those.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Does it come as a surprise to you that giving people "free money" increases the amount of income they have subsequently lowering poverty levels? Sorry but that's one of the more laughable explanations I've ever heard as to why welfare is a good thing for the poor.

The concept behind the social security welfare program was to ensure that the elderly did not fall into poverty when they were no longer able to work for a living. The plan put in place by FDR has been one of the most successful in the entire world. That you readily admit to not understanding this fundamental concept explains why you are having such a difficult time in this debate.

The program that FDR put into place was to cover the elderly for the last few years of their lives. At the time Social Security was introduced the average life span of an American was 58 years for a man and 62 for a woman with the retirement age being 65. Social Security in modern day America is NOT "successful" because the numbers from back in 1930 are no longer in play in 2010. The people paying in for Social Security now will not match the massive number of Baby Boomers taking out of the system as they live many years longer than those folks did back in the 30's. That you choose not to address that as a problem explains why YOU are flailing badly in this debate.

Much of liberalism is based on premises that aren't workable in the real world. Social Security as it is currently constituted is one more of those.

Do you seriously believe that SS today is identical to what was enacted back in the 1930's and that no adjustments have been made to allow for longer lifespans?

Removing the income cap on SS payments would ensure that it is viable way beyond the lifespan of any Baby Boomer and their children and their grandchildren. Given that this would be a flat tax it should appeal to all conservatives. Why do you have a problem with fully funding a program that works properly? Why do you want to see the elderly spend their declining years in poverty?