Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Trollheiming]

I can't relate. I never had to write a politically-influenced paper for any of my classes. I assume this is a "classes outside of STEM" thing?

Yeah. It was during my general eds.

[10ebbor10]

Hmm...the Very Rich tend to be Republican, since they're the ones that most republican policies actually help out. I wonder how much of the Republican base follows them because they are Super Rich, and therefore know how to be successful. America does tend to treat wealth as if it were nobility.

The Republican Party lives on the idea of the American dream. (Everyone can become succesfull and rich if they just try hard enough).  Hence why it stands for tax cuts for the rich, and less social welfare and stuff.

The poor stods are just not working hard enough, and the rich have made it an deserve to be rewarded. Therefore, the governement should also avoid meddling with stuff, because they will interfere with the economy and in such a way will push down the very people they try to help.

*_{This caricutarized and probably politcally incorrect view of the GOP was brought to you by...}

[RedKing]

Ditto. My history and poli sci profs were scrupulously even-handed. And amazingly polite when asshole undergrads who thought they would be the "rebel conserative" were downright hostile and obnoxious. My profs were more like Nate Silver than Michael Moore. Just because the facts have a liberal bias doesn't mean that the guy/gal explaining them does.

But it's cool, I realize that there's a certain level of "persecution complex" that comes with the territory. Christians are persecuted (despite being the majority), heterosexuals are persecuted (despite being the majority), whites are persecuted (despite being the majority), males are persecuted (despite being the majority)...

[Trollheiming]

Hmm...the Very Rich tend to be Republican, since they're the ones that most republican policies actually help out. I wonder how much of the Republican base follows them because they are Super Rich, and therefore know how to be successful. America does tend to treat wealth as if it were nobility.

Like Soros, Buffet, Gates, the founder of Google? Bloomberg?

The funny thing is, taxes don't even hurt the super wealthy. They already made their bones. Taxes stop anyone from following them up the ladder, because we tax various forms of income rather than the absolute amounts of wealth already possessed.

[GlyphGryph]

We're talking about wanting to become educated, not wanting to become slave labour!

(That's what "post-grad" means, right? )

One of the benefits of starting in Engineering is that I got to skip a surprising amount of "mandatory gen-eds" - they figured engineers had better things to do. While I did have a hard-core conservative teacher or two, neither them (nor my super-liberal teachers) seem to have any interest in bringing politics into our class work.

Teachers who do so just to push their own view suck, that's for sure. (Though I know some people who got in trouble in economics for clinging to stupid beliefs instead of bothering to learn the material - but most of them weren't actually conservative beliefs, just idiotic ones, I'm assuming this is more than 'I don't care if you're conservative as long as your facts are good and you understand the system' and more along the lines of 'validate me and my opinions if you want a good grade... something which, again, sucks)

[RedKing]

Hmm...the Very Rich tend to be Republican, since they're the ones that most republican policies actually help out. I wonder how much of the Republican base follows them because they are Super Rich, and therefore know how to be successful. America does tend to treat wealth as if it were nobility.

Like Soros, Buffet, Gates, the founder of Google? Bloomberg?

The funny thing is, taxes don't even hurt the super wealthy. They already made their bones. Taxes stop anyone from following them up the ladder, because we tax various forms of income rather than the absolute amounts of wealth already possessed.

Err, Bloomberg actually *is* a Republican.

And you're absolutely right....income tax doesn't hurt the uberwealthy, it's things like inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes that do. Which is why the Republican Party considers them an abhorrence unto God and will never, never, NEVER increase them. Or why Paul Ryan's tax plan called for eliminating capital gains taxes altogether, which would have put Mitt Romney's effective tax bracket at 0.85%.

[Trollheiming]

Ditto. My history and poli sci profs were scrupulously even-handed. And amazingly polite when asshole undergrads who thought they would be the "rebel conserative" were downright hostile and obnoxious. My profs were more like Nate Silver than Michael Moore. Just because the facts have a liberal bias doesn't mean that the guy/gal explaining them does.

It varies by professor. What you mean is that the format and presentation, not the facts, have a liberal bias. History is not liberal. I can't imagine how the French revolution redounds to the credit of types such as Rosseau, or the history of communism, or the history of raises taxes to hit closer to home. The last significant tax raise in American history was in 1936, followed by a double-dip in the Great Depression.

There's a lot of lessons that aren't fit to be digested in the appropriately liberal frame of mind, and they worry that young initiates might grow confused, so they help you by conveniently presenting only the facts that fit.

[Trollheiming]

Hmm...the Very Rich tend to be Republican, since they're the ones that most republican policies actually help out. I wonder how much of the Republican base follows them because they are Super Rich, and therefore know how to be successful. America does tend to treat wealth as if it were nobility.

Like Soros, Buffet, Gates, the founder of Google? Bloomberg?

The funny thing is, taxes don't even hurt the super wealthy. They already made their bones. Taxes stop anyone from following them up the ladder, because we tax various forms of income rather than the absolute amounts of wealth already possessed.

Err, Bloomberg actually *is* a Republican.

And you're absolutely right....income tax doesn't hurt the uberwealthy, it's things like inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes that do. Which is why the Republican Party considers them an abhorrence unto God and will never, never, NEVER increase them. Or why Paul Ryan's tax plan called for eliminating capital gains taxes altogether, which would have put Mitt Romney's effective tax bracket at 0.85%.

