.I'm sad and lying, but I have this neat Tattoo
Why Most Republicans Don’t Like Higher Education
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
Into the Night
Verified User
WRONG. Capitalism is freedom to create what you want, and to sell it for what you can get for it. It is the freedom to create new products and markets that never existed before. It is the freedom to create wealth. It requires no government to implement it. It is capitalism that brings civilization out of the jungle.
Into the Night
Verified User
All five of them?
Heh. There are considerably more than five. Remember, I live in Seattle. There's quite a few of them here, you know.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Part Multi 313,
You can say anything. Words are cheap. That doesn't make them true. I noticed you appear to believe that redistributing wealth is the same as destroying it. As if that wealth is never to be seen again.
Not true.
Actually, what happens when wealth is redistributed from the super-wealth and to the poor it's not like the poor just get this wealth and then sit on it as if that wealth vanished. No. The money is not thrown in a pile and lit on fire. It is not destroyed. Not at all.
Actually, what happens is nearly every cent of it is pretty much immediately spent on products and services offered by the wealthy. Why, what this represents is demand. It's business. It's customers for local businesses and also for big corporations. Every dollar cycled through the social programs to help the disadvantaged pretty much goes right back into circulation creating demand for businesses which then create jobs and hire. And they generate profits and pay taxes. It generates new revenue to help control the federal debt, which, by the way, under Republican policy is growing too rapidly.
A dollar spent on social programs is spent and respent at least six times, generating demand, jobs and revenue. Goes right into the active economy. It adds $6 to the GDP. That's a far cry better than letting it ride on some Wall Street investments which is all the rich are going to do with it.
You can say anything. Words are cheap. That doesn't make them true. I noticed you appear to believe that redistributing wealth is the same as destroying it. As if that wealth is never to be seen again.
Not true.
Actually, what happens when wealth is redistributed from the super-wealth and to the poor it's not like the poor just get this wealth and then sit on it as if that wealth vanished. No. The money is not thrown in a pile and lit on fire. It is not destroyed. Not at all.
Actually, what happens is nearly every cent of it is pretty much immediately spent on products and services offered by the wealthy. Why, what this represents is demand. It's business. It's customers for local businesses and also for big corporations. Every dollar cycled through the social programs to help the disadvantaged pretty much goes right back into circulation creating demand for businesses which then create jobs and hire. And they generate profits and pay taxes. It generates new revenue to help control the federal debt, which, by the way, under Republican policy is growing too rapidly.
A dollar spent on social programs is spent and respent at least six times, generating demand, jobs and revenue. Goes right into the active economy. It adds $6 to the GDP. That's a far cry better than letting it ride on some Wall Street investments which is all the rich are going to do with it.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
That shouldn't be happening either... Schools shouldn't be commie training centers; they should be privatized.
Completely anecdotal, but once I got to high school, it was clear as day which kids came from the city's public school and which kids came from the city's two private schools. The public school kids had never diagrammed sentences before, while I did that in like 5th grade already. They hadn't read To Kill A Mockingbird, while I did that in like 5th or 6th grade already. They didn't understand Algebra, while I had already done that throughout grade school... There's numerous other examples, but the point is that the public school kids were all LIGHT YEARS behind the private school kids in terms of education level...
Nothing being "minced"... It's disingenuous to call something "free" when it is anything BUT free...
Public College would be better (accurate) terminology. I'm fine with calling it that.
How is that "progress"?? Wouldn't that just be 'change'?? But yes, I think we now agree what is being proposed (K-16). That means increased taxes; increased burden for everyone, especially the poorer. I would, instead, propose more charitable donations, more grants, and etc... People willingly assisting in making education a bit more affordable, instead of compulsion through taxation.
Well, I didn't even calculate the cost; I just threw out a bunch of random numbers to convey an underlying point of increased burden on taxpayers.
What benefit?
They ARE, though...
Maybe... maybe not...
Because people are not equal. They do not have equal talents/abilities/intelligence/etc. etc... Many people could never be a CEO no matter how much education/training they receive...
No, it doesn't. Just being present at a university doesn't change someone's natural limitations with regards to intelligence/talent/ability/yadda yadda...
Calling it "free" when it is anything BUT free is quite sneaky if you ask me...
You know how much better off people would be financially if they could just pay for their own private schooling as they go along (and then be completely done with it) instead of having to pay for private schooling PLUS public schooling (for life through taxes)?? Schools would also learn how to make best/efficient use of the resources they do have instead of constantly increasing their spending to the max due to being publicly funded rather than user funded. Plus, once again, that would be an example of self-governance rather than compulsion...
Oh hell no... I'm not sure where you're getting that suspicion from, as I have repeatedly promoted self-governance over compulsion in our correspondence. If anyone, it would likely be Marxist Leftists who would attempt to do such a thing, given their tendency towards compulsion.
Again, I think there are better ways other than compulsion to achieve that goal.
Except for all the businesses started by smart people without college degrees, right?
Not sure how you are determining all of this to be the case...
Same if they DID have college degrees...
Not sure how college stops or even reduces people from being criminals; I'm not seeing the connection...
Sounds like cultural issues to me, rather than education issues... Maybe marriage should be a little more sacred, maybe the nuclear family unit should be a little more sacred, maybe responsible sexual activity should be a little more sacred?? ... ...
