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

[Derideo_Te]

Where does free market capitalism without regulation exist?

Deregulation does not equate to zero regulation.

Less state interference in the economy in every sense is a good thing. The exact opposite has occurred in the United States. The federal regulations have been added every year since FDR assumed the presidency. There has been no "deregulation".

Care to explain those drops in your chart?

Did you happen to notice how each of those drops occurs prior to a subsequent economic crisis?

Can you explain why deregulation is a Republican priority?

https://www.google.com/search?q=republican+deregulation&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS438US513&aq=f&oq=republican+deregulation&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3j62l2.6281j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[Derideo_Te]

Less state interference in the economy in every sense is a good thing. The exact opposite has occurred in the United States. The federal regulations have been added every year since FDR assumed the presidency. There has been no "deregulation".

Care to explain those drops in your chart?

Did you happen to notice how each of those drops occurs prior to a subsequent economic crisis?

Can you explain why deregulation is a Republican priority?

https://www.google.com/search?q=republican+deregulation&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS438US513&aq=f&oq=republican+deregulation&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3j62l2.6281j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The drops in the chart are a drop" in regulations" added not a decrease in "regulations".

In the most recent recessions(2000 and 2008), according the chart, the amount of "regulations" increased. Now I am not saying an increase in "regulations" caused the crisis, but to say deregulation, or a decrease in "regulations" caused the crisis is simply false.

Why not add a link to your source so that your chart can be read in context rather than just having to take your word for what it means?

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

There we go again...

Whenever someone points out that the current system isn't going to remain solvent...progressives immediately call for more taxes to prop up said system...and if you're not for that then you hate children, grandma and America.

Just once I'd like to see a liberal on this board who DIDN'T propose an additional tax as the "solution" to what ails this country...

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Then make that distinction, rather than simply asserting that it exists and expecting that anyone is going to take your word for it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Please provide credible independent nonpartisan verification for that statement.

If I make a claim which is qualitative, disputed or hard to verify, then I think this is a perfectly reasonable request. However, for basic facts, not. The most liberal economist does not dispute that layoffs and unemployment go up for every minimum wage increase. "independent" isn't required.

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

$9 minimum wage: Jump start or job killer?- MSN Money

But New York's governor has already proposed a minimum-wage raise in his state, and some business leaders there approve.

"Raising the minimum wage will put more money in the pockets of workers who most need to spend those dollars," Darius Ross, managing partner of D Alexander Ross Real Estate Capital Partners and a member of Business for a Fair Minimum Wage, wrote in an op-ed piece on StarGazette.com.

"It will boost consumer spending at local businesses across the state. And nothing drives business owners like me to hire additional workers more than increased consumer demand."

Ross also cited data from the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, which says a proposed minimum wage increase would benefit 21 million U.S. workers and increase wages $22 billion by 2015.

Paul Krugman: Raising The Minimum Wage Is 'Good Policy'

Increasing the minimum wage is "actually good policy," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote in a blog post on Saturday.

President Obama proposed raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 an hour during his State of the Union address last week. While many on the right say that raising the minimum wage could make it more difficult for employers to hire people and therefore cause higher unemployment, Krugman argued in his post that this simply is not the case.

"There just isn’t any evidence that raising the minimum wage near current levels would reduce employment," Krugman wrote, citing a report by John Schmitt from the Center for Economic Policy and Research.

The federal minimum wage hasn't increased since 2009. According to a 2012 study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the minimum wage would actually be $21.72 an hour if it kept pace with increases in worker productivity.

The same CEPR study found that if the minimum wage kept up with inflation since it peaked in real value in 1968, it would now be $10.52 per hour.

Even if the U.S. raised the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour, the nation would still have a lower minimum wage than many countries around the world.

You cited Paul Krugman as a source. Your argument - not to mention your entire existence - is invalid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

First Paul Krugman, now Wikipedia. Are you TRYING to prove that conservatives are correct about liberals being a bunch of ignoramuses who need tenured ivory towers just to exist because their brain stems can barely handle the complications of "breathe in, breathe out"?

 

[regent]

This nation has had welfare programs since it began and will continue to have welfare programs. That welfare money goes back into the economy almost immediately and isn't sent to the Cayman islands for safekeeping.

 

[Oldstyle]

This nation has had welfare programs since it began and will continue to have welfare programs. That welfare money goes back into the economy almost immediately and isn't sent to the Cayman islands for safekeeping.

If the Founding Fathers had been put in a time machine and brought forward to 2013 they wouldn't even recognize what this country has become. Welfare as we know it didn't exist until 1935...one hundred and fifty nine years after this country began.

 

[Wicked Jester]

This nation has had welfare programs since it began and will continue to have welfare programs. That welfare money goes back into the economy almost immediately and isn't sent to the Cayman islands for safekeeping.

Uh, excuse me, but, haven't you heard that much of it goes to Casino's and Strip Clubs, or is fraudulently used to access cash from fraudulent store owners who pay pennies on the dollar?

It's a broken system, over run by fraud, as are most systems that are run by your beloved government assholes....And, throwing more money at it is not going to do a damn thing to fix it...Much like our failing public school system.

And, this country has NOT had welfare programs since it began.....Educate yourself, and learn a lil' about this nations history.

 

[whitehall]

I always wondered why Carter pardoned all those left wing traitors who renounced their citizenship during the Vietnam war and I wonder why the left defends racist killers like (professor) Kathy Boudin and unrepentant domestic terrorist bombers like professor Ayers and Dohrn. Maybe there is a connection.

