If liberals are smart and highly educated ---- why this

Oh nice, nothing intelligent to say so let's go with a personal attack. Attacking one's religious beliefs is as classy as beating a child. Got your number.

 

Sounds to me as if you see Socialism as good for business.

 

Possibly @ the beginning of the program, when there was more income to the SS fund than there was money being paid out. This generated a surplus of funds, & Congress & the SS admin mistook this for a permanent condition. Bit by bit, SS funds went to survivors & dependent children, then to SSI - & through the 1970s & 1980s (I think it was) the program became a pure transfer program. (The paper surplus in accounting went to the Treasury Dept., & helps offset other spending. - See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund#History) The surplus disappeared, & money came into the fund only to be routed back out to claimees. To the point that we'll need soon (by 2022) to either look @ tightening requirements for claimants, or put caps on maximum amounts paid out (lifetime amounts?), or somehow generate more incoming funds to keep the fund solvent. Or we can try some combination of all three, or come up with other mechanisms.

But no, the money paid in originally in the 1930s & forward into the 1960s or 1970s, is gone. The system is cruising now on transferring the incoming funds, & interest from the trust fund, & I believe it (the fund) has been issuing IOUs to the Treasury Dept. since the 1970s.

 

An offshoot of Judaism, what do you expect? What people came up with this stuff, anyway?

 

The point I was making is there is incredibly blinding hypocrisy by large swaths of the conservative base who truly see socialism as what govt gives to individuals that needs help to survive or thrive, without recognizing that the same socialist concepts are at work all over the place.

I think in fact that many ideas that we may call broadly 'socialist' are great for business, mostly because some economic and social stability and predictability is always good for business.

 

If your house is ever on fire you will call the biggest socialist program in this nation for help. One of a hundred examples

 

I can't speak for "liberals" in general. But I consider myself a Social Democrat. Which is not "Socialism" in the Marxist sense (which was a failed experiment), but a political position which is best described in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.

 

college students today are proving that going to college means nothing.

stop using that as your pathetic measure of intelligence....it's turning into the opposite.

 

Oh Deary me Deary me what actually College means is you make more money

 

What "socialism" do they support?

Social Security? Medicare?

 

Conservatives take advantage of Federal Farm Subsidies are far higher rates than liberals. You can look by State, county and names of recipients.

 

I think it depends on one's major. If one is in one of the professional schools, like medicine or pharmacy, then yeah, they make more money. However people who majored in Humanities don't have such luck. Heck, I have a degree in science however what I do right now has nothing to do with my field and I make pittance.

 

socialism largely is a response to either authoritarianism or failure of free markets. The US, however, is a socialist country. We just pretend we aren't.

 

nope... https://trends.collegeboard.org/education-pays/figures-tables/lifetime-earnings-education-level

 

After reading many of the comments in this thread, I find most reflect a total ignorance about socialism, what it is and what it does; coupled with an equal ignorance about what a liberal is and what they stand for. Sad.

 

Right wing circle jerk in progress!

 

Would you consider Great Britain, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, and other democracies in Europe all failures? Based on what? From my viewpoint they're all successful societies that enjoy a large measure of personal freedoms greater than we do as Americans. For one thing, they all provide access to medical care for their citizens without question. We don't. If a government or national leader fails to satisfy the majority of voters, they can call an election at any time to allow voters to remove or replace that leader. We can't. When they have an election they declare the candidate with the most votes as the winner. As G.W. Bush and Donald Trump illustrate, the U.S. often names the candidate with fewer votes the winner of elections. That makes the U.S. a lesser democracy. Socialist countries have been far more successful than the U.S. in preventing the ultra-wealthy minority from accruing almost 100% of the nation's wealth at the expense of everyone else.

Socialism has some really positive qualities that deserve our consideration and respect--not this careless, mindless assault.

 

It's possible - indeed fairly usual - to be smart and highly educated, but simultaneously have a total lack of basic common sense.

 

Especially those involved in agriculture, like rural farmers and ranchers. A few years ago ranchers in Utah and Nevada, who constantly complained about the "socialist" government and its interference in their personal lives, and who consistently voted for "conservative" candidates against big government, were faced with the prospect of losing their $1.00 per year grazing rights provided by the government when their elected representatives tried to close down one of the agricultural agencies in Washington. If the bill had passed, these ranchers would have had to pay thousands of dollars to feed their cattle instead of the $1.00 per year they were used to. Did they learn their lesson? No. They continue to bad-mouth the government and its "socialist" programs, and never admit to anyone or themselves that they are the beneficiaries of that governmental socialism. How do any of us "win" with this kind of personal dishonesty?

 

And then there's all those corn subsidies

 

Spot on! Redistribute of wealth is GREAT for the distributors

 

And what do you base that claim on? Oh, that's right! You made it up!

 

Don't think he made it up. I see it every day. Anyone with common sense does see it. So...

 

That blanket statement is very incomplete.

The cost/benefits of a degree depend on the degree. There are plenty of people $50k+ in debt who are working at Banana Republic and Gap because they chose a worthless liberal arts degree.

Also, how much more is needed to be known as massive debt can out weigh a modest salary increase.

You shouldn't every make statements like this, they are very incomplete and very misleading.

 

proves NOTHING.

DEPENDS ON DEGREE. You can't argue that a liberal arts degree is worth the time and money by posting a graph that includes STEM degrees to help prop up the earnings.

http://www.salary.com/8-college-degrees-with-the-worst-return-on-investment/