There's public education all over the place [at the K-12 level anyway], and it is producing lesser results than private schooling is producing...
Pascal's Wager Fallacy.
College courses do not prevent prisons...
Never asserted such a thing...
Nothing is being cut off... The people still exist, and there are other options besides compulsion to give those people access to education, such as grants and loans...
I do find the bolded language to be interesting though, because isn't that what legalized abortion has been doing for many decades now??
The Industrial Revolution started and occurred well before nationwide public education ever became a thing...
Agreed, which means Republicans are no more likely than Democrats to attend college for that reason. Your generalization about Republicans has nothing to support it but your bigoted opinion.
Then education is also property that somebody is stealing from somebody else. The teacher was kidnapped to work and stealing his knowledge to give to others.
Which society does not "kidnap" people to work?
Then you get the kind of mess you have now with charter schools, Pell Grants, and private for-profit colleges and to a large extent even state colleges.
You accept the tuition to get more students, offer a cheap education with easy classes and make a lot of money. There are now state universities and community colleges that attract thousands of online students by offering cheap, easy, and quick classes. In addition to the tuition states fund colleges based on the number of students and semester hours taught. About a third of these students get Pell Grants and keeping expenses low allows these students to finance their education without loans.
Students who want a good education might avoid these schools, but most do not seek to attend highly selective schools. I might avoid purchasing a car from you if the quality is not good, but an easy education is more attractive--"education is the only thing we pay for and hope we don't get our money's worth."
You might have seen recent stories about all the private for-profit colleges closing and leaving students who cannot transfer those credits or finish their education. They would not exist without federal Pell Grants and/or loans.
This is already happening and giving colleges money for free tuition would multiply the problem.
Well, I agree about Trump but those coal miners and laid off factory workers were no better off under any other president or party. If the Democrats didn't satisfy them why should they go back? And, 3.8% unemployment means there are not that many unemployed coal miners or factor workers--there are more job openings than unemployed people. This usually benefits the incumbent party.
At one point I thought any decent Democrat might be able to beat Trump, but now I'm not so sure. There are no candidates which are disliked like Hillary, but none are liked that much, either. It is much like the alternatives to Trump in the 2016 nomination contest--some acceptable candidates but few with charisma or that could rouse emotional support.
Of course, many will vote Democratic no matter who their candidate because they vote for the party, but I'm not sure if any of the Democrats can attract the swing voters, the 7% who voted 3rd party in 2016, or the weak Republicans. This is especially true after the Democratic candidates tear each other up during the primary and caucus season plus the Republicans are already attacking them.
All 5 of them?
Those in math, science, engineering, and business tend to be more Republican than those in other fields.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Everybody knows the real reason is they're cheap. They don't want to pay for anything.
They want America to be great, and they think we can build this great nation for free without having to pay any more taxes.
They want America to be great, and they think we can build this great nation for free without having to pay any more taxes.
Part Multi 313
Verified User
Anyone can use capitalism. Take China\Hong Kong for example. Billionaires make fortunes in Hong Kong without the oppressive liquidizers micromanaging their growth while the rest of their nation starves in olive drab. Is this making sense to you?
Part Multi 313
Verified User
Who's cheap?
All 5 of them?
Those in math, science, engineering, business and design tend to be more Republican than those in other fields. Yep, that's 5 of them, dickhead
You must know different scientists than I do.
Those in math, science, engineering, business and design tend to be more Republican than those in other fields. Yep, that's 5 of them, dickhead
That you know 5 scientists is shocking. Most people with a “certificate” don’t.
Most republicans simply can't see themselves flipping burgers at Micky Ds after spending 250K on a degree in Sociology. (they would rather get their fingernails dirty and use the 250K to start up a small business and find the American Dream ….. over 90% of all millionaires are self made. No stealing from the peoples coffers as a politician or nothing in order to find capitalistic wealth.
There is a great call for left wing nuts in our job market......especially those SJ warriors. But....on the bright side, one does have a great opportunity to greet and meet many citizens behind a cash register. How many trillions has Micky Ds served as of today?
The scientists you know are more liberal than those in sociology, English, political science, women's studies, history? I said compared to other fields and I do not base that on those I know but studies that have repeatedly found the same pattern.
"In recent years, concern has grown over what many people see as a left-of-center political bias at colleges and universities. A few months ago, Mitchell Langbert, an associate professor of business at Brooklyn College, published a study of the political affiliations of faculty members at 51 of the 66 liberal-arts colleges ranked highest by U.S. News in 2017. The findings are eye-popping (even if they do not come as a great surprise to many people in academia).
Democrats dominate most fields. In religion, Langbert’s survey found that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is 70 to 1. In music, it is 33 to 1. In biology, it is 21 to 1. In philosophy, history and psychology, it is 17 to 1. In political science, it is 8 to 1.
The gap is narrower in science and engineering. In physics, economics and mathematics, the ratio is about 6 to 1. In chemistry, it is 5 to 1, and in engineering, it is just 1.6 to 1. Still, Lambert found no field in which Republicans are more numerous than Democrats.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...tudents-colleges-universities-0925-story.html
You validated my claim and showed RB the liar that he is.