On February 25 2012 04:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: -.-
DETROIT--In what his campaign billed as a major economic speech, Mitt Romney sought to boost his conservative credentials by pledging "more jobs, less debt and smaller government" if he is elected president.
Criticizing President Barack Obama's handling of the economy, Romney said in a speech delivered from the 30-yard line of Ford Field, the home of the NFL's Detroit Lions, that he is "offering more than just a change in policy" from the current administration.
"I am offering a dramatic change in perspective and philosophy," Romney said.
The speech largely summarized and reiterated the economic message that Romney has put forward during his presidential campaign. He proposed cutting individual marginal income tax rates by 20 percent; reducing the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, from 35 percent; eliminating capital gains taxes for people with incomes below $200,000; abolishing the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax; indexing the eligibility age for Medicare to longevity; allowing private insurers to compete with Medicare; eliminating the Affordable Care Act, Obama's health care law; and reducing federal spending to 20 percent of the national economy by making "hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts," including to programs like Amtrak and Planned Parenthood.
Romney received an instant avalanche of criticism on Twitter after the speech for saying of his wife's affection for American cars, "Ann drives a couple Cadillacs, actually." (A Cadillac SRX, a campaign spokesman later confirmed. She has one at their home in California and another in Massachusetts. Mitt, for his part, owns a Ford Mustang and a Ford truck.)
When you try to act like a Middle Class Candidate it doesn't help to say your wife owns a couple of luxury cars. Also doesn't help that you wrote a piece saying let the Car companies go bankrupt while supporting the Bank Bailouts. All in Michigan no less.
I don't know, I think owning multiple cars just shows that you're successful, I don't know why it should count against you. Yea the whole identifying with the struggles of the middle-class thing is bullcrap but I don't know why anyone would actually believe that stuff anyway.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Intellectuals criticize the state all the time. What magical world do you live in?
Yes, intellectuals criticize the state. But they also justify it. They preach statism. And in exchange they share in the plunder. The reality is the state is nothing more than a vast criminal conspiracy. It is at war with society. And in return for promoting statism ivory tower intellectuals enjoy a very luxurious existence. How many hours a week does your typical university professor teach for? How much money does the government give universities every year? To say nothing of the fact that the entire system of college subsidies is just another transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Really I don't see how anyone can suggest that the system of wealth redistribution is moral... it's nothing short of theft, we are all constantly robbing each other imaging that we can get everyone else to pay for everything. But there's no free lunch and the result of such a system is economic chaos.
Ah so you live in a magical world completely separate from reality. Thank you for the clarification.
On February 25 2012 03:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: i decided i might shed some light on the rationale behind the "colleges are secularizing/liberalizing" argument made by many conservatives/republicans. please keep in mind that i am not trying to prove the argument as valid nor am i going to give my own position on it. i am simply trying to explain the rationale. feel free to disagree with it, but try to understand it.
it goes as such:
the fact is that most college professors are liberal/atheistic. whatever the reasons for this are, be it higher intelligence, more knowledge, whatever... it is a fact that they are indeed more liberal/atheistic than the general population. it is also a fact that the longer a student spends in the american collegiate system, the more likely they are to be atheistic/agnostic and liberal (there are some exceptions, but in general this is true).
now, and keep in mind that i am not condemning or casting judgement. in my own experience, and it seems to be a common experience: many college professors will try to push these points of view. you might say "well, those points of view are correct"; and that is certainly a valid argument to make, i am not trying to say that they aren't. but the fact is that one point of view is much more prevelant in the collegiate system and that point of view is often pushed as the valid and correct point of view.
