School help for my wife?

[Ade]

Of all the above, only the people with disabilities are anywhere near eligible for gov-t support.  Why all the rest would expect the taxpayer to pay for their lifestyle choices and retirement is beyond my understanding.

I am so glad I live in one of the better social welfare states where we take care of everyone and everyone has a safety net. Does it cost? Sure it does; my taxes last year exceeded that of the average US gross salary but do I care? No. Do I care that some people take advantage and milk the system? No, not in the slightest and you know why? Because we have an incredible standard of living here, with low crime rates and low poverty. I don't have to worry about some silly clause in my medical insurance if I get ill because we don't have any. I don't have to worry too much about losing my job because the state will support me well until I find another. I can walk in the centre of the busiest cities here at any time of day or night and not worry about being mugged either.

American's seem to be so concerned about "paying" for someone else less deserving and so paranoid about slipping into dreaded socialism that they refuse to acknowledge the real benefits of a full social welfare system that go beyond personal financial gain.

I shake my head and really wonder why anyone would actually want to live in the US given the choice although I guess most of the FSUW have cottoned on to this since most prefer other countries to search for their partners.

[ConnerVT]

I perfectly understand the expression, I don't agree with applying in this case.

That's fine to feel that way.  I thought it very appropriate.

I live in a college "town", a city that's been labeled the one of the most liberal in the US, in a state that is one of the most liberal.  A city that elected a socialist mayor, who then made him a US Senator.  I am surrounded by many people who have the same mindset as Nata's instructor likely has.

American academia has a strong liberal leaning.  I have heard this story many times, from people around the US.  The support of Communism and Socialism found asylum in American universities back during the Wilson and FDR presidencies back in the 1930's, and by the 1960's had become well rooted.

I digress, but only to establish background.  Now, back to the instructor. 

Having come from this environment, he now returns to it.  Most teachers don't reinvent their classes each year, but teach from the same class plan and syllabus.  They may have some, or more, of the following feelings -

Superiority (having completed the work that students are just now doing);
Boredom (repeating the same material over for another class, another year);
Frustration (working hard, while students don't take as seriously as he would wish).

Most professors, having spent their life in this US academic environment, surrounded by like minded peers, are unlikely to change their core beliefs and philosophies due to a dissenting opinion of an undergraduate student.

Many wouldn't listen to Lenin himself, if he would reanimate back to life and walk into their lecture room and state that he made a mistake about the whole communism thing.

I do believe that most of the instructors of this ilk are unable/unwilling to make the core philosophical change that would bring them more open and towards center.  To return to my expression in question, I'll rephrase it for clarity.

Never try to teach your liberal instructor to change his views.  It wastes your time, and annoys the instructor.

[OlgaH]

I would bet they would take job hunting much more seriously.  Lots an lots of people are on unemployment by choice.  Many look at unemployment like vacation pay.  They worked for x weeks now they are entitled to 6-9 months vacation. 

I don't know how many people choose to live on unemployment paycheck. Do you want such life? I guess not. I don't want, my husband don't want. Does Gator want to live on paycheck or Blues Fairy and her husband? I guess not. So why should we  think that we are much better than lots of people?

There are also rules: when you are eligible for unemployment benefits and reasons for denying benefit payments.
http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/uifactsheet.asp

[Blues Fairy]

what about orphans?

A woman have a child and she is pregnant with the second child. Her husband suddenly died. What she has? Child, pregnancy and mortgage, and every employer finds an accuse not to give her a job.  Would you,  being the government of a country where she lives, politically correct tell that woman that all her problems non of your business because it was her lifestyle choice?

And who will work in the future when the most part of population will be retired?

Olga,

If I were in that woman's position I would rather count on my husband's life insurance to get through the first difficult years and then on finding a decent job to pay my expenses, rather than depend on government support.  But for that, one needs a good job market where employers are not overtaxed by the government so they can actually create those well-paying jobs, which pay for insurance and other expenses.  

Same with retirement.  You say it yourself - who will work when the majority is retired?  I.e. who will pay the taxes to support this lot, and how high the taxes will be?  Social Security is already bancrupt and the benefits are only likely to grow, while the taxable portion of the population shrinks all the time.  Where will the money come from?
 
