Obama is the politician of defining Human Nature.

What you've observed is a result of indoctrination taking precedence over education.

I don't see why there should be a relation between atheism and liberalism or any other political philosophy, unless you might try and make a case for a human need to have an ultimate authority over their lives.

He reads very well, and when scripted speaks very eloquently. My greatest kudos go to his speech writers.

Although many on the left seem to think that those who disapprove of Obama are racist or anti-black, they fail to recognize that it is not the color of his skin but his politics that makes him unacceptable. There are a number of Black/African Americans who I, and others like me look up to and respect, a couple of examples being Walter E. Williams, and Thomas Sowell. In the same vein, might it be said that whites on the left who disagree with Williams and/or Sowell are therefore racist or anti-Black? I feel that race is most often used as a means of denigrating political discussion reducing it to an irrational argument.

 

So, the liberals say the same about conservatives.

Because it's usually conservatives who discriminate against atheists, liberals are more tolerant.

I don't think I've said that. I would say there are more than a few racists within the very vocal group who oppose Obama. The Tea Party is an amalgamation of many different individuals and groups from the right. I live in a very rural area of Georgia, I grew up among racists during the Civil Rights period and I've been around them all of my life.

.

 

As I was responding to you're claim of "I've observed that advanced education tends to bring out the liberal side of people.", I think the indication is that Liberalism is being cultivated in the education system today. Although if Conservatives were the dominant force in the education system, turning out what you might call the conservative side of people, I would expect there would then be a reason for Liberals to say the same about Conservatives. Politics, like any philosophical study is not a science where empirical evidence exists that allows questions to be asked which can have but one correct answer. When I attended college, I always found I could acquire the highest grades in such classes by supporting the Professors political leaning, while suppressing my own. In my opinion that is a poor way to educate people as it tends to limit reasoned discussion, and promotes the indoctrination of those possessing lesser thought faculties.

I think it might be more accurate to say it is usually Christians or other religious persons who are prone to discriminate against atheists, and I might add that being an atheist who does not have Liberal leanings, I find that Liberals are not so tolerant of me at times.

The word "many" implies "not all", meaning I left open your inclusion or exclusion from what I further stated.
I think if you look, you will find that there are more than a few Blacks as well as Obama voters included in the "very vocal group" who oppose what Obama is and proposes to do. The "Tea Party" is made up of a very diverse group of individuals, from the right, left, center, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who disagree with the path the government is moving.
As for those you call racists, ignore them, I don't think they are relevant today, and the solutions to the problems we face today need to be answered in ways that do not pit one group against another, but instead unite the vast majority. Meaning not just 50%+1.

 

I don't see it that way. Look at the Tea Party for instance, the entire movement is predicated on lies, like "the gov'ment is gonna kill granny." An educated person would know that is not going to happen. A person who studied American History would know that the Great Depression was the second depression brought on by Republican controlled government.

A study of Sociology will give one knowledge of systems past where social policy was absent the compassionate programs of today's culture. A math enthusiast would be able to crunch the numbers and see that "Trickle Down Economics" just doesn't fit into reality. An art major will see the suffering of the human condition absent humanistic social policies.

An education does not indoctrinate, it helps to open one's eyes to the realities of the world around him. You are also insulting degreed people everywhere.

This speaks volumes about the emphasis of the two parties. Liberals are more interested in educating the young than are conservatives. Liberals are contributing to society while conservatives are manipulating politics and the stock market and crashing the economy.

Yet, conservatives consistantly insist that their answers are the only right and proper ones.

What does this say about your, and maybe other conservatives', personal values? I was the Professor's worst nightmare or best student, depending on their style of teaching. I ask a lot of questions and I will call out a professor if his statements don't sound right. I stayed after class many times just to argue a point. I had a 3.5 gpa.

But you are the one who kissed ass, most professors invite descent.

That may be more due to your style of expression than your personal beliefs.

The vitriol of the Tea Party will never do that. Their caustic style of descent will never bring about anything good. All they do is criticize by insult and have no ideas to offer. Look at a Sarah Palin speech, full of one-liners insulting everybody left of the extreme right with absolutely no ideas for making this a better nation.

.