so conservatives see this as a concerted effort by the professors and schools to promote their own point of view at the expense of the students. are conservatives correct? i don't know and i won't try to guess. imo dwelling on the motivations of people is not exactly constructive, and also, imo it doesn't really matter. one side argues that they are, the other argues that they aren't. at the end of the day it's not going to change anything. it is a fact that the general population is far more religious than the majority of academia. it is also a fact that the general population is far more conservative than academia. there could be hundreds of reasons for this, but the fact remains. that is why many conservatives lash out at schools, especially colleges. they see colleges as institutions of liberal/atheistic ideology, rather than institutions of education. it is not so much that they are anti-intellectual, as they are fighting against a percieved form of discrimination by intellectuals. i hope that helps illuminate the position that many conservatives, including Santorum, take.
i think both sides could do with a little more understanding and patience. it's hard though, because the two sides of the argument are often very opposed on fundamental ideas of reality and theology.
edit: regarding a reply, i think i should ellaborate more on this comment:
"in my own experience, and it seems to be a common experience: many college professors will try to push these points of view."
most of the times it is a very appropriate time, and in a very appropriate manner. i agree that i have never had the POV of religion pushed in any class where religion was not a part of the class discussion.
This rest on three assumptions.
1) That most professors are liberal. 2) That most professors are atheist. 3) That most professors try to push their viewpoints on their students.
One and two may be true, but you actually need some evidence to back that up. Three is pretty much a bold-faced lie spewed by Republicans that are just upset that more education tends to make people lean away from conservative viewpoints. If you go to any respectable institution, you shouldn't ever actually experience "indoctrination" on any sort. And no, questioning someone's beliefs so that they actually think about them and justify them does not count as "indoctrination". That's what college is for. Furthermore, this issue very rarely comes in in a classroom. The only place it would come up is in a social science/philosophy/theology class unless you are completely off-topic. Maybe a history course.
And what? Intellectuals shield the government from criticism? Intellectuals are the loudest group in criticizing everything. Now you're just throwing out blatant lies.
I don't think you understand how ideas work. You can't unhear something. Most learning is unconscious. Sublingual. A professor feels a certain way, his students grow to feel that certain way.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Intellectuals criticize the state all the time. What magical world do you live in?
Yes, intellectuals criticize the state. But they also justify it. They preach statism. And in exchange they share in the plunder. The reality is the state is nothing more than a vast criminal conspiracy. It is at war with society. And in return for promoting statism ivory tower intellectuals enjoy a very luxurious existence. How many hours a week does your typical university professor teach for? How much money does the government give universities every year? To say nothing of the fact that the entire system of college subsidies is just another transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Really I don't see how anyone can suggest that the system of wealth redistribution is moral... it's nothing short of theft, we are all constantly robbing each other imaging that we can get everyone else to pay for everything. But there's no free lunch and the result of such a system is economic chaos.
No.
Stop.
Stop.
Just stop.
You have demonstrated a gross ignorance of the life of a professor and what you've said is just insulting. If professors count the time that they dedicate to grading, working outside of class with students, and their scholarly research (which is all, by definition, a part of their job), they work more hours than the majority of vocations in this country. Furthermore, professors do not have a luxurious existence by any means. They make very mediocre pay once they obtain tenure and full professor status (which takes several years to do) that lands them in the middle class -
Rank Lowest median Highest median Overall median Assistant Professor $45,927 $81,005 $58,662 Associate Professor $56,943 $98,530 $69,911 Full Professor $68,214 $136,634 $98,974
That is not "luxurious living". Is it comfortable? Yes, professors usually don't have to be sitting there in fear for most of their lives over financial issues, but that doesn't automatically equate to comfortable. Most professors that live "luxuriously" actually do so because they work multiple jobs - I've met a number of professors that work three jobs, including being a professor. Furthermore, lumping intellectuals together like this is stupid. Intellectuals span the entire spectrum of political, religious, philisophical, and moral thought. There are intellectuals that preach every angle, so your entire argument is a gross misrepresentation of intellectuals and has no real merit because of this.
On February 25 2012 04:53 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: I don't think you understand how ideas work. You can't unhear something. Most learning is unconscious. Sublingual. A professor feels a certain way, his students grow to feel that certain way.
