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

[Oldstyle]

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.

True, but still government run, and also true, people like me would be screaming that they were despicable. But that's the basic argument here, some people want to change things hopefully for the better and some want to keep them as they were 159 years ago. Others al would want America to pass laws to keep medical care the same for the next 159 years, to allow the future generations to decide what is best for them?
As conservatives discover every day it is difficult to keep things the same, change seems inevitable. Liberals want to direct the change, conservatives stop the change.
The arguments conservatives have against change are such arguments as: what we have now is the best, changes will destroy America, change is un-American, our founders did not want change, and so on. But America and the world keep changing the the poor-houses are gone and medical care will change, no matter.

Liberals want to "direct" the change? What does that mean? The real difference between liberals and conservatives is based on what their view of government's role is...it has ZERO to do with accepting change. Barack Obama's solution for everything is to have government become more involved. Healthcare costs out of control? Have government take over the healthcare industry! Conservatives on the other hand generally view government's role completely differently. They understand that big government is seldom efficient and having it "run" something almost never results in lower costs. ObamaCare is a massive new program that will add enormous costs to the Federal and State governments. For the average American however it won't lower the cost of their healthcare one iota nor make it better. It will in fact raise their healthcare costs and reduce the level of care they receive. That's why conservatives opposed it.

 

[Oldstyle]

And the Poor Farms ceased to exist because free enterprise and the industrial revolution created millions of jobs that put people to work. That change wasn't something orchestrated by the government or by liberals.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

you do know the life expectancy in the 40's was 62 years old thats why they had retirment age set at 65. today is like 72 years old. it was not set up for a retirment fund for all. just a few.


Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930?2010 | Infoplease.com

 

[regent]

And the Poor Farms ceased to exist because free enterprise and the industrial revolution created millions of jobs that put people to work. That change wasn't something orchestrated by the government or by liberals.

The industrial revolution created a new kind of treatment for the poor. In the old farming communities the poor were mostly neighbors and were taken care by the community. With the industrial revolution cities came on the scene and the poor were not always part of the community but now could be strangers. Strangers puts a different perspective on the poor. The old poor-neighbors now became outsiders so different explanations were called for, and lazy, drinks a lot, and won't work etc became part of those new explanations.
In any case, society has always had the poor the disabled and society has always had a number of reasons why the poor were poor. But whatever the current popular reasons or labels, the poor, as always, still seem to be with us, and probably will be for as long as people exist.

 

[editec]

And the Poor Farms ceased to exist because free enterprise and the industrial revolution created millions of jobs that put people to work. That change wasn't something orchestrated by the government or by liberals.

Actually it was orchestrated by liberals (Hamilton for starters) and the government.

Your belief that the economy and government are not inextricably linked is highly misinformed.

There is actually no way to completely separate how any economy works from how their governments works with (or against) it.

Even an afternoon's reading reading about this nations ECONOMIC HISTORY would be enough to convince anyone who is thinking clearly about the issue that that is true.

 

[kaz]

And the Poor Farms ceased to exist because free enterprise and the industrial revolution created millions of jobs that put people to work. That change wasn't something orchestrated by the government or by liberals.

Actually it was orchestrated by liberals (Hamilton for starters) and the government.

Your belief that the economy and government are not inextricably linked is highly misinformed.

There is actually no way to completely separate how any economy works from how their governments works with (or against) it.

Even an afternoon's reading reading about this nations ECONOMIC HISTORY would be enough to convince anyone who is thinking clearly about the issue that that is true.

Hamilton was a classic liberal, which has zero to do with how people who refer to themselves as liberals today use the word.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And the Poor Farms ceased to exist because free enterprise and the industrial revolution created millions of jobs that put people to work. That change wasn't something orchestrated by the government or by liberals.

Actually it was orchestrated by liberals (Hamilton for starters) and the government.

Your belief that the economy and government are not inextricably linked is highly misinformed.

There is actually no way to completely separate how any economy works from how their governments works with (or against) it.

Even an afternoon's reading reading about this nations ECONOMIC HISTORY would be enough to convince anyone who is thinking clearly about the issue that that is true.

Hamilton was a classic liberal, which has zero to do with how people who refer to themselves as liberals today use the word.

thanxs for the post. yea I read the books about him he was a classic liberal, along the lines of JFK nothing like the liberals of today.