 

While I admit I haven't spoken directly to any Tea Party members, from what I've been able to determine the movement stands for "Taxed Enough Already" and while some may feel that is a lie, many others do not. I think reading the Health Care Bill, understanding economic facts, coupled with some rhetoric from Obama's administrative appointees it becomes clear that at some point government will have to become active in deciding the cost effectiveness in what care it is allowing to be provided.
There have been Progressives in both parties. I think the Tea Party would like to rid them from the Republican party. By oversimplifying the definition of problems we fail to identify many of the root causes, and as a result worsen and create more difficult to resolve problems.

What form of economics would you propose that "does fit into reality"? How should social policies be created, and imposed?

To instill as facts thoughts which lack empirical supportive evidence is indeed indoctrination. It is the content of ones mind and their ability provide irrefutable evidence which impresses me most, not a piece of paper.

I fail to see your reasoning in the above in relation to what I had posted. Essentially all I was only pointing out that there can be two opposing views, neither of which can be proven correct.

Which is true of Liberals also, even if you won't admit it.

Nothing really. There's no point in arguing when there's nothing to be gained. I had a better GPA, but I don't really care about grades that much.

It wasn't "kissing ass" but simply avoiding problems. In science subjects, which were more to my interest I was very vocal. I found philosophical questions such as "can you create a PERFECTLY straight line" mind evoking, but more or less a waste of time when entertained too long.

I find relevant facts to be more important than the style one uses to express them.

Which leaves us with expectations of a Nation only more deeply divided. Over the last century we have allowed government to become representative of what the political parties desired, strengthening the parties powers above that of the people, using a graduated tax system as a form of wealth redistribution, and creating numerous social programs with the same purpose. This has allowed the government of both parties to make illusive rhetoric and laws acceptable to a growing majority. The National debt now leaves us with the certitude that a massive devaluation of our currency will take place, and only the wealthiest will once again prevail when that happens. Of course it will never become as bad as Zimbabwe in the U.S. - will it?

To me it becomes more apparent that no matter how much we study history, history finds a way of repeating. Governments are a curse on humanity, as they all tend to evolve to become more and more oppressive and lead us into war as the only means of gaining relief. Freedom can not be given, it can only be taken.

 

"Trickle Down Economics" suggests that as the rich get richer so do the middle and lower classes. For the past two decades corporate profits and executive pay, and Wall Street profits have risen substantially while the income of the middle class has been rather stagnant.

Personally, I'd like to see more regulation by the Federal government.

I'm sorry that you found higher education so restrictive. My experience was very different. I never attended any classes in the Arts Departments that were billed as fact, other than dates and numbers, and I was never required to agree with any professor for a good grade. I was, however, required to learn the material. In the core curriculum I was allowed to choose the professor I wanted to study with, and outside of the core, I was allowed to choose among a wide variety of classes and topics.

In 6 years of classes at 3 colleges and 2 years of independent research projects working with professors, I've only been encouraged to develop my own opinions.

If you want to sell food, it has to taste good. Ideas are better sold with a smile.

.

 

That doesn't quite answer the question I was asking, but I agree that you have more or less described "Trickle Down Economics" appropriately. Although you emphasize the past two decades, I would be more inclined to accept as fact that this has been the case since civilization began.
I don't believe any economic system can be devised that will result in making everyone equally wealthy, and would argue that trying to do so would, and perhaps considering the times, "will" have a negative effect overall.

That's quite a broad, and undefined statement, somewhat similar to Obama's campaigning on "change" which left each individual to interpret as they desired. Are you familiar with every law and regulation that exists in the U.S. today? After all, "Ignorance of the Law" is no excuse. Do we actually need more laws and regulations, or might it be more desirable to have fewer, but more concisely written laws and regulations that would be applicable to all both fairly and equally?

I didn't say I found higher education "restrictive", at least not in the areas I found useful, only in the areas where I was expected to accept a Professors biased views as being correct with any opposition or questioning reflected in grading. At the time of my education such Professors made up a small number, but had to be dealt with in order to maintain an acceptable GPA. In a way I probably learned much more as I found it necessary to do more work out of the classroom to assure that my disagreement with the classroom teachings was founded in fact.

I won't disagree with that. In my work, smiles didn't help in selling ideas, results were all that counted. A poorly written program remains such no matter how big your smile is, while a beautifully written program that exceeds expectations, presented by an obnoxious SOB stands on it's own merit.