Even if that were true, you don't think the years of learning different subject extensivly counteracts any possible liberal indoctrination? How anyone with a straight face can claim having people go to university is bad for a country is beyond me. It lacks common sense.
On February 25 2012 04:53 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: I don't think you understand how ideas work. You can't unhear something. Most learning is unconscious. Sublingual. A professor feels a certain way, his students grow to feel that certain way.
That is just ridiculous and you are just spewing nonsense now. So just because my history professor is a liberal feminist, even if she never mentions that once in the class I'm taking with her this semester, all of the students are going to just soak that up like a sponge and automatically become liberal feminists?
On February 25 2012 04:53 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: I don't think you understand how ideas work. You can't unhear something. Most learning is unconscious. Sublingual. A professor feels a certain way, his students grow to feel that certain way.
That is just ridiculous and you are just spewing nonsense now. So just because my history professor is a liberal feminist, even if she never mentions that once in the class I'm taking with her this semester, all of the students are going to just soak that up like a sponge and automatically become liberal feminists?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
No, don't you get it? You already agree with him. The idea has already been planted! Most learning is unconscious, which why it's so easy to fall asleep in class.
That is just ridiculous and you are just spewing nonsense now. So just because my history professor is a liberal feminist, even if she never mentions that once in the class I'm taking with her this semester, all of the students are going to just soak that up like a sponge and automatically become liberal feminists?
Yes that does sound ridiculous. Just because I think some people like the colour blue doesn't mean I think everyone likes the colour blue.
On February 25 2012 03:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: i decided i might shed some light on the rationale behind the "colleges are secularizing/liberalizing" argument made by many conservatives/republicans. please keep in mind that i am not trying to prove the argument as valid nor am i going to give my own position on it. i am simply trying to explain the rationale. feel free to disagree with it, but try to understand it.
it goes as such:
the fact is that most college professors are liberal/atheistic. whatever the reasons for this are, be it higher intelligence, more knowledge, whatever... it is a fact that they are indeed more liberal/atheistic than the general population. it is also a fact that the longer a student spends in the american collegiate system, the more likely they are to be atheistic/agnostic and liberal (there are some exceptions, but in general this is true).
now, and keep in mind that i am not condemning or casting judgement. in my own experience, and it seems to be a common experience: many college professors will try to push these points of view. you might say "well, those points of view are correct"; and that is certainly a valid argument to make, i am not trying to say that they aren't. but the fact is that one point of view is much more prevelant in the collegiate system and that point of view is often pushed as the valid and correct point of view.
so conservatives see this as a concerted effort by the professors and schools to promote their own point of view at the expense of the students. are conservatives correct? i don't know and i won't try to guess. imo dwelling on the motivations of people is not exactly constructive, and also, imo it doesn't really matter. one side argues that they are, the other argues that they aren't. at the end of the day it's not going to change anything. it is a fact that the general population is far more religious than the majority of academia. it is also a fact that the general population is far more conservative than academia. there could be hundreds of reasons for this, but the fact remains. that is why many conservatives lash out at schools, especially colleges. they see colleges as institutions of liberal/atheistic ideology, rather than institutions of education. it is not so much that they are anti-intellectual, as they are fighting against a percieved form of discrimination by intellectuals. i hope that helps illuminate the position that many conservatives, including Santorum, take.
i think both sides could do with a little more understanding and patience. it's hard though, because the two sides of the argument are often very opposed on fundamental ideas of reality and theology.
edit: regarding a reply, i think i should ellaborate more on this comment:
"in my own experience, and it seems to be a common experience: many college professors will try to push these points of view."
most of the times it is a very appropriate time, and in a very appropriate manner. i agree that i have never had the POV of religion pushed in any class where religion was not a part of the class discussion.
This rest on three assumptions.
1) That most professors are liberal. 2) That most professors are atheist. 3) That most professors try to push their viewpoints on their students.
One and two may be true, but you actually need some evidence to back that up.
it is a well known and documented fact that the prevalance of atheism and liberalism is much higher in academia than in the general population.