 

[bripat9643]

This nation has had welfare programs since it began and will continue to have welfare programs. That welfare money goes back into the economy almost immediately and isn't sent to the Cayman islands for safekeeping.

wrong, wrong and wrong.

 

[kaz]

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

OK, let's test your critical mind.

Let's start with step 1. Someone is working for $7.25 an hour. That means they were offered $7.25 an hour by a business, and they accepted. They took the offer. They show up and work for $7.25 an hour. But no, you from the sky magically know they are worth $9 an hour. Why were they so stupid as to take a job for $7.25 an hour when they were worth $9 an hour? Ironic you say I don't respect them when you're coming in and saying no, sure, they accepted the wage, but based on your superior knowledge, the business must pay them more or shit can them. Wow, the arrogance, how do you get your head through doorways?

 

[kaz]

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

Nice dodge there. Let's go back to the question. Obama said you can't support a family with two kids on $7.25 an hour. Why would a high schooler on their first job need a wage to support two kids? Why would a business pay a high schooler on their first job a wage that would support two kids? Do you know what you're doing to inner city kids? Teen unemployment is about 50%. Nice job there. A black 16 year old can't get a job because you and Obama say he needs to earn a wage to support two kids. The inner city businesses can't pay that, so they don't hire the kids. And that makes you proud?

 

[kaz]

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.

Fair point on liberalism versus socialism. I was really referring to this country. The people who call themselves liberals are almost entirely socialist. But I agree actually that they really aren't liberal, they are just socialist because there is little liberal about socialism. Liberalism is about caring about other people. If liberals practiced that in this country, we'd all be a lot better off.

 

[kaz]

If I make a claim which is qualitative, disputed or hard to verify, then I think this is a perfectly reasonable request. However, for basic facts, not. The most liberal economist does not dispute that layoffs and unemployment go up for every minimum wage increase. "independent" isn't required.

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

$9 minimum wage: Jump start or job killer?- MSN Money



Paul Krugman: Raising The Minimum Wage Is 'Good Policy'

Increasing the minimum wage is "actually good policy," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote in a blog post on Saturday.

President Obama proposed raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 an hour during his State of the Union address last week. While many on the right say that raising the minimum wage could make it more difficult for employers to hire people and therefore cause higher unemployment, Krugman argued in his post that this simply is not the case.

"There just isn’t any evidence that raising the minimum wage near current levels would reduce employment," Krugman wrote, citing a report by John Schmitt from the Center for Economic Policy and Research.

The federal minimum wage hasn't increased since 2009. According to a 2012 study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the minimum wage would actually be $21.72 an hour if it kept pace with increases in worker productivity.

The same CEPR study found that if the minimum wage kept up with inflation since it peaked in real value in 1968, it would now be $10.52 per hour.

Even if the U.S. raised the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour, the nation would still have a lower minimum wage than many countries around the world.

You cited Paul Krugman as a source. Your argument - not to mention your entire existence - is invalid.

You don't think a liberal blogger is a good source? Hmm...I think you might be right...

 

[regent]

This nation has had welfare programs since it began and will continue to have welfare programs. That welfare money goes back into the economy almost immediately and isn't sent to the Cayman islands for safekeeping.

Uh, excuse me, but, haven't you heard that much of it goes to Casino's and Strip Clubs, or is fraudulently used to access cash from fraudulent store owners who pay pennies on the dollar?

It's a broken system, over run by fraud, as are most systems that are run by your beloved government assholes....And, throwing more money at it is not going to do a damn thing to fix it...Much like our failing public school system.

And, this country has NOT had welfare programs since it began.....Educate yourself, and learn a lil' about this nations history.

Welfare was a state responsibility until the Great Depression and when states discovered they could no longer finance the programs, the national government then took over the welfare systems. If educating ourselves is the goal you might check out who is responsible for today's welfare system. The rest of your post is opinion.

 

[regent]

This nation has had welfare programs since it began and will continue to have welfare programs. That welfare money goes back into the economy almost immediately and isn't sent to the Cayman islands for safekeeping.

If the Founding Fathers had been put in a time machine and brought forward to 2013 they wouldn't even recognize what this country has become. Welfare as we know it didn't exist until 1935...one hundred and fifty nine years after this country began.

The founders were well aware of nation's changing, had they not just created a new independent nation, and then in 1787 they even changed that new nation's government with a newer one. In the process of creating that new nation's government had even made arrangements for the new nation's government to changed even further.
Welfare began with the new nation, ever hear of county poor farms?
Do you think there will be changes to this nation in the next 159 years that many of us would not recognize?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If there's a difference, then you should be able to explain it. It appears you decline to do so.

 

[bripat9643]

The founders were well aware of nation's changing, had they not just created a new independent nation, and then in 1787 they even changed that new nation's government with a newer one. In the process of creating that new nation's government had even made arrangements for the new nation's government to changed even further.
Welfare began with the new nation, ever hear of county poor farms?
Do you think there will be changes to this nation in the next 159 years that many of us would not recognize?

county poor farms were run by the county, not the federal government. If they existed today people like you would be screaming that they were despicable.

 

[P@triot]

Lets see, jobs, bennefits, you know free market capitalism....let me guess you think the min wage is a good idea and that helps workers, right?

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?

Created??? No, seriously now - created?!?

Just curious - how does one "create" millions of jobs when unemployment stood in the 7% range at the time he took office and it has never gone below 8% after he took office?