I've always found that people with money are valuable to people with ideas, and together they can produce the jobs that provide the remainder of society a means of support. On occasion in my early life I took jobs that I felt didn't pay my worth, but found them necessary to provide my needs while I searched for other employment which satisfied my monetary needs. I think most everyone can find work that rewards them appropriately in a free market society. For me, free market competition was a motivating factor which allowed me to learn from failure, make necessary changes, and prosper from success as a result. Politics, government intervention and regulations produce obstacles which impedes and forces business to find ways of adapting to which most often result in further government interventions and regulations.

 

But what about the Kyoto Protocol and this kind of "meaningfully related" judgment upon people's developed human capital (nature OR condition) for the mixed market eco-ideology (mixed scarcity about the various production Knowing).

 

What about the Kyoto Protocol? Just how are you trying to relate that in any "meaningful" way to what I had posted?

 

We all gotta' think for the free unemployed time. Eh?

What else...? Politics is referred directly on the subject of aspired initiative.

 

If "Trickle Down Economics" was even remotely valid in our system, we would all be wealthy based on the increases in income for the Top of the economic heap over the past 2 decades. The rich have gotten filthy rich and those at the bottom received no more.

I'm not suggesting that everyone be made equally wealthy, but the man who cleans your shit should have a decent salary that at least meets his family's basic needs. We need to put up or shut up about this equality we espouse here. Only when college is an option and health care is guaranteed for everyone will we be equal in our potential. I expect nothing less from the most powerful nation on Earth.

In today's political climate this is only a pipe dream.

This just isn't true. There is a huge portion of our workforce that doesn't make enough to provide the basic needs for their families.

And it was all made possible by the little people who pick your food, taught you in school, carry off your trash and clean up your shit. The same people who suffer from lack of health care, lack of quality education and are the first to suffer from an economic downturn.

This just doesn't make sense. Have you stopped to think that risky default credit swaps, CEOs gambling with corporate funds and betting against the products a corporation is selling to it's customers shouldn't be allowed? And, if a corporation is involved in such shady practices they might need to be regulated? I mean, shouldn't it be against the law to crash the world's economy?

.

 

I can feel the tension...

Round 2!

 

Show me a country where "all" are wealthy.

Suppose there was a country where everyone had a PhD, what would be the job opportunities in such a society? People tend to earn, and jobs tend to pay based on their value. Persons earning less than what they perceive to be their value should seek employment elsewhere. Perhaps one difficult problem to solve is the supply and demand in the job market. Too many persons seeking work tends to allow lower wages to be offered, while too few persons may require higher wages to be offered.

That may be true.

What I had said is indeed true, although I agree that what you followed with is also true. To cite an extreme example, a person who refuses to work at all, and earns nothing at all, is appropriately rewarded. In addition, a person who has the ability to perform higher a paying job but doesn't seek such has no one to blame but him/herself. Most often perseverance pays off, but one has to recognize that there are no guarantees in life aside from taxes and death.

I have done some of those jobs, and even while possessing a quality education. While quality education can be offered to all, the results can not be guaranteed. I had friends who dropped out of school, some who still became successful in life and others who did not. I have a friend who worked for NASA but ended up homeless for several years after being laid off, and now is employed at a much lower wage, but happy in the job he has. I've been through hard times, but rather than feel I was suffering I adapted to the situation knowing that it was my responsibility to prevail over circumstances, not yours.

Enlighten me, which laws were broken? Are you familiar with how George Soros has gained much of his wealth?

 

It is all Ronald Regan's fault. I can't beleive they want to put him on a stamp. He started outsourcing American jobs, and with NAFTA Clinton finished it. Anyone who remebers the eighties as a "good era" scares me, the "whomever dies with the most stuff" greed and consumption attitude blew up. Politicians...they can all suck it.
I do find it slightly amusing Obama is going after Goldman-Sacs, after they contributed so much to his election fund.
As long as the top 2% keeps us all arguing, we will stay the bottom 98%.

 

I suggest a bloody harvest. Brains is the grains. Politician brains.

 

You have totally missed the point or you're just serving Red Herrings. The point is, the rich in America have so much money that, according to Reagan, we should all be reaping the rewards of that "Trickle Down effect. The fact is, when the rich get money, they keep it.

In theory that sounds good, but in reality the employer pays as little as he can get by with and also controls the number of jobs available. The citizens of America are at the mercy of corporate America, which controls every aspect of our lives.

This only speaks of the poor and middle class, the rich have many guarantees, among them, the guarantee of more wealth.

This whole idea lacks some very basic morality. It sounds like you would let a family starve because there are no jobs available or let their child die because they cannot afford Health Care. Do you have any human compassion at all?