Three is pretty much a bold-faced lie spewed by Republicans that are just upset that more education tends to make people lean away from conservative viewpoints. If you go to any respectable institution, you shouldn't ever actually experience "indoctrination" on any sort.
i don't think i have ever heard anyone make the claim that most professors push a liberal and atheist point of view. i have personally experienced some professors pushing it, but by no means most. i don't think the fact of a majority or minority is all that relevant to the argument though. and some indoctrination is absolutely necessary and good in education. i believe you mean "brainwashing". again, i don't know anyone who makes the claim that there is mass brainwashing going on in colleges.
And what? Intellectuals shield the government from criticism? Intellectuals are the loudest group in criticizing everything. Now you're just throwing out blatant lies
i said nothing of the sort.
edit: ahh, i see now. you were conflating my opinions with that of the the other guy. please don't. i do not agree with him. i was mostly playing devils advocate with my post.
Even if that were true, you don't think the years of learning different subject extensivly counteracts any possible liberal indoctrination? How anyone with a straight face can claim having people go to university is bad for a country is beyond me. It lacks common sense.
I don't claim 'liberal' indoctrination. Certainly not if you actually take a look at the word and it's origin. It's only recently that it's meaning has degraded. But I digress. Maybe you are right and my argument is invalid. On the other hand, Walter Williams not so long ago wrote an article on this very subject. It's entitled 'Too Much Higher Education' http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams98.1.html
I have no idea what you're talking about. Intellectuals criticize the state all the time. What magical world do you live in?
Yes, intellectuals criticize the state. But they also justify it. They preach statism. And in exchange they share in the plunder. The reality is the state is nothing more than a vast criminal conspiracy. It is at war with society. And in return for promoting statism ivory tower intellectuals enjoy a very luxurious existence. How many hours a week does your typical university professor teach for? How much money does the government give universities every year? To say nothing of the fact that the entire system of college subsidies is just another transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Really I don't see how anyone can suggest that the system of wealth redistribution is moral... it's nothing short of theft, we are all constantly robbing each other imaging that we can get everyone else to pay for everything. But there's no free lunch and the result of such a system is economic chaos.
This post is coming from the left! Now, I don't know where you stand, but you're probably some breed of libertarian or anarchist - anyway it seems like it because of your hatred of "statism".
Truly you're no different than those people who complain about taxes and then talk about how their mom was a hero for raising 3 children on a welfare check. It's ironic in both cases, but most of them, although they don't understand what's going on, do understand that the State actually has a tendency to help the poor.
Strangely, you seem to have a twisted view of it in which the State always favors the rich, which may have some credibility in the United States where a tiny minority controls the majority of the money, but you have to be blind not to see that you live in a country which still supports the poor to such an extent that even the dumbest of dumbasses can get a minimum-wage job which is enough for you to be a freaking aristocrat if you were to be compared to well over half the people living on this planet.
And guess what: even though there are rich people who benefit from this arguably a lot more than you do (and too much), what the State did is that it created an framework which allows everyone to have a fighting chance, even though they wouldn't in a more "free for all world". Local fast food chains hires people with downs syndrome - but they don't do it from the goodness of their heart, there probably are government incentives and whatnot.
Without the State, it's truly survival of the fittest, but in a world with currencies and credit, who do you think is the fittest? Honestly, it's the rich.
To a certain extent, and not without fail, the State takes this "free for all" world which is disorganized and filled with selfish people, and tries to organize in such a way that there a certain "synergy" between the rich and the poor. The entrepreneurs need to have some money to expand their business and the people need to have money so they can buy stuff from the entrepreneurs. Leave it to they rich people, and the "commoner" will be drained dry by the big corps. That's why there are regulations to protect the people.
Obviously the whole thing is super imperfect. There's corruption and huge administrative costs which are sometimes way more inefficient than they should be. Still, what do you have to offer? Assumptions that things could be better? Convince me, but generally the arguments are moral and ideological, they don't have real world application, and while the thoughts are nice, sometimes you can't have it both ways. Fair and rough or unfair but decent for everyone.