 

[Truthmatters]

right wing delusion

 

[Wyatt earp]

whats the matter truth matters? thats the truth why cant you liberals of today see that?

 

[kaz]

whats the matter truth matters? thats the truth why cant you liberals of today see that?

truth matters is learning that the truth hurts...

 

[Wyatt earp]

hell I would be a democrat if they were like JFK and Hamilton.

 

[Oldstyle]

And the Poor Farms ceased to exist because free enterprise and the industrial revolution created millions of jobs that put people to work. That change wasn't something orchestrated by the government or by liberals.

Actually it was orchestrated by liberals (Hamilton for starters) and the government.

Your belief that the economy and government are not inextricably linked is highly misinformed.

There is actually no way to completely separate how any economy works from how their governments works with (or against) it.

Even an afternoon's reading reading about this nations ECONOMIC HISTORY would be enough to convince anyone who is thinking clearly about the issue that that is true.

Where did you arrive at the conclusion that I don't think governments influence economies? Nothing could be further from the truth. My point is that government DOES influence the economy and that bad legislation inevitably leads to bad economic results.

As for your claim that the Industrial Revolution was orchestrated by Hamilton and the government? I'd suggest you go back and do a bit more reading about economic history.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Well, if you're lazy and dumb to do the research yourself, I guess I'll explain it to you.

Liberalism wants to LIMIT the extremes of wealth and poverty. Socialism wants to ELIMINATE the extremes of wealth and poverty. Considering the rich are only getting richer, and the middle class is shrinking, we need liberal policies. That's right. (Small) government influence. See my signature for the facts on the wealth in this country.

Here is another important distinction. Modern day socialism rejects the idea of capitalism. Liberalism does not. Liberals do not want to change our economic system. However, the idea of corporate America having unchecked power is a scary thought. We need laws to LIMIT their power.

Congratulations, you just proved the premise that modern liberalism is socialism.

Liberalism is about the freedom of the individual to reach his potential, even if that means that he gets richer than Midas. The only time a liberal has a problem with wealth is if the person who gets wealthy does it by oppressing and/or stealing because liberalism recognizes that wealth is not a finite resource, and that it is a lot more beneficial for everyone of the government allows people to earn, and keep, their own money than if they try to make the outcome more equal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your article doesnt say much. Religion is key in this issue. Liberals tend to be secular. That is why they give less to charity. However, religious liberals, on average, give just as much as religious conservatives do. Who out of all is the most stingy? SECULAR CONSERVATIVES.

This isn't me talking. Your article made all of the above clear.

Your article also makes it clear that conservatives favor cutting social justice programs. What does that say about them?

This is why you think you are smart, isn't it? You think that anyone who believes in something you cannot see is mentally deficient, yet you take the existence of sub atomic particles on faith.

Liberals actually do not tend to be secular, socialists do. Socialists give less to charity because they believe that the government should replace charity. Back in the 1960s liberals actually fought against government programs designed to help people, they believed that these programs should be left to local charities who have more freedom to improvise and react, and could even make decisions to help in cases where people do not normally qualify for assistance. It also explains why liberals still work for charities, even if they could get a better job in the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have such a narrow view of people don't you? You assume because I am liberal, that automatically means I have something against religious people. I don't. I have nothing against the rich either. You need to see through stereotypes if you are to have an informed opinion on an ideology.

Why would liberals not want to pay taxes if the policies they push for would affect them?

I see that because you are socialist who is so stupid he thinks he is a liberal. You just argued that you think wealth should be limited, and that religion is a problem, and now you want us to believe that you don't have a problem with either.

Why does Obama want to limit tax breaks charity deductions when every charity organization in the country is worried that it will affect their fund raising? Could it be because he has a fundamental problem with charities because, despite your own ignorance, he is no more liberal than you are? The major difference between the two of you is that he actually understands what he is doing, you just lack the knowledge and skills you need to draw proper conclusions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your first point applies to both conservatives and liberals on the political spectrum. There are moderates and extremists. They can't agree about which laws are appropriate. You can't expect all liberals to have consistency if conservatives don't either.