As for orphans, I am certainly in favor of governmental support of them.  However, in a prosperous society where people have good jobs and get to keep most of their income, more families will be in a position to become foster parents and adopt.  Besides, prosperous people give more to charity organizations, especially if it saves their taxes.  Privately managed non-profit charity will always be more  efficient than any government program.

[OlgaH]

That's fine to feel that way.  I thought it very appropriate.

I suppose you know well that instructor with his liberal/  communistic/ socialistic or what ever views and you know exactly what he was talking about social benefits in his class.

And I suppose that expression can be applied to me  

[Blues Fairy]

I am so glad I live in one of the better social welfare states where we take care of everyone and everyone has a safety net. Does it cost? Sure it does; my taxes last year exceeded that of the average US gross salary but do I care? No. Do I care that some people take advantage and milk the system? No, not in the slightest and you know why? Because we have an incredible standard of living here, with low crime rates and low poverty. I don't have to worry about some silly clause in my medical insurance if I get ill because we don't have any. I don't have to worry too much about losing my job because the state will support me well until I find another. I can walk in the centre of the busiest cities here at any time of day or night and not worry about being mugged either.

You seriously think living in socialism makes a society less criminal?  You have never lived in the Soviet Union.  
In this country, welfare communities have the highest crime rate and it's established that welfare directly contributes to crime.
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

Once again, I'd rather depend on a good job market and availability of insurance than on government support checks.  It's better for my self esteem, whereas a welfare state kills people's self-esteem by all-penetrating paternalism.

[OlgaH]

Olga,

If I were in that woman's position I would rather count on my husband's life insurance to get through the first difficult years and then on finding a decent job to pay my expenses, rather than depend on government support.  

if your husband have a job that let him to pay for medical insurance and life insurance

But for that, one needs a good job market where employers are not overtaxed by the government so they can actually create those well-paying jobs, which pay for insurance and other expenses.  

and the companies who prefer cheap labor overseas must pay twice or three times higher taxes.

[Blues Fairy]

if your husband have a job that let him to pay for medical insurance and life insurance
and the companies who prefer cheap labor overseas must pay twice or three times higher taxes.

Strange logic.   Why?  If they outsource cheap labor overseas, they cut costs and expand their business, thus creating more well-paying (management) jobs in the country.  They should be punished for that?

And yes, I wouldn't have kids with someone who doesn't have a job and doesn't intend to buy life insurance.  One must provide for one's kids, rather than expect than the state provide for them.  But that's my choice.

[Mishenka]

You seriously think living in socialism makes a society less criminal?  You have never lived in the Soviet Union.  
In this country, welfare communities have the highest crime rate and it's established that welfare directly contributes to crime.
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

Once again, I'd rather depend on a good job market and availability of insurance than on government support checks.  It's better for my self esteem, whereas a welfare state kills people's self-esteem by all-penetrating paternalism.

I agree 100%

Mishenka

[Ade]

You seriously think living in socialism makes a society less criminal?  You have never lived in the Soviet Union.  

I see that the form it takes in Scandinavia it does. Don't for a minute think that all social welfare states are created equal or that social welfare is the same as Soviet Socialism.

A major cause of crime is hopelessness, despair and a sense of being trapped. The upwardly mobile "American dream" is a well known fallacy and those that are born in poverty in the US tend to die there. Take a look and I'm sure you'll find the research.

In this country, welfare communities have the highest crime rate and it's established that welfare directly contributes to crime.
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

Once again, I'd rather depend on a good job market and availability of insurance than on government support checks.  It's better for my self esteem, whereas a welfare state kills people's self-esteem by all-penetrating paternalism.

I'll have to make sure I tell every Norwegian know that then because I don't think they've been told. 

[Blues Fairy]

I see that the form it takes in Scandinavia it does. Don't for a minute think that all social welfare states are created equal or that social welfare is the same as Soviet Socialism.

A major cause of crime is hopelessness, despair and a sense of being trapped. The upwardly mobile "American dream" is a well known fallacy and those that are born in poverty in the US tend to die there. Take a look and I'm sure you'll find the research.

I'll have to make sure I tell every Norwegian know that then because I don't think they've been told. 