On February 25 2012 04:53 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: I don't think you understand how ideas work. You can't unhear something. Most learning is unconscious. Sublingual. A professor feels a certain way, his students grow to feel that certain way.
I do not believe that it is a question of "sublingual" signals causing political preferences. I know that there is always emotional manipulation involved in propaganda, but I would at least like to pretend that this way of communicating is not reflected to any significant degree in textbook-science. Regardless: It sounds more like an idea of any authority being bad and though I am somewhat accepting the particular anarchistic ideology, I still do not see any advantage to removing all right-given authority.
If your religious convictions are so weak that a few years in college can change them, then that says something doesn't it?
I go to a pretty liberal university. There are literally dozens of Christian fellowship groups, as well as a multitude of other religious organizations. If you care about your faith, you can hold onto it pretty easily. It comes out pretty quick if you're religious and super morally upright yourself, or your parents just made you go to church and didn't let you go to parties.
The problem I see with college is that many of those who DO go see it as an entitlement-- well-to-do kids (and some not so well-to-do kids) go to goof off for four years, get some sort of degree, and then continue with life. Not to diss any profession or major too much, but there are too many who people major in something that is not really useful-- art history, women's studies, etc. Again, apologies for insulting those majors. We need more kids learning how to be the doctors, engineers and innovators of tomorrow instead of a bunch of kids with some wishy-washy liberal arts degree.
So many kids who really don't need or are capable of a college education get it and waste time.
The liberal atheist professor archetype is so cliche. Anyone remember the chalk story? Or the Albert Einstein heat/cold story? Yeah. Just silliness. All this stuff about subliminal learning smells of Freud and/or bullshit.
On February 25 2012 04:53 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: I don't think you understand how ideas work. You can't unhear something. Most learning is unconscious. Sublingual. A professor feels a certain way, his students grow to feel that certain way.
Fox News reaches more people than university professors.
Even if that were true, you don't think the years of learning different subject extensivly counteracts any possible liberal indoctrination? How anyone with a straight face can claim having people go to university is bad for a country is beyond me. It lacks common sense.
I don't claim 'liberal' indoctrination. Certainly not if you actually take a look at the word and it's origin. It's only recently that it's meaning has degraded. But I digress. Maybe you are right and my argument is invalid. On the other hand, Walter Williams not so long ago wrote an article on this very subject. It's entitled 'Too Much Higher Education' http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams98.1.html
I dont know what your talking about, but that article has absolutely nothing to do with indoctrination. its about the watering down of higher education. so find an actual source to backup what your saying.
The problem I see with college is that many of those who DO go see it as an entitlement-- well-to-do kids (and some not so well-to-do kids) go to goof off for four years, get some sort of degree, and then continue with life. Not to diss any profession or major too much, but there are too many who people major in something that is not really useful-- art history, women's studies, etc. Again, apologies for insulting those majors. We need more kids learning how to be the doctors, engineers and innovators of tomorrow instead of a bunch of kids with some wishy-washy liberal arts degree.
Liberal arts majors won't be making as much money, but what they do is a personal choice. Why insult people who know what they want to do? History and cultural understanding is incredibly important for our society, and we'd certainly need more people like them.
Are they "more useful" than engineers for society? Probably not. But who cares? People who know what they want to do and pursue it; these are the type of people our world needs more of.
The problem I see with college is that many of those who DO go see it as an entitlement-- well-to-do kids (and some not so well-to-do kids) go to goof off for four years, get some sort of degree, and then continue with life. Not to diss any profession or major too much, but there are too many who people major in something that is not really useful-- art history, women's studies, etc. Again, apologies for insulting those majors. We need more kids learning how to be the doctors, engineers and innovators of tomorrow instead of a bunch of kids with some wishy-washy liberal arts degree.
Liberal arts majors won't be making as much money, but what they do is a personal choice. Why insult people who know what they want to do? History and cultural understanding is incredibly important for our society, and we'd certainly need more people like them.