Capital gains tax increases wouldn't hurt Mitt. He already has $250 million. Capital gains come from gains in that wealth. Income. Not salaried income, true, but cap-gains is still not a wealth tax. No gains that year? No gains taxes. A few nations like France have a true wealth tax of a measly 1% or so, but the fact is, all the class-warriors are being sold a bill of goods. Most of their measures merely stop new billionaires from arising, not knocking down those already minted.

Estate taxes in a true wealth tax, of course, but it's not really the sort of thing that frightens types like Soros and Buffett, who plan to master the universe before they die. The wealthy easily escape that by setting up their heirs comfortably before they die, anyway.

[RedKing]

Ditto. My history and poli sci profs were scrupulously even-handed. And amazingly polite when asshole undergrads who thought they would be the "rebel conserative" were downright hostile and obnoxious. My profs were more like Nate Silver than Michael Moore. Just because the facts have a liberal bias doesn't mean that the guy/gal explaining them does.

It varies by professor. What you mean is that the format and presentation, not the facts, have a liberal bias. History is not liberal. I can't imagine how the French revolution redounds to the credit of types such as Rosseau, or the history of communism, or the history of raises taxes to hit closer to home. The last significant tax raise in American history was in 1936, followed by a double-dip in the Great Depression.

There's a lot of lessons that aren't fit to be digested in the appropriately liberal frame of mind, and they worry that young initiates might grow confused, so they help you by conveniently presenting only the facts that fit.

Actually, I was referencing Colbert's well-known "Truth has a well-known liberal bias" quote. But thanks for following that up by being condescending and implying that I was a "confused young initiate" at the age of 31 in a Master's program! You've almost gotten the Triple Crown of Douchebaggery, keep going for the gold!

[Trollheiming]

Ditto. My history and poli sci profs were scrupulously even-handed. And amazingly polite when asshole undergrads who thought they would be the "rebel conserative" were downright hostile and obnoxious. My profs were more like Nate Silver than Michael Moore. Just because the facts have a liberal bias doesn't mean that the guy/gal explaining them does.

It varies by professor. What you mean is that the format and presentation, not the facts, have a liberal bias. History is not liberal. I can't imagine how the French revolution redounds to the credit of types such as Rosseau, or the history of communism, or the history of raises taxes to hit closer to home. The last significant tax raise in American history was in 1936, followed by a double-dip in the Great Depression.

There's a lot of lessons that aren't fit to be digested in the appropriately liberal frame of mind, and they worry that young initiates might grow confused, so they help you by conveniently presenting only the facts that fit.

Actually, I was referencing Colbert's well-known "Truth has a well-known liberal bias" quote. But thanks for following that up by being condescending and implying that I was a "confused young initiate" at the age of 31 in a Master's program! You've almost gotten the Triple Crown of Douchebaggery, keep going for the gold!

I was using the indeterminate pronoun "you" akin to "one" but less pretentious, so take one of my crowns of douchebaggery as a consolation. I only have one head to rest them on, anyway.

[Nadaka]

The purpose is not stop people from getting wealthy, and in fact it does not. It marginally slows the growth of wealth, though the things it is spent on will as often as not contribute to the rate of growth in wealth as well, so it should more or less be a wash.

The purpose is for those people are receiving the greatest benefits of society (those who have the highest incomes) to pay a fair share for supporting the society that is enriching them.

[darkrider2]

Ditto. My history and poli sci profs were scrupulously even-handed. And amazingly polite when asshole undergrads who thought they would be the "rebel conserative" were downright hostile and obnoxious. My profs were more like Nate Silver than Michael Moore. Just because the facts have a liberal bias doesn't mean that the guy/gal explaining them does.

It varies by professor. What you mean is that the format and presentation, not the facts, have a liberal bias. History is not liberal. I can't imagine how the French revolution redounds to the credit of types such as Rosseau, or the history of communism, or the history of raises taxes to hit closer to home. The last significant tax raise in American history was in 1936, followed by a double-dip in the Great Depression.

There's a lot of lessons that aren't fit to be digested in the appropriately liberal frame of mind, and they worry that young initiates might grow confused, so they help you by conveniently presenting only the facts that fit.

Actually, I was referencing Colbert's well-known "Truth has a well-known liberal bias" quote. But thanks for following that up by being condescending and implying that I was a "confused young initiate" at the age of 31 in a Master's program! You've almost gotten the Triple Crown of Douchebaggery, keep going for the gold!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Trollheiming]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ka-pow right back at him.

[kaijyuu]

But it's cool, I realize that there's a certain level of "persecution complex" that comes with the territory. Christians are persecuted (despite being the majority), heterosexuals are persecuted (despite being the majority), whites are persecuted (despite being the majority), males are persecuted (despite being the majority)...

Prejudice can be directed at majorities, you know Though persecution will generally only be on a small scale (like being kicked out of bars or something) with few exceptions (like the screwed up child custody laws being biased against men).

[RedKing]

Prejudice, yes. But systematic, widescale persecution? (y'know, the kind we're secretly organizing at our gay Communist flag-burning orgies)