Don't know about Norwegians but the Swedes have already been told: http://www.discovery.org/a/2013
But of course they do not have your oil reserves.

Those born in poverty in the US tend to die there precisely because they stay on welfare for generations and have no incentive to move upwardly.  Those who want to go to college and get a job have plenty of opportunity to do so - especially those who qualify for "affirmative action" programs (that is, everyone except white straight males ). 

[Ade]

Don't know about Norwegians but the Swedes have already been told: http://www.discovery.org/a/2013

Yeah, I should be sure to let the guys that compile the HDI know about that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#2007.2F2008_report  Oh, and let's not forget the quality of life index too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index

But of course they do not have your oil reserves.

There's more to it than just having a bit of oil.

Those born in poverty in the US tend to die there precisely because they stay on welfare for generations and have no incentive to move upwardly.  Those who want to go to college and get a job have plenty of opportunity to do so - especially those who qualify for "affirmative action" programs (that is, everyone except white straight males ). 

So it's all the fault of the welfare system then huh? I guess the European welfare states have just been lucky then.

[Blues Fairy]

There's more to it than just having a bit of oil.

So it's all the fault of the welfare system then huh? I guess the European welfare states have just been lucky then.

Of course prosperity is more than a bit of oil, but Norway's not a fully nationalised, planned economy is it?    Now it would be interesting to know how the surviving element of capitalism contributes to prosperity compared to the elements of socialism.   
And who do you think creates the wealth in the U.S.?  The government?

Welfare is not entirely at fault for crime but it certainly contributes. 

[mies]

Sorry to disappoint you

You aren't disappointing me :-) I do not stand for capitalism or socialism. Both systems have their positive and negative sides. Overall - I agree with you and few other posters here who said that Nata has lived both in socialism and capitalism, so she is in a better position to express viewpoint about both systems. Unlike her instructor who only lived in a capitalist state.

 

most colleges and universities in USA are deeply entrenched in liberal agenda and they perpetuate the brainwashing of the next generations.

Is this your first-hand experience? Because I didn't notice it at all. And I know many academia people across the country. Some conservative radios do try to sell this idea to the public - that colleges are too liberal. Many of those people who run the radio stations, and people who listen to those radio stations also do not believe in evolution.


 

There was a big story about a public policy student who couldn't graduate due to low grades given to him by the faculty for his right-leaning views. 

He should have chosen a different university - that's it. There are many universities in USA to chose from.

[mies]

Trying to put emotions and feelings into words a person first of all discloses his attitude to a subject, his thoughts and understanding.

have you read the 1984? or are you familiar with the term "пятиминутка ненависти"?
How can you require a person to express "proper emotions" and give a grade for "proper emotions" in the history class?

[ConnerVT]

And I suppose that expression can be applied to me  

I don't know.  Do you feel that it applies to you as well?   

I suppose you know well that instructor with his liberal/  communistic/ socialistic or what ever views and you know exactly what he was talking about social benefits in his class.

I acknowledge that I don't know this particular instructor with first hand information.  However, it is a story that I have heard many times from people with very varied situations and backgrounds.  And one I also experienced first hand during my higher education experience in the USA.

I may be guilty of profiling, but they say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.  Seeing similar occurrences in the past, I made a well reasoned argument as to what likely is going on.  I'll readily accept different input that may change my perspective.

Sadly, I don't believe that the instructor in question is that willing to be open minded.

[Ade]

Of course prosperity is more than a bit of oil, but Norway's not a fully nationalised, planned economy is it?    Now it would be interesting to know how the surviving element of capitalism contributes to prosperity compared to the elements of socialism.   
And who do you think creates the wealth in the U.S.?  The government?

No, Norway is not a fully nationalized economy but how many countries are these days?

Welfare is not entirely at fault for crime but it certainly contributes. 

For welfare to be a contributing factor there have to be other factors involved. Welfare in and of itself does not cause crime otherwise countries like Norway with an extensive welfare system would have succumbed to anarchy a long time ago.

[Blues Fairy]

 Is this your first-hand experience? Because I didn't notice it at all. And I know many academia people across the country. Some conservative radios do try to sell this idea to the public - that colleges are too liberal. Many of those people who run the radio stations, and people who listen to those radio stations also do not believe in evolution.