Your second point is a complete contradiction. How could liberals reject all of the principles of capitalism when they say they don't reject capitalism itself? That doesn't make any sense.

billy that's bs, liberals have NO, nada, ZERO consistancy.......none at all.....shall I keep going?
They can say they like capitalism while passing every law, regulation to destroy it.....faking isnt that hard, and some people buy it (ahem, liberal drones do)

Regulations are necessary. Do you know who has publically stated that regulations are necessary? Self made business man and republican Mitt Romney. This wasnt during his liberal days. He said this at a debate during the primaries.

If regulations are necessary you should be able to make an argument for them without resorting to an appeal to authority. The fact that you choose to resort to logical fallacies instead of making a real argument tells me that you really don't understand why regulations are necessary.

If you really want to learn you should do some research into how government regulations limit liability, and how this actually discourages businesses from implementing new technology.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ever spend a great deal of time within a 'higher education' institution without actually going to school there?? Look outwards, especially since you don't have to worry about taking classes and getting grades. Higher education facilities are A CLOSED SYSTEM where many ideas and ideals are bounced off the walls within that particular institution, and they reinforce the same ideas from the same individuals, especially since they have to "publish or perish." Anyone that stays there for a long period of time assimilates to the Same Thinking of their colleagues and there is not much influx of other lines of thinking. The professors publish and research their own biases over & over, publish even more (they have to or they don't get tenure), and dig in deep. I'm speaking of the Social Sciences mostly; science and technology are different.

That is such bullshit. What exactly gives you this insight? How would you know about the psychology of students and professors? The only way you would know such a thing is if it was published in a social science study! Otherwise, you are making guesses. Social science studies go through the same rigorous process like any hard science study. The pursuit of objectivity is just as important. There is no bias. I will admit that the conclusions in social science studies are less concrete than studies of hard science, but peer reviewed studies are peer reviewed studies. Bias is impossible if a study is peer reviewed.

That would depend on the peers not being biased, wouldn't it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

True, but still government run, and also true, people like me would be screaming that they were despicable. But that's the basic argument here, some people want to change things hopefully for the better and some want to keep them as they were 159 years ago. Others al would want America to pass laws to keep medical care the same for the next 159 years, to allow the future generations to decide what is best for them?
As conservatives discover every day it is difficult to keep things the same, change seems inevitable. Liberals want to direct the change, conservatives stop the change.
The arguments conservatives have against change are such arguments as: what we have now is the best, changes will destroy America, change is un-American, our founders did not want change, and so on. But America and the world keep changing the the poor-houses are gone and medical care will change, no matter.

The really intelligent people not only understand that change is inevitable, they also understand that progress is unpredictable. They understand the fundamental fact that, because no one can actually see the future, that the idea of guiding change is absurd.

 

[bripat9643]

And the Poor Farms ceased to exist because free enterprise and the industrial revolution created millions of jobs that put people to work. That change wasn't something orchestrated by the government or by liberals.

Actually it was orchestrated by liberals (Hamilton for starters) and the government.

Hamilton orchestrated the industrial revolution?

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Of all the Founding Fathers, Hamilton was the closest to being a servile, totalitarian, big government loving toady.

Your belief that the economy and government are not inextricably linked is highly misinformed.

The are linked, like a tick to a cow's groin, but not inextricably.

There is actually no way to completely separate how any economy works from how their governments works with (or against) it.

Sure there is. Such an economy is called "the free market."

 

[regent]

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.

True, but still government run, and also true, people like me would be screaming that they were despicable. But that's the basic argument here, some people want to change things hopefully for the better and some want to keep them as they were 159 years ago. Others al would want America to pass laws to keep medical care the same for the next 159 years, to allow the future generations to decide what is best for them?
As conservatives discover every day it is difficult to keep things the same, change seems inevitable. Liberals want to direct the change, conservatives stop the change.
The arguments conservatives have against change are such arguments as: what we have now is the best, changes will destroy America, change is un-American, our founders did not want change, and so on. But America and the world keep changing the the poor-houses are gone and medical care will change, no matter.

The really intelligent people not only understand that change is inevitable, they also understand that progress is unpredictable. They understand the fundamental fact that, because no one can actually see the future, that the idea of guiding change is absurd.

Most of us base our lives on predictability, perhaps progress and that we have some control over guiding change in our lives, and so do governments.