You need to read again what I said. I didn't say laws were broken, I said there should be laws, although one was just indicted.

 

And just where do they keep all that money? I see the "Trickle Down Effect" not as Hands out waiting to be filled, but as innovative ideas create more spending by those who possess wealth. I've always found the easiest way to make more money was to earn it, and I've watched friends who have earned as much or more than I, waste it foolishly. There's no single solution to ending poverty, but I know of many Asian immigrants who came to the U.S. with a 3rd grade or less education who are doing quite well, which kind of eliminates education as the sole answer. Personally, I feel that motivation and taking personal responsibility for one's life is where we should be placing the most emphasis. There will always be those who will remain incapable of caring for themselves, and in those cases we should feel a duty and responsibility to provide continual assistance. For the most part by allowing a disassociated Central government to become the primary source of aid, we allow the growth of costly corruption to persist.

Profit is a motivation for making an investment, and there's nothing wrong with that. Corporate America does play a large part in the control our government wields over us, but is it on the Corporations or the Politicians we should direct our focus?

I still blame the politicians who we as citizens have allowed to enrich both themselves and their cronies at the expense of the American taxpayers.

Just what is morality or compassion? As you express it, I'm left with the feeling that you see government as the only entity which possesses either. You don't create a more compassionate or moral society by allowing government to become an illusion of being the primary source.

I agree that there should be laws, but rational laws which apply equally to all. And in addition I think laws when broken should result in the same punishment for all.

 

Collectively, simply speaking, they keep their money invested in their money. I know the conservative theory of how the rich make money and open factories that employ people. The reason the economy crashed wasn't because money was being invested in a job based economy, rather, it was being invested in a pseudo-economy accessible only to people with money.

That was true 20 or 30 years ago, but not any more for many people.

Depends on how you define poverty. Everybody deserves a bed, food and medical care. From everything you've said I don't think you really know the reality of lower income Americans.

I don't buy that at all. Corruption exists because it is allowed to exist. And, the government is the primary source of aid because nobody else was doing it effectively.

Both.

Morality is the answer to the question, "should I help my fellow man, or leave him to suffer because I think he should earn it himself." Compassion is wanting to help. Government should express a collective compassion of it's citizens. If others can provide the needed aid as well or better, why didn't they and why don't they. Even the Red Cross needs the help of the U.N., national governments, local governments, military forces and even our own National Guard.

The only disagreement here is the definition of rational.

.

 

Money is an effective tool which when invested wisely brings forth more of it. If it wasn't for those who had the money to build factories and employ large numbers of people, provide the funding necessary for the research that brings advanced technology, where would we be today. I remember when we were working with the Intel 8008 controller which cost us nearly $500 and Intel then produced the 8080 CPU which was a massive improvement and at an even lower cost. The Russians eventually acquired one and with their state funded scientists, they were able to dissect and create a prototype consisting of 3 separate chips which "collectively" performed essentially the same function. Most people are not born into money, and some of them regardless of education find a way to become wealthy. What is it that the others lack that government should be providing them?

That's like looking at the glass being half full or half empty, without regard to the fact that the glass today is much larger than previously. At some point nature must be allowed to take it's course, which it will.

I admit I am currently much more aware of the reality of lower income Asians, who more often than Americans accept personal responsibility for their lives. I know of many people who have no bed, and sleep on a mat. I also know many people who have no medical care other than what is provided in nature. That said, I'm aware of no one who has no food, as most everyone I know willingly shares food with others willingly. Not only that but most everyone I know could easily feed themselves if left in the forest far from any population. That's a form of education that is no longer taught in the states.

Allowed or not, WHO has the power to put an end to corruption? You? Me? Both of us and several friends? 10,000 citizens?
And I don't but as fact that that government provides aid effectively, and most certainly not efficiently. Look at the UN providing aid in Haiti.

In an equal way?

Is morality that cut and dry? Compassion is an emotion, and one can feel compassion without taking any action, which sometimes is all that can be done. I don't think government has a right to make itself the collective source of compassion. Should compassion be exercised when a poor person robs a rich person? Should the blindfold should be removed from the eyes of justice? Perhaps it would then allow justice to be served more equally and fairly if the scales of justice were balanced by taking even more from the richer person who was robbed until the scale balanced.

We could probably include many other words to the list.

 

Wasn't it giving sub-prime mortgages to poor people who then defaulted?