Older students and the liberal arts

[MA2]

However, if you're rich, you can have the best of the best. In socialist countries you won't get the best of the best, but you'll have balance.

"You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." Rev. William J. H. Boetcker

[dcan]

Frankly speaking, being born in America to a low-class family, particularly if you're a minority, is pretty bleak, in every way.

There's lots of problems in America, and this is definitely one of them. But did you also know that 80% of millionaires in America are first-generation millionaires who got there by climbing up from the middle class, with no inheritance to give them a leg up? (Source: The Millionaire Next Door (NYT excerpt), http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/sta...naire.html)

It's only bleak if you are taught that it is bleak, and if you allow that belief to lay out your path before you.

[dcan]

Socialism doesn't refer to the distribution of power, but the distribution of wealth.

Wait, now you aren't making sense...

Your argument says wealth and power are separate, but the entire notion of Socialism is that wealth creates class separation and leads to the dominance of the wealthy bourgeoisie capitalists over the working proles. Even Wikipedia defines it thus:

Ownership of the means of production enables it to employ and exploit the work of a large mass of wage workers (the working class), who have no other means of livelihood than to sell their labour to property owners; while control over the means of coercion (e.g., guns, the law - ed.) allows intervention (e.g., imprisonment, execution -ed.) during challenges from below.

Bourgeoisie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, under Socialism, which you support, wealth IS power. Therefore the distribution of wealth is by necessity the distribution of power. To say otherwise is to say that possession of wealth carries with it no benefit of increased power, which simple observation can disprove in a few seconds.

Finally, you yourself discredit your own argument with your earlier quote that being born poor in America is bleak. If Wealth != Power, then your earlier statement is nonsensical. If your earlier statement is true, then your statement about redistribution of power != redistribution of wealth is nonsensical.

You are talking in circles and undermining your own argument. You are not being very persuasive at all.

[MA2]

Frankly speaking, being born in America to a low-class family, particularly if you're a minority, is pretty bleak, in every way.

Yes, it must be hard, with all those affirmitive action laws and scholarships particularly for minorities. If people stopped feeling sorry for themselves and worked hard who knows what they might accomplish.

Obvious disclaimer: Not all minorities are lazy.

[grauwulf]

In modern English it's pretty well known that someone on that far left is a "liberal" and someone on the far right is a "conservative." In common useage that's how we use those words when discussing politics.

By your own volition you are using the words incorrectly and my point is that this is (by definition) perpetuating ignorance.

You should understand that when you call somebody a liberal you are calling them 'open minded' & when you call somebody conservative you are calling them 'resistant to change'.

Is that 'a doctor', or 'your heart surgeon'? A Corvette or a car? A floor or a deck? Words have meanings for a reason, and ignoring those reasons doesn't make them go away, it just makes you wrong.

That's my point.

[OE800_85]

if you read my comments clearly, I was referring to (possibly MA's comment?) about people being detained in China. We're often taught that socialism is run by a totalitarian state, but that's not the case. What you're saying is in support of my argument, that the redistribution of wealth can allow others to have power; it's an indirect relationship, but I agree with you. So, are you implying that "the people" shouldn't have power? That it's best left in the hands of a few, while the general populace has no say? Because that's what capitalism promotes.

Another thing about the tirade quote from the reverend. People often talk about the good 'ol days in America. Do you know what the highest income tax bracket was in the 50s/60s? It was 90 friggin percent. America used to have strong unions, where people received wages that were reasonable, and also had really well subsidized, very cheap healthcare. This right wing "capitalism" is relatively new. Are you saying America's better off now? That it wasn't a great powerful nation in those days? All you see now is a widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, and the destruction of the middle class. Socialist nations are keeping these things in tact, despite the horrible state of the economy now.
Historical Tax Rates by Income Group [NYTimes] — VisualizingEconomics
A great graph showing how tax rates have changed over the years.

Anyways, socialism is often misunderstood. It's not communism. Incentives still exist, people still work hard. People still have freedom of speech and so forth. They just have the added benefit of security should things go wrong.

Another thing I'd like to add, is not that government should necessarily increase spending, but re-allocate spending. It's amazing how much is wasted in the wrong programs.

[MA2]

By your own volition you are using the words incorrectly and my point is that this is (by definition) perpetuating ignorance.

You should understand that when you call somebody a liberal you are calling them 'open minded' & when you call somebody conservative you are calling them 'resistant to change'.

Is that 'a doctor', or 'your heart surgeon'? A Corvette or a car? A floor or a deck? Words have meanings for a reason, and ignoring those reasons doesn't make them go away, it just makes you wrong.

That's my point.

Liberal
/ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/
[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl
–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

Conservative
con·serv·a·tive   /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]
-adjective
4. of or pertaining to the Conservative party.

There's the definitions.

It's not "perpetuating ignorance" to use the meaning of a word in common useage. If anything it just makes you look snobby.

[MA2]

Anyways, socialism is often misunderstood. It's not communism. Incentives still exist, people still work hard. People still have freedom of speech and so forth. They just have the added benefit of security should things go wrong.

"The goal of socialism is communism." -Vladimir Lenin

There's no "incentive to work hard" if the government is going to coddle you when you aren't working.

The left in this country passes all kinds of tax laws and makes it impossible to run a business, but then when the CEO's adapt to the circumstance and send jobs overseas, they get slandered for being anti-union, not caring about the little guy, etc.

No wonder GM failed... No one can afford to pay a low skilled assembly line worker $35 an hour just because he's worked there 25 years to screw in lightbulbs.

But I'd still choose live a day in (semi) free America over 100 years in socialism.

[ryoder]

I totally agree with ma2 and I would add that being liberal is not synonymous with being open minded. I see how frustrated liberals get when they hear different opinions. They tend to seek out "like minded" individuals as friends and get mad when a conservative talks about individual responsibility or government cutbacks to pay down the fourteen trillion dollar debt.

I am a very open minded conservative and embrace change. Change is very important because a species or culture that cannot adapt to the external environment will not survive or prosper. It's just that I don't want the type of change that Obama wants. Want the US to save more and spend less. I want people to work harder at their jobs, expect less from their government. Ask not what your country can do for you...

[alleycat]

Here is the defination of the word liberal that I have found. Being liberal is not just about a persons political beliefs.

lib·er·al (lĭbˈər-əl, lĭbˈrəl)

adjective
1.a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3.Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4.Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.