And what kind of "first-hand experience" would prove my point?  Knowing 15 or 25 college professors?  I know a few yes, but even if I knew 20 times as many it wouldn't be a representative amount of data.  The fact that American colleges and universities are overwhelmingly left-leaning is widely acknowledged and documented; as for the conservative radio, how much of it have you personally heard?  Don't comment on the views of people you have only heard of from the liberal media.   

[mies]

Don't comment on the views of people you have only heard of from the liberal media.   

i am listening to conservative radio on quite regular basis - I would not form my opinion based on the liberal media only. Maybe left-leaning could be explained by the some of the "conservative" views on science and education.
You should not think that i am liberal, nor conservative. I like some of the liberal views in USA, as for Europe - i am a big fan of ultra-conservative movements.

[aikorob]

Maybe I should have stated this earlier----this is a READING class---not political theory. There is no discussion, only straight answers required about the assigned essay.

One of the other students asked a question before the first big test; the instructor told how the "correct" answers were determined--based on "normal" high school education and life experiences.

Interestingly, students who were recent high school graduates have no problems giving the acceptable answers. Nata says there are a few older students returning to college; their answers are as wrong as hers.

[ECOCKS]

Now the instructor is a bit more understandable.

The content he is looking for in the response is more to provide an indication of her understanding of the story than the actual judging of emotions based upon the event's significance.

She needs to write more is one suggestion. She needs to understand that she is writing to indicate her comprehension of the different facets of the story.

I would inquire whether your college or University has a writing laboratory to provide more assistance in developing her writing skills. Additionally, a tutor who can show her how to expand her thoughts through prose would also be a good investment.

[OlgaH]

If they outsource cheap labor overseas, they cut costs and expand their business, thus creating more well-paying (management) jobs in the country.  They should be punished for that?

Yes, Blues Fairy creating  jobs in the own country (not in China, Singapore or whatever) for own people. And it is not punishment, it is  fairness.

And yes, I wouldn't have kids with someone who doesn't have a job and doesn't intend to buy life insurance.  One must provide for one's kids, rather than expect than the state provide for them.  But that's my choice.

and again people should have enough money to buy life insurance. Where is guarantee that when you cut taxes the companies, actually owners, all as one being so responsible will increase wages and create new well-paid jobs, but will not put all that money in own pocket?   

[OlgaH]

I don't know.  Do you feel that it applies to you as well?   

I guess for some "conservative" teaches I'm also "a liberal pig what can not be taught to sing". 

[Blues Fairy]

Yes, Blues Fairy creating  jobs in the own country (not in China, Singapore or whatever) for own people. And it is not punishment, it is  fairness. 

And again people should have enough money to buy life insurance. Where is guarantee that when you cut taxes the companies, actually owners, all as one being so responsible will increase wages and create new well-paid jobs, but will not put all that money in own pocket? 

You seem to think that without government intervention, businesses are unable to run themselves.   Where is the guarantee that owners will not put money in their pockets?  Let's see.  Owners need to run their businesses, and most want to expand them to make money.  While doing that, they create more jobs (to help run those businesses) and pay more taxes (because their revenues grow).  People working jobs make money and also pay taxes.  As a result, their personal incomes grow and the government's revenue grows.  As a side effect, yes, the owners make more money to put in their pockets, but that's the price I'm willing to pay for general prosperity.

Now if some low-paying or peripheral jobs are outsourced overseas, some local people will sure lose their income.  The owner, however, doesn't stop paying taxes from the revenue - and since he has cut some expenses, it lets him strenghthen other non-peripheral functions, invest more in his business and actually make more money (and jobs, and pay more taxes).  And you want to sacrifice this prosperity for the sake of some vague "fairness"?  That's just not practical.  You must be a true liberal.

[OlgaH]

You seem to think that without government intervention, businesses are unable to run themselves.

Owners need to run their businesses, and most want to expand them to make money.  While doing that, they create more jobs (to help run those businesses) and pay more taxes (because their revenues grow). 

Companies will do just fine and they will be glad to do their without government intervention.  What about working people?  Where is guarantee that the companies will create more well-paid jobs that let "husbands  buy life insurance" ? if the companies is still looking for cheap labor in China