I'm not talking about the people who truly want to study a liberal arts degree. For example, I have a friend who is an English major because she wants to teach, and I respect her for it very much-- I have a bunch of other friends who dearly want to study something like Spanish history or Film and get careers in those areas. I think that's great. I personally love reading history, but feel that I see myself more as a doctor-- I also decided to try and get a BBA because my school just happens to have a really good program.
On the other hand, there are a lot of kids who go to college not because they want to get an education for a job they love, but just because they want to goof off for four years. They come here and pay 50K a year, and leave with a 200K piece of paper that says they're an art history major or something like that. They don't care all that much about what they're majoring, just that they need one to graduate.
I have nothing against those who major in some sort of liberal arts if they truly love it and want to study and do it for a living. But I can't stand those who just pick a liberal arts major just for the sake of it being a relatively easy major. They give liberal arts a bad name. If you come to college to goof off, then you might as well not come here at all.
The problem I see with college is that many of those who DO go see it as an entitlement-- well-to-do kids (and some not so well-to-do kids) go to goof off for four years, get some sort of degree, and then continue with life. Not to diss any profession or major too much, but there are too many who people major in something that is not really useful-- art history, women's studies, etc. Again, apologies for insulting those majors. We need more kids learning how to be the doctors, engineers and innovators of tomorrow instead of a bunch of kids with some wishy-washy liberal arts degree.
Liberal arts majors won't be making as much money, but what they do is a personal choice. Why insult people who know what they want to do? History and cultural understanding is incredibly important for our society, and we'd certainly need more people like them.
I'm not talking about the people who truly want to study a liberal arts degree. For example, I have a friend who is an English major because she wants to teach, and I respect her for it very much-- I have a bunch of other friends who dearly want to study something like Spanish history or Film and get careers in those areas. I think that's great. I personally love reading history, but feel that I see myself more as a doctor-- I also decided to try and get a BBA because my school just happens to have a really good program.
On the other hand, there are a lot of kids who go to college not because they want to get an education for a job they love, but just because they want to goof off for four years. They come here and pay 50K a year, and leave with a 200K piece of paper that says they're an art history major or something like that. They don't care all that much about what they're majoring, just that they need one to graduate.
I have nothing against those who major in some sort of liberal arts if they truly love it and want to study and do it for a living. But I can't stand those who just pick a liberal arts major just for the sake of it being a relatively easy major. They give liberal arts a bad name. If you come to college to goof off, then you might as well not come here at all.
Well, when you can't get hired anywhere decent without that piece of paper it makes it difficult to avoid. If i didn't care what i did in life and just wanted a half decent job I sure as hell wont bust my ass becoming a scientist, I'd rather coast and do some liberal artsy stuff. Besides, everyone knows that grad school is where you actually study what you want to do anyway. (as another 60-100k get spent lol)
If this thread was a boat, it would be stuck in the sahara right now. I'll try to dig a channel so we can steer it back on topic again.
Plans from Gingrich, Santorum and Romney Would Result with Highest Debt Ratios
Based on data PDF from US Budget Watch from CRFB, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — analysis from libertarian Reason Magazine:
How is it that Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich would end up increasing the federal debt? It’s pretty simple, really: They would cut taxes, but wouldn’t cut spending to match. Santorum’s policies would reduce spending by a little more than $2 trillion, but would cut taxes by $6 trillion. Gingrich would cut slightly more in spending—about $2.7 trillion—but would cut taxes by $7 trillion and actually add $1.6 trillion in spending to overhaul Social Security, among other policy changes. Romney’s vague plans score better, but wouldn’t reduce the debt, and would probably push it slightly higher than it otherwise would have been. Ron Paul, on the other hand, would cut taxes, but he’d cut spending even more. His tax cuts would reduce the tax burden by $5.2 trillion; meanwhile, he would reduce spending by $7.2 trillion.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FxCzd.jpg)
